Species ID Invasion Impacts Maps and Findings Control Program Project Documents Reference Materials Links
San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project
  Project Documents
   
 

Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report
San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project : Spartina Control Program
April 2003

Prepared for the California State Coastal Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 
 
 EIS/R Info
 
  EIS/R Final
- PDF
   
  EIS/R Draft
- PDF
- HTML
- availabilty notice
   
   
       
 

Download the report in HTML format:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Spartina Control Program
1.2 Purpose and Need
1.3 Purpose and Use of This EIS/R
1.4 Document Organization

2.0 PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
2.1 Development of Alternatives for Evaluation
2.2 Description of Alternatives
2.3 Alternatives and Treatment Methods Considered and Eliminated from Further Evaluation

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
3.1 Geomorphology and Hydrology
3.2 Water Quality
3.3 Biological Resources
3.4 Air Quality
3.5 Noise
3.6 Human Health and Safety
3.7 Visual Resources
3.8 Land Use
3.9 Cultural Resources
3.10 Socioeconomics
3.11 Environmental Justice
3.12 Cumulative Impacts

4.0 EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Comparison of Alternatives
4.2 NEPA Environmentally Preferred Alternative
4.3 CEQA Environmentally Superior Alternative
4.4 Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
5.1 Applicable Federal Laws, Regulations, Executive Orders, and Approvals
5.2 Applicable State Laws, Regulations, and Policies
5.3 Regional Plans and Policies
5.4 Local Laws, Regulations, and Permits
5.5 Agency Jurisdiction and Project Approvals

6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
6.1 Public Concerns
6.2 List of Document Recipients

7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
7.1 California Coastal Conservancy
7.2 US Fish and Wildlife Service
7.3 Technical Consultants

8.0 DEFINITIONS

9.0 REFERENCES
9.1 Personal Communications
9.2 Bibliography

APPENDICES
(HTML is not available for all appendices. GIF or JPG images of each page are available for some appendices)
A. Notice of Intent (images)
B. Notice of Preparation (images)
C. CEQA Initial Study (images)
D. NOP/NOI Public Comment Letters (images)
E. Herbicide and Surfactant Information
    part 1 (PDF only , 13.6M)
    part 2 (images for pages 119+)
F. Sensitive Species Table (images)
G. Best Management Practices for the California Clapper Rail
H. List of Document Recipients
I. ISP First-Year Pilot and Demonstration Projects

FIGURES
1-1 Spartina Control Program Region
1-2 Components of the SF Estuary Invasive Spartina Project
1-3 Cordgrass Species (p2)
1-4 Distribution of Non-native Cordgrass in SF Estuary
1-5 Effects of Non-Native Cordgrass on the SF Estuary (p2, p3)
1-6 California Shoreline with Estuaries North and South of SF Bay
1-7 Typical SF Estuary Habitats Invaded by Atlantic Smooth Cordgrass
2-1 Examples of Methods that May be Used to Control Non-native Cordgrass (p2, p3)
2-2 Examples of Options for Combining Treatment Methods
2-3 Number of Minus tide Events in 2003 with Peak and Potential California Clapper Rail Nesting and Fledging Periods
3.2-1 Locations and Mean Discharges for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in South SF Bay
3.3-1 California Clapper Rail Presence/Absence Relative to Non-native Cordgrass
3.3-2 Conceptual Model of Possible Exposure of Biological Organisms to Herbicide Mixtures
3.7-1 Changes in Views Associated with Herbicide Use
3.7-2  Changes in Views Associated with Herbicide Use and Mechanical Mowing
3.7-3 Changes in Views Associated with with Covering and Native Plant Recovery

TABLES
S-1 Alternatives Analyzed in this EIS/R
S-2 Comparison of Impacts of Project Alternatives
1-1 Net and Gross Area Invaded by Non-native Cordgrass Species (2000-2001)
1-2 Net Area in Acreage of Non-native Cordgrass Species by Bay Subregion (2000-2001)
2-1 Summary of Proposed Treatment Methods
2-2 Glyphosphate Herbicide Component Concentrations and Application Rates
3-1 Baseline and Post-Project Conditions
3.1-1 Summary of Potential Hydrologic and Geomorphic Effects
3.1-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Geomorphology
3.2-1 Dissolved Concentrations of Trace Metals in Water Samples
3.2-2 Total Concentrations of Trace Metals in Water Samples
3.2-3 Ranges of Trace Pollutants in SF Bay Sediments
3.2-4 Beneficial Uses of Waters of the SF Estuary
3.2-5 Water Quality Criteria for Selected Constituents
3.2-6 Summary of Potential Water Quality Effects
3.2-7 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Water Quality
3.3-1 Summary of Potential Biological Resources Effects
3.3-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources
3.4-1 State and National Standards for Selected Criteria Pollutants, and Measured Air Pollutant Concentrations in the SF Bay Area
3.4-2 Summary of Potential Air Quality Effects
3.4-3 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Air Quality
3.5-1 Technical Terms for Noise
3.5-2 Representative Outdoor and Indoor Noise Levels (in Units of dBA)
3.5-3 Summary of Potential Noise Effects
3.5-4 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Noise
3.6-1 Summary of Potential Human Health and Safety Effects
3.6-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Human Health and Safety
3.7-1 Summary of Potential Visual Resources Effects
3.8-1 Summary of Potential Land Use Effects
3.9-1 Summary of Potential Cultural Resources Effects
3.9-2 Summary of Mitigation Measures for Cultural Resources
3.10-1 Distribution of Jobs in SF Bay Area Counties
4-1 Description of Project Alternatives Considered in this EIS/R
5.5-1  Agency Jurisdiction and Project Approvals

     
 

Note: the public review period is over
This draft EIS/R is available for public review and comment from April 18, 2003 through June 4, 2003.  Two public meetings are scheduled during the public review period to provide information and accept written comments on the document.

Comments on the draft EIS/R may also be provided in writing addressed to: Maxene Spellman, Project Manager, State Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, 11 Floor, Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 286-0332  Fax: (510) 286-0470. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CONSERVANCY NO LATER THAN JUNE 4, 2003, AT 4:00 P.M.  Any person challenging the Conservancy’s action on the EIS/R in any future court proceeding may be limited to raising only those issues which have been presented to the Conservancy in writing.

   

Preserving Native Wetlands
   

©2003 ISP   info@spartina.org

   
Home About Contact