<str<strong>on</strong>g>Proceedings</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Third</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Internati<strong>on</strong>al</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>C<strong>on</strong>ference</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Invasive</strong> SpartinaChapter 4: Spartina C<strong>on</strong>trol and ManagementSPARTINA CONTROL STRATEGY AND EXPERIENCE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARYE.K. GRIJALVASan Francisco Estuary <strong>Invasive</strong> Spartina Project, 2612-A 8 th Street, Berkeley, CA 94710; ekgrijalva@spartina.orgIn 2004, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> San Francisco Estuary <strong>Invasive</strong> Spartina Project (ISP) initiated its first year <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a regi<strong>on</strong>wide,coordinated Spartina c<strong>on</strong>trol program. The strategies for selecti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> treatment locati<strong>on</strong>sand <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> coordinati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> projects were developed jointly by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP and its partners, which includea number <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> local, regi<strong>on</strong>al, state, and federal agencies and n<strong>on</strong>-pr<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>it organizati<strong>on</strong>s. Fundingfor <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> work was c<strong>on</strong>tributed by many <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> partners, by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP’s host agency (California StateCoastal C<strong>on</strong>servancy), by grants from a state-federal c<strong>on</strong>sortium, and o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r sources. The c<strong>on</strong>trolplans were developed by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP, and implemented by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> partners. Approximately 176 hectares (ha)(435 acres [ac]) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-native Spartina (Spartina alterniflora and hybrids, S. densiflora, and S. patens)were treated in 2004 using a variety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> methods including covering, digging, and treatment withaquatic herbicide. The ISP facilitates acquisiti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> permits, grants, and c<strong>on</strong>tracts to implement <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>trol work. Successful c<strong>on</strong>trol <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Spartina in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> San Francisco Estuary is complicated by severalfactors, including an extremely short treatment seas<strong>on</strong> (September 1 to mid-October) to avoid disturbingendangered California clapper rails during <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir breeding seas<strong>on</strong>, and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> greater-thanexp<strong>on</strong>entialspread <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> S. alterniflora hybrid swarm. At <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004 c<strong>on</strong>trol seas<strong>on</strong>, approximately627 ha (1,550 ac) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-native Spartina remained untreated in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> San Francisco Estuary.In order to address this rapidly-expanding infestati<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP seeks to have c<strong>on</strong>trol plans inplace for all n<strong>on</strong>-native Spartina in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> estuary by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> end <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2005, even though treatment may notbe implemented <strong>on</strong> all sites until <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> following years to minimize impact <strong>on</strong> endangered species.One <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> tools that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP hopes will help assure a successful c<strong>on</strong>trol program is <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> aquatic herbicideimazapyr, which should be registered for use in California by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> summer <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2005. The highefficacy and suitability <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this herbicide for estuarine use bodes well for c<strong>on</strong>trol efforts around SanFrancisco Bay. Building up<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> structure and partnerships developed during <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004 Spartinac<strong>on</strong>trol seas<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP believes it is possible to set in place coordinated, sustainable, estuary-widemanagement and c<strong>on</strong>trol <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-native Spartina.Keywords: Spartina, cordgrass, hybrids, hybrid swarm, imazapyr, glyphosate, estuary, Californiaclapper railThe spread <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-native Spartina in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> San FranciscoEstuary has been a topic <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>cern in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> regi<strong>on</strong> since <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>early 1970s, following <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> initial introducti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> several species:S. densiflora (Chilean cordgrass), S. anglica (Englishcordgrass), and S. patens (salt meadow cordgrass), but especiallyS. alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). By <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> early1990s, ecologists and land managers in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> estuary recognized<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> increasing impacts <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> invasi<strong>on</strong> as marshlandwithin <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir respective jurisdicti<strong>on</strong>s began to support everexpandingpopulati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-native Spartina species.Around this time, a hybridizati<strong>on</strong> event between <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>nativeS. alterniflora and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> native S. foliosa (Pacificcordgrass) produced <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> first individual cl<strong>on</strong>es <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> a vigoroushybrid swarm that swiftly outpaced its alien parent species inits ability to col<strong>on</strong>ize a wide range <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> habitats in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> SanFrancisco Estuary.In 2000, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> California State Coastal C<strong>on</strong>servancy(C<strong>on</strong>servancy) initiated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>Invasive</strong> Spartina Project (ISP)to stave <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>f <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> invasi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-native cordgrass and its potentialimpacts. The ISP was intended to be a regi<strong>on</strong>allycoordinatedeffort <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> federal, state and local agencies, privatelandowners, and o<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r interested parties, with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ultimategoal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> arresting and reversing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> spread <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>-nativeSpartina in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> estuary. It was not until <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> late summer <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>2004 that all <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> required permitting and planning hadbeen completed sufficient to initiate <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> first seas<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Spartina c<strong>on</strong>trol work estuary-wide.The process to produce an Envir<strong>on</strong>mental ImpactStatement and Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Impact Report (FEIS/R), satisfyingboth Federal and State requirements, began at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> incepti<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP in 2000. In October <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2003, following <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> public comment period <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> draft documentand preparati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> comment resp<strong>on</strong>ses, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Final EIS/Rwas completed by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> C<strong>on</strong>servancy and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (California Coastal C<strong>on</strong>servancy andUSFWS 2003). The FEIS/R was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>n used by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> FWS toproduce a Programmatic Biological Opini<strong>on</strong> (PBO)(USFWS 2004(a)) for ISP’s C<strong>on</strong>trol Program, which outlined<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> requirements for creating detailed individual BiologicalOpini<strong>on</strong>s (BOs) for each proposed Spartina treatment- 217 -
Chapter 4: Spartina C<strong>on</strong>trol and Management<str<strong>on</strong>g>Proceedings</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Third</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Internati<strong>on</strong>al</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>C<strong>on</strong>ference</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>Invasive</strong> Spartinasite. Issuance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> site-specific BOs depended <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> development<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> site-specific Spartina c<strong>on</strong>trol plans by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP andits partners.SITE-SPECIFIC SPARTINA CONTROL PLANSC<strong>on</strong>current with, and subsequent to <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> completi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> FEIS/R and PBO, individual site-specific Spartina c<strong>on</strong>trolplans (SSPs) (California Coastal C<strong>on</strong>servancy 2004(b))for 2004 were drafted by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP and its partners for 16 sitesscattered throughout <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> estuary. These sites were chosenbased <strong>on</strong> a variety <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> characteristics, including existing partnerinvolvement, infestati<strong>on</strong> age and compositi<strong>on</strong>, endangeredspecies issues, access issues, adjacent land uses ando<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r criteria. The 16 sites chosen for Spartina c<strong>on</strong>trol in2004 included 45 sub-areas (areas fur<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>r delineated for ease<str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> treatment) encompassing an estimated 181 net ha (447 netac) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Spartina, within just over 6,070 ha (15,000 ac) <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> estuarymarshland. Each <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> SSPs included: Scope <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Work Work Program defining <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> schedule <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> work Budget Impact Identificati<strong>on</strong> Matrix Impact Mitigati<strong>on</strong> Matrix Spill Preventi<strong>on</strong> Protocols Drift Reducti<strong>on</strong> Protocols Marsh Safety Recommendati<strong>on</strong>s Site Maps Site PhotographsAs part <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> requirements <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> California Envir<strong>on</strong>mentalQuality Act (CEQA), each SSP c<strong>on</strong>tained an ImpactIdentificati<strong>on</strong> Matrix and an Impact Mitigati<strong>on</strong> Matrix. TheImpact Identificati<strong>on</strong> Matrix evaluated <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> suite <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Spartinac<strong>on</strong>trol methods proposed for each site for potential impactsto envir<strong>on</strong>mental resources. Included in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> matrix were impactsrelated to geomorphology and hydrology, water quality,biological resources, air quality, noise, human health andsafety, visual resources, and cumulative impacts.Once <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> impacts associated with Spartina c<strong>on</strong>trol workwere identified for a given site, an Impact Mitigati<strong>on</strong> Matrixwas prepared. Each site’s matrix explicitly referenced thosemitigati<strong>on</strong> measures defined in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> FEIS/R that were to beimplemented in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> field. Impact Mitigati<strong>on</strong> Matrices weredesigned to require verificati<strong>on</strong> signatures next to each mitigati<strong>on</strong>measure. Both <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> implementing agency representativeand a representative <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP were required to verifythat all mitigati<strong>on</strong> measures were implemented.PERMITTING AND GRANTSThe completi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> SSPs enabled FWS review <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>documents for issuance <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> site-specific BOs which analyzed<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> proposed work <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> suite <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> endangeredspecies within <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> scope <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> project (USFWS 2004(b)).Individual site-specific Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Assessments (EAs)were also prepared at this time to determine <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> effect <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>proposed work <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> greater envir<strong>on</strong>ment bey<strong>on</strong>d endangeredspecies issues (USFWS 2004(c)). The results <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>seanalyses provided <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> basis for a Finding <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> No SignificantImpact (FONSI), which declared that <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> proposed Spartinac<strong>on</strong>trol work would not produce “significant impact” <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>estuary’s natural resources (USFWS 2004(d)). Additi<strong>on</strong>ally,a Record <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Decisi<strong>on</strong> (ROD) was published in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> FederalRegister announcing <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> completi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> FEIS/R (USFWS2004(e)).So<strong>on</strong> after its incepti<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP worked to identify partneragencies and groups that would be willing to join in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>effort to c<strong>on</strong>trol n<strong>on</strong>-native Spartina in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> estuary. Many <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> partners involved in developing SSPs for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir jurisdicti<strong>on</strong>slacked <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> funds to initiate c<strong>on</strong>trol work <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir own,so outside funding for c<strong>on</strong>trol operati<strong>on</strong>s were necessary forwork to proceed. In some cases, funding was not <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>strainingfactor for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> partner, but instead, clearing permittinghurdles, logistics or knowledge <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trol methodologiespresented <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> greatest challenge. In each case, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISPprovided <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> necessary assistance to implement <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Spartinac<strong>on</strong>trol plan. Where funding was <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> limiting factor, grantsfrom <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> C<strong>on</strong>servancy were provided to enable work to proceed.The terms <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>se grant agreements were negotiatedduring late 2003 and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> first half <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004. Ultimately <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>C<strong>on</strong>servancy and <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> CalFed Bay Delta Authority issued atotal <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> $350,000 in grants for Spartina c<strong>on</strong>trol work in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>estuary for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004 c<strong>on</strong>trol seas<strong>on</strong>. Official ISP partners forthis seas<strong>on</strong> included U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, EastBay Regi<strong>on</strong>al Parks District, Alameda County Flood C<strong>on</strong>trolDistrict, California Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Transportati<strong>on</strong>, SantaClara Valley Water District, City <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> Palo Alto, Friends <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Corte Madera Creek Watershed, Tibur<strong>on</strong> Audub<strong>on</strong> Society,Marin C<strong>on</strong>servati<strong>on</strong> Corps, and California Department <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>Parks and Recreati<strong>on</strong>. Inclusi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> any organizati<strong>on</strong> oragency as an <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficial ISP partner required that partner’s governingbody <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>ficially adopt <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP’s FEIS/R, develop anSSP in coordinati<strong>on</strong> with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> ISP, and adhere to any mitigati<strong>on</strong>sdefined in <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Impact Mitigati<strong>on</strong> Matrix developed for<str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> site within <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>ir jurisdicti<strong>on</strong>.For each type <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trol method proposed for each site,certain permits needed to be acquired before work couldbegin. In <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> case <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> herbicide applicati<strong>on</strong>s, all treatmentswere required to comply with <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> Envir<strong>on</strong>mental Protecti<strong>on</strong>Agency’s Nati<strong>on</strong>al Pollutant Discharge Eliminati<strong>on</strong> System(NPDES), administered by <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> California Water QualityC<strong>on</strong>trol Board’s (CWQCB) San Francisco Bay regi<strong>on</strong>al <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g>fice.However, at <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> outset <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> 2004, <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> CWQCB had yet todevelop an NPDES permit to cover <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> discharge <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> aquaticpesticides, a novel applicati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> this porti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> CleanWater Act that had, until recently, been reserved for <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g>regulati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>of</str<strong>on</strong>g> effluent discharge. As a c<strong>on</strong>sequence,herbicide-based c<strong>on</strong>trol operati<strong>on</strong>s throughout <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> state were<strong>on</strong> hold until <str<strong>on</strong>g>the</str<strong>on</strong>g> CWQCB revised its permitting procedures- 218 -
Change language