This appendix consists of written comments on the Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (District) responses.
The public review period was from March 29, 2001 to May 14, 2001. The District mailed copies of the Notices of Draft EIR Availability (usually with copies of the EIR and SMP documents attached) to 158 agencies, organizations and individuals. Copies were distributed to 18 local libraries, and electronic copies were made available on the District’s website. The California Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse) distributed copies to State agencies. A Notice of Availability of the EIR was published in the San Jose Mercury News, Gilroy Dispatch, Morgan Hill Times and filed with the County Clerk. District staff announced availability of the documents, date of the public hearing, and described the project at meetings with the following community organizations: Regional Water Quality Control Board-Watershed Management Initiative, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials, League of Women Voters, and Municipal Public Work Officials of Santa Clara County.The following persons or organizations commented on the EIR. Codes used to organize comments are shown before the listing of each person or organization. The comment letters are attached, followed by responses after each letter.
A public hearing on the project was held before the District Board of Directors on April 24, 2001 to receive public comment. The following persons made verbal comments at the public hearing:
Many comments addressed concerns regarding the following topics: Alternatives, Aquatic Herbicides, and Geomorphology. Therefore, the responses to comments starts with master responses addressing these topics in a comprehensive manner. For those responses that refer to Best Management Practices (BMPs), see revised Appendix G of the SMP. Revised tables and figures are also included in the list of revisions to the EIR and SMP.
Copies of the comment letters and a summary of comments at the public hearing are attached in alphabetical order and are marked with codes indicating each separate comment for which a response is provided. Unmarked sections of the comment letters contain information which is considered in the responses to comments.
Indentation of a paragraph in the left margin as shown in this paragraph as an example, indicate where the response incorporates a portion of the EIR or SMP text for revision. Additions to the EIR or SMP text are indicated by (underlined text) and deletions are indicated by (strikeout text).
1. Master Response Regarding Alternatives
In response to the comments, two major changes have been made in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR): the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative has been designated as the Preferred Alternative, and additional mitigation is proposed for certain types of bank protection work. To reduce the environmental effects of the project to wetlands, the Preferred Alternative is revised to be the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative rather than the Multi-Year Program Alternative. In California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) terminology, the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative has become the proposed "project". The difference between the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative and the Multi-Year Program Alternative is that in the former, herbicides will only be used in channels of the Pajaro River Basin to control non-native invasive species. As described in detail in revised Appendix E of the SMP, additional mitigation is proposed for bank protection projects which include rock or impervious structures. A minor additional change describing this alternative in the FEIR includes clarification of the portion of Llagas Creek and the Pajaro River area which are defined as outside the scope of routine maintenance.
As a result, changes need to be made to descriptions in several chapters of the EIR: in Chapter V -- Alternatives; the Vegetation Management description and the Bank Protection description in Chapter II -- Project Description; Activities Outside the Scope of Routine Maintenance in Chapter II -- Project Description; the Geomorphic Assessment in Chapter IV-A; the Biologic Assessment in Chapter IV-B; and CEQA Questions in Chapter VI. These revisions are shown in the subsections below.
a. Alternative Description
The following changes are made to the Alternatives Chapter of the EIR (first paragraph of page V-1) to describe the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative as the Preferred Alternative.
The alternatives analysis focuses on the ways that the long-term, cumulative impacts of routine maintenance could be reduced. The proposed project is adoption of the Stream Maintenance Program (SMP) and implementation of its work performance protocol and programmatic mitigation. The proposedSMP is characterized asproject is the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative in the FEIRMulti-Year Program (Preferred Alternative). The Existing Program Alternative represents the District not adopting the SMP and continuing the current practice of routine maintenance on an annual basis. The No Work Alternative would eliminate all maintenance in streams and canals by the District within its jurisdiction. The Reduced Work Alternative would eliminate work in unmodified channels, and does not include hardscape bank protection. The No Herbicides Alternative and the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative reduce the amount of area treated with herbicides compared to the Multi-Year Program Alternative.
The following changes are made to the fifth paragraph of page V-1 of the EIR:
The proposed project is the SMP for Routine Maintenance Activities on District facilities and is referred to as the Modified Pajaro River Basin AlternativeMulti-Year Program. The SMP would apply BMPs to avoid or minimize impacts and a regional mitigation program to compensate for unavoidable impacts at individual maintenance sites. The EIR examines a series of alternatives to meet statutory requirements and to evaluate the possibility that the effects of the proposed project could be lessened or avoided.
With the designation of the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative as the Preferred Alternative in the FEIR, the following changes are made to remove the preferred alternative designation from the Multi-Year Program Alternative in the Alternatives Chapter.
On page V-2, third paragraph of the EIR:
As required by CEQA, alternatives are compared to the Multi-Year Program (Preferred Alternative), as described in detail in Chapter II.Refer to Revised Tables V-1 and V-2 which provide information for each alternative. The proposed project includes sediment removal, vegetation management, bank protection, and minor work activities throughout the District's jurisdiction (and below the 1000-foot elevation contour).
In the second paragraph of page V-7 of the EIR, the following revisions are made:
1. Multi-Year Program(Preferred Alternative)The Multi-Year Program,
which is the Preferred Alternative and is described in detail in the SMP,includes sediment removal, vegetation management, bank protection and minor associated work. Projected levels of work are based on historical levels with minor adjustments made for foreseeable future changes. The extent of work under the Multi-Year Program would be6158 miles of sediment removal and258246 miles of channel vegetation management. The extent of maintenance is defined as the total length or area on which stream maintenance will repeatedly take place.
Likewise, the description of bank protection work of the Multi-Year Alternative is revised in the fifth paragraph of page V-7 of the EIR:
The bank protection work would include both hardscape and softscape designs with a programmatic exchange of mitigation between designs whichtend tolimitreduce or eliminate biotic potential and those whichtend to retainenhance it. Refer to this EIR Chapter 2, Project Description and Appendix E of the SMP for details on the mitigation program for bank protection activities.
The third paragraph on page V-9 of the EIR regarding the Existing Program Alternative is revised:
See Revised Table V-4 for a comparison on cost estimates for each alternative.The same amount of flood protection would be provided as under the Multi-Year Program, however, because of the greater expense of the hand and mechanical methods compared to herbicide use for vegetation management, average annual costs would increase approximately $2 million or 19% compared to the Multi-Year Program (Table V-4).
The second paragraph on page V-11 of the EIR regarding the No Herbicides Alternative is revised:
The same BMPs would be applied except for those which are relevant only to herbicide use. The mitigation program would be the same as for the Modified Pajaro River Basin AlternativeMulti-Year Program. The approach to multi-year CEQA review and permits would be the same as under the Modified Pajaro River Basin AlternativeMulti-Year Program. The same amount of flood protection would be provided as under the Modified Pajaro River Basin AlternativeMulti-Year Program, however, because of the greater expense of the hand and mechanical methods compared to herbicide use for vegetation management, average annual costs would increase approximately $8 million or 66% compared to the Multi-Year Program (Table V-4). See Revised Table V-4 for a comparison on cost estimates for each alternative.
The description of the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative is revised in Chapter V to recognize that is now designated as the preferred alternative (page V-11 of the EIR):
5. Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative (Preferred Alternative)This Alternative is similar to the
proposed projectthe Multi-Year Program Alternative except that it will not include the use of herbicides in stream channels of the Pajaro River Basin unless they are for the control of non-native, invasive plants. Instead, hand and mechanical methods will continue to be used to control vegetation in the Pajaro River Basin stream channels. Herbicides will be used on 157 acres in adjacent upland areas in the Pajaro River Basin, and in channels, canals and associated upland areas in the Santa Clara Basin.The Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative includes the same amount of sediment removal, vegetation management, bank protection and minor activities as the Multi-Year Program.
Initial impacts to stream vegetation would consist of
116106 acres of freshwater wetland, 30 acres of tidal wetland, and7866 acres of riparian vegetation and this amount would not change over time since there is no conversion of vegetation management types in the channel. This would result in a greater amount of in-channel vegetation in the Pajaro River Basin than under the Multi-Year Program Alternative and would provide a beneficial effect to the streamside habitat because vegetation would be trimmed back instead of being killed, allowing wildlife cover, roosting, feeding and nesting opportunities. This would also result in less streamside habitat fragmentation caused by vegetation management activities. However, the annual amount of stream vegetation removed in the Pajaro River Basin would be greater than for the Multi-Year Program Alternative over the long term, and the method would be temporarily more disruptive to resident wildlife.The BMPs,
compensatory mitigation, and approach to multi-year CEQA review and permits would be the same as under the Multi-Year Program Alternative. Because the impacts are less, the Modified Pajaro River Basin (Preferred Alternative) would include the following compensatory mitigation program: restoring 30 acres of tidal wetland, creating 14 acres of freshwater wetlands, preserving and restoring 820 to 1,080 acres of stream and watershed, and control of 125 acres of giant reed. The same amount of flood protection would be provided as under the Multi-Year Program Alternative, however, because of the greater expense of the hand and mechanical methods compared to herbicide use for vegetation management, average annual costs would increaseapproximately $2 million or 17% compared to the Multi-Year Program (Table V-4). See Revised Table V-4 for a comparison on cost estimates for each alternative.
The third paragraph of P. V-13 of the EIR regarding the Reduced Work Alternative is revised as follows:
See Revised Table V-4 for a comparison on cost estimates for each alternative.Average annual costs would decrease approximately $500,000 or 4% compared to the Multi-Year Program (Table V-4).
Since the preferred alternative is revised, this changes the comparison of other alternatives to it. See these revised EIR tables which compare the alternatives: Revised Table V-1 Definition of Alternatives, Revised Table V-2 Alternatives Comparison of Initial Stream Vegetation Impacts, Revised Table V-3 Comparison of Alternatives by Impacts, and Revised Table V-4 Cost Comparison of Alternatives.
b. Vegetation Management Description
The following changes are made to the description of the Vegetation Management Program in the Project Description Chapter of the EIR (pages II-8 through II-18) in response to the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative being designated as the Preferred Alternative in the FEIRs. Revised tables and figures are included in the list of revisions to the EIR. Similar changes are made to the SMP document and are included in the list of revisions to the SMP.
3. Vegetation ManagementManagement of vegetation in and adjacent to creeks and canals is necessary to maintain the ability of channels to function as flood protection facilities and canals to transport water. Dense vegetation can adversely affect the ability of the channel to contain the flow of flood waters for which it was designed. Therefore, most flood protection facilities require some type of periodic vegetation control. Depending on the original design and the characteristics of the channel, the frequency of vegetation management varies from annually to every few years. Revised Figure II-3 shows the Projected Channel Vegetation Work Areas. Revised Table II-4 lists the extent of projected work.
Vegetation management for environmental purposes includes control of invasive, non-native plants. The District also uses vegetation management to control weeds at revegetation sites to increase the number of native trees and shrubs which survive and to more quickly establish a self-sustaining plant community which provides wildlife habitat.
The District manages vegetation for other purposes including the protection of levees, and concrete linings from plant roots; meeting local fire codes requiring the control of combustible weeds and grasses; providing visual clearance to inspect the condition of a facility; and providing access along maintenance roads.
Over the past 30 years, the District has continually revised vegetation management approaches on District facilities. The three basic methods of vegetation management are: hand removal (chain saws, weed-eaters, etc.); mechanical (mowing and discing); and chemical control through the use of herbicides. A method or combination of methods is chosen for each site depending on the maintenance requirements of the facility. Efficiency, economics and the protection of public health and environmental resources are all considered in the selection of methods.
Some green waste is mulched and stored for later use at a District property near Camden and Meridian Avenue in south San Jose. The balance is delivered to an area landfill that composts green waste. Tree logs are occasionally reused as "root wads", in order to create a woody debris habitat for aquatic species. This is done on a project-specific basis, and there is no location where logs are stored.
a. In-channel Vegetation Management
In-channel vegetation management occurs on the channel bottom of the creek or canal where seasonal aquatic conditions can create conditions suitable for wetland or riparian vegetation. Portions of the channel above the bottom, such as benches or channel banks or slopes, which do not support seasonal aquatic conditions are not included as part of in-channel vegetation management (see Upland Vegetation Management below). The 2 types of in-channel vegetation management (also called channel vegetation management) are herbicide application and hand removal of vegetation. Herbicide use is described in more detail in the "Herbicides Used" section below.
Hand removal of vegetation is undertaken in a few locations where it is not possible to access the area with spray equipment.Weeds, shrubs and trees are removed by the hand removal method where it is not possible to access the area with spray or mowing equipment. Trees with a trunk diameter up to 6" dbh are removed by the hand removal technique, although the actual number of trees removed by this method is very limited. In some cases, the vegetation is sprayed with herbicides, and then approximately 6 months later, the dead material is removed by hand removal methods. This latter category of work is referred to as follow-up hand removal. Follow-up hand removal of dead vegetation is only necessary when herbicide spraying is new to an area and there is a large volume of vegetation created in the first year or two. In subsequent years, the amount of vegetative regrowth is reduced and follow-up hand removal is necessary much less frequently.b. Upland Vegetation Management
Upland vegetation management occurs on upland areas associated with creeks and canals including all land above the channel bottom such as the levee or bank top and slopes, benches and maintenance roads inside the levee, and adjacent land outside the levee. These upland areas are not seasonally inundated by water so as to create conditions for wetlands, and are vegetated with upland plants, primarily annual grasses or shrubs. The five types of vegetation management in upland areas are discing, mowing, herbicide application, hand removal, and removal of overhanging growth.
Upland discing occurs on upland parcels outside of the streambanks and is conducted to create firebreaks. Upland mowing consists of operating a flail mower to eliminate or reduce grasses that would cause a fire hazard during the summer. Mowing can occur from one to three times annually at each location, usually between May and October. Mowing is conducted on the inside slope of some levees or streambanks.
Upland herbicide spraying is used on levees, unpaved maintenance roads, and along some property lines. On levees, herbicides are used primarily to keep woody vegetation and broadleaf weeds from becoming established where they will interfere with flood flow capacity, damage the levees, or hinder their inspection. Weeds and grasses are sprayed on maintenance roads to clearly define and keep open the access route. Herbicide spraying along property lines assists in establishing a firebreak. Pre- and post-emergent herbicides are sprayed from a truck-mounted rig or by a controlled drop applicator.
Hand removal of vegetation is conducted in upland areas where mowers cannot access, and herbicides are either not practical due to steep terrain or not allowed. Hand removal of vegetation is generally used in upland areas along property lines to establish fire breaks. Removal of overhanging growth consists of pruning trees branches that impede access roads or hang over fence lines.
c. Extent of Vegetation Management Work
The frequency of vegetation management activities varies from semiannually to once every several years, depending on the method used. Generally,
channel herbicide and channel hand removal of vegetation arevegetation management in channels is conducted once every year. Channel herbicide work is conducted throughout the summer dry season whereas channel hand removal is conducted near the end of the growing season. Seasons of work for vegetation management are generally undertaken in the following time periods. Some adjustments to these time periods can occur on some project sites where provisions regarding the protection of nesting birds and anadromous fish are followed as provided in BMPs 3.2 and 3.10. Herbicide treatment is undertaken in the channel from July 1 through October 15. Upland herbicide work is undertaken from October 15 through June 30. Removal of woody saplings by hand is undertaken July 1 through March 1. Hand removal of herbaceous wetland vegetation is undertaken in November and December.Vegetation management occurs in creeks, canals, and adjacent uplands. On average, vegetation management work is annually performed on approximately 4,000 acres. Within this larger work area, the targeted treatment area consists of approximately 2,000 acres. These totals include the following approximate levels of activity:
923866 acres of vegetation management work is conducted in222212 miles of stream channels with132120 acres of the total actually receiving treatment (585 work acres or 75 acres of treated area on 166 miles in the Santa Clara Basin, and338280 work acres or5745 acres of treated area and5646 miles in the Pajaro River Basin);- 23 acres on which vegetation management work is conducted on 27 miles of canals with 6 acres of the total actually receiving treatment; and
3,0213012 acres of uplands on which vegetation management work is performed, with1,8851894 acres actually receiving treatment. Upland vegetation management is outside of the area of inundation, and generally has a buffer of grass or vegetation on the slopes between the right-of-way and the stream.Vegetation management activities are consistent from year-to-year. Slight variations in flood protection activities occur due to weather patterns. For example, historically, increases in some work activities have occurred during drought years, with decreases in some activities occurring during flood years. This is primarily due to the scouring effects of flood flows cleaning out areas of vegetation. Right-of-way activities remain constant regardless of these weather patterns. Revegetation maintenance reduces 3 to 5 years after initial installation of a revegetation site.
d. Herbicides Used
Herbicides often are more effective at controlling vegetation than mechanical or hand removal methods. This is because of the ability of the herbicide chemicals to spread into and damage the roots of the target plants, thus preventing resprouting. When treated with mechanical or hand methods, some woody plants, such as willows, will resprout with multiple stems. The multiple sprouts result in a greater flood protection problem and require annual control. With herbicides, annual retreatment is often necessary, but the treatment area is greatly reduced, as only a small percentage of regrowth will occur. As a result, the SMP would continue to use herbicides as the primary method by which vegetation is controlled in
channels and on stream banksthe Santa Clara Basin. Because of concerns regarding the gradual environmental change to wetlands, herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin will be limited to the following situations: upland areas including channel banks, levee slopes, maintenance roads and fire breaks above the channel bottom; and upland and channel bottom areas for the control of invasive exotic plants.Herbicides are not broadcast sprayed across the channel, but are selectively sprayed at the herbacious or woody plants targeted for removal by the design parameters of each particular stream reach. In streambeds where the removal of woody plants is required, only saplings no greater than 2" in diameter at breast height (dbh) are removed in the target area. In upland areas, herbicides are sprayed on maintenance roads to provide a clear access area and on levee slopes to eliminate broadleaf weeds.
The District staff routinely reviews new and changed herbicide formulations and changed label limitations. New products are selected and old products are discontinued due to the changing availability and suitability of the products for District use. The District uses criteria for product selection that minimize worker and public health risk and avoids environmental impact. The District will not use herbicides that are:
- designated as a restricted material by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on toxicity or environmental effect,
- on California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) "list A" for demonstrated ground water contamination.
A variety of sources of information are available to instruct the District in its choice of herbicides. A literature review was conducted for the SMP Program EIR, attached as Appendix H, District Use Pesticide Literature Review. The literature review presents use, health and environmental information about the principal herbicide products that the District currently uses. In the future, new products will be subjected to a similar review and that information will be used, along with general product information and site-specific conditions to determine whether and how a product should be used.
The District uses herbicides according to the label directions and for uses approved by the EPA and the CDPR. Currently, the primary herbicide which the District uses to control in-channel vegetation is glyphosate, a nonselective broad spectrum herbicide. Glyphosate products include Monsanto's Roundup® Pro and Monsanto's Aquamaster® (an aquatic formulation formerly marketed as Rodeo®). Aquamaster® is approved for use on and near open water, whereas Roundup® Pro is not approved for application directly in water or to areas where surface water is present. Roundup® Pro contains glyphosate, a surfactant, and water. Surfactants aid the ability of an herbicide to penetrate the surface of the vegetation. Aquamaster® and Rodeo® contain glyphosate and water without a surfactant. The District generally adds the surfactants R-11® or Target Pro-Spreader when using either Aquamaster® or Rodeo®.
Pre-emergent herbicides control vegetation on levees and access roads by preventing the germination of weed seeds. The District uses a range of pre-emergent herbicides, including pendimethalin and chlorsulfuron.
The CDRP has recently proposed new restrictions on use of certain pre-emergent herbicides including several which the District uses (sulfometuron-methly, chlorsulfuron, oryzalin and isoxaben). These proposed restrictions are intended to minimize potential ground and surface water contamination. The District is currently reviewing the recent proposal and will determine whether its Herbicide Program will need to be adjusted. See chapter IV-D Hazards, Public Health and Safety for more information. Herbicides which are used by the District for routine maintenance in channel and upland areas are shown in Revised Table II-5.
e.
Herbicide Use in South CountyVegetation Management in the Pajaro River BasinThe SMP includes the limited
reinstatement of theuse of herbicides as part of the Vegetation Management Program in the Pajaro River Basin. Herbicides are currently used as part of the Vegetation Management Program in the Santa Clara Basin, but their use was discontinued in the Pajaro River Basin (South County) at the direction of the District Board in 1974 because of complaints regarding drifting of herbicides into agricultural fields. In 1979, the District considered reinstating a Herbicide Program in the Pajaro River Basin. At that time, there was a general concern in the community over the use of herbicides, particularly the use of the herbicide 2,4-D and after public hearings, the District decided not to reinstate the use of herbicides in the Pajaro River Basin. As a result, the use of herbicides was alsoexcludedlimited on mitigation plantings of the new federally sponsored flood protection projects on Llagas Creek in the Pajaro River Basin.Since that time, the District has revised its Herbicide Program to address environmental, health risk and public safety concerns, but at the same time recognize that herbicides are a cost effective means for maintaining flood protection and water supply facilities. Many of the improvements made to the District's Herbicide Program are described below:
- In 1980, the District discontinued the use of the herbicide 2,4-D.
- In 1986, the District switched to using herbicides in the sulfonylurea family which are applied at rates of ounces per acre rather than previous herbicides which were applied at rates of pounds per acre. This step not only reduced the overall amount of herbicides being applied throughout the County but also relied on using herbicides with a lower toxicity.
- In 1988, the District went beyond State requirements and required all District employees who handle pesticides to be certified as a Qualified Applicators by the CDPR. As Qualified Applicators, these employees are trained on pesticide laws and regulations, safety, and application methods, and are required to receive annual training to keep updated in this field.
- Likewise, even before State requirements, the District required that a District Pest Control Advisor (PCA) prepare a pesticide use recommendation for any use of herbicide on District facilities. For the District's purposes, PCAs are required to have a relevant Bachelors degree, be trained in integrated pest management and groundwater, and continue to receive 40 hours of relevant training every two years.
- At the District, the PCA is required to conduct a field survey to assess the site conditions, types of weeds and non-target plants, surrounding land uses, and potential wildlife use prior to writing a pesticide use recommendation. This information is used to make a recommendation with detailed instructions to the applicator regarding the type of herbicide, rate, equipment, treatment area identified on a map, target vegetation, vegetation to protect, and any special instructions relevant to the site and treatment.
- Certain types of herbicides were found as contaminants in groundwater in California's Central Valley. Although no restrictions were placed by the state on their use in Santa Clara County or on soil types found in Santa Clara County, the District voluntarily discontinued the use of certain pre-emergent herbicides on District facilities in 1993 to avoid any potential problems with groundwater. This practice continues today. PCA's receive groundwater training every two years from the CDPR and receive routine updates in changes to the regulations. Though none of the regulations currently apply to this county, the District discontinues use of products that are known groundwater contaminants in other areas of the state.
- In 1994, the District voluntarily eliminated the use of residual pre-emergent herbicides on our groundwater recharge facilities. Today, only herbicides that are registered for use in aquatic areas are used at these locations.
- In 1996, the District retrofitted its spray trucks to include the Patchen WeedSeeker. This device utilizes a light sensor attached to the front of the spray equipment that detects the presence of chlorophyll (and therefore living plants) and controls individual spray heads. Instead of spraying the entire width of a facility as the spray truck passes over it, individual spray heads are turned on only as they pass over vegetated areas. This eliminates the treatment of bare ground and reduces the amount of herbicide applied by 20 to 90 percent. This equipment is primarily limited to use on flat areas where all vegetation needs to be controlled, such as maintenance roads.
As a result of these improvements, the District is now proposing that herbicide use be reinstated in the Pajaro River Basin. Herbicides would be used on approximately 56 miles of channel in the Pajaro River Basin, 11 miles of which would be done in conjunction with sediment removal. Implementing this change would require the following actions:
The District's Board will need to adopt implementation of the SMP, changing the maintenance practices in the Pajaro River Basin to include herbicides as a routine maintenance tool.The maintenance documents for the federally sponsored Llagas Flood Protection Projects (PL-566 projects) will require amendment by the federal sponsoring agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), to include this activity.
Staff has been working with the Board and the NRCS toward the implementation of this change. Both the Board and the NRCS agree this is a beneficial change.
Initial removal of trees in Llagas Creek from approximately 600 feet downstream of Highway 152 down to the confluence with the Pajaro River is not considered routine maintenance and will require separate environmental review. See Section II.C .7. Activities Not Included in SMP, c Non SMP Maintenance Projects, Item 3.Herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin will be limited to the following situations: upland areas including channel banks, levee slopes, maintenance roads and fire breaks above the channel bottom; and upland and channel bottom areas for the control of non-native invasive plants.
Historically, routine vegetation management has been limited at the following locations in the Pajaro River Basin: Llagas Creek from Chesbro Reservoir to Machado Creek, Llagas Creek from Hayes Creek to Church Avenue, Jones Creek and Uvas-Carnadero Creek. Work in these areas under the SMP will continue to be performed as described in the maintenance guidelines for each facility and as described in the engineering guidelines for improved facilities. Vegetation management in these areas will continue to be limited to the control of nonnative invasive species and the hand removal of woody saplings less than 2 inches dbh which occur no closer than 20 feet apart.
C. Bank Protection Program
Additional mitigation is proposed for certain bank protection designs. This requires revisions to the description of bank protection in Chapter II of the EIR as shown below.
In the first and second paragraph of pages II-20 of the EIR the following changes are made:
Based on 15 13 years of historical records, the District estimates that an average of roughly one linear mile of stream banks may be repaired annually. Many
erosion sites are small and are not easily predicted. The quantity and location of bank protection activities varies greatly from year-to year, based on
watershed conditions (heavy rains often lead to more work in the following year), degree of safety hazard, work load, budget, and quantity of other priority
work to be done in a given year. The description of historical bank protection in the SMP shows that a greater concentration of bank protection occurs in
cities and semi-rural foothills of the Santa Clara Valley. Actual future bank protection work could potentially be done anywhere it is needed within District
jurisdiction.
In the second paragraph of page II-23, the following changes are made:
On pages II-26 and II-27, Tables II-8 and II-9 are replaced with revised Table II-8, Bank Protection Impact Assessment Matrix.
d. Description of Activities Outside the Scope of Routine Maintenance
Recently, Least Bells vireo have been sighted again along Lower Llagas Creek. The status of this bird is described further on pages IV-B-48 and -49 of the EIR. The following changes are made to the Description of Activities Outside the Scope of Routine Maintenance section of the Project Description Chapter of the EIR (third paragraph of page II-23) to clarify activities not included in the SMP. Similar changes are made to the SMP document and are included in the list of revisions to the SMP.
3.Initial removalAny sediment removal, wetland vegetation control, or removal of in-channel treesof in-channel willow trees and other treesin Llagas Creek downstream ofLuchessa Avenue (which is approximately 600 feet downstream ofHighway 152)to the confluence with the Pajaro River and the Pajaro River within Santa Clara County. This section of Llagas Creek not been regularly maintained as provided for in the original flood protection project design (co-sponsored by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under Public Law 566) over the past 4 to 5 years because of sighting of a nesting pair of Least Bells vireo and for other reasons. In the meantime, young trees have developed substantial growth in this section of the creek and their removal has the potential for environmental effects not within the scope of vegetation management reviewed under the SMP. Maintenance work in this section of Llagas and the Pajaro River are not considered routine until the status of the Least Bells vireo at this location is determined and a plan for future maintenance developed. At that time, future routine maintenance will be evaluated under a new or revised CEQA evaluation. Control of giant reed on the Pajaro River and Llagas Creek is included in the SMP.For this section of Llagas Creek, the District will continue to remove trees less than 2" dbh as routine stream maintenance. Removal of trees greater than 2" dbh, as necessary to restore this section of Llagas Creek to its original design, is not considered routine maintenance and will require separate environmental review. Once this section, is restored, its subsequent routine maintenance would be covered by the SMP.
e. Geomorphic Assessment
Without the switch from mechanical to herbicide methods for managing vegetation in the Pajaro River Basin, the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative has less potential for increasing sediment accumulation downstream of vegetation management activities. As a result, the following changes are made to the Geomorphology section of Chapter IV Environmental Assessment (last paragraph of page IV-A-24 and the first paragraph of page IV-A-25).
In many locations vegetation management both from herbicide applications and manual methods is consistent and routine; these areas are less likely to experience this effect. Creek reaches which have not undergone routine vegetation maintenance, or reaches where the vegetation control system changesmay have greater impact potential, because they may have more trapped sediment within the vegetation.This effect could occur in the southern portions of the County that will be switching from mechanical to herbicide vegetation management.
f. Biologic Assessment
Under the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative, Impact Bio-1 Impacts to Sensitive Plant Communities will be reduced in size since the impacts to freshwater wetlands and riparian vegetation will be reduced. Impact Bio-6 (The cumulative effects of resuming herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin would substantially reduce the value of the habitat for wildlife) will not occur. This impact is completely deleted from pages IV-B-75 and -76 of the EIR. There are also general changes needed at the beginning of the biological assessment. Revised tables are included in the list of revisions to the EIR. The following changes are made to the biological evaluation of Chapter IV-B of the EIR for the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative.
The first paragraph of page IV-B-1 regarding the introduction of the Biology chapter is revised as follows:
District activities under the SMP would affect salt and brackish marsh habitat in tidal areas and freshwater wetland, riparian forest and woodland, ruderal/non-native grassland, and open water habitat in non-tidal areas. The District's proposed 20 year work program would temporarily remove an estimated cumulative total of146136 acres of jurisdictional wetlands: 30 acres in tidal areas, and116106 acres in non-tidal areas. Implementation of vegetation management under the SMP would also remove an estimated cumulative total of7866 acres of in-stream woody riparian vegetation. An additional, unquantified amount of riparian vegetation would be removed for bank protection, which will impact approximately one linear mile of bank per year. The direct and cumulative impacts of sediment removal, vegetation management, and bank protection would be mitigated by implementing BMPs and providing compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation would include tidal wetland restoration, freshwater wetland creation, stream and watershed protection, and control of giant reed.
The following revisions are made to the third paragraph on page IV-B-57:
The assessment of impacts from the SMP are limited to an evaluation of the changes the SMP could cause in the physical environment from the current baseline condition. In the impact discussion below,threetwo general categories of changes are identified: those which will be caused by continuing maintenance over an additional period of 20 years, and areas included in the program where routine maintenance has not occurred on a frequent basis in the past, and the resumption of the use of herbicides in the Santa Clara Basin.This impact evaluation does not assess the biological impacts of the original construction of the flood protection projects, nor of prior, longstanding maintenance. Rather, it evaluates the effect of continuing the existing maintenance practices, with some modification in areaand methodology, in a new program approach for a length of 20 years.
The last paragraph on page IV-B-61 is deleted:
Projected vegetation management areas were refined to include the Pajaro River Basin areas where herbicides are not currently used, but are proposed for herbicide treatment as part of the program. For those areas, future herbicide use was projected based upon the area of existing hand removal and mowing operations and known target vegetation.
Impact Bio-1 is revised on pages IV-B-65 through -67 as follows:
Impact Bio-1: Sediment removal and vegetation management would impact in-stream wetland and riparian vegetation (Criterion Bio-1).
Implementation of the program would cause temporary but repetitive impacts to116106 acres of freshwater wetlands, 30 acres of tidal wetlands, and7866 acres of in-stream riparian vegetation due to sediment removal and vegetation management in stream channels. Concrete-lined channels are included in these projections as well as earthen channels. Seven of the116106 acres of freshwater wetlands occur in water delivery canals. Refer to Revised Table B-IV-7 for a summary of vegetation impacts and revised Table II-4 for a breakdown of vegetation impacts by work activity type. Figure IV-B-13 shows the location of projected impacts to stream vegetation. As described in the introduction to the significance criteria for this chapter, any removal of wetland or riparian vegetation from sediment removal or vegetation management activities is considered cumulatively significant for the purposes of the SMP. These impact acres are based on the one-time accounting method described above and on the implementation of the following BMPs, which would reduce the impacts of removing wetland and in-stream riparian vegetation:
| 1.13 | Prevent Scour Downstream of Sediment Removal |
| 2.1 | Minimize vegetation removal |
| 3.6 | Remove Sediment from One Side of Large Channels in Alternate Years |
Implementation of the BMPs referenced above would reduce the adverse impacts of the SMP caused by removing wetland and in-stream riparian vegetation; however, the vegetation would be lost and residual impacts would remain. Implementation of the compensatory mitigation proposed for the SMP would reduce these residual impacts to tidal wetlands, freshwater wetlands, and instream riparian vegetation to a less than significant level. The effect of the compensatory mitigation on these three resources, as well as a summary of other related impacts, is described in the following discussion:Tidal Wetlands
For tidal wetland impacts, no new tidal work areas are projected
, and, in the Pajaro River Basin where the switch to herbicides is proposed, there are no tidal areas. Thus, the removal of 30 acres of tidal wetlands over the next 20 years would be a continuation of existing practices and adoption of the SMP would not result in any new adverse change in ongoing effects. The compensatory mitigation program includes restoration of 30 acres of tidal wetlands at a location either directly adjacent to or no farther than 7 miles from the tidal wetland impact areas. The restoration site is expected to support permanent tidal wetland similar to or of higher quality than the tidal wetland temporarily impacted by repetitive maintenance activities. Refer to the more extensive description of this mitigation measure in SMP Chapter 5. This mitigation measure is therefore considered sufficient to reduce the level of impacts to tidal wetlands to a less than significant level.Freshwater Wetlands
For freshwater wetlands, sediment removal is projected to occur on approximately 6 miles of streams (5 miles in the Santa Clara Basin and 1 mile in the Pajaro River Basin) that have not undergone regular maintenance in the past. Work in this area would affect 3 acres of freshwater wetlands in the Santa Clara Basin and less than 1 acre in the Pajaro River Basin. In the Pajaro River Basin, vegetation management is projected to occur on an additional 9 miles of streams where vegetation management has not been undertaken on a regular basis in the past, which would affect 4 acres of freshwater wetlands. Thus, the SMP would affect
116106 acres of freshwater wetlands in the future, of which 7 acres would be a new adverse change.The compensatory mitigation program includes creation of 14 acres of freshwater wetland (10 in the Santa Clara Basin and 4 in the Pajaro River Basin) and
920 to 1,210820 to 1,080 acres of stream and watershed protection to compensate for impacts to freshwater wetlands. The locations of these mitigation components will be allocated so that they occur within each basin at approximately the same level as the impacts. The freshwater wetland creation sites will occur at a few locations on the valley floor as compared to the impact areas, which are spread throughout each basin. Although the freshwater wetland creation sites will not be instream as are the impacted freshwater wetlands, they have an advantage of not being subjected to routine disturbance from flood protection maintenance as the impacted sites are, and they will provide habitat for common local wildlife and wetland-related plants in a streamside setting. The types of wetland plant species affected are widespread and regenerate quickly, thus it should not be difficult to create new wetlands of similar or higher quality.The specific locations of the stream and watershed preservation efforts have not been chosen yet. They are generally expected to be farther up in the watershed than the impacts, however, since the upper watershed is where land suitable for preservation is most available. The type of stream habitat protected under the stream and watershed component is different than the instream freshwater wetland impacted in modified earthen and concrete channels, but the former consists of more structurally and functionally complex native riparian and riverine habitat that occur on less altered stream reaches.
Refer to the more extensive description of these mitigation measures in SMP Chapter 5. Because of the size and quality of the freshwater creation and stream and watershed compensation components, they are considered sufficient to reduce the level of impacts to freshwater wetlands to a less than significant level.
In-stream Riparian Vegetation
No new work areas are projected that would affect in-stream riparian vegetation.
The additional impact to in-stream riparian vegetation from the conversion to herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin is discussed under Impact Bio-6 below.Thus, the removal of7866 acres of in-stream riparian vegetation of a sapling size over the next 20 years would be a continuation of existing practices, and adoption of the SMP would not result in any new adverse change in ongoing effects.The compensatory mitigation program includes control of
8066 acres of giant reed over a 10-year period to mitigate for the impacts to riparian vegetation. This program includes associated efforts such as mapping, revegetation, monitoring, and education. Refer to the more extensive description of this mitigation measure in SMP Chapter 5. Since giant reed displaces open water and native riparian and wetland plant communities of freshwater streams, its control is appropriate compensation for impacts to sapling riparian vegetation caused by channel vegetation management activities. The giant reed control program will be spread throughout the county, as are the impacts, although control areas will be targeted to those locations where which the most habitat value can be obtained from sustained control efforts. The giant reed control program will reduce the impacts to riparian vegetation to a less than significant level.An additional
4559 acres of giant reed control is proposed to compensate for any lag time between maintenance impacts to stream vegetation and implementation of the tidal wetland restoration, freshwater wetland creation, and stream and watershed protection mitigation components.Other Impacts
With the exception of a small amount of fill, which may occur from some bank protection projects, the SMP would not cause a loss of acreage of jurisdictional waters. Incidental fill is expected to be minimal due to the employment of BMPs. The direct effects to woody riparian vegetation from bank protection were not quantified. Bank protection rarely directly impacts woody riparian vegetation. Because bank protection effects on riparian vegetation primarily affect wildlife, this impact is discussed below in the Impacts to Wildlife Species section (see Impact Bio-5). The cumulative adverse impact of the loss of wetland and in-stream riparian vegetation on wildlife is also discussed in that section (see Impact Bio-4).
The additional impact to freshwater wetlands from the conversion to herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin is discussed below under Impact Bio-6.Additional changes are made to the biologic assessment regarding the mitigation for bank protection.
In the fourth paragraph of page IV-B-74, the following changes are made:
Implementation of the BMPs referenced above would reduce the adverse impacts of hardscape installation for bank protection; however, over the life of the program habitat would be lost or reduced in value resulting in residual impacts. However, as stated in the Project Description (Chapter II), the District has committed to installing no more than 50 percent of future bank protection projects under the SMP using hardscape methods.Although these residual impacts may be considered insignificant when reviewed on an individual site basis, when evaluated on a program basis the potential for significant, cumulative impacts remains. Implementation of BMP 3.5, for example, would replace functions and values lost via the mitigation provided in the Programmatic Impact Assessment and Mitigation for Routine Bank Protection Activities (SMP Appendix E), but that mitigation would not always occur at the impact site and therefore could result in a cumulative fragmentation effect. The cumulative impact from bank protection would thus remain significant and unavoidable.As described in SMP Appendix E, Programmatic Impact Assessment and Mitigation for Routine Bank Protection Activities, in-stream and stream-side resources impacts from bank protection will be evaluated and mitigated separately. Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures as stated in Appendix E of the SMP report would reduce residual impacts to insignificant levels. Additionally, the District will mitigate for all impacts for impervious hardscape and for unvegetated rock bank protection at a ratio of 3:1 and for all vegetated rock at a ratio of 1:1 regardless of the determination of the impact assessment matrix. This will account for all direct, potential and cumulative impacts from the bank protection program. All impacts and credits will be measured by area and the on-going totals will be reported in the annual report. Mitigation for both in-stream and stream-side impacts will consist of revegetation consistent with the Protocal for Revegetation Associated with Use of Impervious materials for Bank Stabilization in Appendix E. Over time there will be a net increase in stream-side habitat from the proposed mitigation.
On pages IV-B-75 and -76, the following changes are made: The Impact Bio-6 (The cumulative effects of resuming herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin would substantially reduce the value of the habitat for wildlife) is completely deleted.
On page IV-B-101, third and fourth paragraph, the following changes are made:
The bank protection program avoids impacts by distinguishing three categories of streams based on the fishery values they support andalteringalternative bank protection methods accordingly. First, reaches of streams supporting or potentially supporting steelhead and resident trout are recognized as highly sensitive.and bank protection methods that do not incorporate fishery values are not acceptable in these streams (fish habitat categories are described in Fisheries and the Aquatic Environment, above). Only bank protection methods incorporating fishery values that, at a minimum, replace those previously present will be used. If a site requiring bank protection is located in this type of stream but has limited or no fishery values present, methods incorporating fishery values would be counted as mitigation credit at a 1:1 ratio (by project length) for other bank protection program impacts. If site constraints are such that methods incorporating fishery values cannot be used, mitigation credits must be used at a 2:1 ratio by project length.Mitigation will be incorporated in accordance with the SMP, Appendix E, Section 4.3A second category of stream reaches does not support steelhead or resident trout but occurs downstream of steelhead/trout habitat and may therefore be used by migrating individuals. In addition, chinook salmon may spawn in some of these reaches and salmon fry may rear there for brief periods in the spring. Alternatively these reaches may be dominated by a natural assemblage of native warmwater fish (primarily Sacramento sucker and California roach) and may also have the potential to support red-legged frogs and other sensitive species. Although not as critical as the first group of streams, fishery values including escape cover, velocity refuge, and fine sediment stabilization may still be important.
In this group of stream reaches, bank protection projects will use methods incorporating fishery values at sites where those values are present. Methods that do not incorporate fishery values may be used but must be mitigated on a 1:1 basis. If bank protection sites do not support fishery values, using methods that support such values will gain mitigation credits on a 1:1 basis while use of other methods will result in neither loss or gain of mitigation credits.Mitigation will be incorporated in accordance with the SMP, Appendix E, Section 4.3
On the first paragraph of page IV-B-102, the following changes are made:
The third category of stream reaches has no steelhead or trout habitat upstream but may itself support a variety of fish community types, including mixed native and introduced, fish scarce, and no value. In such streams, bank protection projects incorporating fishery values may have little benefit to the aquatic community present. Greater flexibility in selection of bank protection methods is possible in this category and, while other species should be considered, virtually any method may be selected without potential impact to steelhead/rainbow trout, chinook salmon, or fish communities dominated by warmwater native fish (although other biological impacts to non-salmonids may occur; see Impact Bio-5). Mitigation will be incorporated in accordance with the SMP, Appendix E, Section 4.3
On the second paragraph of page IV-B-102, t he following changes are made:
Following the guidelines prescribed by the Programmatic Impact Assessment and Mitigation for Routine Bank Protection Activities, impacts from bank stabilization to special-status anadromous salmonid fish would be less than significant.
In the second paragraph of page IV-B-103, the following changes are made:
Bank protection may reduce the amount of salt and tidal wetland habitat available for special-status plants, birds, and mammals. Loss of wetlands is not typically associated with an erosion site. Bank protection could occur on streams that are adjacent to salt and tidal wetlands and that have the potential to support these species. However, the only Group D species that could be substantially affected by bank protection are California black rails and California clapper rails. California black rails and California clapper rails are not expected to nest within the stream channel; however, rails may forage in the channels. Bank protection could eliminate foraging habitat. The other Group D species are not expected on stream banks that will receive bank protection because these are typically unvegetated due to soil erosion.
g. CEQA Questions
Under the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative, the use of herbicides throughout the channels in the Pajaro River Basin is not resumed, therefore, there is no significant biologic impacts due to such a switch. With Impact Bio-6 eliminated, the following changes are made to the CEQA Questions Chapter of the EIR (page VI-2):
OtherOne biological impactsremains significant even after application of mitigation measures:resuming herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin, thus holding vegetation to a lower successional stage, andfragmentation of habitat caused by breaking the linear stream corridors into smaller pieces. Since at this time it is unknown the extent of impacts caused by this practiceboth of these practices, these impacts are considered significant even after mitigation. However,both of these practices dothis practice does not result in irreversible changes, as the impacts would disappear if the practices werewas discontinued.
Because additional mitigation is proposed for bank protection, residual impacts are no longer significant and unavoidable. The following revisions are made in the CEQA Questions Chapter.
In the fourth paragraph of page VI-2, the following changes are made:
The structures created by bank protection can be considered essentially permanent. Chapter IV.B., Biology identifies hardscape installation for bank protection; as having the potential to have cumulative, significant, irreversible environmental changes. Implementation of the BMPs would reduce the adverse impacts, habitat would be lost or reduced in value resulting in residual impacts. The proposed 3.1 mitigation for impervious bank protection and unvegetated rock bank protection would provide a net increase in stream-side habitat in the long run and reduce residual impacts to an insignificant level. The actual amount of hardscape versus softscape to be installed by future bank protection cannot be projected because the conditions of each site and resulting design vary greatly and cannot be predicted. The cumulative impacts from bank protection would thus remain unavoidable at an insignificant level.
In the fifth paragraph of page VI-2, the following changes are made:
OtherOne biological impactsremains significant even after application of mitigation measures:resuming herbicide use in the Pajaro River Basin, thus holding vegetation to a lower successional stage, andfragmentation of habitat caused by breaking the linear stream corridors into smaller pieces. Since at this time it is unknown the extent of impacts caused by this practiceboth of these practices, these impacts are considered significant even after mitigation. However,both of these practices dothis practice does not result in irreversible changes, as the impacts would disappear if the practices werewas discontinued.
In the fourth paragraph of page VI-4, the following changes are made:
The SMP includes a compensatory mitigation package to compensate for significant residual impacts. This mitigation is described in detail in Chapter 5 of the SMP. There are potential cumulative environmental impacts of the mitigation program which will be addressed as part of the Mitigation and Monitoring Program to be prepared prior to completion of the FEIR or under specific CEQA documents to be prepared for certain mitigation projects (e.g. Pond A4 and Los Capitancillos). This section summarizes what is currently known about potential environmental effects of these mitigation projects and how these will be resolved. All environmental effects are expected to be resolved in the individual project CEQA documents tierred from this programmatic EIRtherefore, no cumulative effects along with the SMP work activities will occur.
Under this master response regarding aquatic herbicides, additional information is provided regarding the active ingredient glyphosate in herbicide formulations, the surfactant R-11, a recent study in the Klamath National Forest regarding the biological effects of glyphosate and R-11, and an explanation of acute and chronic toxicity.
a. Glyphosate
Monsanto formerly marketed the glyphosate formulation "Rodeo" for aquatic application; Monsanto now markets the same formulation as "Aqua Master". This recent brand-name switch is explained in the EIR. Unfortunately, most of the literature refers to Rodeo and EIR reference to Rodeo is intended to maintain accurate literature reference. Actual herbicide application under the SMP will be using either the Aqua Master or Rodeo product. Any references to Rodeo should be considered equally relevant to Aqua master because they are the same formulation.
The active ingredient glyphosate is available in several different formulations. The product, Roundup Pro contains glyphosate (41%), a surfactant, and water. The product, Aqua Master contains glyphosate (53%) and water. Aqua Master contains no added surfactant. In extensive aquatic testing, the surfactant in Roundup is found to have greater toxicity than the active ingredient. For this reason, Roundup is not registered for use on or near open water. The Roundup formulation available to the homeowner is similar to the formulation of Roundup Pro, and hence use near water is restricted. The homeowner product is sold in a dilute, ready-to-use formulation at a 1% concentration of active ingredient. Roundup Pro and Aqua Master are sold for professional use in concentrated form; the professional user dilutes the concentrate to create a spray mixture of about 1%, similar to the home product, which is then applied to the target vegetation.
Glyphosate is termed a "non-selective" herbicide because its herbicidal activity affects all green plants. Some herbicides such as triclopyr (Garlon) are termed "selective" because they kill dicots (most broad-leaved plants) but not monocots (grasses). This means that a Garlon application to vegetation along a channel would kill all woody and herbaceous plants, but leave the grasses; Roundup would kill woody plants, herbaceous plants, and the grasses. The toxic action of so-called selective herbicides is so broad that there is little ecological significance. For in-channel application, glyphosate in diluted form is sprayed from a hand-held nozzle or "tree-gun" connected by hose to a truck-mounted tank. The applicator directs the spray at the target vegetation and avoids open water and non-target vegetation as much as is practical. The ability of the operator to control the herbicide spray limits the quantity needed and minimizes the environmental impact. Target selectivity is even more effective at limiting non-targeted effects than chemical selectivity.
Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide; when applied to foliage, the herbicide is absorbed into and translocated throughout the plant and kills the whole plant by interfering with its metabolism. When applied near water, the quantity of glyphosate which enters the water is further diluted by the volume of the water body and the resulting concentration is insufficient to produce a toxic dose for emergent vegetation downstream. Small aquatic plants and phytoplankton in open water receiving a glyphosate over-spray are killed. Based on field measurements of open water with stream flows, the effect downstream of an application site appears to be limited to less than the first 100 feet. Open water with no stream flow has significantly less dilution effect and phytoplankton die-off is more pronounced. Plankton recovery takes several days. No effect on non-sprayed emergent vegetation was noted.
b. Surfactant R-11
The surfactant or adjuvant R-11 ® is manufactured by Wilbur-Ellis. R-11 ® contains Octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol (CAS 9036-19-5), n-Butanol (CAS 71-36-3), and Compounded silicone. The active ingredients in R-11 are classified by US EPA Inert Ingredients in Pesticides (US EPA 1994) as List 4B, "sufficient information to conclude that current use patterns in pesticide products will not adversely affect public health and the environment." Studies for R-11® were reviewed and accepted by California EPA (Lapurga 1996). R-11 ® would be classified as Moderately Toxic to fish (LC50 3.8 mg/l) and Slightly Toxic to invertebrates (LC50 19.0 mg/l). Rodeo itself is pure glyphosate (53% in water) and is considered Practically Non-toxic to fish (LC50 > 100 mg/l). (Assessment of glyphosate and adjuvant R-11 in "Glyphosate Herbicide Information Profile", United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region February, 1997.)
R-11 has state and federal approval for use with Rodeo/Aqua Master over water. Rodeo with R-11 surfactant is a standard mixture used in California for aquatic and riparian application. It is the herbicide mixture of choice for the "Team Arundo" throughout the state. The invasive weed, giant reed is nearly always found in aquatic ecosystems and the Rodeo and R-11 mixture is approved for use in its control..
The District conducted field testing after standard Rodeo and R-11 application in 1996. Glyphosate concentrations were measured; R-11 component concentrations were not. Effect on phytoplankton and zooplankton were observed, but the test locations contained no observed vertebrates.
c. Klamath National Forest Study
Glyphosate and R-11 surfactant are used in Northern California and Southern Oregon for invasive species control from the edge of the stream to the edge of the riparian area. It is considered to have low persistence and an acceptable level of environmental risk in this application when applied in May and June, several months before the rainy season (Olson, 2000). The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board participated in the assessment of that project. It contains a specific and recent assessment of the glyphosate and R-11 combination which is relevant to the District's use of glyphosate with R-11. The relevant section of this report is included below.
| Excerpts from: Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Knapweed Eradication On the Salmon River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest", Brenda
Olson, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Salmon River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, August 1, 2000
VI. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A. Direct and Indirect Effects For clarification of concentration terminology used throughout this section, the information below should be referenced while reading: 1 ppm = 1 mg/kg = 1mg/l 1 ppb = 1 µg/kg = 1 µg/l The direct and indirect effects analysis pertains to all the anadromous fish found in the Salmon River sub-basin. The effects to SONNC coho are potentially less than other species due to the lower probability of coho currently occurring in the North Fork Salmon River. In general, for aquatic organisms lethal effects (LC50) at concentrations below 1 part per million (ppm) are considered indicative of highly toxic substances, effects at concentrations of 1 to 10 ppm are considered toxic, and effective concentrations at greater than 10 ppm are considered indicative of slightly toxic compounds (Clark et al. 1970 as cited by USFS 1984). In addition, No Observable Effect Concentrations (NOEC) for survival after brief acute exposures to peak concentrations can be estimated by the formula 0.1(96-h LC50) or 10% of the 96-hour LC50 values (Norris et al. 1991). Drift from nearby spray areas is similar to direct application except that peak concentrations are lower and the probability that stream organisms will be affected is reduced (Norris et al. 1991). The concentration of introduced chemicals normally decreases rapidly with downstream movement because of dilution and the interaction of the chemical with various physical and biological components of the stream system (Norris and Montgomery 1975 as cited by Norris et al. 1991). None of the studies referenced mention whether or not their results were temperature dependent. It is recognized that the analyses for the proposed chemicals are all different. This is due to the information available for the various chemical risk assessments. The following research cited was completed on the chemicals themselves and not necessarily on the herbicides proposed for use. Therefore, unless specified, the following section will just name the chemical that is found in the proposed herbicides. Direct Effects Direct effects to the fisheries resource could occur during the treatment of the floodplain zone, possibly during the riparian zone treatment from spray drift, from possible accidental spills, and possibly from herbicide reaching the stream from overland flow (runoff). Only short duration herbicides will be used in the floodplain and riparian areas, in particular glyphosate (Rodeo® with R-11 surfactant) and 2,4-D amine (Weedar® 64). Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide and is one of the most widely used pesticides by volume (EPA, 1993). Rodeo® is the form of glyphosate that is proposed for use. The active ingredient in Rodeo® is Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine, in the form of its isoproylamine salt (53.8%), 46.2% are inert ingredients (Monsanto, 1997). This particular herbicide moves through the plant from the point of foliage contact to and into the root system (Monsanto, 1997). Glyphosate adsorbs strongly to soil (Monsanto, 1997; EPA, 1993; SERA, 1996) and is not expected to move vertically below the six inch soil layer (EPA, 1993). Glyphosate is readily broken down by soil microbes to AMPA, which is degraded to CO2 (EPA, 1993). AMPA also strongly adsorbs to soil particles (EPA, 1993). If glyphosate were to reach surface water, it would not be broken down readily by water or sunlight (EPA, 1993), however concentrations in natural water will diminish rapidly due to microbial degradation, binding to suspended particulate, or dispersion (SERA, 1996). Monsanto (1997) states on the label that the biological degradation process will occur under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions by soil microflora. Glyphosate is practically non-toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates (EPA 1993, SERA 1996, Monsanto 1998). The toxicity of glyphosate to aquatic species depends on the acidity (pH of the water). Glyphosate is more toxic in relatively acidic waters (pH 6) by as much as a factor of 10, compared to alkaline waters (pH 10). In general the LC50 values for aquatic animals range from approximately 10 - 400 mg/L, depending on species and water pH (SERA 1996). Table 5 shows the Observed 96-hour LC50 values for three salmonid fishes. The pH for the Salmon River is approximately 7. TABLE 5. Observed 96-hour LC50 values for Glyphosate (Wan et al. 1989 as cited by SERA 1996).
Daphnia were significantly more sensitive than other invertebrates to glyphosate. The LC50 for daphnia, 218 mg/L, is about the same as that reported for fish at comparable pH (ph 8.2) (SERA 1996). For assessing the potential for toxic effects in fish, a reference concentration of 1 mg/L will be used for glyphosate. This is about a factor of 10 less than the lowest reported LC50 values (SERA 1996). At this level, there is no reason to anticipate acute or long-term effects in fish. There is little evidence to suggest that aquatic animals will be adversely affected by normal applications of glyphosate. Most species of algae and macrophytes do not appear to be more sensitive than fish or aquatic invertebrates to glyphosate. Field studies indicate that maximum initial concentrations of glyphosate in water after aerial or ground applications can be estimated, based on application rates, at approximately 0.1 mg/L·lb a.i. applied per acre (SERA 1996). At the maximum labeled application rate of 7.5 lbs. active ingredient (a.i.)/acre, concentrations of glyphosate would be expected to reach 0.75 mg/L. At this level, no effects on fish, aquatic inverts, macrophytes, and most species of algae would be expected from the application of Rodeo ® (SERA 1996). Since the proposed rate of application for Rodeo® is almost half of the maximum allowed under the label (4 lbs a.i./ac), aquatic organisms in the North Fork or Mainstem Salmon River should not be affected as the concentration would be 0.4 mg/L or less. Edwards et al. (1980 as cited by Norris et al. 1991) did a study to define concentration and transport of glyphosate. The maximum amount transported by runoff was 1.85% of the amount applied, most of which occurred during a single storm on the day after application of the highest rate of glyphosate (8.96 kg/hectare). In each of the three study years, herbicide transported in the first runoff event after treatment accounted for 99% of the total herbicide runoff. Rueppel et. al (1977 as cited by Norris 1991) reported less than 0.02% of applied glyphosate was removed by runoff from soil after artificial rain was applied at the rate of 1.9 cm/h 1, 3, and 7 days after application. Therefore, insignificant amounts of glyphosate should runoff the site during and after the first storm event, particularly when this is not an aerial operation but an individual plant spray operation, and several months would have passed between application and fall rains. The surfactant R-11 is manufactured by Wilbur-Ellis. It is used in the Forest Service Region-5 (state of California) as a surfactant for glyphosate applications. The label for R-11 states it may be used with aquatically labeled glyphosate at 2 quarts per 100 gallons of spray solution. R-11 has a nonylphenol polyethoxylate (NPE) ingredient that puts it in a broad class of chemicals known as alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs). A raw material used to make NPE is nonylphenol (NP). NP has been shown to exhibit weak estrogenic properties in laboratory tests. In comparison to the natural estrogen 17-estradiol occurring in organisms, NP is approximately 100,000 times weaker in eliciting estrogenic responses. NPE has also been found to be weakly estrogenic through lab tests, but less potent than NP by an order of magnitude (EPA 1996). The NPE used in R-11 has about nine ethoxylate groups attached (referred to NP9E) making it highly water soluble (Bakke 1999). Research has shown that in the presence of oxygen, NPE biodegradation is rather quick, with lab-tested half-life of a few to several days. In aerobic conditions NP9E is broken down by removal of the ethoxylate groups as a result of microbial action, into shorter-chain ethoxylates. These short-chain ethoxylates can further be broken down into nonylphenol ether carboxylate (NPEC) (APE Research Council 1999; EPA 1996, Maguire 1999, as cited in Bakke 1999). The basic aromatic ring at the center of the NPE molecule appears to break apart prior to the loss of the final ethoxylate groups, therefore the formation of NP is not likely (APE Research Council 1999, as cited by Bakke 1999). In anaerobic conditions, NP would be produced from the breakdown of NPE. However, NP is adsorptive to soil organic carbon, and therefore would not likely move through the soil or stream sediments (EPA 1996). If the 24 hr LC50 ÷ 96 hr LC50 for a particular chemical is approximately 2, it indicates the chemical may cause chronic effects (Zeeman 1995, as cited in EPA 1996). The sensitivity of rainbow trout to NP is 300 µg/l for the 24 hr LC50 and 190 µg/l for the 96 hr LC50. Therefore, NP will not have chronic effects on rainbow trout, having a 24 hr/96 hr value of 1.6 (Dwyer et al. 1995 as cited in EPA 1996). The LC50 for all fish for NP9E ranges from 1,300 - 1,000,000 µg/l (1.3 - 1,000 ppm). The concern concentration of NP for rainbow trout is 3 µg/l. This is also the concentration of the No Observable Effect Concentration (NOEC). In a nationwide 30 rivers study done by a panel of manufacturers under EPA's recommendation, no concern concentrations for pelagic organisms were exceeded with any of the measured concentrations. The highest measured concentration was 0.64 µg/l of NP which came from the highly polluted Grand Calumet River in Indiana. From this study it was determined that nationwide, there appears to be a low risk posed by NP to pelagic organisms. Toxicity of NP9E, the ingredient in R-11, is 1-2 orders of magnitude less than NP, while toxicity of the intermediate breakdown products, NPEC and shorter chain NPEs, are intermediate between NP and NPE (EPA 1996). Bioconcentration of NP in freshwater fish appears to be low to moderate (EPA 1996). In the fall of 1998, the California Department of Fish and Game investigated the toxicological impacts of Rodeo ® and R-11 on larval fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas. Water samples for chemical residue analysis and acute toxicity testing were collected from waterways directly adjacent to the herbicide/surfactant applications. Water samples collected one hour after aerial herbicide applications (direct application to water) contained a maximum surfactant concentration of 0.013 mg/l (13 µg/l) (Trumbo 1999). This is well below the NP LC50 for rainbow trout, however above the concern concentration. Since R-11 does not contain NP but N9PE which is 1 - 2 magnitudes less toxic, it is assumed the potential for exceeding the no concern concentration is nil. Effects are not expected to occur as a result of using the R-11 surfactant. This is due to NP9E being less potent than NP by an order of magnitude in estrogenic effects, the short half-life (few to several days), it is adsorptive to stream sediments and solid organic carbon, and heavily polluted rivers were under the concern concentration of NP for rainbow trout. In addition, this is a single plant spray operation, few plants near the stream are expected, and for those that are, special precautions are in place. (Biological Assessment and Evaluation for Knapweed Eradication On the Salmon River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest , August 1, 2000, |
d. Acute and Chronic Toxicity
Acute toxicity is the harm caused by a single short duration exposure. Chronic toxicity is the harm caused by repeated or prolonged exposure. According to US EPA protocol, studies of chronic toxicity for pesticides involve repeated daily exposure of experimental animals to a chemical by oral, dermal or inhalation routes for a period of at least 12 months (US EPA 1996). Although some chronic effects are observed more quickly, there is a clear distinction between the risk from occasional, brief (acute) and frequent, prolonged (chronic) exposure.
APE (Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates) Research Council. 1999. Alkylphenols Cand alkylphenol ethoxylates: an overview of safety issues.
Bakke, D. 1999. Estrogenic Effects and toxicity to aquatic organisms from exposure to the surfactant R-11. Issue paper to the Director of State and Private Forestry of Region-5, USDA Forest Service.
Clarke, F. E., D. G. Harvey, and D. J. Humphreys. 1970. Vetrinary Toxicology. Bailliere Tindall, London.
Edwards, W. M., G. B. Triplett, Jr., and R. M. Kramer. 1980. A watershed study of glyphosate transport in runoff. Journal of Environmental Quality, 9:661-665.
E.P.A. 1993. R.E.D. Facts, glyphosate. EPA-738-F-93-011.
E.P.A. 1993. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), glyphosate.
E.P.A. 1996. RM-1 document for para-nonylphenol.
EPA. 1996. Prevention, pesticides and toxic substances (7101). EPA 712-C-96-210. June 1996. Health Effects test guidelines 870.4100 Chronic toxicity (c) definitions.
Maguire, R.J. 1999. Review of the persistence of nonylphenol and nonylpheol ethoxylates in aquatic environments. Water Quality Research Journal of Canada, 34(1):37-78.
Monsanto. 1997. Rodeo emerged aquatic weed and brush herbicide label.
Norris, L. A., H. W. Lorz, and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:207-296.
Norris, L. A. and M. L. Montgomery. 1975. Dicamba residues in streams after forest spraying. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 13:1-8.
Rueppel, M. L., B. B. Brightwell, J. Schaefer, and J. T. Marvel. 1977. Metabolism and degradation of glyphosate in soil and water. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 25:517-528.
SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 1996. Selected commercial formulations of glyphosate ΠAccord, Rodeo, and Roundup risk assessment final report. SERA TR 96-22-02-01b, prepared under USDA-Forest Service contract number 53-3187-5-12.
Trumbo, J. 1999. Giant cane control and herbicide/surfactant impacts to larval frogs and fish. California Department of Fish and Game, Pesticide Investigations Unit, Rancho, Cordova, CA.
USDA-Forest Service. 1984. Pesticide background statements, Vol. 1, Herbicides. Agriculture Handbook No. 633.
Several commenters addressed the relationship between routine maintenance and flood water conveyance in Santa Clara County channels. In general, commenters stated that reliance on streams for flood conveyance in the urban portion of the County was responsible for their present modified and often degraded state. Commenters claim that maintenance activities, specifically sediment removal, do not improve the condition of the streams, but only hold them in a disturbed state.
The analysis in Chapter IV. A. Geomorphology of the EIR describes the relationship between urban encroachment, past channel modification, geomorphic instability, and the need for routine maintenance. On the valley floor, with average slope less than 4 percent, stream geometry normally comprises a small channel within a much larger flood plain. This small channel is capable of carrying the volume during peak flows encountered on a one or two-year cycle; the flood plain is formed by far larger peak flows occurring less frequently, such as a 20 to 100 year cycle. In the Santa Clara Valley, the flood plain has been filled in or blocked-off by levees so that it cannot carry flood flows, and the original main channel has often been realigned, enlarged, and deepened to carrying flood flows instead of allowing them to spread over the flood plain.
Natural stream geometry is no longer present in many channels and therefore fluvial geomorphic tendencies result in high variability in sediment deposition and transport in the main channel. In low slope channels (<1%), the cross section of the channel would fill in developing a narrower and deeper low flow channel. The velocity and depth of annual flows and hence annual sediment transport capacity would increase so that the sediment deposition would occur closer to the tidal margin. The stream may be considered geomorphically "stable" when the low flow channel's transport capacity matches the watershed sediment input. In this condition, there may be an opportunity for increased wetland or riparian habitat, but the stream channel would have reduced much of its flood water conveyance capacity for which it was originally designed.
The District is obligated to maintain flood water conveyance capacity on modified channels. This means sediment removal and hence keeping the channels in a geomorphically unstable state. The EIR describes the environmental effects associated with maintenance.
Commenters' observation that increasing flood plain encroachment, channel hardscape, and modification usually lead to increased maintenance needs is technically correct. The District's Stream Maintenance Program addresses this condition that exists in the Santa Clara County service area at present, including several hundred miles of modified channels that are geomorphically unstable and require maintenance.
The District evaluated the "geomorphic alternative" to maintenance and found that for the most part, the necessary changes to channel configuration and restoration of flood plain size are of a cost, scale, and environmental impact normally associated with a Capital Improvement Project, and hence are outside of the scope of the routine maintenance addressed by the SMP. Even as projects are reviewed for geomorphic redesign, (including planning, design and construction phases which can take more than 10 years or longer if funding is not available), would still require routine maintenance in the meantime.
The District can use fluvial geomorphic principles in future project design which may confer environmental benefits and reduce the need for routine maintenance. Such changes would occur on a stream reach by stream reach basis and could not be implemented District-wide to provide the level of service which is the purpose of the SMP.
AU-01
Comment is noted. See Master Response regarding Geomorphology which discusses the District's evaluation and initiation of new designs and approaches for flood control channels. While the District may be able to implement some of the commenter's suggestions for some individual channels, they would not constitute routine maintenance and on a District-wide basis, would require a massive Capital Improvement Project that is therefore beyond the scope of alternatives to the proposed Stream Maintenance Program. See also response to RWQ-SF-04.
AU-02
Refer to Chapters 3 and Chapter 4 of the SMP for the environmental review protocols and resource protection measures. The comments to improve future designs is noted. The District's commitment to a vision of a more natural watershed is reflected in the Board's Governance Policies. Also see response to WW-28. Current flood protection projects are planned, designed, and constructed for multiple objectives/uses with input from the community and various agencies. However, this work is separate from the scope of the proposed Stream Maintenance Program. See also response to RWQ-SF-04.
AU-03
The EIR serves the purpose of describing the environmental effects of a range of alternatives which will meet all or most of the project objectives. The FEIR has been revised by District staff in consideration of this and other comments, and staff recommend the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. The final selection of an alternative will be made by the District's Board of Directors balancing the project objectives, District policies and environmental effects. See also master response regarding alternatives.
AU-04
The District concurs. As noted by this comment, the discussion of Impact Bio-4 on pages IV-B-69 through 71 of the EIR describes the impact to wildlife caused by fragmentation. Please also see the discussion of fragmentation potentially caused by bank protection that is included on pages IV-B-71 through 72 of the EIR.
AU-05
The annual lessons learned meeting and annual report will play a key role in following through and monitoring the implementation of BMPs and compensatory mitigation measures. As described on pages 3-4 and 3-5 of the SMP, BMPs will be reviewed and updated as necessary, and the status of the mitigation programs will be reported on an annual basis. See also response to comments EPA-12 and RWQ-SF-27. No secondary mitigation plan is proposed in the event that BMPs fail. Instead, BMPs will be revised to meet the original objective of avoiding or minimizing effects.
AU-06
As described on page VI-10 of the EIR, when the District reviews new projects proposed within 50 feet of a creek under District Ordinance 83-2, it comments on design aspects which might affect flood control, water supply, water quality, and stability of the creek banks, including activities which might preclude necessary stream maintenance work. The District, as a responsible agency under CEQA, comments on the same topics when it reviews environmental documents prepared for such projects and General Plan updates. However, the District does not have the authority to require design changes for indirect effects such as increased runoff.
AU -07
Table V-4 on page V-23 of the EIR has been reviewed and several errors have been discovered. These errors consist mainly of incorrect spread sheet formulas, which despite several reviews of the data, went undetected prior to the release of the draft EIR. Examples of the types of errors included using the total area column in a formula rather than the work area, and problems with products being off by a decimal point, both of which inflated the final numbers. The table has been edited to correctly reflect the accurate cost estimates, allowing for a realistic review of the differences in the alternatives. Revised Table V-4 is included in the list of revisions to the EIR.
AU-08
See the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for a preliminary map of giant reed locations which shows major infestations based on initial surveys. The total amount of giant reed in the county is not currently known but is believed to be several hundred acres. The first step in the giant reed control program will be to conduct additional surveys and generate a more detailed map with estimates on the amount of giant reed. As time allows, the District will simultaneously document outbreaks of cape ivy and tamarisk which are observed during mapping and control of giant reed. See response to comment FWS-02 regarding revegetation associated with giant reed control.
AU-09
These numbers measure different categories and have been revised in the FEIR. Referring to the equivalent new values for the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative in the FEIR, there are 45 acres stream channel area in which vegetation management is undertaken in the Pajaro River Basin. However, only 38 of the 45 acres are assigned as impacts under the one-time accounting method for temporary but repetitive impacts (described on page IV-B-62 of the EIR), because impacts are assigned to sediment removal only, in those channel reaches where both sediment removal and vegetation management are undertaken. Of these 38 acres of impact assigned to vegetation management in the Pajaro Basin, 4 acres are to freshwater wetland and 34 acres are to riparian vegetation.
AU-10
Because stream flow and flood control capacity need to be maintained, it is not always feasible to preserve all habitat where special-status species are found and some impacts may occur due to the SMP. However, the District is committed to avoiding or minimizing impacts to biological resources as much as possible through the use of BMPs. BMP 3.19, Develop a Biodiversity Monitoring Program, establishes a biodiversity monitoring program to provide information about habitat use and distribution of special-status species in Santa Clara County. The monitoring results will be incorporated into the District's Geographic Information System (GIS) database and help with planning future maintenance activities. Data collected will be put to good use by identifying where special-status species are found and if future maintenance activities are required in those areas, appropriate avoidance or minimization measures will be implemented.
AU-11
The impact on red-legged frog is minimized by avoiding known frog activity areas and by using herbicides of low animal toxicity. The District uses a gylphosate formulation registered for aquatic application (AquaMaster by Monsanto, formerly known as Rodeo) and a surfactant R-11. This combination is used extensively throughout California for control of invasive giant reed (Arundo donax). The California Department of Fish and Game, in conjunction with US EPA and other parties conducted tests of glyphosate/R-11 application effectiveness and toxicity in 1998. California Department of Fish and Game, 1998, unpublished communication by Joel Trumbo, "Final Report U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Grant Control of Giant Cane in Riparian and Wetland Areas of Northern and Central California". That study concluded "Rodeo® with R-11® applied aerially to control giant cane poses no significant acute toxicity hazard to nontarget fish and frog species. Herbicide and surfactant residues were 100 to 10,000 times less than would be necessary to produce acute mortality." The District's selective hand application probably results in less actual herbicide entering the water than from helicopter broadcast spray.
BMP 3.20, Minimize Adverse Effects of Herbicides on Non-target Species, provides guidelines to minimize impacts on non-target species from the use of herbicides. Herbicides will be applied by a state Qualified Applicator following the label restrictions (BMP 4.7, Herbicide Use Requirements), any advisories published by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, the County Agricultural Commission, and the EPA bulletin Protecting Endangered Species, Interim Measures for Use of Pesticides in Santa Clara County. The recommended use limitation codes (ULC) are listed on page IV-B-92 of the EIR. BMP 3.20, also states that when herbicides are to be used within 1.25 miles of known red-legged frog locations, the District will refer to both the product label for the material being used and the Endangered Species Database maintained by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and use the lower of the two recommended rates if there is a difference. These BMPs are expected to ensure that California red-legged frog and foothill yellow-legged frog would not be affected by the use of herbicides.
AU-12
The District will determine which BMPs are appropriate for implementing for each maintenance activity. Refer to SMP Appendix G for a discussion on selection of BMPs.
AU - 13
The District will implement an invasive species management program to control the spread of perennial peppergrass and other invasive plants at the Pond A4 Tidal Wetland Restoration site (EIR page VI-8, SMP page 5-5). The program will be detailed in the Operations and Management Plan that will be prepared in association with the mitigation and monitoring plan for the project. It should be recognized, however, that perennial peppergrass is a common plant throughout south San Francisco Bay tidal wetlands, is a significant or even dominant component of brackish marshes in some locations, and is present at some of the sites impacted by routine stream maintenance. Because of its ubiquitous presence in the vicinity of the restoration site, we do not expect to be able to completely exclude the establishment of perennial peppergrass at the site or to be able to eradicate it once it becomes established. Instead, the objective will be to manage the control and spread of perennial peppergrass to a level that corresponds with the success criteria established for the mitigation project.
CDFG-01
The third paragraph on page III-9 of the EIR is revised as follows:
The District is currently negotiating new memorandum of understanding (MOU) planning to negotiate revisions to these MOUs to cover the relevant activities
and locations of work in the Stream Maintenance Program. As a basis for the negotiations, the District has submitted the Joint Aquatic Resource Permit
Application for the San Francisco Bay Area (JARPA) and is requesting the CDFG approval for the SMP be granted for a period of 10 years. This new
MOU will be for a period of five years. At the end of five years, either a new MOU will be executed by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
or the existing MOU will be renewed for another five years, to coincide with the length of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for this project.
CDFG-02
The District concurs. Paragraph three on page IV-B-29 of the EIR is revised as follows:
For species that are listed under both the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA), take authorization under Section 7 of ESA could also suffice for take authorization under CESA, if CDFG finds that the federal permit adequately protects the species. In this case, the District would need to obtain a permit under Section 2080.1(a). This permit would state CDFG concurrence with the measures in the federal Biological Opinion. . .
CDFG-03
The information used in the EIR regarding San Francisco garter snake (SFGS) was from a 1999 report prepared for the District, The Distribution and Status of San Francisco Garter Snake in Santa Clara County (H.T. Harvey and Associates 1999). The report uses historical occurrences, including museum records and published references. Based on this information and as stated in the EIR, the only occurrences of SFGS in Santa Clara County are from the extreme northwestern portion of the county. The report lists four occurrences as follows:
| Record Type | Locality | Date | Source |
| Museum | Palo Alto | 1893-1920 | California Academy of Sciences; Stanford University Collections |
| Museum | 1893-1950 | California Academy of Sciences; Stanford University Collections | |
| Literature Cited | San Francisquito Creek at Junipero Serra Road | 1971-1983 | Barry, S.J. 1994. The distribution, habitat, and evolution of SFGS. Unpubl. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of CA, Davis |
| Literature Cited | Lake Lagunita, Stanford University Campus | 1971-1983 | Barry, S.J. 1994. The distribution, habitat, and evolution of SFGS. Unpubl. M.A. Thesis, Univ. of CA, Davis |
We recognize that these records may not reflect the current population distribution of SFGS since the most recent record is from 1983. As the commenter states, SFGS may now be extirpated from Santa Clara County.
CDFG-04
Under the Fish and Game Code, species designated as Fully Protected may not be taken or possessed at any time. There are no provisions to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to allow take of Fully Protected species, except for necessary scientific research or protection of livestock. "Take" is defined in the Fish and Game Code as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.
California clapper rail and saltmarsh harvest mouse are Fully Protected. The EIR states that the SMP will not cause direct impacts to individual saltmarsh harvest mouse because they are not expected to occur where maintenance activities occur, or to individual California clapper rail because they are not expected to nest where maintenance activities occur (EIR, pages IV-B-89, -97, -103, and -108). Although the SMP may reduce foraging habitat for California clapper rail, this is not considered "take" under the California Fish and Game Code. Loss of habitat is a significant impact under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts for which incidental take permits are required. (see EIR, pages IV-B-28 and -29.) The District will consult with CDFG to ensure that take of Fully Protected species will be prevented.
The following addition is made to the EIR on page IV-B-29 after the third paragraph:
California Fish and Game Code
Species designated as Fully Protected under the Fish and Game Code may not be taken or possessed at any time (Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515). The potential of Fully Protected species to be present within the District's jurisdiction would require an agreement under Section 1802 to prevent take.
See also response to CDFG-27.
CDFG-05
Both numbers on page 2 of Appendix E of the SMP are correct. The miles of streams are 828; however, because each stream has two banks, the miles of bank are approximately 1,650.
CDFG-06
Appendix E of the SMP has been extensively revised. The impact matrices have been modified, a new flow chart for alternative selection has been added and a new section 4.3 has been added. Section 4.3 reads as follows:
Using the bank protection impact assessment matrix to evaluate the environmental impact of bank protection, the District proposes a mitigation ratio of 1:1 by area for impacts or credit according to the assessment in the matrix. In-stream and stream-side impacts are evaluated separately and mitigation or credit are applied to each category. To further reduce the adverse effects of bank protection, the District will mitigate for all impacts for impervious hardscape and for unvegetated rock bank protection at a ratio of 3:1 and for all vegetated rock at a ratio of 1:1 regardless of the determination of the impact assessment matrix. This will account for all direct, potential and cumulative impacts from the bank protection program. All impacts and credits will be measured by area and the ongoing totals will be reported in the annual report. Mitigation for both in-stream and stream-side impacts will consist of revegetation consistent with the Protocol for Revegetation Associated with Use of Impervious Materials for Bank Stabilization in this appendix.
CDFG-07
Comment noted. The matrices have been revised. See new impact matrix following page 8 of Appendix E.
CDFG-08
See response to comment CDFG-06.
CDFG-09
See response to comment CDFG-06.
CDFG-10
See revised BMP 2.8, Replace Heritage Trees.
CDFG-11
The District disagrees that specific planting densities should apply to all revegetation sites and that Dri-water should not be utilized. The District has many years of experience installing revegetation sites along streams. We believe that a standard design including specific planting densities, survival criteria and irrigation methods are not appropriate for all sites. Rather, the District prefers to design revegetation according to the conditions present at each site. In some cases, it is a good strategy to densely install cuttings without irrigation, and even though the survival rate of cuttings may be low, good cover can still be established within a few years. At other locations, the soils, slope, amount of light exposure, competition from weeds, and availability of irrigation may indicate planting of 1-gallon size container plants with intensive weeding and irrigation for 2 years. Natural recruitment of native vegetation also occurs.
The District has provided guidelines for revegetation associated with routine stream maintenance practices in several locations. Guidelines for revegetation associated with bank protection are provided in Appendix E of the SMP. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) provides guidelines for revegetation associated with giant reed control sites. See response to EPA-12 regarding reporting on mitigation sites.
District staff disagrees with CDFG assessment of Dri-Water® as a reliable irrigation system in revegetation projects. The District has used this product successfully on numerous projects and has found success or failure to equate with maintenance of the product as with any other irrigation system.
CDFG-12
See revised BMP 1.2, Tidal Work Areas and 1.3, Dewater/Bypass Water at Non-tidal Sites, in the revised BMP table.
CDFG-13
The text in the BMP table is meant to provide guidance on how BMPs will be used to protect resources but it is not intended to be a manual for installing each specific BMP. In cooperation with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the District is creating a BMP Manual for use in the field that will have detailed descriptions of how a BMP is constructed and maintained to protect a given resource. This more detailed draft field manual is scheduled for completion in fall 2001. If requested, the District will provide the draft version of this manual to CDFG for comment when it becomes available.
See revised BMP 1.8, Handle Sediments so as to Minimize Water Quality Impacts, in revised BMP table.
CDFG-14
See response to SFT-13.
CDFG-15
See revised BMP 1.11, Concrete Use Near Waterways, in revised BMP table.
CDFG-16
See revised BMP 1.12, Groundwater Management, in revised BMP table.
CDFG-17
District concurs with CDFG assessment that new permanent access points would require an individual Streambed Alteration Agreement.
CDFG-18
See revised BMP 2.6, Mulching, and 2.7 Seeding in revised BMP table.
CDFG-19
See response to CDFG-11.
CDFG-20
BMP 3.2, Minimize Impacts to Nesting Birds Via Site Assessments and Avoidance Measures, is not meant to provide specific sizes for buffers due to the variability of both work-sites and avian species. A qualified biologist will evaluate each site and create site-specific buffers to protect the resources that are identified.
CDFG-21
No revision to BMP 3.4, Mitten Crab Control Measures, is recommended because mitten crabs have been found farther south than Metcalf Road, as far south as Anderson Dam on Coyote Creek. The current language of the BMP is believed to provide adequate protection from the spread of mitten crab to areas currently not occupied.
CDFG-22
The District feels that the use of mulch containing allelopathic compounds is appropriate in some situations. Where mulch is being used in a landscape setting as a weed control, the presence of allelopathic compounds is a benefit in achieving the desired outcome. The ecological concern is the use of mulch containing allelopathic compounds in areas that could suppress native volunteers. See revised BMP 2.6, Mulching, in revised BMP table and revised BMP Table 3.9, Retain Woody Materials and Vegetation.
CDFG-23
See revised BMP 3.12, Maintain Low-Flow Fish Passage.
CDFG-24
See revised BMP 3.15, Restore Pool Configuration of Channel Bottom.
CDFG-25
See revised BMP 3.16, Restore Spawning Gravels in Work Site Areas. Sediment that is to be considered for re-use is tested for hazardous materials, pesticides, and structural gradation. Sediments must meet regulatory and environmental guidelines for the type of reuse under consideration. Some of the ways that sediments have been re-used in the past are for manufacture of asphalt products, structural backfill, topping of disposal sites, landscape applications, and in some limited circumstances for creation of wetlands. Sediments that have less than 15% fines may be used for construction of temporary coffer dams in tidal areas. See revised BMP 3.17 , Reuse Sediments and Gravels as Appropriate
CDFG-26
BMP 3.18, Herbicide Use in Aquatic Areas, makes provisions for the use of aquatic herbicides in stream areas. The aquatic herbicide schedule limits work to periods between July 1st and October 15th. It is unlikely that rainfall would occur during this period, and any such occurrence would be summer thunder storms which are not predictable. When summer weather conditions make storms seem likely, applications are not made, since they would not be successful. See revised BMP 3.18, which is revised to prohibit in-stream applications when rain is forecast within 24 hours of the application.
CDFG-27
Lethal rodent control methods include traps as well as rodenticides. Selectivity in the use of any lethal control method, whether trap or poison, relies on differences in the biology of the target and non-target species. For example, traps intended for ground squirrel control can include holes sized to allow the smaller Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (SMHM) to escape. Poison bait for ground squirrels can be placed sufficiently far from tidal marsh areas to reduce the likelihood of SMHM foraging and taking the bait. Such control selectivity is taken into account in the U.S. EPA pesticide protocol cited in the EIR.
The District is committed to abide by the use limitation codes provided by the EPA and CDPR (BMP 3.21, Minimize Rodenticide Impacts on Non-target Species) and follow the approved product specifications (BMP 4.7, Herbicide Use Requirements). The EPA and CDPR guidelines state that use of rodenticides is limited to sites that are separated by at least 10 yards of barren (or clean cultivated) ground from pickleweed habitat or on the inland side of the levee (ULC 34).
The essence of BMP 3.21, is that impacts to the federally protected SMHM will be avoided by a combination of selective rodent control techniques and pre-application site surveys. The qualified biologist required by BMP 3.21, would be an individual who had adequate training to be able to identify potential habitat of the non target animals; the biologist would not necessarily need to handle individual SMHM and hence would not need a take permit under federal Endangered Species Act Section 10 (a). A federal permit is not a measure of qualification. Revised Figure IV-B-11 is included in the list of EIR revisions. See revised BMP 3.21.
Furthermore, to ensure that rodenticides are not used in saltmarsh harvest mouse habitats, the District is mapping potential habitat throughout the Study Area and maintaining a detailed GIS database (see BMP 3.19, Develop a Biodiversity Monitoring Program). At this writing, the District considers potential saltmarsh habitat to include all areas north of Highway 237. As more information is obtained from surveys, rodenticide use may be allowed within this area if the area to be treated is separated by barren ground by at least 10 yards from any potential saltmarsh harvest mouse habitat (vegetated with cordgrass or other halophytic species).
Surveys will be conducted to determine the presence of burrowing owls, and other special-status species, within the District's jurisdiction on an annual basis as stated in BMP 3.19. Surveys for burrowing owls, and other special-status species, in known potential habitat, will be conducted prior to maintenance activities as stated in BMP 3.1, Minimize Impacts to Special-status Plants and Animals Via Site Assessments and Avoidance Measures.
Regarding the use of fumigants, establishing a quarter mile buffer around known burrowing owl locations is more than five times the buffer recommended (250 feet) to avoid impacts in the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (October 17, 1995). We feel that the quarter mile buffer is more than adequate to avoid impacts to burrowing owls from fumigation. The commenter does not provide any justification for increasing the buffer to a half-mile.
The measures to protect burrowing owl are intended to prevent destruction of individuals in burrows. In general, control of rodent populations will indirectly affect burrowing owl because the ground squirrels create the burrows used by the burrowing owl and fewer squirrels would generally mean fewer burrows available to the owls. The purpose of rodent control, however, is precisely to eliminate burrows in levees in order to retain levee structural integrity even though this also minimizes burrowing owl habitat opportunities in the protected areas. Ground squirrel populations are subject to dramatic fluctuations from year-to-year and can be extremely numerous. Eliminating rodent control in order to avoid loss of habitat for burrowing owls could result in a level of damage to channel levees that could lead to failure and hence property damage in the event of a flood. Carcasses will be removed following guidelines provided by EPA and CDPR (ULC 1D). See revised BMP 3.21.
CDFG-28
See revised BMP 6.4, Vehicle and Equipment Fueling. See response to comment CDFG-13 regarding development of a BMP field manual which will provide specific methods.
CDFG-29
Stationary equipment, such as pumps and generators, which cannot be readily moved due to their function, will require servicing in place. If equipment breaks down, some repair work may be necessary in the field until the equipment can be removed to a more secure location. See revised BMP 6.5, Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance.
CDFG-30
Comment noted. See master response regarding alternatives, specifically regarding the designation of the Modified Pajaro River Basin Alternative as the Preferred Alternative which responds to many of these issues. Also see the master response regarding aquatic herbicides for a discussion of the effects of surfactants.
CDFG-31
The District will continue to search for additional suitable sites for freshwater wetland creation (refer to the SMP, page 5-6, paragraph 3). If these are found, the Stream and Watershed Protection element would be reduced. Suitable sites for freshwater creation are likely to be located in the flatter regions of the county below the reservoirs, in the middle and lower watersheds where most maintenance work occurs. Collectively, the District's compensatory mitigation components other than the Stream and Watershed Protection Program, will provide a large amount (169 acres) of mitigation in the lower and middle watersheds, including 59 acres of mitigation in the Giant Reed Control Program in excess of total program acreage impacts (see revised Table II-7 of the EIR).
In addition, the Stream and Watershed Protection Program will not exclude areas in the middle and lower watershed from consideration. However, because of existing urbanization, fewer opportunities for stream and watershed preservation are likely to occur on valley floors. All acquisition, restoration or management projects, regardless of their position in the watershed, will benefit local stream resources by meeting the Stream and Watershed Protection project selection criteria (see the MMRP). The available opportunities will be further evaluated to ensure selection of those parcels and projects that provide the most environmental benefit. Watershed position will be among the priority considerations, with a location in the lower watershed recognized for high value.
Regarding potential recreational use of acquired land, in cases of partnership acquisitions, the District's contribution to an acquisition will stipulate that future land use and management within the mitigation credit area be consistent with the p