Agmt 2006 State Coastal Conservancy

Home

e . 7. Cooperati~D: Existing grantees (landowners and land managers) are happily collaborating in the updating and implementation of the Site-Specific Plans and for pennitting that is being coordinated by the ISP consultants. In addition, coordination with the regulatory agencies is ongoing with regard both to treatment and monitoring activities. CONSISTENCY WITH SAN FRANCISCO BAY PLAN: The Invasive Spartina Project's Control. Program is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Plan, Section entitled "Marshes and Mudflats", Policy 3 (c) (page 9) that states, "the quality of existing marshes should be improved by appropriate measures whenever possible." The main purpose of this project is to remove invasive Spartina'to improve the ,long-term quality of existing marsh habitat in the baylands of the San Francisco Estu~. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA: Activities under this proposed authorization that are associated with monitoring and mapping of invasive Spartina and monitoring the presence and absence of endangered. species are an integral part of the ISP Control Program and provide mitigation required by the Final ProgrammatIc Environmental Impact StatementlEnvironmental Impact Report, San Francisco Estuary InvasiveSpartina Project: Spartina Control Program" (FEISIR). adopted by the Conservancy on September 25,2003 (Exhibit I). Such. ac~ivities were specifically identified by and fully considered in the adopted FEIS/R. No further or subsequent environmental documentation is required under the California' Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As part of the June 16, 2005 ISP staff recommendation (Exhibit 2), the Conservancy authorized initial funding for each of the 23 treatment and eradication projects that are proposed for additional funding under this authorization. As described in the June 16, 2005 staffrecommef!dation, each of these site-specific projects encompassed treatment and eradication over a two-year period - in 2005 and agajn in 2006. The Conservancy's' June 16,2005 authorization included consideration and review of the potential . environmental effects and required mitigation measures for each of the 23 projects, based on which the Conservancy made the finciing under CEQA that the programmatic FEISIR had fully considered the environmental effects assocjated with these site-specific projects and that there were no new mitigation measures required by these projects. The 23 projects for which additional funding is proposed under this authorization have not changed in nature, extent, duration or scope. All that has changed is that additional funds are required to carry out the already approved projects, due to unanticipated economic factors. Since the projects, including potential environmental effects and mitigation measures, remain unchanged, the proposed authorization remains consistent with the CEQA finding adopted by the Conservancy in connection with the June 16, 2005 , authorization. No further environmental documentation is required. 0-10 FY'HtRJ1'