BIO-1.1: Effects on
tidal marsh plant
communities
affected by salt-meadow cordgrass and English cordgrass.

All Alternatives:  Local, short-term minor adverse
effects would be possible because of incidental trampling by crews.

All Alternatives: Minor to moderate adverse impacts could occur
because of damage from vehicles on mats, trampling.

All Alternatives: Minor adverse
effects may occur if geotextile fabric is displaced and damages non-target vegetation. Repeat mowing
or smothering treatments would result in local but persistent trampling damage.

All Alternatives: Not applicable: method not feasible for existing infestation, generally
infeasible for
 potential small infestations in the high salt marsh zone. 

All Alternatives: Not applicable: method not feasible for existing infestation, probably
generally infeasible for potential small infestations of this species; no adverse impact.

Alternatives 1, 3:  Potential local, persistent (to 2-3 year), adverse impact due to spray drift effect on non-target emergent marsh vegetation.

Alternative 2: No impact.

Alternatives 1 & 2:
Eradication of the existing small
regional infestation is likely, resulting in early arrest of spread to regional tidal marshes.  Significant long-term benefit.

Alternative 3:  Short-term benefits of continued uncoordinated contyrol efforts; no long-term benefits.

BIO-1.2: Effects on tidal marsh plant communities affected by Atlantic smooth cordgrass and its hybrids.

Alternative 1: Minor to moderate short-term local adverse impacts due to incidental trampling by crews.

Alternative 2:
Proportionally more use of this method than in Alternative 1, greater impact, but not significant.

Alternative 3:
Less regional use and impact than Alternatives 1 & 2.

Alternative 1:
Minor to moderate
adverse impacts if limited to isolated mudflat colonies: potentially
significant adverse impacts if applied to extensive colonies within existing tidal marsh.

Alternative 2:
Proportionally more regional use of this method than Alternative 1, greater impact, potentially significant.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than
Alternatives 1& 2.

Alternative 1:
Minor adverse
effects may occur
if geotextile fabric is displaced and damages non-target vegetation.  Repeat mowing
or smothering treatments would result in local but persistent trampling damage.

Alternative 2:
Proportionally more use of this method than Alternative 1, greater impact, but not significant.

Alternative 3:
Less regional use of and impact of this method than Alternatives 1 & 2.

Alternative 1:
Potentially
significant short-term (1-3 year) large-scale impacts due to non-selective
eradication caused by impoundment of existing salt marsh vegetation.

Alternative 2:
Proportionally more use of this method than Alternative 1, greater impact.

Alternative 3:
Low or no impact
if used.

Alternatives 1-3A: Local, short-term adverse impacts
to tidal marsh vegetation marginal to burned areas; low potential for inadvertent spread of fire to in tidal marsh vegetation adjacent to smooth cordgrass. Limited potential for use.

Alternative 3:
No impact.

Alternatives 1, 3A: Local, moderately persistent adverse impacts of herbicide spray drift on tidal marsh vegetation adjacent to treated areas could occur from manual and normal helicopter application. Minimal non-target impacts to vegetation could occur from wick/
brush applications.  Significant adverse impacts could occur from worst-case helicopter spray drift.

Alternative 2,

Alternatives 1:
Long-term benefit to regional tidal marsh communities due to arrest of invasion.

Alternatives 2-3: Temporary local benefits from
individual eradication
projects; no long-term or significant benefits.

Alternative 3:  Short-term benefits of continued uncoordinated contyrol efforts; no long-term benefits.

BIO-1.3: Effects on tidal marsh plant communities affected by Chilean cordgrass.

Alternative 1:
Minor to moderate
adverse impacts due to incidental trampling by crews.

Alternative 2:
Proportionally greater use and impact of this method than
Alternative 1, but not significant.

Alternative 3A:
Less trampling impact than
Alternatives 1 & 2.

All Alternatives: Unlikely methods for known infestations of this high salt marsh species.  Local, short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts could occur
because of damage from vehicles on mats, trampling.

Alternatives 1, 3A: Local, short-term minor adverse
effects may occur
if geotextile fabric is displaced and damages non-target vegetation.  Repeat mowing
or smothering treatments would result in local but persistent trampling damage.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact of this method than
Alternative 1, but not significant.

All Alternatives : Not applicable: method not feasible for existing
infestation,
generally infeasible for potential small infestations of this species in the high salt marsh zone. 

All Alternatives: Minor to moderate local and short-term adverse impacts due to marginal impacts to non-target salt marsh vegetation.  Limited applicability of this method for known infestations.

Alternative 1:
Minor to moderate short-term adverse
impact due to spray drift from manual applications.
Helicopter spray probably infeasible for known
infestations of
this species.

Alternative 2:
No impact.

Alternative 1: Probably fastest regional eradication, lowest risk of regional spread. Greatest significant long-term benefit.

Alternatives 2, 3 Possibly slower but feasible regional eradication and arrested spread. Significant long-term benefit.

BIO-1.4: Effects
on submerged aquatic plant
communities.

Alternative 1:
No adverse impact.

Alternatives 2& 3: No impact.

.

Alternative 1:
No adverse impact.

Alternatives 2 & 3: No impact.

All Alternatives: minimal adverse impact. Leaf litter from mowing could raft on high tides and deposit in pans, causing one
growing season of local wigeongrass dieback. Moderate to minor impact.

Alternative 2: No impact.

All Alternatives:
No adverse impact.

All Alternatives:
No adverse impact.

All Alternatives:
No adverse impact.

Alternatives 1-2: Short-term
increases in habitat due to flooding (impoundment) methods in some cases, potentially significant benefits over life of regional program due to prevention of
invasion by smooth cordgrass.

Alternative 3:
No long-term benefits.

BIO-2: Effects on
special-status plants in tidal marshes.

Alternative 1: Local, short-term potentially significant impacts to soft-bird's beak due to incidental trampling or disturbance, only with removal of known saltmeadow and Chilean cordgrass infestations.

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3: Less impact than
Alternative 1 but still significant.

Alternative 1: Local, short-term potentially saignificant impacts to soft-bird's beak due to incidental trampling or disturbance, only with removal of known saltmeadow and Chilean cordgrass infestations.

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3: Less impact than
Alternative 1.

Alternative 1: Local, short-term minor adverse effects may occur if
geotextile fabric (smothering) is displaced and damages soft bird's-beak
populations.
Repeat mowing treatments would result in local but persistent trampling damage; only with removal of known saltmeadow and Chilean cordgrass infestations.

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3: Less impact than
Alternative 1 but still significant.

All Alternatives: This method is unlikely to be
applied to any habitats supporting special-status plants (smooth cordgrass only);
no impact.

All Alternatives: This method is unlikely to be
applied to any habitats supporting special-status plants (smooth cordgrass only);
no impact.

.

Alternative 1:
Potentially
significant adverse impacts to soft bird's-beak, only with removal of known saltmeadow and Chilean cordgrass infestations. (less than
significant with mitigation).

Alternative 2:
No impact.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 1:
Pacific cordgrass likely to avoid
regional extinction; California sea-blite recovery feasibility increased; threats reduced for other rare species; all significant long-term benefits.

Alternatives 2, 3: short- to moderate-term benefits, probably no long-term benefits.

BIO-3: Effects on shorebirds and waterfowl.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local potentially significant disturbance of shorebirds and waterfowl in vicinity of access and treatment areas (slough and mudflat).

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3.
Less impact than
Alternative 1.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local potentially significant disturbance of shorebirds and waterfowl in vicinity of access and treatment areas (slough and mudflat).  Moderate adverse impact.

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than
Alternative 1.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of shorebirds and waterfowl in vicinity of access and treatment areas (slough and mudflat).  Moderate adverse impact.

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than
Alternative 1.

Alternative 1:
If impoundment
requires construction of berms or
inflatable dams, short-term, local disturbance waterfowl of shorebirds

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3: Low or no adverse impact if used.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of shorebirds and waterfowl in vicinity of access and treatment areas (slough and mudflat).  Moderate adverse impact.

Alternative 2: Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than
Alternative 1.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of shorebirds and waterfowl in vicinity of access and treatment areas (slough and mudflat).  Moderate adverse impact.  Potentially
significant impacts if helicopters are used for repeat treatment of large mudflat colonies.

Alternative 2:
No impact.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than
Alternative 1.

Alternative 1:
Long-term region-wide increase or
stabilization and protection of
primary foraging and roosting
habitats in tidal mudflats at key stopover in Pacific flyway. Highly
significant benefit.

Alternatives 2, 3: Relatively short-term (ca. 10 yr) increase of primary foraging and
roosting habitat. Moderate benefit.

BIO-4.1: Effects on the salt marsh harvest mouse and tidal marsh shrew
species.

Alternative 1: Eradication of non-native cordgrass in high marsh may have significant short-term adverse impacts in few locations, but usually minor or none.  Local, short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to incidental trampling or disturbance.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 1: Eradication of non-native cordgrass in high marsh may have significant short-term adverse impacts in few locations, but usually minor or none.  Local, short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to incidental trampling or disturbance.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 1: Eradication of non-native cordgrass in high marsh may have significant short-term adverse impacts in few locations, but usually minor or none.  Local, short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to incidental trampling or disturbance.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 1: Method probably not applicable to high marsh habitat of small tidal marsh mammal species; minor impacts of feasible applications.

Alternative 2:
Proportionally greater, but not significant impacts than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3: Method probably infeasible without regionally coordinated mitigation for scale of wildlife impacts; low or no adverse impact if used.

Alternative 1: Eradication of non-native cordgrass in high marsh may have significant short-term adverse impacts in few locations, but usually minor or none.  Local, short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to incidental trampling or disturbance.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 1: Eradication of non-native cordgrass in high marsh may have significant short-term adverse impacts in few locations, but usually minor or none.  Local, short-term minor to moderate adverse impacts due to incidental trampling or disturbance.

Alternative 2:
No impact.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 1:
Probable long-term, widespread cumulative benefit due to arrest of invasions by non-native cordgrass, protection of habitat.  Significant long-term benefit.

Alternatives 2, 3: Temporary local benefits from individual eradication projects, not long-term or significant (invasion likely to overtake eradication).

BIO-4.2: Effects on resident harbor seal colonies of San Francisco Bay.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of harbor seals in vicinity of a few access and
treatment areas. Potentially significant adverse impacts at a few potential project sites, minor or no impacts at most project sites.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1,
potentially significant.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of harbor seals in vicinity of a few access and
treatment areas. Potentially
significant adverse impacts at a few potential project sites, minor or no impacts at most project sites.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1,
potentially significant.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of harbor seals in vicinity of a few access and
treatment areas. Potentially
significant adverse impacts at a few potential project sites, minor or no impacts at most project sites.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
Less impact than Alternative 1,
potentially significant.

.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of harbor seals in vicinity of a few access and
treatment areas. Potentially
significant adverse impact.  Minor or no impacts at most project sites.

Alternative 2:
Greater impact than Alternative 1.

Alternative 3:
If used, impacts may be significant at a few potential project sites, but minor or no impacts at most sites.

Alternative 1:
Short-term, local disturbance of harbor seals in vicinity of a few access and
treatment areas. Potentially
significant adverse impacts at a few potential project sites, minor or no impacts at most project sites.

Alternativ