Minutes January 19, 2000 Discussion (no quorum):

Discussion began at 5:35 pm with members Richard Izmerian, Tim Frahm, Tom Forest, and Wade Leschyn present. Commission present: Belinda Vega. Gary Lockman and Jerry Hearn arrived later.

Wade announced that members Carroll Ann Hodges, Gloria Purcell, Keith Mangold and Ann Moser, had communicated with him that they would not be able to attend. Members on Leave: Peggy Becket. Members absent: Mary Paglieri.

Total committee membership = 11, minus members on leave = 1. Members required for quorum = 6. Members present = 5.

Meeting will be conducted as informal discussion instead of an official meeting.

Wade spoke about the committee reorganization issue. He said that in the absence of comment back from Supervisor Gordon, that he would like to incorporate some of the concerns raised by the reorganization discussion, and to move forward with the committee business. He said that he would like to dissolve the current streams and wildlife standing subcommittees in favor of a temporary FishNet4C subcommittee which would take a look at what FishNet4C is about and how the current committee could work with staff on developing direction, participation and an internal structure consistent with FishNet4C. Once committee direction is defined, recruitment for appropriately skilled new members can begin, and existing subcommittee committee projects can be reorganized into a new committee structure.

Gary arrived at 5:40 pm. As discussion was already underway on the FishNet4C issue, he passed out a document titled FishNet4C Work Plan. Discussion centered around committee reorganization in light of FishNet4C responsibilities, including the need to change the committee organization, the difference between permanent and single project oriented subcommittees, and committee and staff responsibilities as well as what Supervisor Gordon’s silence on the subject really means.

Jerry arrived at 5:55 pm. He submitted to the committee his draft interdepartmental correspondence from the committee to Supervisor Gordon. He will make some final revisions and submit it to Supervisor Gordon as his personal communication before our next meeting.

Tom commented that a crimp meeting at Stanford he recently attended, involved a similar issue where the Stanford folks were told they needed to take a larger perspective of their lands as watersheds and abandon the species specific planning that has occurred in the past in order to continue develop appropriate general use plans for their properties.

Members Tim and Richard protested the direction the discussion was going, saying we should talk less about committee organization, wait to hear how and if Supervisor Gordon would respond to Jerry’s note, and move forward with committee business. Meanwhile Richard said we should ask Sam to define a list of projects that the committee should be working on in light of FishNet4C.

Belinda asked for an annual report to be submitted from the committee to the commission. The report should include an updated copy of a member list which should include a bio / background and interest statement from each of our committee members. It should also include a list of projects / issues we worked on / discussed in 1999, fine monies which were allocated and or spent in 1999, and how projects and fine money allocations were initiated. Wade will coordinate.

Richard said there was a form / interest survey we filled out some time ago. It included questions on background, affiliations, and interests.

Tim started the discussion on the Trails plan, he discussed fishery issues, particularly the importance of de-emphasising culverts as an acceptable method of crossing streams and how important clear span crossings are to fish migration.

Richard discussed monitoring, he said it is hardly discussed in the Trails plan, and he said it should be emphasized in order to set the standard for specific plans to include monitoring for actual results for the intended goals of specific projects. The idea that assumptions set forth in plans should actually be monitored to find out how they really perform when implemented is crucial to learning from experience and to improve over time the design features of many projects..

Richard also discussed the difficulty of evaluating the rational of a draft program EIR which does a broad brush stroke across all issues of trail management, vs. a specific document for each environment.

Gary said this document will become the standard for trail projects for the future, but this document would not replace site specific trail plans and EIR’s. He said that this sort of planning document could not be geared to be specific sites, that that was beyond the scope of the document and would have made it impossible to produce in any quality, therefore the general programmatic approach was taken. The Trails committee created a pretty good initial document from which staff wanted to move forward with towards a master trails plan or programmatic document which would lay out procedures and requirements for specific project plans and EIR’s for each trail.

Richard asked if a specific project plan could escape specifying specific details of a specific project, by simply writing in the specific plan that the processes or methods used will conform with the master document.

Gary answered that this plan does not preclude further detailed environmental review of specific projects, and in fact such documentation would continue to be required, but this document does answer the need for a county wide trail plan which would support the county master plan.

Richard asked about including minimum standards for enforcement and staffing issues which could find a place in such a plan as this. Stressing the monitoring issue again he said he would like to see an adaptive management component in the trails plan. As an example trail designs in certain types of soil, could be monitored to see if the goal of a stable passable trail as well as revegetation of the surrounding area is accomplished. If it is not then future trail designs are modified.

Is there a trails construction manual?

Not quite as such Gary responded.

Building on Richard’s example of trail erosion, Tim spoke about a soils erosion workshop he recently attended. He said SM County soils are classified by the NRCS National Resource Conservation Service (USDA) as extremely erodeabe (impact 5.3.1), and major erosion in this sort of soil can start by something as small as a cattle path. Trails construction and planning needs to take these potential impacts under consideration.

Richard addressed the Peninsula Management Plan, SM Creek, Pilarcitos Creek in particular, members have made private comments to the appropriate agencies. These concerns have not yet been addressed by the plan, and these issues would fall under FishNet4C.

Richard received a letter from Sam stating that fishery issues in the Pilarcitos or San Mateo Creek watersheds were not addressed in the County’s comments on the Peninsula Watershed Management Plan to be considered at the Board of Supervisors January 25 meeting. He expressed his disappointment. There was no response from SF Water district.

Tim read from the FishNet4C goals section regarding facilitation etc. saying that the County should comment.

Pilarcitos restoration plan includes establishment of a water users group, attempting to come up with methods or reducing water usage while still meeting the needs of agriculture.

Richard said he would hate to see SM County loosing standing, by not commenting on downstream flow issues below the dams. We know steelhead use these streams and tributaries and maintaining enough water in the main stem creek as well as the tributaries, is the law.

Gary said that the County requested a 60 day comment period from the PUC but they refused. County was pushed on a short comment period, and, as indicated in Sam’s note, it is on the Supervisor’s agenda, but without the flow issues included, in the county comments.

Wade discussed the upcoming volunteer sessions: the round table meeting tomorrow night in Foster City, none of tonight’s attending membership will be able to attend: and Saturday’s volunteer recognition event at Coyote Point. Wade, Jerry, Tom, and Richard are all planning on attending.

Other / New business:

Tim commented on the growing impacts of feral pigs in the county... prior to 1998, the average number of pigs killed under depredation permits were none or 1 pigs per year in the county. In 1998 it moved up to 3, and has skyrocketed in 1999 with no end in sight. The growing feral pig population will have a huge impact on county parks.

Richard passed out an announcement of a Educational Conference on SFO Airport Runway Expansion March 4, 2000.

Gary made his staff report. First item was the Kelp issue. Gary received and passed out copies of information on development of an overall Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary Plan which includes a kelp management plan. The Monterey Bay marine sanctuary includes the San Mateo coast to the north end of the county.

Next item was the Fitzgerald Master plan. Staff has sent a letter to Ted Lempert requesting funding to study impacts and classification of fisheries at the reserve, addressing one of the committee’s concerns (and other public input which echoed the same concern) regarding data collection of fishery impacts in the area before recommendations are made. March is projected for the return of the commented document.

Trails draft revised EIR (with comments) is expected out in February.

San Bruno Mountain Master Plan third administrative draft is out for revision, expected back probably in March.

Alpine road, no policy in place. Homeowners are in limbo, the County is still trying to preserve their interests in the trail easement. The Park Commission’s recommendation to not vacate the county interest in the property was forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

Wade mentioned that Chris Fisher had expressed interest at the last of our meetings she attended in submitting a request for monies to fund monitoring efforts for some of their stream restoration work. Jerry said request forms are in the green binder.

Tom mentioned that several corporate foundations are looking for environmental projects to fund. Gary commented that a good deal of the current planning going on within the county is designed to be able to generate proposals and documentation to be able to compete for just this sort of funding.

Note: Annual Park passes given out at the November meeting have been mailed to all members who were not in attendance at the November meeting.

meeting ended at 7:38.

Respectfully submitted,
acting secretary Wade Leschyn