Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20040922 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 04-20 Regional Open Sp.ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (:E1.1,'BRA'IANG 30 YF-ARS 0f; OPEN SPA(A-, PIZI-ISIARVAFmN Meeting 04-20 REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, September 22, 2004 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,California AGENDA* Please Note: 6:30 p.m. Closed Session Special Meeting Start Time 7:30 p.m. Regular Meeting Start Time 6:30 ROLL CALL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT—CLOSED SESSION The Closed Session will begin at 6:30 p.m. At the conclusion of the Closed Session, the Board will adjourn the Special Meeting Closed Session to the Regular Meeting, and, at the conclusion of the Regular Meeting, the Board may reconvene the Special Meeting Closed Session. I. Conference with Legal Counsel—Anticipated Litigation, Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to California Government Code § 54956.9(b); one potential case 2. Conference with Legal Counsel—Existing Litigation, California Government Code § 54956.9(a) Name of Case-Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation v. San Mateo County LAFCo, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, San Mateo County Superior Court Case No. CIV 439808 7:30* REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—Public ADOPTION OF AGENDA—M. Davey ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR—M. Davey ADOPTION OF MINUTES—July 28, 2004 BOARD BUSINESS 7:40* 1 Authorization to Enter into a Consulting Agreement for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 with a Consultant to Provide Public Involvement Process Planning and Facilitation Services for Amending District's Good Neighbor Policy; Authorize General Manager to Negotiate and Enter into a Contract with a Consultant for an Amount Not to Exceed $25,000—R. Jurgensen 7:50* 2 Settlement of Litigation For Natural Resource Damage Liability From Mercury Contamination in the Guadalupe River Watershed, Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve; Approve and Authorize Execution by the President or other Appropriate Officer of the Proposed Consent Decree to Settle Pending Litigation for Natural Resource Damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,and Liability Act("CERCLA")—D. Simmons 33o Distel Circle 650-691-i2oo info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nanette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Meeting 04-20 Page 2 8:00* 3 Approval of Application to Habitat Conservation Fund Program for Assistance with the Potential Addition of the Peninsula Open Space Trust's Rapley Ranch Property to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve(San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 078-210-370 and 080-320-170 and); Determine that Recommended Action is Exempt from CEQA; Adopt Resolution Approving Application for Grant Funds for the Local Agency Grant Program under Habitat Conservation Fund Program of the California Wildlife Protection Action of 1990—D. Woods 8:05* 4 Approval of Application to Habitat Conservation Fund Program for Assistance with the Potential Addition of the Arroyo Leon Property to Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve(San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 066-140-080,090, -100 and—110); Determine that Recommended Action is Exempt from CEQA;Adopt Resolution Approving Application for Grant Funds for the Local Agency Grant Program for the Potential Addition—D. Woods 5 Confirmation of Special Meetings of the Board of Directors to Implement the Processes Set Out in the District's Resolutions Fulfilling LAFCo's Conditions of Approval of the Annexation of the Coastside Protection Area for October 20,2004 Beginning at 5:00 p.m. at the District Office, Los Altos; October 21, 2004 Beginning at 7:00 p.m. at a Location to be Determined; October 25, 2004 Beginning at 6:30 p.m. at the District Office, Los Altos;November 4, 2004 Beginning at 7:00 p.m. at a Location to be Determined;and November 9,2004 beginning at 7:00 p.m. at the District Office, Los Altos (Dates,Times and Locations of all Special Meetings will be Subsequently Publicly Noticed)—C. Woodbury 6 Amendment to Resolution No. 04-13 Delegating Responsibility for Screening Ombudsperson Applications to the Legislative, Finance and Public Affairs Committee—C. Woodbury 7 Resolution Supporting Proposition I A on the November Ballot—E. Cuzick REVISED CLAIMS 7:50* INFORMATIONAL REPORTS—Brief reports or announcements concerning pertinent activities of District Directors and Staff. CLOSED SESSION CONTINUED(IF NECESSARY) 8-.00* ADJOURNMENT TIMES ARE ESTIMATED AND ITEMS MAY APPEAR EARLIER OR LATER THAN LISTED.AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OF ORDER. TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately,you may comment to the Board by a written communication, which the Board appreciates. All items on the consent calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board members, the General Manager, and members of the public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,PLEASE CONTACT THE DISTRICT CLERK AT(650)691-1200. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE DISTRICT TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING. Regional Open Sptce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT t 1I.fA,RAiI°` G �O Y1,,A.16 OF OPFN SPA(;L PRLSERVA"FION Meeting 04-16 SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETINGS BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 28, 2004 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING I. ROLL CALL President Mary Davey called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Deane Little (arrived at 7:25 p.m.), Ken Nitz, Pete Siemens, and Mary Davey Members Absent: Nonette Hanko Staff Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, Sally Thielfoldt, Mike Williams, Del Woods, Tom Fischer IL CLOSED SESSION M. Davey stated that the Board would adjourn to Closed Session. The Board recessed to Closed Session at 6:35 p.m. and the Closed Session commenced at 6:35 p.m. The Board concluded the Closed Session at 7:35 p.m. REGULAR MEETING III. M. Davey called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. She announced that the Board had met in Closed Session and that no reportable actions had taken place. Additional Staff Present: Kirk Lenington, Paul McKowan, Cathy Woodbury, Rudy Jurgensen, John Maciel, Matt Freeman IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—There were none. V. ADOPTION OF AGENDA 33o Distel Circle 650-697-12oo info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-048S fax www.openspace.org Deane tittle,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Meeting 04-16 Page 2 Board members agreed to move Agenda Item 3 to the beginning of Board Business. Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the agenda. P. Siemens seconded and the motion passed 6 to 0. VI. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Staff answered questions regarding Claims as follows: #1262, Environmental Science Associates — staff will return with the answer; #1264, Fenton Communications — preparation of article and information for brochure, stories for media; #1255, EAP stands for Employee Assistance Program; #1274, services of District auditor. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including Revised Claims 04-11. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. VII. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 3 - Authorization to Contract with Balance Hydrologics, Inc. to Provide In-Stream Sediment Monitoring Services at El Corte de Madera Creek Open Space Preserve; Authorize General Manager to Contract with Balance Hydrologics, Inc. in the Amount of $56,464.00 Plus a Contingency of $5,646.00, for a Total Authorization Amount Not to Exceed $62,110.00—(Report R-04-03). C. Britton and Board Members commented on their conversations with Robert Zatkin concerning this item. K. Lenington introduced Jonathan Owens, consultant, who talked about the methods they would use to document ECDM Creek sedimentation. Following an inventory of existing creek conditions and sediment sources, they will choose locations for the V Star technique. He described that technique. He said once they get the data, they can compare pool to pool, creek to creek, and year to year. He explained why they do not measure the size of particles, noting that they do not think it is an important factor in this location. He talked about situations where they might measure size. K. Lenington said that during the second year they will be measuring sediment transport during storms. They will be training staff to perform monitoring tasks. J. Owens showed charts of data collected from San Jose, Potrero and San Clemente Creeks. He told Board Members that they could share the information gathered with other agencies if they wanted to. K. Lenington 1 Meeting 04-16 Page 3 commented that the District information will be very valuable to the watershed as a whole. J. Owens said ideally trails should be less than 10 percent in grade and as narrow as possible to lessen erosion. He explained why they recommend out sloping of trails. L. Hassett said the goal of the study is to measure sediment content and evaluate how well the District is doing at reducing sediment through restoration. J. Owens said they will probably put three flow measurement devices in the streams. P. Siemens asked if the devices would be permanent and added that if the District is going to train staff, they need to have their own instruments. i J. Owens said they had considered La Honda Preserve as a control. C. Britton said he would like to see if there is an opportunity for volunteers to take over some of the monitoring tasks. K. Lenington said the first year, they would focus on establishing V Star. The second year, they would begin measuring flow and sediment transport. Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board authorize the General Manager to contract with Balance Hydrologics, Inc. in the amount of $56,142.00 plus a contingency of $5,614.00, for a total authorization amount not to exceed $61,756.00. K. Nitz seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. C. Britton requested that Board Members go through staff rather than contactingthe consultant directly. Y K. Lenington said the grassland work study session would probably be held within the next month or two. B. Agenda Item No. 1 — Approve Recommendations From the Legislative, Finance and Public Affairs Standing Committee for Appointing an Ombudsperson in Conformity with San. Mateo County Local Agency Commission Condition No. 6 Proposed San Mateo County Coastal Protection Program: Description of Roles and Duties; Desired Qualification Criteria; Volunteer Status with Reimbursement for Approved Expenditures; Term of Appointment (One Year); Proposed Application—(Report R-04-74). Meeting 04-16 Page 4 C. Britton reviewed the report. He said this person would step in when an issue cannot be resolved by Board or staff members. He talked about reporting. J. Cyr suggested a review of the process at the end of the year to see if it is working. S. Thielfoldt talked about her experience as an ombudsperson. S. Schectman said this is an additional resource and in no way changes or interferes with the Board's interaction with constituents. LAFCo wants to see a supplementary process where there would be a neutral person who could assist staff in working things out with a citizen. P. Siemens suggested changing the final paragraph under Duties of Ombudsperson to read, "Provides a written summary of citizen concerns as requested by the Board of Directors." He also suggested they might want to appoint more than one person. J. Cyr stressed that they need to keep in mind that the Board has an obligation to appoint a person within 60 days of approval. Following discussion of compensation, S. Schectman assured the Board that that would be addressed in any employment contract. n moved that the Board adopt the Rol es and Motion: P. Siemens o p Duties of the Ombudsperson with the last paragraph under Duties of Ombudsperson amended to read, "Provides a written summary of citizen concerns as requested by the Board of Directors"; the Desired Qualification Criteria of the Ombudsperson; and the Ombudsperson Application form; approve that the Ombuds erson be an unpaid pP p P position, under contract with the Board of Directors, with reimbursement for authorized expenses, that the term of appointment be one year, and that the appointee be a registered voter within the boundaries of the District; direct that the process be assessed at the end of a year. D. Little seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. C. Agenda Item No. 2 - Proposed Addition of Neville Property to Kennedy- Limekiln Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve (Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 558-33-003)• Determine Recommended Actions are Categorically Exempt from CEQA; Adopt Resolution Authorizing_ Purchase of Neville Property,• Tentatively Adopt the I Preliminary Use and Management Plan Recommendations and Naming the Property as an Addition to the Kennedy-Limekiln Area of Sierra Azul Meeting 04-16 Page 5 Open Space Preserve; Indicate Your Intention to Dedicate the Property as Public Open Space at This Time—(Report R-04-73). D. Woods showed pictures of the property and located it on a map. C. Britton provided background information on the grant application and the reason the money had to be used for this acquisition. Motion: K. Nitz moved that the Board determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as set out in the staff report; adopt Resolution No. 0427, Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Authorizing Acceptance of Bid for Purchase of Real Property and Purchase Agreement, Authorizing General Manager to Execute Acquisition Funding Agreement, Authorizing Officer to Execute Memorandum of Agreement and the Certificate of Acceptance of Grant to District, and Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Transaction (Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve - Lands of Neville); tentatively adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations contained in the staff report and naming the property as an addition to Kennedy-Limekiln Area of Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve; and indicate their intention to dedicate the property as public open space at this time. L. Hassett seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. D. Agenda Item No. 4 - Recap of California Park and Recreation Society Presentation on Volunteers and the Internet — P. McKowan — (Report R- 04-71). P. McKowan summarized the 2-1/2 hour presentation he made at the CPRS conference, including information about the use of e-mail, the Web site, on-line forms, and voice mail and cell phones. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS P. Siemens: 1. C. Britton informed him that staff had responded to the letter from Scott McQueen. P. Siemens requested that copies of the letter be sent to the Board. 2. The Los Gatos elementary school board had contacted him regarding the possibility of tapping into the water system on District land in order to install sprinklers as part of the remodel of Lexington School. They will be sending a letter to the District. Meeting 04-16 Page 6 J. Cyr: 1. He referred to an article from the Sierra Club newsletter. 2. He and his nephew did a ride-along with J. Lloyd on July 19. L. Hassett: 1. He talked about the South Skyline picnic. 2. There was discussion of controlled burns at the South Skyline Board meeting. 3. He asked about the trucks parked on District land. J. Maciel responded that they have a permit and there will be an exchange of services. They are trimming the trees along the power lines on Skyline. M. Davey: 1. She attended the court hearings in the Coastal Program litigation. The ruling is expected August 6. 2. She appreciated staff sending the clippings by way of e-mail instead of using a lot of paper. 3. She attended the Hidden Villa event honoring Judith Steiner. They have appointed a new executive director. 4. The Land Trust Rally will be in October and she will not be able to attend. She asked about the possibility of trading with another Board Member in the coming year. C. Britton said that would be up to the new president. D. Little: 1. Regarding the previously mentioned policy, he thought it would be a good idea if the unused $300 could be rolled over from year to year. The Board concurred that the Budget Committee will examine the policy. 2. He had noticed several mountain lion sightings and thought it might be a good idea to change the signs to more clearly indicate the important of parents keeping small children close to them. C. Woodbury reported that those changes are in the works. 3. He had an invitation to an event featuring families who lost members in Iraq. K. Nitz: 1. He hiked four preserves in five hours last Saturday. He noticed that the acacia is coming back. J. Maciel said it will be taken out. 2. He described a large animal that he saw going into the bushes. 3. He thanked staff for putting up the sign regarding work to be done at ECDM. C. Woodbury said staff is developing a sign program regarding upcoming work. 4. He liked the new colored maps at the trailheads. 5. He asked that staff check into what will be done to prevent a recurrence of the mudslide at Pulgas. 6. S. Thielfoldt answered his questions regarding the class specification for the Maintenance, Construction and Resource Supervisor position. D. Little said he had noticed an area at Russian Ridge where there are a lot of dead oak trees. He asked that they look into whether it is Sudden Oak Death. He added that the star thistle is present. J. Cyr referred to the Monthly Field Activity Report and asked where the swimming incidents took place. Staff will provide that information. C. Britton: 1. He talked about the Judith Steiner event. 2. The toilet paper problem at Black Mountain was caused by animals getting into a pit toilet. Hidden Villa staff cleaned it up. 3. He passed around ajar of yellow star thistle Meeting 04-16 Page 7 honey. 4. The Hidden Villa 2004 Humanitarian Awards are scheduled for September 18. 5. The Monterey Regional Park District is doing a mail ballot assessment district. 6. There was information in the clippings about a donation received by POST. 7. His home in Los Altos was one of 1,800 to receive an auto phone call about a mountain lion sighting in the area. S. Schectman said she had given Board Members a packet containing the pleadings in the Coastal Program court case. She said she would keep the Board posted, and things are happening very quickly. C. Woodbury provided an update on the ECDM Watershed Protection Program. The project has gone out to bid. ROMP volunteers are re-aligning the Bluebonnet Trail, and several workers will be re-aligning the Crossover Trail. S. Thielfoldt: 1. Staff will look at streamlining the process for Board Members to report meeting attendance. 2. She provided an update on training. There had been a safe driver class and a substance abuse seminar for supervisors. 3. The three incumbents are the only ones who have taken out papers for the upcoming election. j i J. Maciel reported that the Russian Ridge burn had been postponed, probably until September. IX. ADJOURNMENT At 10:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary i Regional Open Spice R-04-93 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 04-20 CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION September 22,2004 AGENDA ITEM I AGENDA ITEM Authorization to Enter into a Consulting Services Agreement for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 with a Consultant to Provide Public Involvement Process Planning and Meeting tion Services for Amending the District's Good Neighbor Policy GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION 1. Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and enter into a contract with a qualified consultant to help design the Good Neighbor Policy amendment process and provide meeting facilitation services. 2. Reappropriate $25,000 in funds from Category 8102(Land Acquisition)of the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget and transfer this sum into Category 5206-37(Planning Consultant)of the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget for this purpose. DISCUSSION One of the conditions of LAFCo's approval of the District's Coastside Protection Program calls for the District to initiate, within a 60-day period following recordation of the Certificate of Completion, a plan to amend the District's existing Good Neighbor Policy. The District would benefit from working with a consultant to design an inclusive public involvement process as part of amending the Good Neighbor Policy. The goal of this process would include establishing avenues for two-way communication between the District and its constituents in order to begin creating an atmosphere of openness and trust in which positive relationships can be developed, and facilitating meetings to fulfill this goal. This matter was discussed with your Legislative, Finance and Public Affairs Committee(LFPAC)at a public meeting of September 16, 2004 and they support the hiring of a consultant as recommended. Through initial interviews with both Board members and key constituents, a consultant would be in a unique position to learn about the genuine opinions of constituents that are important for the District to know in order to draft policies that are truly responsive to the needs of residents as a part of the Good Neighbor Policy. Based on District staff interviews and a review of consultant qualifications, a consultant would be chosen who is familiar with state-of-the-art public involvement processes, as well as the work of government agencies, nonprofits and stakeholders in the g mid peninsula region. The consultant would then develop a public involvement process P including the format and frequency of workshops and meetings. Staff will then return to the Board with a proposed calendar to develop good neighbor policies. Prepared by: Rudy Jurgensen, Public Affairs Manager Contact person: Same as above 33o Distel Circle 650-6gi-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,led Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Honko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton 6: f Regional Open Spa.:e MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-04-89 CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION Meeting 04-20 September 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Settlement of Litigation For Natural Resource Damage Liability From Mercury Contamination in the Guadalupe River Watershed, Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve GENERAL COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS �L� % C t Approve and Authorize Execution b the President or other A ro Hate fficer ���� PP Y pp p , o✓�t11�'P� hed Proposed Consent Decree, or a Consent Decree Substantially Similar in Content, Terms and Conditions, to Settle Litigation for Natural Resource Damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act("CERCLA") and Further Authorize Execution of Any and All Other Documents Appropriate for the Close of this Transaction. DISCUSSION In April of 2001, the District was notified by the California Department of Fish and Game (on its own account and on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, together, the "Trustees")that it was a Potentially Responsible Party(a"PRP") for historic mercury contamination of the Guadalupe River watershed. CERCLA is a strict liability statute meaning that legal responsibility may be based solely on ownership of polluted property. The District was invited to join with other, previously identified PRPs (including public agencies City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, and Santa Clara Valley Water District as well as private parties Sunoco, Waste Management and Myers Industries) in an on-going cooperative effort to resolve the matter without resort to full-scale litigation. The Trustee's initial estimate of historic resource damage was approximately$40,000,000.00. Strong analysis and able argument by the technical and scientific experts retained by the various PRPs resulted in a significant revision by the Trustees of their initial damage assessment. Difficulties encountered in arriving at a meaningful quantification of both historic and on-going resource damages,.and reservations by the PRPs of various challenges to the asserted linkage between mercury contamination and human health, ultimately led to a proposal (by the District's outside counsel)that the process move beyond damage assessment to potential settlement scenarios involving projects to be undertaken by the PRPs. This shift in emphasis proved decisive and cooperative efforts thereafter were directed at developing project proposals that would provide demonstrably greater long-term resource benefits than even the highest damage estimates. The projects agreed upon by the PRPs and the Trustees are (1)the removal of the Hillsdale Bridge in the City of San Jose and related channel improvements, (ii)Arundo donax(a highly invasive, non-native species of giant reed) removal and related waterway and stream bank improvements at Coyote Creek, (iii) calcine stabilization and removal from Alamitos Creek and Jacques Gulch above Almaden Reservoir, and(iv)predator control at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. Only the latter project is the District's responsibility under the proposed settlement 33o Distel Circle 650-6gi-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hossett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Regional Open Space R-04-89 Meeting 04-20 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT September 22, 2004 CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVA'FION AGENDA ITEM 2 AGENDA ITEM Settlement of Litigation For Natural Resource Damage Liability From Mercury Contamination in the Guadalupe River Watershed, Sierra Azul Open Spac reserve GENERAL COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATIONS Approve and Authorize Execution by the President or other appropriate officer of the attached Proposed Consent Decree to Settle Litigation for Natural Resource Damages under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") DISCUSSION In April of 2001, the District was notified by the California Department of Fish and Game (on its own account and on behalf of the U.S. Department of the Interior, together, the "Trustees") that it was a Potentially Responsible Party (a"PRP") for historic mercury contamination of the Guadalupe River watershed. CERCLA is a strict liability statute meaning that legal responsibility may be based solely on ownership of polluted property. The District was invited to join with other, previously identified PRPs (including public agencies City of San Jose, Santa Clara County, and Santa Clara Valley Water District as well as private parties Sunoco, Waste Management and Myers Industries) in an on-going cooperative effort to resolve the matter without resort to full-scale litigation. The Trustee's initial estimate of historic resource damage was approximately $40,000,000.00. Strong analysis and able argument by the technical and scientific experts retained by the various PRPs resulted in a significant revision by the Trustees of their initial damage assessment. Difficulties encountered in arriving at a meaningful quantification of both historic and on-going resource damages, and reservations by the PRPs of various challenges to the asserted linkage between mercury contamination and human health, ultimately led to a proposal (by the District's outside counsel) that the process move beyond damage assessment to potential settlement scenarios involving projects to be undertaken by the PRPs. This shift in emphasis proved decisive and cooperative efforts thereafter were directed at developing project proposals that would provide demonstrably greater long-term resource benefits than even the highest damage estimates. The projects agreed upon by the PRPs and the Trustees are (i)the removal of the Hillsdale Bridge in the City of San Jose and related channel improvements, (ii)Arundo donax (a highly invasive, non-native species of giant reed) removal and related waterway and stream bank improvements at Coyote Creek, (iii) calcine stabilization and removal from Alamitos Creek and Jacques Gulch above Almaden Reservoir, and (iv) predator control at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve. Only the latter project is the District's responsibility under the proposed settlement 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Honko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton ® s�.r"g i (see Consent Decree, Paragraph 10 at page 11). Due to the very high resource benefit for the endangered Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris) accruing from the predator control project, the District's participation in the settlement has been a critical factor. The ro i p posed predator control project is similar to the one the Board approved on April 28, 2004 (see Report R-04-48) that has been funded for three ears b Aventis at the direction of Y the Y Regional Water Quality Control Board. The actual control is carried out b the program Y De Department p of Agriculture, Wildlife Services under various contracts, throughout the South Bay. Our Ravenswood Preserve constitutes a small, but extremely important, gap in the efforts to reduce predation of the sensitive marsh avian populations. Restoration of tidality(funded by Aventis) to the Marsh in December 2001, has led to creation of additional habitat suitable for colonization by Clapper Rails migrating north from the Palo Alto Baylands (formerly known as the Faber-Laumeister Tract.) The specifics of the District obligation under the Consent Decree are to permit and fund five additional years of predator control at Ravenswood Open Space Preserve and to consent to recordation of a memorandum of the Decree, essentially a deed restriction, on the District's fee title containing the statement, "the referenced Decree requires that Ravenswood Marsh shall be maintained, in perpetuity, as open space and habitat for the Clapper Rail." The annual cost of the program is currently$11,000, for a total commitment over the life of the project expected to be $55,000. Consistent with District budgetary constraints, staff will work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the US Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services so that our contract Ym a ents maximize the efficacy th e h P o predator control program already underway with the Aventis funding. Attached to this Agenda Item is the formal Notice Pursuant to CERCLA §113(g) of the Trustee's intent to commence liti anon. This Notice follo wed b th e film f g y g o a complaint, necessarily � recedes the entry of the subject Consent t Decree in the United t Y Sates Distric t ct Court to settle the � NRDA litigation. If approved by all parties,the Consent Decree will be entered into the under the aegis of the United States District Court to fully settle liabilities of the settling entities subject only to performance of their individual project obligations. The Trustees are entitled under CERCLA to seek to recover their costs of investigation and enforcement. In the settlement proposed, the Trustees will seek to recover such costs from PRPs who are not parties to it. This involves various corporate entities that have succeeded to the interests (assets and liabilities) of the various companies that were the last to be active in local mercury mining and processing (generally occurring duringWorld War II . Settling PRPs are entitled to see "contribution" ) g k contribution from the non-settling PRPs, and it is likely that the private parties will pursue this course. The District would be eligible for a portion of any such recovery although it is unlikely to be a significant sum, and might well involve additional legal expenses to achieve. If such an opportunity arises, the Board will be fully briefed and given the chance to consider whether or not to join in the action for contribution. To date, the Board has authorized expenditures for technical assistance in the amount of $110,000.00 and for outside legal counsel in the amount of$120,000.00. Actual invoiced expenses so far are $98,270.81 for technical expertise and $ 109,913.42 for legal advice and representation. Technical support is no longer required and outside counsel billing will be minimal for the remaining tasks associated with finalizing this settlement. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Project Description The project consists of approval of a Consent Decree that requires the District to contract for, and provide five years of funding of, an on-going control to eliminate tar program get non-native predators from Ravenswood Marsh. The project also includes the deed restriction encumbering fee title to Ravenswood Marsh with the requirement that it be maintained, in perpetuity, as open space and habitat for the Clapper Rail. NEPA Determination In March of 1991, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prepared the San Francisco National Wildlife Refuge Predator Management Plan and Final Environmental Assessment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). As a result of this process, the USFWS filed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) after determining that implementation of the predator control plan would not significantly affect the environment. CEQA Determination The District finds, based on the available information, that the project is exempt under Sections 15301(i), 15304(d), 15317, and 15325 of the CEQA guidelines: Section 15301(i) exempts maintenance of wildlife habitat areas to protect wildlife resources; Section 15304(d) exempts minor alterations of land, water and vegetation on existing designated wildlife management areas and which result in the improvement of habitat for wildlife resources; Section 15317 exempts acceptance of easements in order to maintain the open space character of the area; and Section 15325 exempts transfers of ownership of interests in land to preserve open space and habitat resources. i Prepared by and Contact Person: Duncan M. Simmons Attorney Exhibits: A- Map of Ravenswood Open Space Preserve B - Notice Pursuant to CERCLA §113(g) C - Consent Decree 3 RAVENSWOOD OPEN SPACE #RESERVE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT I/'x'^ 4 -i�' z<�,E' a�,p , � �"i..r"�1M§- 2.7P, r,l use F7 xr�si St - N ���1 �� �t� �r` sg ���a��� �i 4 ?l�`f�����`hr ����t}� "► „. i.r"Ug2"C+. 4 I I`�S ° i'+�-t f�. ,. +:j sq..'f+-re?mot^ ,I• r�� r, ,�sq..� 'lei - t :v Ir��rT�Krrr xY`� t rct +1 E� in dttf� �vx a u >I rt t r 21 Si a r ;l" r•a I?` yr } t' k T s e'rt� r ' hg c, r .ti�a l r' 1$}; �9. � • �E Sj d;"�'�k� g`rY,.hlSytf� ,Q��.:r x'f r 3�.. �' , «4 I� st 1.cj S DON EDWARDS SAN FRANCISCO BAY - i ys - y � •tt..�7s' �<"; � . c ls,�r{�, `.-� ,r NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Y9'�r�414.» rr 8 '`'N`f'C $a'•'`.' ,+4- / +.:._• � . �r r-�y'� y�- s,] as :a `,,�r.�' ,y�,.��£''+��,f_ � :.t Y.7 �i 4411EI�';. qv CF i DON EDWARDS I = , .,xr. ;� � i. Map Legend r 1 $AN FRANCISCO BAY t NATIONAL WILDLIFE REF GE 1 - I'�ttvs'143 I f ( S p ".(RW02) S ' Gd1e(#S) Ir� Trail Distance in Mies i { 1.SAN MATED COUNTY�L A li S'� x ! �� -� BAYLANDS RESERVE ♦ e a �{ (1 ♦ / { `I{ / Y Pr 1eserve Boundary 1 tix ♦ � r r s - Vehicle Parking Lot SALT EV APORATORS ' r Nature Center Whole Access Trail ti Subject of t� { Right-of-Entry r d / Permit Point of interest RAVENS, OOD © PENS PACE y`PRESERVE El ENE'0 BARK$ °G'� 'k \♦ '... Other Public Lands `♦ Cool y Landing �.: rr ',•� � -. - :.� Marsh 7 a No Public Entry yBNATUREs eu.AYLAN r.wte o.te t.ne, ,�, -»; +^� '�g• .x.,Rr i ,r �-+-PRESERVE-Y- For trail information,refer to a Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve trail map. h _ Trail Use ��C k+✓ nP.�t It,' L � £.W _ - � i' , � � Bay Trail * w .01 r: : .>, a1t `r .,� • _ W,� _.,, Hiking,Bicycling r /• Note: �.`+.,y+,� {"""•ur',1, r�i'c :Z a} ,� * �r� ,,f s- �' c 1 / Palo Alto \\ '6ayland fvafure d Dogs are not _i" Imerprer a CenterA4 allowed on 'v "`„' t^r r ,�a`#o-',rt •P.fS 'I`E E u i;. " Paln Alto ` this preserve. �? .7 z'�wa'+Wd E ��+, 'Sx- . t +�. •; �_ � M ma 1 ♦ �r � �'�(y�����`.yy a bt�.�a �"n•wy� �ac�S� � ColiCoupe Y ♦� . �' '.,. EXHIBIT A' 0.0 t .2 .a .a .s .6 .7 .B .9 1.0 One Mile IT Oor ova "yp United States Department of the Interior $ OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR Phone: (510)817-1460 ._ aA Pacific Southwest Region Fax: (510)419-0143 M'4RCH s +� San Francisco Field Office 1111 Jackson Street,Suite 735 Oakland,California 94607 June 24 , 2004 Mr. David Cooke Ms. Mollie Dent Attorney at Law Sr. Deputy City Attorney Allen,Matkins, Leck, Gamble &Mallory LLP City of San Jose 333 Bush Street, Suite 1700 151 W. Mission San Francisco, CA 94101-2806 San Jose, CA 95110 On behalf of Myers Industries,Inc. and On behalf of the City of San Jose Buckhorn,Inc. Mr. Todd Maiden Mr. Robert L. Falk Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Seyfarth Shaw Morrision&Foerster LLP 101 California Street, Suite 2900 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5858 San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 On behalf of Guadalupe Rubbish On behalf of Santa Clara Valley Water Disposal Company, Inc. District Mr. Gerald George Mr. Thomas Trapp Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Campbell, George, & Strong, LLP Barg, Coffin, Lewis & Trapp 180 Grand Ave. # 950 One Market Oakland, CA 94612-3771 Steuart Tower, Suite 2700 On behalf of Santa Clara County San Francisco, CA 94015-1475 On behalf of Midpeninsula Regional Open Mr. Thomas Haines Space District Senior Counsel Sunoco Inc. Mr. Andrew Kenefick 1801 Market St. Waste Management Inc. Philadelphia, PA 19103 n ' 801 2d Ave. Suite 614 On behalf of Sunoco,Inc. 1 Seattle, WA 98104 On behalf of Waste Management Inc. and related entities Re: Notice Pursuant to CERCLA § 1131gh Almaden Quicksilver Mine/Guadalupe River Watershed, Santa Clara County, California Dear Counsel; The United States Department of the Interior("DOP"), as represented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS"), and the State of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1 have been conducting a Na _al Resource Damage Assessment ("NRDA") regarding the above referenced location under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et sec.. ("CERCLA"). This NRDA has been to determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources from the release of mercury to the environment, and the appropriate and necessary restoration actions and compensation for those injured resources. DOI and CDFG are natural resource trustees ("trustees") duly designated under CERCLA and in their trustee capacity identified your clients as potentially responsible parties for natural resource damages under CERCLA. As you know, the trustees and your clients have been engaged in a cooperative NRDA. By this letter each of your clients is hereby formally notified,pursuant to CERCLA § 113(g), that DOI, subject to final approval of the United States Department of Justice, intends to bring suit to recover natural resource damages, "including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury..." CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(C). Thank you for agreeing to acknowledge service of this Notice on behalf of your respective clients. Please indicate that this Notice has been duly delivered by signing below and returning it to me. If you have any questions regarding this Notice and its contents please contact me at (510)817-1461. Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Charles McKinley Assistant Field Solicitor cc: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Fish and Game The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of Notice pursuant to CERCLA § 113(g) on behalf of the party(ies) identified. V/1 Date: d4—ut. Z s, 200 4 16 cr7 On behalf of: �"ld,��ritsy/ti fZc�.:+�� O S.oace 40,'Jfve-r- i have been conducting a Natural Resource Damage Assessment ("Nk_ .'') regarding the above referenced location under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq. ("CERCLA"). This NRDA has been to determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources from the release of mercury to the environment, and the appropriate and necessary restoration actions and compensation for those injured resources. DOI and CDFG are natural resource trustees ("trustees") duly designated under CERCLA and in their trustee capacity identified your clients as potentially responsible parties for natural resource damages under CERCLA. As you know, the trustees and your clients have been engaged in a cooperative NRDA. By this letter each of your clients is hereby formally notified,pursuant to CERCLA § 113(g), that DOI, subject to final approval of the United States Department of Justice, intends to bring suit to recover natural resource damages, "including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury..." CERCLA § 107(a)(4)(C). Thank you for agreeing to acknowledge service of this Notice on behalf of your respective clients. Please indicate that this Notice has been duly delivered by signing below and returning it to me. If you have any questions regarding this Notice and its contents please contact me at (510)817-1461. Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this matter. Sincerely zz Charles McKinley Assistant Field Solicitor cc: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency California Department of Fish and Game The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of Notice pursuant to CERCLA § 113(g) on behalf of the party(ies) identified. VA0My 6. fir- Dater Zs, 2004 134e co xx, 4 e e,0J a 7---10A c.c.0 On behalf of: t- � ram+ .sue Jh-�L 07/08/2004 1U:U5 FAA 41b YZ5 b45U l3AKu uurriiv Lr,"ia ixnrr WjUuc State of California-Th sources Agency A11040111ACHwARZENEGGER.Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME httl2;//wv/w.dfci.ca.gov Otte of Spit Prevention and Response 1700 K Sleet,Suite 250 Sacram nb,CA 95814 Tebphow- i918)44"M June 14, 2004 Via Certified Mail Return Receiat Reouested Mr. David Cooke Ms. MoFie Dent Attomey at Law Sr. Deputy City Attorney Alen, Matkins,Leck, Gamble&Mallory LLP City of San Jose 333 Bush Street, Suite 1700 151 W.Mission San Francisco, Ca 94101-2806 San Jose,Ca 95110 Mr. Robert L. Falk Mr.Todd Maiden Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Morrision&Foerster LLP Seyfarth Shaw 425 Market Street 101 California Street,Suite 2900 San Francisco,Ca 94105-2482 San Francisco, Ca 94111-5858 Mr. Thomas Trapp Mr. Gerald George Attorney at Law Attorney at Law Barg,Coffin, Lewis&Trapp Campbell,George,&Strong, LLP One Market 180 Grand Ave.#950 Steuart Tower, Suite 2700 Oakland,Ca 94612-3771 San Francisco,Ca 94105-1475 Mr.Andrew Kenefick Mr.Thomas Haines Waste Management Inc. Senor Counsel 801 V Ave.,Suite 614 Sunoco Inc. Seattle,Wa 98104 1801 Market St. Philadelphia, Pa 19103 Dear Counsel: Notice Pursuant to CIERCLA 4113(g) Re: Almaden Quicksilver Mtne/Guadelupe River Watershed, Santa Clara County, California to: Meyers Mr. David Cooke City of San Jose Ms. Mollie Dent Santa Clara Valley Water District Mr. Robert Falk Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Co. Mr. Todd Maiden Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District Mr. Thomas Trapp Santa Clara County Mr. Gerald George Waste Management Inc. Mr. Andrew Kenefick Sunoco inc. Mr. Thomas Haines Consenting Ca fornia's Wifdfife Since 1870 j 07/08/2004 10:65-77)U LHVL1!S 'DA YlP WJ June 14, 2004 Page 2 The United States Department of the Interior(*'DOI*), as represented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service("FWV'), and the State of California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) have been conducting a Natural Resource Damage Assessment ("NRDX1 regarding the above referenced location under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 96019 m. ("CERCLA"). This NRDA has been to determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources from the release of mercury to the environment, and the appropriate and necessary restoration actions and compensation for those injured resources. The DOI and CDFG, as natural resource trustees ("trustees")duly designated under CERCLA, your client and other entities who accepted an invitation of the trustees, have been engaged in the NRDA. The trustees believe that your client is a potentially responsible party for natural resource damages under CERCLA. By this letter your client is hereby notified, pursuant to CERCLA§ 11 3(g), that CDFG, intends to bring suit to recover natural resource damages. "including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury..."CERCLA 107(a)(4)(c). Please direct any legal or other questions you may have regarding this Notice and its contents to me at(916)445-3153. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Stephen L. Sawyer for John A. Holland Staff Counsel III Department of Fish & Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response cc: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Charles McKinley, Office of Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior uiWuiCuu� tu:u:, ,rein: `.1;tu tCt W#JV �i'1,;-G�r1F1�1-f+1YJLwJJ[5 .1"yZ7.f'I' • n June 14, 2004 Page 2 The United States Department of the Interior("DOI"), as represented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service("FWS"'), and the State of California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG) have been conducting a Natural Resource Damage Assessment ("NRDA") regarding the above referenced location under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et sea. ("CERCLA"). This NRDA has been to determine the nature and extent of injuries to natural resources from the release of mercury to the environment, and the appropriate and necessary restoration actions and compensation for those injured resources. The DOI and CDFG, as natural resource trustees(trustees")duly designated under CERCLA, your client and other entities who accepted an invitation of the trustees, have been engaged in the NRDA. The trustees believe that your client is a potentially responsible party for natural resource damages under CERCLA. By this letter your client is hereby notified, pursuant to CERCLA§ 113(g), that CDFG, intends to bring suit to recover natural resource damages, "including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury..."CERCLA§ 107(a)(4)(c). Please direct any legal or other questions you may have regarding this Notice and its contents to me at(916)445-3153. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, /—Sk� Stephen L. Sawyer for John A. Holland Staff Counsel III Department of Fish &Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response cc: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Charles McKinley, Office of Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior I I THOMAS L. SANSONETTI 06-02-04 Draft Assistant Attorney General 2 Environment&Natural Resources Division United States Department Of Justice 3 DAVID B. GLAZER Environmental Enforcement Section 4 Environment &Natural Resources Division United States Department Of Justice 5 301 Howard Street, Suite 1050 San Francisco, California 94105 6 Telephone: (415) 744-6491 Facsimile: (415) 744-6476 7 KEVIN V. RYAN 8 United States Attorney Northern District Of California 9 CHARLES M. O'CONNOR(SBN 56320) Assistant United States Attorney 10 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 San Francisco, California 94102 11 Telephone: (415) 436-7200 Facsimile: (415) 436-7234 12 Attorneys For Plaintiff United States Of America 13 (see next page for names of additional counsel.) 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN FRANCISCO DNISION � 1 7 18 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and the No. CV STATE OF CALIFORNIA, by and through the 19 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND CONSENT DECREE GAME and CALIFO RNIA IA STATE LANDS 20 COMMISSION, 21 Plaintiffs, 22 V. i 23 County of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Valley Water District, City of San Jose, Midpeninsula Regional 24 Open Space District, Myers Industries, Inc., Buckhorn, Inc., Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal 25 Company, Inc., Sunoco, Inc., Newson, Inc., and E.A. Viner, International, Co., Inc., 26 Defendants. 27 AND RELATED COUNTER CROSS AND 28 THIRD PARTY ACTIONS. United States et al.v. County of Santa Clara, et al.,No.CV Consent Decree EXHIBIT C I BILL LOCKYER Attorney General of the State of California 2 GAVIN G. McCABE, State Bar No. 130864 Deputy Attorney General 3 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, California 94102-7004 4 Telephone: (415) 703-5605 Facsimile: (415) 703-5480 5 6 Attorneys for State of California, by and through the California Department of Fish and Game and 7 California State Lands Commission 8 9 10 11 1'2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United State,et al.v. County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV Consent Decree I TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 I. INTRODUCTION..................................................... 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VET........................................................... .....................4 4 III. APPLICABILITY OF DECREE..............................................................................................5 5 IV. DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................................................5 6 V. PAYMENTS................................................................................... .............. 8 7 VI. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK........................................................................................9 8 VII. COVENANT NOT TO SUE BY PLAINTIFFS.................................................................. 12 9 VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES.................... 13 10 IX. COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS ................................................................. 14 11 X. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION........................................ 15 12 XI. PENALTIES FOR LATE AND/OR INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE............................ 17 13 XII. FORCE MAJEURE.............................................................................................................. 19 14 XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION..................................................................................................20 15 XIV. RETENTION OF RECORDS.............................................................................................21 16 XV. CERTIFICATE AND SIGNATURE................................................................................... 23 17 XVI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT.....................................................................................................23 18 XVII. MODIFICATION..............................................................................................................24 19 XVIII. TERMINATION...............................................................................................................24 20 XIX. PUBLIC COMMENT.........................................................................................................24 21 XX. RETENTION OF JURISDICTION..................................................................................... 25 I 22 XXI. NOTICE.............................................................................................................................. 25 23 XXII. JUDGMENT.................... 24 25 26 27 28 United States and State of California v. County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV i Consent Decree I This is Consent Decr ee ("De cree")) is � made and entered into by and among the United States � 2 of America ("the United States"), on behalf of itself and the Department of the Interior("DOI"), 3 and the State of California("State"), by and through the California Department of Fish and Game 4 ("CDFG") and the California State Lands Commission("SLC"), as trustees for State Natural 5 Resources (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), and certain of the defendants in this action (collectively, 6 the "Settling Defendants"). 7 I. INTRODUCTION 8 A. The United States, on behalf of DOI in its capacity as natural resource trustee, and 9 the CDFG and SLC in their capacities as natural resource trustees for Natural Resources of the 10 State of California(collectively, the "Trustees"), concurrently with the filing of this Consent 11 Decree, have filed a complaint ("Complaint") in this action under Section 107 of the 12 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended 13 ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607, and various State laws, seeking, inter alia, recovery of damages, 14 including damage assessment costs, for injury to, destruction of, and loss of natural resources II 15 resulting from releases into the environment of inorganic and organic mercury and hazardous 16 substances contained in mining waste (hereafter collectively"Hazardous Substances"). 17 B. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants (i) are or were owners or operators of 18 facilities in the Guadalupe River Watershed, as defined herein, or(ii) are or were persons who I 19 arranged for the disposal of Hazardous Substances at or from facilities in the Guadalupe River 20 Watershed, or(iii) are persons who are successors to or otherwise legally responsible for the acts 21 and omissions of persons who were owners or operators of facilities in the Guadalupe River 22 Watershed or who arranged for disposal of Hazardous Substances at facilities in the Guadalupe 23 River Watershed, from which Plaintiffs allege there have been releases of Hazardous Substances 24 into the environment. 25 C. In February 2000, DOI issued a Preassessment Screen Determination("PSD") 26 regarding injuries to natural resources arising from historical and continuing releases of mercury, 27 and of other metals resulting from or associated with historic mining within the Guadalupe River 28 Watershed. In that PSD, DOI determined that sufficient information existed for it to pursue a United States and State of California v. 1 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I �I claim for Natural Resource Damages for such releases, including damages for injury to soil, 2 surface water, and sediment in the Guadalupe River Watershed, as well as for injuries to 3 biological resources using those resources, including vegetation, invertebrates, amphibians, fish 4 species, and piscivorous birds. DOI alleges that it took these actions pursuant to CERCLA, 5 DOI's Natural Resource Damages regulations, 43 C.F.R. Part 11 (1998), and Executive 6 Order 12580, as amended by Executive Order 13016. 7 D. The Trustees (other than the SLC) and some of the Settling Defendants entered 8 into a Cooperative Agreement, dated September 21, 2001, pursuant to which they reviewed 9 available data and cooperatively assessed the nature and extent of injuries, if any, to natural 10 resources arising from the alleged releases (the"Cooperative Process"). To expedite, and to 11 otherwise reduce the cost of,performing the assessment, the parties to the Cooperative Process 12 agreed to use the Resource and/or Habitat Equivalency(REA/HEA)methodology. The Regional 13 Water Quality Control Board for the Bay Region("Regional Board")participated in early 14 meetings of the Trustees and PRPs, but it did not sign the Cooperative Agreement and is not 15 asserting any rights as a trustee in connection with this action. The Regional Board staff are 16 familiar with the conditions addressed by this Consent Decree, and have reviewed the terms of 17 this Consent Decree, and have notified the Office of the State Attorney General that the Regional I 18 Board will not file an action for natural resource damages with respect to the contamination 19 alleged in this action. The letter of g the Regional Board is attached hereto as Exhibit_ 20 E. Much of the data upon which the Preassessment Screen Determination was based 21 was collected prior to 1997. In entering this Decree, Plaintiffs recognize that Santa Clara County 22 has since conducted, with financial contribution from Myers Industries, Inc. ("Myers") and 23 Buckhorn, Inc. ("Buckhorn"), substantial remediation of the mercury mining contamination at the 24 New Almaden mining district, under the oversight of the State of California Department of Toxic 25 Substances Control ("DTSC") and with input from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, 26 San Francisco Bay Region ("RWQCB") as well as federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and 27 Wildlife Service ("FWS") (the"Remediation"). The Remediation addressed mining wastes 28 containing mercury located within and around the original mining area. In the first phase of the United States and State of California v. 2 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara, et al.,No. CV i I I I remediation, such mining wastes from several areas within the Hacienda Furnace Yard were 2 excavated, consolidated, and capped in the Hacienda Furnace Yard area. In the second phase, 3 such mining wastes were excavated, consolidated, and capped in the Mine Hill Area. Similarly, 4 the Santa Clara Valley Water District has carried out recent capital projects and maintenance 5 activities in and along the Guadalupe River and its tributaries that have included the removal of 6 substantial quantities of sediment and soil contaminated by mining wastes containing mercury 7 and other Hazardous Substances. 8 F. The Plaintiffs also recognize that there are multiple sources of Hazardous 9 Substances in the Guadalupe River Watershed, including multiple sources for which the Settling 10 Defendants allege they have no legal responsibility. In the Cooperative Process, certain 11 participating Parties in a position to do so have sought to coordinate their assessment with other 12 activities and processes addressing other sources of mercury in the Guadalupe River Watershed, 13 including the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads ("TMDLs") under the Clean Water 14 Ac t(see 33 USC § 1313(d)) through, inter alia, the San Francisco Bay and Guadalupe River 15 Watershed Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load efforts and the Mercury Load Reduction Project 16 ("Guadalupe Mercury TMDL"). Issues relating to the control and reduction of releases of 17 Hazardous Substances and/or the enhancement of nat ural resources within the Guadalupe River 18 Watershed are also being addressed through the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution 19 Prevention Program and in other cooperative processes, including the RWQCB's Watershed 20 Management Initiative for the Santa Clara Basin, the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative 21 Effort, and the Guadalupe River Flood Control Project Collaborative (collectively"Other 22 Processes"). 23 G. The projects described in Paragraph 11 hereto will address all known significant 24 mining waste deposits remaining within and about the Almaden Quicksilver County Park, and are 25 actions principally to be undertaken to restore or rehabilitate the injured resources that are the 26 subject of the Complaint. The balance of the Work that will be undertaken by the Settling 27 Defendants constitutes the replacement or acquisition of equivalent resources providing the same 28 or substantially equivalent services as those that t had been provided rovi b p y the injured natural United States and State of Calif ornia v.County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV 3 Consent Decree I resources (consistent with 43 C.F.R. § 11.82). �I 2 H. CERCLA and its implementing regulations require that the Trustees seek input 3 from the public before implementing a restoration plan to address injured natural resources. 4 Consequently, the Parties acknowledge that entry of the Decree after lodging will be deferred to 5 allow the time necessary for the Trustees to obtain public comment on this Decree and on a draft 6 restoration plan that proposes the Work described in Section VI of this Decree, as further 7 provided in Section XIX of this Consent Decree. A copy of the draft restoration plan is attached 8 as Exhibit A to this Consent Decree. 9 I. The Trustees have undertaken a restoration planning process to determine the 10 restoration projects that will most effectively restore or compensate for the lost use of the injured 11 resources. The details for specific projects are contained in the draft restoration plan at Sections 12 4.3.1.1 through 4.3.2.3 and are summarized in Section VI of this Consent Decree. A final 13 restoration plan will be adopted by the Trustees after final approval of this Consent Decree by the 14 Court, after provision of notice, opportunity for public input, and consideration of public 15 comments on the Decree and attached draft restoration plan. 16 J. This settlement is made in good faith after arm,s length negotiations. The Parties 17 agree, and the Court by entering this Consent Decree finds, that this Consent Decree has been 18 negotiated by the Parties in good faith, that settlement of this matter and entry of this Decree will 19 avoid complicated and potentially costly litigation between the Parties, is the most appropriate 20 means to resolve the matters covered herein, and is fair, reasonable, consistent with the purposes i 21 of CERCLA, and in the public interest. f 22 NOW, THEREFORE, with the consent of the Parties to this Decree, it is hereby 23 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 24 IL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 25 1. The Plaintiffs have alleged that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter 26 of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1367; Sections 107 and 113(b) of 27 CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607, 9613(b); California Fish and Game Code sections 2104, 5650, and 28 5650.1; and the common law of nuisance; that the Court has personal jurisdiction over the United States and State of California v. County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV 4 Consent Decree III I Settling Defendants; and that venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and 2 1395(a) and Section 113(b) of CERCLA. For purposes of this Consent Decree only, the Settling 3 Defendants waive all objections and defenses that they may have to jurisdiction of the Court or to 4 venue in this District. 5 III. APPLICABILITY OF DECREE 6 2. The obligations of this Consent Decree apply to and are binding upon the Plaintiffs 7 and their departments, agencies and instrumentalities, and upon the Settling Defendants and their 8 respective successors and assigns. 9 IV. DEFINITIONS 10 3. This Decree incorporates the definitions set forth in Section 101 of CERCLA, 42 11 U.S.C. § 9601, and at Section 11.14 of the NRD regulations, 43 CFR § 11.14. In addition, 12 whenever the following terms are used in this Decree, they shall have the following meanings: 13 A. "Damage Assessment Costs" shall mean all costs associated with the planning, 14 design, implementation, and oversight of the Trustees' damage assessment process, which 15 addresses the extent and quantification of the injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources 16 and the services provided by these resources resulting from the alleged releases of Hazardous 17 Substances, and with the planning of restoration or replacement of such natural resources and the 18 services provided by those resources, or the planning of the acquisition of equivalent resources or 19 services, and any other costs necessary to carry out the Trustees' responsibilities with respect to 20 those natural res ources resulting directly or indirectly from m the al leged ed releases of Hazardous 21 Substances, including all related enforcement costs. 22 B. "Date of Entry of this Decree" shall mean the date on which the District Court has 23 approved and entered this Decree as a judgment. 24 C. "Date of Final Approval of this Decree" shall mean (1) the Date of Entry of this 25 Decree, or(2) if an appeal is taken after entry, the date on which the District Court's judgment is 26 affirmed and there is no further right to appellate review. 27 D. "Date of Lodging of the Decree"shall mean the date that this Decree is lodged 28 with the Court, subject to the public comment period referred to in Section XIX of this Decree. United States and State of California v. $ Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV i 1 E. "Natural Resource Damages"shall mean all damages, including loss of use, 2 restoration costs, resource replacement costs, or equivalent resource values, Damage Assessment 3 Costs, and any other costs or losses that have been incurred in the past or will be incurred in the 4 future by the United States, the State of California, or any other person pursuant to Trustee 5 approval, authorization, or direction, with respect to injury to, destruction of, or loss of any and 6 all natural resources resulting either directly or indirectly from the releases of Hazardous 7 Substances in the Guadalupe River Watershed, including any continuing releases. 8 F. "Natural Resources"shall have that meaning set forth in Section 101(16) of 9 CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(16). 10 G. "Guadalupe River Watershed"for purposes of this Decree shall mean: (i) the 11 Guadalupe River and all its tributary streams, including without limitation Alamitos Creek, 12 Guadalupe Creek, and Arroyo Calero, and the associated tributaries, reservoirs, impoundments, 13 banks and sediments of each of the foregoing; (ii) all areas that drain water or sediment into the 14 waters described in(i); and(iii)that area of San Francisco Bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge. 15 H. "Interest,"shall mean interest at the rate specified for interest on investments of 16 the EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund established by 26 U.S.C. § 9507, compounded annually 17 on October 1 of each year, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a). The applicable rate of 18 interest shall be the rate in effect at the time the interest accrues. The rate of interest is subject to 19 change on October 1 of each year. 20 I. "Parties" shall mean the United States; the State of California, by and through the 21 CDFG and SLC; and the Settling Defendants. 22 J. Settling Defendants shall mean the Defendants who have signed this Consent 23 Decree as described below: 24 (1) The County of Santa Clara("County") shall mean the County 25 of Santa Clara, located in the State of California, and its 26 departments, agencies and instrumentalities; 27 (2) Santa Clara Valley Water District ("SCVWD") shall mean the 28 Santa Clara Valley Water District, located in the State of United States and State of California v. County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV 6 Consent Decree 1 California, and its departments, agencies and instrumentalities; 2 (3) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("MROSD") shall 3 mean the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, located 4 in the State of California, and its departments, agencies and 5 instrumentalities; 6 (4) The City of San Jose shall mean the City of San Jose, located 7 in the State of California, and its departments, agencies and 8 instrumentalities; 9 (5) Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal Company, Inc., shall include its 10 parent corporations, consisting of USA Waste of California, 11 Inc., Waste Management Holdings, Inc., and Waste 12 Management, Inc.; and incorporators and former officers, 13 directors and/or shareholders of Guadalupe Rubbish Disposal 14 Company, Inc., consisting of James L. Zanardi, Joseph A. 15 Zanardi, Dennis C. Varni, David K. Cecich, James L. Zanardi 16 and Randi J. Zanardi, individually and as Co-Trustees of the 17 Zanardi Living Trust dated March 29, 1990; Joseph A. Zanardi 18 and Elizabeth E. Zanardi, individually and as Co-Trustees of 19 the Zanardi Living Trust dated September 18, 1989; Dennis C. 20 Vami and Kathleen D. Vami, individually and as Co;Trustees 21 of the Vami Living Trust dated November 13, 1988; and Lori 22 R. Cecich and David K. Cecich, individually and as Co- 23 Trustees of The Cecich Family 1986 Trust dated November 24 18, 1986. 25 (6) Myers Industries, Inc. ("Myers")(an Ohio corporation); 26 (7) Buckhorn, Inc. ("Buckhorn") (an Ohio Corporation); 27 (8) Sunoco, Inc. ("Sunoco") 28 K. "United States" shall mean the United States of America, including its United States and State of California v. County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV 7 Consent Decree i i I departments, agencies, and instrumentalities. 2 L. "State of California"shall mean the CDFG and SLC. 3 M. "Work" shall mean implementation by the Settling Defendants of(i) those I 4 activities that are generally described in Section VI, Paragraphs 6— 11, of this Consent Decree 5 and more particularly described in Exhibit A to this Consent Decree, at Sections 4.3.1.1. through 6 4.3.2.3,which Sections are hereby incorporated as a part of this Decree, or(ii) any project or in 7 lieu payment authorized by Paragraph 7(e) of this Decree. 8 V. PAYMENTS 9 i 10 4. Sunoco shall pay Plaintiffs $85,000 within ten(10)business days of the Date of Entry of this Consent Decree, such payment to be made to DOI pursuant to the provisions of 11 Paragraph 5 of this Decree. 12 i 5. Sunoco shall make payment to DOI by electronic fund transfer("EFT") to the U.S. 13 14 Department of Justice in accordance with instructions to be provided to Sunoco following lodging 15 1 of the Decree by the Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. At the time of payment, Sunoco shall send written notice of payment and a 16 17 copy of any transmittal documentation(which should reference DOJ case number 90-1 1-2-07048) 18 to the Parties in accordance with Section XXII of this Decree and to: Cha 19 rles McKinley, Esq. Office of the Solicitor 2 U.S. Department of the Interior 0 1111 Jackson St., Suite 735 21 Oakland, California 94607 22 and 23 Bruce Nesslage DOI Restoration Fund Manager 1849 "C"Street,N.W. 24 Mail Stop 4449 25 Washington, D.C. 20240 26 The EFT and transmittal letters shall reflect that the payment is being made to the"Natural Resources Damage Assessment and Restoration Fund, Account No. 14X5198." DOI will assign 27 28 those funds a special project number to allow the funds to be maintained as a segregated account United States and State of California v. County of Santa Clara,et al. No.CV 8 Consent Decree i 1 (the Guadalupe River Watershed NRD Account") within the DOI Natural Resource Damage 2 Assessment and Restoration Fund. 3 VI. PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK 4 6. The Settling Defendants having responsibilities relating to each project in the 5 Work described below (Responsible Settling Defendants) shall finance and, as specified in more 6 detail below, commence and complete performance of the Work in accordance with the terms and 7 schedules contained in Sections 4.3.1.1 through 4.3.2.3 of Exhibit A, and any design and work 8 plans approved by the Trustees, which terms, schedules, and design and work plans are 9 incorporated in and shall be enforceable under this Decree. 10 7. _Hacienda Furnace Yard and Jacques Gulch Projects 11 a. To restore or rehabilitate allegedly injured natural resources, the 12 Responsible Settling Defendants, as identified more specifically in Subparagraph c, below, shall 13 properly consolidate and cap onsite those calcine tailings piles identified at or near the Hacienda 14 Furnace Yard along Alamitos Creek, as more specifically described in Section 4.3.1.1 of Exhibit 15 A, and further shall remove non-native pl ants, r v eeet ate with native p $ e plants, and otherwise 16 enhance the riparian habitat in the areas described in that Section ""Hacienda Project"). l )• I 17 b. To restore or rehabilitate th e allegedly injured ed natural g y � tural resources, the 18 Responsible Settling Defendant(s), as identified more specifically in Subparagraph d, below, shall 19 properly consolidate and cap onsite those calcine tailings pile s identified in the area g below P Mine 20 Hill know n as Jacques Gulch, as more specifically described in Section 4.3.1.2 of Exhibit A, and 21 further shall remove non-native plants, revegetate with native plants, and otherwise enhance the 22 riparian habitat in the areas as described in that Section ("Jacques Gulch Project"). 23 C. The County shall implement the Hacienda Project. The obligations of 24 Myers and Buckhorn under Section VII of this Decree shall consist of making financial 25 contributions to the County's implementation of the Hacienda Project as has been agreed to in a 26 separate agreement between the County and Myers and Buckhorn. The implementation of the 27 Hacienda Project is contingent on the issuance of permits and approvals for both the Hacienda 28 and Jacques Gulch Projects as provided in Par. Te below. The County, at its option, may United States and State of California v. County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV 9 Consent Decree i I I schedule its work on the Hacienda Project to begin only after SCVWD's commencement of on- 2 site work on the Jacques Gulch Project. 3 d. SCVWD shall implement the Jacques Gulch Project. The obligations of 4 the County for the Jacques Gulch Project under this Decree shall be to permit the SCVWD access 5 to those project areas on County property, to permit the consolidation of the subject materials 6 within the Almaden Quicksilver Park, to maintain and monitor the area of consolidation, without 7 charge, and as otherwise agreed to between the SCVWD and the County in a separate agreement. 8 The obligations of Guadalupe Rubbish for the Jacques Gulch Project under this Decree shall 9 consist of making financial or in-kind contributions to the SCVWD's implementation of the 10 Jacques Gulch Project, pursuant to a separate agreement between the SCVWD and Guadalupe 11 Rubbish. 12 e. All Work required under this Paragraph 7 is contingent on approval by the 13 appropriate State of California and federal agencies of the consolidation and capping of any 14 excavated material at an appropriate location within the Almaden Quicksilver County Park, and 15 the issuance of any permits, certifications and approvals necessary to perform the Work 16 (including, without limitation, approval of work within the streambed of Alamitos Creek, 17 including temporary diversion of that stream) without mitigation obligations ("Approvals"). If 18 such Approvals are not obtained for both the Hacienda and Jacques Gulch Projects, the 19 Responsible Settling Defendants will meet and confer with Plaintiffs to consider(1) alternate 20 means of implementing the Projects subject to the additional Approval roval requirements, J 2 pp 21 alternative projects of comparable cost to the Responsible Settling Defendants and comparable 22 benefit to the resources in question, or(3)payment of monetary Natural Resource Damages in 23 lieu of project performance. If the Parties agree that there are comparable alternatives, the 24 Responsible Settling Defendants shall have the right to select the alternative to be implemented 25 from among those alternatives. The Responsible Settling Defendants will be entitled to relief 26 under Section XII of this Consent Decree (Force Majeure) for any delay in performance resulting 27 from a failure to obtain, or a delay in obtaining, any Approval required for the Hacienda or 28 Jacques Gulch Projects, provided that they have timely submitted applications and other materials United States and State of California v. 10 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV l 1 needed to obtain such Approvals as provided in Paragraph 11, below, and provided that the other 2 requirements of Section XII of this Consent Decree are met. 3 8. Hillsdale Bridge Project: To replace, in part, those lost services resulting from the 4 alleged injuries to Natural Resources, the City of San Jose ("City") has implemented this project, 5 as more fully described in Section 4.3.2 of Exhibit A, by removing or having caused to be 6 removed, the concrete barrier to fish passage located at the Hillsdale bridge on the Guadalupe 7 River and planting the adjacent areas with appropriate native plants. 8 9. Covote Creek Proiect: 9 a. To further replace, in part, those lost services resulting from the alleged 10 injuries to Natural Resources the Responsible Settling Defendant(s), as identified more 11 specifically in subparagraph b, below, shall undertake a project to enhance the riparian habitat 12 along Coyote Creek downstream of Anderson Reservoir, by removing Arundo along a portion of 13 that stream and re-planting appropriate native plants, as more specifically described in 14 Section 4.3.2.1 of Exhibit A. 15 b. The SCVWD shall implement the Coyote Creek Project. The obligation of 16 the County for the Coyote Creek Project under this Decree shall be to permit the SCVWD to 17 access the project area, without charge, and as may otherwise be agreed to pursuant to a separate 18 agreement between the SCVWD and the County. The obligation of Guadalupe Rubbish and the 19 City for the Coyote Creek Project under this Decree shall be as otherwise agreed to in separate 20 agreements between those Parties and the SCVWD. 21 10. Ravenswood Marsh Project: To further replace, in part, those lost services 22 resulting from the alleged injuries to natural resources, the MROSD shall, for five (5) years,pay 23 for a predator control program at the Ravenswood Marsh, as more fully described in Section 24 4.3.2.3 of Exhibit A, for the benefit of the Clapper Rail, a species listed as threatened under 25 Section 4(c)of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1533(c). In addition, the MROSD shall 26 maintain the Ravenswood Marsh, in perpetuity, as open space and habitat for the Clapper Rail. 27 Within thirty(30) days of the Date of Final Approval of this Decree, the MROSD shall record a 28 memorandum of this Decree in the appropriate land title records for San Mateo County and shall United States and State of California v. 11 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV i I provide the Trustees with a conformed copy of the recorded memorandum. The memorandum 2 shall contain a statement that "the referenced Decree requires that Ravenswood Marsh shall be 3 maintained, in perpetuity, as open space and habitat for the Clapper Rail." 4 11. All Work undertaken by the Settling Defendants pursuant to this Decree shall be 5 performed in accordance with the requirements of all applicable federal and State of California 6 laws and regulations. Where any portion of the Work requires a federal, State, or local permit, 7 certification, or approval, the responsible Settling Defendants shall submit timely and complete 8 applications and take all other actions necessary to obtain all such permits, certifications, or 9 approvals, where required. The Trustees will cooperate with the Settling Defendants, as 10 necessary and to the extent permitted by law, in undertaking actions to obtain and/or process such 11 permits, certifications, and approvals in a timely manner. This Decree is not, and shall not be 12 construed to be, a permit issued pursuant to any federal or State of California statute or 13 regulation, nor shall it be construed in any way to affect any past, current, or future obligation of 14 the Settling Defendants or any other person or entity to comply with any federal, State of 15 California, or local law. 16 VII. COVENANT NOT TO SUE BY PLAI NTIFFS 17 12. Except as specifically provided in Paragraph 13 of this Decree, the United States 18 and the State of California, by and through the CDFG and SLC as trustees for the State of 19 California's Natural Resources, covenant not to sue or to take administrative action against the 20 Settling Defendants for Natural Resource Damages under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, the 21 Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("Clean Water Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 132l(f), or other federal, 22 State or common law, for injuries to soil, surface water, or sediment, as well as for injuries to 23 biological resources using those resources, including vegetation, invertebrates, amphibians, fish 24 species, and piscivorous birds, resulting from releases of Hazardous Substances into the 25 environment in the Guadalupe River Watershed, including any continuing releases. These 26 covenants take effect upon the Entry of this Decree and are contingent upon satisfactory 27 completion of the Work and the payment of the amounts required in Section VI; should any 28 portion of the Work not be completed satisfactorily, or any amounts required by Section VI not be United States and State of California v. 12 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV 1 paid, the Plaintiffs shall be excused from this covenant only with respect to Settling Defendants 2 having responsibilities relating to that portion of the Work or any amounts unpaid. Nothing in 3 this Paragraph is intended to preclude or limit the United States or the State of California, through 4 the RWQCB, from exercising authorities which may be available to them under the Clean Water 5 Act or the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, as applicable, including but not limited to 6 permitting and enforcement under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, 7 adoption and implementation of TMDLs, including but not limited to TMDLs for mercury in the 8 Guadalupe Watershed and the San Francisco Bay, and issuance of cleanup orders, waste 9 discharge requirements and water quality certifications. Nor is anything in this Paragraph 10 intended to preclude or limit the United States or the Department of Toxic Substances Control, or 11 any other State agency, as appropriate, from taking any response actions pursuant to their 12 authority under CERCLA or other applicable law. 13 VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 14 FOR NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES !� 15 13. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Decree, the United States and the State 16 of California reserve the right to institute proceedings against the Settling Defendants in this 17 action or in a new action seeking recovery of Natural Resource Damages: (1)based on injury to, 18 destruction of, or loss of Natural Resources resulting from conditions that were unknown to the 19 Trustees as of the Date of Lodging of this Decree ("Unknown Conditions"), or(2) based on 20 information received by the Trustees after the Date of Lodging of this Decree that indicates that 21 there is injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources of a type unknown to the Trustees as 22 of the Date of Lodging of this Decree ("New Information"). 23 14. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Decree, the covenants not to sue in 24 Paragraph 12 shall apply only to matters addressed in that Paragraph and specifically shall not 25 apply to the following claims: 26 a. claims based on a failure by a Settling Defendant to satisfy any 27 requirement imposed upon it by this Decree; 28 b. claims for criminal liability; and United States and State of California v. 13 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV i 1 C. claims arising from the past,present or future disposal, release, or threat of 2 release of hazardous substances not addressed in this Decree. Releases of hazardous 3 substances or Natural Resource Damages resulting from activities undertaken by or at the 4 direction of Plaintiffs, including pursuant to the terms of this Decree shall be deemed not 5 to be included in Subparagraph c. 6 Further, the Parties understand that agreement to this Decree does not, by its terms, relieve any 7 Party of obligations that may be imposed pursuant to the implementation of TMDLs, although it 8 is recognized that the Settling Defendants' implementation of the projects identified in 9 Paragraph 7 will directly address the objective of the Guadalupe Mercury TMDL, and the TMDL 10 for mercury in the San Francisco Bay, and the SettlingDefendants shall not be precluded from p 11 claiming credit for their activities pursuant to this Decree with respect to the establishment of 12 requirements pursuant to the TMDLs, Other Processes, or other legal proceedings by application 13 of the pre-existing duty rule with respect to the obligations made pursuant to this Decree or 14 otherwise. 15 15. For purposes of Paragraph 13, "Unknown Conditions"or"New Information" shall 16 not include or pertain to (i) a change only in Plaintiffs' quantification of Natural Resource 17 Damages arising out of the past and/or continuing releases of Hazardous Substances alleged by 18 Plaintiffs in this action; and/or(ii) damages based on releases of hazardous substances other than 19 Hazardous Substances as defined herein, unless Plaintiffs can demonstrate that such releases II 20 resulted in an injury different in type than those alleged in this action. 21 16. No information shall be deemed "new," and no condition shall be deemed 22 "unknown," if the information or condition is contained or identified in, or could be reasonably 23 determined from, documents and data in the possession of CDFG, DISC, the RWQCB, DOI, or 24 Region IX of the US EPA, on or before the Date of Entry of this Decree. 25 IX. COVENANTS BY SETTLING DEFENDANTS 26 17. Subject to Paragraph 18, the Settling Defendants hereby covenant not to sue or to 27 assert any administrative claims or causes of action against the United States or against the State 28 of California with respect to the Work set forth in, or payments required by, this Decree or in United States and State of California v. 14 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I connection with the Cooperative Process ("Settling Defendant Claims"), including,but not 2 limited to: 3 a. any direct or indirect Settling Defendant Claim for reimbursement from the 4 Hazardous Substance Superfund (established pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5 9507) through CERCLA Sections 106(b)(2), 107, 111, 112, 113 or any other provision of law; 6 b. any Settling Defendant Claims against the United States or the State of 7 California, including any department, agency or instrumentality of the United States or the State 8 of California,under CERCLA Sections 107 or 113; 9 C. any Settling Defendant Claims against the Guadalupe River Watershed 10 NRD Account; or 11 d. any Settling Defendant Claims under the United States Constitution, the 12 California Constitution, the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 13 U.S.C. § 2412, as amended, or at common law. 14 18. The Settling Defendants reserve their right to contest any claims alleged to be I 15 reserved by Section VIII of this Decree, and the Settling Defendants do not by consenting to this 16 Decree waive any defenses to such claims, except that the Settling Defendants covenant not to j 17 assert, and may not maintain, any defense based upon principles of waiver, res judicata, collateral 18 estoppel, claim-splitting, e issue preclusion, p o or other defen P pse based u on the contention that the p 19 claims that are allowed by Section VIII of this Decree were or should have been brought in the 20 instant case. In the event that either the United States or the State of California brings any claim 21 not settled by this Decree, or pursuant to Section VIII of this Decree, the Settling Defendants, 22 reserve the right to assert all potential counterclaims, cross-claims, or third-party claims against 23 the United States or the State of California arising from such claim. Nothing in this Decree shall 24 be deemed to constitute preauthorization of a claim within the meaning of Section 111 of 25 CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9611. 26 X. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT/CONTRIBUTION PROTECTION 27 19. The Settling Defendants do not admit any of Plaintiffs' allegations or claims set 28 forth herein and deny any liability for Plaintiffs' claims against the Defendants set forth in the United States and State of California v. 15 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV I Complaint. 2 20. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to create any rights in, or grant 3 any cause of action to, any person not a Party to this Consent Decree. The preceding sentence 4 shall not be construed to waive or nullify any rights that any person not a signatory to this Decree 5 may have under applicable law. Each of the Parties expressly reserves any and all rights 6 (including, but not limited to, any right to contribution), defenses, claims, demands, and causes of 7 action that each Party may have against any person not a Party hereto. 8 21. The Parties agree, and the Court hereby finds, adjudges and decrees, that: (1) the 9 Parties have fully negotiated the terms of this Consent Decree at arms length with the assistance 10 and advice of competent, independent counsel; (2) the consideration exchanged and commitments 11 made herein are reasonable in the context of the rights and responsibilities of the Parties and their 12 potential liabilities; (3)public notice(including a properly noticed public comment period) of the 13 opportunity for submitting comments on the terms and conditions of this settlement has been 14 provided; and(4) the settlement reflected herein is made in good faith and is neither fraudulent 15 nor collusive, nor affected by any fraud or collusion. Accordingly, the Parties agree, and the 16 Court hereby finds, orders, adjudges and decrees, that this Consent Decree represents a fair, 17 adequate, reasonable, equitable, and good-faith settlement, and that therefore the Settling 18 Defendants are entitled to contribution protection provided by CERCLA Section 113(f)(2), 42 19 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2), or otherwise provided by State or common law, for matters addressed by this 20 Consent Decree. "Matters addressed"in this Consent Decree include all Natural Resource 21 Damages with respect to releases of Hazardous Substances within the Guadalupe River 22 Watershed, as defined herein, including continuing releases. The "Matters Addressed"in this 23 Consent Decree do not include those claims as to which any Party has reserved its rights under 24 this Consent Decree (except for claims for failure to comply with this Decree), in the event that 25 any Party asserts rights against another coming within the scope of such reservations. 26 22. The Settling Defendants agree that, with respect to any suit or claim for 27 contribution brought by them for matters related to this Consent Decree, they will notify the 28 United States and the State of California in writing no later than sixty(60) days prior to the United States and State of California v. County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV 16 Consent Decree 1 initiation of such suit or claim, unless the giving of such advance notice would subject such suit 2 or claim to a defense that it is barred by the statute or limitations or other time-related defense. 3 23. The Settling Defendants also agree that, with respect to any suit or claim for 4 contribution brought against them for matters related to this Consent Decree, they will notify in 5 writing the United States and the State of California within ten (10) days of service of the 6 complaint on them. In addition, Settling Defendants shall notify the United States and the State 7 of California within ten (10)days of service or receipt of any Motion for Summary Judgment 8 with respect to such a claim, and within ten(10) days of receipt of any order from a court setting 9 such a case for trial. 10 XI. PENALTIES FOR LATE AND/OR INADEQUATE PERFORMANCE 11 (INCLUDING PAYMENTS) 12 24. If the payment required of Sunoco by Paragraph 5 is not made by the date 13 specified in that Paragraph, or the Work required of the Settling Defendants responsible for 14 implementation of the Work described in Section VI of this Decree is not performed in 15 accordance with this Decree, Sections 4.3.1.1 through 4.3.2.3 of Exhibit A hereto, or any 16 approved work plans, unless excused by a Force Majeure in accordance with Section XII of this 17 Decree, those Settling Defendants responsible for implementing the particular Work obligation, 18 making the payment, or submitting the report in question shall be jointly and severally liable for 19 the following amounts for, respectively, each day of delay in performance, payment, or 20 late/deficient report: 21 Days of Delay Payment Per Day of Delay_ Late Payment Late/Deficient Report 22 1-14 $ 500/day $ 2000/day $ 500/day 23 15-60 $ 1000/day $ 3000/day $ 750/day 24 Beyond 60 Days $ 2500/day $ 4000/day $ 1000/day 25 j 26 25. Payments due under the preceding Paragraph shall be paid by certified check and 27 disbursed 50 percent to the United States and 50 percent to CDFG. Subject to Paragraph 27, 28 United States and State of California v. 17 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I below, stipulated penalties are due within thirty(30) days following receipt by a Settling 2 Defendant of a written demand by Plaintiffs for payment of such stipulated penalties. Stipulated 3 penalties owing to the United States shall, as directed by the United States,be paid by certified or 4 cashier's check in the amount due payable to the "U.S. Department of Justice,"referencing DOJ 5 No. 90-11-2-07048, and shall be delivered to the office of the United States Attorney, Northern 6 District of California, Financial Litigation Unit, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055, San 7 Francisco, California 94102. Notice of such payment shall be sent to the Plaintiffs as provided in 8 Section XXII of this Decree. 9 26. Stipulated penalties owing to the State of California shall be payable to the 10 Department of Fish and Game and delivered to 11 John A. Holland Office of Spill Prevention and Response 12 Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 160362 13 Sacramento, California 95816-0362 14 Or if by courier or overnight mail to: 15 John A. Holland Office of Spill Prevention and Response 16 Department of Fish and Game 1700 K Street, Suite 250 17 Sacramento, California 95814 18 27. Except as provided in Paragraph 32 below, stipulated penalties shall begin to 19 accrue on the day after the performance or payment is due and shall continue to accrue until 20 performance is satisfactorily completed or pa yment is made. Except as provided in Paragraph 32 21 below, penalties shall continue to accrue during any dispute resolution under Section XIII of this 22 Decree, with interest on accrued penalties payable and calculated at the rate established by the 23 Secretary of the Treasury,pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, but need not be paid until fifteen (15) 24 days after final resolution of the dispute, in the amount determined by such resolution. 25 28. Nothing herein shall prevent the simultaneous accrual of separate penalties for 26 separate violations of this Consent Decree. The payment of stipulated penalties shall not alter in 27 any way a Settling Defendant's obligation to complete the performance of the Work required of it 28 under this Consent Decree. In addition to the remedy provided for in Paragraph 24, if the United States and State of California v. 18 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I I payment required of Sunoco by Paragraph 5 of this Decree is not made by the date specified in 2 that Paragraph, Sunoco shall be liable for, in addition to the payment specified in that Paragraph, 3 Interest on the amount due. 4 29. In addition to the remedies provided for in Paragraphs 24 and 28, if the payment 5 required of Sunoco by Paragraph 5 of this Decree, or the stipulated penalties provided for by this 6 Section are not made, the defaulting Settling Defendant(s) in question shall be liable for any costs 7 and attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiffs in enforcing the terms of this Decree. 8 30. Payments due under this Section shall be in addition to any other remedies or 9 sanctions that may be available to the Plaintiffs on account of a Settling Defendant's failure to 10 comply with the terms of this Decree. 11 XII. FORCE MAJEURE 12 31. "Force Majeure," for purposes of this Consent Decree, is defined as any event 13 arising from causes beyond the control of the responsible Settling Defendants, their contractors, 14 or any entity controlled by Settling Defendants that delays the performance of any Work 15 obligation under this Consent Decree despite Settling Defendants' best efforts to fulfill the 16 obligation. "Best efforts"include using best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure 17 event and to address the effects of any such event (a) as it is occurring and (b) after it has 18 occurred, such that the delay is minimized to the extent reasonably possible. "Force Majeure" 19 does not include the Settling Defendants' financial inability to perform any obligation under this 20 Consent Decree. "Force Majeure" shall otherwise be deemed to include a delay in performance 21 of the Work required pursuant to Section VI provided that the requirements of Paragraph 32 are 22 addressed. i 23 32. If any event occurs or has occurred that may delay the performance of any Work 24 obligation under this Decree, as to which a Settling Defendant intends to assert a claim of Force 25 Majeure, the Settling Defendant shall provide notice in writing, as provided in Section XXI of 26 this Decree(Notice), within fourteen(14) days from the time a responsible representative of the 27 Settling Defendant first knew of, or by the exercise of due diligence should have known of, the 28 event. Such notification shall include an explanation and description of the reasons for the delay; United States and State of California v. 19 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV I the anticipated ed duration of the delay ; a description of all actions taken or to be taken to prevent or 2 minimize the delay; a schedule for implementation of any measures to be taken to prevent or 3 mitigate the delay or the effect of the delay; and the Settling De fendant's s rationale as to why the 4 implementation plan is adequate. Unless otherwise agreed to by the Plaintiffs, failure to comply 5 with the above requirements shall preclude a Settling Defendant from asserting any claim of 6 Force Majeure. 7 33. A Settling Defendant shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 8 evidence that the Settling Defendant gave timely Notice as required by the preceding Paragraph; 9 that the Settling Defendant used best efforts to prevent or minimize any delay attributable to the 10 event; and that any period of delay was attributable to that event. Delays "attributable"to a Force 11 Majeure include further delays resulting from the passing of construction seasons that may 12 interfere with the implementation of any requirement following the initial Force Majeure event. 13 34. If the Trustees agree that any delay, or anticipated delay has been justified under 14 the provisions of this Section, the Trustees shall stipulate to an extension of time for a Settling 15 Defendant's performance of the affected requirement pursuant to the implementation plan 16 presented with the Notice or as otherwise agreed upon. In such circumstances, the appropriate 17 modification shall be deemed to have been made pursuant to Section XVII of this Consent Decree 18 (Modification) and shall be deemed to have been incorporated into Sections 4.3.1.1 through 19 4.3.2.3 of Exhibit A. In the event the affected Parties cannot agree, the matter shall be resolved in 20 acc ordance wit h Sectio n XIII of this Consent Decree (Dispute Resolution). The penalties 21 provided for by Section XI shall not accrue during the period between provision of Notice 22 pursuant to Paragraph 32 and the resolution of any dispute under Section XIII of this Decree, 23 provided that the Notice is substantially justified. An extension of time for performance of the 24 obligations affected by a Force Majeure event shall not, of itself, extend the time for performance 25 of any other obligation. 26 XIII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 27 35. This Section provides the exclusive mechanism for resolution of disputes arising 28 under this Consent Decree, subject to the provisions of Section XVII of this Decree United States and State of California v. 20 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV I (Modification). However, except as otherwise provided in Section XII, such procedures shall not 2 apply to actions by the Plaintiffs to enforce obligations of a Settling Defendant that have not been 3 disputed in accordance with this Section. 4 36. Any dispute shall be, in the first instance, the subject of informal negotiations 5 between the Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendant(s) invoking Dispute Resolution. Such period of 6 informal negotiations shall not extend beyond twenty(20) days after date that notice of a dispute 7 is given by a Settling Defendant, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Plaintiffs. 8 37. If informal negotiations do not result in resolution of the dispute, then the 9 Plaintiffs' position shall prevail, unless the Settling Defendant exercises its right to petition the 10 Court in accordance with this Section. The Settling Defendant may petition the Court within 11 thirty(30) calendar days of the end of the informal negotiations period for resolution of the 12 dispute. The petition shall set forth the nature of the dispute and a proposal for its resolution. 13 Further briefing and argument on the petition will comply with the requirements of the Local 14 Rules for the Northern District of California, subject to such modifications as may be sought from 15 the Court. 16 38. In all disputes under this Section, the Settling Defendant shall bear the burden of 17 proof/persuasion. 18 39. Except as otherwise provided in Section XII, the invocation of dispute resolution 19 under this Section shall not extend,postpone, or affect in any way any obligation of a Settling 20 Defendant under this Consent Decree, not directly in dispute, unless the Plaintiffs or the Court 21 agrees otherwise. 22 XIV. RETENTION OF RECORDS 23 40. Until three years after completion of the Work required by this Decree, each 24 Settling Defendant shall preserve and retain all records and documents now in its possession or 25 control or that come into its possession or control,that relate to the identification, nature, and 26 quantity of mercury in the Guadalupe River Watershed, the nature and extent of alleged releases 27 of Hazardous Substances from the Guadalupe River Watershed, or the pathway of any alleged i 28 release of any mercury to or from the Guadalupe River Watershed. This obligation does not United States and State of California v. 21 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV i I apply to records or documents previously exchanged between the Settling Defendants and the 2 Plaintiffs prior to the Date of Lodging of this Decree. Within ninety(90) days of the conclusion 3 of this document-retention period, upon request by either Plaintiff, the Settling Defendants shall 4 produce or make available for inspection any non-privileged records or documents at a mutually 5 convenient time and place,before destroying any such records or documents. 6 41. In addition to the opportunity to obtain documents at the conclusion of the 7 document-retention period set forth in the preceding Paragraph, either Plaintiff may request, at 8 any time during the document-retention period, that a Settling Defendant make available for 9 inspection or, at the Settling Defendant's option, produce, any non-privileged documents retained 10 pursuant to the preceding Paragraph. The Settling Defendant receiving such request shall 11 produce or make available for inspection non-privileged documents at a mutually convenient time 12 and place after such request is made. 13 42. With respect to the obligation to retain,produce, or make available records as set 14 forth in this Section, the Settling Defendants may assert that certain documents or records are 15 privileged under the attorney/client privilege or any other privilege recognized under applicable 16 law. If any Settling Defendant asserts any such privilege, it shall provide the Plaintiffs with the 17 following information relating to any documents or records that are requested and withheld as 18 privileged: (1) title of document or record; (2)date of document or record; (3) name and position 19 of the author of the document or record; (4) description of the subject of the document or record; 21 and 5( ) the specific basis for the privilege asserted. The privilege log relating to the subject 21 documents must be produced to the Plaintiffs at a mutually convenient time and place after 22 Plaintiffs request the documents that are withheld. Settling Defendants shall retain the documents 23 that are withheld as privileged, until any privilege disputes relating to those documents are 24 resolved. However, no final documents, reports created, or data generated, pursuant to the 25 requirements of this Consent Decree shall be withheld on grounds of privilege. 26 43. This Section in no way affects or limits any obligation of the Settling Defendants 27 to retain records under any other administrative or judicial order or agreement, whether such 28 order or agreement is currently extant or created in the future. Further, this Section in no way United States and State of California v. 22 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I affects or limits any obligation of the Settling Defendants to retain records under any other 2 judicial, statutory, or common law doctrine that would otherwise require retention of records, nor 3 does this Paragraph limit the information-gathering authorities of the Plaintiffs under any 4 applicable federal or state laws or regulations. 5 44. Each Settling Defendant hereby certifies individually that, to the best of its 6 knowledge and belief, after thorough inquiry, it has not altered, mutilated, discarded, destroyed, 7 or otherwise disposed of any records, documents, or other information (other than identical 8 copies) relating to its potential liability regarding Natural Resource Damages with respect to the 9 Guadalupe River Watershed since notification of potential liability by the Plaintiffs and that it has 10 fully complied with any and all of Plaintiffs' prior requests for information with respect to this 11 site, pursuant to Section 104(e) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e), or other applicable federal or 12 state laws or regulations. 13 XV. CERTIFICATE AND SIGNATURE 14 45. Each Defendant certifies by affixing its signature to this Decree that the Work that 15 it has agreed to perform under the Decree is not an activity that it is legally obligated to perform 16 by any other permit, lawsuit, administrative proceeding or other process. The certification 17 provided by the preceding sentence shall not be deemed to be invalid where Work performed 18 pursuant to this Decree complements obligations undertaken pursuant to other permits, lawsuits, 19 administrative proceedings, the TMDL, or Other Processes, including by more precisely 20 specifying the time, place and/or manner of performance, or by requiring the performance of 21 Work that is only encouraged or contemplated,but not legally guaranteed, by another agreement. 22 46. The undersigned representatives of each Settling Defendant certifies that he or she 23 is fully authorized to enter into the terms and conditions of this Decree and to legally execute and 24 bind that party to this Decree. 25 47. This Consent Decree may be signed in counterparts, and such counterpart 26 signature pages shall be given full force and effect. 27 XVI. ENTIRE AGREEMENT 28 48. This Consent Decree and Sections 4.3.1.1. through 4.3.2.3 of Exhibit A constitute United States and State of California v. 23 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No. CV I the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and understanding between the Trustees and the 2 Settling Defendants with respect to the settlement embodied in the Decree and supersede all prior 3 agreements and understandings,whether oral or written. Other than Exhibit A, which is attached 4 to and incorporated in this Decree,no other document, nor any representation, inducement, 5 agreement, understanding, or promise, constitutes any part of this Decree or the settlement it 6 represents, nor shall it be used in construing the terms of this Decree. 7 XVII. MODIFICATION 8 49. The terms of this Consent Decree may be modified only by a subsequent written 9 agreement signed by all the Parties or as ordered by the Court upon the noticed motion of any 10 Party. The terms and schedules contained in Sections 4.3.1.1 through 4.3.2.3 of Exhibit A of this 11 Decree may be modified upon written agreement of the affected Parties without Court approval. 12 Where any other modification constitutes a material change to any term of this Decree, it shall be 13 effective only upon approval by the Court. 14 XVIII. TERMINATION 15 50. This Consent Decree shall terminate as to each Settling Defendant upon granting 16 of a motion duly filed by that Settling Defendant, demonstrating that such Settling Defendant has 17 satisfactorily completed the requirements of Section V of this Decree, the payment of the amounts 18 required by Section VI of this Decree, performance of, as applicable, the Work required by 19 Section VII of this Decree, and the payment of any outstanding stipulated penalties under Section 20 XII of this Decree, except that the provisions and effect of Sections VII, VIII, IX, X, XIV, the 21 County's obligation to monitor and maintain the consolidated and encapsulated materials, in 22 accordance with Sections 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2 of Exhibit A, and MROSD's obligation, set forth in 23 Paragraph 10, to maintain Ravenswood Marsh, in perpetuity, as open space and habitat for the 24 Clapper Rail shall survive termination of the he Decree. 25 XIX. PUBLIC COMMENT 26 51. The Trustees have preliminarily determined that the Work to be performed and the 27 payments to be made pursuant to this Decree constitute appropriate action to protect and restore 28 the natural resources damaged as alleged in the Complaint and that the payment satisfies the United States and State of California v. 24. Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I requirements of Section 1220)(2)of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 96220)(2)with respect to each 2 Settling Defendant. 3 52. The Parties acknowledge that this Consent Decree and the draft restoration plan set 4 forth in Exhibit A of this Decree will be subject to a public comment period of not less than thirty 5 (30) days, as provided by 43 C.F.R. § 11.81. Consequently, entry of the Decree after lodging 6 shall be deferred to allow the time necessary for the United States and the State to obtain and 7 evaluate public comment on this Decree and on Exhibit A hereto. The United States and the State 8 of California reserve the right to withdraw their consent to this Decree if comments received 9 disclose facts or consideratio ns tha t show that this Decree or the draft restoration plan is 10 inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Settling Defendants consent to the entry of this I 1 Decree by the Court without further notice. The Settling Defendants further agree not to oppose 12 entry of this Consent Decree by the Court or to challenge any provision of the Decree, unless 13 either the United States or CDFG has notified Settling Defendants in writing that it no longer 14 supports entry of the Decree. 15 53. In the event that there is no Date of Final Approval of this Decree, this Decree and 16 the settlement embod ied herein is voidab le at the discretion of an Party,art y, and the terms hereof 17 may not be used as evidence in any litigation or other proceeding. 18 X.X. RETE NTION OF JURISDICTION 19 54. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this case until termination of this Consent 20 Decree, for the purpose of enabling an of the Parties to apply to p 1P the o g Y pp y Curt for such further order, 21 direction, or relief as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or modification of this 22 Consent Decree, or to effectuate or enforce compliance with its terms, or to resolve disputes in 23 accordance with Section XIII of this Decree (Dispute Resolution). 24 XXI. NOTICE 25 55. Any notice required hereunder shall be in writing and shall be delivered by hand, 26 facsimile or overnight mail as follows: 27 Notice to the United States and the State: 28 United States and State of California v. 25 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I As to the United States: 2 Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section Environment and Natural Resources Division 3 DOI Case#90-11-3-511 U.S. Department of Justice 4 P.O. Box 7611 5 Washington, D.C. 20044-7611 and 6 David B. Glazer 7 United States Department of Justice 301 Howard Street, Suite 1050 8 San Francisco, California 94105 9 As to State of California 10 John A. Holland Office of Spill Prevention and Response 11 Department of Fish and Game P.O. Box 160362 12 Sacramento, California 95816-0362 13 Or if by courier or overnight mail to 14 John A. Holland Office of Spill Prevention and Response 15 Department of Fish and Game 1700 K Street, Suite 250 16 Sacramento, California 95814 17 As to Settling Defendants: 18 [insert list] 19 56. Each Party to this Decree may change the person(s)s it has de y g p ( ) designated to receive 1>n 20 notice for that Party, or the addresses for such notice, by filing a written notice of such change g 21 with the Court and serving said notice on each of the other Parties to this Decree. 22 57. Each Settling Defendant hereby agrees to accept service of process by mail with 23 respect to all matters arising und er or relating to this Consent Decree and to waive the formal 24 service requirements set forth in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any 25 applicable Local Rules of this Court including,but not limited to, service of a summons. 26 XXII. JUDGMENT 27 58. Upon approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, this Consent Decree 28 shall constitute a final judgment between the Plaintiffs and the Settling Defendants. The Court United States and State of California v. 26 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV 1 I finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore enters this judgment as a final judgment 2 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 and 58. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED I 4 5 DATED: 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 I 9 i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States and State of California v. 27 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV 1 FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 2 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entry of the Consent Decree in United States et al. v 3 County of Santa Clara, et al., subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 4 Section XX of this Consent Decree 5 Dated: , 2004 6 THOMAS L. SANSONETTI Assistant Attorney General 7 Environment and Natural Resources Division 8 United States Department of Justice 9 Dated: , 2004 10 DAVID B. GLAZER Environmental Enforcement Section 11 Environment and Natural Resources Division United States Department of Justice 12 301 Howard Street, Suite 1050 San Francisco, California 94105 13 Telephone: (415) 744-6491 14 Facsimile: (415) 744-6476 15 16 OF COUNSEL 17 CHARLES C. McKINLEY, ESQ. 18 Assistant Field Solicitor U.S. Department of the Interior 19 1111 Jackson Street Oakland, California 94607 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States and State of California v. 28 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I FOR THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 2 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entry of the Consent Decree in United States, et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al., subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 3 Section XXII of this Consent Decree: 4 5 Dated: 2004 ROBERT C. HIGHT 6 Director of California Department of Fish and Game 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States and State of California v. 29 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION 2 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entry of the Consent Decree in United States, et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al., subject to the public notice and comment requirements of 3 Section Y—X1I of this Consent Decree: 4 5 Dated: 2004 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States and State of California v. 30 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV I FOR SETTLING DEFENDANTS: 2 WE HEREBY CONSENT to the entryof the Consent Decree in United Stated, et al. v. County of Santa Clara, et al.: 3 4 Dated: , 2004 NAME 5 Title: Address: 6 7 8 9 Agent Authorized to Accept Service on Behalf of Above-Signed Party: 10 Agent Authorized to Accept Service on Behalf of Above-Signed Party: 11 Name (print): Title: 12 Address: 13 Ph. Number: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States and State of California v. 31 Consent Decree County of Santa Clara,et al.,No.CV HACIENDA PROD...,f Privileged and Confidential—For Settlen.---,Purposes Only 4.3.1 Primary Restoration Creeks in Almaden Quicksilver County Park (Park) downstream of inactive mining sites were shown during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to have sediment mercury concentrations exceeding the state hazardous waste criteria of 20 pprn wet weight. Exceedance of hazardous waste criteria in sediments is a defined injury to surface water resources in the Department of the Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Regulations (43 CFR Part 11). The most contaminated locations were in the vicinity of the Hacienda Furnace Yard on Alamitos Creek; Deep Gulch, a tributary to Alamitos Creek on the southeast slope of Mine Hill; and an unnamed tributary on the southwest slope of Mine Hill that flows into Jacques Gulch. Jacques Gulch flows into Almaden Reservoir, which is on Alamitos Creek upstream from the Hacienda Furnace Yard. The state-approved remedial action plan implemented in 1997 removed or consolidated and capped the majority of contaminated waste ore, referred to as calcines, from Deep Gulch and Hacienda Furnace Yard stream banks. However, remaining calcine piles potentially continue to release mercury to surface water runoff. In addition, calcines in and above Jacques Gulch were left in place. Primary restoration projects in Hacienda Furnace Yard and Jacques Gulch will remove/consolidate remaining calcine materials and restore those areas to baseline conditions. 4.3.1.1 #1 Primary Restoration Alternative: Hacienda Furnace Yard Restoration and Enhancement Project Project Description This restoration project will be implemented in Deep Gulch and Hacienda Furnace Yard on Alamitos Creek. Three locations in the project area will be addressed: 1. Upper Hacienda: The upper Hacienda area is situated on a steep slope and has exposed soils with minimal non-native grass cover relative to adjacent, non-calcine, areas. Remove/consolidate and/or stabilize onsite calcine material from Alamitos Creek bottom for a distance of about 150 ft., and from the creek bank slope at that location below Almaden Road. 2. Lower Hacienda: Remove/consolidate and/or stabilize onsite calcine located along a distance of about 150 ft. at Lower Hacienda on the slope between Alamitos Creek and Almaden Road. 3. Deep Gulch: Remove/consolidate and/ or stabilize onsite calcine on the eastern bank of Deep Gulch Creek above Mine Hill trail gate to the old retort remains, for a distance of about 300 ft. The proposed activities are to: (1) Remove and consolidate calcine material from the creek channel, creek banks and nearby areas, or where appropriate, stabilize the calcine material on-site. Removed calcine will be consolidated in the Mine Hill area of the Park where calcines were consolidated in the remedial action, i.e., deposited in an existing depression and capped. (2) Smooth grade and hydro-seed with native grasses all disturbed areas. (3) Maintain cap on consolidation area of the site. Restoration Obiectives a. Goal: Reduce mercury loading to the Guadalupe River watershed from anthropogenic sources by removal/consolidation and/or stabilization of remaining exposed calcine material in the Hacienda Furnace Yard and Deep Gulch Creek areas. b. Objectives: i. Identify remaining calcine deposits and prepare Restoration Plan ii. Remove/consolidate and/or control calcines and re-grade the areas to stable condition iii. Import clean substrate for plant growth, where necessary iv. Revegetate by Hydro-seeding disturbed areas and replacing trees 1 of 4 HACIENDA PRG, _,:T Privileged and Confidential—For Settlt- —it Purposes Only Probability of Success Regulatory and technical feasibility are considered high for this project, indicating a high probability of overall success. Permits or other appropriate approvals will be requested from the following regulatory agencies, as needed: 1. US Corps of Engineers for Sec. 404 permit. 2. RWQCB Clean Water Act certification. 3. Endangered Species Section 7 consultation with USFWS for California red-legged frog and with NMFS for steelhead trout. 4. RWQCB storm water and waste discharge permits. 5. Streambed alteration agreement with CDF&G. 6. SCVWD encroachment permit. 7. County Roads and Airports Department permit. 8. Approvals from California DTSC may be required for transportation of the calcine materials and their consolidation at the Mine Hill site. Technical feasibility of the project is dependent upon receipt of agency approvals for various aspects of the proposed project. Watershed and stream corridor restoration are well-established fields of expertise. While no restoration can be perfect in the creation of baseline conditions or a pristine ecological system, riparian corridor restoration has been shown to have significant benefits to habitat and water quality and can provide the habitat suitability for a broad range of species, including those that may be injured by the release of mercury or that are endangered and threatened. Stream restoration has become commonplace in recent years, and numerous guidance documents and design references are available. Technical aspects of the restoration that might be affected by regulatory issues include: (1) At Location #1, the work requires diversion of Los Alamitos Creek flow from Hacienda site via the existing Calero canal for a period of 4 to 6 weeks in order to remove and/or stabilize calcines from the creek bottom and from the creek bank below Almaden Road. Consequently the calcine removal or stabilization at location #1 will be contingent upon appropriate State and Federal agency approval of the stream diversion. (2) Removal and/or onsite stabilization of calcine from Location #2 will require accessing the site from Almaden Road (with a temporary culvert for transport of equipment over the Creek, to be removed on completion of the project), which will require approval from DTSC and possibly from County Roads and Airports for transportation of calcine material outside the Park and on County roads. (3) Consolidation of material at the Mine Hill area will be accomplished in a manner similar to the prior remediation at the Park. Success Criteria and Monitoring 1. Calcine RemovatIConsolidationIStabilization Calcine material has different formation and character from that of natural soil formation and it is easily recognizable by visual inspection. All visible calcine material will be identified, removed and consolidated, and capped at a location in the Mine Hill area of the Park and/or stabilized in place. Performance Criterion: Removal/consolidation/stabilization of all calcine material at project locations, and capping in accordance with DTSC and/or RWQCB specifications. 2. Re-vegetation/Assessment Re-establishment and survival of native species will be inspected annually for up to three years after project completion. Each year, a qualified biologist will inspect the project locations and provide a report, with recommendations, as to: 2 of 4 Isf-1444243 11 HACIENDAPRG. _T Privileged and Confidential—For Settle- A Purposes Only Probability of Success Regulatory and technical feasibility are considered high for this project, indicating a high probability of overall success. Permits or other appropriate approvals will be requested from the following regulatory agencies, as needed: 1. US Corps of Engineers for Sec. 404 permit. 2. RWQCB Clean Water Act certification. 3. Endangered Species Section 7 consultation with USFWS for California red-legged frog and with NMFS for steelhead trout. 4. RWQCB storm water and waste discharge permits. 5. Streambed alteration agreement with CDF&G. 6. SCVWD encroachment permit. 7. County Roads and Airports Department permit. 8. Approvals from California DTSC may be required for transportation of the calcine materials and their consolidation at the Mine Hill site. Technical feasibility of the project is' dependent. upon ,r,e I ceipt"of I agency gency approvals I for various aspects of the proposed project. Watershed and stream corridor restoration are well-established fields of expertise. While no restoration can be perfect in the creation of baseline conditions or a pristine ecological system, riparian corridor restoration has been shown to have significant benefits to habitat and water quality and can provide the habitat suitability for a broad range of species, including those that may be injured by the release of mercury or that are endangered and threatened. Stream restoration has become commonplace in recent years, and numerous guidance documents and design references are available. Technical aspects of the restoration that might be affected by regulatory issues include: (1) At Location #1, the work requires diversion of Los Alamitos Creek flow from Hacienda site via the existing Calero canal for a period of 4 to 6 weeks in order to remove and/or stabilize calcines from the creek bottom and from the creek bank below Almaden Road. Consequently the calcine removal or stabilization at location #1 will be contingent upon appropriate State and Federal agency approval of the stream diversion. (2) Removal and/or onsite stabilization of calcine from Location #2 will require accessing the site from Almaden Road (with a temporary culvert for transport of equipment over the Creek, to be removed on completion of the project), which will require approval from DTSC and possibly from County Roads and Airports for transportation of calcine material outside the Park and on County roads. (3) Consolidation of material at the Mine Hill area will be accomplished in a manner similar to the prior remediation at the Park. Success Criteria and Monitoring 1. Calcine RemovaYConsolidatiorilStabilization Calcine material has different formation and character from that of natural soil formation and it is easily recognizable by visual inspection. All visible calcine material will be identified, removed and consolidated, and capped at a location in the Mine Hill area of the Park and/or stabilized in place. Performance Criterion: Removal/consolidation/stabilization of all calcine material at project locations, and capping in accordance with DTSC and/or RWQCB specifications. 2. Re-vegetation/Assessment Re-establishment and survival of native species will be inspected annually for up to three years after project completion. Each year, a qualified biologist will inspect the project locations and provide a report, with recommendations, as to: 2 of 4 Isf-144424311 HACIENDA PRO,- -f Privileged and Confidential-For Settle, Purposes Only • whether or not habitat is developing that is reasonably comparable with surrounding areas • whether or not additional planting or re-planting will be cost effective and required to reestablish native vegetation • possible adjustments to success criteria Monitoring may cease if the Trustees determine that the performance criterion has been met prior to the end of three years or continued until the performance criterion has been met. Performance Criterion: Appropriate level of native vegetation cover in the project areas will be determined by comparison to native cover at locations in the vicinity with similar habitat types and soil/water conditions. Annual monitoring must demonstrate within three years after initial planting that vegetation is attaining the pre-determined cover criterion. 3. Reporting Annual reporting of activities conducted will be prepared and submitted to the Trustee Agencies. Specific information will include some or all of the following: 0 Work completion report 0 Planting/vegetation plan 0 Progress reports on habitat restoration 0 Biological determinations of planting success and success criteria 0 Activities planned for next reporting cycle Additional reports will be required to comply with any permits issued. 4. Contingencies 0 All references to dates/timeframes for monitoring and reporting requirements will calculated from the date of final work completion. 0 If plants become naturally established to the extent that maintenance can be reduced or ended in less than three years, appropriate reductions in maintenance can be made as approved by the Trustee Agencies. 0 Once performance criteria have been achieved for the area, as determined by the trustee agencies, no further monitoring and reporting will be required. Environmental Consequences Project implementation will be facilitated by diverting Alamitos Creek through the canal from Almaden Reservoir to Calero Reservoir for a period of 4-6 weeks. This will dewater approximately 0.5 miles of Alamitos Creek from Almaden Dam to the Almaden Road Bridge, near the Park entrance, where the water will be returned via siphon to the creek. This activity will adversely affect red-legged frogs, steelhead, and/or their associated habitat for a short period of time during the active work period. The following procedures will be implemented to minimize impact: 1. Red-legged Frog. Red-legged frogs have been documented to occur irregularly in the project area. Prior to commencing work, the area to be dewatered will be surveyed by a qualified red-legged frog biologist to determine whether red-legged frogs are present; the results of the survey will be used to determine the appropriate level of biological monitoring during the active work period. Dewatering will accomplished slowly to encourage mobile aquatic organisms to move downstream. As dewatering progresses, a crew led by a qualified red-legged frog biologist will capture any adult frogs and collect any egg masses found in the area for 2 of 4 isf-144424311 RACIENDAPRL. _'T Privileged and Confidential—For Settletnt Purposes Only re-location below the point where water is returned to the stream. Biological monitors assigned during the active work period ensure to the extent possible that work activities do not injure any red-legged frogs that enter the area. All frog mortalities will be fully documented. 2. S teelhead. Rainbow trout, some of which might be anadromous steelhead, have been documented to occur in the project area. Therefore, the species will be assumed to be present and a pre-work survey will not be conducted. Dewatering will be accomplished slowly to encourage mobile aquatic organisms to move downstream. As dewatering progresses, a crew led by a qualified steelhead biologist will capture all fish remaining in the reach by electrofishing and relocate them below the point where water is returned to the stream. If any pools remain after dewatering is completed, those pools will be re-surveyed to ensure that as many fish as possible are captured and relocated; all mortalities will be fully documented. 3. Work may involve removal of a number of mature trees (possibly 20-40 at Deep Gulch, a smaller number at Upper and Lower Hacienda); the exact number will be determined after the site survey and delineation of the calcine area and site access. Replacement trees will be incorporated into the re-vegetation plan. It is expected that the benefits of this project and a compensatory project on Coyote Creek will provide adequate mitigation for the environmental consequences described. Evaluation Project benefits include: 1. Reduction of total calcine mass at, and downstream of, Hacienda furnace yard, totaling an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of material. These materials represent a major concentration of calcines in the Hacienda area of Los Alamitos Creek, where historically the highest levels of Hg in creek sediment have been detected. 2. Reduction of mercury bioavailability to benthic organisms, fish, piscivorous birds, and other wildlife. 3. Restoration of riparian habitat to benefit red-legged frog, native fish species, and terrestrial wildlife dependent on riparian habitat. 4. Minimization of potential vegetation stress due to the structural/physical nature of the calcines. This project has been evaluated against the selection criteria described in 43 CFR Part 11 and in section 4.2 of this document, and has been determined to be consistent with these selection factors. The Trustees have determined that this restoration project will restore resources injured by mercury releases. Implementation Schedule It is expected that the time required for survey, design and permit applications would be up to 12 months, and that the bidding and field implementation process would be approximately 11 months. The actual Implementation schedule is dependent on seasonal factors (e.g., water levels). Field implementation should be scheduled to commence and be completed within a window from May-October. The actual field implementation period will be approximately 8 to 12 weeks. 4 of 4 Isf-144424311 HACIENDA PRO,,_.:T Privileged and Confidential—For Settle. t Purposes Only re-location below the point where water is returned to the stream. Biological monitors assigned during the active work period ensure to the extent possible that work activities do not injure any red-legged frogs that enter the area. All frog mortalities will be fully documented. 2. Steelhead. Rainbow trout, some of which might be anadromous steelhead, have been documented to occur in the project area. Therefore, the species will be assumed to be present and a pre-work survey will not be conducted. Dewatering will be accomplished slowly to encourage mobile aquatic organisms to move downstream. As dewatering progresses, a crew led by a qualified steelhead biologist will capture all fish remaining in the reach by electrofishing and relocate them below the point where water is returned to the stream. If any pools remain after dewatering is completed, those pools will be re-surveyed to ensure that as many fish as possible are captured and relocated; all mortalities will be fully documented. 3. Work may involve removal of a number of mature trees (possibly 20-40 at Deep Gulch, a smaller number at Upper and Lower Hacienda); the exact number will be determined after the site survey and delineation of the calcine area and site access. Replacement trees will be incorporated into the re-vegetation plan. It is expected that the benefits of this project and a compensatory project on Coyote Creek will provide adequate mitigation for the environmental consequences described. Evaluation Project benefits include: 1. Reduction of total calcine mass at, and downstream of, Hacienda furnace yard,totaling an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 cubic yards of material. These materials represent a major concentration of calcines in the Hacienda area of Los Alamitos Creek, where historically the highest levels of Hg in creek sediment have been detected. 2. Reduction of mercury bioavailability to benthic organisms,fish, piscivorous birds, and other wildlife. 3. Restoration of riparian habitat to benefit red-legged frog, native fish species, and terrestrial wildlife dependent on riparian habitat. 4. Minimization of potential vegetation stress due to the structural/physical nature of the calcines. This project has been evaluated against the selection criteria described in 43 CFR Part 11 and in section 4.2 of this document, and has been determined to be consistent with these selection factors. The Trustees have determined that this restoration project will restore resources injured by mercury releases. Implementation Schedule It is expected that the time required for survey, design and permit applications would be up to 12 months, and that the bidding and field implementation process would be approximately 11 months. The actual Implementation schedule is dependent on seasonal factors (e.g., water levels). Field implementation should be scheduled to commence and be completed within a window from May-October. The actual field implementation period will be approximately 8 to 12 weeks. 4 of 4 Isf-144424311 � Privileged and CwmfidemMal-Fwr Settlement Purposes Only 4.3,1.2 #2 Primary Restoration Alternative: Jacques Gulch Restoration and Enhancement Project Proiect Description This restoration project will be implemented in the Jacques Gulch drainaQe, upstream of � Almaden Reservoir. Project planning will include the evaluation of two sites, identified as Locations A and B. where calcines and mining debris have been observed. Location Aioon Jacques Gulch upstream of the confluence with the reservoir. Location Biaononunnamed upstream tributary that drains a portion of Mine Hill Uo Jacques Gulch. Jacques Gulch drains � an area of approximately 2 square miles bounded by Mine Hill to the northeast, Jacques Ridge � bo the Northwest, and Bald Mountain b»the Southwest. Location Aia triangular inshape, � extending approximately 1000 feet upstream from the culvert (beneath Alamitos Road) that � � connects Jacques Gulch to the reservoir, and varying in width from approximately 1OO feet ad � the culvert to approximately 4O feet a&the upstream project |imit. Location Biaapproximately � 1000 feet in length and is a steep narrow drainage varying in width from 20 to 40 feet over most ofthis distance. � � Historical accumulation of calcines and mining debris occurred at various places within the project Under calcines within the vxg�ed � /�g . . � perimeter of the streambed may contribute dissolved mercury in the water column. At both � Locations A and B, calcines and other mining debris occur as both cemented rnoemeo and � loose deposits in the stream bed and along the stream banks, where they can bgeroded during high flow events and deposited in the reservoir. This project is intended to prevent the � Jacques Gulch drainage from being an ongoing significant source of mercury in the Guadalupe River Watershed. The first phase of this project will be development oYon Engineer's Report that evaluates the � technical feasibility and costs of different project approaoheaandmpUnnm. The favored option/approach to be evaluated in the Engineer's Report is the consolidation, encapsulation and stabilization of the Jacques Gulch calcines and mining debris with those that were consolidated and capped during the remedial action implemented under the oversight of the California Department ofToxic Substances Control (DTSC) in the Mine Hill Area onthe Almaden Quicksilver County Park ("FavorejAppnzaoh"). The Engineer's Report may also evaluate other potential approaches, including the trapping and periodic removal of mercury bearing materials, the stabilization and capping of the calcines � � and mining debris in place, and other potential management controls that can withstand high- energy Omwounditions. Soil stabilization methods will be evaluated wmu site-specific basis, � and may include excavation and replacement with imported material, stabilization with structural mrbiological materials, contouring, and capping with clean fill. Stream rehabilitation will avoid the use ofziprup and other bard'acape whenever possible. As to any approach other than the Favored Approach, i.e. consolidation with the existing | encapsulated materials On the Countv P�rk (vvhiohio �|ne�dyoubiecttoongoingnmointenanom | ^ ` -~ and monitoring requirements), the Engineers' Report shall consider and propose the |ocaUon(s), frequency and methods for periodic water quality monitoring to ensure that mercury concentrations in water entering the Almaden RgserviV[are within applicable regulatory standards. lof6 | sf-1651152 � � � Privileged and Confidential-For Settlement Purposes Only ! The materials that have aggregated at Locations A and Bdu not support significant riparian vegetation either because the materials have formed a cemented texture that is impenetrable to roots orbecause they are too coarse boserve as adequate substrate for deep-rooted vegetation. Much of the area along Alamitos Creek above and below the reservoir has been i designated as critical habitat for the endangered red-legged frog and tiger salamander. This � project provides an excellent potential to enhance the habitat conditions and possibly the amount of critical habitat available for these endangered species. � All approaches will propose designs to maximize habitat value and minimize erosion, including importation of sufficient substrate tn help support vegetation. All approaches will also provide � for plantings certified by a biologist to attempt to maximize habitat value and vegetation that is ' likely 0obecome self-sustaining. Where possible, plantings will be from seeds collected from ' plants on-site and started at nursery in the year before the project construction. Maintenance, including weed control, browse protection, site inspection, and insect and disease control, will be performed as needed during the re-establishment period. Monitoring and re-planting will be conducted as needed for up to three years following construction � completion. Following submittal of the Engineer's Report, if an approach other than the Favored Approach iatobe pursued, the Santa Clara Valley Water District/SC\/VVD\ will propose it and an associated monitoring program to the Trustees,who will approve, modify and approve, or disapprove the proposal. Once the SCVWD (and the Trustees, should an approach other than the Favored Approach be � selected by the SCVWD) has approved an approach, environmental documentation, permit applications, and construction design will beinitiated. Restoration Ob*ectives a. Goal: Reduce mercury loading to the Guadalupe River watershed by rennovmVoonop|idadion, trapping and consolidation mr removal, and/or . onaite stabilization/management of mercury-containing calcines and � sediments and restoration of riparian habitat on Jacques Gulch ot and upstream of its confluence with Almaden Reservoir b. Objectives: i. Prepare Engineers Report and, if an alternative other than the Favored Approach is recommended, propose specific alternative approach (including a water quality monitoring program)for restoration of Jacques Gulch ii. Remove/consolidate and/or control calcines and re-grade the project area to stable condition, and, ifan alternative other than the Favored Approach � is puraugd, implement water quality monitoring � |ii. Import clean substrate for plant growth iv. Vegetate the area with riparian and/or seasonal wetland habitat Probability of Success � Regulatory and technical feasibility are considered high for this project, indicating a high � probability of overall success. In addibon, to potential NEPA and/orCJE(]A reVievv, this project � may require permits from the following regulatory agencies: � � 2mf6 � _ Privileged and Confidential—For Settlement Purposes Only The materials that have aggregated at Locations A and B do not support significant riparian vegetation either because the materials have formed a cemented texture that is impenetrable to roots or because they are too coarse to serve as adequate substrate for deep-rooted vegetation. Much of the area along Alamitos Creek above and below the reservoir has been designated as critical habitat for the endangered red-legged frog and tiger salamander. This project provides an excellent potential to enhance the habitat conditions and possibly the amount of critical habitat available for these endangered species. All approaches will propose designs to maximize habitat value and minimize erosion, including importation of sufficient substrate to help support vegetation. All approaches will also provide for plantings certified by a biologist to attempt to maximize habitat value and vegetation that is likely to become self-sustaining. Where possible, plantings will be from seeds collected from plants on-site and started at a nursery in the year before the project construction. Maintenance, including weed control, browse protection, site inspection, and insect and disease control, will be performed as needed during the re-establishment period. Monitoring and re-planting will be conducted as needed for up to three years following construction completion. Following submittal of the Engineer's Report, if an approach other than the Favored Approach is to be pursued, the Santa Clara Valley Water District(SCVWD) will propose it and an associated monitoring program to the Trustees,who will approve, modify and approve, or disapprove the proposal. Once the SCVWD (and the Trustees, should an approach other than the Favored Approach be selected by the SCVWD) has approved an approach, environmental documentation, permit applications, and construction design will be initiated. Restoration Objectives a. Goal: Reduce mercury loading to the Guadalupe River watershed by removal/consolidation,trapping and consolidation or removal, and/or onsite stabilization/management of mercury-containing calcines and sediments and restoration of riparian habitat on Jacques Gulch at and upstream of its confluence with Almaden Reservoir b. Objectives: i. Prepare Engineer's Report and, if an alternative other than the Favored Approach is recommended, propose specific alternative approach (including a water quality monitoring program)for restoration of Jacques Gulch ii. Remove/consolidate and/or control calcines and re-grade the project area to stable condition, and, if an alternative other than the Favored Approach is pursued, implement water quality monitoring iii. Import clean substrate for plant growth iv. Vegetate the area with riparian and/or seasonal wetland habitat Probability of Success Regulatory and technical feasibility are considered high for this project, indicating a high probability of overall success. In addition,to potential NEPA and/or CEQA review, this project may require permits from the following regulatory agencies: 2of6 Privileged and Confidential—For Settlement Purposes Only 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404), and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (401 Certification). 2. A Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for endangered species impacts. 3. RWQCB grading and NPDES permit 4. California Department of Fish and Game (streambed alteration) 5. County Roads and Airports Department 6. County Department of Parks and Recreation 7. Approvals from California DTSC may also be required for transportation of the calcine materials and/or their consolidation at the Mine Hill site. 8. If an alternative to the Favored Approach is implemented that involves removal of materials containing mercury,transportation and disposal requirements as imposed by DTSC and/or other applicable regulations. Watershed and stream corridor restoration are well-established fields of expertise. While no restoration can be perfect in the creation of baseline conditions or a pristine ecological system, riparian corridor restoration has been shown to have significant benefits to habitat and water quality and can provide the habitat suitability for a broad range of species, including those that may be injured by the release of mercury or that are endangered and threatened. Stream restoration has become commonplace in recent years, and numerous guidance documents and design references are available. Location A is easily accessed from the road for equipment ingress and egress, and is sufficiently small(approximately one acre)that the actual construction period will be short, with excavation and grading activities completed within approximately 3-5 weeks, and substrate and plantings installation completed within another 3-5 weeks (approximately). Location B is not as easily accessible, and may,require construction of a temporary access road. Locations A and B are located in an area of the Park that is undeveloped for public access, improving the potential for successful re-vegetation and habitat retention. The existence of native habitat upstream of the project I*ocations and in other areas in the vicinity of the reservoir indicates that established plantings should be successful. If access and transport issues can be addressed, removal of aggregated material is likely to be accomplished, as underlying native soils are easy to distinguish visually from the calcines; otherwise on site stabilization and/or management alternatives may need to be utilized to address the project goals. Success Criteria and Monitoring 1. Calcine RemovallConsolidatiorilTrappingIStabilizatiorilManagement Calcine material has different formation and character from that of natural soil formation and it is easily recognizable by visual inspection. All visible calcine material will be removed, consolidated, and capped at the Mine Hill Area of the Park, and/or stabilized or otherwise managed in place. Performance Criterion: Removal/consolidation/encapsulation in accordance with any DTSC requirements or trapping/stabilization/management of accessible visible calcine material at Locations A and B with water quality monitoring (i.e., if an approach other than the Favored Approach is pursued) to confirm that mecrcury is not being released to the Guadalupe River Watershed in excess of 3 of 6 sf-1651152 . . � Privileged and Confidential-ForSettlement Purposes Only � applicable regulatory standards. Re' t � Reestablishment and survival of native species will be inspected annually for up to � � three years after construction completion. Each year, a qualified biologist will inspect � the project locations and provide a report, with recommendations, as to: * whether or not habitat is developing that is reasonably comparable with surrounding areas � w whether or not additional planting or re-planting will be cost effective and � � | required to reestablish native vegetation * possible adjustments tosuccess criteria � Monitoring may cease if the trustees determine that the success criterion has been met phorho � the end [fNlrgeyears 2. Reporting � ! Annual ��anUv0aa �ondun�edv�Ubeprmparadond �ubnndtedbv�hop project i reporting -' '-' innpkennantenm to the Trustees. Specific information will include some or all of the � following: � * Engineer's Report � � ° Environmental Documents (e.g, FONB|/Neg. Dec. or Environmental Impact Statement/Report) w Applicable Permits • Construction completion report * Progress reports � * Water C)um|bvnnonitohnQogpoMn /i.e, ifan approach other than the Favored � Approach iopu- ugd). ' | 3' Contingencies Construction seasons are dependent upon the presence/absence ofsensitive species and upon site conditions. These factors may significantly alter the period and completion ofconstruction. |f other than the Favored Approach ioimplemented and water quality monitoring reveals that mercury in concentrations exceeding applicable regulatory standards is being released into the Guadalupe River Watershed from Jacques Gulch, the 8CVVV[} will submit to the trustees oproposed revised approach bz address such gxcgedancea/re|aaaem. The trustees may approve, revise and approve, or disapprove such revised approach. Thereafter the 8CVND will implement the approved revised approach. Environmental Consequences . � The project is located within the historic range of the California red-legged frog and the � California tiger salamander. The tiger salamander ia currently not listed under the ESA inSanta � Clara County; however, the USFWS has proposed listing the species throughout its range as � threatened. A decision bJ list could be made am early aG summer 2OO4. before the start of project construction. Amphibian surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in � 1997-18S8 did not find either species in the Jacques Gulch project arga. Because the stream ig 4mf6 | � � � i / Ili Privileged and Confidential—For Settlement Purposes Only applicable regulatory standards. Re- vegetatiorVAssessment Reestablishment and survival of native species will be inspected annually for up to three years after construction completion. Each year, a qualified biologist will inspect the project locations and provide a report, with recommendations, as to: • whether or not habitat is developing that is reasonably comparable with surrounding areas • whether or not additional planting or re-planting will be cost effective and required to reestablish native vegetation • possible adjustments to success criteria Monitoring may'y cease if the trustees determine that the success criterion has been met prior to the end of three years 2. Reporting Annual reporting of activities conducted will be prepared and submitted by the project implementers to the Trustees. Specific information will include some or all of the following: • Engineer's Report • Environmental Documents (e.g., FONSI/Neg. Dec. or Environmental Impact Statement/Report) • Applicable Permits • Construction completion report • Progress reports • Water Quality monitoring reports (i.e., if an approach other than the Favored Approach is pursued), 3. Contingencies Construction seasons are dependent upon the presence/absence of sensitive species and upon site conditions. These factors may significantly alter the period and completion of construction. If other than the Favored Approach is implemented and water quality monitoring reveals that mercury in concentrations exceeding applicable regulatory standards is being released into the Guadalupe River Watershed from Jacques Gulch, the SCVWD will submit to the trustees a proposed revised approach to address such exceedances/releases. The trustees may approve, revise and approve, or disapprove such revised approach. Thereafter the SCVWD will implement the approved revised approach. Environmental Consequences The project is located within the historic range of the California red-legged frog and the California tiger salamander. The tiger salamander is currently not listed under the ESA in Santa Clara County; however, the USFWS has proposed listing the species throughout its range as threatened. A decision to list could be made as early as summer 2004, before the start of project construction. Amphibian surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1997-1998 did not find either species in the Jacques Gulch project area. Because the stream is 4 of 6 ' | Privileged and Cwm@dcodu -FwrSeutleoentDurpwmsewOnly � ephemeral. little water will be present during the construction period, and impacts to the frog are unlikely. The tiger salamander tends to breed in ephemeral pools, stock ponds, and sometimes naaamo|m, but rarely in streams; impacts 10 the salamander are therefore also unlikely. 1' Red-legged Frog. Prior 1V construction the area will be surveyed bya qualified red-legged fuJQ biologist to determine whether red-legged frogs are present; the results of the survey will be used to determine the appropriate level #f biological monitoring during the construction period. A crew led bya qualified red-legged frog biologist will re-locate any frogs or egg masses identified during the survey outside the project onae. Biological � monitors assigned during the construction period, if required, will ensure to the extent � possible that construction activities do not injure any red-legged frogs that enter the area. � All frog mortalities that occur will be fully documented. 2. Tiger Salamander. Prior to construction the area will be surveyed bym qualified tiger salamander biologist to determine whether tiger salamanders are present; the results of the survey will be used to determine the appropriate level of biological monitoring during the construction period. A qualified tiger salamander biologist will relocate any salamanders identified during the survey outside the project area. Biological monitors assigned during the construction period, if required, will ensure to the extent possible that construction activities do not injure anymo|amanderathatentarthearma. All tiger salamander mortalities that occur will be fully documented. 3. Work might involve removal of m "to be determined" number of mature trees; the exact number will be determined after the site survey and delineation of the calcine area and site access. Rmp|econnen1 trees will be incorporated into the re-vegetation portion of the restoration design. |tim expected that the benefits of this project and a compensatory restoration project onCoY#te Creek will provide adequate mitigation for the environmental consequences described. Evaluation Project benefits include: l. Reduction of total calcine mass downstream of Mine Hill, up to an estimated 12,000 to � 15,000 cubic yards of material and/or stabilization/management of remaining calcines on � site. These rnabarie|n are the last significant concentration of calcines in the � aubvvatenahed draining to Alamitos Creek upstream of Almaden Dam. D. Minimization of potential vegetation atnaao due to the structural/physical nature of the calcines. 3. Restoration of aquatic and riparian habitat bz benefit red-legged frog and other native amphibian species, and terrestrial wildlife dependent on riparian cover. 4. Reduction in dissolved and suspended mercury in water released from Almaden Reservoir toAlamitos Creek and Ca|eno Reservoir, with associated reduction of mercury bio3wai|abi|i1vtoben1hicorganisms, fish, piocivoroVs binja' and other wildlife. | Downstream benefits will also enhance the benefits ofp project � | ' v- � � This project has been evaluated against the selection criteria described in 43CFR Part 11 and � in section 4.2 of this document, and has been determined to be consistent with these selection � factors. The Trustees have determined that this restoration project will restore resources injured by the mercury releases. 5of6 sf-l05ll52 _ � Privileged and Confidential—For Settlement Purposes Only Implementation Schedule The model schedule for the project is as follows: Prior to Aug 2005 Site Survey/Project Description Dec 2005 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Dec 2006 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Dec 2007 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Nov 2008 Engineer's Report/Environmental Documents Dec 2008 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Nov 2009 Environmental Permits Dec 2009 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Aug. -Oct. 2010 Construction Dec 2010 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Jun 2011 Construction Completion Report Dec 2011 Final Report to Trustees I 6of6 Privileged and Confidential—For Settlement Purposes Only Implementation Schedule Th e model schedule for the project is as follows: Prior to Aug 2005 Site Survey/Project Description De c 2005 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Dec 2006 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Dec 2007 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Nov 2008 Engineer's Report/Environmental Documents Dec 2008 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Nov 2009 Environmental Permits Dec 2009 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Aug. -Oct.2010 Construction Dec 2010 Annual Progress Report to Trustees Jun 2011 Construction Completion Report Dec 2011 Final Report to Trustees 6of6 Privilelland Confidential—For Settlement Purpose_ nly PROJECT NAME: Coyote Creek Arundo donax Eradication and Habitat Enhancement A. Project Goal and Objectives a. Goal: Eradicate Arundo donax(Arundo)infestation in Coyote Creek Riparian Corridor commencing at Anderson Reservoir and moving downstream toward Hellyer Avenue. b. Objectives: L Map Arundo infestation sites ii. Implement Arundo eradication program iii. Re-vegetate Arundo removal/infestation sites iv. Verify achievement of success criteria B. Description of the Project Arundo is a highly invasive non-native species that infests creeks and adjacent habitat, displacing native vegetation and thereby reducing the quality of riparian habitat. The displacement of native habitat reduces the quality of available habitat for wildlife, including endangered species, This project will restore approximately 12-14 acres of native riparian habitat observed to be infested by Arundo. Work will begin with a survey of land surrounding Anderson Reservoir (approximately 8 miles)to identify and remove Arundo infestations (approximately 8 miles) and continue at the first infestation site approximately 3/4 mile downstream of Anderson dam at least to Fisher Avenue (approximately 6 miles). Work will continue on a second reach of Coyote Creek (Figure 1, Table 1), beginning approximately 1.2 miles downstream of Fisher Avenue to Metcalf Road (approximately 4.5 miles), including removal of Arundo at Metcalf Road, and a survey to identify and remove other Arundo sites within this reach. Work will continue on a third reach of Coyote Creek beginning approximately 2 miles downstream of Metcalf Road and ending at Hellyer Avenue (approximately 4 miles). The plan to work downstream from the uppermost area of Arundo infestation will ensure that treated areas are not re-seeded with Arundo from upstream sources. This will also complement an on-going Arundo eradication program being carried out by others, within two areas within the identified reaches, each of which is approximately 1.25 miles in length. The Arundo infestations will be mapped using Global Positioning System technology and geographically linked to an information database using Geographic Information System software. Combined with future filed surveys, this provides the capability for tracking the progress of the sites over time. Arundo acreage will be estimated based on the square footage below/within the driipline of the canopy of the stand at each site. Initial control of the Arundo will consist of removal of biomass, appropriate disposal of biomass, and treatment of residual and clumps with an approved herbicide. Removal methods will include mechanical and hand methods, as determined on a site specific basis. Where mechanical methods are employed, removal of both above- and below-ground biomass will be conducted to the extent feasible. Hand methods will typically remove only above-ground biomass. Typical herbicide control consists of applying the chemical to freshly cut stumps. The plant takes the herbicide into its underground portions, where the herbicide kills the roots. Follow-up control of herbicide applications to re-growth is typically required, particularly for large stands, and will be carried out as part of this project until complete eradication of the stand is accomplished. Generally, two or three annual applications are required for complete eradication of the original stand. Since herbicide application is most effective in the fall of the year, this is the time of year that most field work for biomass removal and herbicide application will be conducted. The type of herbicide used will vary depending on the location of the stand in proximity to the water. Stands within or near the water will be treated with herbicides approved 1 of 4 Privi*and Confidential—For Settlement Purpo- - Jnly for aquatic use. Stands away from the water may be treated with the same herbicide or others as determined on a site specific basis. To the extent possible the types of herbicides used will those that have been previously reviewed and approved for use in consultation with trustee and regulatory agencies. Following eradication, it is expected that the sites (which are expected to be small areas) will have sufficient surrounding native riparian vegetation to allow for natural re-colonization, so that active re- vegetation with appropriate site-specific native species should not be required. However, if, following consultation with the landowner and the Trustees, the District identifies cost effective opportunities to further enhance habitat through supplemental re-vegetation, they will be exploited. Maintenance, including weed control, non-native species control, browse protection, site inspection, and insect and disease control, will be performed if needed during the re-establishment period of native vegetation. C. Project Benefits 0 Replacement of non-native Arundo with native habitat suitable for a broad range of species by providing greater structural, biological and age diversity. 0 Improvement of'fish habitat in the following ways: > Structural diversity > Temperature control > Nutrient supplement > Bank stability/erosion control > Reduced surface runoff 0 Reduction of habitat fragmentation, which may: > facilitate wildlife movement > provide contiguous nesting/foraging habitat D. Monitoring and Performance Criteria 1. Verification of Eradication of Arundo donax Sites where initial activities to eradicate Arundo were conducted will be re-inspected annually for three years and follow-up chemical or other treatments will be performed when needed. The Trustees will perform a final inspection in the fifth year to confirm the treated site has been cleared. If, as a result of the inspection the Trustees determine that the Arundo has not been fully eradicated, then the Trustees may, in conjunction with the District and after consultation with the Landowner, suggest further actions by the District sufficient to reasonably assure the effective eradication of remaining stands. Performance Criterion: Eradication of current stands identified and treated. 2. Re-vegetation/Assessment Re-growth or recruitment of native species will be inspected annually for up to five years after eradication, at all sites where follow-up inspections and treatments for Arundo have been conducted. Each year, a qualified biologist will make an assessment and, where appropriate, recommendations for each site, in consultation with the District, the Landowner and Trustee agencies, regarding: • whether or not the site would support naturally occurring riparian vegetation • whether or not adequate habitat is developing • whether or not active re-vegetation efforts present themselves and are likely to be cost effective • adjustments to success criteria • whether or not success criteria have been met 2 of 4 Isf-145967711 Priv. I and Confidential—For Settlement PurpL Jnly for aquatic use. Stands away from the water may be treated with the same herbicide or others as determined on a site specific basis. To the extent possible the types of herbicides used will those that have been previously reviewed and approved for use in consultation with trustee and regulatory agencies. Following eradication, it is expected that the sites (which are expected to be small areas) will have sufficient surrounding native riparian vegetation to allow for natural re-colonization, so that active re- vegetation with appropriate site-specific native species should not be required. However, if, following consultation with the landowner and the Trustees, the District identifies cost effective opportunities to further enhance habitat through supplemental re-vegetation, they will be exploited. Maintenance, including weed control, non-native species control, browse protection, site inspection, and insect and disease control, will be performed if needed during the re-establishment period of native vegetation. C. Project Benefits 0 Replacement of non-native Arundo with native habitat suitable for a broad range of species by providing greater structural, biological and age diversity. 0 Improvement of'fish habitat in the following ways: > Structural diversity > Temperature control > Nutrient supplement > Bank stability/erosion control > Reduced surface runoff 0 Reduction of habitat fragmentation, which may: > facilitate wildlife movement > provide contiguous nesting/foraging habitat D. Monitoring and Performance Criteria 1. Verification of Eradication of Arundo donax Sites where initial activities to eradicate Arundo were conducted will be re-inspected annually for three years and follow-up chemical or other treatments will be performed when needed. The Trustees will perform a final inspection in the fifth year to confirm the treated site has been cleared. If, as a result of the inspection the Trustees determine that the Arundo has not been fully eradicated, then the Trustees may, in conjunction with the District and after consultation with the Landowner, suggest further actions by the District sufficient to reasonably assure the effective eradication of remaining stands. Performance Criterion: Eradication of current stands identified and treated. 2. Re-vegetation/Assessment Re-growth or recruitment of native species will be inspected annually for up to five years after eradication, at all sites where follow-up inspections and treatments for Arundo have been conducted. Each year, a qualified biologist will make an assessment and, where appropriate, recommendations for each site, in consultation with the District, the Landowner and Trustee agencies, regarding: 0 whether or not the site would support naturally occurring riparian vegetation 0 whether or not adequate habitat is developing 0 whether or not active re-vegetation efforts present themselves and are likely to be cost effective 0 adjustments to success criteria 0 whether or not success criteria have been met 2 of 4 isf-145967711 MAI%._ Aand Confidential—For Settlement Purpos jnly Performance Criterion: Sufficient cover to assure that native vegetation is naturally established and will survive as determined by a certified biologist in consultation with the Trustee agencies and the Landowner. 3. Reporting Annual reporting of activities conducted will be prepared and submitted to the Landowner and Trustee Agencies. Specific information will include relevant information such as the following (if applicable): • Location maps and areas of eradication treatment sites • Volume of biomass removed and disposed, disposal site * Initial and follow-up treatment activities conducted • Biological determinations of re-vegetation • Re-vegetation sites success evaluation • Activities planned for next reporting cycle • Number and location of sites meeting success criteria 4. Contingencies * All references to maintenance, monitoring, and reporting are calculated from the date of final treatment on a given site 0 If plants become naturally established to the extent that maintenance can be reduced or ended in less than three years, appropriate reductions in maintenance will be made, with the concurrence of the trustee agencies 0 Once success criteria have been achieved and reported for a given site, with concurrence of the Trustee agencies, no further monitoring and reporting of that site will be required 0 Treatments of outbreaks of new stands of Arundo outside those identified and eradicated in this project are not included in the scope of work for this project E. Permits and Regulatory Requirements This project is governed by applicable laws and regulations concerning the proper storage and use of herbicides, and proper disposal of biomass. No permits beyond those already issued are anticipated. F. Technical Feasibility Control of Arundo requires a combination of mechanical or hand biomass removal and follow-up chemical control techniques. Optimization of the treatment program may be achieved by evaluation and manipulation of variables, such as timing, rates of chemical application, mulching, and alternative biomass disposal options. Density of infestation, access to treatment sites, weather, stream conditions, availability of native plants, and other factors will influence the amount of work that can be accomplished in a given year. The roots and rhizomes of the plant can take years to completely degrade and will effectively inhibit growth of other plants until they have completely decomposed. Re-vegetation by naturally occurring species may not be complete until sufficient decomposition has occurred. While this may slow the re- vegetation process, it allows sites to be easily inspected to ensure there is no re-growth of Arundo or other invasive vegetation, and to implement follow-up treatment, if necessary. 3 of 4 P AI.-_,.i and Confidential—For Settlement Purposes Only G. Implementation Schedule The model schedule for the project is as follows: Aug. 2003 Survey and Mapping of Sites Aug.-Oct. 2003 Initial treatment, biomass removal and disposal Dec 2003 Annual Monitoring Report July 2004 Treatment Site Inspections Aug.- Oct. 2004 Follow-up treatment Dec 2005 Annual Monitoring Report July 2005 Treatment Site Inspections Aug.- Oct. 2005 Follow-up treatment Dec 2005 Annual Monitoring Report July 2006 Treatment Site Inspections Aug.- Oct. 2006 Follow-up treatment Dec 2006 Annual Monitoring Report July 2007 Treatment Site/Re-vegetation Inspections Aug.- Oct. 2007 Follow-up treatment Dec 2007 Annual Monitoring Report July 2008 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2008 Annual Monitoring Report j July 2009 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2009 Annual Monitoring Report July 2010 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2010 Annual Monitoring Report July 2011 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2011 Annual Monitoring Report July 2012 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2012 Annual Monitoring Report/Project Completion 4of4 Isf-145967711 Privi. a and Confidential—For Settlement Purpo, Jnly G. Implementation Schedule The model schedule for the project is as follows: Aug. 2003 Survey and Mapping of Sites Aug.- Oct. 2003 Initial treatment, biomass removal and disposal Dec 2003 Annual Monitoring Report July 2004 Treatment Site Inspections Aug.- Oct. 2004 Follow-up treatment Dec 2005 Annual Monitoring Report July 2005 Treatment Site Inspections Aug: Oct. 2005 Follow-up treatment Dec 2005 Annual Monitoring Report July 2006 Treatment Site Inspections Aug.- Oct. 2006 Follow-up treatment Dec 2006 Annual Monitoring Report July 2007 Treatment Site/Re-vegetation Inspections Aug.-Oct. 2007 Follow-up treatment Dec 2007 Annual Monitoring Report July 2008 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2008 Annual Monitoring Report July 2009 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2009 Annual Monitoring Report July 2010 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2010 Annual Monitoring Report July 2011 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2011 Annual Monitoring Report July 2012 Re-vegetation Inspections Dec 2012 Annual Monitoring Report/Project Completion 4of4 (sf-145967711 Privileg, nd Confidential—For Settlement Purp s Only PROJECT NAME: Ravenswood Marsh Predator Control A. Project Goal and Objectives a. Goal: Reduce predation pressures on the California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) at the Ravenswood Marsh. b. Objectives: i. Fund a five-year predator control program to be implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services (USDA-WS). ii. Request the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (SFBNWR)to include the Ravenswood Marsh in its annual counts of the California Clapper Rail, iii. Enable access to the Ravenswood Marsh by the public for the safe viewing of the California Clapper Rail, iv. Work with the Peninsula Open Space Trust to allow USDA-WS access to Cooley Landing to perform predator control activities complementary to those on Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) land. B. Description of the Project Marshes in the San Francisco Bay were and currently are home to numerous species of birds, mammals, fish, and vegetation, including the endangered California Clapper Rail. Habitat for the California Clapper Rail typically consists of pickleweed and cordgrass salt water marshes within a system of sloughs having constant tidal circulation. The Ravenswood Marsh contains elements of habitat suitable for the California Clapper Rail and is part of the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve owned by MROSD (see Figure 1). The 115-acre marsh is located along the western shore of the San Francisco Bay, approximately 0.5 miles east of University Avenue and 0.75 miles south of State Route 84. The Ravenswood Marsh is accessed by traveling east on Bay Road, towards the San Francisco Bay. As part of this project, MROSD will continue to maintain the current level of public access to the Preserve, including parking, an informational kiosk, walkways, and bike trails. The Cooley Landing peninsula lies immediately southeast of the marsh. Relative to the Ravenswood Marsh, the peninsula is smaller, covering approximately 15 acres. This upland area contains a grassy meadow, small trees, and various man-made features including a driveway, an old house, a landlocked dredge, and a boat landing in substantial disrepair. MROSD owns the northern and southern margins of the peninsula and POST owns the 6.62 acre central portion containing the structures. This project includes MROSD negotiations with POST to allow similar predator controls on the POST parcel, if recommended by USDA-WS. Historically, the Ravenswood Marsh was a natural tidal salt marsh and probably contained habitat characteristics suitable for California Clapper Rail. In the mid-1 900s, a levee was constructed around the marsh to isolate it from tidal action and to construct a pond for the production of salt. In 2000, restoration of the hydrology and vegetation began at the Ravenswood Marsh to "provide a safe and natural habitat for many native plants and animals [including] the California Clapper Rail and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse." Routine monitoring of the restoration activities at the site will be performed, for the initial 10 years, by others under the direction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). Results from the first annual monitoring report indicate that the restoration effort has successfully created appropriate 1 of 4 317637.1 Privilegiond Confidential—For Settlement Purp, a Only hydrologic and geomorphic conditions to support marsh function and further natural development. In 2001, California Clapper Rails were observed foraging at the marsh. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the California Clapper Rail as an endangered species on October 13, 1970. Threats to the California Clapper Rail include loss and degradation of habitat, invasion of non-native cordgrass, pollution, and predation. Adult and juvenile California Clapper Rail are predated by non-native red fox and feral cat, while their eggs can be predated by raccoon, striped skunk, and Norway rat. The red fox is a significant predator of the California Clapper Rail and probably contributes to its population decline. Therefore, this project consists of funding five years of predator damage management (i.e., predator control) to be implemented by the USDA-WS at the Ravenswood Marsh. USDA-WS will be contracted with to implement a program of predator controls at the Ravenswood Marsh in a manner and at a level of effort similar to that provided to SFBNWR in areas of similar size and features. In 2001, the USDA- WS performed a preliminary inspection of the Ravenswood Marsh and concluded that predation pressures from red fox, raccoon, skunk, rat, and feral cat are likely. Successful predator control programs currently are operating in marshes north and south of the Ravenswood Marsh. Discussions with USDA-WS, SFBNWR, CDF&G, and USFWS indicated that the implementation of a predator control program at the Ravenswood Marsh would prove successful and would contribute to the regional efforts to reduce predation pressures on the California Clapper Rail. C. Project Benefits There are three primary benefits expected from the implementation of this project: • Removal from the Ravenswood Marsh of predators such as red fox, skunk, raccoon, and feral cat that potentially affect a broad range of resident animals. * Reduced specific predation pressures on the California Clapper Rail at the Ravenswood Marsh. • Improved regional efforts to control predators within the SFBNWR. Additional benefits are also anticipated, including: • Reduced predation of other animals at the Ravenswood Marsh, such as birds and the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. • Enhanced growth of the California Clapper Rail population at the Ravenswood Marsh. • Enhanced regional growth of the California Clapper Rail population. • Reduced predation pressure on California Clapper Rail on adjacent properties and within the foraging range of the removed predators. • Possible increased opportunities for viewing of the California Clapper Rail by visitors to the Ravenswood Marsh. D. Monitoring and Success Criteria 1. Assess efforts to remove predators from the Ravenswood Marsh USDA-WS reports annually on the success of its predator damage management program, which is implemented in several areas throughout San Francisco Bay under the direction of the SFBNWR. The reports include the number, location, and types of traps set, and the number, location, and species of predators captured at the marsh. This information will be used to estimate: • whether predators are being captured at the marsh, 2 of 4 Isf-1 46020411 PrIvilegand Confidential-For Settlement Purpts Only hydrologic and geomorphic conditions to support marsh function and further natural development. In 2001, California Clapper Rails were observed foraging at the marsh. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the California Clapper Rail as an endangered species on October 13, 1970. Threats to the California Clapper Rail include loss and degradation of habitat, invasion of non-native cordgrass, pollution, and predation. Adult and juvenile California Clapper Rail are predated by non-native red fox and feral cat, while their eggs can be predated by raccoon, striped skunk, and Norway rat. The red fox is a significant predator of the California Clapper Rail and probably contributes to its population decline. Therefore, this project consists of funding five years of predator damage management(i.e., predator control)to be implemented by the USDA-WS at the Ravenswood Marsh. USDA-WS will be contracted with to implement a program of predator controls at the Ravenswood Marsh in a manner and at a level of effort similar to that provided to SFBNWR in areas of similar size and features. In 2001, the USDA- WS performed a preliminary inspection of the Ravenswood Marsh and concluded that predation pressures from red fox, raccoon, skunk, rat, and feral cat are likely. Successful predator control programs currently are operating in marshes north and south of the Ravenswood Marsh. Discussions with USDA-WS, SFBNWR, CDF&G, and USFWS indicated that the implementation of a predator control program at the Ravenswood Marsh would prove successful and would contribute to the regional efforts to reduce predation pressures on the California Clapper Rail. C. Project Benefits There are three primary benefits expected from the implementation of this project: 0 Removal from the Ravenswood Marsh of predators such as red fox, skunk, raccoon, and feral cat that potentially affect a broad range of resident animals. 0 Reduced specific predation pressures on the California Clapper Rail at the Ravenswood Marsh. 0 Improved regional efforts to control predators within the SFBNWR. Additional benefits are also anticipated, including: * Reduced predation of other animals at the Ravenswood Marsh, such as birds and the endangered Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. * Enhanced growth of the California Clapper Rail population at the Ravenswood Marsh. 0 Enhanced regional growth of the California Clapper Rail population. 0 Reduced predation pressure on California Clapper Rail on adjacent properties and within the foraging range of the removed predators. * Possible increased opportunities for Viewing of the California Clapper Rail by visitors to the Ravenswood Marsh. D. Monitoring and Success Criteria 1. Assess efforts to remove predators from the Ravenswood Marsh USDA-WS reports annually on the success of its predator damage management program, which is implemented in several areas throughout San Francisco Bay under the direction of the SFBNWR. The reports include the number, location, and types of traps set, and the number, location, and species of predators captured at the marsh. This information will be used to estimate: • whether predators are being captured at the marsh, 2 of 4 Isf-146020411 Privileg, and Confidential—For Settlement Purp--as Only • whether predation pressures are likely to decrease, and • whether changes to the predator control program should be made. Success Criterion: USDA has implemented a five-year predator control program at the Ravenswood Marsh. The level of effort expended by USDA at the Ravenswood Marsh was similar to that implemented for SFBNWR in areas of similar size and features. 2. Reporting There are three routine annual monitoring and reporting programs currently in place that describe various habitat conditions at the Ravenswood Marsh: • Those parties implementing marsh restoration activities submit annual reports describing the success of the restoration effort to the CDF&G, USFWS, and RWQCB. This information will be useful in assessing the suitability of the Ravenswood Marsh for supporting nesting and breeding California Clapper Rails. • SFBNWR performs an annual count of the California Clapper Rail. Once SFBNWR includes the Ravenswood Marsh in its annual counting program, the information will be useful in determining whether the California Clapper Rail are using the Ravenswood Marsh for foraging, nesting, and/or breeding. • USDA-WS annually reports the results of its predator control program. MROSD will assure that the trustees receive copies of the identified reports through the end of the five year predator control project. Taken together, the three annual monitoring reports will provide information to the trustees to assist in: • determining the optimal time for initiating the five year predator control program, and • evaluating the predator control measures at the Ravenswood Marsh. 3. Contingencies There are no contingencies applicable to MROSD's ability to fund this project. At the trustees discretion and prior to initiating predator control at the Ravenswood Marsh, the funding may be used to perform predator control at another location if suitable conditions for effective predator control do not develop sufficiently at the Ravenswood Marsh. In such an event, MROSD would not be responsible for any monitoring or reporting obligations. E. Permits and Regulatory Requirements Permits required for the implementation of predator control activities are the responsibility of the USDA- WS. Under the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 and the Rural Development, Agricultural, and Related Agencies Act of 1988, the USDA has the authority to implement predator damage management activities. Based on a Final Environmental Assessment, the USFWS issued its "Finding of No Significant Impact"for the "Predator Management Plan,"which became final on May 2, 1991. This project will not require MROSD to obtain permits. F. Technical Feasibility USDA-WS routinely implements predator control activities throughout SFBNWR. Based on reconnaissance of the Ravenswood Marsh by USDA-WS and CDF&G personnel, the marsh is an 3 of 4 317637.1 Privilegb-and Confidential-For Settlement Purposes Only excellent candidate for successful predator control actions. G. Implementation Schedule Predator control activities will be performed by USDA-WS for a period of five years. The start date for implementing the predator control program at the Ravenswood Marsh will be determined by the resource trustees. Parameters to be considered in deciding when to begin predator control will include the quality and stability of the habitat at the Ravenswood Marsh, success of predator control programs in adjacent areas, and foraging, nesting, and breeding occurrences of California Clapper Rail in the Ravenswood Marsh. Information directly related to these critical parameters is contained in the three current routine annual monitoring reports for the area. 4 of 4 Isf-146020411 Privile, and Confidential—For Settlement Purr .es Only excellent candidate for successful predator control actions. G. Implementation Schedule Predator control activities will be performed by USDA-WS for a period of five years. The start date for implementing the predator control program at the Ravenswood Marsh will be determined by the resource trustees. Parameters to be considered in deciding when to begin predator control will include the quality and stability of the habitat at the Ravenswood Marsh, success of predator control programs in adjacent areas, and foraging, nesting, and breeding occurrences of California Clapper Rail in the Ravenswood Marsh. Information directly related to these critical parameters is contained in the three current routine annual monitoring reports for the area. 4of4 Isf-146020411 Regional Open . p ce R-04-94 Meeting 04-20 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT September 22,2004 1EBRAIIN(s 30 YFARS 01 OPEN SPACF PRrSERVA"F-Fc;>N AGENDA ITEM 3 Approval of Application to Habitat Conservation Fund Program for Assistance with the Potential Addition of the Peninsula Open Space Trust's Rapley Ranch Property to Rus ' Open Space Preserve (San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Number 078-210-370 and 080-320-170) GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as set out in this Report. 2. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District approving the application for grant funds from the Habitat Conservation Fund Program for the potential addition of the Peninsula Open Space Trust's Rapley Ranch property to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. DISCUSSION(see attached map) The Habitat Conservation Fund(HCF)is a statewide grant program which provides $2 million annually under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. The monies are distributed to local agencies as 50%matching grants for acquisition,restoration,or enhancement of wildlife habitat and for trails and programs that provide access to park and wildlife areas. The application deadline for the current funding cycle is October 1, 2004 and selection of recipients is made by the end of January 2005. Acquisition grants can be matched only by non-State funds or gifts of property made available as part of the acquisition project. Funds are available for projects in six categories. Four of the six categories are funded each year on a rotational basis. More than one project application can be submitted,but a project can only be submitted in one of the four eligible categories in one year,even though it may qualify for more than one. The categories are listed below with those eligible for 2005-2006 fundingshown in bold print. g 1. Anadromous Salmonids and Trout Habitat 2. Wetland Habitat 3. Riparian Habitat 4. Wildlife Corridors and Urban Trails 5. Rare,Endangered,Threatened or Fully Protected Species Habitat 6. Deer and Mountain Lion Habitat The District is proposing to submit an application for this funding cycle in the Anadromous Salmonids and Trout Habitat category. Potential Property Addition The District is applying to the Habitat Conservation Fund Program for a$500,000 matching grant for the Peninsula Open Space Trust's(POST)property potential addition to Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. This grant would be used to potentially acquire the Rapley Ranch,a 151-acre property owned by Peninsula Open Space Trust. Set high on the west facing slopes of Russian Ridge between two extinct volcanoes,the ranch includes a densely forested canyon that makes up part of the headwaters of Mindego Creek. This stream is important as a spawning and nursery area for the federally threatened steelhead and is potential habitat for the endangered Coho salmon,which historically were present,downstream in San Gregorio Creek. The property would become an addition to the adjoining 1,822-acre Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,led Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton R-04-94 Page 2 Besides its value as anadromous salmonid habitat,the property has natural resource assets that the Habitat Conservation Fund supports in four other categories. Diverse terrain results in diverse plant communities,with oak woodlands and open grasslands on the gently rolling ridge tops and mixed evergreen forest and riparian woodland on the steep slopes above Mindego Creek and its tributaries. Mountain lion are present and deer forage and use resting sites on the property. Endangered,threatened, and other special status species have been documented in Mindego Creek and in the greater watershed above and below the property. Finally,ranch roads on the property provide excellent opportunities for a loop trail from the Bay Area Ridge Trail alignment across adjacent Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The variety of rich habitats and trails makes the property a desirable addition to the Preserve. It is staff s assessment that the POST Rapley Ranch property would be an important and integral part of the open space system and resource protection in this region. Although prime agricultural soils are not present and the property is not currently used for agricultural purposes,grazing activities have occurred in the past and will be assessed in the use and management planning process in the event the District Board receives approval of this grant and then determines to acquire this property. Approval of the grant application and possible award of grant funding will make the funds available to the District when and if the District completes pre-acquisition review and planning, and the District Board decides to acquire the property and enters into a purchase agreement with the property owner. A grant application does not constitute an agreement to acquire this property nor does it obligate the District to complete such an acquisition. The grant agreement, if awarded,would secure funding for five years following the 2005 State Budget appropriation. San Mateo Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report The May 2003 San Mateo Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report identified the Rapley Ranch property(former Connor property)as a parcel that may be considered for acquisition and one that the owner has indicated an interest in selling. Discussions at the staff level indicate that the owner has an interest in selling. The Final EIR states that even though there may be a willing seller,no decision to acquire this property can be made until the District obtains funding for the acquisition and management,completes a Preliminary Use and Management Plan,conducts an acquisition-specific CEQA analysis,and holds a public hearing before the District Board. Of the required steps necessary to acquire the property,the only step being taken as a result of the action recommended in this report is to submit a grant application to the Habitat Conservation Fund Program. In doing so,the District will be taking an appropriate step to secure and preserve grant funds so they will be available in the event the District determines to acquire this property in the future. CEQA COMPLIANCE The District has concluded that the action being recommended in this report is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed action seeks a funding mechanism. Submitting an application to secure grant funds for a potential acquisition does not require the District to purchase the property nor expend the funds. Approval of this funding mechanism has no possible significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3)and Sections 15378 (a)and(b). Future acquisition would be contingent on several factors including required CEQA review. Prepared by: Del Woods, Senior Acquisition Planner Contact person: Same as above Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve Rapley Ranch Property „> ,- r t i l Au ubott, _i i � ✓ _"� �, Society a _ CL w � . .- \. "' if Creek rell &4-ce--Preserve 1 /of� t ��ir\��f�f ./ \ t '�•,,� �'}- � a r I: Rapley Ranch )(Property POST ,i +/- 151 Acres �, \� _ rai l Russian Rica e Open Spice Preserve. Vvv/ j . ge f ' " in i ., }� r G'.\Projects\R,,,,n_R,d9e\Rapley Ranch_Conner\Rapley Ranch Acqu_9 mxd MS Miles EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP 0 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 i RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE LOCAL AGENCY GRANT PROGRAM-FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 UNDER THE HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 FOR THE PENINSULA OPEN SPACE TRUST'S RAPLEY RANCH PROPERTY ACQUISITION WHEREAS,the people of the State of California have enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990,which provides funds to the State of California for grants to local agencies to acquire and/or develop facilities for public recreational and fish and wildlife habitat protection purposes; and WHEREAS,the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of a portion of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, said application contains assurance with which the applicant must comply. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors hereby: l. Approves the filing of an application for the Habitat Conservation Fund Grant Program under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 State grant assistance for the above project. 2. Certifies that said applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application form. 3. Certifies that said applicant has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application, the required match; and will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project. 4. Appoints the General Manager as agent of the District to execute and submit all documents, including,but not limited to applications,agreements, amendments, and so on,which may be necessary to comply with the requirements of the Habitat Conservation Fund Grant Program. Regional Open Space R-04-95 Meeting 04-20 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT September 22,2004 csa.PBR,aJANG 30 YI�ARS OF 011r N .SPA(A" FIRLSIAi VAlION AGENDA ITEM 4 Approval of Application to Habitat Conservation Fund Program for Assistance with the Potential Addition of the Arroyo Leon Property to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve(San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 066-140-080, -090, -100 and-110) GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Determine that the recommended action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as set out in this Report. 2. Adopt the attached Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District approving the application for grant funds from the Habitat Conservation Fund Program for the potential addition of the Arroyo Leon property to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. DISCUSSION(see attached map) The Habitat Conservation Fund(HCF)is a statewide grant program which provides $2 million annually under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990. The monies are distributed to local agencies as 50%matching grants for acquisition,restoration,or enhancement of wildlife habitat and for trails and programs that provide access to park and wildlife areas. The application deadline for the current funding cycle is October 1, 2004 and selection of recipients is made by the end of January 2005. Acquisition grants can be matched only by non-State funds or gifts of property made available as part of the acquisition project. Funds are available for projects in six categories. Four of the six categories are funded each year on a rotational basis. More than one project application can be submitted,but a project can only be submitted in one of the four eligible categories in one year,even though it may qualify for more than one. The categories are listed below with those eligible for 2005-2006 funding shown in bold print. 1. Anadromous Salmonids and Trout Habitat 2. Wetland Habitat 3. Riparian Habitat 4. Wildlife Corridors and Urban Trails 5. Rare,Endangered,Threatened or Fully Protected Species Habitat 6. Deer and Mountain Lion Habitat The District is proposing to submit an application for this funding cycle in the Riparian Habitat category. Potential Property Addition The District is applying to the Habitat Conservation Fund Program for a$282,500 matching grant for the Arroyo Leon Property addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve. The Arroyo Leon Property is comprised of 157 acres lying adjacent to the western boundary of the open space preserve. The property fronts a half-mile segment of the Arroyo Leon, a perennial stream with a well-developed, dense multi-storied riparian corridor. Red alder,the dominant species within the corridor, and other riparian species,grow across the slopes from the property's north ridge to the streambed on the south side of Arroyo Leon. Wet soils have formed from the abundance of springs and seeps and the moist conditions are enhanced by the heavy fog drip that occurs nearly year round. The result is a gradational mix of riparian and mixed evergreen 33o Distel Circl€? 650-691-12oo info@openspace,org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,tarry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton R-04-95 Page 2 forest on the watershed slopes. An estimated 50%of the property area can be considered riparian woodland on the basis of its plants and wet soils. Besides its value for its riparian habitat,the property has natural resource assets that the Habitat Conservation Fund supports in four other categories. The stream is important as a spawning and nursery area for the federally threatened steelhead and is potential habitat for the endangered Coho salmon,which historically were present in the stream. The merits of the property for salmonid habitat warranted an award of an HCF grant in the amount of $217,500 in the 2003-2004 funding cycle. Mountain lion are present and deer forage and use resting sites on the property. Endangered,threatened,and other special status species have been documented in the stream, associated with the property, and in the greater watershed above and below the property. The property provides a natural extension of the Preserve in that it encompasses a continuation of a prominent ridgeline and road that extends from Skyline Ridge to Higgins Purisima Road. The variety of rich habitats and trails should make the property desirable for funding from this grant source. It is staff's assessment that the Arroyo Leon property would be an important and integral part of the open space system and resource protection in this region. Although prime agricultural soils are not present and the property is not currently used for agricultural purposes,grazing activities have occurred in the past and will be assessed in the use and management planning process in the event the District Board receives approval of this grant and then determines to acquire this property. Approval of the grant application and possible award of grant funding will make the funds available to the District when and if the District completes pre-acquisition review and planning,and the District Board decides to acquire the property and enters into a purchase agreement with the property owner. A grant application does not constitute an agreement to acquire this property nor does it obligate the District to complete such an acquisition. The grant agreement, if awarded, would secure funding for five years following 2005 State Budget appropriation. San Mateo Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report The May 2003 San Mateo Coastal Annexation Final Environmental Impact Report identified the Arroyo Leon property as a parcel that may be considered for acquisition and one that the owner has indicated an interest in selling. Discussions at the staff level'indicate that the owner has an interest in selling. The Final EIR states that even though there may be a willing seller,no decision to acquire this property can be made until the District obtains funding for the acquisition and management,completes a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, conducts an acquisition-specific CEQA analysis,and holds a public hearing before the District Board. Of the required steps necessary to acquire the property,the only step being taken as a result of the action recommended in this report is to submit a grant application to the Habitat Conservation Fund Program. In doing so,the District will be taking an appropriate step to secure and preserve substantial grant funds so they will be available in the event the District determines to acquire this property in the future. CEQA COMPLIANCE The District has concluded that the action being recommended in this report is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed action seeks a funding mechanism. Submitting an application to secure grant funds for a potential acquisition does not require the District to purchase the property nor expend the funds. Approval of this funding mechanism has no possible significant physical impact on the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3)and Sections 15378 (a)and(b). Future acquisition would be contingent on several factors including required CEQA review. Prepared by: Del Woods, Senior Acquisition Planner Contact person: Same as above ARROYO LEON PROPATY / 1, r . T . San Francisco '-�' r �, ,.._• , . ., :: !:-�-�, titers Mills'Cr A OSP 'i _•, Lan n PO li NVI •\%-Burleigh Murray - •�`. L !'/� _.. 'r, `, � ,✓ � Jam" �tfa}'° - » ♦ l No rtn i Id Go en Gate l National Recreation IGG . Gu . . ya�krnsR�age�r Area I MA 1'� e e , a Purisima Cre-Ok Reda+vdods , ' r l-. Open Space Pescrve _ - Purisima Cr ee Trd� Soma Cr 1 ARROYO LEON Pa._ r` PROPERTY ' (Approx. 157 Acres) , Bald Kno •' y Area EK� 6 J C 1 r A l r - C,. EI Corte..de Open_Spa J r a _. serve h r •` l wr r i EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP o 0.5 1Miles GEProjectstPunsima_Creek RedwoodsAuoyo_Leon_Arroyo9/04_ms f RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE LOCAL AGENCY GRANT PROGRAM-FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 UNDER THE HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND PROGRAM OF THE CALIFORNIA WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 FOR THE ARROYO LEON PROPERTY ACQUISITION WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990, which provides funds to the State of California for grants to local agencies to acquire and/or develop facilities for public recreational and fish and wildlife habitat protection purposes; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of a portion of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, said application contains assurance with which the applicant must comply. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors hereby: 1. Approves the filing of an application for the Habitat Conservation Fund Grant Program under the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 State grant assistance for the above project. 2. Certifies that said applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application form. 3. Certifies that said applicant has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application,the required match; and will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project. 4. Appoints the General Manager as agent of the District to execute and submit all documents, including,but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and so on,which may be necessary to comply with the requirements of the Habitat Conservation Fund Grant Program. Regional Open Sp tce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-04-91 t;£I..EBRA'11N(d 30 YE,ARS 01' OPF:N SPACE I1RC'.SFR-"A`I'10N Meeting 04-20 September 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM 5 AGENDA ITEM Confirmation of Special Meetings of the Board of Directors to Implement the Processes Set Out in the District's Resolutions Fulfilling LAFCo's Conditions of Aa othe Annexation of the Coastside Protection Area 1 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Confirm Special Meetings of the Board of Directors for October 20,2004 beginning at 5:00 p.m. at the District office, Los Altos; October 21, 2004 beginning at 7:00 p.m. at a location to be determined; October 25,2004 beginning at 6:30 p.m. at the District office, Los Altos;November 4, 2004 beginning at 7:00 p.m. at a location to be determined; and November 9,2004 beginning at 7:00 p.m. at the District office, Los Altos. DISCUSSION The San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo)conditionally approved the District's Coastside Protection Program on April 7,2004. The Certificate of Completion was recorded September 7,2004 completing the annexation. As of this date the District's boundaries are extended to include coastal San Mateo County south of the City of Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line and from the former District boundaries west to the Pacific Ocean. The District Board has previously adopted resolutions fulfilling these conditions. Three of the Conditions of Approval require additional Board action within 60 days of the recordation of the Certificate of Completion: • Appoint a citizen ombudsperson that is not an employee of the District, • Initiate a process for developing appropriate amendments to the District's Good Neighbor Policy, and • Receive public input and reapportion the District wards to include the Coastside Protection Area (within 60 days of the recordation of the Certificate of Completion and receipt of revised population estimates). In order to implement the processes that the Board has directed within the required timeframe, it is necessary to confirm Special Meetings of the Board of Directors for the following dates: • Wednesday, October 20, 2004, beginning at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room at the District Administrative Office. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct the initial interviews of Ombudsperson candidates. • Thursday, October 21, 2004, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at a location to be determined. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a public workshop for District constituents to evaluate and rank ward redistricting alternatives to include the Coastside Protection Area. 33o Distel Circle 650-691-12oo info@openspace.Org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Honko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton R-04-91 Page 2 • Thursday,November 4, 2004, beginning at 7:00 p.m. at a location to be determined. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a public workshop for District constituents to discuss and"vote"on the final ward redistricting alternatives to include the Coastside Protection Area. • Tuesday,November 9, 2004, beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room at the District Administrative Office. The purpose of this meeting is to hold a public hearing for Board approval of a ward redistricting plan to include the Coastside Protection Area. In addition to the Special Meetings outlined above,the following Board workshop will provide staff direction in prioritizing amendments to the Resource Management Strategic Plan: • Monday, October 25, 2004,beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Board Room at the District Administrative Office. The purpose of this meeting is to conduct a public workshop to prioritize amendments to the District's Resource Management Policies. All meetings will be re-noticed and all required public notification provided. Prepared by: Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP Planning Manager Contact person: Same as above I I �I Regional Open Sp tce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-04-92 c:E1.EBRA-rrvc, 30 YEARS OE OPEN S11AcJ. PRESERVAI-ION Meeting 04-20 September 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM 6 AGENDA ITEM Amendment to Resolution No. 04-13 Delegating Responsib' ' creening Ombudsperson Applications to the Legislative, Finance and Public Affairs GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Amend Resolution No. 04-13 to delegate responsibility for screening Ombudsperson applications to the Legislative,Finance and Public Affairs Committee. DISCUSSION On May 26, 2004,the Board adopted Resolution No. 04-13 establishing a plan for appointment of a citizen ombudsperson in conformity with the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission's Conditions of Approval of the Coastside Protection Program(see Report R-04-57). The following amendment to the resolution is recommended to streamline the appointment process: Section Five. Within 30 days of advertising the position, the Beard Legislative, Finance, and Public Affairs Committee shall ea4-1-hold a Special Public Meeting for the purpose of screening applications to reduce the number to 8 candidates for initial interviews, unless there are fewer than 10 applications. Prepared by: Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP Planning Manager Contact person: Same as above 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,led Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altus CA 94022-1404 6So-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton RESOLUTION NO. 04- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AMENDING RESOLUTION 04-13 DELEGATING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SCREENING OMBUDSPERSON APPLICATIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE, FINANCE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. 04-13, on May 26, 2004, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District established a plan for appointment of an Ombudsperson in conformity with San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission Resolution No. 960; and WHEREAS, the District Board desires to streamline the screening process and promptly appoint an Ombudsperson; NOW, THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE DISTRICT DOES HEREBY RESOLVE TO AMEND SECTION FIVE OF RESOLUTION 04-13 AS FOLLOWS: Section One. Within 30 days of advertising the position, the Legislative, Finance, and Public Affairs Committee shall hold a Special Public Meeting for the purpose of screening applications to reduce the number to 8 candidates for initial interviews, unless there are fewer than 10 applications. Regional Open Sptce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT R-04-90 t.PIGBRA-T(NG 30 YLARS OF cPFN SPA(c-. HU ERVArzora Meeting 04-20 September 22, 2004 AGENDA ITEM 7 AGENDA ITEM Adoption of a Resolution Supporting Proposition lA on the November ballot f GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIO 7 r- y � . Adopt a resolution supporting Proposition IA. the statewide ure on the November Hot that will restrict the state legislature from taking and using local tax dollars that cities, counties, and special districts use to provide essential public services. DISCUSSION California cities, counties, and special districts provide local services such as parks and open Local govern ments a for these fire police protection, water, libraries etc. g Day space lands ,sa p P P programs and services with money from local taxes, specifically property taxes, the uniform local vehicle license fee. Currently, the State Constitution and statutes give the sa les taxes and the Legislature authority over these specific taxes in order to change tax rates, items subject to taxation, and the distribution of tax revenues among local governments, schools, and community college districts. The state has used this authority over the past 12 years for many purposes, shifting funding for articular local governments, 'n decre asing funding for local services, s g g p g including g g and transferring local tax revenues to help relieve the state budget deficit. The state is again using its authority over local government tax revenues to shift $2.6 billion in the next two years from local government funds to the state to help balance the state budget. Of this $2.6 billion special districts will be contributing$700 million. The financial burden placed on California cities, counties, and special districts now and in the last 12 years has prompted the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, and the California Special Districts Association to support Proposition I authored by Senator Torlakson. Proposition lA would amend the State Constitution to significantly reduce the state's authority over local government tax revenue sources. Under the measure, the state could not: Reduce Local Sales Tax Rates or Alter the Method of Allocation. The measure prohibits the state from: reducing any local sales tax rate, limiting existing local government authority to levy a sales tax rate, or changing the allocation of local sales tax revenues. • Shift Property Taxes From Local Governments to Schools or Community Colleges. The measure generally prohibits the state from shifting to schools or community colleges any share of property tax revenues allocated to local governments for any fiscal year 33o Distel Circle 650-691-12oo Into@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,led Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nanette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton 6 m.,... under the laws in effect as of November 3, 2004. The measure also specifies that any change in how property tax revenues are shared among local governments within a county must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of the Legislature (instead of by majority votes as currently provided). Finally, the measure prohibits the state from reducing the property tax revenues provided to cities, counties, and special districts as replacement for the local sales tax revenues redirected to the state and pledged to pay debt service on state deficit-related bonds approved by voters in March 2004. • Decrease Vehicle License Fee(VLF)Revenues Without Providing Replacement Funding. If the state reduces the VLF rate below its current level, the measure requires the state to provide local governments with equal replacement revenues. The measure also requires the state to allocate VLF revenues to county health and social services programs and local governments. Without the constitutional protection that Proposition I A would provide, the state could continue to shift local government revenue sources to assist in state budget shortfalls in the coming years. As a special district that is affected by these shifts of local tax funds, it is important to support this statewide ballot measure. Prepared by: Elaina Cuzick, Public Affairs Administrative Assistant Contact person: L. Craig Britton, General Manager RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SUPPORTING PROPOSITION IA WHEREAS, state goverment currently shifts more than $5.2 billion annually in local property tax funds statewide from cities, counties, and special districts, costing local governments more than $40 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years; and WHEREAS, these ongoing shifts by the state of local property tax funds and other funding dedicated to local governments have reduced resources available for local services such as fire, paramedic response, law enforcement, public health, emergency medical care, roads, parks, open space lands, libraries, and transportation; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1A is a historic measure that will appear on the November 2004 statewide ballot that would limit the state's ability to take and use local government funding; and WHEREAS, by protecting local government funding, Proposition IA would help protect open space lands, local public safety, medical care, and other essential local services; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1A will not raise taxes and, in fact, will help reduce pressure for local fee and tax increases by limiting state reallocation; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1A does not reduce funding for schools or any other state program or service, and Proposition 1A was carefully written to allow flexibility in the event of a state budget emergency; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1A is supported by a bipartisan, diverse coalition including Governor Schwarzenegger, Democrat and Republican legislative leaders, local government officials including cities, counties, and special districts, public safety representatives, healthcare, business, labor, and community leaders. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does hereby express strong support for Proposition IA, the statewide ballot measure that will prevent the state from further taking local government revenues; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the District will send a copy of this resolution to YES on IA Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety. Regional Open Spa,e MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPAf-,E PRESERVA'FION TO: Board of Directors FROM: L. Craig Britton, General Manager DATE: September 22, 2004 RE: FYI's 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hossett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Memorandum MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Date: September 21, 2004 To: Craig Britton, General Manager From: Paul McKowan, Volunteer Programs Coordinator Subject: 2004 Visitor Satisfaction Survey Earlier this year, Public Affairs Manager Rudy Jurgensen and I began work on the design of a survey that would enable constituents to provide feedback on a number of District issues and priorities. Gathering and analyzing this feedback will assist the District in confirming the success of and/or determining the need for adjustments to current public outreach and District programs. The 2004 Visitor Satisfaction Survey hosts eighteen questions that have been created, edited and evaluated by staff. The questions and process were presented to the Legislative, Finance & Public Affairs Committee (LFPAC) on September 1 for their comment. The Committee liked the idea of the survey and made some minor recommendations that staff was glad to incorporate. Since then, work has been completed to create an on-line version that can be added to the District's web site, e-mailed to various groups, and/or sent as hard copies via U.S. mail. The launch date for the survey will coincide with the launch of the District's new web site, and the link inviting people on the home page. The Public Affairs Department will also be to participate will be featured p g p working on ways to promote further public participation via e-mail notices and other methods. A copy of the survey is attached. Visitor Satisfaction Survey Page 1 of 1 I Exit this survey >> i Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Visitor Satisfaction Survey * 1. Please provide your zip code: 2. How familiar are you with the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District? Very Familiar Somewhat Familiar Not Familiar (I just found out about MROSD and/or entered your website from an internet Search/Link) 3. Are you aware that the District manages various open space preserves throughout the San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Cruz Mountains? Yes No 4. How many of the District's 25 preserves are you AWARE of? 0 Preserves 1-5 Preserves 6-10 Preserves 11-15 Preserves 15+ Preserves Next >> Visitor Satisfaction Survey Page 1 of 1 Exit this survey » Opeaspace.org Midp ninsula Regional Open Space District Visitor Satisfaction survey S. How many of the district's 25 preserves do you VISIT in a year? 0 Preserves 1-5 Preserves 6-10 Preserves 11-15 Preserves 15+ Preserves 6. How OFTEN do you visit District preserves? 0 times 1-2 times/yr 1-2 times/month 1-2 times/week 3-7 times/week 7. Please list your favorite District preserves: 8. What type of activity do you enjoy most when visiting a District preserve? Hiking Running Mountain Biking Horseback Riding Dog walking Other (please specify) << Prev Next » Visitor Satisfaction Survey Page 1 of 1 Exit this survey >> on .orp Midpenin ula Regional Open Space District Visitor Satisfaction Survey 9. Please rank the following District activities in order of importance to you: Very Somewhat Not Important Important Important Constructingand maintaining trails 9 Keeping the public informed of District activities and issues Acquiring open space lands FM H IN Working with other agencies to provide a regional greenbelt Protecting and restoring the natural environment 10. Please rate the District's current performance in each of the following areas: Excellent Good Average Below Poor Average Acquiring open space lands Constructing and maintaining trails Keeping the public informed of District activities and issues Working with other agencies to provide a regional greenbelt Protecting and restoring the natural H IN Id 0 environment << Prev Next >> Visitor Satisfaction Survey Page 1 of 1 Exit this survey >> Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Visitor ;Satisfaction Survey 11. How do you obtain your information about the District? Preserve Bulletin Boards Radio District Newsletter Television Newspaper District staff and/or volunteers Web site Other (please specify) 12. How easy do you think it is to obtain information about the District? Very Easy Easy Average Below Average Ja Difficult 13. How responsive do you think the District is to public input/questions? Very Responsive Responsive Average Below Average Unresponsive « Prev Next >> Visitor Satisfaction Survey Page 1 of 1 I Exit this survey >> Midpcn nsula Regional Open Space District Visitor Satisfaction Survey 14. How many times have you or a member of your family participated in a District activity? Not 0-5 6-10 11+ Familiar Times Times Times w/ Activity Anniversary and other Outdoor Public Events Board Meetings District School Field Trips (Spaces and Species Program) District Volunteer Opportunities Docent-led hikes and rides 15. Please rate your experience for the activities you have participated in: Excellent Good Average Below Poor N/A Average Anniversary and other Outdoor Public Events Board Meetings District School Field Trips (Spaces and Species Program) District Volunteer Opportunities Docent-led hikes and rides << Prev Next >> I Visitor Satisfaction Survey Page 1 of 1 i Exit this survey >> opewipace.org Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Visitor Satisfaction Survey 16. Are you on the District's open Space Views newsletter mailing list? Yes No 17. I would like to be added to the District's Open Space Views newsletter mailing list: Name Address city State Zip Email 18. Do you have any questions or ideas the District should consider"? I << Prev Done >> II i Regional Open Space MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT For Immediate Release Contact: Rudy Jurgensen 650-691-1200 Coastside Protection ' Program Clears Final Hurdle -- Court Rejects Opponents' Demand to Stop Program -- -- Decision Concludes Seven-Year Process -- -- Director Davey: "Win for Coastsiders, all Citizens of San Mateo County and its Magnificent Natural Environment" -- LOS ALTOS, CA [September 3, 2004] —Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's (MROSD) Coastside Protection Program today became a reality when Superior Court judge Carl Holm rejected a request by opponents to stop the Program. The District spent more than seven years developing the Program in collaboration with coastside residents. "This is a tremendous win for all coastsiders, all citizens of San Mateo County and its magnificent natural environment," said Mary Davey, President of the District's Board of Directors. "We are grateful to all of the countless residents who have provided their input, suggestions, and support over the years. Thank you for inviting us to your cities, your town halls, and your homes and for making this Program truly your own." Opponents had said that they had gathered a sufficient number of protests to force the Program onto the November ballot, which would have been the second election on this subject since voters approved a 1998 advisory measure in support of it. The San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) validated 3,507 protest forms—far fewer than the minimum of 4,071 valid petitions, or 25% of registered voters in the affected area, that LAFCo law requires in order for the issue to qualify for the ballot. 8,142 signed protests would have eliminated the Program outright. The invalidated protest forms include hundreds of duplicates, unregistered voters, and protests from outside the Program boundaries, among others. A number of voters also withdrew their protests. Upon approval of the --more-- i Coastside Protection Program Clears Final Hurdle—p.2 Program in April, LAFCo had given opponents 60 days to collect protests, the maximum period of time allowed by law, and had also published"mail-in" protest forms in local newspapers. Today's action clears the way for MROSD to buy land from willing sellers for the purpose of protecting the region's coastside from inappropriate urban sprawl. The Program has been widely endorsed by hundreds of community groups and organizations, including the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and the Half Moon Bay Coastside Chamber of Commerce. Craig Britton, the District's General Manager, believes that the Program will help forge a strong community partnership to protect the scenic beauty and agricultural economy of the coast. "Farmers, conservationists, and business leaders agree that the Coastside Protection Program is the best way to preserve this region's unique rural and agricultural heritage," said Britton. "Their support has made the Coastside Protection Program a reality." The District has 60 days from the issuance of LAFCo's Certificate of Completion to appoint an Ombudsperson and to initiate a public participation process and plan for amending its Good Neighbor Policy. Within 60 days of the Certificate's recordation and after it has received revised population estimates, the District will also solicit public input to determine how the District's Ward Boundaries should be reapportioned. Redistricting is necessary so that coastside residents are democratically represented. The process will include workshops on the coastside. The Program will expand the District's boundaries from south of Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line to include approximately 220 square miles of San Mateo coastside lands. Over the next 15 years, MROSD will protect precious farmland via agricultural easements, enhance environmental, educational, and recreational Programs, and provide wildlife protection and critical emergency services to approximately 11,800 acres of coastside open space. The Program will also ensure fair and democratic representation in planning and decision-making related to the coastside. ### About the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District: ninsula Regional Op en Space District has successful) Created by voters more than 30 years ago,the Midpe g p p successfully protected and p managed nearly 50,000 acres of open space. The public enjoys the District's diverse and beautiful preserves 365 days a year. The District is an independent,non-enterprise,California special district whose mission is to acquire and preserve a r video opportunities the natural env ironment,and o i regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity,protect and restore p pp � g ' for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. www.openspace.org IDPENINS .1LA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE [DISTRICT For Immediate Release Contact: Rudy Jurgensen September 16,2004 (650)691-1200 Open Space District Seeks Ombudsperson -- Volunteer Position to Assist in Maintaining Positive Relations with Constituents -- Los Altos, CA— [September 16, 2004] —The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District will appoint an Ombudsperson by the end of October, 2004 to help educate its constituents and resolve potential conflicts. Applications will be accepted until September 30, 2004. The part-time, volunteer position will be a vital link between the District and its constituents by following up on inquiries in order to resolve misunderstandings or conflicts that have not been settled by District staff. In addition to facilitating the resolution of disputes, the ombudsperson will educate concerned constituents on District polices or procedures and help open avenues of communication. The ombudsperson, who must be a District constituent, will work on an "as needed"basis and will ideally have successful facilitation and conflict resolution skills and the ability to communicate complex issues clearly. Individuals interested in applying for the Ombudsperson position are encouraged to complete an application and supplemental questionnaire and provide a current resume. Application materials fitted to the District b the September 30 2004 application deadline. District must be submitted , pp Y p applicationY materials may be obtained by calling (650) 691-1200 or by visiting the Web site at www.openspace.org. About Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District PMidpeninsula g eninsula Regional Open Space District is an independent, non enterprise, CaliforniaCaiforns special district whose mission is to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity,protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. The District is divided into seven geographic wards, each represented for a four-year term by an elected Board member. Created by voters more than 30 years ago, the District has successfully protected and managed nearly 50,000 acres of open space. The public enjoys the District's diverse and beautiful preserves 365 days of the year. For more information,please visit www.openspace.org. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT For Immediate Release Contact: Kristi Altieri September 9,2004 Public Affairs Specialist (650)691-1200 District Enables Neo ofitan Networks to Provide Internet Service to South Skyline Area Residents for the First Time -- U.S. Representative Mike Honda Praises Collaboration to "Narrow Digital Divide"-- Los Altos, CA [September 9, 2004] -- The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) with Neopolitan Networks participated yesterday in a ribbon-cutting ceremony on Monte Bello Open Space Preserve's Black Mountain celebrating a partnership to bring high-speed Internet access to South Skyline residents. As a land steward and owner, the District assisted in bringing telecommunications services to residents and rural landowners in the South Skyline Area by enabling the use of existing facilities to install wireless Internet equipment on Black Mountain. High-speed Internet service, being provided for the first time in this area, will give neighbors of open space the opportunity to work from home,thereby contributing to a healthy environment by reducing pollution from commuters. It will also improve the economic health of the community: "It is community partnerships such as this that highlight the unique symbiotic relationship between Silicon Valley technology, rural landowners and neighbors and the `room to breathe' provided by the surrounding public open space," said Craig Britton, the District's General Manager. Congressman Mike Honda praised the District in a Proclamation: "I applaud the diligence of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in keeping preservation of public open space as an overriding concern in the efforts to deliver broadband access to residents," he said. "In narrowing the digital divide, the pressures of providing service to rural residents while preserving the public trust is a challenge that has been met by the Open Space District." About the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is an independent, non-enterprise, California special district whose mission is to acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in perpetuity,protect and restore the natural environment, and provide opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and education. The District is divided into seven geographic wards, each represented far a four year term by an elected Board member. Created by voters more than 30years ago, the District has successfully protected and managed nearly 50,000 acres of open space. The public enjoys the District's diverse and beautiful preserves 365 days of the year. For more information,please visit www.openspace.org. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 22,2004 POST Helps City of Half Moon Bay Acquire 21 Acres for Public Park Menlo Park,Calif.--A 21-acre property in Half Moon Bay near the junction of Highways 1 and 92 will be purchased by the City of Half Moon Bay for parks and recreation use,thanks to a$3.1 million interest-free loan from Peninsula Open Space Trust(POST). The land is currently owned by Nurseryman's Exchange and has been used to grow ornamental plants for the last 16 years.POST acquired an option to purchase the property three months ago with the intention of assigning the option to the city and providing the necessary financing. Tuesday night the Half Moon Bay City Council approved the transfer of purchase rights and agreed to borrow$3.1 million at no interest from POST to make the acquisition.The deal is expected to close on October 15;the loan is due in three years. "Our goal is to help the city create a great recreational resource for the people of Half Moon Bay,"said POST president Audrey Rust."The property could have been sold and developed,and would not have been available for public recreation.The city wasn't in a position to buy the property now,so this gives them the time they need to put together the necessary funding." "Although we're usually involved in protecting rural lands,this partnership provides a unique opportunity for us to assist the city and protect the Pilarcitos Creek trail corridor area from future development.We hope this property will connect to other trails in the future." "Half Moon Bay will be grateful to POST for generations,"said Half Moon Bay mayor Mike Ferreira."We love and appreciate the work they did here.This is an extraordinary contribution from an extraordinary organization with extraordinary leadership." City manager Deborah Ryan echoed Ferreira's comments. The property lies along highway 92,a half-mile east of the intersection with Highway 1.Condominiums border the western side of the parcel,with several businesses to the east.Highway 92 and Pilarcitos Creek form the northern and southern i i I borders.Nurseryman's Exchange purchased the land in 1988.It was recently appraised for$4.6 million. "This is a win for everyone,thanks to the partnership between POST,the city, and Nurseryman's Exchange," Rust said. POST is a leading private,nonprofit land trust dedicated to preserving the beauty,character and diversity of the San Francisco Peninsula landscape.Since its founding in 1977,the organization has been responsible for saving over 50,000 acres as permanent open space and parkland in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.Included in that total are 11,621 acres of coastal land POST has protected in the last three years through its$200 million Saving the Endangered Coast Campaign. -30- For further information contact Kendra Muscarella at POST,650-85 -7696. �I i I �F V LI ORNIA ' Budget Brie September 2004 WHAT WOULD PROPOSITION 1 A MEAN FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE? Proposition 1A, a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the Legislature as part of the 2004-05 budget agreement,would fundamentally change the fiscal relationship between the state and local governments. Proposition 1A limits the state's ability to reallocate local revenues in order to achieve state policy goals and requires the state to reimburse local governments for mandated programs and services on a timely basis. Proposition 1A is supported by the League of California Cities,the California State Association of Counties,the California Special Districts Association, and Governor Schwarzenegger. WHAT WOULD PROPOSITION 1A DO? In brief,Proposition 1A would amend the state Constitution to: • Allocate revenues from the current Vehicle License Fee (VLF)rate and require the state to reimburse counties and cities for losses due to any future VLF rate decrease; • Prohibit the Legislature from reducing the share of property tax revenues allocated to any county,city,or special district below the level required on November 3,2004; • Allow,under limited circumstances,the Legislature to temporarily reallocate property tax revenues to the benefit of the state; • Prohibit the state,with very limited exceptions,from changing local sales tax rates or allocations; • Allow the Legislature to authorize local jurisdictions to voluntarily swap property and sales tax revenues;and • Suspend state-imposed requirements ("mandates") on counties,cities,and special districts in any year in which the state does not fully reimburse local governments for the costs of fulfilling the requirements. Proposition 1A's limitations on the Legislature's authority to reallocate local sales and property tax revenues would apply to counties,cities,and special districts,but not redevelopment agencies. Since Proposition 1A amends the state Constitution, any subsequent change would require voter approval. Proposition 1A would significantly change the fiscal relationship between the state and local governments. This analysis attempts to answer a number of questions raised by this ballot measure including: 921 11th St.,Ste.502•Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)444-0500•FAX(916)444-0172 • Who should pay for the revenues lost due to Proposition 13 of 1978 and the Vehicle License Fee reductions of the late 1990s? • How will Proposition 1A affect the state's ability to address future budget crises? • What would Proposition 1A mean for efforts to address local fiscal incentives? • How would Proposition 1A affect state funding for locally administered services? • How would Proposition 1A affect state mandates? • What would Proposition 1A mean for school finance? BACKGROUND The Roots of the Fiscal Relationship Between the State and Local Governments In 1978,voters approved Proposition 13,which reduced local property tax revenues by more than half by capping rates at one percent and rolling back property values for tax purposes to 1975-76 levels. Proposition 13 also gave the Legislature responsibility for allocating the remaining proceeds of the property tax within the county where the tax is collected. Prior to the passage of Proposition 13,local governments had the power to set and impose a property tax rate and property owners paid a total rate equaling the sum of the rates of each jurisdiction where the property was located. After the enactment of Proposition 13,the state stepped in and assumed a larger share of responsibility for financing K-12 education. In what became known as the AB 8 bailout,the state shifted property taxes from schools to cities,counties, and special districts in order to cushion the blow to these jurisdictions from the loss of property tax revenues due to Proposition 13. The state, in turn,assumed a larger share of the cost of school finance. Since 1978, a series of voter-approved initiatives have further defined and confined the fiscal relationships among the state, K-14 education,and local governments (Appendix A). Proposition 98 of 1988,for example,established a guaranteed funding level for K-14 education from combined state and local sources. Proposition 4 of 1979 required the state to reimburse local governments for new or higher levels of service required by state action,and Proposition 218 of 1996 required local governments to seek voter approval for any tax increase,among other changes. Cumulatively, these measures have limited the Legislature's flexibility in making spending decisions. The structure for allocating local property tax revenues remained constant until the budget crisis of the early 1990s. In 1992 and again in 1993,the state shifted property tax dollars from cities, counties, and special districts to K-14 education in order to reduce the state's share of costs for fulfilling the Proposition 98 guarantee. Proposition 172 of 1993 partially backfilled counties and cities for lost property tax revenues with the proceeds of a'/2-cent sales tax rate. After the property tax shifts of the early 1990s,cities and schools had approximately the same share of property tax revenues as they received prior to the passage of Proposition 13. Counties received a smaller share and"other districts" received a larger share of the property tax dollar.' In 1998, the Legislature reduced the VLF rate,which had been 2.0 percent since 1948.2 Since proceeds of the VLF went to counties and cities, the Legislature agreed to backfill jurisdictions for their revenue loss. The 1998 measure phased in a reduction in the VLF rate using a series of triggers tied to state revenue levels When revenues increased substantially during the late 1990s, 2 subsequent legislation made the 0.65 percent rate permanent,but retained a trigger that increased the VLF rate in the event the state lacked sufficient revenues to backfill counties and cities. The VLF rate was increased in 2003 using this trigger;however,Governor Schwarzenegger reversed the increase on his first day in office. PropositionTable 1: Compared Current Law Proposition 1A Property Tax Rate Capped at 1 percent, except for rates No change. linked to voter approved or re-1978 debt. Allocation Property taxes are allocated within the Prohibits the Legislature from increasing county where collected to schools, the share of local property tax revenues community colleges, counties, cities, and allocated to schools above the percentage special districts. schools received based on state law in effect on November 3, 2004. The Legislature can reallocate property tax revenues within the county where The Legislature could shift taxes among collected by majority vote. non-educational local agencies within a county by a two-thirds vote. The allocation of local property tax dollars approximates the shares received by individual jurisdictions in 1978, prior to the passage of Proposition 13. Significant disparities exist between counties. Los Angeles County, for example, receives 24 percent of the local property tax,while Orange County receives just 10 percent.' Similar disparities exist among cities. Suspension N/A Beginning in 2008-09,the Legislature could reallocate property taxes between local governments and schools by a two- thirds vote if the Governor proclaims severe fiscal hardship. Any revenues lost by local government during a suspension must be repaid. The state could not reallocate more than 8 percent of cities', counties', and special districts'total prior year property tax revenues. Suspension could occur no more than twice in a 10- year period. The state would be required to repay counties and cities approximately$1.2 billion in deferred VLF backfill payments prior to suspending the limits on the Legislature's abilityto reallocate property tax revenues. Any revenues lost to cities, counties, and special districts during a suspension would be treated as a loan and the state would be required to repay these amounts with interest by the end of the third year following the year in which the suspension occurs. 3 i Any amounts owed because of a suspension must be repaid prior to a subsequent suspension. Vehicle License Fee Rate Set by the Legislature. Set by the Legislature. However, if the rate is reduced below 0.65 percent, the state would be required to reimburse counties and cities for lost revenues. Allocation The state Constitution requires the Proposition 1A allocates VLF revenues to Legislature to allocate amounts exceeding the Local Revenue Fund, created as part the cost of collection to cities and of the 1991 realignment of program counties. Currently, state law allocates responsibility between the state and VLF revenues to counties and cities as counties, and to counties and cities. general purpose revenues and to the Local Revenue Fund to support health and social services programs transferred to the counties as part of the 1991 realignment of program responsibility. Sales Tax Rate Proposition 57 of 2004 transferred a Prohibits the state from extending the portion of the local rate to the state to period of the current rate shift or from repay the state's Economic Recovery transferring a portion of the local rate to Bonds. the state in the future. Prohibits the state from reducing the local sales tax rate or local governments'ability to enact voter-approved transactions and use tax rates. Allocation In general, 1 percent of the local "Bradley- Prohibits the state from reducing local Burns" rate is allocated to the city or governments' sales tax rate or local county where the sale occurs. governments'authority to impose a sales tax rate. Prohibits the state from reallocating the proceeds of the local sales tax or from changing the method by which local allocations are made. Voluntary agreements made between local jurisdictions would be allowed with the approval of the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions. The state would be allowed to change the allocation of local sales taxes if needed to comply with federal law or to participate in an interstate compact, such as that envisioned by the Streamlined Sales Project in order boost collection of taxes attributable to electronic and mail order sales. Other Provisions VLF—Property SB 1096 of 2004, enacted as part of the Has the effect of constitutionally Tax Swap 2004-05 budget agreement, ended the guaranteeing a level of funding for local VLF backfill that reimbursed counties and governments that reflects the prior VLF cities for revenues lost because of the backfill payments, because it prohibits the VLF rate reductions enacted in the late Legislature from reducing, except under 4 i 1990s. The same measure transferred an limited and temporary circumstances,the equivalent value of property tax revenues share of property taxes allocated to local from schools to counties and cities to governments. replace the lost backfill payments. State funding for schools was increased. All jurisdictions received the same level of funding under the swap as they would have received in its absence. Mandates Proposition 4 of 1979 required the state to Suspend state-imposed requirements reimburse local governments for state ("mandates") on counties, cities, and actions that increase local costs related to special districts in any year in which the new programs or increased levels of state does not fully reimburse local service. No reimbursement was required governments for the costs for fulfilling the if the mandate was requested by the local requirements. This would relieve local entity; for mandates enacted prior to governments of the responsibility for January 1, 1975; or for legislation defining complying with a mandate. Proposition a new crime or changing the definition of a 1 A also expands the definition of crime. While reimbursement is "mandate"to include legislation that constitutionally required, the state transfers a larger share of financial Constitution does not require payment to responsibility from the state to local be made within a specific period. governments. Proposition 1 A does not apply to mandates affecting schools and community colleges or mandates related to employee relations and collective bargaining. Requires the state to repay amounts owed for mandate costs incurred prior to 2004- 05. The state currently owes local governments approximately$1.3 billion. Prohibits the state from increasing local governments' share of property tax revenues as reimbursement for costs related to mandates. The 2004-05 Budget Agreement In January 2004,Governor Schwarzenegger proposed to permanently shift$1.3 billion in property tax revenues from counties,cities,and special districts to schools in order to reduce the state's school funding obligation.5 The Governor's proposal was patterned after similar shifts enacted in 1992 and 1993 to help bridge the state's budget gap. In April 2004,a coalition of local government groups submitted signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would have prevented the Governor from achieving the savings proposed in his January budget.6 Proposition 65 would"lock in" local revenues,make changes to the state mandate process,and prohibit the two-year property tax shift included as part of the 2004-05 Budget,thereby increasing the state's budget gap by$1.3 billion in 2004-05 and$1.3 billion in 2005-06. In May, the Governor reached an agreement with representatives of local governments to allow a $1.3 billion property shift in 2004-05 and in 2005-06 and then permanently prohibit the Legislature from reallocating local revenues in the future. The Governor's agreement included other changes, including a number that were similar or identical to those contained in Proposition 65.7 The 5 Legislature approved a somewhat modified version of the Governor's agreement in SCA 4 (Torlakson),which will appear on the November 2004 ballot as Proposition 1A. The most critical difference between Proposition 1A and Proposition 65 is that the former will allow the state to achieve$1.3 billion of savings in 2004-05 and again in 2005-06. As part of this agreement, local governments have withdrawn their support of Proposition 65 and the Governor has agreed to support Proposition 1A. Proposition 1A and the 2004-05 Budget The 2004-05 budget agreement makes a number of changes to the state-local government fiscal relationship that work in tandem with Proposition 1A. SB 1096(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 211 of 2004) provides the statutory framework for these changes. Specifically,the budget agreement: • Eliminates the Vehicle License Fee(VLF)backfill and replaces backfill payments to counties and cities with an equivalent amount of property tax revenues. The amount of property tax revenues allocated to schools would be reduced by the same amount that state spending for schools is increased. All jurisdictions would receive the same level of funding they would have in the absence of the shifts. • Repeals the VLF trigger. The original VLF reduction provided a trigger that administratively increased the VLF rate in the event that state lacked sufficient funds to reimburse counties and cities for revenues lost as a result of the tax cut. The 2004-05',repeals this trigger, since the state no longer makes backfill payments. • Shifts,for two years,$1.3 billion In property taxes from counties, cities,.special districts, and redevelopment agencies to schools. In 2004-05 and 2005-06, counties, cities, and special districts will each shift$350 million to schools and redevelopment agencies will shift $250 million to schools,for a total shift of$1`.3 billion in each year. The state will reduce the amount it spends on schools by$13 billion in each year. In 2006-07 and beyond, property tax allocations will revert to their 2003-04 shares. Taken together,the budget agreement and Proposition 1A lock the state into a higher level of spending, on the one hand, and make it more difficult to raise revenues in the event of a severe budget crisis, on the other. Specifically,these actions: • Shift$4.1 billion of state spending from VLF backfill payments to schools. This shift is significant, since Proposition 98 of 1988 constitutionally guarantees the level of spending for schools. VLF backfill payments were not guaranteed. if Proposition 1A is approved by the voters, the state would be unable to reduce its obligations to make up for the revenues lost as a result of the 1998 VLF reduction without permanently suspending the Proposition 98 guarantee,since local governments'share of local property tax revenues could not be reduced in order to achieve state savings.$ • Eliminate an administrative mechanism for raising the VLF rate. In 2003,the VLF rate was increased when the state lacked sufficient funds to make backfill payments. Governor Schwarzenegger reversed the increase on his first day in office. While the VLF rate could be I increased by the Legislature, doing so would require a two-thirds vote of each house. 6 A COMPETING MEASURE, PROPOSITION 65, WILL ALSO APPEAR ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT In April 2004, a coalition of local government associations including the California State Association of Counties, the League of California Cities,and the California Special Districts Association submitted signatures placing a measure on the ballot to limit the state's ability to reallocate local revenues. This measure will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 65. As noted above,Proposition 1A,unlike Proposition 65,would allow the state to transfer$1.3 billion in property tax revenues from counties,cities, and special districts to schools in order to reduce the state's school funding requirement in 2004-05 and in 2005-06. Proposition 65 would require the shift to be approved by voters at a subsequent statewide election. Proposition 65 would require voter approval in order for: • The Legislature to reduce local government sales or property tax revenues below the share provided by laws in effect on January 1,2003. • The state to reduce county and city backfill payments for VLF revenues lost due to the 1998 rate reduction. • Local governments to swap property taxes for sales taxes. Proposition 1A allows such transfers with the approval of the governing bodies of the participating jurisdictions. • The state to reduce or delay repayment of the$875 million of deferred VLF backfill payments. • The Legislature to change the allocation of local sales tax revenues. • The Legislature to reallocate local property tax revenues among non-education jurisdictions within a county without the consent of the affected jurisdictions. Proposition 1A would allow reallocation among non-school entities with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. • The Legislature to reallocate revenues allocated to redevelopment agencies,as well as counties,cities,and special districts. Proposition 65 would also require the state to reimburse local government for state mandates. In any fiscal year when full reimbursement is not provided,the mandate would be suspended. Proposition 65 requires the state to continue to reimburse counties and cities for revenues lost as a result of the reduction in VLF rates in the late 1990s and does not assume the swap of VLF backfill payments for property tax revenues included in the 2004-05 budget agreement. A measure passed by the Legislature as part of the 2004-05 budget agreement required the state to issue a supplemental voter guide describing both Proposition 1A and Proposition 65. The same measure allowed the proponents of Proposition 65 to revise their ballot argument which,as revised,argues in favor of Proposition 1A and against Proposition 65. WHAT IF BOTH MEASURES PASS? If both measures pass and Proposition 1A receives a greater number of votes,none of the provisions of Proposition 65 shall take effect. If both measures pass but Proposition 65 receives more votes than Proposition 1A or if Proposition 65 passes,but Proposition 1A fails,the property tax shift included in the 2004-05 budget agreement would be prohibited. This would increase the 7 state's cost for K-14 education under the Proposition 98 school funding guarantee by$1.3 billion in 2004-05 and 2005-06 and local governments would retain$1.3 billion in property tax revenues in both 2004-05 and 2005-06. IMPACT ON THE BUDGET Proposition 1A would not directly affect the state's budget,however it could result in increased state costs in future years by limiting the state's ability to both reallocate local revenues and defer payment on state mandates. The state's ability to reduce local government revenues would also be limited. The Legislative Analyst concludes that Proposition 1A: "Could result in decreased resources being available for state programs than otherwise would be the case. This reduction, in turn,would affect state spending and/or taxes. For example,because the state could not use local government property taxes permanently as part of the state's budget solution, the Legislature would need to take alternative actions to resolve the state's budget difficulties-such as increasing state taxes or decreasing spending on other state programs...the total fiscal effect also could be in the billions of dollars annually."9 POLICY ISSUES RAISED BY PROPOSITION I A Proposition 1A raises a number of important policy considerations that warrant careful consideration. Proposition 1A addresses the fundamental degree to which the state and local governments should have separate or shared financial responsibility for public services provided to Californians. Local governments argue that state and local government finances should be separate and that the state should not have the authority to divert local revenues to achieve state savings or policy goals. Critics respond that Proposition 1A will limit the state's ability to respond to future budget crises, that the fiscal relationship between the state and local governments is complex,with a number of shared responsibilities,and that additional constraints will make it more difficult to reform a system that virtually all agree suffers from major flaws and inequities. Who Should Pay for the Revenues Lost Due to Proposition 13 of 1978 and the Vehicle License Fee Reductions of the Late 1990s? Proposition 1A is the product of an uneasy compromise between the state,which has largely shouldered the burden of the budget reductions required by Proposition 13 and the VLF reduction, and local governments,whose revenues were reduced as a result of these tax cuts. The complexity of the fiscal relationship between the state and local governments has clouded the lines of financial and program responsibility,making it difficult for voters to assess the impact of these major tax reductions on public services. Proposition 13 gave the Legislature the authority to allocate property tax revenues,which it used in the wake of Proposition 13 to shift property tax dollars from schools to local governments while the state assumed a greater share of the responsibility for financing schools and community colleges.10 In response to the substantial budget shortfalls of the early 1990s,the state used this authority to reallocate property tax dollars from local governments to schools and community colleges in order to reduce the state's school funding obligations. Local governments welcomed the so-called AB 8 bailout that provided assistance to cities,counties,and special districts after 8 Proposition 13,while these same jurisdictions opposed the Legislature's actions during the early 1990s,which reduced their share of the local property tax dollar. Both transactions resulted from the fact that Proposition 13 substantially reduced the revenues that had historically funded education and local services. The Legislature reduced the VLF in 1998 at a time when the state enjoyed substantial budget surpluses. While the VLF is imposed by the state, the revenues are allocated to counties and cities. The 1998 measure reducing the VLF required the state to reimburse counties and cities for revenues lost as a result of the reduction. At full implementation, this reduction cost the state K1 billion. In 2003,then-Governor Davis allowed the so-called trigger to go into effect,which provided for an increase in the VLF if the state had insufficient funds to make backfill payments. Governor Schwarzenegger reversed this action on his first day in office,restoring the backfill payments to local governments." The 2004-05 budget agreement replaces the backfill with a dollar-for-dollar transfer of property taxes from schools to counties and cities. The state,in turn, increased funding for schools. How Will Proposition I A Affect the State's Ability to Address Future Budget Crises? During the budget crisis of the early 1990s,the state used its authority to reallocate property tax revenues to shift funds from counties,cities,and special districts to schools in order to reduce the state's constitutional school funding guarantee. If enacted,Proposition 1A would severely limit the state's ability to reallocate revenues by treating the amounts lost by local government as a loan that must be repaid with interest. This limitation will likely increase pressure on state supported programs that lack constitutional protection such as higher education,resource and environmental protection,health,social services, and public safety. What Would Proposition 1 A Mean for Efforts to Address Local Fiscal Incentives? A number of analysts argue that current property and sales tax allocation formulas encourage local governments to seek sales tax-generating retail development over housing or other forms of commercial activity,such as manufacturing. The preference for sales tax generating development uses is often called the"fiscalization of land use." Legislation aimed at addressing this issue has garnered broad support,but has stalled in the Legislature due to opposition from localities that would be"losers" as a result of efforts to change the current system. Proposition 1A would prevent the Legislature from modifying the current allocations,with very limited exceptions. Specifically, the Legislature would be barred from statutorily changing the allocation of sales tax dollars from a point of sale to a population-based system. Thus,Proposition 1A effectively locks the current incentives into place,absent future voter approval. How Would Proposition 1 A Affect State Funding for Locally Administered Services? While Proposition 1A protects property tax,sales tax,and VLF revenues and reimbursements for state-mandated costs, it does not protect state funding for programs that are the shared responsibility of the state and county governments, including a number of health, mental health, and social service programs. Reducing the options available for achieving savings in the event of future budget crises would increase pressure on programs,including many health and social service programs,that lack constitutional or other protections. Programs with shared financial 9 III responsibility include child protective services,CaIWORKs,courts, adoptions assistance,In-Home Supportive Services,Medi-Cal,and other county-administered services. The mandate provisions of Proposition 1A would prevent the state from requiring local governments to maintain program levels, thereby increasing the likelihood that services would be reduced in the event of state budget reductions. How Would Proposition 1 A Affect State Mandates? Proposition 4 of 1979 required the state to reimburse local governments whenever it"mandates a new program or higher level of services on any local government."12 Since 1979,a complex process for determining whether a mandate exists and the level of reimbursement owed to local governments has developed. In recent years,the state has deferred payment on approximately $1.3 billion owed for mandate reimbursements. Proposition 1A would prevent the state from deferring payment and, instead,repeal the requirement in any year when reimbursement is not provided. This provision would not apply to mandates related to employee relations and collective bargaining.13 Examples of the types of mandates that would be covered by this provision include requiring local firefighters to undergo training in the recognition of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome;costs related to local coastal plans; costs related to permanent absentee voter status;and a requirement that local animal shelters hold animals for a minimum amount of time prior to euthanizing them. What Would Proposition I A Mean for School Finance? Proposition 1A would cap the share of school funding provided by local property tax revenues.14 The measure would also lock in the reduction in schools' share of local property taxes contained in the 2004-05 budget agreement resulting from the elimination of state VLF backfill payments to counties and cities and their replacement with local property tax revenues. By limiting the state's ability to achieve budget savings by reallocating local revenues,Proposition 1A would increase the pressure on other areas of the budget. While schools enjoy the protection of the Proposition 98 spending guarantee,the suspension provisions of Proposition 1A are"tougher" than those contained in Proposition 98. Specifically,Proposition 98 can be suspended by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. The Constitution requires the state to restore funding to the level where it would have been absent suspension over time.15 The state is not,however,required to repay schools for funds lost during a suspension or for funds lost during the years between suspension and a return to the guaranteed spending level. Proposition 1A,on the other hand,contains a similar two-thirds vote requirement for suspension but additionally requires the state to repay,with interest,local governments for revenues lost during a suspension. By imposing a higher financial penalty on the state for suspension of Proposition 1A, the measure could increase pressure to suspend the school funding guarantee and/or reduce spending in other areas of the budget. 10 Appendix . Between the State . Governments Proposition 13(June 1978) • Limited property tax rates to one percent. • Limited the annual increase in the assessed value of property to no more than 2 percent unless a property changes ownership. • Allowed reassessment of property to market value only upon change of ownership. • Transferred responsibility for allocating property tax revenues to the state Legislature. • Required 2/3 voter approval of local taxes designated for a specific purpose. • Required measures raising state taxes to be approved by a 2/3 vote of each house of the Legislature. Proposition 4(November • Imposed expenditure limits on all levels of California 1979) government. •- Required the state to reimburse local governments for mandated costs or expenditures imposed after January 1, 1975. Proposition 62 (November . Required approval of new local general purpose taxes by a 2/3 1986) vote of the governing body of a local agency and a majority of the voters. Largely invalidated by the courts. Proposition 98;(November 0 Established a minimum funding guarantee for K-12 education 1988) and community colleges. The guarantee applies to the sum of funding schools receive from state and local sources. Proposition 111 (June 1990) . Increased the state gas tax to pay for transportation infrastructure. • Revised the formula used to calculate state and local government expenditure limits. Proposition 172(November . - Imposed a 0.5 percent sales tax rate dedicated to local public 1993) safety programs as partial backfill for the property tax shifts enacted in 1992 and 1993. Proposition 218 (November . Required new general purpose local taxes to be approved by a 1996) majority of the voters and special purpose taxes to be approved by a 2/3 vote of the voters. • Prohibited school districts from imposing a general purpose local tax. • Limited the use of benefit assessments and imposed protest and notice provisions on governments attempting to impose benefit assessments. • Restricted the use of property-related fees by local governments and imposed new notice and protest provisions. • Allowed voters to repeal any existing local tax, fee, or assessment by a majority vote. II Jean Ross prepared this Brief. The California Budget Project(CBP)neither supports nor opposes Proposition 1A. The CBP was source o timet objective, tive and accessible expertise on state seal and economic olio founded in 1994 to provide Californians with a sou of timely, � p � policy issues. The CBP engages in independent fiscal and policy analysis and public education with the goal of improving public policies affecting the economic and social well-being of low-and middle-income Californians. Support for the CBP comes from foundation grants,publications,and individual contributions. 11 ENDNOTES 1 Other districts include special districts and redevelopment agencies. 2 The VLF rate was originally 1.75 percent. See Senate Local Government Committee,Three Budget Topics(January 22, 2003). 3 The trigger increased the VLF rate in the event that the state had insufficient funds to reimburse counties and cities for revenues lost as a result of the rate reduction. 4 California State Board of Equalization,2002-03 Annual Report(2004). Alpine County,with no incorporated cities, receives 68 percent of the local property tax. However,Mariposa County,where no property taxes go to cities,receives 26 percent of the local property tax,and similarly situated Trinity County receives 29 percent of the local property tax. 5 This paper uses the term"education spending'to refer to spending subject to the Proposition 98 school spending guarantee and"schools"to refer to the local jurisdictions that are covered by the Proposition 98 guarantee. This includes school districts,county offices of education,and community colleges. 6 This measure will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 65(see below). 7 For a review of the Governor's original proposal,see the California Budget Project, Vexing Questions:Will the Proposed Local Government Budget Agreement Help or Hinder Efforts to Improve the Fiscal Relationship Between the State and Local Governments? (June 2004). 8 As noted elsewhere,the Legislature can suspend Proposition 1A's prohibition on shifts of local revenues,but any amounts shifted must be repaid with interest. 9 Legislative Analyst's Office,Analysis of Proposition IA(August 6,2004),downloaded from http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_suppvig_pgO4.htm on September 3,2004. 10 For a more detailed description of the impact of Proposition 13 and subsequent legislative actions,see California Budget Project,Proposition 13:Its Impact on California and Implications for State and Local Finances (April 1997). 11$1.3 billion of backfill payments owed to cities and counties for 2003-04 are treated as a loan with a repayment date of no later than August 2006. 12 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. 13 Proposition 4 of 1979 excluded laws that define a new crime or that change the definition of an existing crime from the definition of a mandate. 14 Beginning in 2006-07 and thereafter,schools would receive no more than the share of the local property taxes that they received in 2003-04,adjusted for the shift of property tax dollars to counties and cities,to make up for the elimination of VLF backfill payments. 15 The Constitution contains a formula for restoring funding to the level where it would have been absent suspension. Repayment depends on the growth in per capita General Fund revenues,per capita personal income growth,and enrollment growth. I I 12 .IEROFFICE MEMORANDUM September 17, 2004 TO: L. Craig Britton, General Manager FROM: G. Baillie, Management Analyst SUBJECT: MONTHLY FIELD ACTIVITY SUMMARY Month August Year 2004 DISTRICT VIOLATIONS CITES TOTALS OTHER CRIMES TOTALS Bicycles Auto burglary 19 Closed area 5 5 Grand theft 1 Speed 12 20 Helmet 6 17 Night-riding 0 0 ACCIDENTS/INCIDENTS Dogs Bicycle accident 4 Prohibited area 3 5 Equestrian accident 0 Off-leash 9 13 Hiking/running accident 0 Nuisance dog 0 1 Other first aid 1 Off-road vehicles 0 0 Search & Rescue 0 Closed area 0 5 Vehicle accident 2 After hours 10 20 LZ air evacuation 0 Fishing 2 2 Fire 0 Vandalism 0 2 Parking 11 13 Parking after hours 20 33 ENFORCEMENT Littering- geocache 0 1 Parking citations 31 Camping 0 0 Other citations 47 Campfires 0 0 Written warnings 56 p Weapons Arrests 0 Actual contact 0 0 Police assistance 1 Report only 0 0 Evidence of 0 1 g Collectin 0 1 MUTUAL AID it - Smoking 0 1 Accident 3 Expired vehicle registration 0 1 Law enforcement 2 Poss marijuana<1 oz 0 3 Landing zone off-site 1 Unauthorized construction 0 1 Fire 1 Urinating in public 0 1 Trespass 0 2 Swimming 0 1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS BY DATE Seventeen vehicles were burglarized in District parking lots or on adjacent preserve roadsides between July 23 and August 29. The thefts occurred at Foothills (1), Long Ridge (1), Monte Bello (8), Russian Ridge (1), Saratoga Gap (3),Purisima(1), and Windy Hill (2). This includes three Asplundh Tree Service trucks parked over night, under District permit, at the Page Mill Road permit parking lot . They were using the lot as a staging area for a PG&E power line clearance contract. San Mateo Sheriff's deputies reported that auto burglaries have increased county-wide, particularly in recreation area parking lots along the San Mateo coast and in county parks. District staff have posted high visibility warning signs and increased parking lot patrol. i Date 1 District staff responded to a 2.5-acre fire in the De Anza Knoll area,part of Santa Clara County Parks jurisdiction near Rancho San Antonio. Fire personnel extinguished the fire, while District staff helped with mop-up. 7 C. Sparks-Hart observed a vehicle parked along Bear Creek Road, adjacent to the preserve. While walking the area, she observed three men at the pond. Two of the men were cited for "fishing prohibited." One received a written warning for being in a closed area. 6 A grand theft burglary occurred at the Skyline Field Office. A hydraulic hammer, auger implements and attachments for the Caterpillar excavator were stolen. Also taken was a trailer hitch for the Dodge Durango. Total value of stolen items is approximately$13,000. 6 At Purisima a geocache ammo box was found placed in an old growth redwood tree on the Lobitos Creek Trail. Geocaching is a relatively new activity where a cache is placed, usually off trail, and geocachers search for it using Global Positioning devices (GPS). Several geocaches have been removed from District land and others are believed to exist. 7 D. Danielson was first on scene of a head on motorcycle vs delivery truck accident on Hwy 35. The motorcyclist sustained critical head injuries and was evacuated by air ambulance from a landing zone at El Corte de Madera. The motorcyclist later died of his injuries. 17 Rangers assisted Santa Clara and Santa Cruz count sheriff's deputies in locating a marijuana g Y p g J cultivation area adjacent to Monte Bello OSP on Hansen Quarry land. The site is near Black Mountain and contained approximately one thousand plants. J. Lloyd stopped an individual at Monte Bello on August 18 for not wearing a bicycle helmet, who he believed to be associated with the cultivation. The man could not produce identification and he had plant debris on his clothes. 21 B. Malone responded to El Sereno on a radio report of a bicyclist down on the Overlook Trail. The cyclist had ridden on the uphill cut bank and lost control. Fire personnel took care of the victim, who was complaining of a loss of sensation in both legs. He was transported by helicopter to Valley Medical Center. A. Correia received a report on September 12 that the cyclist had broken numbers 5 and 6 vertebrae and was now starting to get sensation back in his legs. August vandalism 14 Both signboards at Windy Hill were pried open from behind and on one the plexiglass was warped and the map was ripped. The boards were repaired. 22 Red stripe for"No Dogs"cut out of signboard at a Purisima Creek Redwoods trailhead. i Regional Open Si,..ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION TO: Board of Directors FROM: L. Craig Britton, General Manager DATE: September 17, 2004 RE: FYI's 33o Distel Circle 650-691-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton 6:r ,.X ur. Regional Open S .-e INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION To: C. Britton, General Manager From: M. Williams, Real Property anager Date: August 30, 2004 Subject: Ball Property Addition to Coal Creek Open Space Preserve Escrow closed for the subject transaction on August 27, 2004, and title to and possession of this 9.17-acre parcel passed to the District. I am not aware of any use and management concerns that were not addressed in the staff report to the Board. In accordance with the public notification policy, and since there were no public and/or adjoining owner comments which might require amendment to the use and management recommendations, close of escrow marks the final adoption of the preliminary use and management plan recommendation as tentatively approved by the Board of Directors at their meeting of July 14, 2004. DEDICATION/ACQUISITION CHART INFORMATION Ownership Status: Board Approval Preserve/Area County/A.P.N. Grantor Acres (Fee,Easement,Lease, Date/Res. No. Mgmt Agmt.) Coal Creek San Mateo/ Gordon Ball & 917 Fee 07/14/04/ . 080-221-030 Ann Winship 04-25 Dedication Date/ Mgmt. Status: Status: Closing Date (Open, Closed, CMU, (Intended Type Purchase Price GIS Code or Other) Withheld) Closed except 08/27/04 portion of Alpine Intended Cash $500,000 Rd. already open Misc Notes: cc: Board of Directors Administration Operations Accounting Planning Public Affairs 33o Distel Circle 650-691-12oo info@openspace.org BOARD Of DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Regional Open 9oce INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION To: C. Britton, General Manager From: M. Williams, Real Property Manager Date: September 14, 2004 Subject: Neville Property Addition to Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve Escrow closed for the subject transaction on September 10, 2004 and title to and possession of this 24.2-acre parcel passed to the District. I am not aware of any use and management concerns that were not addressed in the staff report to the Board. In accordance with the public notification policy, and since there were no public and/or adjoining owner comments which might require amendment to the use and management recommendations, close of escrow marks the final adoption of the preliminary use and management plan recommendation as tentatively approved by the Board of Directors at their meeting of July 28, 2004. DEDICATION/ACQUISITION INFORMATION Preserve & County & Ownership Status Board Approval Date Grantor Acres (Fee Easement Area A.P.N. &Res.No. Lease,Mgmt Agmt.) Sierra Azul - Santa Clara Estate of July 28, 2004 Kennedy- 558-33-003 Marie B. Neville 24.2 Fee 04-27 Limekiln Area Dedication Management Status Date & Status: Closing Date (Open, Closed,CMU, (Intended or Type Purchase Price GIS Code or Other) Withheld) Grant $35,000 September 10, Open Intended Cash 40 000 2004 TOTAL $75,000 Misc. Notes: The District received a$35,000 grant in escrow from the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council through the State of California Conservancy Funding. Planning & Operations: See attached Memorandum of Agreement, specifically the Terms, Covenants & Conditions. cc: Board of Directors Administration Operations Accounting Planning Public E ffalrS GENERAL MANAGER: 33o Distel Circle So-691-uoo info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-69i-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hossett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton i County of Santa C,.-,ra �C,O Ul�r7,� Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Government Center,East Wing , 70 West Hedding Street San Jose,California 951 10-1770 1850 (408)299-5001 FAX 298-8460 TDD 993-8272 �T'� Cl Phyllis A. Perez Clerk of the Board R ECEIVE September 10, 2004 , Ms. Mary Davey, Director AIDPENINSULA REGIONALOPEI\ Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District SPACE DISTRICT 330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 Subject: Consolidation of November 2, 2004 Election Dear Ms. Davey: At the August 31, 2004 regular meeting of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors (Item 31), the Board adopted a Resolution approving performance of services by the Registrar of Voters approving consolidation of election to be held on November 2, 2004. Enclosed is a conformed copy of the Resolution. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding this item. P ly,nuel Abello y Clerk Enclosure RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPROVING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS TO HE HELD ON NOVEMBER 2,2004 AND PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES BY THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS WHEREAS,the County of Santa Clara has received a number of requests to consolidate elections and permit services by the Registrar of Voters in the Presidential General Election to be held November 2,2004; WHEREAS,two or more elections called by a city, county,or political subdivision on the same day in the same territory may be consolidated upon order of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Elections Code Section 10400, and the Registrar of Voters of the County of Santa Clara, in providing such services requested,will be reimbursed for all costs incurred pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT SO RESOLVED that the County of Santa Clara will consolidate the elections as requested by the cities, school districts, and special districts,permit the Registrar of Voters to provide services as requested,and the Registrar of Voters will be reimbursed in full. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors'of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, this lst day of august 2004, by the following vote. AYES; ALVX BO, BEALL, GAGE, XN15Sr W NOES: NONE ABSENT, ®19 $ ! PETE MCHUGH, Chair Board of Supervisors ATTEST: 0 J 2—%A. Pl1 LIS A. PEREZ Clerk of the Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: The foregoing instrument is a correct COPY Of the orir~inal 4 +t,� .!�C.,.. AT ` . 'l yiiis A. Perez LISA HERRICK, Deputy County Counsel G!,�rk of the Huard BY Date: `yl U4 Resolution of the Board of Supervisors Approving Consolidation of Elections and Performance of Services by the Registrar of voters for Nov 2,2004 Election i AUG 3 1. 2004 -----Original Message----- From: Nonette [mailto:nonetteh@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 11: 19 AM To: Craig Britton > Subject: Free Ferryboat Ride: RSVP required > The San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, along with South > San Francisco Councilmember Pedro Gonzalez, Redwood City Councilmember > Diane Howard, San Mateo County Supervisor Mark Church, and the Water > Transit Advocates for San Mateo County invite you to preview the > future by taking a demonstration ferryboat ride from one of two > locations in San Mateo County to the San Francisco Downtown Ferry > Building and Farmer's Market on the one of the following mornings: > > Saturday, October 2 (Redwood City only) > Saturday, October 9 (South San Francisco or Redwood City) > Saturday October 23 (SSF or Redwood City) > For details and to register online, please link to: > http: //www.watertransit.org/sanmateo/freeride > Please feel free to pass this invitation along to your Board members, > colleagues, family or other members of the community who may be > interested in this opportunity. > We hope to see you there! Nonette Hanko MROSD Director, Ward 5 nonetteh@earthlink.net (650) 494-0796 Dear Craig, Would you please send this invitation along to our Board and staff. Nonette 1 San Mateo - SF Ferry Ride Page 1 of 2 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA), along with South San Francisco Councilmember Pedro Gonzalez, Redwood City Councilmember Diane Howard, San Mateo County Supervisor Mark Church, and the Water Transit Advocates for San Mateo County invite you to a h EXPERIENCE SAN MATEO COUNTY FERRY SERVICE WITH A boctl- �We A-> fast, V_ co DOWNTOWN FERRY BUILDING MARKETPLACE AND FARMER ' S MARKET Choose from one of the folowing dates: Oc o_ ekl A { r a y ok,r7�, ()CAbbe,k- t0- �' �i/' {J� e06,, Cite Sign-in and board: 8:45 am • Depart: 9 am •Two hours at Ferry Building for shopping and sightseeing Return boat departs San Francisco at Noon for SSF and 12:30 for Redwood City • Back to SSF by 12:25 pm and Redwood City by 1:45 pm Act now: Limited number of seats available! RSVP:www.watertransit.org/sanmateo/freeride • If you don't have computer access, call (415)291-3377 Directions to Register Online Oyster Point Seating for each ferry ride is limited to the first 115 registrants and Take Hwy 101 to South San guests. Please contact the WTA at 415-291-3377 if you later have to Francisco/Oyster Point Blvd. exit. Proceed cancel so that someone else may have the chance to take your spot. one mile east on Oyster Point Blvd. Turn right on Marina Blvd then left at the second *indicates required field stop sign the Harbormaster's Office and Guest Dock is located at the end of Harbormaster Road. Limited parking Please select your free ferry ride: available on Harbormaster Road,with ample parking available in adjacent parking lots;a C: Redwood City, October 2 short walk to the Guest Dock. � South San Francisco, October 9 Directions to r Redwood City, October 9 Redwood City C South San Francisco, October 23 From Highway 101 in Redwood City take the C Redwood City, October 23 Woodside Road, Seaport Blvd. off-ramp and proceed east on Seaport Blvd to the third stoplight. Veer 45 degrees left at that light. Name following the"Port"signage and arrows in Guest#1 http://www.watertransit.org/sanmateo/freeride/ 9/15/2004 Former NAS Moffett Field Site 25 Update "POW Moffett Field, California September 2004 Introduction The U.S. Navy is developing used to manage stormwater at Moffett This fact sheet provides an update cleanup levels and alternatives Field. Levees,which were constructed on the U.S. Navy's cleanup plans for for Site 25 that would allow around the turn of the century, border Site 25, which is part of the Navy's property owners to implement the Stormwater Retention Pond and Installation Restoration Program at tidal marsh restoration in the provide flood protection for NASA former Naval Air Station Moffett Field. future. These alternatives will be and the adjacent properties. Cleanup plans for the site are being evaluated along with others In the past it was assumed that updated to accommodate site-related previously developed for the Site 25 would only be used for developments. seasonal wetland land use. stormwater management and therefore, previous cleanup strategies were based About the Site An open house to discuss Site 25 on that land use.This meant that the Site 25 is located 10 miles north of studies currently underway will site would continue to be separate San Jose and less than one mile south be held on October 14, 2004 from the bay and would dry out for of San Francisco Bay. It includes the from 5 to 9 p.m. in the Fourth a few months during late summer National Aeronautics and Space Floor Gallery of the Mountain and early fall. However,several Administration's(NASA)Stormwater View City Hall, 500 Castro Street, developments have taken place in Retention Pond and Eastern Diked Mountain View, California. relation to the site,which could Marsh,and Midpeninsula Regional Navy, NASA and regulatory impact its future land use: Open Space District's(MROSD) representatives will be present M In a 2001 public meeting the Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study to answer questions and concerns Navy learned of MROSD's plans to Area(see map). about the environmental restore its portion of Site 25 (which is For the past 50 years,Site 25 has been cleanup at the site. hydraulically connected to the rest of the site) to a tidal marsh. Community members and policy makers have also expressed a strong interest in restoring the site to a tidal marsh. ■ Several acres of salt ponds adjoining the site are currently undergoing restoration to tidal marsh, as a part of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project(www.southbayrestoration.org). The Salt Pond Restoration Project is also looking to address the region's need for flood management, public access and recreation. ■ NASA is in the process of evaluating the feasibility of creating a tidal marsh at Site 25, while maintaining a viable stormwater management system and protecting the facility from potential floods. Revised Cleanup Based on preliminary goals,develop alternatives to achieve the Strategy cleanup goals and evaluate the alternatives. work, the following species In response to these developments, the Next Steps Navy is developing cleanup levels and have been identified for alternatives that would allow property The Navy is dedicated to cleaning owners to implement tidal marsh consideration as receptors up Site 25 and seeing it through to restoration in the future.These alternatives completion. To date the Navy has will be evaluated along with previously under the tidal marsh spent approximately$90 million in developed cleanup alternatives for the cleaning up more than three-fourths seasonal wetland land use. As a part of scenario — Mallard Duck, of Moffett Field and it continues to this process the previously issued remedial actively pursue cleanup of the remaining Alameda Song Sparrow, sires, including Site 25. investigation and feasibility study reports are being updated. California Clapper Rail, The Navy and regulators are working to complete the Site 25 cleanup schedule Tile Site 25 remedial investigation Black-necked Stilt,Great this fall. The draft remedial investigation addendum will evaluate human and/or ecological risks for tidal marshland usage. report addendum is expected to be issued It will also incorporate new data collected Blue Heron, Northern later in 2004 and the draft feasibility and evaluated since the original remedial study report addendum in 2005.Once Harrier, Salt Marsh Harvest these reports are completed,a Proposed investigation report. Based on preliminary work, the followin Plan will be prepared to summarize the g species have been Mouse, Salt Marsh cleanup alternatives and propose a identified for consideration as receptors under the tidal marsh scenario -Mallard preferred alternative.The public will be Wandering Shrew, invited to comment on the Proposed Plan Duck,Alameda Song Sparrow,California and a formal public comment period and Clapper Rail,Black-necked Stilt,Great Blue Red-legged Frog and meeting will be held,Throughout this Heron, Northern Harrier,Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse,Salt Marsh Wandering Garter Snake. process, the public and interested parties will be kept informed and involved Shrew, Red-legged Frog and Garter Snake. through fact sheets and public notices. Development of the feasibility study addendum will follow The Navy is committed to working with community members, the remedial investigation report addendum.As a part of the regulatory agencies,property owners and policy makers to feasibility study,the Navy will establish site-specific Cleanup ensure a Successful cleanup at Site 25. Project Point of Contact Ms.Andrea Espinoza BRAC Environmental Coordinator,former NAS Moffett Field All documents related to the Navy's environmental work at Naval Facilities Engineering Command,Southwest Division Site 25 are available daily for your review at the Mountain View 1220 Pacific Highway Public Library, 585 Franklin Street,Mountain View,California. San Diego,CA 92 132-5190 If you have questions or concerns, please feet free to contact Phone:619-532-0911;Fax:619-532-0995 the following project team member: E-mail:andrea.espinozagnavy.tuil For more information on the environmental "rk underwqVatMoffett Field, loyon to wwwefdswiiavfac.iiavyiiiilleiiviroiiiiieiital�iiioffet-t.-htitt I Ao NAIFiAC x3 Naval Facilities Engineering Command SOUTHWEST DIVISION FORMER NAS MOFFETT FIELD Site 25 Open House When Thursday, October 14 Time 5 to 9 p.m. Where Mountain View City Hall 4' Floor Gallery 500 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 (directions on back page) The U.S. Navy invites you to an open house being held for the public on cleanup plans for Site 25, which includes NASA's Stormwater Retention Pond and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Study Area. The Navy is developing cleanup levels and alternatives for Site 25 that would allow property owners to implement tidal marsh restoration in the future. These alternatives will be evaluated along with others previously developed for the seasonal wetland land use. During the open house, Navy, NASA and regulatory representatives will answer questions and concerns about the environmental cleanup at the site. We encourage you to attend this open house and hope to see you there! For more information, please contact: Ms. Andrea Espinoza, Navy BRAC Environmental Coordinator Ph: (619) 532-0911 E-mail: andrea.espinoza@navy.mil Public comments play an important role in the outcome of environmental cleanup decisions. The Navy welcomes your input! 500 Castro St Mountain View, CA 94041 -2010 fM4APavETT,.,ti � 900ft D pl E M idd lafiekl++Rd � -4 -..� ``•----.fir � �a� /fir S, ✓� f ��' � �� ,�.�� c�� �� �p'1 � �, �'`- �' Kayla CI ,yhf'�'�`^•.,.._ ���.�:,q; � .�E' �'``.-�Ab� �t '�.� r O �p t ,�.."w�� M@ �r J� 4�,S rn 4. CjBillie p. ry f I-"w �Y 4 tiSla/a ff• Q _M1`�! y reto t ro 91 �a Rich_PI A rj o4 +� .� v .�_ ,c f mT f Landel scho A- L uI Melba Cl 4r l�`/, b i ~`;. 4 y rr �+'�j'�p'��_t Park . loyd'Way McKelvey drh/� C�- j�"� �f /.I a�'IA��r F` �`• Moun Park a tain View a '� Ernestine Ln Todd St 3``Y, $r fi ,,c, oi1�O r ' lb Z Gilmore St rm r' U NCU Ug . 85 �.._ RrraSro Rd 3 Marilyn Or - 71 Rustic Lnwa {� T-- ©2003 MapQuest.00m, Inc.;02003 Navigation Technobgis 0 ( `" Page 1 of 4 Craig Britton From: Craig Britton Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 3:12 PM To: 'stan@ostassoc.com' Cc: 'ytryce@yahoo.com' Subject: Controlled burn(s) - Russian Ridge Burn Dear Mr. Gage: Thank you for your e-mail of September 15 regarding the Russian Ridge Burn . I understand that District staff has previously responded to your earlier e-mail with answers to your specific concerns and questions. Your e-mail will be included in the correspondence to the District's Board of Directors for their review at the regular meeting on September 22; however, the item will not be agendized for discussion unless requested by one of the members of the Board (since they have already acted on this matter). For your information, there is an opportunity during the regular Board meeting for members of the public to speak before the Board on items which are not on the agenda. Attached is a copy of the Board report which was presented to the Board at their meeting of July 14, 2004 regarding the burn. I hope that this information, and the information which was previously provided to you, answers your questions and helps to allay your concerns. This is not a project which is taken lightly by anyone involved. Both the District and the California Department of Forestry feel that this project has many benefits, but that every safety precaution must and will be taken to ensure a safe and successful controlled burn. Thank you for contacting us, and please feel free to call or write if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, L. Craig Britton.General Manager Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (650)691-1200(Office Line) (650)691-0485(Facsimile) ehritton' en4pace.or(, /,a'C� www.OpeiiSpace.org -----Original Message----- From: Stan Gage [mailto:stan@ostassoc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:34 PM To: Margaret Reimche Subject: Controlled burn(s) 9/17/2004 Page 1 of 3 Gordon Baillie From: Gordon Baillie Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 2:49 PM To: 'stan@ostassoc.com'; 'ytryce@yahoo.com' Subject: Russian Ridge Burn Questions Dear Mr. Gage and Ms. Tryce, This is in response to the questions which you sent regarding the Russian Ridge Burn, The questions which you asked are as follows: 1. Is the project safe, given the level of dryness being experienced in other areas of the state? 2. What is the liability insurance coverage that is provided in case of destruction of private property with regards to this project? 3. What are the results of other projects that have utilized fire to control yellow starthistle 4. What coordination and communication has occurred with Woodside Fire? 5. What other methods of controlling yellow starthistle have been attempted. Could volunteers or day laborers be utilized to accomplish the same goals? Below are the responses to your questions and concerns: 1. Is the project safe, given the level of dryness being experienced in other areas of the state? The California Department of Forestry is managing the burn, and pursuant the CDF Burn Plan the burn will only occur if specific local weather conditions fall within the specified prescription to safely conduct the burn. The parameters for the prescription are as follows: e Relative Humidity: 30 - 65% e Air Temperature: 55 - 85°F e Wind: 0 - 8 mph fromW - or- SWandO - 5mphNW e 1 hour fuel moisture: 5 - 10% Many areas of the State of California are very dry at this time Y but the local environment is very much dominated b e Y our unique micro-climates. It is not unusual to have warm conditions in San Jose, but to be experiencing thick fog on Skyline Blvd. The burn can be conducted safely, if the weather conditions at the burn site are within the stated parameters. 2. What is the liability insurance coverage which is provided in case of destruction of private property with regards to this project? Pursuant to the Agreement between the District and the California Department of Forestry, the State of California would be responsible for any claims resulting from the burn. 3. What are the results of other projects that have utilized fire to control yellow starthistle? 9/17/2004 Page 2 of 3 The University of California -Da, tas conducted studies of control of ye. starthistle with prescribed burning. At Sugarloaf Ridge State Park in Sonoma County, prescribed burns substantially reduced the cover and soil seedbank of yellow starthistle while increasing native plant diversity and perennial grasses. These studies also showed that for yellow starthistle control it was important to burn at the right season (June-July) and to follow up with control methods such as selective herbicide application or hand removal to completely eradicate this thistle. The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space researched the effectiveness of mowing, grazing, selective herbicide spraying, burning, hand control and native seed sowing in restoring coastal grasslands at Russian Ridge from 1997- 2000 (Paul Kephart, Rana Creek Habitat Restoration, 2001, Resource Management Demonstration at Russian Ridge Preserve). Based on this and other studies, a combination of methods is usually most effective at restoring native grasslands as long as they are specifically adjusted to site conditions. Prescribed burns followed by selective herbicide treatment can be a cost-effective way to control large stands of yellow starthistle. Note that although several methods were successfully used to reduce yellow starthistle stands in the south part of Russian Ridge, the main ecological goals of the proposed 2004 prescribed burn in the north part of the Russian Ridge are to restore fire to the natural grassland ecosystem and to control invasive Harding grass. Prescribed burns control brush encroachment and reduce thatch to create conditions for greater biodiversity of native grasses and wildflowers. Fire would effectively burn the 40 acres of dense Harding grass in the north end of the preserve and, with repeated follow-up spraying, should eradicate it without requiring the use of large amounts of herbicide or adversely affecting the seeding of native grasses also present. For Harding grass, a late summer to fail burn is necessary in order for this perennial grass to be sufficiently dry to carry flame. Although burning every year will not be necessary to meet these ecological goals, carefully timed and safely conducted prescribed burns on a portion of Russian Ridge every few years will best restore the natural conditions of this grassland ecosystem and control invasive species. 4. What coordination and communication has occurred with Woodside Fire? Woodside Fire was notified that the project was being planned, and there have been direct conversations between CDF and Woodside Fire at the command level regarding this project. In addition, Woodside Fire was invited to an on-site meeting follow up meeting which occurred on Friday September 3. 5. What other methods of controlling yellow starthistle have been attempted. Could volunteers or day laborers be utilized to accomplish the same goals? MROSD is currently using mowing, herbicides, grazing, hand removal and biocontrol insects as additional methods for controlling yellow starthistle at various preserves. An excellent summary of methods to control yellow starthistle can be found at http://wric.ucdavis.edu/yst/yst.html. Because of variable site conditions, different methods are more effective at different locations. For example, in the flat, 4-acre Front Meadow of Rancho San Antonio, we have found that carefully timed mowing over the past 3 summers, with numerous subsequent visits by field staff and volunteers to remove any remaining yellow starthistle plants by hand, has substantially reduced the amount of yellow starthistle and native grasses are beginning to seed in this meadow. Other methods are more appropriate for large infestations with uneven terrain. We utilize the Bradley method of control (starting at perimeter and consistently returning to the site each year to cover a greater area) in many areas where this method is suitable. One year of control by any method is not sufficient, and we evaluate what combination of methods over several years will most effectively eradicate the invasive plant and utilize available labor and tools. For our invasive plant control program we use volunteers, field staff and contractors depending on the site conditions and availability of resources. Last year, volunteers worked 2500 hours on resource management projects on District lands including 1000 hours just on invasive plant control. 9/17/2004 Page 3 of 3 Concluding-Remarks An additional point which should be considered is that this controlled burn provides an excellent and much needed training opportunity for CDF, District staff and other local agencies to receive live fire training. Simulated training does not meet the training needs of wildland firefighters. It is essential that staff have the opportunity to train in realistic and controlled conditions. The ability of the agencies to work together in a wildland fire situation is crucial, and this controlled burn allows for the safe practice of specific skills and enhances communications between agencies. Further, controlled burns such as this one can help to reduce the fuel load, which helps to reduce the possibility of a catastrophic wildland fire occurring in the area. We appreciate your concerns and questions regarding the Russian Ridge Burn. This is not a project which is taken lightly by anyone involved. Both the District and the California Department of Forestry feel that this project has many benefits, but that every safety precaution must be taken to ensure a safe and successful controlled burn. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. MIDPE MNSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Gordon Baillie Management Analyst/Court Liaison Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (650)691-1200(Office Line) (650)691-0485(Facsimile) GBaillie@01)enSpace.org www.OpenSpace.org 9/17/2004 Page 1 of 3 Gordon Baillie From: Gordon Baillie Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 3:39 PM To: 'Stan Gage' Subject: RE: [VistaVerdeLTM Fwd: controlled burn Dear Mr. Gage, My apologies for the delay in responding back to you. I was out of the office on Thursday and Friday of last week, and unfortunately the auto-response feature on my e-mail is currently not functioning. I understand that you have now submitted a more formal letter to the Board, so we will be responding back to that correspondence through the process for responses to the Board. For your information, there are no plans to hold the burn this week, due to the current weather conditions and the commitment of California Department of Forestry's to incidents. Sincerely, Gordon Baillie MIDPENINSO A REGIOINAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Gordon Baillie Management AnalYSUCourt Liaison Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (650)691-1200(off-ice Line) (650)691-0485 (Facsimile) GB ai l l ie(q)OpenSpace.org www.OpenSpace.org -----Original Message----- From: Stan Gage [mailto:stan@ostassoc.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 10:34 PM To: William M. Rogoway C.C. mike@ostassoc.com; Gordon Baillie Subject: Re: [VistaVerdeLTW] Fwd: controlled burn I Bill I have a number of negative feelings about the use of the controlled burns - particularly this year. 1) The area is ripe for a pretty devastating wildfire. On a whole, statewide, soil and vegetation moisture content is very low for this time of year and, according to some, the lowest it has been in decades. I don't have any specific information for our particular area but one only needs to look around to see that many trees are already showing signs of fall with yellow leaves or just plain brown dried out leaves. One could hypothesize that this is due to the extremely dry conditions. In addition, the vegetative load(stuff that would burn almost explosively in a wildfire) in the area is horrendously high. In most parts of the state, the CDF has canceled ALL burning permits for the rest of the season. To 9/17/2004 Page 2 of 3 intentionally start a wildland fire in tl, circumstances, no matter how well p. think they can control it shows pretty poor judgement to me. I can't help but wonder what probability those starting this fire have assigned to the possibility of it getting out of control. I wonder if we would find that probability acceptable as a risk. 2) How is the MPROSD and the CDF insured in case they do start a fire that causes damage or injury?Do they have any liability or will they claim exemption under some corner case law?They should be able to reassure us BEFORE they get the matches out that they have adequate insurance to cover any damage that they might cause. Three hundred homes at say an average of $1.5 each is a big number, even for such a large property owner. i 3) What are the results of their efforts at controlling star thistle using the burning method?Are there any peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that this has worked anywhere? Are any studies being conducted on this site?How much longer do they believe they will need to continue putting our well being at risk before they have actually been successful? (If they say there is no risk -e.g. no probability of the fire getting out of control- then we know they are incompetent.) If they need to keep burning this area year after year then perhaps the strategy isn't working and they are simply re-proving the old definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results! 4) Some people at Woodside Fire Department have expressed to me after past burns by MPROSD that there has been minimal and ineffective coordination between MPRSOD, CDF, and Woodside Fire with less than a hour or so of prior notification as to the initiation of a burn. Has Woodside Fire expressed that these issues have been resolved?Last year the CDF apparently needed to use airtankers to keep the burn in control and, even though CDF denied officially that they had a problem there was a lot of hemming and hawing that went along with the denial. i 5) What other methods of control of star thistle have been attempted?We hand pulled ours on over an acre. It took a couple of years of diligent work but we completely cleared out a badly infested area. Maybe the MPROSD needs figure out that there are costs to maintaining all of the land they acquire and perhaps their budgeting should reflect these costs more realistically rather than trying to effect control through an inherently risky method. Perhaps all of the people who are so ardently in favor of the open space need to become volunteers in efforts aimed at other methods of control of the thistle. A couple of hundred volunteers working for a weekend could accomplish the same results on the 80 or so acres in question - with much lower risk. Would using 100 people for a couple of days out of the ample supply of day laborers from the streets of Los Altos be less costly than hiring the CDF to start a risky fire? And maybe contribute to some social good too? Stan Gage At 04:41 PM 9/8/2004, you wrote: >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: >Folks: If any in the Community have a concern that the hazard of a >spreading wildfire in the wake of a "controlled" burn might outway >the benefit of transient star thistle irradication in the Russian >Ridge open space (I guess my bias shows), the appropriate contact >person is Angela Petersen of the California Department of Forestry. >Melba spoke to her and, while she was not very flexible when hearing >our concerns, she said that she would be delighted to talk to any >interested community member. Her phone number: 831-335-6794. Bill. 9/17/2004 Page 3 of 3 ------------------------ Yahoo! Gi, �,s Sponsor-----------------------> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20lAA/yQLSAA/TgOoIB/TM ----------------------------------------------------------------------> Yahoo! Groups Links <*>To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VistaVerdeLTW/ <*>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: VistaVerdeLTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.vahoo.com/info/terms/ I i i I 9/17/2004 Claims No 04-14 Meeting 04-19 Date 09/22/04 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 1431 $411.36 A Royal Wolf Portable Storage Storage Rental Units-FFO 1432 $375.00 Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services 1433 $73.56 Ace Fire Equipment&SVC CO. Fire Extinguisher Servicing 1434 $668.26 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 1435 $1,789.65 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service and Repair 1436 $116.91 Barron Park Supply Co.,Inc. Plumbing Supply 1437 $47.13 Beckman,Craig Reimbursement-Verizon Wireless Cell Phone 1438 $565.60 Ben Meadows Company Office Supplies 1439 $2,618.20 BNY Western Trust Company Note Paying Agent Fees-1999 Revenue Bonds 1440 $122.49 Browning-Ferris Industries Garbage Service 1441 $1,058.00 City of Palo Alto Legal Consulting-Ranger Manual 1442 $61.69 Conoco Phillips 76 Fuel 1443 $287.40 Continuing Education of the Bar Legal Books 1444 $31.22 Cupertino Bike Shop Bicycle Supplies 1445 $253.42 David Edwards-Great! Printing Services-Fall 2004 Volunteer News 1446 $68,00 Emergency Vehicle Solutions,Inc. Equipment Repairs 1447 $909.30 FastSigns Construction Signs 1448 $112.50 Fenton Communications Communications&Public Affair Services-San Mateo County Coastal Protection Program 1449 $1,520.00 Ferma Corporation Demolition-Lobner Cabin 1450 $86.02 Foster Brothers Lock&Key Services 1451 $104.92 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 1452 $5,737.25 General Graphics Exhibits Graphic Design Services 1453 $110.20 Gilman,Mary Farm Supplies 1454 $1,320.00 Gilpin Geosciences,Inc. Consulting Services-Grabtown Gulch Trail Project 1455 $184.12 Green Waste Recovery,Inc. Garbage Services 1456 $1,154.47 Home Depot,Inc. Field Supplies&Equipment 1457 $2,250.00 IEDA,Inc. Consulting Services-Labor Relations 1458 $900.00 International Training Resources Defensive Tactics Training 1459 $32.87 Kinko's Printing Services 1460 $361.44 Langley Hill Quarry Base Rock-Grabtown Gulch Trail&Bridge Project 1461 $722.37 Los Altos Garbage Co. Refuse Services 1462 $287.22 MetroMobile Communications Radio Repairs 1463 $930.00 North American Title Company Title&Escrow-Neville Property 1464 $379.94 Northern Energy,Inc. Propane Service 1465 $652.21 Office Depot Office Supplies 1466 $1,988.64 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Equipment&Supplies 1467 $606.19 Palo Alto Upholstery Vehicle Upholstery Repair 1468 $50.00 #1 Pitney Bowes,Inc. Equipment Return Fee-Postage Machine 14 26.87 Pringle Tractor Co. Tractor Supplies 69 9 Pp 1470 $39.02 Rayne Water Conditioning Water Conditioner Service 1471 $200.00 RJ Lee Group,Inc. Lab Analysis-Dust&Cement Sample 1472 $162.39 Ron's Transmission Truck Service&Repair 1473 $318.59 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 1474 $153.17 Safety Kleen Oil Recycling&Solvent Tank Service Page t of 2 Claims No 04-14 Meeting 04-19 Date 09/22/04 Revised Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 1475 $442.69 San Jose Water Company Water Service 1476 $1,235.87 SBC Payment Center Telephone Service 1477 $26.30 Skyline County Water District Water Service 1478 $4,626.17 Steel&Fence Supply Fencing Material&Supplies 1479 $34.64 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense 1480 $41.03 Sunnyvale Dodge Truck Repair 1481 $752.41 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 1482 $571.56 Target Specialty Products Field Supplies 1483 $297.10 Tires on the Go Tire Repair 1484 $38.50 Verizon Pager Service 1485 $105.00 Vu,Douglas 3 Months Mileage Reimbursement 1486 $59,020.20 Watershed Science Construction Management Service-2 Bridges and Trail Repairs-Virginia Mill Trail&Grabtown Gulch 1487 $236.00 West Group On-Line Legal Subscription 1488 $1,608.81 Western Press&Mail Postage-Summer 2004 Newsletters 1489 $600.00 Wildlife Associates Presentation-Volunteer Recognition Event 1490 $250.00 Woodside&Portola Private Patrol Patrol Services-Windy Hill 1491 R $290.82 California Water Service Company Water Service 1492 R $119.92 MegaPath Networks Internet Connection-DSL Line FFO I Total $100,144.61 #1 Urgent Check Issued 09/16/04 Page 2 of 2 Claims No 04-14 Meeting 04-19 Date 09/22/04 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 1431 $411,36 A Royal Wolf Portable Storage Storage Rental Units-FFO 1432 $375.00 Aaron's Septic Tank Service Sanitation Services 1433 $73.56 Ace Fire Equipment&SVC CO. Fire Extinguisher Servicing 1434 $668.26 Acme&Sons Sanitation Sanitation Services 1435 $1,789.65 Allied Auto Works Vehicle Service and Repair 1436 $116.91 Barron Park Supply Co.,Inc. Plumbing Supply 1437 $47.13 Beckman,Craig Reimbursement-Verizon Wireless Cell Phone 1438 $565.60 Ben Meadows Company Office Supplies 1439 $2,618.20 BNY Western Trust Company Note Paying Agent Fees-1999 Revenue Bonds 1440 $122.49 Browning-Ferris Industries Garbage Service 1441 $1,058.00 City of Palo Alto Legal Consulting-Ranger Manual 1442 $61.69 Conoco Phillips 76 Fuel 1443 $287.40 Continuing Education of the Bar Legal Books 1444 $31.22 Cupertino Bike Shop Bicycle Supplies 1445 $253.42 David Edwards-Great! Printing Services-Fall 2004 Volunteer News 1446 $68.00 Emergency Vehicle Solutions,Inc. Equipment Repairs 1447 $909.30 FastSigns Construction Signs 1448 $112.50 Fenton Communications Communications&Public Affair Services-San Mateo County Coastal Protection Program 1449 $1,520.00 Ferma Corporation Demolition-Lobner Cabin 1450 $86.02 Foster Brothers Lock&Key Services 1451 $104.92 G&K Service Shop Towel Service 1452 $5,737.25 General Graphics Exhibits Graphic Design Services 1453 $110.20 Gilman,Mary Farm Supplies 1454 $1,320.00 Gilpin Geosciences,Inc. Consulting Services-Grabtown Gulch Trail Project 1455 $184.12 Green Waste Recovery,Inc. Garbage Services 1456 $1,154.47 Home Depot,Inc. Field Supplies&Equipment 1457 $2,250.00 IEDA,Inc. Consulting Services-Labor Relations 1458 $900.00 International Training Resources Defensive Tactics Training 1459 $32.87 Kinko's Printing Services 1460 $361.44 Langley Hill Quarry Base Rock-Grabtown Gulch Trail&Bridge Project 1461 $722,37 Los Altos Garbage Co. Refuse Services 1462 $287.22 MetroMobile Communications Radio Repairs 1463 $930.00 North American Title Company Title&Escrow-Neville Property 1464 $379.94 Northern Energy,Inc. Propane Service 1465 $652.21 Office Depot Office Supplies 1466 $1,988.64 Orchard Supply Hardware Field Equipment&Supplies 1467 $606.19 Palo Alto Upholstery Vehicle Upholstery Repair 1468 $50.00 #1 Pitney Bowes,Inc. Equipment Return Fee-Postage Machine 1469 $26.87 Pringle Tractor Co. Tractor Supplies 1470 $39.02 Rayne Water Conditioning Water Conditioner Service 1471 $200.00 RJ Lee Group,Inc. Lab Analysis-Dust&Cement Sample 1472 $162.39 Ron's Transmission Truck Service&Repair 1473 $318.59 Roy's Repair Service Vehicle Repairs&Service 1474 $153.17 Safety Kleen Oil Recycling&Solvent Tank Service Page 1 of 2 Claims No 04-14 Meeting 04-19 Date 09/22/04 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District # Amount Name Description 1475 $442.69 San Jose Water Company Water Service 1476 $1,235.87 SBC Payment Center Telephone Service 1477 $26.30 Skyline County Water District Water Service 1478 $4,626.17 Steel&Fence Supply Fencing Material&Supplies 1479 $34.64 Summit Uniforms Uniform Expense 1480 $41.03 Sunnyvale Dodge Truck Repair 1481 $752.41 Tadco Supply Janitorial Supplies 1482 $571.56 Target Specialty Products Field Supplies 1483 $297.10 Tires on the Go Tire Repair 1484 $38.50 Verizon Pager Service 1485 $105.00 Vu,Douglas 3 Months Mileage Reimbursement 1486 $59,020.20 Watershed Science Construction Management Service-2 Bridges and Trail Repairs-Virginia Mill Trail&Grabtown Gulch 1487 $236.00 West Group On-Line Legal Subscription 1488 $1,608.81 Western Press&Mail Postage-Summer 2004 Newsletters 1489 $600.00 Wildlife Associates Presentation-Volunteer Recognition Event 1490 $250.00 Woodside&Portola Private Patrol Patrol Services-Windy Hill Total $99,733.87 #1 Urgent Check Issued 09/16/04 Page 2 of 2