Pescadero PMAC History 2010

PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 7:30 PM, Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Supervisor Rich Gordon will present an award to Kathy Webster and TomKat Education Foundation for the locally-produced School District food program. Representatives of the agricultural community are invited. B. Announcement about County green jobs programs which will be presented in more detail at the February PMAC meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5. FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- Pattie Brixen 6. CORRESPONDENCE – Correspondence – Rodger Reinhart 7. REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS A. Emergency Preparedness – Certified Emergency Response Training– Lary Lawson B. Housing Committee – geotechnical study progress - Catherine Peery C. School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott D. Environmental Committee – next steps -Jackson Robertson E. Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas F. Communications Committee – R. Skinner 8. LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC A. Sewer System: Meeting scheduled with School District representatives to tour San Lorenzo High School system, maintained by Fall Creek Engineering – Catherine Peery B. Review of Permits – if any 9. NEW BUSINESS- A. Election of Officers B. Review of ByLaws –establishment of committee 10. Adjournment , Next meeting Feb 9, 2010, Green Jobs presentation

Green Jobs Academy Overview

The primary outcomes for the Green Jobs Academy are:

 Quality Training linked to green industries  Access to Employment in a sustainable economy  Opportunities to Gain Experience in a career pathway of choice

The Green Jobs Academy is a 16 week program designed to serve low income residents of San Mateo County who are not ready to go directly into subsidized employment. Participants increase employability from soft and hard skills training while they study emerging green industries.

 8 weeks of Academy Training in Cohorts of 25 participants at 20 hours per week=160 hours, Academy graduates will continue to:

 8 weeks of Transitional Employment (20-40 hours per week). The employee’s wages are 100% subsidized during the paid internship. The employer and employee may mutually agree to continue this arrangement beyond the 8 week internship.

Curricula: Hard Skills (e.g. basic green building construction), Soft Skills (e.g. job readiness/life skills), Environmental Literacy, Math & English

The Green Jobs Academy is a program within the SMC Works Subsidized Employment Program, an ARRA funded program for low income residents with dependent children. We will provide this subsidized employment program to 125-150 CalWORKs clients from October 2009 to September 2010. We will rotate training locations (in North, South and Coastal regions).

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 3

January 5, 2010

Eliana Falk Operations Supervisor First National Bank 239 Stage Rd. Pescadero, CA 94060

Dear Eliana,

As we were discussing yesterday I’m asking the bank to sponsor a set of flags for the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council. As you know when we have a formal affair we borrow your set of flags, the American and California flags for our meeting at the Native Sons Hall. At our January monthly meeting next Tuesday we’re honoring Rich Gordon for his services to the community and we’d like to have the flags for the occasion.

If your company can see fit to sponsor a set of flags for us we’ll be able to display them at every meeting and also pledge allegiance before each meeting. We will always recognize verbally the sponsorship of our flags by our local bank, The First National Bank of Northern California.

Please let me know if this gift is possible and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best personal regards,

Rob Skinner

Member Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council [email protected]

P.S. We are a 501(c)(3) Charitable Corporation

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 5

December 11, 2009

John Pliska Alto Velo Bike Club VIA E-Mail

Re: Annual Pescadero Classic Road Race, June 13th, 7:00 am – 1:00 pm

Dear John:

Thank you very much for contacting PMAC concerning the proposed Alto Velo bicycle race in Pescadero at 7:00 AM – 1:00 PM on Saturday, June 13, 2008. We appreciate your continued cooperation with the community, and the benefit the race provides for South Coast Children’s Services as in years past.

We reviewed your proposal at the December 8, 2009 meeting of PMAC, and the consensus was that your organization has been exemplary in its efforts to cooperate with the Pescadero community in the planning of your event. We appreciate your attempt to make this race as safe as possible for both bicyclists and motorists, and that you have been responsive to the need to monitor parking. As we mentioned, please request that your downtown monitors treat residents as they would if they lived here.

We encourage Alto Velo to publicize the event as widely as possible so motorists will be aware of the need to avoid the impacted roads that morning, and we will notify the local radio station to announce the route of the race. Announcements in the weekly Half Moon Bay Review and the monthly Coast Views would be helpful. We also have an online news site: coastsider.net. Contact Barry Parr, and there is a calendar on www.pescadero.com.

We appreciate the participation of the California Highway Patrol and San Mateo County Sheriff’s office in the race, especially since no road area can be reserved for bicycles only.

PMAC and the community look forward to the race and a long association with Alto Velo. We urge the Board of Supervisors, Caltrans, and any other public entity involved in this event to facilitate the processing of any required permits.

Again, we especially appreciate your support of South Coast Children’s Services.

Sincerely

Catherine M. Peery, Chair, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 6 From: David Pegos [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 11:33 AM To: David Pegos Subject: 2010 Specialty Crop Block Grant Workshops

Hello, We want to make sure you were aware of the following workshops for 2010 Specialty Crop Block Grants. Please see below for more details. Let us know how we can be of assistance. All the best

David A. Pegos California Department of Food and Agriculture Executive Office 1220 N Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 654‐0321 Fax: (916) 651‐7417 Email: [email protected]

Follow CDFA on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cdfanews

APPLICATION WORKSHOPS SCHEDULED FOR 2010 SPECIALTY CROP BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Workshops to be held in Sacramento, Fresno, Salinas and Ontario

SACRAMENTO, January 7, 2010 — The California Department of Food and Agriculture will hold application workshops the week of January 11, 2010, to assist interested parties in applying for the 2010 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. The department expects to award up to $17 million in projects to enhance the competitiveness of California specialty crops this year.

“The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is an important tool to assist California specialty crop growers,” said Secretary A.G. Kawamura. “These application workshops will provide important information to organizations and entities interested in applying for grant funding.”

Workshops will be held in the following locations:

January 11, 2010 (Monday) – 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. California Department of Food and Agriculture – Main Auditorium 1220 ‘N’ Street – Main Auditorium Sacramento, CA 95814

January 12, 2010 (Tuesday) – 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Fresno County Farm Bureau

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 7 1274 West Hedges Avenue Fresno, CA 93720

January 13, 2010 (Wednesday) – 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Laurel Inn 801 West Laurel Drive Salinas, CA 93906

January 14, 2010 (Thursday) – 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Hilton Ontario Airport 700 North Haven Avenue Ontario, CA 91764

In addition to the workshop locations, CDFA’s Federal Funds Management Office will be hosting an online webinar, covering the same information, on Monday, January 11, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. Webinar information will provided upon registration.

There is no cost to attend a workshop or webinar, but space is limited at each location. Individuals planning to attend should send an e-mail to [email protected] with their contact information, number of seats required and the location you will be attending.

The 2010 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and authorized by the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (farm bill). The purpose of the program is to solely enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops. Specialty crops are defined as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, horticulture, and nursery crops.

-30-

The California Department of Food and Agriculture protects and promotes California’s agriculture.

Media Contact: Steve Lyle CDFA, Public Affairs (916) 654-0462

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 8 From: Joe Lo Coco [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:44 AM To: Catherine Peery Cc: 'PMAC Members'; Steve Fischer Subject: RE: Weed management

Catherine,

Thank you for your looking into this and getting back to me.

I am not sure which chemicals were previously proposed for use, so I can not say whether the current proposal deviates from what was previously considered.

Our current proposal would include the application of "Aquamaster" and "Milestone VM" and it would be our intent to use the chemicals this winter, though not while there is standing water, nor when rain is in the forecast.

These are considered premium products. We utilize them specifically because of how benign they are to all but weeds. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to gather and send you applicable product information. Just let me know if you would like me to do so.

We respect whatever the community determines its preferences to be and will plan our maintenance efforts accordingly. This request was simply generated as a result of our concerns relating to roadway preparation efforts in advance of our proposed 2010 chip seal, especially since mowing can not effectively be performed during the wet season, essentially forcing us to wait until there is further vegetation intrusion into our roads before we react.

Thanks again for considering our request and best wishes for the new year!

>>> "Catherine Peery" 12/28/2009 10:27 AM >>>

Joe,

A couple of key questions have come up. When do you plan to do this (rainy season, later?) and what is the chemical you were wanting to use as the spray herbicide.

So far, reaction from PMAC members is negative, and I don’t know if you’re aware of the history on this. Maeva Neale was Chair of the PMAC when all PMAC council members went to the Board of Supervisors meeting requesting in very dramatic fashion that no spraying be done in our area. The Board of Supervisors agreed not to spray going forward, so we have always said no to this up to now.

If there is something new about this chemical or about the timing that would perhaps make this less harmful, please let us know.

Thanks,

Catherine M. Peery, Chair Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council P.O. Box 249, Pescadero CA 94060‐0249 650‐879‐0150, f: 650‐879‐1847

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 9

From: Joe Lo Coco [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 3:44 PM To: Catherine Peery Cc: Steve Fischer Subject: Weed management

Catherine,

Among the roads that we plan to chip seal this year are Pomponio Road and Stage Road from Pomponio Road to Highway 84.

We are concerned with weed growth that is encroaching into the road areas, as allowing the weeds to encroach into the roadway areas can significantly impact the overall effectiveness of a road chip seal treatment.

Currently, there is weed growth immediately adjacent to these roads with some growth extending into the roadways themselves. Where growth has extended into the roadways, we do not have an effective way of managing the weeds, other than through the application of an herbicide.

Any chance we could get the PMAC's approval to spray for weeds at these two locations since both road segments in question would be in entirely different watersheds than the one that ultimately flows through town.

I would be happy to review with you information on the products that we would use in such an application.

Please let me know your thoughts and in the meantime, have a joyful holiday season!

Warm regards

Joe LoCoco

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 10 Addendum 2 PACIFICA MEDICAL SERVICES

Medical-related services in CCS Medical Half Moon Bay Therapy Unit Medical-related services in Health System Health System - Special Needs Physical San Mateo/Santa Clara Therapy Family Health Services SMMC Coastside Clinic - Pre-3 Team - Primary Care -AFLP - Family Planning - Field Nursing - Women’s Health (Referrals) Stanford/Lucile - Pediatric Clinic Packard Hospital Nutrition Coastside Rotacare Clinic - - Births/Delivery -Urgent Care - Mental Health Services - Wednesdays, 5-7:30 p.m. - STD Screening & therapy - @ SMMC Coastside Clinic Sonrisas Dental Clinic - 4-5 week waiting list; same Coastside Family Medical Center - Caring for Coastside Kids day urgent/ER appts - Family Health Program (clinic 2 ½ days/week) - Just for Teens Clinic (Mon., 5-6:30pm) Community Health - Immunizations - Mobile Health Van - Shot Clinics - Nursing Mother’s Program (WIC) (Wednesday, 9-4 p.m.) - Parent Education Programs

Medical-related services in Pescadero Health System Family Health Services: Emergency Medical - Pre-3 Team Community Health Services/911 -AFLP - Mobile Health Van - Ambulance services - Field Nursing (Tuesdays, 1-7 p.m.) (Referrals) Behavioral Health & SANTA CRUZ MEDICAL Recovery Services SERVICES - Mental Health Services Erwin www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 1112/23/2009

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 12

Results of the Coordinated County Services to Pescadero/South South Coast Working Group Effort, 2008-2009

The Coordinated County Services to Pescadero/South South Coast Working Group (hereafter “Working Group”) was formed in July 2008 in response to community advocacy for more County services. In a tough budget climate, the South Coast Working Group focused on health and social service needs, engaged in a rigorous process and delivered numerous improvements, described here. To focus its efforts, the Working Group established the following goals: Short term: “To respond to the needs of the Pescadero, Loma Mar, La Honda, and San Gregorio (South-South Coast) communities in a coordinated fashion.” Long term: “To support and enhance existing community capacity aimed at population level prevention efforts.” A socio-ecological model was employed to help frame the work of the committee, with initial meetings analyzing the South Coast communities from the Individual, Interpersonal, Organizational, Community and Society level, and assessing each for Strengths, Needs, Barriers, Work in Progress, and Proposed Ideas. Based on this in-depth exercise along with extensive data gathering from all of the agencies involved, the Working Group settled on four strategies to try and achieve its short and long-term goals, as follows: 1. Enhancing awareness of medical and social services issues. 2. Improving access and linkages to resources. 3. Increasing capacity of County and community resources. 4. Bridging the geographic isolation. The following provides a summary of the progress made by the Working Group in each of the strategic areas.

Enhancing Awareness of Medical and Social Service Issues

Activity 1-1 – Form working group to address the needs of the South Coast. The Working Group and its ad hoc committees met 11 times from July 2008 until November 2009 and involved a total of 34 individuals from 16 County and community based agencies (see Addendum 1).

Activity 1-2 – Obtain and share data on scope of medical and social services needs of the South Coast. Data was obtained from a variety of sources to cover the following information: o Births by Zip Code, including percentage on Medi-Cal o Puente health insurance enrollment o Puente health care navigation requests o South Coast residents seen at Half Moon Bay Clinics o Referrals to Family Health Services o Referrals to and clients seen by Health System staff in Pescadero (Family Health and Behavioral Health & Recovery Services)

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 13 o Children and Family Services child abuse and neglect referrals by City o Medi-Cal, CalWORKS, and Food Stamps requests by Zip Code o Transportation arranged by Puente for medical and dental appointments o 9-1-1 calls from South Coast o Health Plan of San Mateo – South Coast diagnoses for chronic diseases o Health Plan of San Mateo – South Coast health insurance enrollment Activity 1-3 – Convene a series of one-on-one meetings with medical providers regarding chronic disease care and management, including MH/AOD issues. Not completed; proposal submitted for this activity but unsuccessful.

Activity 1-4 – Hold one Parenting Class (Strengthening Multi-Ethnic Families – 14 weeks) in Pescadero targeting Puente and Pre-3 clients. Parenting class held in 2009 with 14 enrollees from the South Coast region. Family Health Services Pre-3 provided the instructor and support for child care; Puente provided support for limited English proficient students. All enrollees graduated.

Activity 1-5 – Ongoing activities towards reducing the stigma associated with identification and treatment of mental health (MH) and alcohol and other drug (AOD) issues. A Behavioral Health and Recovery Services task force has been focusing on this issue in the Pescadero area. The task force completed a community survey and a needs assessment.

Activity 1-6 – Increase awareness of, and access to, County programs by participating in Health Fairs in the South Coast. Ongoing; CALFire has agreed to participate in Health Fairs in the South Coast and to provide blood pressure, body-mass index (BMI), and other checks. No Health Fairs have been scheduled to date.

Activity 1-7 – Activities to provide education to residents for prevention and management of chronic disease care. Community Health is pursuing funding to implement a 6-week Diabetes Self Management Workshop in Pescadero. Plan includes providing the workshop for identified residents and training local providers in order to ensure ongoing dissemination.

Improving Access and Linkages to Resources

Activity 2-1 – Increase time of County employees within Puente and increase computer availability.

Family Health Services increased support as follows: o WIC increased presence at Puente from one time per month to two times per month

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 14 o Provided additional computer services at Puente Human Services Agency increased support as follows: o Provided a Benefits Analyst (BA) to Puente three days per week o Provided a Social Work Supervisor to oversee other HSA staff on site o Designated Puente as a County Core Service Agency Activity 2-2 – Map available health related services to the South Coast. The Working Group focused on the communities of Pescadero, La Honda, San Gregorio, and Loma Mar – a geographically isolated part of San Mateo County. Addendum 2 provides a map of the current health services available in the South South Coast region.

Activity 2-3 – Identify health gap for residents of South Coast. A grant proposal to the California Health Care Foundation (unfunded) clearly outlined the gaps in health care for South South Coast residents. (The Coastside Health Committee has also recently completed (November 2009) a separate needs assessment of the entire Coastside.)

Activity 2-4 – Streamline County resource and referral process and timeliness of referral process to ensure easily accessible medical, mental health, and social services. Ongoing. Service referrals have been streamlined with identified staff from both HSA and Family Health working closely with Puente to help navigate the County system. Access to medical services continues to be a challenge and was exacerbated by the closure of the Coastside Family Medical Center in Half Moon Bay. However, the San Mateo Medical Center has worked to provide additional hours at the County Clinic in Half Moon Bay (HMB), including obtaining additional exam rooms from BHRS. In December 2009, the San Mateo Medical Center was awarded federal funding to expand clinic services in HMB.

Activity 2-5 – Investigate ways to increase insurance accessibility, include accessibility of the ACE program. The Human Services Agency (HSA) placed staff at Puente and has increased enrollment of South Coast residents in health insurance programs. Additionally, when the private clinic in HMB closed, the Health Plan of San Mateo worked as quickly as possible with private practitioners and others to provide alternatives for all residents. Limitations remain for those residents who cannot access medical services and for ACE enrollees who may want to use out of County services.

Activity 2-6 – Coordinate contract in the South Coast to share data between HSA, Health System, County Office of Education, La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District and community based organizations – Puente and Sonrisas. Not completed. Though raised as a desirable outcome, the group never prioritized this to an activity.

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 15 Activity 2-7 – Assist Puente in building out trailer to house additional County employees. Not completed. Focus shifted to HSA making Puente a County Core Service Center in 2009, which solidified funding to Puente.

Increasing Capacity of County and Community Resources

Activity 3-1 – Increase capacity of medical services by increasing Mobile Health Van hours in Pescadero. Mobile Health Van hours were initially increased in Pescadero to one day a week. However, budget reductions in the summer of 2009 made this no longer feasible and the Mobile Health Van hours were suspended in both Pescadero and Half Moon Bay.

Activity 3-2 – Increase capacity of County nutritional services. Women, Infant and Children (WIC) hours doubled form one- to two-times per month. However, despite advocacy by WIC staff, there are no grocery stores in the Pescadero – South Coast region which sell WIC foods.

Activity 3-3 – Increase language capacity of County departments. Health System implemented a Language Access Policy effective July 2008 for all employees covering both interpretation and translation of documents.

Activity 3-4 – Support Touchpoints and/or other parent support groups to South Coast. A Stress Management Workshop was held in November 2009 for the graduates of the Parenting Class; 12 parents attended the workshop. The workshop was co- presented by Pre-3 and a mental health clinician from BHRS.

Activity 3-5 – Expand RotaCare services to Pescadero and/or South Coast, explore idea of clinics focused on episodic or specialty care. RotaCare explored the feasibility of expanding to Pescadero but was unable to do so. However, in the wake of the closure of the private clinic, RotaCare expanded HMB hours and provided dedicated hours to South Coast residents.

Activity 3-6 – Expand services by Fire Department personnel to include blood pressure screening and monitoring. CALFire is willing to provide blood pressure screening and additional services at Health Fairs in the South Coast region.

Activity 3-7 – Submit proposal to the California HealthCare Foundation for increased chronic disease care training and management. Proposal submitted and not funded.

Activity 3-8 – Invite CALFire/EMS units in rural/Coastside ares to BHRS Crisis Intervention Training (CIT).

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 16

Invitation extended to CALFire.

Bridging the Geographic Isolation

Activity 4-1 – Increase alternatives to transport residents to routine medical and related appointments. Puente received additional funding from the Health System – Health Policy and Planning and Sequoia Health District to coordinate transportation for South Coast residents to medical and dental appointments. Providing an average of approximately 300 rides annually.

Activity 4-2 – Expand access to dental services through mobile clinic. Sonrisas Dental Clinic purchased a mobile dental chair and has provided additional screening services for residents. In addition, the clinic is now open 5 ½ days per week with the wait for services reduced from several months to 4-5 weeks; same day appointments are now available for urgent or emergency patients.

Activity 4-3 – Expand access to primary medical care services for South Coast residents. Explore options of Health Plan of San Mateo providers in Santa Cruz County. An ad hoc group met to explore this issue. Health Plan of San Mateo (HPSM) is contacting primary care providers in Santa Cruz County to pursue interested in contracts as Primary Care Providers for HPSM members. SMMC – Coastside Clinic obtained additional exam rooms.. Starting at the end of December 2009, the clinic will expand pediatric care. With new funding from federal government, SMMC will expand Coastside Clinic services.

The South South-Coast community has fewer unmet needs today than before this effort began and work will continue to fill those needs. The Working Group brought focus to a geographically isolated population of San Mateo County and helped to maximize the strengths of the organizations already present in the region. While there remain challenges in meeting the primary medical needs of the South South Coast, the outcomes of the Working Group show that even with strained budgets, collaborative efforts are worthwhile towards improving the overall health and well-being of a community.

5 www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 17 Group – Meeting List and List of Attendees

Meetings held:

2008: o July 3 o August 7 o August 29 o September 25 o November 3

2009 o January 9 o February 27 o April 13 o July 1 (Primary care and Mobile Health Van Services ad hoc meeting)) o August 26 o November 20 (Expansion of primary care services ad hoc meeting)

Total of 9 regular meetings and 2 ad hoc meetings; 11 meetings total. 34 people attended all or some of the meetings.

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 18 Group – Meeting List and List of Attendees List of participants:

# NAME AGENCY MEETINGS

Belinda Arriaga Behavioral Health Puente de la Costa Sur 5 Children & Family Gary Beasley Human Services Agency 1 Services Children and Family Ellen Bucci Human Services Agency 1 Services Chronic Disease Edith Cabuslay Prevention, Community Health System 5 Health Maternal and Child Anand Chabra Health, Family Health Health System 4 Services Public Health, John Conley Health System 1 Community Health Self Sufficiency Elsa Dawson Human Services Agency 4 Services Trish Erwin Family Health Services Health System 11 Ambulatory Clinics, Rob Fleming San Mateo Medical Health System 8 Center Ambulatory Clinics, Linda Franco San Mateo Medical Health System 2 Center Mary Hansell Family Health Services Health System 9

Linda Holman Self Sufficiency Human Services Agency 3 Third District, Office of Matt Jacobs Supervisor Rich Board of Supervisors 5 Gordon San Mateo Sheriff’s Lt. Ken Jones Coastside 1 Department Chronic Disease Gabriela Lemus Prevention, Community Health System 1 Health Children & Family Jerry Lindner Human Services Agency 1 Services Kerry Lobel Puente de la Costa Sur 11 Aging and Adult Lisa Mancini Health System 1 Services

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 19 Addendum 1 – Coordinated County Services to Pescadero – South South Coast Working Group – Meeting List and List of Attendees

# NAME AGENCY MEETINGS

Julia McKeon Puente de la Costa Sur 2

Kate Meyer-Haas Pescadero Municipal Advisory 8

Lorraine Moriarty Society of St. Vincent de Paul 3 Emergency Medical Jan Ogar Health System 4 Services Home Visiting Ronell Reyna Programs, Family Health System 7 Health Services Behavioral Health & Louise Rogers Health System 5 Recovery Services Sandra Santa- Behavioral Health & Health System 6 Mora Recovery Services Behavioral Health & Linda Simonsen Health System 6 Recovery Services Children & Family Renee Smylie Human Services Agency 1 Services Mobile Clinic, Ellen Sweetin Health System 2 Community Health Carolyn Thon Health Plan of San Mateo 2 Prevention & Early Deborah Torres Human Services Agency 7 Intervention Child Health and Dorothy Vura- Disability Prevention, Health System 1 Weiss Family Health Services David Wade CAL-Fire 1 La Honda-Pescadero Unified Amy Wooliever 3 School District Brian Zamora Community Health Health System 7

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 20 Environmental Committee Report January 9, 2010

Notes RCD will be helping PMAC to understand the TMDL study, the watershed plan, and giving us advice toward a remedy for the fish‐kill and flooding issues ‐ as it related to the Marsh. RCD’s contract with the Regional Board is to host two meetings per year for two years with the option of additional meetings if the budget allows. Kellyx is seeking funding to coordinate an ongoing stakeholder group fore more in‐depth participation for those who are interested. Jill Marshall, the project manager, left the Regional Board and turned the project over to Mike Napolitano. Safety concerns may be opportunities for some sources of funding, whereas resource protection provides different funding sources. Tim Frahm recommended that we contact Kit Crump is with the NOAA Restoration Center to help us collect information. Kit’s boss, Pat Rutten might also be a useful resource for us.

Questions Will flooding be addressed in the TMDL study? Is there grant money to follow? The TMDL was required under the Clean Water Act as a response to impaired water quality due to sediment. It is outside the scope of the TMDL to focus on assessing the flooding issue or developing a plan to address flooding. However, it is important that this resource management concern is noted in the TMDL, (1) as the context in which the TMDL will take place, (2) as a significant local concern, and (3) as a consideration to ensure that recommendations in the TMDL do not exacerbate the problem. There is great value in having this concern noted in the report. Also, the TMDL may be able to make recommendations for additional projects or work that are outside the

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 21 scope of the TMDL. We should try to get a recommendation in the report to address flooding.

Action Items Read the Cook Report, Develop Mission Statement, Create a list of talking points for discussion with stakeholders. Collect literature/reports/history of the Pescadero Marsh and upload to the PMAC website Kellyx sent a request to Kit Crump and Pat Rutten and Army Corps and many others, including State Parks and resource agencies, asking them what should be included in a library. She sent the Committee their compiled responses. We should not reinvent the wheel on this, as it appears that most of the work has already been done and PMAC can simply link to it and ask the WRC to update if there are any new reports to add. WRC will also scan original documents.

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 22 Puente Updates January 12, 2009

• Jan 28th‐‐ H1N1 seasonal flu clinics will be offered in La Honda at the Post Office 2‐5pm and in Pescadero (same day) at the Pescadero Community Church, 3‐7pm

• Via a partnership with the Institute for Human and Social Development, Norma Zavala will provide home visits for 11 families with children, 0‐3. She will also continue to do socialization activities with children at Puente such as Story Time. This means Puente will again be offering a fully func t ional parent involvement program.

• Food distribution is the 28th

• Tax preparation help to be offered, February ‐ March. Qualified beneficiaries earn less than 52,000. Volunteers are also needed to help prepare returns.

• New semester language classes ‐‐ Spanish for English speakers began yesterday, on Mondays 5‐6pm. ESL classes 7‐9pm, Mondays and Wednesdays. TBA (but coming soon) a Spanish Conversation and Cooking class

• In December Puente worked with the County to distribute $200 food cards to 77 low income families in our community

• Puente distributed 306 holiday stockings and gift bags

Donation requests • Always looking for school supplies, bicycles (in excellent working condition please,) toiletries sleeping gear

• A baby wipe donor! Someone willing to donate 1 – 5 cases of baby wipes each month.

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 23

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 24 FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Civil• Environmental• Water Resource Engineering and Sciences Tel. (831) 426·9054 P.O. Box 7894, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 Fax. (831) 426-4932

December 10, 2009 Catherine M. Perry Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council P.O. Box 249 Pescadero', CA 94060

Subject: Review of Facilities Planning Report for Pescadero Community Sewer Project March 2008, Prepared by HydroScience Engineers, Inc.

Dear Catherine:

Fall Creek Engineering, Inc. (FCE) has conducted a review of the above referenced document. Based on our review, FCE would recommend that the facilities plan (Plan) be revised to include alternative sites for a new wastewater treatment system, some additional wastewater treatment schemes, and additional options for effluent reuse and disposal.

In summary, FCE recommends the following:

1. As outlined in the Plan, the proposed wastewater project would include installing a force main to pump raw sewage to a relatively remote location. This scheme will result in high costs to implement the project. FCE would recommend considering some additional sites that are in closer proximity to the community. This option would reduce the costs associated with the pipelines and would allow water to be reused locally for a variety of purposes, such as a source for fire suppression, irrigation of the elementary school playfield and as a source of water to the local nursery/greenhouse operations. This revision would require identifying alternative sites for the treatment system and modifications to the collection and conveyance system.

2. The three alternative wastewater treatment systems considered by HydroScience Engineering are all relatively expensive, energy intensive, and operationally complex treatment schemes considering the volume of wastewater treated and the relatively remote location of the systems. FCE would recommend that a few additional wastewater treatment schemes be considered that are lower cost, easier to operate and maintain, have been shown to be reliable, and are substantially more energy efficient. FCE would recommend revising the plan to include a comparison of a two- or three stage trickling filter system, a combined trickling filter and constructed wetland system or sma ll pond/wetland system. The trickling filter systems could be installed in a small area comparable to the SBR system selected by HydroScience Engineering. A trickling filter wetland and or pond/wetland system would require more area than the systems identified in the Plan, but would be the easiest to operate and maintain and would require the least amount of energy.

www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 25 FALL CREEK ENGIN EERING, INC.

3. FCE is aware that the community of Pescadero presently does not have an adequate fire suppression system. FCE recommends that the Plan be revised to consider the reuse of treated effluent as part of a new fire suppression system for the community. FCE suggests that a combined fire water and water reclamation storage tank and reclaimed water distribution system could be installed that would allow treated effluent to be used in the town for fire protection and to supply local reuse areas.

4. FCE recommends that the Plan be revised to evaluate additional water reuse options, as previously mentioned, for a variety of uses, including irrigation of the school playfield, as source water for local nurseries, greenhouses and agricultural fields in close proximity to the town center.

5. FCE recommends that the Plan be revised to evaluate alternative winter disposal options, such as installing a subsurface disposal system(s) in the elementary school playfield and/or other lands adjacent to the town center.

Thank you for the opportunity to assist you and provide our review of the Plan. As you are aware, FCE is a local engineering firm that specializes in small community water and wastewater engineering projects. FCE would be happy to provide you and the County of San Mateo a proposal for services to update the Plan to incorporate the recommendations presented in this letter.

I have enclosed a copy of our Statement of Qualifications focused on our recent wastewater engineering projects. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (831) 426-9054.

Principal Engineer

Enclosures

2 www.pescaderocouncil.org Handouts 01/12/2010 Page 26 03/09/2010 Page 1 PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 7:30 PM, Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060

1) CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2) PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3) PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Santa Cruz bicycle club asking for support for bike route through Pescadero (5 minutes) b) Green Jobs, and Jobs Subsidies Presentation by County representatives 4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5) FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- Pattie Brixen 6) CORRESPONDENCE – Correspondence from Pescadero Middle School, and others – Rodger Reinhart 7) REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS a) Emergency Preparedness – CERT Training graduates– Lary Lawson b) Housing Committee – geotechnical study, Bolinas field trip, RCAC - Catherine Peery c) School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott d) Environmental Committee – meeting report -Jackson e) Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas f) Communications Committee – discussion of Town sign 8) LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC a) Sewer System: Recent developments with Public Works, RCAC – Catherine Peery b) Review of Permits (if any) 9) NEW BUSINESS a) Request for letter of support from Celeste Worden, licensee, KPDO radio station b) Letter, response to Middle School children 10) OLD BUSINESS - a) Review, acceptance of revised By-Laws for PMAC 11) Adjournment, Next meeting April 13, 2010, Middle School Students, County Road Spraying

03/09/2010 Page 3

~auntyManager's Office BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARK CHURCH CAROLE GROOM RICHARD S. GORDON ROSE JACOBS GIBSON ADRIENNE TISSIER

DAVID S. BOESCH COUNTY MANAGER COUNTY OF SAN MATEO CLERK OF THE BOARD COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94063-1662 (650) 363-4123 WEB PAGEADDRESS: hllp://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us FAX: (650) 363-1916

Februa1y 11, 2010

Catherine M. Peeiy, Chair Pescadero Municipal Advisoiy Council (PMAC) PO Box 249 Pescadero, CA 94060-0249

Subject: A111111a/Alloca tio11for PMAC Operations

Dear Ms. Catherine:

The County Manager's Office has been informed by Supervisor Richard Gordon's Office that PMAC would like to continue to receive its amrnal appropriated amount of $3 ,000 in one lump sum payment. In order to disburse the funds in this manner, PMAC will need to once again agree to the following conditions:

1. The PMAC remains an Advisoiy Commission, and has no authority to obligate or to act on behalf of, San Mateo County. 2. The funds received from San Mateo County need to be placed in a separate bank account, not commingled with other funds, and we would recommend access only by you and one back up person. 3. The funds need to be spent only for lawful PMAC meeting purposes and accounted for in the following categories: Printing and Copy Service; Postage and Mailing; Other Office Expense; Meeting Expense; Office Equipment Rental (if any); and, Telephone Service Charges. 4. At the end of the fiscal year, the PMAC needs to account for all funds spent by submitting to the San Mateo County Manager, a written report including original receipts and a written reconciliation of the account including all original bank statements and all original voided and/or cancelled checks. 5. This account and all transactions will be subject to audit by the San Mateo County Controller.

If you accept the terms listed above, please sign and return to my office and a check will be sent to your Council.

Sincerely, Agreed and Ag ted by the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council:

. \~ ,X§\. '~4vi Catherinb M. Peeiy, Chair PMAC David Boesch County Manager

cc: Honorable Rich Gordon, Supervisor, District 3 Honorable Tom Huening, Co_unty Controller Michael Murphy, County Counsel 03/09/2010 Page 4

03/09/2010 Page 5

San Mateo County Final Report: Results of the Coordinated County Services to Pescadero/South South Coast Working Group Effort, 2008-2009

The Coordinated County Services to Pescadero/South South-Coast Working Group (hereafter “Working Group”) was formed in July 2008 in response to community advocacy for more County services. In a tough budget climate, the South Coast Working Group focused on health and social service needs, engaged in a rigorous process and delivered numerous improvements, described here. To focus its efforts, the Working Group established the following goals: Short term: “To respond to the needs of the Pescadero, Loma Mar, La Honda, and San Gregorio (South-South Coast) communities in a coordinated fashion.” Long term: “To support and enhance existing community capacity aimed at population level prevention efforts.” A socio-ecological model was employed to help frame the work of the committee, with initial meetings analyzing the South Coast communities from the Individual, Interpersonal, Organizational, Community and Society level, and assessing each for Strengths, Needs, Barriers, Work in Progress, and Proposed Ideas. Based on this in-depth exercise along with extensive data gathering from all of the agencies involved, the Working Group settled on four strategies to try and achieve its short and long-term goals, as follows: 1. Enhancing awareness of medical and social services issues. 2. Improving access and linkages to resources. 3. Increasing capacity of County and community resources. 4. Bridging the geographic isolation. The following provides a summary of the progress made by the Working Group in each of the strategic areas.

Enhancing Awareness of Medical and Social Service Issues

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Robyn Thaw (650) 573-3935 March 9, 2010 San Mateo County Health System

Continued Demand for H1N1 Vaccine Prompts County to Offer Additional Free Clinics

Free H1N1 Flu Vaccine Clinics Extended through March 2010

SAN MATEO, Calif. — High turnouts at the County’s free H1N1 flu vaccination clinics in February has prompted San Mateo County health officials to offer 10 additional free vaccine clinics now through the end of March. Though the number of new H1N1 cases has dwindled in recent weeks, flu viruses are always unpredictable, and the County continues its efforts to ensure the public is protected.

The H1N1 virus is not expected to disappear anytime soon, so it remains important for people to continue getting vaccinated – especially children, pregnant mothers, and individuals with underlying chronic medical conditions. Children who receive their first dose now may only need one dose next fall, when flu season ramps up again. It is also important for children under age 10 to get two doses of H1N1 flu vaccine – at least three weeks apart – because two doses provide better protection against the H1N1 virus for the less mature immune systems of younger children.

“I still encourage everyone to get vaccinated,” said Dr. Scott Morrow, Health Officer for San Mateo County. “High numbers of residents taking precautionary measures to get themselves and their families vaccinated directly contributes to a milder flu season.”

H1N1 flu is a vaccine-preventable disease; therefore, the County Health System is urging the public to get vaccinated now. A flu shot is still the single best defense against the flu, and can help reduce the spread throughout the community. For individuals in high-risk groups, the vaccine prevents serious health complications, and in some cases, death. There have been 10 H1N1-related deaths and 95 hospitalizations in the County since the outbreak began last year.

The H1N1 (swine) flu vaccine is widely available throughout the County, including doctor’s offices, retail stores and pharmacies, and free County public vaccination clinics. For a full list, visit www.smhealth.org/flu/vaccines.

### ______Clinic Locations and Times – No Appointment Necessary

Half Moon Bay Wednesday, March 10th 6pm-8pm Moonridge Mid-Peninsula Housing, 2001 Miramontes Point Rd.

-- MORE -- 03/09/2010 Page 8

Menlo Park Friday, March 12th 11am-12:30pm St. Anthony's Church, 3500 Middlefield Rd.

San Mateo Sunday, March 14th, 12pm - 5pm Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center, 725 Monte Diablo Ave.

Daly City Saturday, March 20th, 12pm-2pm Fernando Rivera Middle School, 1255 Southgate Ave.

Half Moon Bay Sunday, March 21st, 10am - 4pm Ted Adcock Community Center, 535 Kelly Ave.

South San Francisco Sunday, March 21st, 10am-4pm Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, 781 Tennis Dr.

Menlo Park Tuesday, March 23rd 11am-12:30pm St. Anthony's Church, 3500 Middlefield Rd.

Pescadero Thursday, March 25th, 4pm-6pm Pescadero Community Church, Stage & North St.

East Palo Alto Saturday, March 27th 10am - 1pm YMCA, 550 Bell St.

03/09/2010 Page 9

San Mateo County H1N1 Flu Vaccination Clinics

FREE H1N1 flu vaccine For all San Mateo County residents – 6 months & older

No appointment needed - No I.D. required

Menlo Park Thursday, March 4th, 11am–12:30pm Friday, March 12th, 11am–12:30pm Tuesday, March 23rd, 11am–12:30pm St. Anthony's Church, Padua Dining Room, 3500 Middlefield Rd. Redwood City Saturday, March 6 th, 10am–4pm Fair Oaks Community Center, 2600 Middlefield Road Half Moon Bay Wednesday, March 10th, 6pm–8pm Moonridge Mid-Peninsula Housing, 2001 Miramontes Point Rd. Sunday, March 21st, 10am–4pm Ted Adcock Community Center, 535 Kelly Ave. San Mateo Sunday, March 14th, 12pm–5pm Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center, 725 Monte Diablo Ave. Daly City Saturday, March 20th, 12pm–2pm Fernando Rivera Middle School, 1255 Southgate Ave. South San Francisco Sunday, March 21st, 10am–4pm Joseph A. Fernekes Recreation Building, 781 Tennis Dr. Pescadero Thursday, March 25th, 4pm–6pm Pescadero Community Church, Stage & North St. East Palo Alto Saturday, March 27th, 10am–1pm East Palo Alto YMCA, 550 Bell Street

Flu season is not over. A flu shot is the most important step to protect against getting the flu.

IMPORTANT: Children under age 10 need two doses of vaccine– at least 3 weeks apart

For more information about H1N1 (swine) flu and vaccine updates visit www.smhealth.org/flu or call the County Flu Hotline at (650) 573-3927. 03/09/2010 Page 10

03/09/2010 Page 11

Strawberry Marin 24 Richardson 1 Tamalpais- Albany Ave Grizzly Bay Peak Blvd Homestead Mount Diablo Shattuck Lafayette Sacramento St San Francisco University AveAve State Park Berkeley Moraga Reservoir Bay Danville Blvd Angel Island 123 Skyline Blvd Way Alamo Mount Tamalpais 80 State Park Ashby Ave

State Park Moraga Rd Stone 101 SAN St Marys Rd Valley Rd Diablo Mount Diablo 24 Pinehurst Emeryville Snake Diablo Scenic Blvd Rd Moraga FRANCISCO Rd Rd Blackhawk Treasure Island Rd Oakland 17 Broadway Canyon Blackhawk Naval Station Piedmont Rd COUNTY Army Base 980 13 Park Golden Gate 14th St Oakland Naval Market St Blvd Nat'l Rec Area 80 Supply Center Danville Camino Tassajara Seal Rocks 13th Upper San Leandro 101 Alameda Naval Ave 580 State Beach Reservoir 680 Geary Blvd Air Station Oakland Inner Oakland InternationalHigh Blvd Macarthur Blvd Fulton St Harbor St Tassajara Golden Fruitvale Ave Crow Canyon Rd Highland Rd Gate Park Lincoln Way Keller Pacific Carlsbad State Ave

Redwood Rd Dougherty Rd Beach Alcosta Blvd Alameda 280 HegenbergerExwy Norris Canyon Rd 61 98th AveWashington Blvd San Ocean Blvd Sunset Camino Tassajara Monterey Blvd Lake Ramon Ocean Golden Gate 3rd St Chabot Ave Lake Chabot Rd Nat'l Rec Area MissionMclaren St 1 Geneva Ave Davis Castro Park Airport St 280 Dr Valley John 14th St AmadorBlvd Valley Dublin Santa Thornton Bayshore Daly Blvd 101 880 Ashland Crow Canyon Rd State Beach Blvd Brisbane Rita Daly San Castro Valley Blvd 580 El Charro Rd City Stoneridge Santa Rita Rd Broadmoor Hillside Blvd Leandro 238 35 San Bruno Mtn Dr

State Park Foothill Rd Las Positas Blvd San Cherryland Fairview Division St Valley Colma Ave Lorenzo A St Palomares Grand Ave Vineyard Stanley Blvd Rd Ave 1 South San Winton Ave Bernal Francisco Ave WestboroughBlvd Pleasanton San Francisco Jackson HaywardSt Sharp Park 380 Rd 35 Tennyson Rd San Bay Clawiter Rd Kilkare Bruno 92 Industrial Pkwy 238 84

280 Union City Blvd Whipple Rd Pacifica Millbrae Union 1 Burlingame Alvarado Niles Rd City 92 84 Sunol/ San Andreas Scotts Gray Whale Lake Cove 101 Corner Fremont Blvd State Chateau San Dr Foster Fremont Beach Mateo Hillsborough City Paseo Padre Pkwy 680 Pilarcitos Calaveras Rd Montara Beach Newark Montara Lake Rd 238 Crystal Springs Alameda De Park Blvd Blvd State Las Pulgas HillsdaleCt Beach Lower Crystal Polhemus Springs Reservoir Marine Pkwy Cherry St Mowry Ave Mission Fremont Blvd 1 Rd Thornton 84 Blvd San Jose El Redwood Ave Stevenson Shores Pkwy Moss Ralston Durham Granada Ave Newark Boyce Beach Highlands Rd Belmont Rd 92 Redwood San Mission Blvd City Menlo Half Moon Bay Carlos Warm Park State Beach Upper Crystal 280 North Fair Edgewood Springs Springs Reservoir Middlefield Rd East Palo Half Moon Rd Oaks 84 Alto Bay Emerald Lake Jefferson Ave Atherton UniversityAve Hills Willow Rd Milpitas 35 82 Alameda De Kings ValparaisoAve Las Pulgas 680 Calaveras Mountain Rd Embarcadero Rd Rd Kings Middlefield101 Rd Santa Clara Naval Old Piedmont Rd Felter Rd Mountain Air Reserve Mountain OregonAlma Exwy St Menlo View Alviso Woodside Caribbean Park Stanford Piedmont Rd SandhillRd Dr Lafayette St Sierra Rd Palo CharlestonRd Central 237 880 Landess Ave Exwy Portola Rd Alto Old Oakland Rd Tunitas Creek Foothill Exwy ShorelineBlvd San East Rd Sunnyvale 1st St Murphy Sky Antonio Rd Ave Foothills Londa Arastradero Central Exwy

Mathilda Ave Los 101 BerryessaRd El Monte Ave Old San Francisco Rd Portola White Rd Page Mill Rd Altos

Los Altos 13th Miramonte Ave Miramonte SAN MATEO Valley Fremont Ave Washington St Mckee Rd Hills San Tomas Expy St 84 82 Capitol Exwy 1 Julian St Keyes St

Wolfe RdWolfe COUNTY Homestead Rd Lawrence Rd Loyola Santa San Jose King Rd 280 Park Ave 35 Clara Arena San Gregorio Stevens Creek Blvd State Beach Rancho Pomponio La Honda San Aborn Cupertino Rinconada Burbank Senter Rd State Beach Willow St Jose TullyRd Rd Alpine Rd Prospect Rd Hamilton Ave CanyonStevens Rd Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd Campbell Ave Capitol Exwy Cox Ave Curtner Ave

BascomAve Meridian Ave Meridian Saratoga Ave Pescadero Campbell 101 State Beach Pescadero Creek Rd Pierce Rd Foxworthy Ave Saratoga 85 Branham Ln Portola Redwoods Saratoga Los Gatos Rd Blossom Hill Rd Pescadero State Park 9 9 Ave Union Cambrian

Cloverdale Rd Park Blossom Hill Rd Camden

Ave Bean Hollow Castle Rock Monte Santa Teresa Blvd Almaden Exwy State Beach State Park Sereno Butano Los State Park Gatos San Lorenzo River 17 236 Gaudalupe Rd Cozzens ek Reservoir New re Lake C r d a Almaden R e k B Gazos Creek Rd e e Big Basin Redwoods r C

State Park r Lexington a e 9 B Redwood Hills 236 Estates

Boulder

Mountain Creek Charlie Rd Ben

Alba Rd Lomond Highland Way 17 Jose Rd Soquel San

Dr Henry Cowell Scotts Glenwood SANTA CRUZ Redwoods State Park Valley

COUNTY Empire Grade Rd Zayante Rd Mountain View Mount Scotts Hermon Rd Valley Dr Rd Pine Flat Rd Glen Rd Laurel Nisene Marks Forest State Felton Graham Hill Rd Smith Grade Park 1 Davenport 9

Canyon RdEureka

Henry Cowell 17 Rd Creek Granite Branciforte Dr Redwoods State Day Park Valley Bonny Doon Rd Soquel

Live Old San Jose Rd Soquel Dr Aptos Wilder Ranch Water CapitolaOak Corralitos State Park St High St Rd Aptos Hills- 7th Ave Larkin 17th Ave Ave 41st Capitola Larkin Valley Rd Portola Dr Freedom Blvd Opal Rio Del Cliffs Freedom Mar 1

Buena Manresa Vista Dr State Harkins Beach Slough Rd Watsonville

Stage 3 San Francisco to Santa Cruz Start Time: 11:15 am Tuesday, May 18, 2010 Total Distance: 113.7 mi./182.9 km Finish ETA: 3:23-4:04 pm Presented by

03/09/2010 Page 13 03/09/2010 Page 14 03/09/2010 Page 15 03/09/2010 Page 16 03/09/2010 Page 17 03/09/2010 Page 18 03/09/2010 Page 19

PPRS and KPDO‐FM: A Brief History

March 1, 2010

Pescadero Public Radio Service was founded in 1994 in order to develop a community‐based radio station for Pescadero and outlying communities. In 2003, we were granted our license. This is our story.

In the academic school year of 1993‐1994 I was hired as a long‐term substitute teacher for the language arts students of Pescadero Middle School. Having only a substitute credential and no fulltime classroom experience working with the California standards, I was having great difficulty getting my students to write even the most basic assignments. At that time, PMS (an unfortunate monogram to begin with) was divided into Magnet students, and everyone else. There was a subtle resentment of the status quo by the kids belonging to the ‘everyone else’ category, and rightfully so. By virtue of a questionable test, or the demands of some particularly noisy parents, half the students were pulled out for more advanced studies by long‐term middle school teacher, Ms. Short, a formidable and exemplary teacher. I was given the rest, and they were having none of it.

We struggled with antiquated textbooks and dated worksheets for almost two weeks, while the Magnet students next door were studying literary giants and the classics. A day came when I knew I had to come up with something or lose my tenuous control over the situation and descend into anarchy. On a sunny afternoon, while driving across the San Mateo bridge with my son Matt, himself a magnet student, we fought as usual over the radio dial: I wanted to listen to NPR and he was determined to listen to the new format on KSAN: Rap.

Rap was new. Rap was hot. Rap was all over the dial. The Rap revolution had happened so quickly, we adults, who found it offensive and decidedly non‐musical, found ourselves arguing daily over what the kids were listening to and the effect it was having on their vocabulary. The more we protested, the more enticing the music became, so that soon the kids would listen to nothing else.

As we topped the rise of the bridge, the Bay clear of fog in the distance, my son and I literally fighting over the push‐button radio controls, I had an epiphany: if this is what they want, even my own literate and intelligent son, then I would find a way to make it work for me… in my classroom.

I had worked in radio as a young woman many years before, cutting my teeth at KTYD‐FM in Santa Barbara, and later at various stations up and down the state of California, even as far as Reno, Nevada. Teaching was actually a new career path for me, having learned the appalling fact that ‘Truth’ was in the eye of the advertiser. For some reason, I thought ‘Truth’ might be better served in the schools, but I have since been disabused of that naïve notion.

A blast of light hit me and I heard a loud “Hosannah, my homie” go up around me. We would make a mock station, complete with station staffing, program hour, DJ’s, sales creatures, the works. The kids would develop their program philosophy, target market, write copy, select music, determine advertising prices and guidelines: the works, just like real people. 03/09/2010 Page 20

I floated the idea, still unfolding in my mind, to my son as we drove. He was immediately excited and wanted to join in. Then came a most interesting moment: “No, Matt, it’s only for my class, not the Magnet students… unless Ms. Short wants to do it with me, which I highly doubt.” He was crushed.

I knew I had a hit and set about writing down as many of the details as I could imagine for Monday’s presentation to the class. And they went for it, lock stock and microphone. We began immediately: I divided the class according to their interests into Programming, Sales, and Technical staff. They chose a Station Manager, who took himself very seriously right out the gate. I outlined the concept of a ‘program hour’: we had to decide how many minutes were devoted to music, news and advertising. Then I stood back and watched the classic battle begin.

It was hilarious! Sales wanted 30 minutes, and Programming wanted 50 minutes. They went back and forth, until the Manager had to jump in to stop a fight. They argued over minutes vs. pricing: if they needed a hypothetical budget, then they had to have so many minutes of ads. Or else they had to bump up the price of ads, but who was going to pay that kind of money? Well, then get out there and sell! It was classic! In the end, we compromised (I say ‘we’ as I’m always on the side of more music, less ads!) and the hour was divided 40/20 music/ads.

Now Programming had to decide what they were going to play. Pescadero is a mostly rural community with a large Hispanic population, hence the bi‐lingual emphasis of our programming. But there was the Rap thing, and then the Country thing, and there were a few Alternative Rockers and Metal Heads in the group as well. The battle over genre was legendary. I had to jump in this time, or there would have been a fist fight. Sales looked on warily: they realized they had to sell whatever format Programming came up with.

This tug of war lasted for days. It wasn’t until the second week that we actually arrived at a variety of compromises, and a few strokes of genius, that allowed us to get down to business: writing copy. Remember, this is a Language Arts project, which means we have to write.

We studied commercials on our favorite stations for days, brought in examples of ads we’d heard on the radio, and developed Traffic logs from stations we felt were in keeping with our 40/20 split. Traffic logs: minute‐by‐minute lists of what ads are played when. We identified legal requirements for top‐of‐the‐ hour station id’s and PSA’s (Public Service Announcements), mandated by the FCC.

Then we began to identify what made a good, i.e. memorable and effective, ad vs. one that was forgettable, or worse, a ‘tune‐out’ factor. We argued (and this I couldn’t quite believe) about whether or not to have military ads! We discussed the advantages of 30 second vs. 60 second ads, and even the effectiveness of 15 seconds.

Then the real work began: kids had to start writing their own copy, first for a product they liked, then one for themselves, and one for a friend. These were priceless, and integrated the station staff more than I had imagined. Finally, having figured out what made an ad ‘tick’, they were given a homework assignment that lasted a week: talk to no less than 5 local businesses, find out what they would want for 03/09/2010 Page 21

an ad, and write it in drafts until it shines, in both English and Spanish. After revisions in class, take it back to the business and clear it. If it clears, it’s an “A”. If not, an “F”: that’s real world.

Now came the biggest carrot I could have found. I made a phone call one day to a young Hispanic jockey at the biggest Rap station in the Bay Area, Chui Gomez, knowing that he was the closest thing to a “Hero” my students had. Relaying the events of the past few weeks, and my history in radio, I begged him to come all the way to Pescadero and listen to the kids’ work. He agreed, without hesitation, and earned my eternal gratitude and respect.

The next day I gathered the ‘station’ in a meeting and gave them the news. They came unglued! They jumped up and down, whooped and hollered until an emissary from the Magnet class next door was sent to quiet us down. Talk about bragging rights. You have never seen such strutting as went on that day, and for days after. It actually created a problem between the Magnet students and mine, which was unfortunate, but a necessary breakthrough for my ‘dumb’ students. It was also a heads up for the administration to see what the unintended consequences of a Magnet class in such a small school led to.

About this time, my tendency to speak truth to power got me un‐hired. After a particularly malevolent student threatened me physically in another class, I demanded his suspension. I was rebuked and told the sheriff needed him in school or he’d be out breaking into houses, again. I, both teacher and mother, wrote a furious letter to the School Board demanding action. I got it: the funding for my position had mysteriously evaporated, and there would be a shuffling of existing staff to cover my removal. Clearly, as a sub and a novice, I had stuck my neck out, and the sword was swinging.

Well, I’ll be damned, I thought. But the kids went nuts. They wrote letters and threatened to strike. Seemed I’d given them a reason to be in school, and a reason to fight for themselves. As far as I could tell, I had been wildly successful, and being fired only proved it. My husband thought I was an idiot, we needed the money. I found a waitressing job and got on with life. But the story wasn’t over.

The administration, receiving questioning letters from my students’ families, realized they had made a critical mistake. The district had at that time duel‐superintendents whose combined salaries weren’t sustainable given the budget shortages they were experiencing even then. Questions were arising over budget shuffling and the purchase of an unnecessary school van in spite of the lack of adequate books and materials. The Radio Project had become popular and well‐known. Things were getting sticky. I suggested yet another compromise: let me come back for 3 days to finish, let us have our visit from Chui Gomez and our party, and I’ll go quietly into the night. It was agreed.

We had copy, a play list with the cd’s already in place, we had written transitions and announcements, we had a budget completely developed and being adhered to, and all we needed was two days of practice and we were ready to roll. We had no equipment except a rudimentary microphone, and two boom boxes: our plan was to record the entire hour in one take. We had no other choice. We had no real budget, no real equipment, no access to a station without an act of at least several gods, and no time left. We went for it. 03/09/2010 Page 22

Our class was the old band room. There was a stage at one end filled with junk, and under it an entire orchestra of instruments we discovered one day… but that is another story.

We set up the stage with the microphone and a desk, got everybody lined up, stacked the cd’s in order next to the boom box and got ready to roll: Welcome to KLAS‐FM, Free Radio Pescadero!

They did it! They recorded an entire hour of live radio without a single glitch. It was a thing of beauty. I was crying. They were so proud of themselves and each other. As we wrapped up and signed off, they looked around in shock and then went crazy. Minutes later, the emissary returned to remind us that this was actually a school, after all… and how did it go??

A week later, I returned for one last session. I arrived at 8:00 am with donuts and juice. The kids were dressed in their best clothes, and were strikingly quiet for a change. Chui Gomez was expected within the next 15 minutes. They were as nervous as newlyweds. When he arrived, they couldn’t even speak, but just stared as this star, this 30‐something, scruffy‐faced, round‐bellied homeboy who had driven more than 2 hours to listen to their radio broadcast.

And he did. He listened without interrupting for the first 20 minutes, then stopped the tape.

“Who wrote this copy,” he asked.

I pointed to the kids, looking strangely tongue‐tied.

He looked at them and asked again, “Who wrote this copy?”

“They did, the students,” I answered, proudly.

He paused, looking from me to them, and finally said, “That’s some of the best copywriting I’ve ever heard.”

I swear, a nuclear bomb could have gone off and they wouldn’t have budged.

I said, “Could you say that one more time…”

“That’s some of the best copywriting I’ve ever heard,”

I looked at the kids. They looked at the floor. “Ladies and gentlemen, you’ve just been complimented by a professional radio personality… on your writing. Congratulations!”

Chui looked around and took in this tableau, and then said, “Can we hear the rest?”

We were SUCCESS!

Time went by and I found other work, but the impact the Radio Project had had on the kids kept nagging at me. Finally, I had another epiphany: why not make a Real Radio Station in Pescadero for the kids and everybody else? I remembered my old radio friend from Monterey, Don Mussel, First Class radio 03/09/2010 Page 23

engineer, and decided to look him up. It turned out he was 45 minutes away in Bonnie Doon. We chatted on the phone and I asked him if it would be feasible to start a station. He did a little checking, and found out that there was a frequency available, by some miracle, in exactly our area. Not only that,, but my concept would satisfy the FCC in terms of an underserved population. All we needed was a non‐ profit to apply for the license, and we were on our way. It was in fact, Don’s business to put non‐ commercial community stations on the air. What luck!

And that is exactly what we did: Pescadero Public Radio Service was founded by myself, my husband Don, and a new teacher at the school, Darwin Horn. It took a year for me to get my act together, but finally we got our California non‐profit status, and Don Mussel began the unbelievably long process of applying for our license. During the years that the app wound its way through the bowels of the FCC, Darwin came and went, as did other board members, and one, Carol Cady, died at too young an age. By now it was 1999, and I was the mother of a new daughter, and soon to be divorced. The station was the last thing on my mind, but I kept it going with Don Mussel’s constant help.

And the years, they go by. Clinton, George W., new faces at the FCC, Clear Channel, 9/11… I’d begun the credential program at Chico State in 2003 when I got the excited news from Don Mussel that the FCC had Finally granted our license, and KPDO‐FM was free to go on the air.

So for the next few years we kept the dream alive by filings and intermittent 24hr broadcasts, almost sold the station to KQED, almost handed it over to KZSC, almost lost it to threats from parties who stand to make a great deal of money if KPDO dies, but still we hung on, hoping that one day we would either go back and get it going or find someone to take it over and make the dream come true.

November, 2009, Don Mussel tells me he has a young man, Daniel Roberts, a Bay Area radiophile, who would like to take the station over. At the same time, a local from Pescadero makes it known he would like to take the project to fruition. The Board of PPRS, consisting of my younger son Dan, formerly a PMS student now working on his BS in Oregon, and his longtime partner Cara, had to make a difficult decision: turn this over to a longtime Pesky resident with a lengthy history in radio, or a young upstart from the Bay Area with the skinny pants and metro‐hairdo.

On February 23, 2010, in an emergency meeting of the PPRS board, Daniel Roberts of Pirate Cat Radio was offered the newly created board position of Station Manager for KPDO. His work in the community to garner letters of support for his bid, and the development of a thorough Program overview taking into consideration the best interests of the students and Hispanic communities of Pescadero won our trust and support.

The rest will be history. I look forward to the successful flowering of a lifelong dream: a station that gives purpose and voice to the youth of Pescadero and beyond, that supports the migrant workers who toil in the fields of California’s coastline and for whom radio is a vital lifeline, and that provides access to the people of Pescadero to a community‐building medium of exchange for the free flow of ideas and culture.

Thank you all who made this happen: Long live free radio! 03/09/2010 Page 24

03/09/2010 Page 25

PMAC Environmental Committee March 2010

TMDL Development–Mike Napolitano recently replaced Jill Marshall at the Regional Water Quality Control Board – their study will look into the natural and human‐induced causes of sedimentation, whether or not and where it is harming fish, and whether or not reasonable efforts to control excessive sedimentation are feasible. Development of the TMDL will take years. Kellyx submitted a placeholder request for funds to develop designs to control the flooding. She noted that marsh restoration and flood control would likely have different sources of funding In her request, she also asked for funds to help form a Watershed Council. This would be a long‐term, ongoing way for those who are interested to stay informed about the various efforts and provide continuous input about our resource priorities. The group discussed watershed plans. One was completed for the Pilarcitos watershed and one for San Gregorio is almost finished. Joanne from State Parks is leading a hike through the marsh Wednesday March 10 ‐ after our noon environmental committee meeting at Duarte’s. Bill Cook has summarized what he feels are some of the problems and potential solutions for the short and long‐term. For the Agenda next month, I think we should review Bill Cooks recent summary, Pescadero Marsh Restoration and Flood Control Project” and consider what changes, if any, could be made to earn a letter of support from PMAC. Jake Bowman – Green Jobs – Jim Jacquez working with Jake. 03/09/2010 Page 26

Pescadero Marsh Restoration and Flood Control Project

Problem: The Pescadero Marsh has been modified by levees, ditches, beaver dams (introduced in 1938 - not native), the effects of historic man made sediment input upstream (man made sediment production upstream has been addressed), roads built across the floodplains, and other hydrologic blockages of the natural flow of water. These modifications have filled Butano Creek to the top with sediment (previously a 100 foot wide by 1O+foot deep channel) and completely diverted Butano Creek into the Butano Marshes approximately one quarter mile down stream from the Pescadero Road bridge. These blockages have created a completely-unnatural and chronic flooding of the main road access for the town and adjacent private property They have severely decreased the overall health of the Pescadero Marsh... most notably illustrated by the annual death by suffocation of the best of the young steelhead trout produced in the entire watershed each and every year.

Goal: To restore the natural hydrology, improve the health of the Pescadero Marsh and decrease, the chronic unnatural flooding using the 1854 U.S. Geodetic Survey Map as our guide b/taking the following actions:v ~~ ~!!) • Moving the low spot in the road to the location of the current bridge (by raising the road profile on either side of the bridge on both Pescadero and Bean Hollow Roads) • Filling/damming the man-made ditches that provide the toxic water that kills the young steelhead each year (using material from the levees) This process is probably underway naturally due to the relocation of Butano Creek into the Butano Marshes, the area where the man-made ditches are located. They are now being flushed 24 hours a day by the new flow introduced into the area, and the sediment in the new flow is undoubtedly being deposited into the ditches and the area as well. This may have a very positive impact on reducing the fish kill when the mouth opens. Re-connecting the channel to its primary and secondary flood plains (through levee removal/modification) • Clearing the creek in the area of the Pescadero Road Bridge -50 feet upstream and downstream and maintaining that opening. This will maximize the flow capacity of the bridge and intercept sediment before it enters the lower creek channel and the Butano Marshes.

• Creating a~~Qillway/breachin the Pescadero Creek levee just below the 90 degree turn at the~~QfWatertane,on State Park property. This will significantly reduce the floodingin°majOr'eventsTn)he downtown area of Pescadero. In past major events (1984 and 1998) when the levee broke the flooding in the downtown area immediately receded. This would also be a natural restoration and reconnection of Pescadero Creek to its floodplain. The private property on Water Lane would need to be protected by a short levee. 03/09/2010 Page 27

Pacific n ce1m

Primary Flood Plain: Green Secondar) Flood Plain: Yellow

FlGURE: Phiiic Willi.ams & A.ssociata. Ltd. Pescadero Marsh, as mapped by the U.S. Coast Survey ~it.ant'!:tJ ~V'Ct"OtiCX!:I in 1854. Stippling indicates wetland. 3-1

Pescadero Marsh Map of 1854 5 03/09/2010 Page 28 [=1 Levee, Road & Fire Station Fill Butano Creek .. Primary Flood Plain [=1 Secondary Flood Plain [=1 Breaks Cut in Levees

\'O ~o ,~,, 8 .,, 0 \\ ,, \~ ...... , , '4 • l

J'f!l CDF Fire Station and Fill

:ri-ilJ ci ~ Pescadero Marsh Diagram - January 2001 f~cM~-WL 03/09/2010 Page 29 100 90 2001 80 10, 70 Bridge NGVD) 1987 -JANUARY NGVD) (11' 60 DAWDY COOK (13' Pescadero Pescadero at BRIDGE {? 50 Dista Creek OF BRIDGE 'l..0\0 OF --~ 40 of 1961 1999 Horizontal SURVEY f.J4.A~'{ TOP 21, BUILT 30 UNDERfilQE UNDERfilQE COAST AS -APRIL ~~·-·' Cross-Sections Cross-Sections U.S. C.OoK- 20 1854 BRIDGE COOK - 10 0

9 7 8 6 5 1 2 3 1 0 4 -3 -2 15 14 16 13 11 12 10

s::: 0 rn Cl> >

> z c C) w

;:; - 03/09/2010 Page 30

03/09/2010 Page 31 03/09/2010 Page 32

CSA 11 Actual FY2006-07 Actual FY2007-08 Actual FY2008-09 Adopted FY09-10

1521 Interest Earned 5,235.46 4,450.56 (3,143.16) 1,800.00 1500 Use of Money and Property 5,235.46 4,450.56 (3,143.16) 1,800.00

2063 Returned Check Charges 25.00 2424 Connection Charges 2436 Surcharges & Penalties 1,800.00 1,740.00 1,600.00 2437 Water Sales 41,951.68 43,422.00 42,405.16 40,000.00 2438 Water Service Charges 50.00 100.00 2439 Other Special Charges 35.00 2000 Charges for Services 43,836.68 45,162.00 44,130.16 40,000.00

2632 Sale of Surplus & Salvage 77.06 231.00 2600 Miscellaneous Revenue 77.06 231.00

TOTREV Total Revenue 49,072.14 49,689.62 41,218.00 41,800.00 333 Fund Balance * 151,396.00 129,509.85 111,888.00 59,778.00 TOTSRC TOTAL SOURCES 200,468.14 179,199.47 153,106.00 101,578.00

5184 Refund - Prior Year Revenue 35.00 5191 Outside Printing & Copy Svc 646.06 5194 Books, Manuals, & Literature 5197 Postage & Mailing Expense 48.18 5215 Software License/Maint Expense 3,062.50 3,062.50 3,300.00 5231 Maintenance Tools & Equipment 117.40 573.26 5428 Misc Repairs & Maintenance 1,204.28 1,000.00 5435 Concrete, Tile & Masonry Exp 16.38 5438 Plumbing & Piping Expense 962.33 243.63 950.00 5439 Paint, Solvents & Chemicals 5445 General Electrical Expense 5449 Motor, Pump & Generator Maint 5455 Other General Maintenance Exp 5456 Water Systems Maintenance 722.24 1,050.00 5459 Misc Other Maintenance Expense 5631 Electric & Gas Utilities 6,663.95 7,130.15 6,050.66 7,700.00 5722 Misc Employee Exp Reimbursemnt 9.28 5826 Contract Laboratory Services 731.00 1,946.25 990.50 2,000.00 5849 Contract Inspection & Testing 5,462.00 1,892.00 836.00 5,000.00 5851 Contract Construction 5,857.00 5861 PW - Engineering Services 23,100.67 24,511.37 33,446.40 25,000.00 5872 In-House Admin & Acctg Service 2,880.26 7,537.64 5,722.69 7,500.00 5955 Registration & Filing Fees 400.00 5963 Other Marina Operating Expense 181.71 5969 Other Special Dept Expense 794.89 471.98 1,364.29 1,000.00 5000 Services and Supplies 50,469.05 46,635.07 51,170.33 54,900.00

6322 Retirement of Long Term Debt 16,615.35 17,173.73 17,769.80 18,361.00 6332 Interest on Long Term Debt 3,860.69 3,302.31 2,706.24 2,108.00 6722 Copy Center Charges 12.73 6813 Uncollectible Accounts 200.60 150.08 6817 Depreciation - Water & Sewer 21,531.85 21,531.85 21,531.85 6000 Other Charges 42,020.62 42,208.49 42,157.97 20,469.00

GRSAPP Gross Appropriations 92,489.67 88,843.56 93,328.30 75,369.00

NETAPP Net Appropriations 92,489.67 88,843.56 93,328.30 75,369.00 8611 Appropriation for Contingency 107,978.00 90,356.00 59,778.00 26,209.00 8612 Departmental Reserves 8500 Contingencies/Dept Reserves 107,978.00 90,356.00 59,778.00 26,209.00

TOTREQ TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 200,467.67 179,199.56 153,106.30 101,578.00

* For FY 2006-07 to 2008-09, fund balance amount equal to the sum of Line Items 8500 & 6817 (Contingencies/Dept Reserves plus Depreciation-Water & Sewer) from prior fiscal year. 03/09/2010 Page 33

Pescadero Lighting District Actual FY2006-07 Actual FY2007-08 Actual FY2008-09 Adopted FY09-10

1021 Current Yr Secured 7,001.42 8,212.64 8,711.92 6,578.00 1027 ERAF III Shift 1031 Current Yr Unsecured 410.62 472.67 514.04 402.00 1033 Prior Yr Unsecured (25.93) (3.14) (17.10) 1041 CY SB 813 Secured Supplemental 246.28 252.94 203.90 1042 CY SB 813 Unsec Supplemental 7.83 2.94 1043 PY SB 813 Redemption 8.32 5.63 26.72 1045 PY SB 813 Unscured Supplemntal 1.39 0.86 1046 Non-Departmental ERAF Rebate 3,384.00 3,997.00 4,511.00 1000 Taxes 11,026.10 12,945.57 13,954.28 6,980.00

1521 Interest Earned 5,164.36 5,448.86 (4,456.88) 3,656.00 1500 Use of Money and Property 5,164.36 5,448.86 (4,456.88) 3,656.00

1831 Homeowners Property Tax Relief 54.94 59.18 57.18 46.00 1600 Intergovernmental Revenues 54.94 59.18 57.18 46.00

2657 PG&E Rebates 43.35 2600 Miscellaneous Revenue 43.35

TOTREV Total Revenue 16,245.40 18,453.61 9,597.93 10,682.00 333 Fund Balance 114,049.00 125,983.00 140,867.00 145,862.00 TOTSRC TOTAL SOURCES 130,294.40 144,436.61 150,464.93 156,544.00

5428 Misc Repairs & Maintenance 2,117.39 931.59 2,327.69 3,400.00 5441 Lighting & Fixtures Expense 1,200.00 5631 Electric & Gas Utilities 1,348.95 1,458.85 1,256.67 2,700.00 5861 PW - Engineering Services 816.39 1,141.51 966.85 1,500.00 5872 In-House Admin & Acctg Service 100.00 5969 Other Special Dept Expense 28.14 37.41 52.24 500.00 5000 Services and Supplies 4,310.87 3,569.36 4,603.45 9,400.00

6819 Depreciation - Lighting 6000 Other Charges

GRSAPP Gross Appropriations 4,310.87 3,569.36 4,603.45 9,400.00

NETAPP Net Appropriations 4,310.87 3,569.36 4,603.45 9,400.00 8611 Appropriation for Contingency 125,983.00 140,867.00 145,862.00 147,144.00 8612 Departmental Reserves 8500 Contingencies/Dept Reserves 125,983.00 140,867.00 145,862.00 147,144.00

TOTREQ TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 130,293.87 144,436.36 150,465.45 156,544.00 PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 1 PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 7:30 PM, Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060

1) CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2) PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3) PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Middle School Students Q&A 4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5) FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- Pattie Brixen 6) CORRESPONDENCE – Correspondence – Rodger Reinhart 7) REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS a) Ad Hoc Town Sign Committee – Shannon Webb b) Housing Committee – geotechnical study results are in - Catherine Peery c) School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott d) Emergency Preparedness – no report e) Environmental Committee – meeting report -Jackson Robertson f) Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas g) Communications Committee – Rob Skinner 8) LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC a) Sewer System: Recent developments with Public Works, RCAC – Catherine Peery b) Review of Permits – if any

9) NEW BUSINESS a) Letter of appreciation for early roadside mowing in Pescadero.

10) OLD BUSINESS –

11) Adjournment , Next meeting May 11, 2010, County Road Spraying (postponed from prior mtg)

April 7, 2010

County of San Mateo Human Services Agency Attention: Becky K. Arredondo 2500 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063

Dear Ms. Arredondo,

I am delighted to write this letter of unqualified and strong support for Puente de la Costa Sur. In my role as Chair of the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Committee, I have had the opportunity to work directly with the staff and board at Puente and to experience the importance of their work to our community. As a grandmother of two small children, I’ve also seen firsthand the benefits of their programs for mothers and their children.

Puente de la Costa Sur brings together residents of Pescadero, La Honda, Loma Mar and San Gregorio. Their work with families, especially those with children 0-5, is essential to the health of our greater community. Their work with Anglo and Latino families provides an important community bridge that strengthens and sustains our region.

The Puente staff is innovative and creative, and determined to provide first- rate services to all the residents of our region. They are trusted and respected by our community for their hard work and dedication.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide additional information about Puente or its work in the community.

Warm regards,

Catherine M. Peery, Chair, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 3

From: Steve Simms To: [email protected]; Subject: CSA 11 WELL Date: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:03:33 PM

Catherine,

I talked with P/W director Jim Porter, and he referred me to Mark Chow who is handling the well monitoring. I left a message on his voice mail to return a call to me. My concerns are:

1) Verification of well failure. We helped (pro bono) with once a month monitoring from 9-22-02 thru 11-23-05 we recorded a drop in standing water level of only 1’-4”, these were not heavy winter years. I would request current standing water at this date to compare to our last known recorded reading. 2) We currently have the best quality of water of any well I am aware of on the coast. Drilling a new well is a crap shoot. Going deeper or in another location may lead to water heavy in minerals and salts, as are commonly present in most coastal wells. 3) $500,000 is a lot of money. Show me estimates to justify this expenditure.

Steve

PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 4

From: Wolf Hillesheim Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 6:51 PM To: [email protected] Cc: JIM GIRAND; Deborah Lozano Subject: May 8

May 8th We would like to have a duathlon starting at the High school. I have permission form the school and signed a contract with them using the Junior High school parking lot,gym and bathrooms. Along with that i am contributing $300.00 to the senior class for exchange of 6-8 people helping at the event. I am applying for permit with he San Mateo county ,and other services. We have booked all the rooms and the cottage at the PESCADERO CREEK INN. Our plan is as follows. Friday May 7 the,set up bike racks at the Junior high school parking lot, The following morning the race will start on front of the High school run around the country block 2.1 miles,jump on the bike and make a left on Cloverdale follow Cloverdale to Gazos creek road till we get to Hwy 1 and then all the way to Pescadero road back through town and then make a right on Butano Cut off rd.to the high school. We will be spread out on the bike,there is no drafting on the bike.The racers should be done by !11:30 am latest. We expect people from the Bay area and maybe a total of 150 competitors at the most. I am asking for your permission to have this event . Thank you Wolf Hillesheim WWW.WOLFPACKEVENTS.COM

PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 5

May 8th 2010 Du.athlon Wolfpackevents

Catherine Peery

After many hoUIS of dealing with the mwiicipa1ities, finally getting the o.k. From the San Mateo county to have the d.1.lathlon May the glh ttilOW Cal Trans is in the picture and there is no way we can afford their requirements.. Since part of the race is on Hwy 1~ Cabrillo hvvy the extra PoJice and co~ off 3 miles of Hwy is not pmctfole or affordable for the small venue we were planning on having. So sad to say we will not be able to have our Duathlon at you nice city and friendly atmosphere. We are however going to spend Friday night at Peseadero Creek inn So please take me off YQUt:' calendar for your next meeting. Thank you for ALL your time, PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 6 Pescadero Municipal

' If""-~::,.-,._ I "ll',~'·,,~,,... , i'l' rert~~·-'

March 23, 2010

Ms, Carina Cain c/o Ms, Pat Talbot Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-Off Pescadero, CA 94060

Re: Your Letter to PMAC

Dear Carina,

Many thanks for your recent Jetter to the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council and your suggestion for establishing a library in the Pescadero/La Honda area, I agree with you 100% that a local library could bring a number of wonderful benefits to the area and be a source of inspiration to children and adults alike, Reading and the world that books can open up for individuals is a wonderful objective and would certainly be a tremendous addition to the community, We appreciate the other possible benefits you outlined in your well-written and creative letter and your observations about how a local library could substantially improve our community,

Unfortunately, PMAC has very limited funding and establishing a new library is beyond the scope of what we can accomplish ourselves. However, we can certainly recommend your suggestion to the town and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and try to come up with creative fundraising ideas.

Thank you for your suggestions and your efforts to improve our local community!

Yours truly ~ 1.ozL- David K Lee, Member Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council cc: Ms, Pat Talbot PMAC Members

PO Box 249 Pescadero CA 94060 www,pescaderocounciLorg PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 7

Advisonr Council Pescadero Municipal • ,t ,...... , :-· ~ :·~.: - -;:-, -~:;;-_;S::

29 March 2010

Danna Gonz.alez c/o Pat Talbot's Class Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-off Pescadero, CA 94060

Dear Danna:

I read with great interest the suggestions you and your classmates put forward. You all should be congratulated, they were all well done.

My guess is your teacher wanted you to learn something about the democratic process of change. In this case you and your classmates took the first three and perhaps most important steps; 1. Identify a need, problem or opportunity. 2. Make a suggestion for change. 3. Deliver your suggestion (s) fo r review and consideration. Considering the scope of your assignment you were successfu_l. But change does not come quite so easily. Getting something like your ice skating rink built is a very involved process that would most probably take years and cost millions of dollars. Further this being a community project it would need to be prioritized and accorded a level of importance and urgency. You might say what's more important that the lives of the children in our community and I tend to agree. But taken in the grand scheme of things for Pescadero where would your suggestion rank among the following: • Providing clean safe drinking water for the community • Control flooding • Build affordable housing These are just three projects currently being discussed.

You've taken the first important steps. That's wonderful. Perhaps the next part of your assignment will be for your teacher to show you how to debate your ideas and come up with one unified suggestion, one that you and your classmates could support. I for one would be very interested in seeing that result.

A word about PMAC: We are an unfunded advisory committee. What that means is PMAC can only make recommendations and/or support a project submitted to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. Perhaps it would be a good idea for you and your classmates to attend one of our meetings to learn more about PMAC and our community.

PO Box 249 Pescadero CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 8

Christobal Cruz P.O. Box 249 Pescadero, CA 94060

March, 25, 2010

Hi Christobal,

Thank you for your thoughtfully composed letter. You and your classmates have done an excellent job of instigating an important conversation among us PMAC board members. And I hardily agree, a recreation center as you suggest would be wonderful addition to our town.

You’ve also done a very good job of outlining the obstacles to opening a rec center in Pescadero. Unfortunately there are a couple more challenges. (Sorry!) Without getting into too long description I’d like to explain what hinders our building the awesome center you propose:

First we have a difficult time building in Pescadero because we don’t have an adequate water system for meeting our state’s fire requirements. We need a larger pipe bringing water to town. And second, we need to improve our waste disposal system. Both of these are significant challenges for a small, rural community like ours to meet.

Also you should also know that PMAC does not have the say or the money to build a building as you suggest. Rather we are a group of community members who’s job it is to make recommendations from our community to the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County.

But the good news is there are a number of people on PMAC and in the community who are working on these problems so we can build some of the excellent things you and your fellow classmates have suggested. Personally I do think we will get these basic difficulties addressed but it will take some time, unfortunately.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation Christobal. Thanks again for taking the time to write to us -- I think your idea would we an awesome addition to our town.

Best,

Kate Haas PMAC Board Member

CC: Pat Talbot’s class PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 9

Pesccidern I'v1unicipal Advisory Council, I .t-• : . I '-·- .. - ... ~ ·. :.n -- -~ ~ ( .- ~ . '•· ~;r I - ;,,~ : I . ' ·~ ; ..,

March 23, 2010

Lupe Marcelo c/o Pat Talbot's Class Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-off Pescadero, CA 94060

Dear Lupe,

Thank you for sharing your idea with PMAC and the community. A park is a great idea, and I'm especially impressed with your infomrntion gathering skills - I had no idea that young people spent so much time in front of the TV. You also touch on a key point when you said that, "kids need a park to hang out and get more active". I'd have to agree, staying active is an important part of staying healthy as we grow up.

There was talk of a skate park about a year ago, but for some reason - perhaps because of the land or the money - it hasn't been built yet. What kind of park were you thinking about? Something with built-in exercise equipment, or picnic tables and BBQ pits?

Next time you think of another way to improve life in Pescadero, you should write it down and over the years, I encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts ... I'd be very curious to know how you see our town's challenges.

We all appreciate the time that you took to research and write this letter. I hope to see you at the next PMAC meeting at 7:30pm - April 13, 2010.

All the best, ~~ Jackson R. Robertson, Member Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

Cc: Pat Talbot PMAC Members

PO Box 249 Pescadero CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org pl/2 PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 10

March 23, 2010

Thomas Allen c/o Pat Talbot’s Class Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-off Pescadero, CA 94060

Dear Thomas:

Thank you for your letter to PMAC suggesting a metal arts workshop at the school. I contacted Dan Geraci about this, a metal and jewelry artist in town who actually holds metal arts workshops at the High School. He is probably someone you should know, and maybe you can also contact him. The metal arts workshop is incorporated into the art curricula at the High School and is funded by South Coast Artists Alliance (SCAA). Meredith Reynolds is on the Advisory Committee of the SCAA and I can give you her contact information if you would like more information.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion, and I wish you luck in your future High School career. Maybe I will see you at the next PMAC meeting on April 13, 2010.

I look forward to meeting you.

Sincerely

Catherine M. Peery, Chair, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

Cc: Pat Talbot PMAC Members

PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 11

Arianna Namini C/O Miss Talbots Class, Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-off Pescadero CA 94060

Dear Arianna

Thank you so much for your letter and your interest in improving our community with a full service recreation center. Your many excellent suggestions regarding funding methods are well taken and appreciated, and PMAC would make every effort to support your endeavor. But unfortunately, PMAC has no funding, but can make recommendations to the town and to the Board of Supervisors to support any renovations or improvements that can be funded through Puente, our local nonproﬁt organization, or through private grants or donations.

The community recreation center you are proposing would be a major ﬁnancial and organizational undertaking for our town, and if brought to fruition, no doubt would provide many wonderful beneﬁts for our youthful residents.

Again, our thanks for your interest and ingenuity.

Sincerely Yours,

Michael C. Berthiaume, Member Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

Cc: Pat Talbot, Teacher PMAC Members

PO Box 249 Pescadero CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org p1/3 PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 12

March 22, 2010

Estaban Mateo Cabrera C/O Miss Talbot’s Class, Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-off Pescadero CA 94060

Dear Mr. Cabrera,

Thank you very much for your fine letter to we members of the PMAC. I’m sorry to say that we are strictly an advisory committee to the supervisors of San Mateo County, but that won’t stop us from passing along your suggestion and desires. Having been a boy your age and wanting something to do after school myself, I totally relate to your wishes.

Unfortunately PMAC is not allowed to raise money and therefore can’t offer any toward solving or supporting your rec center. However, I think some of your ideas for fundraising are great. I especially like the carwash idea as most cars in this town really need a bath at least once a week. If you can find a merchant to support you and your efforts I promise to have my cars washed by your group.

Maybe you and your classmates can take on trying your hand at grant writing or approaching some of the more wealthy people in our community and get a rec center started?

Thanks again for contacting us and maybe you would like to attend one of our meetings sometime. We meet the 2nd Tuesday of each month at the Native Sons Hall in town. Please bring some of your classmates and come sometime if you can.

Sincerely,

Rob Skinner PMAC Member

PMAC Handouts 4-13-2010 Page 13 Puente updates from Kate Haas

• Appropriations Requests o Congresswoman Eshoo has submitted Puente’s request for $310,000 for a “green” mobile health van for the South Coast to the House Appropriations Committee. While there are many hurdles ahead, Puente was pleased to have had this community request considered for the first time. Kerry attended a small luncheon with Congresswoman Eshoo and thanked her for her work to submit the mobile van request as well as the request for the Pescadero water improvements.

• South Coast counts! o Puente teams continue to partner with the Census to outreach to hard‐to‐reach communities. This has become especially important because the Postal Service is unable to distribute census forms to Post Office boxes. Nearly 500 census forms were returned by the Pescadero Post Office alone! To date, more than 174 people have been counted at local farms and nurseries ‐‐ BJ’s, Ano Nuevo, Cascade, Colorado, Pigeon Point, Jacobs, Oku, Gallinas, Cevasco, Los Amigos and at Puente Programs.

• Rebuilding Together, April 24 o Please reserve April 24 for Puente’s building makeover. Puente has been selected by Rebuilding Together (formerly Christmas in April) for a number of makeover projects, including exterior painting. All volunteers needed! Thanks to the paint selection committee – Kate Haas, Ann Timm, Cotton Skinner, Judy Berthiaume, and Rita Giannini.

• Subsidized Employment o Puente has received permission to use subsidized employment funds from the County of San Mateo to underwrite salaries for our summer youth employment program (approximately 40 youth ages 14‐19 for a total of $219,000 in wages paid directly to students). Puente will also receive training from the County so that we can do the screening and eligibility process for prospective employees – not only for Puente, but any employer in the region.

• Puente funding updates o Puente has been recommended for safety net funding from CDBG and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program.

• Youth Updates o Puente staff took 18 High School Students to Notre Dame De Namur’s first annual Latino/a Leadership Conference. o 18 students from K‐5 attended Puente’s first‐ever Spring Break Club. o Puente will sponsor Día de los Niños (Children’s Day) at Pescadero Elementary on April 30 – already, the Coastside Mother’s Club has donated 200 children’s books for this community‐wide literacy event. o 50 middle school and high school students participate in Puente‐led youth groups at Pescadero middle and high schools; 47 3rd, 4th and 5th graders at La Honda elementary participate in weekly sessions on team building, conflict resolution and bullying.

• Zumba! Pilates! o Join with Puente on Thursdays for Zumba! Zumba combines Latin and International music to create a dynamic, exciting, and effective fitness system. Pilates taught by Kim Salera continues to meet at Puente on Wednesday mornings. PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, May 11, 2010, 6:30 PM, Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060 PRE-MEETING: ORIENTATION FROM COUNTY COUNSEL RE: BROWN ACT 1. CALL TO ORDER AT 7:30/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Possible Middle School Students Q&A 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5. FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- Pattie Brixen 6. CORRESPONDENCE – Correspondence – 7. REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS A. Ad Hoc Town Sign Committee – Shannon Webb B. Housing Committee – meeting with RCAC today- Catherine Peery C. School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott D. Emergency Preparedness – no report E. Environmental Committee – meeting report -Jackson Robertson F. Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas G. Communications Committee – Rob Skinner 8. LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC A. Sewer System: Recent developments with Public Works, RCAC – Catherine Peery B. Review of Permits – if any 9. NEW BUSINESS- A. Resignation of Rodger Reinhart, looking for new council member for District 1 10. OLD BUSINESS - A. Public Works is waiting on Board of Supervisors recommendations re: road spraying 11 Adjournment , Next meeting June 8, 2010, County Road Spraying (postponed from prior mtg)

San Mateo County Elections Page 1 of 1

May 11, 2010 Search

Home Voter Registration Voting Options Candidates & Campaigns Elections Election Officers Resources Español Contact Us

Regional Offices Text Size: + A - A San Mateo Citizen's Guide to Elected Officials Guide to Elected Officials

Regional Offices Shown Below: Decision Makers Midcoast Community Council, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council Select an address below to obtain a map or driving directions. Federal Offices

State Offices Midcoast Community Council (All-District Email: [email protected]) County Offices P. O. Box 64, Moss Beach, CA 94038-0064 Regional Offices Phone: 650-728-2129 Fax: 650-728-2129 Judicial Offices Website: http://mcc.sanmateo.org/ City Offices Member, Board of Directors School Offices (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov. 2009, Elected by voters in unincorporated Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, Miramar, and Princeton) Special District Offices Vacant

Ms. Kathryn Slater-Carter Email: [email protected] Elections California Law Vacant Election Results Archive Ms. Gael Erickson Email: [email protected] Election News & Developments

Member, Board of Directors Find Your Elected Representatives (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov 2011, Elected by voters in unincorporated Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, Miramar, and Regularly Scheduled Elections Princeton) Ms. Deborah Lardie Voting Law Changes Email: [email protected] Smart Voter Mr. Neil Merrilees Email: [email protected]

Mr. Leonard D. Woren Email: [email protected]

Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

P. O. Box 249, Pescadero, CA 94060

Councilmember at Large (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov 2012, Elected by all voters in the Pescadero Municipal Area) Mr. Donald Mc Dermott

Councilmember, District 1 (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov 2010, Elected by all voters in the Pescadero Municipal Area) Geoff Allen Email: [email protected]

Ms. Pattie Brixen, RN Email: [email protected]

Councilmember, District 1 (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov 2012, Elected by all voters in the Pescadero Municipal Area) Mr. Michael Berthiaume

Mr. Rodger Reinhart Email: [email protected]

Vacant

Councilmember, District 2 (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov 2010, Elected by all voters in the Pescadero Municipal Area) Mr. Jackson Robertson Phone: 650-879-0218 Fax: 650-879-9244

Councilmember, District 2 (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov 2012, Elected by all voters in the Pescadero Municipal Area) Mr. David Lee Phone: 650-298-6002 Fax: 650-298-6099

Councilmember, District 3 (4-Year Term, Next Election: Nov 2010, Elected by all voters in the Pescadero Municipal Area) Ms. Catherine M. Peery Phone: 650-879-0933 Fax: 650-879-9531 Email: [email protected]

Member, District 3

http://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/electedofficials/regional.asp 5/11/2010

April 19, 2010

Sierra J. Shalgh c/o Pat Talbot’s Class Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-off Pescadero CA 94060

Dear Sierra:

Your letter regarding student discounts in the commercial area of Pescadero was a very good idea. Many communities have such a program, and the Pescadero Muncipal Advisory Council heartily endorses this approach. If you would like to find out more about this, the group called Greater Pescadero, which is trying to promote local businesses would probably be interested in helping you. One of the contacts for that group is Kate Meyer Haas, who is also on PMAC, and Irma Rodriguez Mitton.

I will pass your idea on to them, and I think you should also contact them directly, along with any retail stores or restaurants in the area.

Kate’s e-mail address is [email protected], and Irma’s e-mail address is [email protected].

I wish you luck in your endeavors. Please keep us posted on your progress.

Thanks for the great idea.

Sincerely

Catherine M. Peery, Chair, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

Cc: PMAC members, Pat Talbot

PO Box 249 Pescadero CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org p1/1

From: Fernandez, Nicole [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 3:11 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Meeting request Hi, Ms. Peery,

I recently joined the staff of Assemblymember Jerry Hill and I’m going to be his liaison to Pescadero and some of the outlying coastside areas. I was wondering if I could arrange a meeting with you. I would like to learn more about the issues the coastside area is facing right now, along with priorities and anything else of importance that the PMAC concerns itself with.

Regards, Nicole Fernandez Senior Field Representative Office of Assemblymember Jerry Hill 1528 S. El Camino Real, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (650) 349-1900 Fax: (650) 341-4676 Have you signed up for Assemblymember Hill's e-updates? http://www.assembly.ca.gov/hill

5/11/2010

State Park Moraga Rd Stone 101 SAN St Marys Rd Valley Rd Mount Diablo 24 Diablo Emeryville Pinehurst Snake Diablo Scenic Blvd Rd Moraga 36”x36” signs mounted on FRANCISCO Rd Rd Blackhawk Treasure Island Rd Oakland 17 Broadway Canyon both sides of a Type II barricadeBlackhawk Naval Station Piedmont Rd COUNTY Army Base 980 13 Park Golden Gate Oakland Naval 14th St Market St Blvd Nat'l Rec Area 80 Supply Center Danville Camino Tassajara Seal Rocks 101 13th Upper San Leandro Alameda Naval Ave 580 State Beach Reservoir 680 Geary Blvd Air Station Oakland Inner Oakland EXPECT DELAYS InternationalHigh Blvd Macarthur Blvd Tassajara Fulton St Harbor St Golden Fruitvale Ave BIKE RACE Highland Rd Lincoln Way Keller Crow Canyon Rd Pacific Gate Park Carlsbad State Ave Beach Redwood Rd 5/18/10 Dougherty Rd Alcosta Blvd Alameda 280 HegenbergerExwy Norris Canyon Rd 61 Washington Blvd San

Ocean Blvd Sunset 98th Ave Camino Tassajara Monterey Blvd Lake Ramon Ocean Golden Gate 3rd St Chabot Placed by 5/11/10 Nat'l Rec Area Ave Mclaren Lake Chabot Rd 1 GenevaMission AveSt Davis Castro Park Airport St 280 Dr Valley John 14th St AmadorBlvd Valley Dublin Santa Thornton Bayshore Daly Blvd 101 880 Ashland Crow Canyon Rd State Beach Blvd Brisbane Rita Daly San Castro Valley Blvd 580 El Charro Rd Broadmoor City Leandro 238 Stoneridge Santa Rita Rd 35 Hillside BlvdSan Bruno Mtn Dr

280 Union City Blvd Whipple Rd Pacifica Millbrae Union 1 Burlingame Alvarado Niles Rd City 92 84 Sunol/ San Andreas Scotts Gray Whale Lake Cove 101 Corner Fremont Blvd State San ChateauDr Foster Fremont Beach Mateo Hillsborough City Paseo Padre Pkwy 680 Montara Pilarcitos Calaveras Rd Beach Newark Montara Lake Rd 238 Crystal Springs Alameda De Park Blvd Blvd State Las Pulgas HillsdaleCt Beach Lower Crystal Polhemus Springs Reservoir Marine Pkwy Cherry St Mowry Ave Mission Fremont Blvd 1 Rd Thornton 84 Blvd San Jose El Redwood Ave Stevenson Moss Shores Pkwy Ralston Durham Granada Ave Newark Boyce MSSG. 1 MSSG. 2 Beach Highlands Rd Belmont Rd 92 Redwood HWY 1 MAY 18 San Mission Blvd City Menlo EXPECT 11:30AM- Half Moon Bay Carlos Warm Park State Beach Upper Crystal 280 North Fair Springs DELAYS 1:00 PM Springs Reservoir Edgewood East Palo Half Moon Rd Oaks Middlefield Rd 84 Alto DISPLAY MESSAGE BEGINNING 5/11/10 Bay Emerald Lake Jefferson Ave Atherton UniversityAve Hills Willow Rd Milpitas 35 82 Alameda De Kings ValparaisoAve 680 Mountain Rd Las Pulgas Embarcadero Rd Calaveras 101 Rd MSSG. 1 MSSG. 2 Kings Middlefield Rd Santa Clara Naval Old Piedmont Rd Mountain Felter Rd Mountain Alma St Air Reserve TRAFFIC USE Menlo Oregon Exwy View Alviso Woodside Caribbean DELAY ALT Park Stanford Piedmont Rd SandhillRd Dr Lafayette St Sierra Rd AHEAD ROUTE Palo CharlestonRd Central 237 880 Landess Ave Exwy Portola Rd Alto Old Oakland Rd Tunitas Creek Foothill Exwy ShorelineBlvd DISPLAY MESSAGE ON 5/18/10 San East Rd Sunnyvale 1st St Murphy 11:30 am-1:00 pm Sky Antonio Rd Ave Foothills Londa Arastradero Central Exwy

Mathilda Ave Los 101 BerryessaRd El Monte Ave Old San Francisco Rd Portola White Rd Page Mill Rd Altos

Los Altos 13th Miramonte Ave Miramonte SAN MATEO Valley Fremont Ave Washington St Mckee Rd Hills San Tomas Expy St 84 82 Capitol Exwy 1 Julian St Keyes St

Canyon Rd Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd Campbell Ave Capitol Exwy Cox Ave Curtner Ave

BascomAve Meridian Ave Meridian Saratoga Ave Pescadero Campbell 101 State Beach Pescadero Creek Rd Pierce Rd Foxworthy Ave Saratoga 85 Branham Ln Portola Redwoods Saratoga Los Gatos Rd Pescadero State Park 9 9 Ave Union Cambrian Blossom Hill Rd

Cloverdale Rd Park Blossom Hill Rd Camden

Ave Bean Hollow Castle Rock Monte Santa Teresa Blvd State Beach State Park Sereno Almaden Exwy Butano Los State Park Gatos San Lorenzo River 17 236 Gaudalupe Rd Cozzens ek Reservoir New re Lake C r d a Almaden MSSG. 1 MSSG. 2 R e k B Gazos Creek Rd e e Big Basin Redwoods r C HWY 1 MAY 18 State Park r Lexington a e EXPECT 2:00- 9 B Redwood Hills DELAYS 3:30PM 236 Estates MSSG. 1 MSSG. 2 TRAFFIC USE DISPLAY MESSAGE BEGINNING 5/11/10 Boulder DELAY ALT

Mountain Creek Charlie Rd AHEAD ROUTE Ben MSSG. 1 MSSG. 2 DISPLAY MESSAGE 5/18/10 Alba Rd Lomond Highland Way 17 Jose Rd TRAFFIC USE Soquel San TIME TBD by CHP Dr DELAY ALT Henry Cowell Scotts Glenwood SANTA CRUZ Redwoods AHEAD ROUTE State Park Valley

COUNTY Empire Grade Rd Zayante Rd Mountain View Mount Scotts DISPLAY MESSAGE ON 5/18/10 Hermon Rd Rd Pine Flat Rd Valley Dr Glen Rd Laurel Nisene Marks 1:30PM- 3:30 PM Forest State Felton Graham Hill Rd Smith Grade Park 1 Davenport 9

Canyon RdEureka

MSSG. 1 MSSG. 2 Henry Cowell 17 Rd Creek Granite Branciforte Dr HWY 1 MAY 18 Redwoods State Day Park Valley EXPECT 2:00- Bonny Doon Rd Soquel

DELAYS 3:30PM Live Old San Jose Rd Soquel Dr Aptos Corralitos Wilder Ranch Water CapitolaOak State Park St DISPLAY MESSAGE BEGINNING 5/11/10 High St Rd Aptos Hills- 7th Ave Larkin 41st Ave 41st 17th Ave Capitola Larkin Valley Rd Portola Dr Freedom Blvd MSSG. 1 MSSG. 2 Opal Rio Del Cliffs Freedom TRAFFIC USE Mar 1 DELAY ALT Buena AHEAD ROUTE Manresa Vista Dr State Harkins Beach Slough Rd DISPLAY MESSAGE ON 5/18/10 TBD by CHP - 3:30 PM Watsonville

Stage 3 San Francisco to Santa Cruz Start Time: 11:15 am Tuesday, May 18, 2010 Total Distance: 113.7 mi./182.9 km Finish ETA: 3:23-4:04 pm Presented by

Presented by

Estimated Arrival Point Miles Miles KM Course Directions to to 24 mph 26 mph 28 mph Ridden Ridden 38.6 kph 41.8 kph 45 kph Point Go 11:15 AM 11:15 AM 11:15 AM Race Start on Great Highway 0.0 0.0 113.3 0.0 11:20 AM 11:20 AM 11:19 AM cs at Sloat Blvd. 2.2 mile/3.5 km neutral section 11:20 AM 11:20 AM 11:19 AM Race Start at Sloat Blvd. 0.2 0.0 113.3 0.0 11:22 AM 11:21 AM 11:20 AM vRight onto CA 35/Skyline from The Great Highway 0.8 0.8 112.5 1.3 11:25 AM 11:24 AM 11:23 AM Enter San Mateo County 1.2 2.0 111.3 3.3 11:26 AM 11:25 AM 11:24 AM Enter Daly City 0.4 2.4 110.9 3.9 11:32 AM 11:31 AM 11:29 AM vRight onto CA 1 South from CA 35 2.4 4.8 108.5 7.7 11:33 AM 11:32 AM 11:30 AM Enter Pacifica 0.4 5.2 108.1 8.4 11:46 AM 11:44 AM 11:41 AM Herbalife Sprint - Pacifica 5.5 10.7 102.6 17.2 12:08 PM 12:04 PM 12:00 PM Enter Half Moon Bay 8.5 19.2 94.1 30.9 12:08 PM 12:04 PM 12:00 PM Herbalife Sprint - Half Moon Bay 0.2 19.4 93.9 31.2 12:37 PM 12:31 PM 12:25 PM Left onto Tunitas Creek Rd. from CA 1 11.4 30.8 82.5 49.6 12:42 PM 12:35 PM 12:29 PM Right to continue on Tunitas Creek Rd. 2.0 32.8 80.5 52.8 cs over CA35/Skyline - now on Kings Mt. Rd. 12:59 PM 12:52 PM 12:44 PM California Travel and Tourism KOM 7.1 39.9 73.4 64.3 Tunitas Creek Rd. - Cat. 2 at 1562’/476m 01:12 PM 01:03 PM 12:55 PM Right onto Woodside Ave./CA 84 from Kings Mt. Ave. 5.0 44.9 68.4 72.3 01:16 PM 01:07 PM 12:58 PM vRight onto CA 84 from Woodside Ave. 1.6 46.5 66.8 74.9 cs over CA 35/Skyline on CA 84 01:24 PM 01:15 PM 01:06 PM California Travel and Tourism KOM 3.5 50.0 63.4 80.4 CA 84 - Cat. 3 at 1427’/435m 01:41 PM 01:30 PM 01:20 PM Left onto Pescadero Rd. from CA 84 6.7 56.7 56.6 91.3 California Travel and Tourism KOM 01:48 PM 01:37 PM 01:26 PM 2.7 59.4 53.9 95.6 Pescadero Rd. - Cat. 4 at 1053’/321m 02:10 PM 01:56 PM 01:44 PM Left onto Butano Cutoff from Pescadero Rd. 8.6 68.0 45.3 109.4 02:11 PM 01:58 PM 01:45 PM Left onto Cloverdale Rd. from Butano Cutoff 0.5 68.5 44.8 110.2 02:23 PM 02:09 PM 01:56 PM vRight onto Gazos Creek Rd. from Cloverdale Rd. 4.9 73.4 39.9 118.1 02:28 PM 02:14 PM 02:00 PM Left onto CA 1 from Gazos Creek Rd. 2.1 75.5 37.8 121.5 02:43 PM 02:27 PM 02:13 PM Enter Santa Cruz County 5.8 81.3 32.0 130.8 03:04 PM 02:46 PM 02:31 PM Enter Davenport 8.3 89.6 23.7 144.2 03:08 PM 02:51 PM 02:34 PM Left onto Bonny Doon Rd. from CA 1 1.9 91.5 21.8 147.2 03:15 PM 02:57 PM 02:41 PM cs onto Pine Flat Rd. from Bonny Doon Rd. 2.9 94.4 18.9 151.9 California Travel and Tourism KOM 03:25 PM 03:06 PM 02:49 PM 3.9 98.3 15.0 158.2 Bonny Doon/Pine Flat Rd. - Cat. 2 at 2135’/651m 03:25 PM 03:06 PM 02:49 PM vRight onto Empire Grade from Pine Flat Rd. 0.05 98.3 15.0 158.2 03:50 PM 03:29 PM 03:10 PM Right onto Western Dr. from Empire Grade Rd. 9.7 108.0 5.3 173.9 03:53 PM 03:32 PM 03:13 PM Left onto Mission St./CA 1 from Western Dr. 1.3 109.3 4.0 175.9 03:54 PM 03:33 PM 03:14 PM Right onto Swift St. from Mission St. 0.4 109.7 3.6 176.6 03:56 PM 03:34 PM 03:15 PM Left onto W. Cliff Dr. from Swift St. 0.7 110.4 2.9 177.7

May 1 , 2010

Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council Catherine Peery

I am resigning form the PMAC effective May 1, 2010. I would like to offer my continued support to the PMAC managing the PMAC web site, email and mailing list.

I appreciate how well run the PMAC has been during my time on the council. Thank you Catherine.

Sincerely

Rodger Reinhart

April 19, 2010

Sierra J. Shalgh c/o Pat Talbot’s Class Pescadero Middle School 350 Butano Cut-off Pescadero CA 94060

Dear Sierra:

I will pass your idea on to them, and I think you should also contact them directly, along with any retail stores or restaurants in the area.

Kate’s e-mail address is [email protected], and Irma’s e-mail address is [email protected].

I wish you luck in your endeavors. Please keep us posted on your progress.

Thanks for the great idea.

Sincerely

Catherine M. Peery, Chair, Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

Cc: PMAC members, Pat Talbot

PO Box 249 Pescadero CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org p1/1

From: Catherine Peery Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 To: PMAC Subject: Housing Committee Report RCAC reps visited with the housing committee today. We toured the Warheit site, and found out all about the various ways that self‐help (sweat‐equity) housing and/or multi‐family (rental) housing is structured, the different sponsorships required, the avenues we could take in getting sponsorship, funding, etc. It was a r2 ½ hou meeting and will require a lot of follow up, but the beginning of a lot of training on how to actually get the housing done. Apparently, to start with we have to decide whether we’re going to go in the direction of self‐help home ownership, or in the direction of rental. I think based on our housing meetings from the previous years, we are leaning towards self‐help housing, which would go towards people willing to help build their own homes, with local construction people involved.

Also, as a correction to last month’s report, it turns out that the water requirements of the 14 homes would be approximately $50,000 gallons per day, which is about 1% or less of the water output of the town well. Just to be clear, a different well would be drilled, but some people worry that it would deplete the aquifer, which is not really an issue.

We have been working on this now for nearly 10 years and have researched many aspects of the project, but one thing we have to remember is to respond to concerns of people who are just becoming aware of the project. Although we have long ago researched the land fill, and we know that we have to be 750 feet away from it, which will be accomplished based on the current site, we need to publish some facts about the project and our findings as concerns arise.

Catherine Peery d: 650‐879‐0150; f: 6509 ‐87 ‐1847 [email protected]

5/11/2010

FALL CREEK ENGINEERING, INC. Civil• Environmental• Water Resource Engineering and Sciences Tel. (831) 426·9054 P.O. Box 7894, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 Fax. (831) 426-4932

December 10, 2009 Catherine M. Perry Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council P.O. Box 249 Pescadero', CA 94060

Subject: Review of Facilities Planning Report for Pescadero Community Sewer Project March 2008, Prepared by HydroScience Engineers, Inc.

Dear Catherine:

In summary, FCE recommends the following:

Principal Engineer

Enclosures

2 1. Discuss why the facility is needed. Include an accurate description of the existing facilities and the proposed improvements.

The Town of Pescadero is located in the unincorporated portion of San Mateo. Currently, each parcel has it’s own individual septic system. Presently there are estimated to be 78 residential and 16 onsite wastewater systems in the community. The community does not have a centralized sewer collection, treatment or disposal system. In 2004, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Resolution 04‐R2‐0088 supporting a 2004 Public Health Declaration by the County of San Mateo Health Department that the soil and high groundwater conditions in the community are inadequate for treatment of septic wastewater from the existing residences and businesses in the community. And that this condition was resulting in a threat to public health. Based on this resolution the County Public Works Department completed a Facilities Planning Report for the Pescadero Community Sewer Project. The Facilities Plan presented a recommended plan for installing a centralized sewer, treatment and disposal system; however, the proposed projects were cost prohibitive and determined infeasible by the Community. Subsequently, the Community has identified several alternative site locations, treatment and wastewater reuse options that may significantly reduce the cost of the project. The County is seeking funds to complete a Facilities Plan Update to consider and evaluate the new options identified by the community. In summary, the proposed improvements will include a new centralized sanitary sewer system, a wastewater treatment plant, and land disposal system.

2. If the project is required to meet health and/or sanitary standards imposed by a local, State, or Federal Agency, discuss the specific standards/violations that will be corrected by the proposed project (if available, attach pages as necessary, including any regulatory Agency correspondence).

As previously discussed in Item 1 the State has issued Resolution 04‐R2‐0088 supporting the County of San Mateo’s Declaration that has determined that the onsite wastewater systems serving the residences and businesses in the community threaten public health and water quality. A copy of these documents is attached.

a.IB NPl'D'"al ~::i. 0348-004 BUDGET INFORMATION - Const ruction Programs. N07E: CEJ1Jifr. Fec.\:'mf sssJsl'!ll7c1:'pmi;rnms ~wrom-aoosr CGli'\Wl':itb llS ro fil11re st tt1e t='roS'Sf mre ot.cn:fet:r CllSIS effG1tfeJr:r fElti:ftsrfai. rr slJCl':I s me mse. ya.• v.illbe 110rmro.

COST CLASSIFICATION a. Tolal Cost b. Costs Not Allowable c. Total All:wable Costs fer Participation (Columns a-bl

1. .~.dministrative and legal expen&?S $ .00 $ .00 s 0 .00

2. Land, struc11.Jres, rights-Of-way, apJTaisal9, etc. $ .00 $ .00 s 0.00

3. Relocation expenses and pa~menll3 $ .00 $ .00 s o.oo

4. .A.rchitecb.Jral and ergineering fees $ '2.S> ooo .00 $ .00 s 'L ~» O c:>O .oo 5. Otho:r architectural and engineef"irg fees $ .00 $ .00 s 0 .00

6. Project in~tion fees $ .00 $ .00 s 0 .00

1. Srtewcrk $ .00 $ .00 s o.oo

8. D.:rnolition and remova I $ .00 $ .00 0 .00 "'ti s ::0 rn l> 9. Conslrn:tbn .00 .00 "'ti $ $ s 0 .00 "'ti r c=; 10. Equi~Eflt $ .00 $ .00 s o.oo ~ 0 2 11 . Mi&::ellan EOJS $ .00 $ .00 s 0.00 G") c= 0 12. SUBTOTAL (sum ofiines: r-i1) $ 0 .00 $ 0 .00 0 .00 rn s :1E 13. Contirgendes $ .00 $ .00 Q) s 0.00 ~ Q) 14. SUBTOTAL $ $ ::I o .oo . o.oo s 0.00 a. ~ 15. Proj.:d 1;i:ro

REQUIRED PREAPPLICATION ITEMS - 1 through 9

1. Completed Standard Forms (SF) 424, 424-C, 424-D -Application for Federal Assistance, see pages 4-9.

NOTE: in block 10 of SF 424, insert the appropriate Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number as follows: Water and Waste Disposal Loan and Grant Program - 10.760 Emergency and Imminent Community Water Assistance Grant - 10.763 Colonias and Native Americans Section 306C Grants - 10.770

NOTE: in block 5 of SF 424, DUNS stands for "Data Universal Numbering System." It is a unique nine-character number that identities your organization. It is a tool of the Federal government to track how Federal money is distributed. Most large organizations that receive Federal funds already have a DUNS numbers. If your organization does not have a DUNS number, call 866-705-5711 or use the following Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) online registration web link to receive one free of charge at http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/displayHomePage.do

2. Evidence that the State and Local Clearinghouses have been notified. Show that you have submitted a cover letter and a copy of the completed first page of Form SF 424 to both the State Clearinghouse and the appropriate local clearinghouse agency, by attaching copies of those documents with this preapplieati9n., see page 10-11.

3. Water and Wastewater Preapplication Certification, see page 12.

4. Financial information including a description of any existing debt, see page 13.

5. Organizational information on applicant, see page 14.

6. Project Narrative that provides information on why the facility is needed and discuss specific standards/violations that will be corrected by the Project, see page 15.

7. Loan Security to be offered, see page 16.

8. User Information, see page 17.

9. Rate Structure, see page 18

OPTIONAL PREAPPLICATION ITEMS (Only if available)

a. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation b. Preliminary Engineering Report

PREAPPLICATION GUIDE: Water and Wastewater Programs · Page 3 PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, June 8, 2010, 7:30 PM, Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060

CALL TO ORDER AT 7:30/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Artist/Designers will describe their Town Sign concepts and answer questions 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5. FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- Pattie Brixen 6. CORRESPONDENCE – Correspondence – Catherine Peery (Corresponding Secretary needed) 7. REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS A. Ad Hoc Town Sign Committee – discussion of Town Sign concepts submitted - Shannon Webb B. Housing Committee – latest developments- Catherine Peery C. School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott D. Emergency Preparedness – Lary Lawson E. Environmental Committee – schedule for next meeting -Jackson Robertson F. Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas G. Communications Committee – Rob Skinner 8. LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC A. Sewer System: Status of Grant Ap with Public Works, RCAC – Catherine Peery B. Review of Permits – if any 9. NEW BUSINESS- A. Elections Office requirements for existing members due this Summer. B. Establishment of Nominating Committee for new members. C. Town Sign recommendations regarding next steps and budget support. 10. OLD BUSINESS - A. Need to elect Corresponding Secretary from our members. 11. Adjournment , Next meeting July 13, 2010

This site is NOT wheelchair accessible. Individuals who need special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation (including auxiliary aids or services) to participate in this meeting; or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agendas, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Catherine Peery at least 3 working days before the meeting at 650-879-0150, fax 650-879-1847, [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable PMAC to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and the materials related to it. SPANISH TRANSLATION AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. Traducciòn en español esta disponible si es solicitado. DESIGNERS WANTED Parameters for Town Sign *Drive By viewing Announcements large enough to TOWN SIGN PROJECT Budget is r,9.pghly $5,000.' see driving by :''''i\:''' 71: A centralized down town sign Budget is based on 'private SOME IDEAS BROUGHT UP SO FAR: Feel free to research price, size , or kiosk is in the design phase. contvtbutions froIJ11;~rganizations needing a sign for announcem1mts to color, options etc. vehicle traffic. Examples: Please enter your design for • Plastic, white, 4x4 marquee= $3200- Pescadero's town sign. Over all cobsiderations $3500. • Chalk board 1. Weather resistant (Rain Proof) The sign will sport the name of • LCDs for out door use. 2. Vandal proofing the designer! • current research found this exceeds 3. Editable the budget in terms of initial cost @; and upkeep. Parameters are listed here. ,>I 4. Room {or multiple • Insert your idea here. announcements I Designs should be submitted by 5. ~ocated at the Intersection of **Pedestrian Viewing 5/31/2010, Memorial Day Pescadero & Stage Rd. For Local map instance at the parking area, or the pocket park, etc. merchant information Designs will be on display for town 6. Drive by Viewing* Cork board pin up area viewing & comment prior to the 7. Pedestrian viewing** For more detailed June PMAC meeting, 6/8/2010. announcements, and classifieds

Please submit your entry to: Notions: Peery & Associates, Inc Sign can have multiple sides like + Designs should be to scale, and at 213 Stage Rd. office or e-mail to a kiosk; it should be nice to look preferred location should be [email protected] at. It can be artful and/or indicated If you have any questions please contact sculptural, or conform to the ++Please, indicate if you are able Shannon Webb at 650-766-6239 or town's architectural "look". to build your design, or not. webbsrus l [email protected]

www.greenwoodlandscape.com

PESCADERO SIGN

 This sign is designed to wrap the corner in front of the community garden at the intersection of Pescadero Road and Stage Road.  Overall, it is about 10’ long, curved, and about 6’ tall, so it will be easily visible to both pedestrian and automobile traffic at a range of angles.  The placement at the corner of Stage and Pescadero Roads is the best possible location for automobiles that come to a stop at the intersection, as well as ideal for pedestrian access from the Post Office parking lot and pedestrian viewing from the garden. It is also well away from any other buildings or signs that might compete visually for attention. THE ART-Y CONCEPT-Y PART

 The local sandstone rocks and ornamental grasses recall the beach, the sandblasted wooden letters tie in with the original carved wooden signs out by the highway; the galvanized metal relates to the local agricultural buildings.  At night, the lights will reflect off the curving corrugated and galvanized metal sheets and backlight the letters of PESCADERO, like a full moon over the swells of the ocean. DOUBLE-SIDED SIGN

This sign is designed to be accessed from two sides. The front side is easily readable by auto traffic, the back side is easily accessed for pedestrian interaction.  The front side, a low stone wall (to 24” high) with 12” high sandblasted wood letters placed 18” in front of a sheet of galvanized metal makes a bold statement. The wooden letters of PESCADERO are backlit by the low-voltage exterior lights washing the galvanized steel. LED fixtures could be used for long, low-maintenance life.  6” tall magnetic letters can be easily assembled on the galvanized steel by any volunteer and easily read by passing auto traffic.  Custom magnetic letters, numbers, logos, images, ANYTHING can be affordably digitally printed by any local sign shop, using the same technology used to print magnetic car door signs. These magnetic images are weather resistant and easily reprinted if lost or damaged. They are affordable enough for multiple volunteers to have sets of alphabets. The wide range of creative options also allows for full color, multiple languages, and much more.  If pedestrian access from the back side is desirable, an additional piece of smooth galvanized steel could be added to the back, and painted with chalkboard paint for a magnetic chalk surface.

• • «J • :,. :~ 1 } ~ ~.. l . o I

,. 0 ' I ' ;: ' '. '

... ,.i· D' . ~¥'.'• .. ~L. DD' DD D

{_. -;.- / ·- L. "' ~ I f r: i

I \.J · ~woo d_ .(oo-F' ------~- - ~

."" \- -- - -

,_,l .,..,.- .

\ \ \ PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC)

Environmental Committee Meeting MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA

www.pescaderocouncil.org

Wednesday, June 9, 2010, 12:00 noon, Duarte’s Tavern (in the back), 202 Stage Road, Pescadero, CA 94060

1. CALL TO ORDER AT 12:00 INTRODUCTIONS, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA

2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

A. Kellyx – TMDL’s & Grant Update?

4. Bill Cook’s Proposal?

5. Native Sons Proposal/Update?

6. State Parks Update –

7. Puente - Watershed Education & Planning

8. Fire Preparedness – coming into the fire season…

9. Preparing Formal Recommendation to PMAC Æ SMC Board of Supervisors

10. New Business –

11. Adjournment, Next meeting July 14th, 2010

This site is wheelchair accessible. Individuals who need special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation (including auxiliary aids or services) to participate in this meeting; or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agendas, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Jackson Robertson at least 3 working days before the meeting at 650-879-0072, or email [email protected]. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable PMAC to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and the materials related to it. SPANISH TRANSLATION AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. Traducciòn en español esta disponible si es solicitado.

P.O. Box 554 Pescadero, CA. 94060 www.mypuente.org 650.879.1691

JUNE PUENTE REPORT

Marchi Farms/Campinotti The situation at Marchi Farms continues to deteriorate. As of this writing, Marchi Farms water has been tested at high levels for nitrates, bacteria and E. coli. Several of the residents of Upper and Lower Campinotti have secured the legal services of California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). The County has offered hotel/motel vouchers to residents at the farms, however, this is not a practical solution for those who have children in school in Pescadero (21 total students) or who work on the South Coast. Most families remain in their homes at the Farms, drinking and cooking with bottled water.

KPDO This Week on the South Coast is a weekly Puente radio program on KPDO on Thursdays from 4‐6 PM.

New Leaf Day Puente held its second New Leaf Community Day and raised $1832.20 for our programs.

Rebuilding Together Project More than 136 people assisted Puente with its Rebuilding Together Project which included painting as well as installing new gutters and drains. . A final painting day is scheduled for Saturday, June 12. The value of the materials provided by Peninsula Rebuilding Together and Mediterraneo Design and Build was valued at over $20,000.

Youth Employment Forty‐four South Coast youth will be working at Puente this summer, thanks to funding providing from generous individuals, San Mateo County Workforce Investment Board, and federal stimulus funds designated for employment. Youth will staff summer camps, youth and adult literacy efforts, food distribution, and provide support for Puente’s offices. In addition, they will receive extensive training and mentoring. Sponsors for our youth employment program are needed – please contact Kerry for more information.

Subsidized Employment As it turns out, the program is much more complicated than any of us had imagined. That said, Puente is available to help employers determine if potential employees qualify for the program. If you have a potential employee or if you have a job opening, please let Puente know.

Youth Bridges Awards For the second year, the Puente Board of Directors (and friends) will honor graduating seniors who have worked at Puente with Youth Bridges Awards. This year, the following students will receive the awards: Rachael Schneider, Tim Cook, Cristina Salgado, Monica Amezcua, Edith Flores & Isabel Guzman.

Literacy/Education Puente provided ESL classes to 103 unduplicated adult students in the 2010 winter/spring semesters in La Honda and Pescadero. 20% of students advanced one level in their ESL studies. Puente also arranged one‐on‐one tutoring for 20 unduplicated adult students that met on weekly basis to study English, Citizenship, GED and Plaza Comunitaria Adult Literacy Modules, as well as homework club which met twice a week.

Middle School Groups Twenty‐one middle school students participated in spring youth groups sponsored by Puente and led by Suzie Hughes. They attended a weekly seminar on self empowerment. It was important to the students to give something back to the school and they chose to provide other middle school students with thumb drives and school supplies as well as to purchase gift certificates for middle school teachers. Suzie and the students raised funds for the supplies and Pure Beauty, Peninsula Beauty Supply and Bob Bredel at Remax Realty generously provided hair care products, school supplies, etc.

Pescadero Elementary School After School Program More than 100 hours of staffing support (valued at over $1,000) was provided to the After School Program at Pescadero Elementary School by Puente youth staffers.

5/21/2010 ~~~ 1 San Mateo County 2:43PM -,, ...,i.:&11• ...

Planning & Building Department• 455 County Center• Redwood City California 94063 • Planning: 650/363-4161 • Building: 650/599-7311 • Fax: 650/363-4849 Payment Receipt Check Number # :481362 Receipt # : 00000000000000051161

Name: SILICON VALLEY TOUR DE CURE Address: COUNTYWIDE

Parcel#: 000000000

DPW2010-0011945240-1251 Special Event Rd Closure 5/21/2010 103.00 103.00

Total Paid: $103.00

FeeReceipt.rpt PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT Page 1 of 1 Department of Public Works Permit Number: DPW2010-00119 Road Operations - Permits Issued: 5/21/2010 Inspection Request: (650) 599-7273 (Bayside) 455 County Center, 2nd Floor (650) 599-7296 (Coast) Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 363-1822 or 363-1852 MUST CALL FOR INSPECTION 48 HOURS BEFORE COMMENCING WORK

APPLICANT NAME: SILICON VALLEY TOUR DE CURE

SITE ADDRESS: COUNTYWIDE AREA: WOODS

APPLICANT INFORMATION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION

SILICON VALLEY TOUR DE CURE ATTN: ALLYSON SCHLOMING 111 W. ST JOHN ST, SUITE 1150 SAN JOSE, CA 95117

PHONE#1: 408-241-1922 X7 468 PHONE#1:

PHONE#2: PHONE#2:

PROJECT NAME: BIKE RACE PARCEL NUMBER: 000000000

PROJECT DESCRIPTON: On June 13, 201 O; bike race through various roads under County jurisdictions (see attached routes); NO STREET CLOSURE; clean the streets and adjacent areas and return them to their prior or better conditions.

TYPE OF PERMIT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) NO.: ENCROACHMENT: DATE OF USA INQUIRY: CONSTRUCTION (NMRW): SEWER DISTRICT: STREET CLOSURE: X COUNTY SIP REQ'D?: TRANSPORTATION: SURETY DEPOSIT AMOUNT: $ LANDSCAPING: INSPECTION DEPOSIT AMOUNT: $ OTHER: PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE: 6/14/2010 FEE AMOUNT PAID:

The work authorized by this Permit shall be subject to all the terms, conditions, and restrictions set forth herein. This permit consists of the Special Provisions and Standard Details of San Mateo County as applicable, attached and made a part hereof. The project, as specifically described, is to be strictly construed and no other activity shall be permitted. Notify County Road Inspector 48 hrs prior to starting work.

The Permittee and/or his contractor shall indemnify and save harmless the County, its officers, agents, employees and servants from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description, brought for, or on account of, injuries to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the performance of any work authorized or required by this Permit of Permittee and/or his contractor, their officers, agents, employees and/or servants.

Permittee is required to maintain property damage and liability insurance in amounts equivalent to or exceeding the legal minimums as a condition of this permit.

This permit was issued by me on: () •* FOR OFFICE USE ONLY** ~~~D-a-t-e:-_-_-=._5_1~_t_t2_o~_0======~~~~~s-i~--..-=-.~~_..,~)..,/'-~~,_,_~~r2~~~---~-~D-,a-t_e_C_o_m~p-le_t_e_d_:~~~~~~~-I-~~~~

~------Rlee ~ kJZfl r I -~(~ Name: ______Title: r-rv '-". .:::....:..Q.

fdpwprm • I ISIQUUil'O!IIJ!UICLOIUftl •UllNOtl; ~ 31101 O(e). CallfOl'lllA Vitti~ C(ldt "i°" ,TIHU:t. IJWI ~ Qounty Qrodl!WWlt c;~ Thi. !!:!!'r. ~ bo filc!d ""1h ttie ll'ennlt hotton Clf the a.n MllltO counw Put& Worir• Dlrpaftm9nl flHi CO\lnty Coftlar. MC!Mood City. CA. it !Mlt IN lrl0!\11\ ~IN~ - !111 ..~'-· 1 Dolcrlbtd fD" Mellon IC ti. cfl'IAd. IAfl*ltttld l'll"P Qr ~ if •V~ IJ'f" a~),

::::-~hJ&~~~~ ...... a.a. = 0ii'Xi~~~5

...... , ...... t ..•~ ... m~ ..... -'-"'='"""""""°'WU I t1~ lhil' I anO my~110ft n..... wcomply 'Miil IM ~8 ~!l:

- ~ aourtty °'SM llltM ~ ttnV GAG ell ~ ft aliiiml \Ml "'Dll an. out el lh!il lllolil'l!l of ~rit!IQ llM or 1.11 u mull et UUf ltlllM!ln. ·

(7) dllY!ll. in~ • .ii~ di~lly ~ 1M Cdtomil Hit'""""'*°' (eHP) ~ i" ~ !11111 ~ ~fof"ltl@~ filfld~ fllftFIJl'le.

~(-IMll'l) . -·------·-1·---··-·A11~1e-ttM-fDltow1rvldd1t1Ma1'l:Ofld~lfirl£---.--·-·----·--. ~--,-.. -·--·· ----··-· i

I ~·-;.,,.f.. -~=~·--'=--··~-"-~'- ~------"""""~ ~~: .~ .... u.< .. ¢u-J,.,...... ·" BlQ

Enero1~hmtnt P•nnlt ChoekJl~t for Ttmponry 8trtKtf Clolan :lA; 1/i11rJ1,,,J~ ~-'~- ~/), ltc our ~UC brlna the fullowln~ lnfomtatlQn with yo-.. f(lr y<>l,lf 9-.£) I 0 the PubJlc Worb Phm Reviewer,

PleltiC note tba l.\n lno41mpletc ch(Hlklist liUbrnitWI will dcloy ynur review.

Chcok if comp ctod: s1'".""" '1Lo p;trtcf ~ ~bmwl or sk"1Ch ishowlflJ the IOCfttion of propoaed etoau.re. date•. DD times tlf cloimro. lntlll e infQnnatkm regttrdlng C1'9!i8 Ktrcet.. DCIU'by churchei, li~hool~. etc.

~ Oraw g ~r liketeh shall 1how tyPQ of closure dev I~~. d¥tu1. etc that yt)U f1flil propo1dna tu 1e to oloBe th" road.

~Ota Jn1 shall Include Anrnp Dilly Tmmo IADTsJ courns and $peed data. Plcuo visit tie County or San Mitteo Puhlic Works Wl..'bsirc under Pul>lic Wnrb ;:- ffo. T tfo: Sen ii.:e,;> Speed and Volume Dal a or indicate NiA if dala is not available, NOTE: Ir gr aicr than 35 11iph anti/or I OOOADls" a lraflic 1.:ontrnl plan will bt: r~quircd,

l the foUowlaa qoncl~ on tb• Strocit Clotttl'lll PtrmJt

.._,.~~Fire Pepiutment m,. Ci\OJc) L~h _" ~- (lb1t ftfOnc:y! COlllltsidv. Wost Monlo etc.) ,,__~,,_California ffillhWtlY Plllrol Oeimrtment PauQ rf1 {~ ...--~~Ccmnty Sherlff Oepnrtmunt ~~~

l:A./7'~-' _ Otht!r ~Pe1cmdcro Munlclp1d Advlaory CtuincU !ISl'\'l'il',I UrlJll with Pubfh: Wora Pltlri Revi,,..,.,

pleted Stratt Cfg1mro Permit AppUcfttlon

~···-,.------,.--~---,.~------!:::J;,__=Sl03 Permit P.!f: ple..se make chock J.ID)'ftble to the Cuunty of San MttteQ .....- -- ~ ~--,.-----,. 11,.~ rh·------~-,.-,.--h··--~--·--~------J-~_.

OPW CP. No~,.·~._. ____ O.te,___,..---,.,.,,_.~-_,,,_~ Rev lower CEI lTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I (301.) 795-6600 FA:C: (301) 795-6610 llffS CERTIFICATE IS 186UEI> AS A MATTI!R OF INFORllATION The NoV:ick Group ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON lffE CEi;rJFICATE HOLDER. n11s CERTIFICAl'E DOES NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR One Church Street ALTER THE COVEAAOE AFFORDED B'r THE P0l ICIE$ BELOW. Suite 400 r------~· ····- Rookvil.lQ HD 20850 t---~ ··--- l INS.IJR~AFS:ORDfN..G CO~GE.. ··-- __ ,!"AIC._!__ _ INl'llJRiD 111-1.svRf:~A: ~t .. F&.ul .. Tr"._vel.ars Companies A1aorican Oiabeta8 Association , lt.1$1.1Rt::R B: Nati.Ol\Ql. Center 1701 N. Bel!iu~agai:d StrMt ~~::: ~; ... ·~~ ,.-:.. _:.--~---·· ·-==-- -=e·· ~~- ·-::=_ ,-~·'· ··-- ·--~· ... ------·- ·-··· ··--··· ·--· -- JUuxan~ia VA ~2311 1 INSUl

.. DENmAILUAl!ILNT ' f~~~~i=-· .-'-·· 1.,000,0QQ.

A ,_x. COMl>!ERCfl\LGEl'E~UA81lt v 1· f::o~~."'P.~C'.~.~.,_.,,,,.. ,__ _L·· .·.: ·-... ·-_.3.Q!L...OOOO- __·_ .. I Cli\IMS u.... "" ~ 'i OCCI R r090()8011 ' 1/1/20101. 1/1/2011 ''"' ':" A···~~-·-·-:::::__ ~ --· ·- x' l'!lX'tieioant L:iab. : F'ERSONA,l. &_AO.. VIN_.JV!tY _s -···· 1,_,00Q, o...o _o l!:j -; .. ., -~~ ·=· ---=: ,GE!"l:RA~ ~REGA~. ~--±0, _o~.o~ I GEN'l "C-OREGATE LIMIT "f>PUES PllP!:. l !'R00UCT9~Pl0P.~ ...s __2 / tlQ~.00 i'X: 1f"Ol.ICY1 ·1 ~ r· 1 w 1 ~~----~-""+-~--+· ·----J...------1--~------j I AUTOM()OIL£UAl'llUTY I CO'MlllNED $1N()lE LIMIT ls I 1-- =~~OM~OS I I ~~;-I~-.,-·· 1' ··-·

---~--~.-+-1---~---~---~-r-- ..·~---..;~-~~---1~~--~~---t---~~-----j QARAaEUAllll.JlY I I! ' AIJiQ_ONLY,fAA_CClOEMT , __ .. I""" "trro ,' OTHE:R THAN ~Ace:. ' - 1-~1---+-I ...... --~~--~---iH-~---~--~---1:--~--~~..,--~----r-A-U_TO_o_N_Lv_: ___AG~·+"t--~----1 1 1;JtcNs1l1'1111lu.uu11aUTY I EA~~JlReNcE ---· .~ ··--· ···--·· I OCCUR [] CV.IMS MAI.le ' ' AGOREOATE ·- $ _.. ·- 11 ::.::: ' [---__ - -#- ~- - l--l-oWo:-Oc-1'1::1.li:-~-ll.i,.coal:;,:;.:,=.!>E=-'°-.....;:;.;..:..TION,._,.,.c=-----H------J- .. ····----,.__------t---rl-.l/llC~S"'T""A"'TU=-='.-Jr--.!.:()iH..;;:::-;-t-'------j APIO~Q'f91$'UUIU'N c' ~-- 'l'QR1JJMIIJl. . J.-EIL. -·-- ···-- /'il'lY PROPRili:TOIWARThlERIEJ(EOJTlVS LL. EllCH ACCIDSlll't $ QFACE~Er.lllER EXCLVP!l.OVt::I "- s ··-" " i-...... ,·~~~'f:.=e~~·~~~~eg;';~,,.n~·~~:~~!O~N~S.y...... ~-"1---~--+t·-~------~-~;--~---, ~--+l·~~.:l.:~:5:i;l\~·~~-E~·~~~":-ll::C~Y·~~l=M~l~~-r---~l.~-·-~----j =-:!=-:=-\ _____..______··- ~-=-::::-::------:-::-:'."~~===~!l:Jl!l!Cl!IPTIOll OF O"'l!AATIONS I l.OCA l!ON8 I V£Hll t.SJ l!lCUllllOHI! AOll&.D WY llMlOR8£MDff I 5J'E<;""L l'ltO~B U: IWA UST D.l.'itision; County o San Hliteo t>arlta and Jl4.(:roation :i.• an ~tional .tnau_,ud but: only •ltb rt1!1~¢t to el..al..911 a.ri•ing out of' th• neq11<~nce of t:htt N-d In11w:"lld at: Si1.lcon Val.1..-y Tour da CUra on 6/13/2010.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION l!HOUUIANYOI' TlfEAli!OVI! OEl!IC'llRO POUCllL9 911 CAllCEU.EO lllU'O~~!OO'!Mt!Oft_ ---- - San M'!!l_toQ__Q:.)_unt¥'--·-·--- !------·-··.. ---·-.. ----·-----··-·" -1rlittli'A~THmleOF.Tii1-~..--Sllllru;;;;:;_.. .;;~;;~-~ IWl 30- DAY$ WRJfTiiH ~--DQpart:ment of Pa.cks NOTICli:TQ1'"1!Ct:f!TIFIC.AT! HOLDE"~Nl

455 County Cicw.ta.r: lllPOU NO OIWGATIDH (Ht UAl!ILl'f'W Of' ANY l(INI:! UPON 'l'H!! ....u-. m; AG!fHTS 011 4th Floo.r: Rmdwood C1ty, CA 940~3 A~RfiJ'«li81!NTAT'lllll Louis Novick/HDI.1.u: ACO~D 2tl {2009/01) IN8028 (:1009011 The ACORD namo 11nd 1090 &N regl&torod m•lil• of ACORD REST TourdeCur STOP 50 :k Rl1DERS FOLLOW THE THE GREEN SIGNS

Pleue No«r.· Hltirool(;. are miaM8101Y -Obty a~ wmc lawal1 • StQp at all GtQP ai.Qnfl. (Pob WILL ~. '-$100 line) · A'® Singtfi: File • Fmu1e ~ 11 2l00PM. • II" ca~ of fillJliW'Oaf!cy call {66\1~3-491 t · rn ~of non.m.rgencycd (660) 39t·OOSI'

START I FINISH Ai HP CORE'OM TE CAMPUS 3000 HANOWA Si., PAW ALTO i TourdeCur 75 k RIDERS FOLLOW THE THE LIGHT BLUE SIGNS

Pk:1ue Note~ Htlilmeta are mandatory -Ob£!1 all traft!c ~Wiili • S'°P at a~ :S'°P signs (Polki& WIU. ticket, "'$100 firw) • Rkle Single Fu , Roote ciQses at 2~00P.M. , In casa of emergency oo~ (650):363-4911 - In ease of ru:m~mergericy eall (650) 391·5057

~ RESi-lMjJ . STOP START I FINISH AT HP CORPORATE CAMPUS 3000 HANOVER ST., PALO ALT 'TourdeCure 120 k RIDERS FOLLOW ORANGE START I SIGNS FIN·ISH AT HP CORPORATE CAMPUS 3000 HANOV€''R ST. PALO At.TO

WATER STOP AT THE' BIICE HUT

Pkwl$9 Nola! H~~lll 1ue f!!andafory • Obey alt traffic lawsll • Stop at all stop signs (Nice WILL Ucket, ~$100 lme) • Ai® Slngta Ale· Route~$ al 4:00P.M. · In oaroo of .emergeooy ooll (650)36349t1 • In ~ of notH1rmrgency eaU (650) 39MID57 PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, August 10, 2010, 7:30 PM, Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060 1. CALL TO ORDER AT 7:30/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. New Planning and Building chief, Jim Eggemeyer, will introduce himself to the council. B. Drawings/Plans and budget for Town Sign to be presented by Cody Soules. C. Matt Jacobs will report on new ballot measure from the County for November. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5. FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- PMAC Account: $8,231.71; Copier: $1,123.61 6. CORRESPONDENCE – Resignations from two council members, and request for underwriting – Catherine Peery (Corresponding Secretary needed) 7. REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS A. Housing Committee – Coastside Community Builders -synopsis- Catherine Peery B. School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott C. Emergency Preparedness – Lary Lawson D. Environmental Committee – summary of last meeting -report from Jackson Robertson E. Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas F. Nominating Committee – and Elections office news - Rob Skinner 8. LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC A. Sewer System: Status of Grant Ap with Public Works, RCAC – Catherine Peery 9. NEW BUSINESS- A. Elections of Treasurer and Corresponding Secretary from among council members. B. Request for underwriting from KPDO C. Town Sign –permit approval process, confirmation of design and budget support. D. Elections office has confirmed there are no term limits—should we amend bylaws to include 4 4-year terms as term limit for council members? E. We received a copy of the LCP, and a letter regarding requirements for amendment. If it doesn’t require a county vote, should we request addition of Reynolds parcel with their house on it (and possibly their neighbors parcel) to be included in rural/urban boundary? 10. Adjournment , Next meeting Sept. 14, 2010

TO: Ciatherine Peery, Chair PMAC

FROM: Pattie Brixen

SUBJl~CT: PMAC Resignation

Please accept this memo as my official resignation from the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Committee (PMAC), effective July 30th 2010. Health reasons prohibit me from seNing out my term or filing to run for office again.

It has !been a pleasure working with you over these last six years. There has been :some meaningful progress on important issues relative to life in Pescadero. Hopeflully, at some time in the future, I will be healthy enough to serve once again.

Thank you.

Pattie! Brixen PMAct Member From: Jackson Robertson Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:59 AM To: Catherine Peery Subject: PMAC

Hi Catherine,

After much thought, my growing business and current day to day will not allow me to continue with PMAC. The last 5 years on the council has been a great experience for me and do plan on attending meetings when possible and staying active in the community, but I need to minimize my volunteer time right now - especially with the new baby on the way next month.

I know this comes at a bad time with the other recent resignations, but I really need to prioritize my life right now. Thanks for understanding,

Jackson

Daniel Roberts KPDO 89.3 FM P.O. Box 893 Pescadero, CA 94060 (650) 646-KPDO Daniel@kpdo.org

August 15, 2010

Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council P.O. Box 249 Pescadero, CA 94060

Dear Council Members,

KPDO 89.3 FM Community Radio for Pescadero and the South Coast would like to promote PMAC’s monthly meetings though on-air underwriting messages. For $49.00 a month KPDO would play one message per hour from 10am to 8pm on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and from 10 am to 7pm Tuesday prior to the meeting (a total of 49 messages a month). All contributions are tax-deductible.

These underwriting messages would promote PMAC meetings to our estimated 5,000+ on-air and online listeners, encouraging Pescadero resident participation, and announcing critical agenda items or presentations.

This is an investment in your community that allows us to educate high school students in broadcast engineering and D.J. skills, and to broadcast world, national and local events and news in Spanish and English. Having a local community-supported radio station has already proved to be a valuable resource for our youth and for our nonprofit organizations. Please help us to continue providing these and many more services for both PMAC and the community at large.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Sincerely,

\signed Daniel Roberts

KPDO 89.3fm • (650) 646-KPDO • P.O. Box 893 • Pescadero, CA 94060 Business Plan Agenda Introduction Vision and Goals Background and History Strength of Founding Members Plan for staff and Board members Housing Options Community Buildings and Infrastructure Financial Community Relations and Communications Next Steps

2 Introduction Pescadero Foundation (501c3) Umbrella organization for community projects Art and Fun Festival to Workforce Housing Over 10 years of focusing on Affordable Housing New name is Coastside Community Builders

3 Vision

To retain the economic viability and diversity of the South Coast communities of Pescadero, La Honda, Loma Mar and San Gregorio by: developing, maintaining and managing:

Home ownership Rental properties Leasehold properties Community centers, like Native Sons Hall Infrastructure, like Waste Water Treatment Utility services Self-sustaining businesses Emergency shelters

4 Goals Meet the diverse infrastructure needs Provide affordable home ownership, rental housing and emergency shelter Include families and single residents Income fall below median income for the county Develop layers of financing Public and private funds Seek qualification as a CHDO under HUD’s HOME program Largest federal block grant to state/local government Exclusively for affordable housing

5 Allocation of funds in San Mateo county

“Affordable housing in the County primarily serves households that are low, very low, or extremely low income.” (Note 1) HUD Funds

(Federal) CPD

HOME

In San Mateo county

15% HOME funds reserved for CHDOs

US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) ( a CPD program) Community Planning and Development (CPD) (HUD Office of) Note 1: San Mateo County Housing, “How To Guide” 6 Community Housing Development Organization CHDO

Definition Meet strict qualifications set by HUD Benefits 15% of federal HOME funds reserved for CHDOs Purpose Must be home ownership, building, repairing & rental Affordable housing and related activities

7 CHDO continued

Requirements to obtain CHDO status Be a non-profit Has purpose of affordable housing in its charter Conforms to sound financial practices Has demonstrated capacity for carrying out activities if funded Has a history of serving the community Has low-income residents on its Board Provides way to inform clients of project details

8 San Mateo County Department of Housing

2010 SAN MATEO COUNTY INCOME LIMITS as defined by US Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and State of CA HCD

Income 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Category Extremely Low* $22,600 $25,800 $29,050 $32,250 $34,850 $37,450 $40,000 $42,600 Very Low* $37,650 $43,000 $48,400 $53,750 $58,050 $62,350 $66,650 $70,950 HOME limit (60% AMI)* $45,180 $51,600 $58,080 $64,500 $69,600 $74,820 $70,980 $85,140 HERA Special $41,700 $47,700 $53,650 $59,600 $64,350 $69,150 $73,900 $78,650 VLI*** HERA Special HOME limit (60% AMI)*** $50,040 $57,240 $64,380 $71,520 $77,220 $82,980 $88,680 $94,380 Low * $60,200 $68,800 $77,400 $86,000 $92,900 $99,800 $106,650 $113,550 Median ** $69,600 $79,500 $89,450 $99,400 $107,350 $115,300 $123,250 $131,200 Moderate** $83,500 $95,450 $107,350 $119,300 $128,850 $138,400 $147,950 $157,500

9 Coastside Demographics

Data provided by 2000 US Census Bureau 10 Background and History

Community meetings Virginia Warheit and the site Surplus county land for affordable housing County is supportive 2004 Workshop Over 100 local residents in attendance Gained agreement on location, appearance and size

11 Background continued Housing research County grants 2001 To determine feasibility of septic and water 2009 Do engineering work on the site Local grants S.H. Cowell Foundation Designed an engineering project to eliminate flooding for downtown Pescadero Determined OK to build waste water treatment system

12 Housing Options

Potential Home Ownership sites Warheit, In-Fill and Cottage Courts Rental Housing Heirloom homes

13 Community Buildings and Infrastructure

Native Sons Hall Waste Water Treatment system Fire Suppression system for businesses

14 Financial

Federal, state and county grants Private foundations Loans Private Contributions Sustainable Source

15 Community

Outreach meetings Communications for clients of project details

16 Strength of Founding Members

Lynne Bowman Catherine Peery Ginny Nile Motivated, capable and dedicated No affordable housing between Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz county line

17 Staff and Board

Find staff experienced in CHDO, development and management Add part-time staff as funding becomes available Board needs experience in: CHDO Finance/mortgage/banking Legal Housing development Property management

18 Next steps

19 PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, October 12, 2010, 7:30 PM, Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060 1. CALL TO ORDER AT 7:30/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Voting on Town Sign will continue until Old Business 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5. FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- Treasurer, Greg Bonaparte 6. CORRESPONDENCE –Report, Corresponding Secretary, Kate Meyer Haas 7. REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS A. Housing Committee –status of Native Sons and Warheit grants- Catherine Peery B. School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott C. Emergency Preparedness – Lary Lawson D. Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas E. Communications Committee – Rob Skinner 8. LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC A. Sewer System: Status of Grant Application with Public Works, RCAC – Catherine Peery 9. NEW BUSINESS- A. In the winter months the Native Sons Hall can be cold and the heater can drown out the council members. What is the best solution for this? 10. OLD BUSINESS – A. Finalize vote on town sign location. B. Permit process going forward for Town Sign—may take up to 3 months. The Friends of PMAC as a nonprofit will have to do this, with support and direction from PMAC. Matt is trying to eliminate costs. 11. Adjournment. Next meeting Tuesday, Nov 9th, 2010

Minutes

Tuesday, September 14, 2010 7:30 P.M. Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero, CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org

1. Call to order/Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 7:30pm by Chair, Catherine Peery Present: Catherine Peery (CP), Kate Haas (KH), Don McDermott (DM), Geoff Allen (GA), David Lee (DL), Greg Bonaparte (GB) and Rob Skinner (RS) Excused: None. Absent: None.

2. Public Comments not on the agenda: Daniel Roberts of Radio Station KPDO outlined recent activities at the Station. 3. Announcements/Presentations: A. Cody Soules unveiled the town sign and substantial discussion followed on the placement of story poles in the various proposed sign locations. Matt Jacobs was requested to obtain clarification from the County on the process that should be followed with respect to the installation of the story poles. B. Jered Lawson of Pie Ranch provided background information on the formation of Pie Ranch and activities that Pie Ranch was pursuing in the Pescadero community C. Matt Jacobs outlined a possible ballot measure for the next election, including how County Supervisors would be elected. 4. Approval of Minutes of regular meeting on: August 10, 2010

GA GB KH DL DM CP RS

Motion XX Second XX Ayes/Nays X X X X X X X Abstain Carried XX Failed

5. Financial Report: GB reported on the current bank balances, including $6,662.18 in the main checking account and $1,123.61 for the copier account. Pattie Brixen also submitted an annual checking account summary for the main account from the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. 6. Correspondence: CP provided an update on certain permits and on the County chip seal project. 7. Reports from Current Committee Chairs: A. Housing Committee – CP gave a report on the status of the efforts to raise funds for Native Sons. B. School Board – DM outlined recent Board activity, including the school improvement grant and the selection of a new principal.

1 C. Emergency Preparedness – Lary Lawson reported that the La Honda Ham Radio Club was working on getting a second ham radio repeater installed in Pescadero. D. Environmental Committee – No report. E. Puente – KH gave an update on activity at Puente, including an update on various job programs that were being worked on, a review of health programs, various education programs and miscellaneous other programs. F. Nominating Committee – RS gave an update on possible candidates to fill open PMAC seats. Those potential candidates include Carolyn Shade, David Lustig and Jake Bowman. G. Communications Committee – No report. 8. Land Use Committee Report: A. Wastewater Treatment – CP provided an update on the status of the sewer system feasibility study proposal. B. Planning & Building – Permits were submitted for review by the County and responded to by various members of PMAC by email. No County response was to PMAC feedback was received.

9. New Business:

A. Support for Pescadero Foundation/Pescadero History Society. Upon motion by GA and a second by RS, PMAC agreed to write a letter of support in connection with a grant application to be submitted to the County.

B. PMAC Term Limits. Following discussion, this matter was removed from the agenda.

C. Local Coastal Plan Amendment. Following discussion, it was proposed that PMAC be given legal guidance on this matter from County counsel

10. Old Business: Town Sign. Extensive discussion took place on the process for installing story poles and the process that needs to be followed at the County level to install the town sign. Upon motion made, amended and seconded, PMAC recommended putting up story poles in four separate locations. PMAC requested Matt Jacobs’ assistance in getting guidance from the County on the process to complete the installation of the town sign.

11. Next Meeting: October 12, 2010 at 7:30pm

12. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by Chair, Catherine Peery Submitted by Recording Secretary, David Lee

2 From: Matt Jacobs [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:20 AM To: Skinner, Rob Subject: Fwd: Highway 1 lighting in Pescadero Rob, Per your inquiry on the light, I believe the lighting itself is now working again. I will say I am surprised as the cause of all this... must have been a fun night for someone...

Matt "Gidget Navarro" 9/21/2010 10:02 AM >>> Hey Matt, Here is a response to the lighting on Highway 1 in Pescadero as you can see in the supervisors response she said you can contact her directly with lighting issues in the future for that area. Hope this information is helpful. Thanks, The crew checked this light outage report yesterday, Thursday, September 16th. They found that the lights had been shot out. The wiring in the pull boxes had shorted and burnt and the service wiring vandalized and disconnected. Also the three flasher and the photo electric controls there, had been vandalized and were full of bullet holes. The crew repaired the field and service wiring and the photo electric control. They replaced the damaged fixtures and relamped them. The roadway lighting is now working. We will assemble the replacements for the flashers & benjamin lights and return next week to repair them. This area is at the far end of our service area. In the future if the citizen sees other needed repairs, he can contact me directly at 415 - 330 - 6521. We will then be able to address his concerns in a more timely manner. "Matt Jacobs"

To [email protected] 09/09/2010 11:49 cc AM

Subject Question on street lights on HWY 1

Ben, How are things? Sorry to keep coming to you with questions, but I am not 100% on who to contact for some things. My question is who would I contact at Caltrans regarding a street light out on Highway 1 in Pescadero? Thanks, Matt (Embedded image moved to file: pic12818.gif)Save Paper. Think before you print. >>> "Rob Skinner" 9/9/2010 9:38 AM >>> Good morning... Matt, the two street lights at the intersection of Highway 1 and Pescadero Creek Rd have been out and not working for about two-three months now and it's a concern. Could you please look into that for us?

Gidget Navarro Caltrans Public Affairs Public Information Officer San Mateo County 510- 286-5574 (office) 510-715-7181 (cell) San Mateo County Boards and Commissions Training The Brown Act: A Night with County Counsel

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:00-6:00 P.M. 455 County Center, Room 101 Redwood City

AGENDA

5:00-5:05 p.m. Announcements Mary McMillan, Deputy County Manager Beverly Thames, Webmaster

5:05-5:10 p.m. Welcome David Holland, Director, Parks Department

5:10-5:40 p.m. The Brown Act Judith Holiber, Deputy County Counsel Carol Woodward, Deputy County Counsel

5:40-5:55 p.m. Brown Act Compliance Questions Judith Holiber, Deputy County Counsel Carol Woodward, Deputy County Counsel

5:55-6:00 p.m. Closing Remarks Mary McMillan, Deputy County Manager

September 16, 2010

Duane Bay, Director San Mateo County Department of Housing 264 Harbor Boulevard, Bldg. A Belmont, CA 94002

Re: Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council Certificate of Support for Grant Application to Rehabilitate Native Sons’ Community Hall

Dear Duane:

The Pescadero Municpal Advisory Council, at its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 passed unanimously a resolution to provide a Certificate of Support for this Grant Application. The Native Sons’ Community Hall is vital to the civic life of the whole community, and is a central location for the delivery of services by nonprofit organizations to the community, and also services as the Town Hall, where our monthly meetings are held.

We see the replacement of the foundation of the Native Sons’ Hall as critically important to our community. The community has shown its support over the years by first contributing the funds to buy the building, and in the last year or two, contributing about $70,000 towards this project. We urge the Department of Housing to give this project the highest priority in your allocation of grant funds.

Thanks very much for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Catherine M. Peery, Chair Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council

PO Box 249 Pescadero CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org p1/1

October 6, 2010

California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection 801 K Street, MS 18-01 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528

RE: Letter of Commitment for San Mateo County RCD Application for 2010 Watershed Coordinator Grant

To whom it may concern:

The Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council (PMAC) enthusiastically supports the San Mateo County RCD’s application for a Watershed Coordinator grant. As local leaders in watershed planning, project development, and public outreach, RCDs are the bridge between agencies and landowners to meet long-term watershed goals. We are proud that our RCD was the first in the state of California, established in 1939, and that is has a number of innovative projects underway to improve lands management and water quality. The work of the RCD is accomplished through strong voluntary partnerships with land owners and managers, technical advisors, area jurisdictions, government agencies, advocates, and others.

As an elected council to advise the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors on issues affecting residents of Pescadero, Loma Mar, Butano Canyon and other South Coast communities in San Mateo County, we urge you to support the RCD in their watershed coordination role. This service has been invaluable to us and to our constituents.

In the area represented by PMAC, the RCD provides conservation technical assistance to public and private landowners and implements projects to conserve natural resources ranging from assisting farmers with water conservation to working with landowners to improve and winterize rural roads. The RCD convenes diverse stakeholders and facilitates dialogue to help us understand and give our voice to esoteric and complex environmental issues and regulations, provides us with access to scientists developing Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Pescadero-Butano watershed, and participates on PMAC’s Environmental Quality Committee. The RCD has a commitment to watershed education, partnering to provide outreach and watershed literacy programs in Spanish to local farmworkers, giving presentations in our local high school, and developing a “Green Jobs” training program for teens in a local juvenile detention facility.

PMAC commits to continue our partnership with the RCD- assisting with community outreach, providing input and advice regarding issues of concern to residents of our constituent watersheds, supporting grant applications, and providing feedback regarding programs and documents.

A challenge faced by the RCD is that tax revenues supporting the district, approximately $50,000 per year, are inadequate to accomplish their ambitious workplan. The remaining funds are primarily derived from project-oriented government grants, which are severely restricted in how they may be used and are tied to very specific tasks. As a result, there are limited funds available for operating support, capacity building, and programs that are delivered by the RCD that are not “billable” under the restricted grant funds.

Thank you for your consideration of the RCD’s request for support in their essential role coordinating watershed conservation activities.

Sincerely,

Catherine Peery President Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council From: geoff Allen Subject: Re: RCD letter of support Date: October 11, 2010 6:21:13 PM PDT To: Catherine Peery , greg bonaparte , Kate Meyer Haas , [email protected], Rob Skinner , David Lee Reply-To: geoff Allen Katherine,

I won't be at the meeting tommorrow, I think supporting Kelix, and the RCD are important for the people of Pescadero, now, and as we try to move forward in the future to solve our town's problems. Most of them center around the creeks, rivers, marsh, beach, and tidal areas. The Rescource Conservation district can be a powerful ally for us, in that they can be the "Lead agency" to get funding and bring people and rescources together to help us through the red tape surrounding anything we as "Local property owners" want to try and accomplish, to protect our town, and ourselves and ours and our neighbors property, and property rights.

San Mateo county, Lennie Robrts, Committee for Green Foothills, POST, Midpen, and all of the other "Save the planet organizations" have their own agendas, out there do not recognize Pescaderans rights. They all have their vision of what Pescadero should be, regardless of our property and our property rights. They have worked together for the past 25 or 30 years, to stall anything that might move our town in the direction of solving the flooding problem. The RCD gives us a chance at taking the reigns, and solving the problem.

There was a plan at one point in the past, to dam Butano creek, and create a large water source for San Mateo County, for drinking water, and recreation. Guess where that left property owners in Butano Canyon.

Likewise, 12 years ago, Rich Gordon promissed to take the lead in solving the flooding issues in Pescadero. Guess where that leadership has led us.

To my knowledge, the only project that has taken place to help solve the flooding, in the past 25 years, was the locally lead project with Bill Cook and other neighbors building the sandbag wall, which was effective, while it lasted, and hasn't done much lately, because no one has repaired it, or increased it's water holing capacity.

If we don't find a way to stick together, and work out "Our issues", there are plenty of other people out there who are willing to take that right away from us. Supporting Kelix, and the RCD at least gives us a chance at having a voice, and a vote in our future. Please ask the other board members to support RCD, so we have a voice, ad an organization to help us help ourselves.

I will be there in spirit Tommorrow night, and If you need my input, you can call me, I'll be at home. The number is 879-0843, or if it's busy, 879-0264.

Thanks,

Geoff Allen

San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Current Project List September 16, 2010

Project Description Partners Funding Key Staff Status

Agricultural producers, NRCS, Farm Implement over 30 conservation Bureau State Water Resources Control  30+ projects completed on 19 farms Agricultural Water Quality projects to improve water quality and 1. Board (federal stimulus funds via  Marti  Upcoming watershed outreach in Spanish to Project water conservation on irrigated RCD is project manager. EPA) farm laborers about water quality agricultural lands.

Biochar Field Trials proposal  Marti 2. Farm Bureau? CCA, AWQA?  In early development development  Karissa?

Provide a forum to share ideas and Community at large  Last event Sept. 22nd information for resource  Marti 3. Blue Circle Silent auction at events  Results of Ag Water Quality Project and management, education, and RCD is project manager.  Kx creek monitoring project stewardship.

Farm Bureau (project manager), NRCS, Improve irrigation efficiency on  Installed irrigation improvements on 5 Cooperative Conservation agricultural producers. 4. specialty crops in San Mateo County NRCS Cooperative Agreement  Marti farms Partnership Initiative (CCPI) on five farms.  Workshop in Spanish to irrigation foremen RCD provides assistance. California Coastal Commission (project manager); Midcoast Community Council; Montara Water and Sanitary District;

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Assess condition of all watersheds Moss Beach Ranch; Regional Water Critical Coastal Area Pilot contributing to the Fitzgerald Marine State Water Resources Control Quality Control Board; San Francisco Bay  Completed assessment and some 5. Project Reserve and Pillar Point Harbor and Board via subcontract to San  Kx Regional Water Quality Control Board; San confidential pollution reduction projects. develop plan for best management of Francisco Estuary Institute Mateo County (SMC) Department of Public non-point source pollution. Works; SMC Planning Department; SMC

Parks Dept.

RCD is local host and subcontractor. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Prop 84 ASBS, via subcontract to  Karissa 6.  Waiting for contract Pollution Control San Mateo County  AmeriCorps

Provide technical assistance for Landowners, NRCS, SMC Planning landowners undertaking conservation Grading Permit Exemptions Department 7. projects, exemption from County Fee for service  Kx  None currently pending

Grading Permit requirements, and RCD issues permit exemptions. reduced permit fees.

Provide watershed literacy and job Puente de la Costa Sur, Pescadero High Federal stimulus funds through training in natural resources to low School  Marti 8. Green Jobs Corps San Mateo County via subcontract  Classes scheduled throughout fall. income high school students in with Puente de la Costa Sur  AmeriCorps Pescadero. RCD is subcontractor UC Davis, Balance Hydrologics, SMC Public Health Laboratory, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Granada Sanitary District, SMC Environmental Health Identification and  Collected data regarding harbor circulation, Services, City of Santa Barbara Creeks Remediation of Fecal fecal indicator bacteria quantity and source Assess and identify sources of fecal Division, Natural Resources Conservation Pollution in Pillar Point State Water Resources Control  Karissa  SWRCB considering additional funds on 9. pollution in Pillar Point Harbor and Service (NRCS), Sewer Authority Harbor Board (Clean Beaches Initiative) 10/18 recommend plan for remediation. Midcoastside, Coastal Commission, SMC  AmeriCorps  Harbor commission awarded $15,000 to Harbor District, San Francisco Estuary complete circulation study Institute, Surfrider SMC, County of Santa Cruz Environmental Health Services

RCD is project manager. 10. Integrated Watershed California Coastal Conservancy; RCD of Funding from California Coastal  Kx  Moving forward with three high priority

1 of 3

Restoration Planning (IWRP) Facilitate and coordinate projects to Santa Cruz County, RCD of San Mateo Conservancy via subcontract to projects. One restores pond for agriculture improve fish and wildlife habitat and County; federal, state, and local resource RCD of Santa Cruz County and frog/ snake habitat in Pilarcitos water quality. Bring together various agencies. watershed. Two improve fish passage- one in funding and permitting agencies to Pescadero watershed, one in San Gregorio better coordinate how projects are RCD is project manager for San Mateo watershed. funded and permitted. Create a forum County. for collaborative problem solving to complete resource conservation projects.

Recruit, train, and support citizen It Takes A Community to volunteers to collect water quality Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary  Karissa  Completed 12 months of monitoring and 11. Care for a Watershed data and learn how pollution enters NOAA B-WET presented results at public meeting. the Sanctuary from their RCD is project manager.  Marti communities.

Provide outreach and technical assistance for operators of livestock Ecology Action, Central Coast RCDs State Water Resources Control 12. Livestock and Land Program and equestrian facilities to implement  Karissa  Identified early projects. Board Proposition 84 ASBS best management practices to protect RCD is contractor. water quality.

Coordinate and manage data  Public comment period closed. collection for the Phase 3 Midcoast San Mateo County  Coordinating entities that monitor water in Groundwater and obtain any 13. Midcoast Groundwater Study San Mateo County  Marti Midcoast additional baseline information RCD is contractor.  Tracking funding for groundwater basin needed to develop a groundwater management plan development management plan for the region.

California State Parks, Philip Williams & Conduct a cross-sectional survey of Associates. 14. Pescadero Marsh Survey the main channels, creeks, and lagoon California State Parks  Kx  Gages installed

at Pescadero State Beach. RCD is fiscal manager.

Provide education and outreach to stakeholders (particularly Pescadero  Facilitated 1 public meeting, working with community members), researchers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Regional Board to set up another one. and Water Board staff interested in Pescadero Municipal Advisory Committee Regional Water Quality Control  Kx 15. Pescadero TMDL Outreach  Exploring sediment market pilot opportunity ongoing and future technical studies Board  Marti  Regularly updating PMAC Env Qual in the watershed that pertain to the RCD is project manager. Committee development of Total Maximum Daily Loads.

SF PUC, CA State Parks, NOAA, City of

Half Moon Bay, Coastside County Water Convene Pilarcitos Restoration District, Committee for Green Foothills,  Completed Lagoon project Workgroup and implement plan to County of San Mateo, MROSD, CA Coastside County Water District,  Completed road assessments for private Pilarcitos Creek Integrated promote balanced solutions to Department of Fish and Game, National San Francisco Public Utilities landowners, now doing more Watershed Management effectively manage the Pilarcitos 16. Marine Fisheries Service, POST, Pilarcitos Commission, Sewer Authority  Kx  Stream surveys nearly complete Plan Creek watershed that satisfy Creek Advisory Committee, San Mateo Midcoastside, and Caltrans environmental, public health,  Workgroup meeting in September County Farm Bureau, Sewer Authority settlement fund held by RCD domestic water supply, and economic  Developing new MOUs for funding RCD Mid-Coastside, Surfrider Foundation interests. work and stream gage

RCD is project manager. Restore and enhance ponds that NRCS, public and private landowners, benefit agriculture and support the  Kx  Working on restoration of 7 ponds on two agricultural operators. Caltrans mitigation, IWRP, 17. Ponds Program recovery of the California red-legged  Jim Robins? ranches in agricultural production to USFWS frog and the San Francisco garter improve ag viability as well as habitat. RCD is project manager.  AmeriCorps snake. RCD of Santa Cruz County Addressing Regulatory Address existing regulatory (subcontractor), San Mateo County Weed 18. Barriers to Management of constraints to eucalyptus removal in  Kelli Camara  In process, to be complete March 2011 Management Area Eucalyptus San Mateo County. RCD is project manager. California Coastal Conservancy; RCD of California Department of Fish and  Held two public workshops in Gazos Rural Roads Program  Karissa 19. Provide education and technical Santa Cruz County, RCD of San Mateo Game, Caltrans settlement fund watershed  assistance to road associations, County; NRCS; land owners and California Coastal Conservancy via AmeriCorps  Completing geospatial analysis 2 of 3 homeowners’ associations, managers. subcontract to RCD of Santa Cruz,  Conducting road assessments for landowners, and land managers to NRCS grant and in-kind support landowners this winter improve rural road conditions, RCD is project manager for San Mateo via Agricultural Water Quality resulting in winterized roads County. Alliance requiring less maintenance and reduced sediment delivery into riparian habitats.

Implement critical priorities of the San Gregorio Watershed Plan (e.g.  Coordinating with stakeholders to eradicate off-stream water storage, off-channel San Gregorio Environmental Resource purple loosestrife in Reflection Lake San Gregorio Watershed habitat, large woody debris Center, American Rivers, Fish and  Contracting with American Rivers for off- 20. FWS, American Rivers  Kx Enhancement Program enhancement, water conservation Wildlide Service, land owners and stream water storage project strategies, lagoon protection, managers, NRCS.  Submitted funding request to DFG sediment remediation, fish passage).  Awarded $40K from FWS

Provide on-the-ground workshops to Public and private land managers, NRCS Technical Workshops 21. land managers to protect, restore, and RCD is sponsor, presenter, assists with Varies  Marti  Pond maintenance workshop in spring.

conserve natural resources. coordination.

Collect water samples on private Water Quality Monitoring Landowners, equestrian boarding Fee for service, in-kind  Monitoring water quality on three streams. properties where requested and make  Karissa 22. Agreements facilities, SMC Public Health Laboratory. contributions from Public Health One is a collaboration, one is a public recommendations to landowners for RCD is project manager. Laboratory  Jake remediation of water pollution. agency, and one is a single private landowner

 Helping private landowner south of  Kx Control or eradicate priority invasive Pescadero with control of Hypericum 23. Weed abatement non-native plants in priority Landowners, WMA, CDFA FWS, WMA  Jim Robins? infestation locations.  AmeriCorps  Purple loosestrife project (above)

In the wings: 1. Watershed Coordinator- submitting funding request in October 2. Energy audits- waiting for funding opportunity 3. Solutions to Pescadero flooding- submitted funding request 4. Pescadero Watershed Council- submitted funding request

3 of 3 San Mateo County Resource Conservation District FY 2011 Financial Budget

REVENUE Grant-funded Projects Improving Ag Water Quality 51,505 Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative 10,778 Critical Coastal Area 13,000 Fitzgerald Pollution Reduction 50,400 Green Jobs Corps 30,000 It Takes a Community to Care for a Watershed 12,900 Integrated Watershed Restoration Program 25,200 Livestock and Equestrian Water Quality 164,161 Midcoast Groundwater Study 21,047 Pescadero TMDL Outreach 1,694 Pillar Point Harbor Pollution Study 193,992 Ponds Program 100 Rural Roads Program 64,000 San Gregorio Watershed Plan 780 San Gregorio Watershed Enhancement 7,000 Unrestricted 0 Contracts/Grants Subtotal 646,556

Fines and Mitigation Funds Pilarcitos funds 6,742 Fines and Mitigation Subtotal 6,742

Individual Contributions 1,000 Interest Income 300 Misc. Income 400 Property Taxes 51,000 Service Fees 24,462 Subtotal Other 77,162 TOTAL REVENUE 730,460

EXPENSES Personnel Salaries 222,954 Benefits 18,839 Subtotal Personnel 241,793 Operating Accounting 13,084 Bank Fees 900 Computer Services 2,000 Communications 4,500 Discretionary 1,500 Equipment 9,000 Insurance - Liability 1,900 Legal 2,000 Membership, Dues & Subscriptions 1,500 Mileage 500 Postage & Delivery 1,000 Printing & Copying 1,500 Professional Development 1,500 Public Relations & Outreach 250 Rent 17,700 Supplies 250 Travel/ Accommodations 600 Subtotal Operating Expenses 59,684 Program Expenses Improving Ag Water Quality 43,500 Blue Circle 800 Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative 8,000 Critical Coastal Area 10,000 Fitzgerald Pollution Reduction 20,000 Green Jobs Corps 4,000 It Takes a Community to Care for a Watershed 6,700 Integrated Watershed Restoration Program 200 Livestock and Equestrian Water Quality 129,687 Midcoast Groundwater Study 250 Pescadero TMDL Outreach 100 Pilarcitos IWMP 12,200 Pillar Point Harbor Pollution Study 137,734 Ponds Program 0 Rural Roads Program 39,200 San Gregorio Watershed Plan 0 San Gregorio Watershed Enhancement 0 Workshops 1,500 Subtotal Program Expenses 413,871 TOTAL EXPENSES 715,348 NET 15,113

Footnotes to the Proposed Financial Budget:

FY ‘11 Budget p. 2 of 8 REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS

Grant-funded Projects Improving Ag Water Quality: This is the anticipated remaining amount in the grant that will be billed this year, anticipating $35,000 will be paid for construction work that has been completed but not yet billed; $9,500 for subcontracts for remaining workshop and outreach requirements; $3,360 for staff time for project administration and management; and $3,375 in direct project expenses that are billable on this grant. $51,505 = $35,000 + $9,500 + $3,360 + $3,375

Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative: This is the total amount left in the contract. It is assumed that all funds will be spent before the contract expires this year.

Critical Coastal Area: This is the total amount left in the contract. All funds may be spent this year.

Fitzgerald Pollution Reduction Project: The workplan and contract are not yet complete for this project. This estimate is based on dividing the total amount of the contract over the 46 month duration of the contract, anticipating no more than 8 months of the fiscal year to be billable under the contract, and assuming that the project will start slower and ramp up in intensity. $50,400 = ($483,000/46) x 8 x .6

Green Jobs Corps: This is the total amount of the contract, which will begin and end this fiscal year.

It Takes A Community to Care for a Watershed: This is the total amount left in the contract. It is assumed that all funds will be spent before the contract expires this year.

Integrated Watershed Restoration Planning: This estimate assumes planning for two priority conservation projects this year, with assistance from RCD staff, a consultant provided by the Coastal Conservancy, and the AmeriCorps volunteers. It assumes that the RCD will earn the $16,097 remaining in the grant agreement that expires in September and receive an estimated additional $20,000 under a new agreement thereafter. It also assumes that the project will ramp up in intensity. $25,200 = ($16,000+ $20,000) x .7

[Note that this is the estimate for Tasks 1 and 3 of the IWRP grant. Task 2 of this grant is allocated to the Rural Roads Program and counted separately below.]

Livestock and Equestrian Water Quality: The workplan and contract are not yet complete for this project. This estimate is based on dividing the total amount of the contract over the 27 month duration of the contract, anticipating no more than 8 months of the fiscal year to be billable under the contract, and assuming that the project will start slower and ramp up in intensity. $164,161 = ($923,405/27) x 8 x .6

FY ‘11 Budget p. 3 of 8 Midcoast Groundwater Study: This is the total amount left in the contract, multiplied by a 60% probability that we will able to bill the total amount this year (based on external variables beyond our control). $21,047 = $35,078 x .6

Pescadero TMDL Outreach: $3,387 remains in the agreement to facilitate two remaining workshops. It is anticipated that only one of the workshops will be required this fiscal year. $1,694 = $3,387/2

Pillar Point Harbor Pollution Study: The amended contract is not yet complete for this project. This estimate is based on dividing the total amount of the requested new amount over the 30 month requested duration of the contract, anticipating being able to bill for work retroactively to the beginning of the fiscal year, and assuming that the project will ramp up in intensity. It then includes $35,682 for revenue earned in the last fiscal year that will be paid in this fiscal year. $193,992 = ($659,623/30) x 12 x 0.6 + $35,682

Ponds Program: This is the total amount left in the contract. All funds may be spent this year.

Rural Roads: This estimate assumes completion of a $20,000 road assessment project under a contract that will complete by February, the remaining funds under Task 2 of the IWRP contract that expires in September, an estimate of $25,000 additional funds in a new agreement thereafter, and the $4,000 AWQA mini-grant that has been awarded to this program and expires this year. $64,000 (approx.) = $20,000 + $15,135 + $25,000 + $4,000

San Gregorio Watershed Plan: This is the anticipated remaining amount in the grant that will be billed this year.

San Gregorio Watershed Enhancement: This is the anticipated amount under two agreements that will be billed this year: We assume that an interagency agreement with USFWS for $39,994 will not begin before March and that we will not bill more than $5,000 to the agreement this fiscal year. We assume that we will not bill more than $2,000 to a pending subcontract with American Rivers for $8,200- $10,000 (total amount still under negotiation). $7,000 = $5,000 + $2,000

Fines and Mitigation Funds This is the amount we estimate that we could bill to the Caltrans mitigation fund for implementation of the Pilarcitos Integrated Watershed Management Plan if the interagency funding agreement for that work is not renewed or a similar funding source is not found. This estimate is based on the amount billed to this project last year for the Executive Director, subtracting ¼ for anticipated maternity leave during this fiscal year.

Individual Contributions

FY ‘11 Budget p. 4 of 8 We will pilot a direct mail campaign at the end of this calendar year, with a goal of receiving $400 in gifts to the RCD as a result. We anticipated $600 in gifts from directors towards the purchase of a computer. $1,000 = $400 + $600

Interest Income We anticipate earning $300 interest from all accounts this year.

Miscellaneous Income This estimate is based on the expectation of earning $200 from the silent auction at each of two Blue Circle events to help offset expenses to coordinate and host the program. $400= $200 x 2

Property Taxes The RCD expects to receive $51,000 in property taxes this year.

Service Fees We will bill California State Parks an administrative fee of $5,674 for contract management for the Pescadero Marsh survey. We will bill for water quality monitoring services with private entitities, estimated to be $5,288. We will bill at least $12,000 to partners in the Pilarcitos Restoration Workgroup who have agreed to reimburse us for funding the Pilarcitos stream gage. We anticipate collecting approximately $1,500 in fees for workshops we host. $24,462 = $5,674 + $3,288 + $2,000 + $12,000 + $1,500

EXPENSES

Personnel Salaries: This estimate assumes employment of a full-time Executive Director at 40 hours per week for 8 months (due to anticipated maternity leave), a full-time Fiscal Manager at 32 hours per week, a part-time Conservation Project Manager at 20 hours per week, a part- time Conservation Associate at up to 30 hours per week beginning in August, a part-time Conservation Assistant at 5 hours per month, two full-time AmeriCorps interns beginning in October at a cost of $7,500 each, and the estimated remaining hours for two staff members that are leaving the RCD. The subtotal of these estimated salaries is $206,516. Payroll taxes on that amount is approximately $16,438.

Holidays, vacation and sick time are included in the salary amount. Workers compensation and payroll taxes are estimated to be approximately 15% of the Fiscal Manager’s salary.

Benefits: Benefits include Workers Compensation for all employees; pro-rated contributions to medical benefits for the Conservation Project Manager, who is a shared employee with RCD of Santa Cruz County; medical benefits for the two full-time staff members; retirement contributions for the two full-time staff members at $150 per month per

FY ‘11 Budget p. 5 of 8 person; and dental, vision, and life insurance for the Executive Director at $78.69 per month.

Operating Expenses Accounting Services: The RCD owes $6,000 for the currently underway biennial audit for FYs ‘08 and ’09. $2,084 is past due for the biennial audit for FYs ’06 and ’07. If funds are available, this estimate includes $5,000 for a single year audit for FY ’10. $13,084 = $6,000 + $5,000 + $2,084

Bank Fees: This is the estimated potential cost for using the RCD line of credit to address cash flow shortages while waiting for reimbursement from grants and contracts.

Computer Services: This item is for technical support as needed. This estimated is based on the amount spent for this item in the previous fiscal year as well as the set up of new computers for additional staff this year, a new off-site data storage service, and technical assistance for seven computers rather than four previously.

Discretionary: This item is intended to cover unforeseen situations or take advantage of arising small-scale opportunities.

Equipment: This is for a new NRCS-compatible work station, furniture for new staff and necessary upgrades, paint, rental of a carpet washing machine, three phones and a phone system.

Insurance/ Liability: This is the amount that is charged to the RCD for liability insurance.

Legal: The RCD contracts with County Council for legal services. This is an estimate of the amount of services that may be required.

Membership, Dues and Subscriptions: Memberships include California Association of Resource Conservation Districts, Local Areas Formation Commission, California Special Districts Association, National Association of Conservation Districts, Bay Area Open Space Council, Special District Risk Management Authority, and San Mateo County Food Systems Alliance.

Mileage: This is for mileage expenses that are not billable to specific projects or use of the NRCS vehicle through a partnership agreement.

Postage and Delivery: This is for postage and delivery that is not supplied by the NRCS, and anticipates a direct mailing fundraising request this year.

Printing and Copying: This is for flyers, business cards, brochures, and the direct mail campaign.

Professional Development: This is for registration and materials for workshops, training, and conferences for staff and board members, such as the annual CARCD conference,

FY ‘11 Budget p. 6 of 8 technical workshops throughout the year, County trainings available to special district staff, and specialized training as needed, e.g. specific software.

Public Relations: This is for costs, including advertising fees, associated with promoting workshops, outreach, and general communications.

Rent: This item is for monthly rent for office space, $5,400 owed in deferred rent, and monthly costs for off-site storage.

Supplies: Although most office supplies are provided by the NRCS, there is occasionally a need for RCD-provided supplies.

Travel/Accommodations: This is to cover travel costs associated with professional development, such as AmeriCorps mentor training, CARCD conference attendance, and technical workshops that are not reasonable attended within a day.

Program Expenses (i.e. other than Personnel) Improving Ag Water Quality: To facilitate implementation of accepted conservation practices to reduce agricultural nonpoint source pollution and financial assistance to private land owners and agricultural producers participating in Farm Bill contracts. The cost estimate assumes $35,000 for construction and $1,300 to subcontractors for education and outreach assistance.

Blue Circle: To provide a forum twice this year for sharing ideas, information and resources for the goal of natural resource management, education, and stewardship. The cost estimates assume $200 in expenses per event, twice this year.

Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative : To improve irrigation efficiency on specialty crops in San Mateo County on five farms. The cost estimate is for a subcontract with the Farm Bureau to implement the project.

Critical Coastal Area: To improve water quality contributing to the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and Pillar Point Harbor. The scope of work is yet to be determined.

Fitzgerald Pollution Reduction: The workplan and contract have not yet been determined. This amount is an estimate of the amount of construction that might be completed this year.

Green Jobs Corps: To provide watershed literacy and job training in natural resources to low income high school students in Pescadero. $4,000 of the total budget is estimated for program expenses such as transportation and materials.

It Takes A Community to Care for a Watershed: To recruit, train, and support citizen volunteers to collect water quality data and learn how pollution enters the Sanctuary from their communities. This is the amount that is estimated for laboratory fees.

FY ‘11 Budget p. 7 of 8 Integrated Watershed Restoration Program: To facilitate and coordinate projects to improve fish and wildlife habitat and water quality, bring together various funding and permitting agencies to better coordinate how projects are funded and permitted, and create a forum for collaborative problem solving to complete resource conservation projects. This estimate is for conference calls and local mileage.

Livestock and Equestrian Water Quality: To provide assistance for operators of livestock and equestrian facilities to protect water quality. 79% of the total contract is allocated to program expenses. This estimate is 79% of the total amount estimated to be brought in as revenue this year.

Midcoast Groundwater Study : To take steps towards development of a groundwater management plan for the Midcoast region. This amount is the estimate of what will be needed for conference calls, mileage, and materials.

Pescadero TMDL Outreach: To provide education and outreach to stakeholders interested in studies in the Pescadero watershed that pertain to the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads. This is the amount estimated that will be needed for workshop expenses.

Pilarcitos Creek Integrated Watershed Management Plan: To convene Pilarcitos Restoration Workgroup and implement watershed plan. We anticipate that $12,000 will be paid to continue stream gaging through September and $200 will be needed for conference calls.

Pillar Point Harbor Pollution Study: To assess and identify sources of fecal pollution in Pillar Point Harbor and recommend plan for remediation. 71% of the total contract is allocated to program expenses. This estimate is 71% of the total amount estimated to be brought in as revenue this year.

Rural Roads Program: To improve rural road conditions, resulting in winterized roads requiring less maintenance and reduced sediment delivery into riparian habitats. This estimate assumes that $4,000 will be spent on a GIS work station, $200 for conference calls, and $35,000 for road assessments completed by subcontractors.

Workshops: To provide on-the-ground workshops to land managers to protect, restore, and conserve natural resources. We estimate that this amount will be needed for workshop expenses including presenter fee, facility rental, and associated materials.

FY ‘11 Budget p. 8 of 8

Work Plan Form

Applicant: San Mateo County Resource Conservation District

Watershed Name: San Francisco Coastal South Watershed (18050006)

Watershed Goal #1: Improve, protect, and enhance natural resources for fish, wildlife, agriculture, and public safety.

Objective # 1: Improve, protect, and enhance water quality. Performance Measurements: (a) Ongoing water quality data will be collected from 15 locations. (b) Achieve benchmarks in 35% of water quality improvement projects. (c) Reach 60% of residents and landowners in priority sub-watersheds.

Implementation Task Number Description of Task Task Completion Schedule Monitor parameters that may impair chemical, physical, or biological aspects of water quality to identify nonpoint source 1.1 Spreadsheets of data March 2011- March 2014 (NPS) contaminants and establish baseline monitoring data.

1.2 Establish benchmarks for water quality improvements. Benchmarks established March 2012

1.3 Work with partners and develop new partnerships to identify List of potential projects September 2011- March opportunities to reduce NPS contributions. 2014 1.4 Write and submit grant proposals to fund implementation of best 2 grant proposals March 2011- March 2014 management practices (BMPs). submitted 1.5 Provide or assist with acquisition of necessary technical expertise Minimum of 20 partners March 2011- March 2014 (including workshops) for landowners and land managers to receiving technical implement BMPs. assistance and 2 workshops 1.6 Partner with landowners, land managers, and other stakeholders to Minimum of 20 projects March 2011- March 2014 develop and implement BMPs. in development or implemented

Watershed Goal #1: Improve, protect, and enhance natural resources for fish, wildlife, agriculture, and public safety.

Objective # 2: Improve and protect water availability by improving instream flow and groundwater management. Performance Measurements: (a) Reach 60% of residents and landowners in priority sub-watersheds. (b) Scope of work developed for a Midcoast groundwater basin management plan.

Implementation Task Number Description of Task Task Completion Schedule Work with partners and develop new partnerships to identify September 2012- List of potential 2.1 March 2014 opportunities to conserve water. projects

2.2 Write and submit grant proposals to fund implementation of water 2 grant proposals March 2011- March conservation best management practices. submitted 2014

2.3 Provide or assist with acquisition of necessary technical expertise for land Minimum of 12 March 2011- March owners and managers to implement BMPs. partners receiving 2014 technical assistance 2.4 Partner with landowners, land managers, and other stakeholders to Minimum of 10 March 2011- March develop and implement BMPs. projects in development 2014 or implemented 2.5 Work with partners and develop new partnerships to assist San Mateo Scope of Work September 2011 County by developing scope of work for a Midcoast groundwater basin management plan.

Watershed Goal #1: Improve, protect, and enhance natural resources for fish, wildlife, agriculture, and public safety.

Objective #3: Improve, protect, and enhance aquatic, riparian, and upland ecosystem function. Performance Measurements: (a) Implement 4 habitat improvement projects. (b) Develop 6 additional habitat improvement projects to design phase.

Implementation Task Number Description of Task Task Completion Schedule Work with partners and develop new partnerships to identify ecosystem March 2011- March List of potential 3.1 2014 improvement projects. projects

3.2 Write and submit grant proposals to fund ecosystem improvement 1 grant proposal March 2011- March projects. submitted 2014

3.3 Partner with landowners, land managers, and other stakeholders to Minimum of 10 March 2011- March implement projects. projects in development 2014 or implemented

Watershed Goal # 2: Reduce barriers to conservation project implementation.

Objective #1: Facilitate cooperation and improve efficiencies in watershed stewardship. Performance Measurement: Track and disseminate information about target watersheds to 100% of identified stakeholders at least twice annually.

Implementation Task Number Description of Task Task Completion Schedule Maintain and share spreadsheet compiling resource inventories, watershed March 2011- March 1.1 Summary spreadsheet plans and stakeholder priority lists. 2014

1.2 Participate actively in collaborative watershed workgroups. Share Participation in a March 2011- March relevant information from other watershed groups and stakeholders minimum of 15 2014 regarding watershed stewardship. watershed workgroup meetings 1.3 Meet regularly with stakeholders and stakeholder groups that are not Participation in a March 2011- March formally associated as watershed groups. Share relevant information minimum of 20 2014 regarding watershed stewardship. meetings

1.4 Work with partners to coordinate development and implementation of 20 projects in March 2011- March projects identified in completed watershed plans. development or 2014 implemented

Watershed Goal # 2: Reduce barriers to conservation project implementation.

Objective # 2: Support local watershed partners in developing projects. Performance Measurement: Facilitate development of at least 2 new watershed projects by local partners.

Implementation Task Number Description of Task Task Completion Schedule Coordinate agencies that provide technical assistance, permits, and funds via San Mateo County’s Integrated Watershed Restoration Program 10 meetings with IWRP March 2011- March 2.1 (IWRP). team 2014

2.2 Work with local partners and IWRP team to identify and cultivate project 50 potential projects March 2011- March opportunities. Visit potential project sites to brainstorm possible project identified 2014 alternatives and project viability. 30 site visits completed

2.3 Once key projects are identified, work with partners to develop RFPs and 5 projects in September 2012- project teams and to develop project-specific work programs. development or March 2014 completed 2.4 Work with IWRP team on outstanding technical issues. Summaries of technical September 2012- considerations March 2014 2.5 Meet quarterly with leaders of San Mateo County Planning Department 12 meetings March 2011- March about projects that are in development. 2014

Watershed Goal # 3: Innovate, groundtruth, and share findings to determine best strategies for watershed management.

Objective #1: Utilize the RCD exchange network to coordinate watershed resources statewide. Performance Measurement: 100% of RCDs that receive Watershed Coordinator grants will exchange resources, provide support to each other, and otherwise coordinate watershed protection.

Implementation Task Number Description of Task Task Completion Schedule Share documents and strategies for watershed management with 103 RCDs throughout the state utilizing the California Association of Contributions made to 1.1 Resource Conservation Districts (CARCD) wiki website. 25 new wiki pages

1.2 Provide technical assistance to CARCD and other RCDs for 4 training meetings August 2011- implementation and adoption of wiki website. with wiki December 2013 administrators and 3 training workshops at CARCD state conferences 1.3 Participate in quarterly conference calls, regional meetings, and a special Attendance and October 2011- March session at the CARCD annual conference. participation in 2014 minimum of 15 meetings

P.O. Box 554  Pescadero, CA. 94060  www.mypuente.org  650.879.1691

October 2010

Ribbon cutting! Thanks to ______, Puenteʼs new toddler playground, complete with 3 groovy slides will be completed by the end of the week. Stop by!

Anna Eshooʼs support Kerry attendee a meeting with our congresswoman regarding our health care needs on the South Coast. The congresswoman acknowledged our communityʼs need to amend our Health Care FQHC status and promised to do some “fact finding” around the issue and asked Kerry to supply some background data to her office.

Community Health News Important to mention again: November 22nd Puente is partnering with the Health Dept to offer seasonal flu vaccines and the TDAP (Combined Tetanus, Diphtheria and Pertussis) vaccine in Pescadero at the community Church from 3pm to 8pm and in La Honda at the post office from 2pm to 6pm. These are of course offered with no income requirement.

Good enrollment in English & Spanish language classes and Zoomba is being offered every Tuesday and Thursday at 6pm, Class is open to all. It is a very popular offering, and sort of a “Latino Jazzercize!”

Save the Date! Friday, December 17th, La Posida Procession and Community Party! Puente is holding a holiday celebration beginning at St. Anthonyʼs commerating the trek of Joseph and Mary looking for safe quarters. The progression moves to the Community Church where there will be an art event sponsored by Logan Payne and others and then on to a holiday bash across the street at 350 Stage where there will be music, food and fun.

Opportunities to contribute Work day This Sunday, October 17th is another chance to wear those paint duds and help with some projects at Puente. Join the Social Action Community of Palo Altoʼs Fist Presbyterian Church. The plan is to paint the childrenʼs area and tackle some yard work.

Ongoing offer to join La Sala every Thursday evening from 6-8pm and Sunday, 4-6pm Meets at the Native Sonʼs it is an opportunity for the workers from the ranches and new members of our community to come together in a welcoming environment and learn of the services available in Pescadero. As always, everyone is welcome, home made food offered and many opportunities to improve your English or Spanish

Food distribution, generally the 4th Thursday of each month in Pescadero, available to anyone in need that day or that week. Additionally, St Anthonyʼs Church is distributing Second Harvest staples three Saturdays a month. Please spread the word.

Holiday Stockings Puente will be again gifting 200 stockings. Please help us by contributing fun stuff to stuff them with— school supplies, small toys, the cool, fun stuff kids appreciate! From: Karen McBride [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:16 PM To: Catherine Peery Cc: 'Matt Jacobs'; Jim Porter Subject: Re: Request to re-submit application

Hi Jim and Catherine, So the October 1st submittal for the SEARCH Grant from USDA/RD has opened. I would like to re-summit the application that you (Jim) filled out for Pescadero. Since that one was returned to me as it turned out to be a loan, we can now submit the same app for the SEARCH Grant. Since the County has applied, I wanted to ask permission to re-submit this one but for the Grant. I will be off next week but when I return would like to send it over to Santa Rosa USDA/RD offices on Monday 10/18. Let me know if you approve. Thanks

Karen D. McBride Rural Community Assistance Corporation Rural Development Specialist-Environmental Office (916) 447-9832 ext 1012 Cell (916) 549-3265 www.rcac.org www.rcap.org

Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) provides technical assistance, training and financing so rural communities achieve their goals and visions.

PESCADERO MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (PMAC) MEETING NOTICE AND PROPOSED AGENDA www.pescaderocouncil.org

Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 7:30 PM, Community Church Social Hall, Stage Road, Pescadero CA 94060 1. CALL TO ORDER AT 7:30/ROLL CALL, CHANGES TO ORDER OF AGENDA 2. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 3. PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. John Pliska—annual Alto Velo Bike Race B. Joe La Mariana from the County – status of transfer station, introduced by Matt Jacobs C. Geoff Allen is retiring from PMAC after 12 years—comments from Geoff, and remembrances and congratulations from Council members and the Community

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF LAST REGULAR MEETING 5. FINANCIAL REPORT – Financial Report- Treasurer, Greg Bonaparte 6. CORRESPONDENCE –Report, Corresponding Secretary, Kate Meyer Haas 7. REPORTS FROM CURRENT COMMITTEE CHAIRS AND COMMUNITY LIAISONS A. Pescadero Foundation/Housing –status of Native Sons and Warheit grants- Catherine Peery B. School Board Meeting liaison – Don McDermott C. Emergency Preparedness – Lary Lawson D. Liaison to Puente, County Health & Human Services – Kate Haas E. Communications Committee – Rob Skinner 8. LAND USE COMMITTEE MEETING – ALL MEMBERS OF PMAC A. Sewer System: Status of Grant Application with Public Works, RCAC – Karen McBride 9. NEW BUSINESS- A. Letter of support for Alto Velo B. Letter of support for Native Sons, second-step application C. Schedule goal-setting session, and viewing of community plan workshop for new and old council members. D. Sand bag signage—choice of wording regarding everyone taking their fair share.

10. OLD BUSINESS – A. Status of town sign permit process

11. Adjournment. Next meeting Tuesday, January 11, 2011, at Native Sons, and welcoming of new members, election of Officers,

Tuesday, October 12, 2010 7:30 P.M. Native Sons Hall, 112 Stage Road, Pescadero, CA 94060 www.pescaderocouncil.org

1. Call to order/Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 7:30pm by Chair, Catherine Peery Present: Catherine Peery (CP), Don McDermott (DM), Geoff Allen (GA), Greg Bonaparte (GB) and Rob Skinner (RS) Kate Haas (KH), Excused: David Lee (DL) Absent: None. 2. Public Comments not on the agenda: • Catherine began by dedicating the meeting in honor of Noel Diaz who passed away the end of August. Jim Reynolds honored Noel as a prominent farmer, and a lifelong and well-respected Pescadero resident. • Daniel Roberts, reported on the radio station’s plan to put up webcams in town, planning for 2. One at the firehouse where it floods, (Daniel offered that flooding report would be updating on radio additionally.) Second camera intended to be pointing at the town sign. Request was made to add the webcam issue to the agenda for next month to provide opportunity for community input. • RS – reported someone shot out the streetlight on Hwy 1 South of Pescadero Creek rd, further commented on the quick response from the County. • There will be an upcoming Brown Act meeting w/ County Council, covering compliance issues. Carolyn Shade, RS, Jake Bowman, CP will be attending. Invitation extended to anyone else in the community interested in attending. 3. Approval of Minutes of regular meeting from September 14, 2010: GA GB KH D CP RS M Motion XX Second XX Ayes/Nays X X X X X X Abstain Carried XX Failed 4. Financial Report: • GP reported $1,123.61 in the copier account. • GP reported $6,131.77 in the PMAC account. 5. Correspondence: • CP reported a grant application for Native Son’s Hall has been submitted. Unfortunately since the building is not a public one this may not satisfy the County’s requirements and the Hall restoration project may instead be considered a candidate for a County low interest loan. CP--request made for anyone willing to send a letter of support (for the effort) to Rich Gordon or the County. CP suggested emphasizing that this is the closest building Pescadero has to a public

1 one (aside from our schools) • Letter of support for RCD (via email) received a vote of yes from all members present 7. Reports from Current Committee Chairs and Community Liaisons: • Housing Committee – CP reported on CDBG grant application for the Warheit site. Puente is the fiscal sponsor, Pescadero Foundation is project Manager. • School Board – DM reported the school’s financial situation. School still needs to be very careful financially, there may yet need to make more cuts. There is a request for school board volunteers • Emergency Preparedness – No report, but discussion of a fire in Hidden Valley. Nancy Frost and others of the (78 member) ham radio cooperative were called to action but no evacuations were necessary, no damage, the fire was apparently intentionally set. • Communications Committee – No report. • Puente – KH reported new playground improvements, flu shots to be available at Second Harvest food day on Nov 22 in Pescadero and La Honda. Friday 17th of Dec Puente is holding their la Posada. Sunday 17th, workday opportunity for volunteers at Puente. 8. Land Use Committee Report: • Wastewater Treatment – CP reported on a new grant application to revise the feasibility study. Karen McBride of the Rural Community Assistance Corporation submitted the grant application on our behalf. 9. New Business • RS requested a vote to try the Community Church for our next meeting pointing out the space is more comfortable and ADA accessible, the vote carried with CP abstaining. • Discussion of the town sign and if there had been a “no sign” option? Question of who would maintain the sign • Results of the voting on the location determined the site furthest to the East • 3 permits will be needed, Public Works (an encroachment permit and it’s free,) Building and Planning permit (free,) and a Coastal Permit, (cost was not known.) In order to get the permits PMAC along with a nonprofit will have to apply • 30 community members/organizations contributed to the sign • Scheduling of the executive retreat for all PMAC members, moved to next meeting. 10. Old Business: • Scheduling of the executive retreat for all PMAC members, moved to next meeting. 11. Next Meeting: November 9th (later postponed to December 14, 2010) at 7:30pm 12. Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. by Chair, Catherine Peery Submitted by Kate Haas (filling in for recording secretary, David Lee)

2 From: "Kellyx Nelson" Date: October 28, 2010 4:19:19 PM PDT To: "'greg bonaparte'" , "'Catherine Peery'" , "'Kate Meyer Haas'" , , "'Geoff Allen'" , "'Rob Skinner'" , "'David Lee'" Subject: $$$ good news and bad news

First the good news…

You may recall that I submitted a concept proposal in July 2009 with the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) to develop a watershed council in Pescadero and to develop some solutions to the flooding problems. WHAT?!?! You don’t remember exactly what I’m talking about?!? Can’t imagine… anyway, I have pasted it below for your reference. Just this week, the concept proposal jumped yet another hurdle and looks very likely to get funded for about $100,000. If funded, we could start the projects in June 2011.

Now for the not-so-good news…

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. What looked like easy money now has a bunch of complicated forms associated with it that I have to try to hammer out before my looming maternity leave, when my plate was already full. The bottom line is that I will do my best but it might be pretty darn imperfect.

Also, I want to manage expectations up-front about what can be accomplished for flood control with this amount of money. Figure about $25K for the watershed council. That leaves about $75K to address flooding. I think this will enable us to do an extensive review of existing literature and data, hire someone to work with us to nail down and define when where and how flooding happens, convene stakeholders (including resource agencies that permit projects), do some surveying and morphological work, and get to a conceptual level of design solution. I’m not sure how far this will get us in engineered designs or permits, but we will look for funding to take it to the next level no matter where we end up.

So that’s the news. I wanted to keep you in the loop. I will send you the forms when I have finished filling them out.

Two unrelated issues: 1. Is this the current distribution list for PMAC? I think the website is outdated, as it still has Jackson, so I’m not sure. 2. Your website has an old RCD logo since our website is much more outdated than yours. J Whoever manages your site can contact me and I will send our new logo.

Best, Kx

·.¸¸¸.·´¯'·.¸¸·´¯'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸¸·´¯'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸ ><((((º>

Kellyx Nelson

Executive Director San Mateo County Resource Conservation District 625 Miramontes Street Suite 103 Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 phone: 650.712.7765 fax: 650.726.0494 www.sanmateorcd.org

Concept Proposal for IRWMP Funding in Pescadero Watershed July 1, 2009

The San Mateo County Resource Conservation District (RCD) requests funding to advance planning and collaboration in the Pescadero watershed in San Mateo County to lay the foundation for ecological restoration and flood control projects.

The RCD will partner extensively with community stakeholders, including the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council and the San Mateo County Farm Bureau to coordinate efforts in the watershed that will: 1. develop a solution or solutions to flooding problems in the town of Pescadero; and 2. build and convene a watershed council to enhance the economic, social, and ecological health of the watershed.

Solutions to Flooding Residents of the town of Pescadero repeatedly identify flooding as a priority resource management concern. There is extensive documentation of the issue in various reports and meeting minutes. The RCD will work with community and regulatory stakeholders to develop project designs and plans that consider community needs as well as resource protection constraints.

Watershed Council There is extensive interest in the Pescadero watershed, including a working group of public agencies focused on fish kills in the Pescadero Marsh. Some citizen groups convene independently to focus on watershed issues, including the Environmental Committee of the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council and local agricultural producers convened by the Farm Bureau. Historically there was a Coordinated Resource Management Planning process for the Pescadero-Butano watershed.

However, there is no current watershed-wide non-regulatory group established to bring together all of the interests in the watershed dedicated to enhancing and protecting the watershed by promoting individual, and community actions or undertaking collaborative projects. The RCD will work with partners to create an organization of community groups, government agencies, business, and academia that work cooperatively to solve problems in the watershed that uses an inclusive process to enhance the economic, social, and ecological health of the watershed.

Considerations for Restoration of the Pescadero Marsh

A Report Based upon the Proceedings of the December 2008 Public Forum Restoration of Pescadero Maarsh: Identifying Problems and Exploring Solutions

12/9/2010

Prepared for the Pescadero Marsh Working Group. Funding provided by the California Coastal Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Acknowledgments

On December 9, 2008, the Pescadero Marsh Working Group convened a public forum entitled: Restoration of Pescadero Marsh: Identifying Problems and Exploring Solutions. The Pescadero Marsh Working Group wishes to thank the Native Sons of the Golden West Pebble Beach Parlor #230 for providing the meeting facility and lunch for all of the participants. The Working Group would also like to thank the scientists, community members, agency staff, and others that gave their time to participate in the forum.

Considerations for Restoration of the Pescadero Marsh

Table of Contents List of Tables ...... 4 List of Figures ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Existing Conditions in Pescadero Marsh ...... 8 Previous restoration program ...... 8 Current State of the Marsh ...... 9 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 11 Shift in Management Perspective ...... 14 Restoration Goals for Pescadero Marsh ...... 14 Conceptual Model and Restoration Hypotheses ...... 16 Potential Restoration Actions ...... 27 References ...... 30 Appendix 1: Presentation Abstracts, December 2008 ...... 41 Appendix 2: Comments and responses to draft ...... 43

List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Pescadero Marsh Restoration Forum Proceedings ...... 7 Table 2: Summary of Hypotheses and Recommended Studies ...... 18 Table 3 Pescadero-Butano Sediment Yield. Source: Reproduced from ESA (2004)...... 40

List of Figures Figure 1 Pescadero Marsh Land Cover and Place Names...... 32 Figure 2 Water Quality Sampling Sites...... 33 Figure 3 Dissolved Oxygen in Pescadero Creek at Turtle Bend...... 34 Figure 4 Pescadero Marsh Fish Kill 1995-2007...... 35 Figure 5 Pescadero Marsh Conceptual Model...... 36 Figure 6 Date of Sandbar Formation 1978-2009...... 37 Figure 7 Monthly Mean Discharge in Wet, Dry, and Average Water Years Recorded at Pescadero Creek ...... 38 Figure 8 Location of Fish Kill...... 39

Introduction

Pescadero Marsh (Marsh) is a 340-acre coastal wetland that surrounds the lower channels of Pescadero and Butano creeks in San Mateo County, California (Figure 1). It includes a bar-built seasonal freshwater lagoon as a key ecological feature. The Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve, a designated area within Pescadero State Beach, encompasses 235 acres. The Pescadero-Butano watershed drains an area of approximately 81 square miles and has headwaters in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

During the past 150 years, residential, commercial, and agricultural development has resulted in the loss of approximately 91% of California’s coastal wetlands (Larson 2001); the Marsh is highly valued as one of the few coastal wetlands remaining. Of particular importance is the Marsh’s estuary/seasonal lagoon. Coastal lagoons are regarded as some of Earth’s most biologically productive ecosystems. The Marsh’s seasonal lagoon provides critical breeding and nursery areas for numerous species of fish, including the federally threatened steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Adjacent freshwater, brackish, and saltwater marshes, riparian vegetation, and upland areas provide essential habitat for a diverse assemblage of fish and wildlife, including multiple species of concern.

As is the case with the majority of California’s remaining coastal wetlands, the Marsh has been significantly altered due to land use changes in and around the Marsh and in the upper watershed (Viollis 1979, Curry et al. 1985, ESA 2008). It is estimated that at least half of the wetland area existing in the Marsh in 1900 was lost by 1960 (Viollis 1979).The Marsh’s hydrology and habitat quality continue to be impacted by a remnant levee system, episodic sediment deposition linked to past logging in the upper watershed, and upstream diversions from agricultural and residential development (ESA 2008). The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) owns and manages the Marsh, and in the past several decades has implemented projects directed at restoring the Marsh’s hydrologic functions and biological productivity.

Restoration of the Marsh, however, is far from complete. Restoration work that was implemented by DPR between 1993 and 1997 as part of the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Hydrological Enhancement Project (DPR 1992) resulted in unexpected changes to the Marsh’s physical structure and ecological function, presenting a new set of challenges to be addressed by future management (Swanson 2001, ESA 2008). Developing a sound restoration strategy is complicated from both an ecological and a regulatory standpoint. It requires not only an understanding of the complex physical and biological processes driving change in a naturally dynamic coastal ecosystem, but coordination among numerous resource agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and potentially conflicting management mandates.

Public agencies and other stakeholders formed the Pescadero Marsh Working Group (PMWG) with the mission to protect and enhance the ecological health of the Pescadero Marsh ecosystem through collaborative, science-based planning and action. In December 2008 PMWG held a one-day Restoration Forum in the Town of Pescadero at which

5 researchers and professionals with long-term experience in Pescadero Marsh made informative presentations about key biological populations, ecological processes, and current and past condition and functioning of the Marsh. A moderated panel discussion was held during which the group of workshop participants, composed of scientists, resource managers, and community members, discussed perceived problems facing the Marsh and generated a list of potential restoration goals and actions. The Forum proceedings are briefly summarized in Table 1, and presentation abstracts are presented in Appendix 1.

The purpose of this document is to synthesize the information presented by the speakers at the Forum into a set of recommended goals and hypotheses to assess in order to improve the working conceptual model of the Marsh. This document summarizes key understandings, identifies critical uncertainties, and suggests studies to reduce these uncertainties. It should be noted that Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted extensive studies for DPR (ESA 2002; Jackson 2003; ESA 2004; ESA 2008) to assess recent conditions in the Marsh, impacts of human activities, and potential restoration options (Dr. Daniel Sicular of ESA summarized the findings and conclusions of these studies at the Forum). In order to avoid duplication of effort the present document relies heavily on the thorough characterization and informed recommendations contained in the ESA publications and Dr. Sicular’s presentation.

The desired outcome of this effort is to develop consensus and momentum around an approach to move forward with restoration planning and action for the Marsh. However, in comments received during the review period for the draft version of this report, a number of fundamental disagreements became apparent regarding the approach to restoration that should be taken. In particular, the issue of whether to focus on establishing a system that can be maintained by natural processes or to establish a managed system that maximizes productivity of species of concern emerged as a key point of disagreement.

Similarly, multiple stakeholders have advocated for the restoration of the seasonal lagoon to freshwater conditions, at least in years of average to above average rainfall, but agreement has not been reached on the appropriate method of achieving this goal. Significant debate exists regarding the extent to which the timing of sandbar formation has changed and what point in time should be used as the restoration target. Neither has agreement been reached in determining whether sufficient information exists to manipulate the timing of sandbar closure as an interim experimental action while a hydrologic model of the system is being developed.

We have attempted to point out areas in the following discussion where consensus will be necessary before progress toward restoration can continue. To further characterize the nature of the unresolved issues surrounding restoration efforts in the Marsh, a matrix of comments received from reviewers and our responses are included in Appendix 2.

Introduction  Trish Chapman (California Coastal Conservancy) presented the mission statement of the Pescadero Marsh Working Group Presentations  Joanne Kerbavaz (California State Parks) provided a brief historical overview of the development of management objectives for Pescadero State Beach

 Tim Frahm (Native Sons), William Cook (Town of Pescadero resident), and Jim Steele (former Department of Fish & Game biologist) presented concerns about the functioning and management of the Marsh from the perspective of local farmers, fishermen, and residents

 Dr. Curt Storlazzi (U.S. Geological Survey) described the processes that control sandbar formation and breaching

 Dr. Daniel Sicular (Environmental Science Associates) summarized changes to the Marsh since the completion of the 1990s Enhancement Project and discussed restoration implications

 Dr. Nicole Beck (2nd Nature) described the role of nutrient availability and eutrophication as a mechanism for influencing water quality in coastal lagoons

 Rebecca Sloan (TRA Environmental Sciences) described the factors involved in the development of anoxic bottom waters in the Pescadero Lagoon during sandbar formation and the fish kills upon breaching

 Dr. Jerry Smith (San Jose State University) described the processes driving seasonal and annual variation of the ecology in lagoons of coastal California and discussed restoration implications for Pescadero Marsh Panel Discussion  Dr. Sean Hayes (National Marine Fisheries Service) summarized recent findings on growth and migration patterns of estuary-lagoon reared steelhead in the Scott Creek watershed

 Tom Taylor (ENTRIX) and Dr. Stuart Siegel (Wetlands and Water Resources) discussed how lessons learned from previous restoration attempts in the Marsh might aid in the development of a new management approach

 Dr. Jeffrey Haltiner (Philip Williams & Associates) discussed the need to quantify dominant processes in the Marsh in order to develop a numerical hydrodynamic model for use in restoration planning Q & A  Audience members directed questions to speakers and panel members

 Forum participants discussed potential restoration projects for the Marsh Table 1 Summary of Pescadero Marsh Restoration Forum Proceedings

Existing Conditions in Pescadero Marsh

The accumulated impact to the Marsh over the last several decades, combined with the rare nature of such minimally developed coastal lagoon habitat, has resulted in significant interest in restoring this ecosystem. Based upon the presentations at the Forum, this section provides a synopsis of the major problems facing the Marsh that will be used to identify potential goals for restoration. To place these goals in context, however, it is first necessary to understand the changes made to the system in an earlier restoration program, the current status of the Marsh (including key listed species), and the evolution of DPR’s perspective for management of the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve.

Previous restoration program. In the 1990s a major effort was undertaken to restore the Marsh through various physical manipulations of the landscape, and much of the discussion at the Forum centered around the impacts of these projects and their interactions with other stressors on the ecosystem. The Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Hydrological Enhancement Project (Enhancement Project) included a variety of physical changes to alter the hydrology of the Marsh undertaken by DPR between 1993 and 1997. This project was based upon the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Hydrological Enhancement Plan (PWA 1990).

North Pond (see Figure 1) was re-connected to the western portion of North Marsh and the lagoon by removing the levee between North Pond and North Marsh and excavating a channel from North Pond to Pescadero Creek through the Pescadero Creek right bank levee; this component of the project was implemented to increase scouring of the lagoon, improve water circulation in the pond, and provide valuable mud flat habitat for shorebirds in the late fall and winter. A system of gated culverts was installed to allow for management of flows to the North Pond/North Marsh complex. The management plan called for closing these culverts immediately following sandbar closure to curb freshwater inflows into North Pond and allow for rapid conversion of the lagoon from salt to freshwater. A set of higher elevation culverts allowed for freshwater flows into North Pond and North Marsh once the freshwater levels had risen in the rest of the lagoon. Once the lagoon mouth reopened, the culverts to the North Pond/North Marsh complex were to also be reopened. A low levee was constructed along North Marsh to prevent all but the most extreme high tides from flowing into existing freshwater/slightly brackish habitat for the California red-legged frog. Sag ponds were constructed to provide additional habitat. The overall objective of these restoration actions was to realize most of the potential tidal prism and to improve the habitat value of North Pond without threatening the existing habitat value of North Marsh.

Breaks in the levees between Middle and East Butano marshes, Middle and North Butano marshes, and North Butano Marsh and Butano Creek were widened and channels were excavated to re-connect remnant slough channels; this component of the project was implemented to restore fresh and tidal water circulation in the Butano marshes and improve Butano Creek flood conveyance. The majority of the levees were left in place to maintain basking habitat for the San Francisco garter snake.

The levee between Butano Creek and East Delta Marsh was removed, a tide gate at the northeast end of the drainage ditch that divides the Delta marshes (Phipps tide gate) was removed, and a channel was excavated to connect the ditch outside the levee to Butano Creek, the purpose of which was to restore natural hydrology and improve Butano Creek flood conveyance.

Current State of the Marsh. The Marsh is composed of seasonal fresh and brackish water marshes, brackish ponds, an estuary/lagoon at the Pescadero-Butano creek confluence, and riparian areas along the channels of Pescadero and Butano creeks. A brief overview of current conditions in each area of the Marsh, as described at the Forum by Dr. Sicular, Dr. Jerry Smith, Joanne Kerbavaz, and Rebecca Sloan, is provided below, with an emphasis on observed changes to hydrology, water quality, and habitat type since completion of the Enhancement Project. A more detailed discussion is available in ESA (2008).

North Pond/North Marsh. The Enhancement Project recommended ongoing, active management of the gated culvert system installed in the right bank levee of Pescadero Creek that was intended to control tidal flows to North Pond. This management program has not been implemented for many years and the gates are now largely inoperable. Observations indicate that North Pond is not flushing sediment from the lagoon as originally intended. “Operation and maintenance of the tide gates, and keeping the low levee in good repair have proven to be impractical” (ESA 2008, p.41).

Monitoring by Dr. Smith (1997) and ESA (2002-2003) found that the low levee constructed along North Marsh as part of the Enhancement Project was not built to the design height of +5.5 feet, and as a result when the sandbar closes more water than anticipated by the restoration design, and sometimes highly saline water, flows over the levee into North Marsh. The unanticipated flows have also contributed to erosion of the low levee. A breach in the levee was repaired in 1997, but another breach was discovered in 2001 (ESA 2008). The reduced height of the low levee limits the amount of freshwater that can be stored in North Marsh during the winter, and thus leads to the marsh drying out earlier in the summer. Data from the past 30 years shows that salinity levels in North Marsh have fluctuated significantly, based in part on season and location within the marsh. Today, there is significant debate among observers as to the extent to which general salinity levels have increased in North Marsh since the 1990s restoration.

Butano and Delta Marshes. The widened levee gaps and excavation of connecting channels as part of the Enhancement Project increased tidal intrusion into North and Middle Butano marshes and also improved conveyance of freshwater from Butano Creek through the Butano marshes. The downstream (northwestern) portion of North Butano Marsh has become more saline, while vegetation sampling in eastern-North, Middle and East Butano marshes indicated a shift from moderately saline to mildly brackish or freshwater conditions. The East Delta Marsh has been restored to brackish conditions.

Pescadero and Butano Creeks. A recovery of riparian forest along the channels of both Pescadero and Butano creeks was observed in 2002-2003, representing an increase

9 in habitat diversity (ESA 2008). Cross-sections of Pescadero Creek measured in 2002 showed slight aggradation of the creek bed (Jackson 2003), but these were considered within normal variation based on changes in sediment load from the watershed (ESA 2008). A slight lowering in the bed of Butano Creek was observed in the portion of the channel downstream from Triple Junction, but the creek bed in the vicinity of Pescadero Road Bridge was aggraded.1 ESA (2004) notes that

…Butano Creek, because of its low gradient, small drainage area, and the natural and built constrictions in its lower channel, does not have the ability to transport all of its sediment load to its mouth, and the material is instead deposited on the floodplains during floods, and in the stream channel, at and below the Alder Patch, at other times. Pescadero Creek, by contrast, has the ability to transport its sediment load all the way to the sea, enabling it to recover quickly from major storms and to maintain a remarkably stable bed elevation over time… (p. 2-8).

At the Forum, Dr. Sicular noted that the Pescadero Road Bridge and the levees along Butano Creek prevent Butano Creek from establishing a new channel and exacerbate the flooding of the creek at Pescadero Road Bridge. Flooding at the bridge is a major concern for residents of the Town of Pescadero and was an important topic of discussion at the Forum. In January, 2010, Butano Creek jumped its channel downstream of the Pescadero Road Bridge and is now flowing through the marshes as un-channeled flow (Sicular, pers. comm.)

Estuary/Lagoon. The Marsh transitions seasonally from an open estuarine system to a closed lagoon system. In winter and early spring the mouth of Pescadero Creek maintains full connectivity to the ocean, the main estuarine embayment is open to full tidal mixing, and some areas of the Marsh are subject to tidewater intrusion. In spring, summer, or fall, a sandbar constructed by low energy waves forms at the mouth of Pescadero Creek and remains in place until it is breached by winter storm flows (or by artificial means, most often carried out illegally). After the sandbar forms, the Marsh is separated from tidal influence and freshwater inflows inundate the marshes and raise the water level in the lagoon. As noted previously, the tidal estuary/seasonal lagoon and associated habitat is a key ecological feature of the Marsh.

At the Forum, Dr. Smith described the freshwater conversion process that takes place in the lagoon after the sandbar forms. As freshwater from Pescadero and Butano creeks flows over the top of seawater trapped behind the sandbar, the water column becomes stratified as the denser salt water forms a layer at the bottom of the lagoon and tidally influenced areas of the Marsh. The amount of freshwater needed to convert the lagoon toward de-stratified conditions is determined by the amount of seawater trapped in the lagoon at the time of bar closure and the lagoon volume. Sufficient freshwater inflows at the time of closure create enough hydraulic pressure to quickly squeeze the saline layer out through the sandbar. Dr. Smith noted that quick conversion to freshwater is likely to occur only under the conditions of early bar formation and substantial inflow at the time

1 ESA (2008) notes that Swanson (2001) observed a sediment plug from 1,200 feet upstream of the Pescadero Road Bridge to 2,000 feet below the bridge, and during the ESA surveys sediment accretion was observed down to 3,200 feet below the bridge. 10 of bar formation (wet years). Under other conditions the conversion may be slower or may not fully occur at all.

Observations made by Dr. Smith and others indicate that although sandbar formation in the1980s typically occurred between the months of May and July, bar formation since completion of the Enhancement Project and replacement of the Highway 1 Bridge in the early 1990s has usually been delayed until September or October (see Figure 6). Dr. Smith hypothesizes that this delay is associated with the formation of a reverse delta of beach sand extending up the lagoon, rather than depositing at the mouth to form a sandbar. Late sandbar formation has been linked to a strongly salinity stratified lagoon in fall with severe hypoxia and anoxia. Limited impoundment of freshwater during the rainy season combined with late sandbar formation can result in the drying of most of North Marsh throughout the summer. It should be noted that the historic record of sandbar closure and opening is incomplete and conflicting conclusions have been drawn from the available data.

ESA (2008) conducted periodic water quality sampling in summer and fall of 2002 in different areas of the Marsh at stations that were established by Dr. Smith after completion of the Enhancement Project (Figure 2), and DPR and Rebecca Sloan conducted additional monitoring at these sites prior to and during sandbar closure and immediately following the sandbar breach between 2004 and 2007. These studies found anoxic conditions in the lower water column following sandbar closure at sampling locations throughout the Marsh, including: Pescadero Creek at Grassy Point and Turtle Bend; the connecting channel between Pescadero Creek and the North Marsh culverts and throughout the North Pond/North Marsh area; Butano Creek at the ditches leading to the Foot Bridge and the former Phipps tide gate, and Butano Marsh near the Boat Launch (see Figure 1). Many of the artificial channels were also associated with hydrogen sulfide (H2S) formation (H2S is a product of anaerobic decomposition). Rebecca Sloan found that hypoxic/anoxic bottom water conditions observed while the sandbar was in place during the fall of 2004 and 2005 persisted until several days after the breaching of the sandbar (Figure 3).

A fish kill coinciding with the breach of the sandbar has been observed in multiple years since completion of the Enhancement Project and has included steelhead trout; the first major fish kill was documented in 1995. Sandbar dynamics and the fish kill are discussed in greater detail in later sections of this report.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Multiple species of concern use habitats provided by the estuary/lagoon and marshes for foraging, breeding, rearing, and/or transition to oceanic conditions. These include steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), and Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata). A key goal of the Enhancement Project was to maintain habitat for state and federally listed species, and state and federal mandates to protect and enhance these endangered populations are a critical aspect of restoration. At the Forum, Dr. Smith discussed the general requirements and known use of marsh and

11 estuary/lagoon habitats for each species, which is summarized below. It is important to note that marsh and estuary/lagoon conditions vary among seasons and years, and seasonal and year to year habitat requirements of different species are also different. All parts of the estuary/lagoon and marshes do not have to suit the habitat requirements of all species at all times, but instead have to provide certain conditions at particular times.

Steelhead Trout. The Pescadero-Butano watershed is known to support an annual steelhead run. In years when the closed lagoon converts to freshwater conditions, it provides important summer and fall rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead and can account for the majority of smolt production in the watershed (Smith 1990, 2008). Rearing juveniles require adequate dissolved oxygen and temperature, adequate depth to escape from predators, and abundant food to cope with high water temperature (metabolic rate increases as water temperature increases). Lagoon-reared steelhead can attain much larger sizes than their stream-reared counterparts (Bond 2006). The estuary/lagoon also provides a transition habitat in late winter and spring for smolts from the upper watershed, with abundant food for spring growth and saltwater pockets for adjusting to oceanic conditions. According to Dr. Smith, the open estuary is well-mixed by the tides and maintains levels of dissolved oxygen sufficient to support steelhead trout. An open estuary appears to provide better steelhead rearing habitat in drought years, when the closed lagoon would be saline, stratified and warm because of limited freshwater inflow. In years with adequate inflows for freshwater conversion, the impounded freshwater lagoon provides much more steelhead rearing habitat than the open estuary. However, in recent years the poor water quality observed in the closed lagoon reflects a decrease in steelhead habitat quality and appears to be associated with steelhead kills during the winter breach of the sandbar.

Tidewater Goby. The tidewater goby spends all life stages in the closed lagoon and/or backwater channels, use habitats of a wide range of salinity (freshwater to full- strength seawater) and temperature (8 – 25°C), and can tolerate extremely low levels of dissolved oxygen. They breed and thrive in summer in calm (non-“tidewater”) conditions, provided by the closed lagoon or backwater areas, and need winter refuge against storm flows and strong tidewater movement, as well as refuge from drought. They are an annual species, requiring these suitable conditions each year to maintain presence in the Marsh. As they do not establish populations more than 1 to 2 miles from other sites they inhabit, if extirpated from the Marsh they are unlikely to re-colonize. According to Dr. Smith, tidal summer conditions in the main embayment and drying of North Marsh have probably reduced tidewater goby habitat by 80% and their abundance significantly.

California Red-Legged Frog. The California red-legged frog (CRLF) breeds between December and April, and metamorphosis occurs between early summer and fall. Eggs require low salinity levels (less than 4 parts per thousand (ppt)), as do larvae (4-8 ppt, depending upon tadpole size). Adults can tolerate salinity levels of up to 10 ppt, although studies conducted in the Marsh found that adults tended to vacate areas with salinities of greater than 6.5 ppt (Jennings and Hayes 1990). Red-legged frogs are often associated with water with a depth of greater than 0.7 m and thick emergent vegetation

12 for adequate cover. As they are relatively long lived, with a life expectancy of 5 to 10 years, breeding success is not needed every year for populations to persist in the Marsh. Pescadero Marsh was identified as a core population area with one of the highest identified populations of CRLF. Observations in 2002-2003 indicated that some areas of both Delta marshes provide suitable habitat for the red-legged frog (ESA 2008). According to Dr. Smith, drying of North Marsh (and probably parts of Butano Marsh) in summer, and its high salinity, prevent its use by CRLF. These factors may have reduced CRLF abundance in the North Marsh significantly; however, there has not been surveying to verify current CRLF abundance in North Marsh or elsewhere in the Pescadero Marsh system.

San Francisco Garter Snake. The San Francisco garter snake (SFGS) breeds from June through September. They forage in aquatic habitat, where they use dense emergent and bank-side vegetation for cover, and they overwinter in upland habitat. They have been observed to use riparian areas and remnant levees in the Marsh as basking habitat, although observations from 2002-2003 indicate that dense vegetation growth on remnant levees in the Butano and Delta marshes has reduced their suitability as basking habitat (ESA 2008). ESA (2008) recommends determining whether or not lack of basking habitat in this area is a limiting factor to the SFGS population. Abundance of prey species does appear to be an important limiting factor in the Marsh (Smith, 2008). San Francisco garter snake adults feed primarily on red-legged frog adults, juveniles and larvae, and therefore tend to occupy freshwater habitat. Juveniles feed primarily on the smaller Pacific tree frogs (Hyla regilla). There is disagreement among observers as to whether the low use of Pescadero Marsh by SFGS is a historic condition or has resulted from changes in conditions caused by the 1990s restoration or other factors. According to Dr. Smith, reduction of the CRLF population in the North Marsh and probably parts of Butano Marsh has likely significantly reduced SFGS abundance in the Pescadero Marsh. However, surveys in 1979 (Steele) and 1984 (McGinnis) found very low use of Pescadero Marsh by SFGS, and neither survey founds snakes in North Marsh.

Western Pond Turtle. The western pond turtle is a freshwater species that can tolerate moderate salinity. They nest in sunny, sparsely vegetated habitats such as grasslands and non-irrigated agricultural fields above the flood plain and over-winter in seasonal or perennial wetlands or in upland habitats. They require adequate basking sites, emergent vegetation, and suitable escape cover, such as undercut banks, submerged vegetation, logs, and mud. Smith and Reis (1997) note that western pond turtles were “frequently observed” in various locations in the Marsh during surveys conducted in 1995 and 1996, including “in the upstream portion of Pescadero Creek, where salinities were lower and where logs provided basking habitat and escape cover” as well as in the channel to East Delta Marsh and the north ditch of North Marsh. The report notes, “Potential upland nest sites appear plentiful and include open, south-facing levee banks and the cattle pasture east of Pescadero Creek (Smith and Reis 1997, p.13). ESA (2008) notes that western pond turtles were observed in Pescadero Creek in the vicinity of Turtle Bend during surveys of the Marsh conducted in 2002.

Shift in Management Perspective. In addition to the changes in the Marsh caused by the Enhancement Project, goals for restoration are influenced by the evolution of DPR’s perspective on management. This evolution was summarized by Joanne Kerbavaz of DPR at the Forum as a shift from managing individual features of the Marsh to restoring ecosystem processes.

During the panel discussion at the Forum, panelists expressed agreement that reliance upon natural processes and functions is a restoration approach that is preferred over the use of active measures that require consistent human intervention and maintenance. However, other forum participants including Dr. Jerry Smith and representatives of the California Department of Fish and Game have advocated that active management will likely be necessary to protect and enhance sensitive species habitat. In comments on the draft version of this report, reviewers from the California Department of Fish and Game stated that restoration goals should be consistent with DFG’s public trust responsibility to maximize productivity of species of special concern, noting that if active management is required to restore biological productivity, as is the case in many wildlife preserves, it should take precedence over a reliance on natural processes.

Restoration Goals for Pescadero Marsh

Five key problems to be addressed by restoration actions emerged from the discussion at the Forum. These are(1) fish kills associated with the sandbar breach, (2) degradation of water quality (low dissolved oxygen) in the lagoon and other areas of the Marsh following sandbar closure, (3) degradation of steelhead rearing habitat resulting from fewer days of closed, freshwater lagoon, (4) loss of fresh and brackish water habitat, and (5) sediment accretion in Butano Creek at the Pescadero Road Bridge (associated with problematic flooding in adjacent agricultural fields and flooding and recurrent closure of Pescadero Road – the main access point into the Town of Pescadero). Restoration goals must address these problems by promoting feasible actions that apply our understanding of the Marsh and are consistent with DPR management objectives.

Based upon the discussion at the Forum, it appears that there are four major restoration goals for the Marsh:

1) Reduce the fish kills 2) Restore water quality and habitat conditions in the seasonal lagoon and establish and sustain a mix of healthy wetland habitats 3) Restore early sandbar closure in wet years, to produce a converted freshwater lagoon and to maintain summer flooding of North Marsh. 4) Base restoration to the maximum extent possible on restoring natural processes

The issue of sediment accretion at Butano Creek is outside the scope of a restoration effort in the marsh. However, potential restoration actions should be evaluated such that they do not exacerbate the already problematic flooding situation at Pescadero Road. Challenges and uncertainties associated with each restoration goal are discussed below.

Reduce the fish kills. The die-offs associated with the sandbar breach have been observed to affect multiple aquatic species, but the focus has been on the impacts to the listed steelhead. A key challenge to achieving this goal is the expected difficulty in quantifying the impact of restoration actions. An annual carcass survey is conducted following the breach event and the number of steelhead carcasses counted varies significantly from year to year (Figure 4).

It is unclear whether the variable survey results represent true variation in mortality or simply the imprecision of carcass retrieval. Rebecca Sloan pointed out that any number of mortalities might be unaccounted for each year, citing potential factors such as rapid consumption of carcasses by scavenger species or washing of carcasses into the ocean immediately after the sandbar breach. This variability could confound our ability to detect a reduction in the fish kill unless the reduction was large and consistent among years.

At the Forum Sean Hayes described a phenomenon observed in the Scott Creek watershed, in which steelhead migrate in November from the lagoon to upstream freshwater habitat instead of heading to the ocean. Similar behavior may occur in the Pescadero system, which could isolate a significant fraction of the steelhead population from the fish kill event; however, this migration has not been observed in Pescadero Marsh. In addition, evaluating the relative extent of the fish kill is challenging because the size of the steelhead population is unknown.

Restore water quality and habitat conditions in the seasonal lagoon and establish and sustain a mix of healthy wetland habitats. Restoring ecological function to the closed lagoon will require modifying the system such that in non-drought years, biological productivity is supported by abundant fresh water habitat, relatively cool water temperatures, and high dissolved oxygen levels. At present there appear to be several factors that combine to reduce biological productivity (particularly of key species), but causal relationships among these factors is not understood well enough to design restoration projects with confidence. The remainder of this document addresses the complexity of this issue.

Establishing and sustaining a mix of healthy wetland habitats will likely change the relative proportions of fresh, brackish, and salt marsh habitat. It will be necessary to determine how much loss of certain habitats, in particular tidal salt marsh, would be acceptable to stakeholders in order to increase other types of habitats, such as brackish and freshwater marsh. It will then be necessary to determine if this conversion would be considered significant by regulatory agencies and whether mitigation would be required.2

2 Regulatory considerations apply to all restoration goals. At a minimum, projects in the marsh will require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (including consultation with NMFS and US Fish and Wildlife Service), Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Commission, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Proposed projects may also be subject to environmental review under NEPA and/or CEQA. For each project, it will be necessary to determine (1) the potential impacts on listed species, coastal- dependent and migratory birds, fish, and other Marsh-associated biota; and (2) the potential reductions in federally protected sensitive habitat. 15

Base restoration to the maximum extent possible on restoring natural processes. If physical characteristics of the Marsh were restored to a more natural configuration, a full restoration of natural processes would still not be possible given the extent of development in watershed. Anthropogenic factors in the upper watershed, such as road- related sedimentation and modification of quantity and/or quality of freshwater inflows (reduction in upstream water supply associated with diversions, agricultural runoff, inflows from the proposed wastewater treatment plant, etc.), will influence the “restored” Marsh to an unknown degree. Given the potential unpredictable nature of anthropogenic influences over time, it may be difficult to determine how the system might be expected to change in terms of habitat type distribution and availability. Further, future restoration projects will be affected by climate change (current predictions for rise in sea level and altered seasonal rainfall patterns will change Marsh hydrology). Resiliency to climate change will be an important consideration in evaluating restoration scenarios.

Conceptual Model and Restoration Hypotheses

Understanding the ecology of this complex and dynamic ecosystem will enhance the likelihood that restoration actions taken will contribute to achieving restoration goals in the Marsh. The first step in this process is to use existing knowledge of the Marsh to develop a basic conceptual model of how the ecosystem functions, including the primary factors influencing conditions in the Marsh and the linkages between these factors. The conceptual model can then be used to develop hypotheses regarding the causes of key ecological problems, potential restoration actions, and potential impacts of restoration actions on the ecosystem. Where significant uncertainties exist about the impacts of a potential restoration action, targeted studies can be conducted to address these uncertainties and the conceptual model can be refined. The refined model can then be used to design projects and obtain permits. Post-project monitoring should be conducted to track results; information obtained from monitoring will be used to modify the conceptual model for future implementation of restoration projects and/or for modification of existing projects.

Using existing knowledge about the Marsh and its watershed, the PMWG developed a draft conceptual model of the ecosystem that was made available to participants at the Forum (Figure 5). The model indicates how the important physical features and ecological processes interact to influence habitat and species of concern. The model also identifies those processes that can be influenced by management actions.

Using the conceptual model, it is possible to identify six key hypotheses regarding the causes of the previously listed problems in the Marsh. Determining if these hypotheses are true or false will provide essential guidance for the design and implementation of restoration actions, and investigating these hypotheses will therefore be an important part of restoration planning. Based upon the presentations and discussion at the Forum, the supporting evidence, critical uncertainties, and potential studies to address uncertainties are presented below for each hypothesis. The hypotheses are organized into three groups:

Understanding the Sources of Water Quality Impairment, Investigating Temporary Actions to Prevent the Fish Kill, and Understanding the Impacts of Reconnecting Creeks with the Floodplain (Table 3).

Hypothesis Suggested Study

1) The tidal prism has increased, Use a hydrologic model to determine if leading to delayed closure of the reducing tidal prism would lead to earlier sandbar. bar closure.

Estimate the time required to convert the lagoon to freshwater based on known data about lagoon volume, freshwater Understanding Sources inflows, and rate of seawater loss. of Water Quality 2) Delayed sandbar formation and Impairment changes in marsh hydrologic Refine and complete the record of

connections decrease the likelihood sandbar formation and breaching pre-

that the lagoon will convert from and post- Enhancement Project.

saltwater to freshwater conditions, exacerbating the development of Continue water quality sampling during anoxic bottom waters. sandbar closure to determine extent of eutrophic conditions and their correlation with dissolved oxygen.

Identify and quantify water diversions in the watershed.

Monitor changes in the section of Butano 3) The fish kill is a result of inflow of Creek that now flows through the Butano anoxic bottom waters from the marshes, and determine whether action channels of the Butano marshes at the should be taken to configure a new Investigating time of the sandbar breach. Temporary Actions to channel. Prevent the Fish Kill 4) Most steelhead move upstream when water quality declines in the Undertake a major monitoring effort to lagoon, and the fish kill represents a track the steelhead in the lagoon and small component of the population. Pescadero and Butano Creeks.

5) Changes in marsh hydrologic Repair the low levee. connections have reduced habitat for fresh and brackish water species by Use a hydrologic model to predict increasing tidal intrusion, reducing changes to the salinity regime of the freshwater impoundment, and reducing marsh under various conditions of flow flood conveyance. and levee configurations. Understanding

Impacts of Monitor changes in the section of Butano Reconnecting Creeks Creek that now flows through the Butano with the Floodplain marshes, and determine whether action 6) Man-made structures constrict the should be taken to configure a new lower channel of Butano Creek, channel. reducing sediment transport and flood

conveyance through Butano Creek and Use modeling developed to address marshes. Hypothesis 5 to determine the effects of reconnecting Butano Creek to its floodplain. Table 2: Summary of Hypotheses and Recommended Studies

Understanding Sources of Water Quality Impairment. Hypotheses 1 and 2 concern water quality problems that have been observed during sandbar closure. Warm, oxygen- depleted bottom waters in the Marsh result in low biological productivity (low invertebrate abundance) and reduce the quality of rearing habitat for steelhead and other aquatic organisms (Smith 1990). Identifying the main factors contributing to poor water quality conditions is necessary to develop restoration actions to address this problem.

Hypothesis 1: The tidal prism has increased, leading to delayed closure of the sandbar.

As noted previously, observations indicate that the sandbar forms in late fall since completion of the Enhancement Project as opposed to late spring or early summer as primarily seen in the 1980s, and delayed sandbar formation has been linked to poor water quality conditions in the Marsh. At the Forum, Dr. Curt Storlazzi of the U.S. Geological Survey explained the process of sandbar formation. Longshore currents, generated by small waves approaching the shore at an angle, carry sand along the shore down from the direction of wave approach. As the sand is transported, bar formation can occur at the mouth of streams when stream discharge and tidal exchange are low. Beach sand along the coast of California is typically transported from north to south due to waves predominantly approaching the shoreline from the northwest; during an El Niño year, however, waves approach from the west or southwest and southward transport of sand is less common (Patsch and Griggs 2006; Storlazzi 2008).

The tidal prism, which is the volume of seawater moving in and out of the estuary on the tides, is defined by the morphology of the estuary. A smaller tidal prism means lower tidal current velocities that would promote bar formation for a given longshore transport rate, while a larger tidal prism, for the same longshore transport rate, would inhibit bar formation. The tidal prism is known to have increased following the 1990s restoration.

It is important to note that the tidal prism in existence prior to the Enhancement Project was itself an artifact of the extensive levee system that was already in place at that time. It is likely that the historical tidal prism prior to anthropogenic changes to the marsh was larger than the present tidal prism. Indeed, the Enhancement Plan noted as a constraint the need to not allow full restoration of the historic tidal prism so that the lagoon mouth would not stay open too far into the summer (PWA 1990).

Dr. Storlazzi explained that the tidal prism is just one of multiple factors influencing sandbar formation. Formation of the sandbar also depends upon winds, which generate the currents and waves that drive longshore sediment transport; waves, which generate currents and re-suspend sediment and can be either constructive (small, long-period waves) or destructive (large, short-period storm waves); precipitation and run-off, which deliver sediment (constructive) and water (destructive) to the estuary; oceanic water level, which determines the elevation of wave attack and drives water flow across the estuary’s mouth; and sand abundance. During El Niño winters, which are characterized by frequent, intense storms and higher-than-normal sea levels and wave heights, severe beach erosion can occur, reducing the sand supply and delaying sandbar formation

(Storlazzi 2008). In some years, stream flows alone may be sufficient to delay sandbar formation (ESA 2008). ESA (2008) estimated that stream flows of 11 ft3s-1 at the mouth would be sufficient to keep the mouth scoured and prevent sandbar formation. Relatively early closure during the late 1980s may have been influenced by low stream flows during the drought (Sicular pers. comm).

To assess Hypothesis 1 a hydrologic model could be developed to evaluate the effects of the tidal prism on pre-1990s and post-restoration conditions in the Marsh and used to evaluate the probability that reducing the tidal prism would lead to earlier bar closure.

If the model suggests that reducing the tidal prism would lead to earlier bar closure, a reversible reduction in the tidal prism could be designed, implemented, and the effect on the sandbar monitored. It has been suggested such a reduction could be achieved by temporarily blocking off the culverts to North Pond.3 Although early closure of the mouth may be desirable for conversion to freshwater, it may not be possible to accomplish due to the multiple factors influencing sand bar formation. ESA (2008) conclude that “it seems unlikely that manipulation of the closure date is possible” due to the interaction of processes involved in sandbar formation.

Hypothesis 2: Delayed sandbar formation and changes in marsh hydrologic connections decrease the likelihood that the lagoon will convert from saltwater to freshwater conditions, leading to the development of anoxic bottom waters.

The Enhancement Project increased tidal intrusion into some areas of the Marsh, including North Marsh and North Pond via the channel through the Pescadero Creek right bank levee and North and Middle Butano marshes via the reconnected slough channels and ditches in the Butano marshes (ESA 2008). This has resulted in an increase in the amount of seawater trapped in the Marsh following sandbar closure, which in turn increases the quantity of freshwater needed to de-stratify the lagoon. As noted earlier, observations indicate that since completion of the Enhancement Project, the sandbar tends to form later in the year, with closure occurring more often in the late summer or fall rather than in the spring or early summer (Figure 6).

Rebecca Sloan noted that spring sandbar formation does still occur. During her studies of the Marsh, sandbar closure occurred in April of both 2004 and 2007. On both occasions, the sandbar was breached shortly after formation and did not reform until the late fall. It is not known if the breaching was natural or artificial.4

At the Forum Dr. Smith noted that late sandbar formation reduces both the rate at which de-stratification occurs and the time available for complete freshwater conversion before

3 This action must be accompanied by monitoring of sensitive habitat and species in the vicinity of the project and must be reversible so that negative ecological impacts, should they occur, can be minimized. 4 It is known that artificial breaching of the sandbar occurred prior to DPR’s acquisition of the Marsh, and reports from local residents indicate artificial breaching still occurs in some years. The frequency of artificial breaching is unknown and difficult to monitor.

20 the bar is breached by winter storms. Low stream flows typical of late summer (Figure 7) are often insufficient to facilitate conversion. In addition to late sandbar formation, conversion to freshwater conditions can be delayed or prevented due to drought (insufficient freshwater inputs), seawater over-wash into the closed lagoon (re-stratifying the lagoon), or natural or artificial breaching of the sandbar followed by sandbar re- formation (reintroducing saltwater and re-stratifying the lagoon) (Smith 1990).

Dr. Smith explained that in the absence of sufficient freshwater inflows, deeper portions of the lagoon and wind-protected areas of the Marsh can remain stratified for prolonged periods due to lack of convective mixing. Oxygen consumption is greatest at the bottom of the water column where organic matter accumulates and is decomposed. Stratification also leads to warmer bottom waters. During daylight hours, solar radiation heats the water column. Night-time air temperatures cool surface waters, but density stratification prevents advection of heat from the bottom saline layer to the surface and heat remains -1 -1 trapped within the saline layer. Hypoxic (< 2 mg O2 L ) or anoxic (0 mg O2 L ) conditions eventually develop in the bottom waters due to biological consumption of dissolved oxygen and decreased oxygen solubility associated with elevated water temperature. Anoxic conditions can in turn produce abundant reduced iron and sulfur compounds with high chemical oxygen demand. Mobilization of these compounds during a breach event can rapidly deplete surface oxygen.

Studies conducted by Dr. Smith prior to implementation of the 1990s restoration indicated some inter-annual variability in lagoon water quality conditions and ecology (Smith 1990), based upon timing of sandbar formation and amount of inflows to the lagoon, and he noted at the Forum that natural variability will result in the lagoon environment not being optimal for all species in all years.

As discussed previously, studies conducted between 2001 and 2007 by ESA, DPR, and Rebecca Sloan indicate that following sandbar closure, anoxic bottom waters form in multiple locations throughout the Marsh and appear to persist until several days after the sandbar breach. Rebecca Sloan concluded that anoxic conditions were driven by both salinity stratification and eutrophication. Her studies of the Marsh between 2004 and 2007 indicated that during sandbar closure, salinity was the only independent variable that was significantly correlated with oxygen availability, explaining 39% of the variability in dissolved oxygen in the water column. She also found that Chlorophyll a, Secchi disk depth, and surface nitrate and phosphate measurements taken in the Marsh during sandbar closure suggested medium to high levels of eutrophication (Bricker et al. 1999), especially in certain locations. Dr. Smith suggests that salinity stratification, not eutrophication, is the dominant feature of the water quality problem in the Marsh, citing well-mixed systems such as the Pajaro and Salinas lagoons that, despite having highly eutrophic conditions due to abundant agricultural return flows, maintain relatively high dissolved oxygen levels.

In concluding remarks, Ms. Sloan stated that understanding the timing and nature of sandbar formation and breach, including those artificially performed by the public, should be the number one management priority in the marsh. She noted that current water

21 quality data do not characterize the marsh adequately because they are influenced by artificial breaches. For instance, Ms. Sloan thought it likely that the sandbars that formed in the spring of 2004 and 2007 were artificially breached. These breaches undoubtedly altered water quality throughout the marsh for the remainder of the summer and fall, and almost certainly impacted the entire lagoon ecosystem.

Diversions in the upper watershed also have a significant impact on the Marsh, as the quantity of freshwater inflows is directly linked to habitat quality. Current estimates for freshwater inflows into the Marsh are obtained from the USGS gauge at stream mile 5.3 on Pescadero Creek (see Figure 7), but Forum participants noted that numerous diversions exist downstream of the gauge. Developing a better understanding of the extent of upstream diversions and their impact on streamflow will therefore be critical in restoration planning.

To determine if Hypothesis 2 is true or false, there are several questions that must be addressed by separate studies.

Question 1: To what degree can natural variables (i.e. rainfall and seawater intrusion) be expected to influence the rate of the freshwater conversion? To address this question an analysis should be conducted to estimate the time required to convert the lagoon to freshwater based on known data about lagoon volume, freshwater inflows, and rate of seawater loss. The volume of seawater likely to be trapped in the Marsh by the sandbar can be estimated with current information for bathymetry and tidal prism. The most recent surveys of bathymetry or hypsometry in recent years were the cross section surveys conducted by ESA in 2001-2002. New surveys will be necessary for accurate modeling, as some areas of the Marsh appear to have changed substantially. Using streamflow data from the USGS gauge on Pescadero Creek (and estimates of flows from Butano Creek), the time needed for freshwater conversion for dry, average, and wet years can be approximated.

This analysis would allow us to roughly model the conversion process, and to develop the capacity to predict conditions or years in which the lagoon will be stratified or will convert to freshwater. Monitoring to track the state of the lagoon can then be used to test predictions and refine the conceptual model. If our predictions are accurate, we can be more confident about using the conceptual model to design restoration actions.

Question 2: How frequently does spring sandbar formation occur and how quickly is the sandbar typically breached? To answer this question we can refine and complete the record of sandbar formation and breaching to the maximum extent possible. Tracking sandbar formation and breaching will allow these events to be correlated to environmental phenomena (i.e. storm events) or possible human intervention (i.e. illegal artificial breaching). A method for monitoring/preventing illegal artificial sandbar breaching, such as installing a web camera, will likely be needed). Understanding if the sandbar is forming early in the year but being breached is important if this early season

22 breaching can be controlled by management actions, as this would theoretically enhance the conversion of the marsh to freshwater conditions and prevent salinity stratification.

Question 3: How significant a factor is eutrophication in the formation of anoxic bottom waters? This question can be addressed by continuing water quality sampling during sandbar closure to determine the extent of eutrophic conditions and their correlation with dissolved oxygen. If eutrophic conditions were correlated strongly with dissolved oxygen concentrations regardless of salinity stratification, this would suggest that nutrient inputs to the system might contribute to poor water quality regardless of the conversion to freshwater. In such a case, it may be possible to identify controllable sources of nutrient input to the lagoon.

Question 4:Do water diversions in the upper watershed significantly alter freshwater inflows to the Marsh? To address this question water diversions in the watershed must be identified and quantified. GIS-based modeling techniques are available to evaluate the cumulative impacts of diversion on the natural hydrograph during wet and dry seasons in dry, average, and wet water years (Merenlender et al. 2008). Depending upon the results of these investigations, it would be possible to work with landowners in the watershed to adjust rates and timing of diversions during low- flow periods to improve habitat quality in the Marsh.

Investigating Temporary Actions to Prevent the Fish Kill. Various stakeholders in the Marsh have expressed great concern over the fish kill and seek an immediate solution for preventing the die-off while longer term studies to identify the underlying causes are conducted. Hypothesis 3 has been proposed by several stakeholders and was discussed at the Forum.

Hypothesis 3: The fish kill is a result of inflow of anoxic bottom waters from the channels of the Butano marshes at the time of the sandbar breach.

Following the fish kill in 2003, steelhead carcasses were analyzed at the University of California, Davis Fisheries Pathology Lab to determine cause of mortality. The autopsies revealed no evidence of pathogen-related mortality and the fish pathologist concluded the cause was “likely environmental in nature” (Sicular pers. comm. as cited in Sloan 2006).

Rebecca Sloan conducted discrete and continuous water quality sampling in different areas of the Marsh during sandbar closure and in the days immediately following the breach annually from 2004 to 2007, measuring dissolved oxygen, salinity, temperature, hydrogen sulfide, nutrient concentrations, and sediment characteristics. Sampling ruled out ammonia toxicity and sediment toxicity as likely causes of mortality, and Sloan concluded that hypoxia was likely the main contributing factor.

As previously noted, sampling conducted by ESA, Rebecca Sloan, and DPR found poor water quality conditions in multiple locations throughout the Marsh. In addition, H2S formation was found to occur in the deep, relatively isolated areas of the artificial ditch

23 system in areas of fine-grained, organic-rich sediments, including the boat launch and the Phipps Tide Gate (D-3 and G-1 in Figure 2).

It is hypothesized that the fish kill results from the rapid mixing of anoxic bottom waters into areas being utilized by fish as the Marsh drains at the time of sandbar breach. Fish mortality may be a result of suffocation or due to H2Sproduction promoted by anoxic conditions that then poisons the fish.

Rebecca Sloan noted that tide gates at the Pescadero channel/Pescadero Creek junction restrict post-breach mixing but that similar obstructions are not present between the Butano channel and Butano Creek, facilitating mixing at the time of sandbar breach. Sampling throughout the Marsh immediately following the breach indicated significantly lower dissolved oxygen in Butano Channel during the first 24 hours after the breach than in other areas of the Marsh. Carcass distribution following the sandbar breach has not been uniform for all species involved in the die-off, but steelhead carcasses appear to be concentrated between the Butano channel outlet and the confluence of Pescadero and Butano creeks (Figure 8).

To investigate Hypothesis 3, a study to determine the role of artificial channel (ditch) morphology in stratification/ H2S formation and post-sandbar breach flow dynamics would be required. At the Forum it was suggested that a temporary weir could be installed in the Butano channel upstream of the pedestrian bridge to delay the mixing of poor quality water into Butano Creek at the time of the sandbar breach. If pre-breach water sampling confirmed the presence of anoxic bottom waters and the presence of H2S, then a reduced fish kill following breaching of the lagoon could implicate the oxygen- poor waters from Butano channel as a cause. However, multiple confounding factors could make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. As of 2010, this measure now appears to be infeasible as Butano Creek recently changed course and flows un-channeled through the Butano marshes. The artificial channel at the pedestrian bridge is now part of the Butano Creek mainstem (Sicular pers. comm.). Instead, it will be important to document and monitor the changes that are occurring, and to determine whether any action should be taken to configure a new channel. Steelhead passage in and out of Butano Creek is currently impeded due to the lack of channel. There may be insufficient hydraulic force to configure a new channel through the Butano marshes due to the attenuation of flows through the alder patch upstream of Pescadero Road Bridge. If such a channel were to form, it could potentially reduce the fish kill by converting the ditches into stream channels and eliminating the areas that are subject to H2S formation, and would also enable steelhead passage up and down Butano Creek (Sicular pers. comm.).

Hypothesis 4. Most steelhead move upstream when water quality declines in the lagoon, and the fish kill represents a small component of the population.

At the Forum Sean Hayes described how steelhead in the Scott Creek lagoon move upstream at the end of the summer, spending another winter in freshwater. If this is happening in Pescadero lagoon, a portion of the steelhead population might be avoiding the impact of the anoxic waters.

To investigate Hypothesis 4 a major monitoring effort would be required to track the steelhead in the lagoon and Pescadero and Butano creeks. This study would determine if fish are moving upstream, what portion of the population they represent, and what conditions are required for passage. It is important to note that the purpose of the proposed study is not to diminish efforts to prevent the fish kill, but rather to improve understanding of steelhead population dynamics in the system. Efforts to prevent the annual fish kill should continue regardless of the extent of its impact on the watershed’s steelhead population.

Understanding Impacts of Reconnecting Creeks with the Floodplain. It is known that the lower reaches of Pescadero and Butano creeks have restricted access to or are cut off from their floodplains by the levee system. Problems that have been associated with these modifications are discussed under Hypotheses 5 and 6.

Hypothesis 5: Changes in Marsh hydrologic connections have reduced habitat for fresh and brackish water species by increasing tidal intrusion and reducing flood conveyance.

The levee on the right bank of Pescadero Creek prevents overbank flow of freshwater into North Marsh during floods events (ESA 2008). As noted previously, the height of the low levee along the western edge of North Marsh is lower than the design height of +5.5 feet and can be overtopped in extreme high tides and also impounds less freshwater in North Marsh than intended in the 1990s restoration design. The combination of these factors appears to have reduced freshwater habitat in the North Marsh. Sampling conducted by ESA in 2002 indicated predominantly saline conditions in the North Marsh prior to sandbar closure and brackish to saline conditions following sandbar closure. The red-legged frog had been documented in the North Marsh prior to and in several years following the Enhancement Project (Jennings and Hayes 1990, Smith and Reis 1997), but ESA (2008) measured salinities during sampling in 2002 that indicated poor-quality breeding and rearing habitat for this species.

Given the strong evidence that important habitat for the red-legged frog has been lost in the North Marsh, and that one cause of this loss is the deterioration of the low levee, repairing the low levee, at least as an interim measure, was identified in the Forum as a high priority action.

To develop potential restoration actions to improve habitat conditions in the long term, Hypothesis 5 could be investigated by using a hydrologic model to predict changes to the salinity regime of the Marsh under various conditions of flow and levee configurations. Available information could be used to determine pre-disturbance configuration of the Marsh, including location of natural levees (ESA 2008 provides a good description). The model could be used to investigate changes to the Marsh that would result from reconnecting Pescadero Creek to its floodplain, including channel meandering, sediment transport, flood conveyance, and shoreline erosion. The changes projected by the model could then be used to judge the impact to aquatic habitats and species of concern.

Hypothesis 5 (and others as well) also requires information about the long-term population trends of sensitive species in the Marsh. The ultimate goal of any Marsh restoration is to develop robust populations of the diverse array of endangered species that are found in the ecosystem. In order to understand the status of these populations and the impact of environmental variation and future management actions, these populations must be monitored on a regular basis. Population monitoring would be required for steelhead, tidewater goby, red-legged frog, and the San Francisco garter snake.

In follow up comments from the Forum, Joanne Kerbavaz noted that additional studies to better characterize changes in habitat for fresh and brackish water species in the Marsh may also be valuable given the possibility that as habitat in some areas has become less suitable, habitat in other areas has expanded.

Hypothesis 6: Man-made structures constrict the lower channel of Butano Creek, reducing sediment transport and flood conveyance through Butano Creek and marshes.

Pescadero and Butano creeks are listed as impaired by sediment pursuant to §303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements are being developed for Pescadero and Butano creeks by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board5. Sediment problems result in large part from massive disturbance from logging in the 1950s and stream diversion (ESA 2004). The cause of sediment accretion in Butano Creek is thought to be that the creek loses hydraulic force approximately 1,200 feet upstream from the Pescadero Road Bridge due to overflow on the east bank, reducing sediment transport capacity and resulting in the accumulation of sediment in the channel near the bridge over time (Swanson 2001 in ESA [2008]).

Sediment accumulation and the presence of artificial structures have also been associated with the problematic flooding of Butano Creek at Pescadero Road. The levees along Butano Creek prevent the overflow on the east bank from re-entering the stream channel, and the Pescadero Road Bridge itself restricts conveyance of floodwaters downstream through the Butano marshes (Swanson 2001 in ESA [2008]). Flooding at Pescadero Road has significantly impacted residents of the Town of Pescadero.

Sediment transport in Butano Creek may be aided by actions in the Marsh, including reconfiguring of the bridge and removal of levees, but at present appears to be a long- term, systemic, and largely intractable problem (Sicular pers. comm.). ESA (2004) noted that sedimentation from the upper watershed has decreased in the past three decades due to better land use practices (Table 4). It is recommended in ESA (2008) that the creek cross sections established in 1987 be resurveyed following major storm events to verify the reductions in sediment yield and improve understanding of sediment dynamics over time.

5http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/pescaderobutanocrkstmdl .shtml 26

The migration of Butano Creek into the marshes, and the eventual establishment of a new channel as the stream starts meandering through the relatively wide-open marshes, may improve sediment transport. As noted in Hypothesis 3, it will be necessary to conduct monitoring to determine whether Butano Creek will form a new channel through the marshes or continue to diffuse through the tules.

The modeling project developed to address Hypothesis 5 could also be used to determine the effects of reconnecting Butano Creek to its floodplain. Information obtained from modeling can be used to design restoration projects that will improve habitat in the Marsh and reduce flooding in the Town of Pescadero.

Potential Restoration Actions

A list of potential restoration actions was developed at the Forum. The studies suggested in the previous section will help determine which of these restoration actions are good candidates for implementation and will also be used to develop additional candidate projects. The list of actions generated at the Forum and their potential benefits and problems are included below. Some of these potential actions are also discussed in ESA (2008). Actions 6-8 were suggested in follow up comments from the Forum.

1. Lower the right bank levee of Pescadero Creek at the upper end of the Marsh

Potential benefits: This action would be expected to re-establish natural hydrologic and geomorphologic processes by connecting Pescadero Creek with its floodplain and provide increased freshwater flow to North Marsh to support greater area of fresh or brackish water marsh. It would minimize maintenance requirements and help create a self-sustaining system.

Potential problems: Increasing flood conveyance from Pescadero Creek into North Marsh may result in reduced sediment transport capacity for lower Pescadero Creek, leading to aggradation of the stream bed (ESA 2008). This might also encourage the conversion of rare salt marsh to brackish marsh at the fringes of North Marsh.

2. Raise (or at least repair) the low levee along the channel adjacent to North Marsh that leads to North Pond.

Potential benefits: This action would be expected to reduce tidal flows to North Marsh and thus reduce salinity, restoring brackish water habitat. In order to maximize restoration of brackish and freshwater habitat, the salts that have accumulated due to past tidal flows would have to be flushed out of the marsh through repeated filling and draining of North Marsh with freshwater. Replacing the culverts at either end of the low levee could facilitate this flushing. These culverts are presently inoperable.

3. Block the culverts that supply tidewater to North Pond and fill the channel between the culverts and North Pond

Potential benefits: This action would be implemented to reduce tidal prism and potentially promote earlier sandbar closure, and would promote faster conversion to freshwater by reducing the initial volume of the lagoon to be filled by freshwater. This action would be taken based upon the results of the studies conducted to investigate Hypothesis 1.

Potential problems: This action would result in loss of tidal wetland habitat along the channel to North Pond and in North Pond itself.

4. Partially or completely fill ditches in Butano Marsh and one in Delta Marsh

Potential benefits: To the extent that these ditches contribute to anoxia, this action would be expected to reduce the amount of poor quality bottom water present at these locations. This could improve water quality in the Marsh, and eliminate a reservoir of anoxic waters that have been implicated in the fish kill. This may occur naturally due to the recent migration of Butano Creek into the Butano marshes.

Potential problems: Some species use the ditches as habitat at other times of the year. In addition, filling ditches would result in a minor loss of flood conveyance capacity of Butano Marsh.

5. Remove some or all of the remaining levees between Butano Creek and Butano Marsh

Potential benefits: This action would be expected to re-establish natural hydrologic and geomorphologic processes by connecting Butano Creek with its floodplain and improve flood conveyance through the Butano marshes. It may reduce the flooding at Pescadero Road by spreading floodwaters and sediment out along the floodplain. It would be expected to improve habitat quality in the marshes by increasing freshwater inputs and improving circulation and create a diversity of habitat types including fresh, brackish, and backwater habitat. This action was recommended prior to the January, 2010 change in Butano Creek’s course. If Butano Creek establishes a new channel through the marshes, it will in fact be reconnected with its historic floodplain.

6. Replace culverts and gates in Pescadero Creek right bank and reinstitute management plan for culverts.

To simplify management, the culverts could be opened in fall/winter after the sandbar breach occurs and closed on a set date in spring (April 15 or May1).

Potential benefits: A managed culvert system would allow seasonal tidal action in winter and early spring for shorebirds. It would also facilitate a closed and more rapidly converting lagoon in summer/fall. The closed lagoon would raise water levels and help to maintain summer water levels in North Marsh, and improve conditions for tidewater goby and red-legged.

Potential problems: A managed system is inconsistent with State Parks goals for the Marsh, and Parks may not have the resources to successfully implement a managed system.

7. Install a bladder dam at the Butano Channel

Potential benefits: Preventing inflows into the lagoon from the Butano Channel may lead to improved water quality at the time of the sandbar breach and reduce the potential of a fish-kill.

Potential problems: California Department of Fish and Game attempted to install the structure in 2010. The project involved the use of multiple bladders that needed to be stacked like a pyramid and the operation of water pumps. Leaks prevented the full structure from being installed and the water pumps could not be continually operated due to lack of funding, so the installation failed. Agencies are collaborating to develop an alternative approach.

8. Manually form the sandbar

A bulldozer could be used to pile up sand and close the mouth of the creek earlier than would occur through natural buildup of the beach barrier.

Potential benefits: Earlier sandbar formation may lead to improved water quality in the closed lagoon.

Potential problems: It would likely be difficult to find a funding source for ongoing manipulation of the lagoon mouth. All resource agencies would have to agree with this approach in order to obtain permits to carry out the work.

References

Bond, Morgan H. (2006) Importance of Estuarine Rearing to Central California Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Growth and Marine Survival. Master’s Thesis, University of California at Santa Cruz. Retrieved from http://www.cemar.org/pdf/Bond%20Thesis%20Lagoon%20Rearing.pdf

Bricker, Suzanne B., C.G. Clement, D. E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment. Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries. Retrieved from http://ian.umces.edu/neea/pdfs/eutro_report.pdf

Curry, Robert, R. Houghton, T. Kidwell, and P. Tang. 1985. Sediment and Hydrologic Analysis of Pescadero Marsh and its Watershed. Draft. University of California at Santa Cruz. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA.

[DPR] California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1992. Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Hydrologic Enhancement Project.

[ESA] Environmental Science Associates. 2002. Butano Creek Cross Sections Survey Report. Report by Environmental Science Associates and Dennis Jackson. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, San Francisco, CA.

[ESA] Environmental Science Associates. 2004. Pescadero-Butano Watershed Assessment. Report by Environmental Science Associates, Pacific Watershed Associates, O’Connor Environmental, Albion Environmental and D. Jackson. Prepared for Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Monterey, CA. Retrieved from http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/reports/sedrep/pescadero.pdf

[ESA] Environmental Science Associates. 2008. Pescadero Marsh Restoration Assessment and Recommendations for Ecosystem Management. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Half Moon Bay, CA.

Jackson, Dennis. 2003. Re-survey of the 1987 Pescadero Marsh Cross Sections on Pescadero Creek. Prepared for Environmental Science Associates, San Francisco, CA.

Jennings, Mark R. and M.P. Hayes. 1990. Status of the California Red-Legged Frog Ranaaurora draytonii in the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA under contract No. 4-823-9018 with the California Academy of Sciences.

Larson, Eric J. 2001. Coastal wetlands-emergent marshes, p. 483–486. In W. S. Leet, C. M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E. J. Larson (eds.), California’s Living Marine Resources: A Status Report. California and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Merenlender, A. M., Deitch, M.J., and S. Feirer. 2008. Decision support tool seeks to aid stream-flow recovery and enhance water security. California Agriculture 62:148-155.

Pacific Watershed Associates. 2003. Sediment Assessment of Roads and Trails within the Pescadero/Memorial/Sam McDonald County Park Complex, Pescadero Creek Watershed, San Mateo County, California. Prepared for San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Department and California Department of Fish and Game. Retrieved from http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/vgn/images/portal/cit_609/23704068sedimentassessment_ body.pdf

[PWA] Philip Williams & Associates. 1990. Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Hydrological Enhancement Plan. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Sloan, Rebecca. 2006. Ecological Investigations of a Fish Kill in Pescadero Lagoon, CA. Master’s Thesis. San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

Sloan, Rebecca. 2008. Pescadero Lagoon Water Quality Dynamics, Fish Kills, and Implications for Restoration Planning. PowerPoint presentation. Pescadero Marsh Restoration Forum, December 9, 2008.

Smith, Jerry J. 1990. The Effects of Sandbar Formation and Inflows on Aquatic Habitat and Fish Utilization in Pescadero, San Gregorio, Waddell and Pomponio Creek Estuary/Lagoon systems, 1985-1989. San Jose State University. Interagency Agreement 84-04-324.

Smith, Jerry J. and D.K. Reis. 1997. Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve Salinity, Tidewater Goby and Red-Legged Frog Monitoring for 1995-1996. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Smith Jerry J. 2008. Estuary/Lagoons as Habitat: Implications for the Pescadero Creek Estuary Complex. PowerPoint presentation. Pescadero Marsh Restoration Forum, December 9, 2008.

Storlazzi, Curt. 2008. The Dynamics of Bar-Built Estuaries. PowerPoint presentation. Pescadero Marsh Restoration Forum, December 9, 2008.

Viollis, Frank S. 1979. The Evolution of Pescadero Marsh. Master’s Thesis. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA.

[Swanson] Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology. 2001. Hydrologic Issues regarding Management of Pescadero Marsh in light of Enhancement Projects completed in 1993 and 1997. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Figure 1 Pescadero Marsh Land Cover and Place Names. Source: Reproduced from ESA (2008).

Figure 2 Water Quality Sampling Sites. Source: Reproduced from ESA (2008).

Figure 3 Dissolved Oxygen in Pescadero Creek at Turtle Bend. Source: Reproduced from Sloan (2008).

Figure 4 Pescadero Marsh Fish Kill 1995-2007. Source: Sloan (2008); Kerbavaz (pers.comm.).

350

300

250 Carcasses

200

150 Steelhead of 100

50 Number 0 1995 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year

Note: This figure provides available data. Years not shown on the figure are ones in which State Parks did not count dead fish. In years when dead fish were counted, the percent of dead fish counted could vary significantly based on the timing of the daily tides.

Figure 5 Pescadero Marsh Conceptual Model. Source: Developed by Pescadero Marsh Working Group in the Fall of 2008.

Figure 6 Date of Sandbar Formation 1978-20096. Source: Modified from Sloan (2008) with data from Viollis (1978); Smith (1990); Smith and Reis (1997); and Kerbavaz (pers. comm).

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 First Closure

Month 5 4 Second Closure 3 2 No Closure 1 0

Year

6 No data available for some years as indicated by gaps in graph. 37

Figure 7 Monthly Mean Discharge in Wet, Dry, and Average Water Years Recorded at Pescadero Creek near Pescadero, USGS Gauging Station 11162500. Source: USGS7

1000

100 cfs 10 1977 Driest Year 2002 Median Year 1

Discharge, 1983 Wettest Year

0.1

0.01 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

7http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/monthly?referred_module=sw&site_no=11162500&por_111625 00_2=2208232,00060,2,1951-04,2008-10&format=html_table&date_format=YYYY-MM- DD&rdb_compression=file&submitted_form=parameter_selection_list 38

Figure 8 Location of Fish Kill. Source: Reproduced from Sloan (2008).

Table 3 Pescadero-Butano Sediment Yield. Source: Reproduced from ESA (2004).

Appendix 1: Presentation Abstracts, December 2008

Restoration of Pescadero Marsh: Identifying Problems and Exploring Solutions

Presentation Abstracts

The following abstracts were prepared prior to the Forum and were made available to all attendees.

Pescadero State Beach (Joanne Kerbavaz, California State Parks) Ms. Kerbavaz will present a brief history of Pescadero State Beach, discussing property acquisition and the development of management goals and objectives. She will orient the audience to the general features of the Marsh, and describe State Park’s management objectives.

Living With the Marsh (Tim Frahm, Native Sons of the Golden West) Tim Frahm will discuss changes observed in the Pescadero Marsh over several decades by steelhead fishermen who live near the Marsh and have fished in the lagoon their entire lives. He will discuss the efforts of the Steelhead Committee formed by the Native Sons of the Golden West to raise awareness and money for steelhead restoration efforts in the Pescadero watershed.

The Dynamics of Bar-Built Estuaries (Curt Storlazzi, US Geological Survey) Dr. Storlazzi will provide a general overview of bar-built estuaries, describing the geologic and oceanographic processes that control bar formation and breaching, and how these processes are in evidence in Pescadero Lagoon. He will review available information about the timing of bar formation at Pescadero over the last few decades, the potential impact of human activities on this process, and how climate change and rising sea levels could influence bar formation in the future.

Recent Geomorphic History of Pescadero Marsh (Dan Sicular, ESA) Dr. Sicular will review the geomorphic history of Pescadero Marsh, highlighting the changes humans have made to historical conditions. He will describe restoration efforts implemented in the 1990s, the impacts of these efforts, and suggest methods to restore natural geomorphic processes in the system.

Nutrient Availability and Eutrophication in Coastal Lagoons (Nicole Beck, 2nd Nature) Dr. Beck will discuss the role of nutrient availability and eutrophication as a mechanism for influencing water quality in coastal lagoons. She will describe the accumulation of organic matter leading to high respiration rates that suppress dissolved oxygen in some systems, and how these mechanisms should be considered when planning coastal lagoon enhancement strategies.

Water Quality Dynamics of Pescadero Lagoon and Implications for Fish Mortality (Rebecca Sloan, TRA Environmental) Ms. Sloan will discuss the chronic bottom water anoxia in the Pescadero Lagoon during sand barrier formation, fish kills upon breaching (with Oncorhynchus mykiss mortality), and low-tide hypoxia in the days following tidal reconnection. She will use several years of water quality data to evaluate the contributions of eutrophication and stratification to poor water quality and illustrate how lagoon morphology exacerbates and/or controls eutrophic and stratified conditions.

Estuary/lagoons as habitat: implications for the Pescadero Creek Estuary complex (Jerry Smith, San Jose State University) Dr. Smith will explain how lagoons can provide a variety of habitats for multiple species of concern and that all habitats do not have to work for all species at all times. He will describe how backwaters, deep scour pools and disconnected or seasonal wetlands can provide important seasonal habitat for salmonids and other aquatic species, including California red-legged frog, tidewater goby and the western pond turtle. He will explain how late sandbar formation at the mouth of Pescadero Creek has resulted in a strongly salinity stratified system in fall with severe hypoxia and anoxia problems in the lagoon and how this has impacted lagoon productivity, and he will discuss restoration implications.

Appendix 2 An Approach to Restoration of the Pescadero Marsh, 4/23/2010 Draft Comments and Responses

Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Tim Frahm intro 0 As you know, the Native Sons of the Golden West Pebble Beach Parlor #230 was one of the local funders of the Acknowledgement page added. event upon which this document was based. It may be reasonable to acknowledge the contributions of both the facility and for the lunch provided to the participants. DFG Overall 0 We recommend that this Report specify goals and objectives for restoration. DFG recommends that specific Comment noted. report restoration goals and objectives, as well as an approach be clearly defined. DFG's goal is to restore Pescadero Marsh to a healthy, functioning state characterized by an extensive freshwater lagoon, marsh, and pond habitats during the summer and fall so that they can support healthy populations of native species. We recognize that there will be constraints to the amount of habitat that the site can sustain associated with hydrological and geomorphic processes operating at the landscape/watershed scale, along with anthropogenic disruptions to these processes. Additionally, we recognize that this system is dynamic and will constantly change over time. We will develop biological goals appropriate to these processes and constraints and the dynamic nature of this system. Watershed processes that support habitat conditions may not dictate 100% of what we do, but understanding and taking into account these processes involved as well as the disruptions to those processes that may limit what happens biologically is recognized as crucial to restoration at Pescadero Lagoon.

Joanne Kerbavaz intro 4 1 Characterization of Pescadero Marsh as containing a “bar built seasonal freshwater lagoon” understates the Pescadero marsh is correctly characterized as having complexity of the system. As noted in 1985 by Bob Curry and his colleagues (Curry, et al., 1985. p 26): a "bar-built seasonal freshwater lagoon as a key ecological feature." Other parts of the document Every beach/lagoon system is different. Pescadero’s unique management problems derive in large measure address the complexity of the system, not limited to from the unique dynamic interactions between its beach and lagoon. Human attempts to modify this system, the seasonal lagoon. The complexity of the system together with hydrologic and geologic conditions, have created a very complex system. was a major reason the restoration workshop was convened. From the earliest records of the marsh (see, for example, the quotes in Viollis, 1979 pages 44-46), observers have noted areas of fresh and salt water and a diversity of vegetation in response to this variation. The interplay between fresh and salt water may at times results in a fresh water lagoon; however, it appears that, based on sampling results, the enclosed lagoon has often been brackish, salty, or stratified with layers of different salinity.

Frank Viollis (1979, Figure 10) mapped salinity levels in August, 1978 around the time of the late August bar closure. As Viollis wrote (page 144):

The observations made in August of 1978, indicate that subsurface pools of denser saline water exist within the marsh complex (Figure 10). Continuation of these conditions could lead to stagnation of bottom waters resulting in oxygen depletion – a situation unsuitable for aquatic life. Flushing action is also reduced, allowing for the concentration of toxic wastes.

Comment continues...

Joanne Kerbavaz intro 4 1 comment continued... See above. Dr. Jerry Smith’s 1990 report (page 12-13) showed that the salinity of the lagoon varied during the five years of his work, with only one season of a quickly converted summer freshwater lagoon:

In 1985 the freshwater inflow quickly converted Pescadero Creek lagoon into a freshwater system for the summer (Figure 3, Table 2). In 1986 streamflows were lower prior to sandbar formation (Table 1), resulting in more saltwater in the lagoon at the time of bar formation and much slower conversion to a freshwater lagoon (Figures 7A and 7B). Much of the lagoon had salt water lenses on the bottom for the entire summer. In 1984 the sandbar was breached early in the summer at Pescadero and the meager inflows after breaching did not convert the lagoon fully to freshwater (less than 2 PPT) until late October. In 1987 and 1988 low streamflows after sandbar formation were insufficient to convert the lagoon to freshwater; most of the lagoon remained saline and stratified for salinity all summer (Figures 11 and 13, Table 2).

Dr. Smith and others believe that a summer freshwater lagoon is the desired condition for Pescadero marsh;

Page 1 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz intro 4 1 Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve contains 235 acres Corrected. DFG intro 4 1, sent 2 The Report states that the Pescadero Marsh "includes a bar-built seasonal freshwater lagoon as a key ecological Goal 2 identified in the summary addresses restoring feature." DFG is aware that prior to the 1990s, there was a seasonal freshwater lagoon (Smith 1990). However, a seasonal lagoon and mix of wetland habitat types. after modifications were done to the Marsh in the 1990s, the seasonal lagoon became a salinitystratified system Consensus has not been reached on what that mix of and does not fully convert to freshwater, thereby substantially reducing habitat for sensitive species (Smith and habitat types should be. Reis 1997). Therefore, DFG recommends the reestablishment of a productive seasonal freshwater lagoon with the goal of increasing biological productivity for the above-listed sensitive species.

Joanne Kerbavaz intro 4 All discussions of the “natural” conditions of Pescadero Marsh should be prefaced with the understanding that, as Sentence added to paragraph 3 to address the loss of calculated by Viollis (1979), the area of wetlands within Pescadero marsh had been reduced by one half between wetlands between 1900 and 1960. 1900 and 1960. Restoration work in the 1990s was predicated on the fact that tidal and fresh water circulation and wetland area had been drastically reduced through human manipulation of the marsh.

Tim Frahm 1990s 7 3 I believe that the excavated channel was from the North Pond not North Marsh to the lagoon. Corrected. restoration Jerry Smith Prev 7 3 The original connection between North Marsh and the Pescadero Lagoon was through a partially closed 12” Comment noted. No change in text. Restoration diameter culvert through the Pescadero Creek Levee. Joanne Kerbavaz Existing 7 3 Paragraph 3 should be revised to include the following information: Text corrected to state that North Pond would be "re-" conditions North Pond and North Marsh were previously connected. connected to North Marsh. Additional detail provided As described by Williams, (1990 page 9): in comment is noted. North Pond is now separated from North Marsh by a short levee, and there is only enough exchange of water through a clogged culvert to keep water levels in the two areas nearly equal…Before construction of the levees, North Pond was closely linked with North Marsh, and received fresh water from Pescadero Creek and the lagoon by some means. Waves overtopping the north end of Pescadero Beach provided occasional salt water inflow to North Pond (Viollis, 1979; Elliot, 1975). Joanne Kerbavaz Existing 7 3 The purpose of the North Pond project included additional items. Text revised to make intent of 1990s restoration conditions The purpose of the project element is more correctly described as follows (Williams, 1990 page 29): actions clearer. North Pond provides the greatest potential for increasing the tidal scouring of Pescadero Lagoon, and the pond suffers from poor circulation of water. Tidal fluctuation in the pond would provide valuable mud flat habitat for shorebirds in the late fall and winter. This approach allows realization of most of the potential tidal prism, and improvement of the habitat value of North Pond, without threatening the existing habitat value of North Marsh

Joanne Kerbavaz Existing 7 3 The low levee was designed to prevent most tidal flow, but not to prevent all overtopping Text revised to clarify that levee would block all but conditions (Williams, 1990 page 30) described the levee as follows: the most extreme high tides. If the levee is constructed to an elevation of +5.5 feet, it will not be overtopped by tidal flow in the channel except perhaps in extreme conditions. On the other hand, it will routinely be overtopped in the summer, after the mouth of the lagoon has closed and the water level in the lagoon rises about 5.5 ft. Joanne Kerbavaz Existing 7 3 The June 22, 2010 letter from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) included some discussion of the Comment noted. Text revised to more clearly explain conditions operation of these gates. As stated in your text, the gated culverts were designed to be closed following sandbar intended management of culverts in response to closure, and opened following bar opening. Williams (1990 page 30) described the intended operation as other comments. follows: The large “North Pond” culverts would be opened after the mouth of the lagoon opens in the fall, allowing substantial tidal circulation in North Pond… When the mouth closes, the gates on the North Pond culverts would be closed, so that the brackish to fresh water conversion in the lagoon would not be delayed by the need to dilute the large volume of brackish water in North Marsh. Jerry Smith Prev 7 4 Prior to the modifications in levees undertaken between 1993 and 1997, an opening in the left bank levee of Comment noted. No change in text. Restoration Butano Creek immediately downstream of the Pescadero Road Bridge was constructed in 1986 by DPR (Tom Taylor). This was intended to send a portion of flood flows through the Butano Marshes and reduce flood flow back up downstream of the bridge.

Page 2 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Tim Frahm 1990s 7 4 It may be useful to note the percentage of the levy which was removed (or remains). (i.e. was a majority of the Changed to "the majority of the levees." The concept restoration levy removed? Or was it small, short segments). The way it reads, “portions of the levies were left in place” – I of this restoration action as stated in the suspect that a majority, not a “portion” were left. Enhancement Plan (PWA 1990) is to "Restore natural circulation of water through the Butano marshes by removing parts of the levees, while leaving most of the levees for pedestrian access and basking by garter snakes" (p.49). DFG Prev 7 3, sent 2 The Report states, " ... a system of culverts was installed to curb freshwater inflows into North Pond immediately Text revised to make intent of 1990s restoration Restoration following sandbar closure to allow for rapid conversion of the lagoon from salt to freshwater." In DFG's literature actions clearer. review, the purpose of operating these tidegates was to reduce the time and the quantity of freshwater inflow required to completely destratify the water column and convert it to freshwater, keeping habitat for sensitive species intact and productive (Smith 1997, Williams 1990). The intended management of these culverts was to close them by late spring/early summer then to open them in the late fall (Williams 1990).

Tim Frahm Current state 8 1 “observations indicate that North Pond is not flushing sediment as originally intended”. My reading of the 1992 Text changed. of the marsh Enhancement Plan indicates to me that the intention was not to flush North Pond, but rather to “flush” the lagoon.

Tim Frahm Current state 8 1 In either case, it would be appropriate to additionally note that the gates were not operated as directed in the plan Text added. of the marsh (closing when the bar closes and opening after the bar breaches), so the intended results of the project may have been diluted by not following the projects management activities. Jerry Smith Current state 8 2 The gated culvert system was not installed at North Pond, but in the right bank levee of Pescadero Creek to allow Location of culvert clarified. Text revised to make of the marsh seasonal (winter/spring) movement of tidal flow to North pond but not for sediment flushing of North Pond). The clear that management scheme has not been gates were to be closed at the time of sandbar formation in early summer to reduce the time and freshwater implemented for several years. inflow required to convert the lagoon towards freshwater. They were rarely operated and never maintained. If operable and closed in late spring and opened after bar breaching in winter, tidal winter conditions and regular Added potential action to replace culverts and revert early summer sandbar closure were expected to occur. If the culverts were replaced and opened in winter and to management plan. closed in spring (on an assigned date, requiring 2 hours of “management” a year) those same goals could probably be achieved. Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 8 2 The statement that “observations indicate that North Pond is not flushing sediment as originally intended” is not Text revised to clarify that flushing of the lagoon, of the marsh clear. State Parks staff have observed channeling in North Pond and deepening of the main channel to North rather than North Pond, has not been observed. Pond; these observations could be checked with surveys of the 1987 cross sections in North Pond. As stated above, one intent for the connection was to increase tidal prism to expand overall movement of sediment in the lagoon. Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 8 3 The discussion of the low levee confounds two conditions, the ability of the low levee to be topped by tides, and Text revised to more accurately summarize findings of the marsh the ability of the low levee to be topped by the rising lagoon. The reference to Dr. Smith (1997) and ESA (2002- in source documents. References to tidal overtopping 2003) finding “that the low levee…was not built sufficiently high to prevent tidal intrusion” is not correct. Smith removed. and Reis (1997 page 4) reported that the levee was overtopped by the rising lagoon, not by tides:

…the sandbar re-formed in December [1993], backing up saline water throughout the marsh complex. This apparently included flooding over the new low levee and through the small culvert into North Marsh…In spring of 1994 the sandbar had closed by mid-May and lagoon levels were high enough to again back water over the low levee into North Marsh.

As stated above (from Williams, 1990 p. 29-30) the levee was designed to prevent overtopping for most, but not all, tides. Dan Sicular (ESA, 2008 page 29) found no sign of the levee being overtopped at its lowest point by one of the highest tides of the year, and he concluded:

In any event, it appears that only the highest of the high tides would overtop the low levee breach, and then probably only for a short time.

Page 3 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 8 3 The conclusion that as a result of the levee breach, “habitat in North Marsh has transitioned from Conclusion deleted and replaced with statement of the marsh freshwater/slightly brackish to brackish/saline” is not correct. North Marsh is not uniform. It contains a variety of about disagreement among observers regarding habitats, including ponds, mudflats, and both natural and artificial channels. The overall appearance of North salinity trends in North Marsh. Marsh is as a salt marsh, with almost exclusive cover by salt marsh species in the main portion o f the marsh. This appearance has been consistent from the earliest available surveys. North Marsh was included within the area mapped as salt marsh in 1854 (Curry, et al., 1985 page 14):

The first accurate and detailed map of the marsh-lagoon system was published by the U.S. Coast Survey in 1854…The maps clearly show open water and seasonally flooded wetlands. The boundaries shown as wetlands in the 1850’s through 1890’s comprise those boundaries of areas subject to frequent seasonal flooding today. These are the areas subject to regular salt-water flooding on a seasonal or every-other-year basis. They generally lie at elevations today of 4-6 feet above mean sea level to mean sea level…

The horizontal hachuring that indicates marsh-lands was depicted based upon “marsh vegetation”… At Pescadero, the dominant “mash” vegetation is found in areas subject to salt-water flooding at frequent enough intervals to limit vegetation to salt-tolerant species. Thus, it is no surprise to find today that salt-affected soils are almost exactly delimited by the boundaries of the marsh-pattern on the 1854 map.

Water sampling records confirm that North Marsh has at least periodically held saline water. This is reflected in vegetation as well as in saline soils. Jennings and Hayes (1990) compiled data for a number of stations in North Pond and North Marsh in their Table 2. These data from Viollis (1979), Smith (1987) and the Jennings and Hayes study show that North Marsh surface water salinities varied between years, seasons, and sampling locations. Surface salinity levels for the channels around North Marsh ranged from 10.4 to 20.5 ppt in August 1989. Viollis measured surface salinity levels for stations in the central portion of North Marsh at 19.0 to 20.0 ppt in August 1978. Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 8 3 comment continues.... See above. of the marsh In 1989, Jennings and Hayes (1990, page 17) described salinities in California red-legged frog breeding areas:

Most of the egg masses we encountered in North Marsh were found in water between 4.2 0/00 and 4.7 0/00 (Table 4). Based on the data by Smith (1987), these values appear to be slightly higher (ca. 0.8 0/00) than normal for the period of February to April, although higher salinity levels do appear from time to time throughout the year (Tables 2 and 3). In general, salinities increase in North Marsh as the water evaporates in late spring and summer, then decrease after the dilution of rainwater and stream runoff in the fall and winter.

Some areas within North Marsh have frequently contained fresher water, especially the artificial channels found on the edges of North Marsh (see Jennings and Hayes, 1990 Figure 2). These fresh water areas have been the location for most observations of California red-legged frogs in North Marsh, and are the locations within North Marsh where California red-legged frogs are still observed.

Despite the presence of fresh water areas, North Marsh has been previously seen to become too saline to support breeding of California red-legged frogs. In 1989, Jennings and Hayes (1990, page 17) found that:

Salinity data indicate that salinity can be an important factor on embryonic mortality for California red-legged frogs at Pescadero Marsh. Our field observations revealed that most of the embryos observed in naturally laid egg masses in North Marsh appeared dead in the late cleavage to neural tube state (Gosner States 9-16) (Table 4). Since salinities of 4.2 0/00 to 5.2 0/00 were measured next to these egg masses at the time of our field

Page 4 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 8 3 comment continued... See above. of the marsh Jennings and Hayes (1990 page 10) noted the variability in habitat quality in North Marsh, and explained some of the variation in salinity measurements by differences in fresh water input:

Interpretation of California red-legged frog use of North Marsh during 1989 must be viewed in the context of three unusually dry winters that preceded the study year. We anticipate that frog use of North Marsh will vary if the water regime differs substantially; it needs emphasis that 1989 use patterns may not translate to all years. For example, the wetter-than-average winter of 1985-1986 resulted in fresh water from Pescadero Creek inundating North Marsh because the levee between Pescadero Creek and North March (sic) was overtopped in mid-February (T. Taylor, pers. comm.). Fresh water filled North Marsh and two months were needed for the water to drain enough so that most emergent marsh vegetation was re-exposed. Thus, the habitat that was extensively used for oviposition during the 1989 season would not have been available to frogs between mid- February to roughly mid-April 1986, or most of the reproductive season in that year. Further, even if frogs Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 8 4 The conclusion that “North Butano Marsh has become more saline” is not correct. Using vegetation as an Text revised to clarify difference in trend. of the marsh indicator of salinity, the two plant transects in North Butano Marsh sampled by ESA in 2002 showed different trends. As displayed on Figure 5 of the Vegetation Transect Analysis (Appendix A, ESA, 2008) Transect T3 showing a reduction in cover for saltmarsh species and an increase in brackish and freshwater species. Transect T4, which is further downstream and appears to be adjacent to a marsh channel, showed an increase in saltmarsh species and a reduction in brackish and freshwater species. Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 8 4 The June 22, 2010 letter from DFG disputes the statement on page 8 that “The East Delta Marsh has been Comment noted. of the marsh restored to brackish conditions.” According to the Vegetation Transect Analysis (Appendix A, page 7, ESA, 2008): The general trend in East Delta Marsh between 1985 and 1990 was of increased representation of salt marsh species and a decrease of freshwater species. Between 1990 and 2002 the trend was somewhat reversed….

The 2002 monitoring revealed a more complex species structure as the cover of salt marsh species dropped precipitously and a suite of brackish and freshwater species came in. The most dramatic species cover changes between 1990 and 2001 were a great reduction in marsh gumplant cover…and the strong appearance of Pacific potentilla....Both cattail species (generally freshwater species) appeared for the first time in these transects in 2002, with 26% cover in Transect T10.

The DFG letter reports that this area became “brackish” after the 1990s, and cites Smith and Reis, 1997. Salinity monitoring for the stations in East Delta Marsh (G1 and G2) is shown in Table 2 (page 19) of Smith and Reis, 1997. Salinities were under 4 ppt for 15 of the 22 samples, and under 7.5 ppt for 19 of the 22 samples. I was not able to find a reference within this study to previous monitoring in this area or a comparison to previous results indicating an increase in salinity. The 1997 study includes maps (Figures 3 and 4) indicating areas within East Delta Marsh where the researchers found California red-legged frog larvae and young of the year.

Jennings and Hayes (1990 page 11) describe East Delta Marsh, based upon their field work in 1989 as follows: DFG Current state 8 4, last Page 8, Paragraph 4, last Sentence. The Report states, "The East Delta Marsh has been restored to brackish Comment noted. "Brackish marsh" defines a habitat of the marsh sentence conditions." In review of the literature, DFG is aware that prior to the work done in the 1990s, this location was type which is reflected by the vegetation. Vegetation likely important habitat for California red-legged frog. After the 1990s this location has become "brackish" with transects support the conclusion that East Delta salinity concentrations too high 1 for CRLF reproduction (Smith and Reis 1997). We recommend that a Marsh has been restored to a brackish marsh. speciesapproach be taken when describing whether locations in the marsh have been restored and that the Species use of habitat types is a different issue. East Delta Marsh habitat has changed for the worse, rather than for the better. Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 9 2 I recommend removing the reference to the seasonal timing of bar closure and opening. As shown in Figure 6, Text not changed. Text is consistent with variation in of the marsh known dates have varied over the years. bar closure dates shown in figure 6.

Page 5 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Tim Frahm Current state 9 3 This description of the fresh water conversion correctly notes the two drivers of the conversion (amount of Text added to description of the 1990s enhancement of the marsh trapped salt water and the “volume of the lagoon”), but it could then mention that the issue of lagoon volume was to address the intended management of the culverts. raised in the 1992 PESCADERO MARSH NATURAL PRESERVE HYDROLOGIC ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. Text not changed in the existing conditions section. The solution to the “volume” portion of the fresh water conversion equation was addressed with this management solution; “When the mouth closes, the gates on the North Pond culverts will be closed, so that the brackish to fresh water conversion in the lagoon will not be delayed by the need to dilute the large volume of brackish water in North Marsh.” It seems to us fishermen, that since the gates are always open, the volume of the inundation area exceeds the ability of the freshwater inputs to “quickly squeeze the saline layer out” as worded by your document. For example, the area of the lagoon if isolated from the North Pond/North Marsh by closing the gates is approximately 15 acres. If you add in the area of water impoundment in the North Pond/North Marsh with the gates open (current condition) the area is over 55 acres. If you have inflow of 5 cfs in the late season (conservative), you generate 10 ac ft per day of impounded water. That results in 8” inches of “stacked” water Jerry Smith Current state 9 3 The amount of water required to convert the lagoon depends upon inflows and how salty the lagoon is. Because Text added to indicate quick conversion is likely only of the marsh of substantial diversion in the watershed at the time of sandbar formation conversion may not occur in dry years. under certain conditions. Managing gates on a fixed Only with wet years, early bar formation and substantial inflow at the time of bar formation would hydraulic schedule is discussed under "Potential Restoration pressive “quickly squeeze” the saline layer out; under other conditions the conversion would be slower or might Actions." not fully occur at all. The closure of the culverts to North Marsh and Pond was supposed to occur to speed that conversion. The plan was to closed the gates when the bar formed. Based upon what happened (lack of closure) and the potential role of the open gates in altering tidal flow and delaying sandbar closure, a better strategy is to just close (functional) gates on April15 or May 1.

Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 9 3 Please clarify that this entire paragraph is attributed to Dr. Smith. Comment noted. There is no documented debate of the marsh regarding the processes described in this paragraph.

Joanne Kerbavaz Current state 9 4 Please clarify that this entire paragraph reflects the opinions of Dr. Smith, and that there are data that may not Text revised to more directly attribute some of the of the marsh agree with this description. A complete analysis of these statements is a more ambitious project that I can statements to Dr. Smith. Text also added stating present here. As an example, please refer to your Figure 6 (page 36). The records for the period before the different conclusions have been drawn from the changes in the highway bridge and the beginning of the 1990s restoration projects show a variation in bar available record of bar closure. closure timing, with many recorded closures after June.

The variation in bar closure timing was known in the 1980s, as shown by Jennings and Hayes (1990, page 13): …the timing of lagoon closure by the sand bar at its mouth may vary over as much as a six-month interval between years.

Robert Orr (1942, page 287) describes the marsh as based on his observations in the 1930s: During the summer the marsh is quite dry, except as it is influenced by tide water entering the creek and sloughs. The pickle-weed and marsh grass areas offer, during this time and until late fall, safety to Savannah sparrows and other largely ground-dwelling forms. By the end of August the tules and cat-tails show marked signs of dying down and by the first part of November the stalks are completely dead, although standing and still functioning as suitable bird cover. Early rains in late October and November usually result in flooding the marsh which at this season greatly increases its attractiveness to certain late migrants…This flooded or partly-flooded condition occurs frequently during the early winter until heavy rains or human efforts open the bar across the mouth of the creek.

In addition, statements included in Elliott (1975 pages 28-29) and Viollis (1979, page 26) reflect the view that the lagoon had previously been open for most of the year, and that longer term closures were “recent.” This DFG T&E species 10 3 Page 10, Paragraph 3. We recommend that the western pond turtle be added to the sensitive species list. Added list. Paragraph discussing western pond turtle added to section below.

Page 6 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz T&E: 10 3 This paragraph contains statements and assumptions that should be revised to more clearly indicate that they Text was revised based on other comments and now steelhead are the opinions of the researchers involved. For example, the conclusion that: “In years when the closed addresses to some extent the question of what trout lagoon converts to freshwater conditions, it provides important summer and fall rearing habitat for juvenile happens in other years. No further edits made. steelhead and can account for the majority of smolt production in the watershed” cites the work of Dr. Smith from 1990, as also presented in the forum. Given that the lagoon only periodically meets those conditions, and that it may not have operated in that manner prior to the restriction of tidal flow, it would be important to determine what occurs in other years. Joanne Kerbavaz T&E: 10 3 Please clarify that the final sentence in this paragraph is also attributed to Dr. Smith. Comment noted. There is no documented debate steelhead regarding the existence of the steelhead run and trout therefore no need to attribute the sentence. Jerry Smith T&E 10 4 Should read, “the open estuary is well-mixed by the tides …” changed wind to "tides" steelhead The remainder of the paragraph should read: An open estuary appears to provide better steelhead rearing Changed remainder of paragraph, similar to comment habitat in drought years, when the closed lagoon would be saline, stratified and warm because of limited but with slightly different wording. freshwater inflow. However, the amount of steelhead habitat available is much less than in a large impounded freshwater lagoon, that would occur with early sandbar formation and adequate inflows for freshwater conversion. (The open system in 2007 and 2008 produced about 1500 and 750 steelhead; the closed and converted systems in 1985 and 1986 produced about 10,000-25,000steelhead; the closed and saline/stratified lagoons in the drought years of 1987-1989probably produced only low hundreds of steelhead). In addition, the late sandbar closure in recent years (discussed later) appears to be associated with steelhead kills during the winter breach of the sandbar. Jerry Smith T&E gobies 11 1 Should read: “…probably reduced tidewater goby habitat by 80% and their abundance substantially. Text changed. DFG T&E - gobies 11 1 Page 11, Paragraph 1. We recommend that the following information be added: In regard to tidewater goby Tidewater gobies have not been extirpated from populations located in the San Francisco through Monterey County area, the Pescadero Marsh habitat was Pescadero Marsh, so it is unclear why a unique believed to have been the most productive. Also, genetic studies indicate the Pescadero Marsh population to be genetic signature would have been lost. unique; therefore, we believe that impacts to this population resulted in losing this unique genetic signature (personal communication with Dr. Jerry Smith). Comment noted but not added. Need citation to written material by Dr. Swenson (i.e., so comments We are also aware that Dr. Ramona Swenson determined that gobies collected in North Marsh (of Pescadero and context can be understood by others). Marsh) grew larger than those she had sampled in other lagoon systems (personal communication with Dr. Swenson). Fishery biologists recognize the positive correlation that exists between fish size and fish fecundity, and DFG staff are concerned that restoration actions have caused this particular location, as well as others in Pescadero Marsh, to dry up early, thereby substantially impacting the quantity and quality of habitat.

DFG T&E - CRLF 11 2 Page 11, Paragraph 2. We recommend that the following information be added. At the time that California red- In reviewing the Recovery Plan, the assertion legged frogs were listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) in 1996, the Pescadero Marsh regarding Pescadero's CRLF population was not population was believed to have been the largest of the entire population of this species [U.S. Fish and Wildlife found. Service. 2002: Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytoniJ)]. The data used for this assessment was collected prior to DPR's 1990s restoration project. Unfortunately, Smith and Reis (1997) Text was added to reflect importance of Pescadero described a substantial habitat and population decline for this species after the restoration project had been CRLF population as identified in the recovery plan. implemented. Joanne Kerbavaz T&E: CRLF 11 2 For those not familiar with the marsh, this paragraph may be viewed as conclusive evidence that California red- Comment noted. Text does not say or imply that legged frogs have been eliminated from portions of the marsh. There have been no systematic surveys CRLF have been eliminated from portions of the (including nocturnal surveys) recently along the lines of the work of Jennings and Hayes (1990) in 1989. It should marsh. be noted that State Parks staff and others have continued to observe California red-legged frogs in many areas of Pescadero Marsh, including North Marsh and Butano Marsh. Some areas within that marsh have shown trends for increasing fresh water -- and presumably the potential for increased habitat for California red-legged frogs. It is possible that California red-legged frogs, which are noted for the ability to travel long distances (McGinnis, 2002 page 3) have shifted from areas with more saline water to areas that now contain fresher water.

Joanne Kerbavaz T&E: CRLF 11 2 There are additional assumptions within this paragraph that should require additional review before they are Text revised to clarify the uncertainty. accepted, or they should be presented as opinions for which there may be contrary data. For example, the “drying of North Marsh (and probably parts of Butano Marsh) in summer” is presented as a new phenomenon. As discussed above, Robert Orr (1942) described the marsh as “quite dry” in the summer, except for tidal areas.

Page 7 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz T&E SFGS 11 3 As above, there is an assumption that salinity changes in North Marsh have “likely significantly reduced San Text revised to eliminate specification of salinity as Francisco garter snake (SFGS) abundance in the Marsh.” However, previous studies of SFGS distribution and the limiting factor for SFGS in marsh. Text added to abundance did not identify North Marsh as an important site for SFGS. highlight the lack of disagreement among observers as to whether low use is historic condition or changed In a memorandum dated October 10, 1979, James Steele (at the time a fishery biologist for the Department of condition. Fish and Game) reported on a survey on August 22-24, 1979 to determine the distribution of SFGS within the marsh. Steele found three SFGS within Butano marsh; he did not find any within North Marsh. Steele measured salinity levels at 12 to 13.5 ppt in the channel along the north side of North Marsh.

Sam McGinnis (1984, page 20) captured SFGS in the Trout Ponds (called the Water Lane Pond), an area where SFGS are observed today. McGinnis (1984, page 21) concluded based on survey work completed 5/12/84 to 7/31/84:

No San Francisco garter snakes were observed or captured in Pescadero Marsh proper. Water levels varied by several feet and shoreline traplines were often submerged. During high water periods, water was moderately brackish.

In a 2002 report prepared for Catrans, McGinnis (2002, page 1) wrote that seven populations of SFGS are documented in the Pescadero region.

These all occur at small ranch pond sites and in the eastern reaches of Pescadero Marsh.

McGinnis distinguished between the upland freshwater areas that are more likely to support SFGS and areas to the west that would have the potential for salt water intrusion.

The absence of observations of SFGS does not preclude the presence of the species.

As was noted by Steele (1979, page 2) in his memorandum: Joanne Kerbavaz T&E SFGS 11 3 Any conclusions regarding the abundance and distribution of SFGS should be supported by surveys, and by Comment noted. comparison with earlier studies of abundance and distribution. As above, it should also be recognized that SFGS shift locations to take advantage of changes in habitat suitability. Joanne Kerbavaz Shift in mgmt 11 4 The “management goals and objectives” shown in the table on page 12 were recommended by ESA in their 2008 Text referring to recommended management perspective report. The caption to Table 2 should be amended to read: Table 2. Recommended Management Objectives objectives was deleted. Only adopted DPR policies for Pescadero Marsh (ESA 2008) are relevant.

These goals and objectives have not been adopted by California State Parks. Many of these goals do reflect California State Parks management directives, as presented by in the forum. Jerry Smith T&E SFGS 11 3, last Should read: “…in the North Marsh and parts of Butano Marshes and Delta Marsh due to high salinity and drying "and probably parts of Butano Marsh" added to sentence of North Marsh has likely substantially…” sentence. Delta marsh not mentioned because it is not mentioned in paragraph on CRLF. Causes of CRLF population declines removed from SFGS paragraph. They are stated in CRLF paragraph more clearly and without creating redundancy. DFG Mgmt 12 1 The Report states that DPR has shifted" ... from managing individual features of the Marsh to restoring Text added describing DFGs public trust perspective ecosystem processes." We agree with taking an ecosystem approach, but we recommend that DFG's public trust responsibility. responsibility be included in this section of text, along with our goal at the Marsh of restoring biological productivity of sensitive target species while taking an ecosystem approach. We need to tie the restoration back into measurable recovery goals.

Page 8 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Jerry Smith Shift in mgmt 12 5 Page 12.Paragraph 5 (below the table). Last 2 sentences. The following comments also apply to the 1st 2 Text changed on page 12 to capture viewpoint of Dr. perspective paragraphs on page 13. Smith and DFG.

I disagree with these statements. I do not believe there was widespread agreement with the statements as Text not changed on page 13. Not sure which text written. Many of the Forum speakers and panel members would disagree; I certainly do. Although, in an ideal comment applies to. situation, reliance on natural processes is preferred over use of active measures, the present Pescadero conditions are not an ideal situation. Stream flow in late spring and summer has been greatly reduced in the watershed, affecting the amount of water that can convert the lagoon to fresh conditions after sandbar closure. The natural condition of almost all estuaries along the central coast is for the sandbar to form a closed lagoon by early to mid summer (in the absence of artificial breaching).The present conditions, including the late sandbar closure, saline, stratified conditions in fall/winter at the time of sandbar breaching, and drying of north marsh in summer have severely impacted the abundance of tidewater goby, red-legged frog, probably the San Francisco garter snake, and the potential abundance of steelhead in average to wet years.

Fish kills are occurring during the winter breach of the sandbar. The present condition is unsuitable and probably constitutes “take” under the Federal endangered Species Act.

Use of natural processes to restore the impacted populations is preferred, where it achieves the goal of protecting and restoring the previously large populations of sensitive species. Otherwise, minimal active measures are preferred, if they will achieve the goals of restoring impacted populations (such as repairing the low Tim Frahm Mgmt 12 1st after I don’t remember that there was a “fairly widespread agreement that reliance on natural processes is a Section changed to limit agreement to the panelists. perspective table restoration approach that is preferred over the use of active measures ...” Sorry, I just don’t remember that. This theme was strong in the panel discussion. Perhaps that showed up in the evaluations, but I don’t remember being asked that question on the evaluations. I Last sentence deleted. do remember that there were many questions from the participants about “projects” and some discussion from the audience on how you could characterize projects to move the permits quicker (i.e. characterizing the replacement of the culverts as “maintenance”). I would suggest that the last sentence of that paragraph be removed. I think it is imposing Parks bias and does not reflect the discussions at the forum and would create perceived road-blocks to projects. Jerry Smith Restoration 12 last I would certainly add a 5th key problem that emerged at the Forum. The change in timing of sandbar closure Text changed to include a 5th problem, stated goals since the bridge replacement and restoration actions appears to be a major factor in the first 3 listed problems differently than suggested -- degradation of steelhead (fish kills, degradation of water quality, and loss of fresh and brackish water habitat).Similarly, I would add a 4th rearing habitat as a result of fewer days of closed, potential restoration goal: Restore early sandbar closure in wet years, to produce a converted freshwater lagoon freshwater lagoon. and to maintain summer flooding of North Marsh. Those conditions are best for tidewater goby, red-legged frog 4th restoration goal added. (and probably SF garter snake), and steelhead. DFG Mgmt 12 The Report cites Williams (1990) which states, "[ilt appears impossible to restore Pescadero Marsh to a self- Text changed to reflect both viewpoints. perspective managing system, as a natural system ought to be. Rather, past and continuing human influences on the marsh require continued human intervention to realize specific and sometimes conflicting management goals." The Report then states that based on presentations and discussion at the Forum, there appears to be a fairly widespread agreement upon the natural processes and functions in a restoration approach that is preferred over the use of human measures .... " We disagree that there was "fairly widespread agreement" on this issue, and due to our public trust responsibility, we recommend taking an incremental ecosystem approach to restoring biological productivity of sensitive target species. If active management is required to restore biological productivity, as is the case in most wildlife preserves. we recommend active management over passive management. We acknowledge that the system may have been so altered substantially by humans in the past that active management may be the only practical tool for achieving a seasonal freshwater lagoon. DFG Restoration 13 1 The Report describes the need for restoration goals to be consistent with DPR management objectives; Text not changed. DPR is the landowner and thus goals however, the Report does not include the need for restoration to be consistent with DFG's public trust their objectives must be considered.Authors were responsibilities. We recommend that restoration goals be consistent with DFG's public trust responsibilities and unable to find any information about how DFG's that the following text be added to this goal. In restoration goal Number 2 we would like to see the following text public trust responsibilities could force a landowner to added to the end of goal: " ... that maximize the productivity of species of special concern." We need to tie the take restoration actions to maximize the productivity restoration back into measurable recovery goals. In addition, we like to see goal Number 3 read "[b]ase of species of concern. If citation can be provided, text restoration to the maximum extent possible on restoring natural processes, but active measures will be should be changed. Otherwise, this goal would need considered if studies indicate that they are required for the protection of sensitive habitats and species." to be added through consensus on it, which did not appear to be reached at the time of the forum.

Page 9 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz Goal: 13 3 The statement on page 13 that “…the number of steelhead carcasses counted varies dramatically from year to "dramatically" replaced with "significantly". The Reduce fish year” may be misleading, especially considering more recent data. It would be more accurate to say that the variation seen is in the range of 1-2 orders of kills number of carcasses counted for each observed event has varied, but has remained within the range of less magnitude, which is significant. than 10 at a minimum to approximately 300 at a maximum. For the years with actual carcass counts, the numbers of steelhead have ranged between 170 (2006) and 4 (2009). The count has been fewer than 10 steelhead for the past three years. Joanne Kerbavaz Goal: 13 4 Although carcass counts probably do not capture all mortalities, the imprecision should not be overstated, Comment noted. Text already acknowledges Reduce fish especially for the years with low numbers. From personal observation, searches over the past few years have uncertainty on this topic. kills not shown “rapid consumption of carcasses by scavenger species.” Specific carcasses have been marked and relocated from one to several days later. During repeated surveys, evidence of scavenging (e.g., tracks, damage to carcasses, fish debris) has been minimal. Joanne Kerbavaz Goal: 13 4 I do not know the source of the statement in the DFG letter (page 4) that steelhead die instantaneously at the Comment noted. Reduce fish breach. State Parks staff have monitored the sandbar breaching events, and have only found evidence of kills mortality after the low tide and receding lagoon leave carcasses on the banks. DFG Restoration 13 last Although DFG supports the sentiments of the last paragraph of this page which is titled "[r]estoring water quality Comment noted. Consensus on DFG's belief has not goals and habitat conditions in the seasonal lagoon ... ," DFG disagrees with the statement " ... but causal relationships been reached. If it had, a restoration project would among these factors is not understood." Specifically, DFG believes that adequate information is known about already have been designed "with confidence." species' biological needs to move forward on restoration actions. However, DFG believes that important Remainder of DFG comment supports text of information can be learned by implementing experimental "treatments" in an incremental manner (see paragraph. attachments) to better understand how to reduce the re-suspension of sediment (and thus improve water quality) as well as how the hydrology affects the timing of sandbar closure. Additionally, hydrological analysis could be done to explore sandbar closure dynamics and reduce residential/road flooding risk.

Jerry Smith Goal: reduce 13 next to last The situation that Sean Hayes describes is of upstream movement of steelhead in fall, associated with wave and Comment noted. Text not changed because text is fish kills and kelp over wash and deteriorating dissolved oxygen in the lagoon. The first substantial rains are usually needed to only posing a hypothesis. Comment argues against Hyp 4 even allow fish to move upstream above the lagoons, and the upstream movement may also occur in winter implication of hypothesis -- i.e., observed fish kill may without water quality declines. It is probably not a significant factor in mitigated the kills associated with bar not represent a significant portion of steelhead breaching at Pescadero. Preventing the kills is the more important issue. In 2007 the number of steelhead population, and therefore may not require significant population in the lagoon was estimated as about 1500.In 2008 it was about 750. action to address. Hypothesis is valid. Policy that evolves from testing hypothesis is open for debate.

No citation provided for 2007 and 2008 population estimates, so data not added.

Tim Frahm Restoration 13 The Town of Pescadero is not being flooded from overtopping at the Butano Creek / Pescadero Rd crossing. Text changed to clarify. goals (The “Town” is periodically flooded during huge storms which overtop Pescadero Creek near the town. – don’t mix up the issues of Pescadero Creek with the Butano Creek) There are serious flooding concerns from the Butano Creek and it should be characterized as severe road flooding which causes road closures and threatens life and property of those who attempt to cross the flooded roadways. Additionally, the Town of Pescadero becomes more isolated due to the recurring road closures and residents proximate to the Butano Creek / Pescadero Rd crossing are severely impacted. Tim Frahm Restoration 13 on the bottom of page 12, there is a statement of the 4 problems, but on page 13, there are only 3 goals. I think Text added to clarify that the flooding problem in the goals this needs some re-working. For example, none of the goals addresses the problem of sediment accretion in creek is beyond the scope of a marsh restoration Butano Creek, even though this is one of the 4 identified problems. In fact, the 1992 Enhancement Plan speaks effort, but that actions in the marsh should not to the issue of this same problem and offers solutions. exacerbate the problem. Tim Frahm fish kills 13 please note that Figure 4 is an incomplete table. Parks didn’t “count fish” every year and even in those years Note added to Figure 4 that Parks counted fish, there are some years that the timing of the daily tides thwarts our efforts to find stranded fish (which we count – most dead steelhead sink so we can’t account for them). Tim Frahm fish kills 13 I’m surprised that you would ever make comments like “evaluating the importance of the fish kill”. I would Wording changed. Text added under hypothesis 3 suggest that you never use the words “importance” or “significance” in association with the fish kill (this occurs in noting importance of addressing the Fishkill, no several places in the document). It may be appropriate to assess the “extent” of the kill (keep counting), or the matter the size. “percentage” of the population, but any killed or dead steelhead is “significant” and “important”. These terms have a regulatory connotation and even folks like me know that. And why should you even care if it’s a “small component” as it is characterized in other sections of the report. Big, small or even very, very small, this fish kill is preventable and should be addressed.

Page 10 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Tim Frahm fish kills 13 In that same paragraph, which was commenting on Sean Haye’s research, I would also like you to know that not Paragraph already addresses this. Minor wording only is there no research in Pescadero regarding the behavior of juvenile “up-migration”, but there is no change of "documented" to "observed." observation of this migration noted by the fishermen. I can elaborate on this if you are interested. DFG Restoration 13 The Report describes the annual fish kill problem and states that there is a "key challenge" in the difficulty of Comment noted. Report accurately summarizes what goals quantifying the number of individuals and proportion of the steelhead population that are killed during the annual was presented at the forum. No proposal or breach. The Report further states that Forum Member/NOAA Fisheries researcher Dr. Sean Hayes observed that recommendation to count steelhead population is steelhead moved upstream after a breaching event at Scott Creek. DFG believes when it comes to implementing made in this section. restoration actions at Pescadero Marsh, quantifying the proportion of the steelhead population that is killed every year is a "non-issue" and that delaying the implementation of important restoration actions so that an assessment of the number of fished killed annually can occur will delay restoration progress. DFG believes that any fish dying due to water quality problems which are within our control is unacceptable. Furthermore. although Dr. Hayes' research is interesting, we do not believe that the fish moving upstream in Scott Creek after the breach affects our goal to restore a freshwater lagoon for the following reasons: 1) At Pescadero Marsh, steelhead are observed to die instantaneously (in seconds). with insufficient time to safely swim upstream, out of Joanne Kerbavaz Goal: habitat 13 As discussed above, this section relies on assumptions about “ecological function” and “biological productivity” It is unclear what assumptions the commenter is mix that should still be treated as uncertainties that could be tested. referring to. The main point of this section is to define hypotheses that can be tested to further understanding of the marsh's ecological functions. Jerry Smith Goal: restore 14 1 Tidal marsh is a valuable habitat and can still be maintained with an open sandbar in winter and early spring and Text changed to reduce emphasis on tidal salt marsh habitat and a closed sandbar and freshwater lagoon in summer and fall. The conditions of salt grass and pickleweed were and focus more on the concept that habitat WQ maintained in the 1980’s despite freshwater lagoons in the summer of many of the years. In addition, the those conversion will require approval by regulatory conditions produced the habitat conditions that supported large populations of federally listed species (see agencies and could lead to mitigation requirements. comments for page 11), which have apparently been drastically reduced by the present conditions. Habitats for listed species Are also valuable habitats, and their recent severe degradation needs to be addressed.

DFG Restoration 14 1 Page 14, first Paragraph. Tidal salt marsh is considered a valuable habitat by the agencies. However, this type of Comment noted. Text revised based on other goals habitat does not provide habitat that is as productive as a nonstratified freshwater lagoon for all the species of comments received. concern. This Report appears to ignore the stakeholders desire to restore the freshwater lagoon to its full extent. This Report implies that obtaining environmental permits to modify Pescadero Marsh wetlands could be difficult. DFG's position is that restoration actions need to be implemented to stop the annual fish kills and to restore biological productivity for the aforementioned target sensitive species. That being said, we are willing to work with DPR and other stakeholders throughout the permitting process and we are willing to provide engineering and biological expertise, as needed. Jerry Smith Goal: nat'l 14 2 See comments for page 12. Natural processes would be preferred, if they can achieve the habitat goals. Comment noted. processes However, water diversions in the watershed are substantial in summer. Restoring some natural processes, but not others, is not preferable to using some active management that mitigates some of the watershed impacts and results in desired habitat conditions. Joanne Kerbavaz conceptual 14 3 The first paragraph refers to the use of “existing knowledge of the Marsh to develop a basic conceptual model…” Comment noted. model Much of the knowledge of the Marsh presented is based on a narrow window of observations. Work should incorporate information from different eras, when Pescadero marsh may have functioned in different ways based on different configurations of land and water. It is not clear that there is a single model for the operation of the lagoon. Joanne Kerbavaz table 3 16 1 Understanding Sources of Water Quality Impairment: Disagree. Hypothesis would test the reputed mechanism for "delayed closure." If mechanism (1) and (2) Hypothesis: The use of the terms “delayed closure” and “delayed sandbar formation” repeat the cannot account for delayed closure, it would support assumption that the model for lagoon function is that observed during a short period in the 1980s. By the 1980s, the viewpoint that timing of closure is not "delayed" by development had significantly restricted the wetland area; it is probable that an area of constrained wetlands changes in tidal prism but rather influenced by other operated differently than natural condition of a much larger wetland area factors. This is a question of function and process.

There is a separate values question related to desired habitat mix at the marsh and functions needed to support that mix.

Page 11 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz table 3 16 2 Understanding Sources of Water Quality Impairment: Comment noted. Text already lists this study.

(2) Studies: The record of sandbar formation and breaching should be refined from the earliest records to the present Joanne Kerbavaz table 3 16 5 Understanding Impacts of Reconnecting Creeks with the Floodplain Text revised to include reduction in freshwater impoundment which is directly related to the height of (5) Studies: “Repair the low levee” does not appear to fit in this column; as explained above, this action would the low levee. not be expected to change tidal intrusion. Joanne Kerbavaz table 3 16 5 Understanding Impacts of Reconnecting Creeks with the Floodplain Text added under Hypothesis 5 discussion in report noting potential value of additional habitat study. Additional studies to better characterize changes in habitat for fresh and brackish water species may be valuable; it is possible that habitats have shifted and as some areas have become less suitable, habitat in other areas has expanded. Nicole Beck Conceptual 16 Hypothesis #2 is flawed in concept due to a lack of understanding of biogeochemical processes. The simple Change wording of Hypothesis 2 to clarify that lack of model and conversion to a uniform freshwater column may not eliminate the formation of anoxic conditions in the bottom conversion to saltwater exacerbates anoxic bottom hypotheses waters. Please consider why fresh water lakes throughout the globe also develop anoxic bottom waters and water conditions, but is not necessarily the sole cause experience fish kills. Or perhaps the highly eutrophic nature of Elkhorn Slough that is entirely brackish and also of this condition. not stratified. The amount of organic matter accumulation at the sediments within Pescadero Marsh over the summer/fall season is significant due to the high annual loads of nitrogen species to the Marsh from surrounding land uses (agriculture and septic systems) and the relative nitrogen availability within the summer lagoon. R. Sloans clearly shows elevated nutrient loading to the Marsh. The production of organic matter in the surface waters of the Marsh will continue to occur in locations where nutrient supply, light and water temperatures are elevated, regardless of whether the water column is fresh water or stratified. These accumulation rates will not change, and the organic detritus at the sediment water interface is what consumes oxygen and other electron acceptors, eventually leading to hydrogen sulfide production, the toxic chemical to the local fish species. A stratified water column may exacerbate the observed bottom water low dissolved oxygen conditions measured during closure, but the elimination of stratification will do nothing to reduce the very high rates of organic production in the surface waters, accumulation in the sediments, and the consumption of oxygen within this thick layer of black anoxic detritus. When the sandbar breaches, the mixing and suspension of this material has an extremely high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and very high oxygen demand. A fish that becomes exposed to high levels of hydrogen sulfide, even for a temporary period during the breach can suffocate.

Portions of Pescadero Marsh are highly susceptible to eutrophication, i.e. extremely elevated primary production Tim Frahm conceptual 16 Under Hypothesis 3 -- one of the suggested studies seeks to quantify water diversions in the watershed. I don’t Comment noted. No change in text. The concept of model, table remember that from the forum and I would question why it would be suggested. The lagoon is open all summer water diversions decreasing freshwater inflows to the 3 (when there are diversions) and closes in the late fall (when diversions – especially irrigators – decline or cease). lagoon in years of earlier bar closure was discussed Why then would such a study impact the water quality of the lagoon? at the Forum. Tim Frahm conceptual 16 Re; Table 3 in general. There should be another column which is titled “Suggested Actions/Projects”. Even the Comment noted. No change in text. Potential model, table Draft NOAA Coho Recovery Program notes projects. Fish and Game has suggested projects, Dr. Smith has projects are suggested elsewhere in the document. 3 suggested projects, the 1992 Enhancement Plan suggested projects. This section addresses the conceptual model and our understanding of the system. DFG Table 3, hyp 16 Page 16, Table 3. Regarding Hypothesis #1' "the tidal prism has increased, leading to delayed sandbar Comment noted. Concept proposed in forum and 1 formation", DFG staff believe that entire "tidal flow dynamics" have been altered, not just tidal influence. DFG is summarized in report is to increase understanding of concerned that modeling alone may not provide the resolution of data required to understand the hydrodynamics system before taking physical actions. It is of seasonal freshwater lagoon formation and will need considerable time to fine tuned and validated before it can understood that DFG does not agree with this be used for predictive purposes. We recommend implementation of "incremental treatments" as part of an approach. However, at the time of the forum, other adaptive management strategy, using a step-by-step process, decisions, and actions, followed by assessment stakeholders were not in agreement with DFG's and monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of each action along with the hydrological model development. proposed approaches. Possible treatments may include plugging of culverts at the North Marsh, installation of a bladder dam at the Butano Channel, manually forming the sandbar, etc. There should be a water quality monitoring component of all bladder dam and manually forming sandbar added to treatments to determine effects. potential actions. DFG Table 3, hyp 16 We do not believe that Hypothesis #2 (delayed sandbar formation decreases the likelihood of freshwater Comment noted. 2 conversion) is just a hypothesis since such lagoon systems have been well studied alone the central California coastline [Smith (1990), Smith and Reis (1997), and Sloan (2006)].

Page 12 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Jerry Smith Table 3, Hyp 16 An additional suggested study that I made at the workshop for Hypotheses 1 is to plug the Pescadero levee This is not a study, it is an action. Has been added 1 culvert array (which might require some repair or replacement) and see if that alters the timing of sandbar under potential actions. closure. Modeling alone may not address the complexity of tidal prism and tidal dynamics as well as an experiment. Jerry Smith Hyp 2 16 “Hypothesis” 2 is already well-supported by studies in the 1980’s at Pescadero, San Gregorio and Waddell Comment noted. (Smith 1990), where the lagoons converted to freshwater with sufficient inflow (requiring early sandbar formation). In drier years of those studies freshwater conversion failed to occur and stratified conditions persisted. The same pattern is found for numerous other lagoons along the central and north coast (Scott, Navarro, etc.). Sandbar formation in late summer and fall ensures that the limited inflow to a very salty lagoon will result in stratified conditions and anoxic bottom waters. Joanne Kerbavaz Water quality 17 1 Understanding Sources of Water Quality Impairment The conclusion that “Warm, oxygen depleted bottom waters Comment noted. Warm, oxygen depleted waters are impairment in the Marsh result in low biological productivity (low invertebrate abundance) and reduce the quality of rearing well established characteristics of poor habitat quality habitat for steelhead and other aquatic organisms” warrants additional examination. During surveys at the bar for steelhead. breach, I have walked through a layer of invertebrates inches thick that was deposited as the lagoon receded. I am aware of the work by Mark Robinson (1993, page 64)) that concluded that invertebrate species richness and abundance were highest when the lagoon mouth was open and when it had converted to a freshwater system. However, given the apparent productivity of the lagoon under the stratified conditions, the assumption that existing invertebrate productivity is a limiting factor on steelhead productivity requires further investigation.

Joanne Kerbavaz hyp 1 17 2 Hypothesis 1 As discussed above, available data do not support the conclusion that a late spring or early Text revised to make clarification. summer bar closure is necessarily the norm, especially for the time period before significant alterations to the marsh. This statement could be qualified to list the years where the bar did form in late spring or early summer.

DFG Hyp 1 17 6 Page 17, Paragraph 6. The statements in this paragraph are incorrect. Waves that construct the beach at the No citation for statement provided. In absence of mouth of the Pescadero River are generally small short period waves, which typically occur in this location for citation, information provided by Mr. Storlazzi, who is most of, or all of the summer. The small long period waves arrive generally in late summer and are associated considered an expert on the topic, will remain in text. with summer south swells which do little to change the dynamics of beach deposition. The large winter waves (short and long period - such as those seen at the Maverick's) occur in conjunction with winter high tides when the beach erodes off-shore. Tim Frahm Hyp. 1 18 1 ESA suggests that 11 cfs at the mouth will keep it open. I’d suggest looking at the daily tidal exchange. I would Comment noted. No change in text. Sentence expect that the flow thru the mouth during these high to low / low to high exchanges moves substantially greater addresses minimum stream flow needed to keep volume of water than 11 cfs. It’s not all about in-flow cfs – it’s also about the increased tidal exchange of water mouth open. Comment is correct but not relevant to due to the greater footprint of tidal inundation (by the 1992 project). sentence. Jerry Smith Hyp 1 18 1 Stream flows at the mouth are small compared to the amount of tidal flow in and out at the mouth. Wet years Comment noted. Does not say anything contradictory delayed sandbar formation in summer by eroding more sand off the beach in winter, requiring more time to to the text. rebuild the beach, narrow the mouth and allow sand to plug the mouth. The late1980’s were dry, but 1982, 1983, and 1986 were very wet years and 1984 and 1985 were not dry. The change in timing of sandbar formation from then to now is real, as is the change in sand dynamics at the mouth (including the reverse delta).

DFG Hyp 1 18 1 Page 18, Paragraph 1. The Report states, "[i]n some years, stream flows alone may be sufficient to delay Comment noted. Delta effect is discussed elsewhere sandbar formation." DFG believes that at Pescadero Marsh, tidal dynamics. not just stream flow, playa in document. substantial role in the timing of sandbar formation. DFG has observed a "reverse delta effect" of sand being deposited higher upstream in the estuary/lagoon since the 1990s and we believe that the change in this deposition is causing the annual delay in timing of sandbar closure. Tim Frahm Hyp 2 18 last I would remove the work “was” from the sentence “On both occasions, the sandbar was breached”. Simply say Breach is a transitive verb. Phrasing left as is to avoid the sandbar breached. I actually don’t know anyone who thinks the Spring time breaches were “artificial” – after having to identify who or what breached the sandbar all, if it was artificially breached that time of year (as happens at San Gregorio), the sand bar quickly reforms. At (ocean, streamflow, person, etc). least this paragraph notes that it is unknown regarding “natural vs. artificial”, but on Page 19 (bottom and top of 20), the author chooses to state “it is likely” that they were artificially breached. That statement has no basis – Language on page 19 changed to make it clear that yank it out. this was Dr. Sloan's statement. Jerry Smith Hyp 1 19 2 The decrease in oxygen solubility with temperature is a not a significant factor in the hypoxia (a 16 degree C Text changed to put greater emphasis on effects of difference reduces solubility by 30%) compared to the effects of decomposition or algal/submerged vegetation decomposition over temperature. Info about iron and respiration. The lack of mixing in the stratified system allows either or both of those to deplete oxygen. This in sulfur compounds added. turn can produce abundant reduced iron and sulfur compounds (as well as H2S) with high chemical oxygen demand. Their mobilization during a breach event can rapidly deplete surface oxygen.

Page 13 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Joanne Kerbavaz hyp 2, 20 5 As above, the focus on sandbar formation and breaching should be broader than comparing records “pre- and "Pre- and post-Enhancement Project" revised to "to question 2 post- Enhancement Project.” It could be valuable to look at all available records, and compare the results with the maximum extent possible." information about the configuration of tidal and freshwater flow. Joanne Kerbavaz hyp 2, 20 5 Interpretive sign installation suggestion removed from question 2 Based on our experience, interpretive and regulatory signs can not be relied upon to prevent illegal actions. text. Jerry Smith Hyp 2 20 2, line 1 The word may should be removed. Diversions do have a significant impact by reducing freshwater inflows. "may" removed. DFG Hyp 2 20 2, sent 1 The Report states, "[d]iversions in the upper watershed may have a significant impact on the Marsh .... " DFG Comment noted. Sentence unchanged as commenter believes that water diversions do, in fact, affect water quality in the Marsh. We recommend that this sentence be has not provided confirmed evidence to prove modified to reflect this. statement beyond "may have". Jerry Smith hyp 2 20 line 1 The breaches of spring sandbars in 2004 and 2007 may have been artificial, but this is not known. In the 1980’s Comment noted. at Pescadero or in other systems, the sandbar forms relatively soon after the early breach. This did not happen in either 2004 or 2007; the sandbar didn’t reform until late fall as in other recent years. Jerry Smith Hyp 2, 21 4, last Curtailing diversions (which is not likely to occur) would not delay the timing of sandbar formation, since bar Last sentence deleted. question 4 sentence formation is determined by beach and mouth sand dynamics rather than the relatively small amount of stream flow compared to tidal flux (see comments for page 18, paragraph 1). Jerry Smith Hyp 3 21 l The recent (December 2009) thesis by Keenan Smith fairly convincingly indicates that the stratified fall conditions Comment noted. and high BOD after plant dieback result in high particulates with very high chemical oxygen demand (probably reduced iron and sulfur). When stirred into the water column by a sandbar breach they can deplete water column oxygen in minutes. DFG Hyp 3 21 The Report describes Hypothesis 3 as follows, "[t]he fish kill is a result of inflow of anoxic bottom waters from the Comment noted. Section discusses work substantially channels of the Butano marsh at the time of the sandbar breach," DFG believes that research by Sloan (2006) proving that anoxic bottom water is cause of fish kill. demonstrates that salinity stratification is the main factor driving low dissolved oxygen in the lower saline layer of But as discussed in section, data is not conclusive the lagoon. Research done by Smith (2009) demonstrates that rapid dissolved oxygen depletion after the that the source of toxic water is confined to Butano breaching event is caused primarily by the chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the re-sllspended sediment after channel. the breach. Smith (2009) reported that anoxic water quality conditions of the lower saltwater layer driven by salinity stratification likely reduces sedimentous iron and sulfur compounds thereby driving COD and anoxia after the breaching event. Tim Frahm Hyp 3 22 3 Some acknowledgement should be made that this new Butano Channel configuration has negatively impacted Text added noting potential impact on steelhead (perhaps terminated) both upstream and downstream migration of adults and juvenile steelhead. Somewhere in migration. this document there needs to be an acknowledgement that if conditions exist that threatens species, responsible agencies may enact short term projects to address the condition. The tone of this entire document relies on “studies”, not action. Even a “projects may occur disclaimer” would be appreciated.

DFG Hypothesis 3 22 3 A temporary water quality weir (bladder dam) has been proposed for installation at the Butano Marsh Channel. Comment noted. Temporary weir was installed but did The purpose of this temporary weir will be to prevent the tidal prism from intruding into the Butano Marsh not work well and was removed. It did not span the Channel while allowing the freshwater inflow from the channel breach east in the marsh to accumulate and channel and could not be anchored. eventually mix with the salt water entering the estuary. In addition, reduction of the tidal prism may help form the sand bar earlier in the summer at the mouth of Pescadero Creek. Installation of the bladder dam will also allow for the study of the its effectiveness at reducing Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) associated with scouring and resuspension of sediment in the estuary as water flows from Butano Marsh into Butano Channel after the sand bar breaching event occurs. Despite the change in the historic course of Butano Creek, DFG believes that the installation of the temporary bladder dam will significantly contribute to improved water quality and reduce the potential of a fish-kill.

Installation of the temporary bladder dam is anticipated to occur in June of 2010, with a proposed removal of the bladder dam late December 2010, water quality monitoring will throughout the time period that the weir is in place Joanne Kerbavaz hyp 3 22 3 It is suggested that “a reduced fish kill” after deploying a weir would be a measure to implicate “oxygen-poor Text added to clarify possible confounding factors. waters from Butano channel” as a cause. It would be preferable to use water quality parameters to show both the source of problems and the effects of any project. Using a measure of observed fish carcasses could lead to confusion as to the causal factors of any observed change. Tim Frahm Hyp 2, 22 I mentioned this previously – I don’t get it. Especially the last sentence “It is important to note that curtailing Reducing diversions would increase the cfs at the question 4 water diversion may have the effect of delaying sandbar closure until later in the summer” – I thought I read that mouth, thereby potentially extending the amount of stream-flow greater than 11 cfs would keep the mouth open. Reducing the cfs should then quicken the closure, time that the mouth stays open. There is no but the statements suggest that reduced diversions actually delay the closure. Sorry to be blunt, but I think contradiction between the two concepts. you’re on a witch hunt.

Page 14 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Tim Frahm Hyp 4 22 Again you are proposing studies to quantify the percentage of dead fish rather than ways to prevent fish kills. Comment noted. No change in text. The studies The study is important – it would perhaps lead to more upstream habitat projects, but it does not address the fish outlined are "potential" studies, not recommended kill. I would strike the second half of the Hypothesis since you shouldn’t care if the fish kill is a small portion of studies. A one day forum was not sufficient time to the population – it’s an unnecessary fish kill that should be addressed. develop consensus on recommendations. Individual presenters made recommendations, but these were not adopted by the Working Group. Joanne Kerbavaz hyp 5 23 4 As discussed above, the low levee does prevent tidal intrusion, but does not prevent overtopping by the lagoon. Text added noting value of conducting additional State Parks staff and others have documented the continued use of freshwater locations within North Marsh for habitat and species surveys to improve red-legged frog breeding and rearing. However, North Marsh should be considered primarily a salt marsh with understanding of species use of Marsh areas. artificial channels that sometimes hold fresher water. Jennings and Hayes (1990, page 10) noted the variability of both water quality and habitat availability in North Marsh. As discussed above, in 1989 Jennings and Hayes found North Marsh too saline for red-legged frog reproduction.

Joanne Kerbavaz hyp 5 23 4 Repair of the low levee would not be likely to change the salinity of North Marsh. However, the actions described Repair of the low levee would increase the volume of to evaluate this proposal would have value in their own right. freshwater that could be impounded in the winter. This would lead to at least a seasonal decrease in salinity. Tim Frahm Hyp 6 24 3 This paragraph mixes up Butano Creek watershed with Pescadero Creek watershed. They aren’t the same and Second sentence deleted to maintain focus on the ESA report notes the distinctions. Even the State Board lists them separately. Please don’t mix the apples Butano Creek. with the oranges. DFG Potential 25 1 Page 25, Paragraph 9. Potential problems with blocking the culverts that supply water to North Pond. DFG does Comment noted. Proposal is to permanently close the Restoration not believe that blocking the culverts would necessarily result in the loss of the tidal wetlands in the North Pond. culverts to North Pond. With only rainwater as a water Actions #3 The impact to the North Pond tidal wetlands would be dependent on the tidal stage at the time the culverts were source, it is not clear that non-tidal salt marsh would blocked; if they are closed at high tide then there would be no net loss of habitat although the tidal fluctuation persist. Habitat could convert to salt panne. would cease. The loss of tidal function would occur in any case within a few months when the sandbar closes naturally. The proposed action of blocking the culverts is merely shifting the timing of the change in tidal fluctuation. This action could easily be implemented and would help validate any hydrologic model.

DFG Potential 25 1 Page 26, Paragraph 1. The Report describes anoxia as being a problem in the ditches and the subsequent need Comment noted. Text makes it clear that ditches are Restoration to minimize this problem. DFG is aware of hypoxia/anoxia as being a problem throughout the Marsh, not just in one contributor to anoxia problem, not the sole Actions #4 the ditches (Sloan 2006 and Smith 2009). Therefore, DFG recommends that actions be taken to return this source. system to a seasonal freshwater lagoon and that actions be taken to reduce the re-suspension of sediment in Butano Channel and in the channel connecting North Pond after the annual breaching events.

Joanne Kerbavaz possible 25 5 Proposed action: Raise (or at least repair) the low levee along the channel adjacent to North Marsh that leads to Salinity in North Marsh can be attributed both to resotration North Pond. As above, this is not likely to reduce tidal flows to North Marsh. Salinity changes observed in North inflow of salt water and lack of dilution of salts present actions Marsh appear related to lagoon formation rather than tidal flows. in the soil. Repair of the low levee would increase the volume of freshwater that could be impounded in the winter. This would lead to at least a seasonal decrease in salinity in North Marsh. Text not changed. Jerry Smith Potential 25 action #2, Raising or repairing the low levee would reduce tidal flows into North Marsh only (the original goal of the low Reference to North Pond deleted. Text added Restoration sent 2 levee). It would not affect tidal flows to North Pond. The salt water presently accumulated in North Marsh, regarding need for flushing and possible replacement Actions #2 because of past tidal flows, would have to be flushed out (repeatedly diluted and drained). This would be aided by of culverts. replacing the culverts at either end of the low levee, which were installed to allow such actions. They are presently inoperable. Jerry Smith Potential 25 This action was proposed by nobody at the forum. In any case (blocked culverts or replaced culverts), filling the Blocking or removing the culverts to North Pond has Restoration channel between the culverts and North Pond is neither necessary nor desirable. Instead, the culverts could be been suggested by multiple stakeholders. Actions #3 replaced with functional culverts. They could be opened in fall/winter after the sandbar breach and closed on a set date in spring (April 15 or May1). This would allow seasonal tidal action in winter and early spring for Potential action #6 added to address restoring the shorebirds. It would also provide a closed and more rapidly converting lagoon in summer/fall. The closed lagoon culverts and original management plan. would raise water levels and help to maintain summer water levels in North Marsh (as in the original design, where an elevated culvert siphoned surface freshwater into North Marsh after the lagoon level rose), and improve conditions for tidewater goby and red-legged frog (and probably SF garter snake) in North Marsh.

Page 15 Commenter Section Original Original Comment Response Page Paragraph Jerry Smith Potential 26 1 Potential benefits. The anoxia and chemical oxygen demand problem is not confined to the ditches in Butano Text changed from "minimize the amount of poor Restoration Marsh, but is widespread under stratified conditions. This would only reduce, not eliminate, the intensity and quality bottom water" to "reduce the amount…" Actions potential for fish kills on breaching. Preventing the stratified conditions would still be requires. Potential problems. The ditches are also part of the flood conveyance system for flows through Butano Marsh. Text added regarding reduction in flood conveyance.

Tim Frahm Potential 26 Please consider adding; 1. Added to potential restoration actions list 2. Restoration 1. Proposed Actions; Fix the culverts and manage them per the 1992 plan Added to potential restoration actions list 3. Actions 2. Plugging the breach (flood bag project or other) or building a sill under the Pedestrian Bridge (N. Butano Text added in previous section describing hindrance Marsh) to reduce fish kill to fish passage in Butano Creek 4. 3. Construct/create a channel for Butano Creek to provide fish passage (which has been lost thru the Butano Comment noted, no changes to text 5. Marsh this past year) or Actions in NOAA recovery plan do not differ from 4. Dredging or clearing Butano Creek channel per the 1992 Enhancement Plan actions presented in report. No changes to text. 5. Please add the “Actions” noted in the Draft NOAA Coho Recovery Program which pertains to the lagoon/marsh/estuary. Joanne Kerbavaz Figure 4 34 1 Please accept the following corrections and additions to Figure 4: Figure revised to show lower estimate for 1995 and 1995: Reports from State Parks files suggest an estimate of 50 dead fish (predominately steelhead) at the data from 2008 and 2009 fish kills. highway bridge, and 50 dead fish near Butano Channel. 100 would be a better estimate than the 200 shown. 2008: 6 steelhead counted (R. Sloan) 2008: 8 steelhead counted (K. Smith) 2009: 4 steelhead counted (J. Kerbavaz)

DFG Figure 5 35 Page 35, Figure 5. Active management of the sandbar is another optional management action that could be Active management of sandbar added as potential further explored. The City of Capitola actively manages the sandbar at Soquel Creek, Santa Cruz County. They restoration action. Figure 5 not changed-- this figure annually bulldoze the mouth closed in late spring and have installed a stand pipe to drain off the anoxic salt is presented in the text as the draft conceptual model water. Therefore, DFG recommends that the "bar formation" box in the figure be shaded green to indicate that of the Marsh prepared in 2008 by PMWG. this function can be altered directly by our actions. Jerry Smith Table 3, Hyp 16, table Not just the tidal prism may be involved, but the entire dynamics of tidal flow appears may have been changed Comment noted. 1 3; p17 (including duration and timing of tidal inflow and ebbing). This is reflected in the reverse delta that has formed, hyp 1 with sand moving up the lagoon (and filling ½ of the embayment at the present time) rather than being deposited at the mouth. This will require more than modeling tidal prism—see comment immediately above.

Page 16 March 15, 2010

To: Mr. Jim Porter, Director, San Mateo Co. Dept. of Public Works

From: Patty Mayall, resident, Old La Honda Rd., unincorporated area of SMC Phone: 650-851-1902

Re: SMC DPW roadside spraying and meeting on March 10, 2010

Mr. Porter,

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me and residents of the unincorporated areas where roadside spraying has been done this year. As you know, residents have been dismayed by the spraying of roadsides along some of the unincorporated county roads during January and February this year, when roadside ditches that drain into local creeks were full of water. This was not only inconsistent with previous practices of the Department, but also with residents of the La Honda Creek Watershed Area's agreement with past Directors dating back to 2006. Since no minutes were recorded, I wanted to clarify some important points and ask some of the basic questions that continue to be unanswered by the Department.

Spraying with herbicides during the rainy season with water in ditches is in direct violation of the San Mateo County Watershed Protection Maintenance Standards - Vegetation Management, which state (page 59); "Herbicides shall not be applied during wet or rainy weather due to the potential for discharge into a water body", and "Herbicides shall not be broadcast sprayed, but shall be selectively sprayed at the plants targeted for removal." Under Roadsides and Ditches (page 62) the Standards require: "Vegetation on shoulders, berms, and unpaved (earthen) ditches shall be mowed as described in "Mowing" below. Low grasses are highly desirable in earthen roadside ditches as they filter pollutants from storm-water runoff, and reduce the velocity of flows thereby reducing the erosive forces." These Standards were adopted by San Mateo County in 2004. Why are they not being adhered to?

Please provide the names of the unincorporated county roads that have been sprayed this year, and for each one, please tell us:

What spray was used (chemical and brand name)?

What were the dates and at what time of day were the applications?

What were the total quantities of spray applied on each road?

Were residents given on-road notifications before, during, and after the spray?

For the past five years, what sprays (chemical and brand names) have been used by DPW on county roadsides, and what was the total annual quantity for each of those years?

At the meeting, you agreed that DPW will post on-road notifications of spraying before, during, and after applications. If you decide to continue roadside spraying this year, please inform me as to when and where, as I would like to request specific information that the community would need to know on these notifications. However, I hope that you will comply with the County’s own existing policies that do not support spraying.

Many of us are hoping that you and the DPW will consider and respect the serious health concerns of and protests to this roadside spraying. I have attached the 582 petition signatures that local residents and I voluntarily collected from March-Nov. 2006, and provided to the DPW then. In 2006, we understood from the past Directors of the Department that the La Honda Creek Watershed Area had achieved the same No Spray Agreement that Pescadero residents have had with the DPW. At last week’s meeting, you said that this 2006 agreement does not exist. I am still not clear on this misunderstanding, and it is regrettable that Supervisor Rich Gordon was not able to attend this meeting and help clarify this. I’m hoping he will.

We will continue to work towards ending roadside spraying in the unincorporated areas and towards protecting our watershed, our properties, and our health.

Please consider not spraying our roads this year and saving the substantial costs of spraying for your department, and saving the greater cost to our health and watershed.

Thank you,

Patty Mayall

Attachment: 2 pages of photos of roadside spraying 55 pages of petition signatures

Cc: Supervisor and President Rich Gordon, SMC Board of Supervisors

Cc letter and photos: SMC Board of Supervisors

Poisoning Our Imperiled Wildlife San Francisco Bay Area Endangered Species at Risk from Pesticides

A Center for Biological Diversity Report February 2006 Writing: Jeﬀ Miller Editing: Julie Miller Photo Editing & Design: T. DeLene Beeland Maps: Curtis Bradley

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY BECAUSE LIFE IS GOOD 1095 Market Street Suite 511 San Francisco CA 94103 415.436.9682 www.biologicaldiversity.org Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... 3

Background on Pesticide Impacts...... 5 Contaminated Waterways...... 5 Contaminated Sediments...... 5 Pesticide Drift...... 6 Effects of Pesticides on Wildlife...... 6 Birds...... 6 Amphibians...... 7 Fishes...... 7 Insects...... 7 Plants...... 7 Endocrine Disruption, Sexual Deformities and other Reproductive Anomalies...... 7

Bay Area Pesticide Use...... 9 Pesticide Use by County...... 9 Pesticides of Concern in the Bay Area...... 10 Case Study: Atrazine...... 10 Case Study: Carbaryl...... 10 Case Study: Chlorpyrifos...... 10 Case Study: Diazinon...... 11 Other Pesticide Use...... 11

Pesticide Use Threatens the Survival of Bay Area Endangered Species...... 16 San Francisco Bay and Delta Fish Species...... 16 North American Green Sturgeon...... 16 Tidewater Goby...... 16 Delta Smelt...... 17 Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout...... 17 Tidal Marshland and Estuarine Species...... 18 Western Snowy Plover...... 18 California Black Rail...... 19 California Brown Pelican...... 19 California Clapper Rail...... 20 California Least Tern...... 20 Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse...... 20 Freshwater and Wetlands Species...... 21 California Tiger Salamander...... 21 Santa Cruz Long-Toed Salamander...... 21 California Red-Legged Frog...... 22 Giant Garter Snake...... 22 San Francisco Garter Snake...... 23 California Freshwater Shrimp...... 23 Delta Green Ground Beetle...... 23 Terrestrial Species...... 24 Swainson’s Hawk...... 24 American Peregrine Falcon...... 24 San Joaquin Kit Fox...... 25 Alameda Whipsnake...... 26 Lange’s Metalmark Butterfly...... 26 1 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle...... 27 Bay Checkerspot Butterfl y...... 27 Mission Blue Butterfl y...... 27 San Bruno Elfi n Butterfl y...... 28 Callippe, Behren’s and Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfl ies...... 28 Plants...... 29

What is the EPA Doing to Control the Use of Pesticides?...... 32 The Pesticide Registration Process...... 32 EPA’s Responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act...... 33 EPA’s Failure to Adequately Evaluate Risks to Wildlife...... 34 EPA’s So-Called “Endangered Species Protection Program”...... 35 EPA’s New Regulations Weakening Endangered Species Protections...... 37 The EPA and the Courts...... 38

Recommendations...... 41 Policy Recommendations for the U.S. EPA and the Federal Government...... 41 Policy Recommendations for the State Environmental Protection Agency...... 41 Recommendations for Homeowners, Renters and Parents...... 42

Maps of Bay Area Pesticide Use in Endangered Species Habitat...... 44 Major Tributaries of the Nine Bay Area Counties...... 45 Pesticide Applications Detrimental to the San Joaquin Kit Fox...... 46 Pesticide Applications Detrimental to the California Red-Legged Frog...... 47 Pesticide Applications Detrimental to the California Tiger Salamander...... 48

References...... 49

Center for Biological Diversity Pesticides Reform Campaign...... 54

Cover photo, top center: Courtesy of Historic Arkansas Riverwalk of Pueblo.

2 Executive Summary he San Francisco Bay Area is valued for its extensive report, Silent Spring Revisited,1 the EPA’s regulatory oversight open space and the spectacular San Francisco of the pesticide industry is abysmal. While the EPA is entrusted Bay, which provide scenic views and recreational to protect public health and the environment, the agency opportunitiesT for nearly 10 million people. The unique Bay tends to dismiss credible studies and scientific findings on the Area wildlands, which give us inspiration and connection to adverse impacts of pesticides; it also ignores mounting evidence nature, harbor rich biological diversity. The varied ecosystems demonstrating that even low doses of pesticides in wildlife and around the Bay provide habitat for numerous endangered humans can have drastic consequences. species of animals and plants. However, the health of the Bay and these habitats are at risk due to extensive agricultural and A 1999 Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) urban pesticide use. Toxic pesticides that are sprayed on our report, Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides food, our soil and our lawns find their way into local creeks and in California, documented the impact of pesticides on wildlife ultimately the Bay, posing a significant threat to water quality statewide.2 The report found that multiple pesticides are often and jeopardizing endangered species. Toxic pesticide use not found in California waters and sediments at concentrations only poisons some of our most imperiled wildlife, it threatens exceeding levels lethal to zooplankton, a primary food source human health – particularly the health of children. for fish. The PANNA report also discussed the effects of routine toxic pulses of diazinon and chlorpyrifos in California This report examines the risk that toxic pesticides pose to streams during critical stages in fish development. Pesticide endangered species in the nine Bay Area counties: Marin, contamination of the Bay Area’s waterways is an ongoing Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, problem, and as detailed in this report, aquatic species are San Mateo and San Francisco. At least 30 of the 51 federally particularly vulnerable to pesticides. Much of the San Francisco endangered or threatened animal species that survive in the Bay and Delta and many Bay Area streams are listed as Bay Area may be adversely affected by the more than eight “impaired” or not meeting water quality standards due to high million pounds of pesticides used in the Bay Area each year. concentrations of pesticides such as chlordane, chlorpyrifos, This report also discusses the failure of the U.S. Environmental DDT, diazinon and dieldrin. Although some organophosphate Protection Agency (EPA), the governmental agency charged chemicals such as chlorpyrifos and diazinon are being gradually with guaranteeing the safety of pesticides for public use, to phased out from household use, the agrochemical industry ensure that its pesticide authorizations do not harm endangered is now turning to pyrethroid pesticides that are known to species. accumulate in aquatic sediment and become highly toxic.

More than two billion pounds of pesticides are sold each year Pesticides also affect our songbirds, waterfowl and raptors. For in the U.S. for agricultural, commercial and home uses. The example, the pesticides carbofuran and diazinon are responsible EPA has registered more than 18,000 pesticides, over 900 for the majority of bird kills in California; as many as 17 of them registered for use in California. Based on reported birds are killed for every five acres treated with carbofuran. uses alone, more than 43 million pounds of pesticide active Pesticides can disrupt the balance between pest and predator ingredients were applied in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003. insects and kill beneficial insects needed for pollination and Actual pesticide use may have been up to several times this other ecosystem services. Finally, there is mounting evidence amount since pesticide applications not made by professional that pesticides are having population level effects on some of applicators—particularly home and garden use and most our most imperiled amphibians and on formerly abundant fish industrial, commercial and institutional uses—do not have to species in the Delta, which should serve as a warning about be reported to the state. For example, the San Francisco Estuary the health of the aquatic ecosystems we depend upon for clean Project’s Pesticides in Urban Surface Waters: Urban Pesticides Use water and abundant wildlife. Trends Annual Report 2005 estimated that about 73 percent of California pesticide use in 2003 did not require reporting. In its rush to get pesticides on the market, the EPA has consistently disregarded requests by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife It would be easy to assume that pesticide products for sale are Service to alter pesticide registrations because of adverse impacts safe because they are registered by the EPA. Such faith would to endangered wildlife. The Service enforces the Endangered be misplaced, since the EPA has blindly registered many toxic Species Act and has the responsibility to cooperate with other pesticides for public use at the behest of the agrochemical agencies in assessing the impact of government actions on industry rather than independently assessing the risks of endangered species. Yet for over a decade, the EPA has refused pesticides to the health of humans, animals and ecosystems. to complete mandated formal consultations with the Service on As documented in the 2004 Center for Biological Diversity pesticide impacts to endangered species and is now attempting to delay compliance for another 10 to 15 years. As discussed in 3 this report, there are also troubling scientific deficiencies in the research on the impacts of its products. If allowed to stand, EPA’s assessments of pesticide risks and its pesticide regulation these changes will have detrimental environmental effects on process. the imperiled wildlife of the San Francisco Bay Area as well as on human health. These unacceptable regulations, which In 1972, spurred by the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent explicitly adopt the EPA’s long-standing refusal to comply with Spring, Congress explicitly put environmental standards federal law, are being challenged by conservation groups. into the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). One of the weaknesses of FIFRA in protecting The health of our endangered species is a barometer for the endangered wildlife from toxic pesticides is its cost-benefit human residents of the Bay Area, since pesticides detected in standard. It allows unacceptable risks to human health and wildlife habitats also find their way into our drinking water, the environment to continue based on economic benefits – in food supply, homes and gardens, and schools and workplaces. contrast to other federal laws that tolerate less harm, such as Ultimately, pesticides that harm steelhead trout or red-legged the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act. FIFRA also frogs also pose a health risk to farm workers, families and allowed pesticides to stay on the market until the EPA gets communities. If our society can put a man on the moon, we around to re-registering them, which the EPA still has not should be able to prevent our children, who are particularly done for many pesticides although it has a statutory deadline susceptible to pesticides, and imperiled wildlife from exposure of August 2007 to do so. Furthermore, since the EPA has to our most toxic poisons. consistently failed to ensure that its pesticide authorizations comply with the Endangered Species Act while re-registering Changing the abysmal pesticide oversight situation at the EPA old pesticides, these toxic pesticides will still be authorized for is essential to efforts to clean up the poor state of water quality use in sensitive habitats and adjacent areas when the agency in San Francisco Bay and its tributaries, and to protect the completes its re-registrations in 2007. region’s endangered and threatened species. This report closes with policy recommendations for the EPA and suggestions for The EPA’s rampant violations of the Endangered Species Act homeowners to reduce our pesticide risk to protect human have led courts to order the agency to start bringing some health and to help maintain the ecological health of the San pesticide registrations into compliance with the Act. In Francisco Bay Area. response, the EPA has tried to legitimize their delay by writing it into their so-called Endangered Species Protection Program. The EPA proposes to take an additional 15 years to address its ongoing Endangered Species Act violations and is asking the public to trust the agency to review pesticide registrations through a new process that is not even in place yet. The chemical industry has also pressed for a legislative exemption to allow the EPA to continue to delay consultations and protections for endangered species. A Congressional rider on an appropriations bill that would have further restricted the review of dangerous pesticides with regards to their effects on endangered species was defeated in 2005. To make matters worse, Congressman Richard Pombo’s anti-endangered species bill, which passed the House of Representatives in 2005, would suspend for five years the requirement that new agricultural and commercial pesticides not directly kill, harm or jeopardize the survival or recovery of threatened and endangered species.

The Bush administration is attempting to further subvert the public interest through new regulations that eliminate important protections in the EPA registration process, circumventing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s scientiﬁc oversight of pesticide impacts on endangered species. Regulations adopted in July 2005 – after conservation groups were successful in a series of lawsuits based on the EPA’s admitted failure to determine the impact of pesticides on wildlife – leave the EPA with sole responsibility for assessing pesticide eﬀects on endangered species and allow the agrochemical industry to control all

4 Background on Pesticide Impacts Contaminated Waterways cutely toxic pulses of pesticides move down the Pesticide contamination of waterways is an ongoing problem Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and local San in the San Francisco Bay Area. Most of the San Francisco Bay Francisco Bay streams and through the estuaries and and Delta is listed as “impaired” or not meeting EPA water ABay Delta with “remarkable persistence and relatively little quality standards due to high concentrations of the pesticides dilution,” according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service chlordane, DDT, diazinon and dieldrin. Of particular concern (USFWS).3 Researchers have reported episodic toxicity in are the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Carquinez Strait, the Delta involving peaks of organophosphate pesticides, Suisun Bay, Richardson Bay, San Pablo Bay, San Francisco carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, trifluralin and atrazine.4 Such pulsed Bay, the Oakland Inner Harbor and San Leandro Bay.6 In introduction of pollutants may increase the time of exposure 2005, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to pesticides or expose fish and other aquatic organisms during proposed adding several water bodies to the impaired list due biologically sensitive times. to pesticides: Lake Chabot for chlordane, DDT and dieldrin; San Pablo Reservoir for chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor and There is growing evidence that numerous fish species in the toxaphene; and San Leandro Bay, Stege Marsh in Richmond Delta are suffering direct mortality or additional stress from and Stevens Creek for chlordane and dieldrin.7 the presence of toxic substances such as pesticides. There is also evidence that the plankton upon which Delta fish feed Thirty-seven creeks draining into San Francisco Bay are also may be depleted by highly concentrated pulses of pesticides. listed as impaired due to high concentrations of the pesticide The Delta’s open water forage fish populations are collapsing diazinon, including: Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio, Corte in a crisis that potentially threatens the entire estuarine food Madera Creek, Coyote Creek, Gallinas Creek, Miller Creek, web. In fall 2004, Delta smelt and juvenile striped bass in the Novato Creek, San Antonio Creek and San Rafael Creek Delta were at their lowest ever recorded levels, and copepods, in Marin County; the Petaluma River in Sonoma County; the main food source for small fish in the Delta, have also fallen Laurel Creek, Ledgewood Creek and Suisun Slough in Solano to extremely low levels. Toxic chemicals including pesticides County; Mount Diablo Creek, Pine Creek, Pinole Creek, and herbicides are suspected to play a role in these alarming Rodeo Creek, San Pablo Creek, Walnut Creek and Wildcat declines. Creek in Contra Costa County; Alameda Creek, Arroyo De La Laguna, Arroyo Del Valle, Arroyo Las Positas, Arroyo Mocho, Agricultural and urban runoff transport pesticides away from lower San Leandro Creek and San Lorenzo Creek in Alameda their application areas, with pesticides either dissolved in County; Calabazas Creek, Coyote Creek, the Guadalupe River, water or bound to suspended sediments in the water. The U.S. Los Gatos Creek, Matadero Creek, Permanente Creek, San Geological Survey (USGS) recently released several reports on Felipe Creek, Saratoga Creek and Stevens Creek in Santa Clara nationwide water quality surveys, documenting the astounding County; and San Francisquito Creek and San Mateo Creek in prevalence of pesticides in our nation’s waterways, particularly San Mateo County.8 in streams and ground water located in basins with significant agricultural or urban development.5 This polluted runoff can pose acute and chronic problems to wildlife and plants. Not surprisingly, the USGS noted a direct correlation between the Contaminated Sediments amounts and types of pesticides used and their frequency in The health of the Bay’s sediment is important because it provides nearby surface waters. Mixtures of multiple pesticides were habitat for benthic organisms at the bottom of the food chain, commonly found in stream samples and pesticides were at such as clams and insects, which are a food source for fish. The concentrations established by the Environmental Protection presence of pesticides in Bay sediments or on stream bottoms Agency (EPA) as levels of concern. Yet the EPA continues to also indicates that pesticides are or were present in the Bay or in assess the risk of each pesticide individually, failing to consider the water of a stream.9 Stream sediments can act as a reservoir cumulative and synergistic effects. Moreover, the USGS studies for contaminants, with pesticides entering and leaving stream only represent a brief snapshot of pesticides in our environment, bottom sediments through numerous pathways. Stream since they did not assess aquatic pesticide concentrations sediments can be contaminated by settling of contaminated through daily monitoring over the entire seasons that pesticides suspended sediments, re-suspension and export of sediments in are used. With limited sampling size, the studies most likely do the water column, adsorption onto and release from mineral or not reflect the highest concentrations and fail to measure the organic sediments, interactions with stream-bottom organisms, duration pesticides persist in our waters. ingestion or absorption by organisms, and elimination of

5 wastes and release from decaying contaminated organisms.10 documenting adverse impacts of pesticide drift on wildlife Pesticides can persist and accumulate in sediment and in aquatic and humans. The CPR analysis found pesticides far from their organisms through these processes even at concentrations too application sites at concentrations significantly exceeding acute low to be detected using conventional methods. and chronic exposure levels deemed “safe” by the EPA. The thousands of reported complaints the EPA receives each year Pesticides of concern enter the water and active sediment of from around the country on off-target spray drift confirm the San Francisco Bay in runoff from the Central Valley and local CPR study findings. watersheds. The USGS is studying sediments transported into the San Francisco Bay Estuary from the Sacramento and San Although the EPA notes that spray drift continues to be of Joaquin Rivers, which carry waters from the Central Valley concern and has a policy to prevent pesticide drift from target where more than 500 different pesticides are used.11 Pesticides in sites, the agency acknowledges that some degree of drift occurs sediments may account for much of the pesticides transported from nearly all applications. 20 The EPA relies on applicators to estuaries, where they have different environmental effects voluntarily following pesticide labels to prevent drift, yet than dissolved pesticides, affecting aquatic life differently and acknowledges that current labels are inadequate in preventing posing a particular risk to filter-feeding pelagic and benthic spray drift.21 For example, in the recently released re-registration organisms. The majority of suspended sediments move into decision for the highly toxic pesticide atrazine, the EPA simply estuaries in annual pulse flows with the first flush of runoff from stated the following for spray drift management: “The Agency the first major winter storm; contaminated sediments remain is currently working with stakeholders to develop appropriate in estuaries longer than contaminated water does, increasing generic labels to address spray drift risk. Once this process is exposure risk for some aquatic organisms.”12 completed, atrazine labels will need to be revised to include this additional language.”22 Although the EPA published draft guidance for label statements in 2001, it has yet to finalize label guidance for spray and dust drift, and the agency continues to Pticide Drift rely on voluntary standards to control spray drift.23 Pesticides can also travel inadvertently to sensitive habitats through pesticide drift: the, airborne movement of pesticides The CPR study concluded that current EPA pesticide label away from a target site, resulting from aerial application or from language is inadequate to control spray drift. The EPA’s failure wind movement over soils containing pesticides. Pesticides to control spray drift places wildlife at risk and jeopardizes can drift as droplets, dusts, volatilized vapor-phase pesticides endangered species, in violation of the Endangered Species or pesticide-contaminated soil particles. Aerial pesticide Act. Until the EPA aggressively addresses spray drift, it will also applications typically result in “considerable” off-site drift, continue to abrogate its duties under the Federal Insecticide, according to the National Research Council.13 The amount of Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to protect humans pesticide drift can vary from 5 percent under optimal low-wind and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects. conditions to as high as 60 percent.14 The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment estimates that about 40 percent of an aerial insecticide application leaves the target area and that Effes of Pticid on Wildlife less than 1 percent actually reaches the intended pest.15 The typical range for drift is 100 to 1,600 meters; however, longer BIRDS range drift up to 50 miles has been documented.16 Although the pesticide DDT has been banned in the U.S. for over 25 years, other pesticides are still killing birds and causing Impacts to wildlife from pesticide drift have been documented, avian reproductive problems throughout the country. For rare, particularly to amphibians, for which pesticides appear to endangered or threatened birds, even a few pesticide poisoning be compromising their immune systems. Studies implicate incidents can be significant, and interference with successful pesticide drift from the Central Valley in disproportional reproduction can jeopardize the entire species. Nationwide, declines of several native frog species in the Sierra Nevada, even annual avian mortality is estimated at 10 percent of the 672 affecting frogs collected from high in the Sierra Nevada far million birds exposed to agricultural pesticides alone, although from areas of direct pesticide use.17 Studies have found a close reported kills represent only a fraction of actual bird mortality. correlation between declining populations of amphibians and In California, the insecticides diazinon and carbofuran have exposure to agricultural pesticides, raising significant concerns caused most documented bird kills. Organochlorine pesticides, about pesticide impacts on non-target organisms living far such as DDT, also continue to interfere with avian reproduction away from the point of application.18 long after their use has been discontinued. Synthetic pyrethroids, similar to organochlorines, are also suspected In 2003, Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) released to have reproductive effects on birds. Sub-lethal exposure to Secondhand Pesticides: Airborne Pesticide Drift in California,19 pesticides can chronically affect avian behavior, reproduction

6 and nervous system function. Birds exposed to pesticides can nutrient cycling and pest control. Pest insect populations can become more susceptible to predation, experience weight loss often recover more rapidly than beneficial insects because and have decreased resistance to disease. Pesticide exposure can of their larger numbers and ability to develop resistance to also reduce interest in mating and defending territory and can pesticides. With rapid reproduction and no predators to check cause birds to abandon their nestlings. their numbers, this can cause a resurgence of the target pest and secondary pests. Escalating pesticide applications can AMPHIBIANS result in pests with even greater resistance to pesticides, and Due to their recognized sensitivity to contaminants, amphibians the “pesticide treadmill” goes around and around. Although are a barometer of environmental health. Adverse impacts to nationwide insecticide use increased 10-fold from 1945 to amphibians are often the first sign that our ecosystems are under 1989, crop losses from insects nearly doubled and now more stress. Since amphibians respire through their skin and spend than 500 pest species are resistant to pesticides nationwide. much of their life cycle in water, moving through the interface Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, of water and air, they are at high risk from chemical pollutants. we are facing an “impending pollinator crisis,” in which both Pesticides are often insoluble in water and tend to concentrate wild and managed pollinators are disappearing at alarming on the surface. This heightens the risk to amphibians, which rates, partly due to pesticides.27 readily absorb chemicals through their permeable skins. Many studies have demonstrated that pesticide residues in water, PLANTS sediment and vegetation can harm amphibians in aquatic Herbicide use is obviously a threat to listed plant species, environments by delaying or altering larval development or since herbicides are chemicals specifically formulated to kill by reducing breeding or feeding activity.24 Many pesticides plants. Herbicides are widely applied to gardens, lawns and currently in use can potentially disrupt amphibian endocrine crops to control unwanted plants and weeds, but can affect systems, adversely affecting adult breeding and embryonic non-target plants through aerial drift or runoff. Herbicides larval development.25 For example, in a recent University of applied indiscriminately to roads and right-of-ways have been California study, the herbicide atrazine was found to disrupt documented to kill rare or listed plant species in the Bay Area. sexual development of frogs at concentrations 30 times lower than levels allowed by the EPA.26 Also of great concern is ENDOCRINE DISRUPTION, SEXUAL DEFORMITIES the possibility that pesticide pollutants act as environmental AND OTHER REPRODUCTIVE ANOMALIES stressors, rendering amphibians more susceptible to aquatic Endocrine disruptors are synthetic chemicals that mimic pathogens and diseases. natural hormones, disrupting natural processes by sending false messages, blocking real messages, preventing synthesis FISHES of the body’s own hormones, and accelerating the breakdown Fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Bay and excretion of hormones. Endocrine disruption affects how and its tributaries inhabit an ecosystem already stressed by animals develop and function and can cause severe damage dams and water diversions, urban development and invasion of during critical developmental stages.28 Reproductive disorders, exotic species. The large concentrations of toxic pesticides that immune system dysfunction, thyroid disorders, types of enter the Bay also affect many aquatic species. The widely used cancer, birth defects and neurological effects have all been insecticides diazinon and chlorpyrifos are of particular concern linked to endocrine disruption. Offspring of those affected by in the Bay Area. Toxic pulses of pesticides occur regularly as endocrine disruptors may also suffer from lifelong health and storm water and irrigation runoff carry pesticides from urban reproductive abnormalities, including reduced fertility, altered and agricultural areas into surface waters. Multiple pesticides sexual behavior, lowered immunity and cancer.29 are found in Bay waters and sediments, often at concentrations above lethal levels for organisms eaten by fish. Pesticides can Over 60 percent of all agricultural herbicides applied in the kill aquatic animals and plants, impair reproduction, and U.S. (measured by volume) have the potential to disrupt reduce food sources for fish. Numerous fish species in the endocrine and/or reproductive systems of humans and San Francisco Bay Delta have recently experienced dramatic wildlife.30 Several organophosphate and carbamate pesticides population declines, and toxic contaminants are thought to are recognized as endocrine disruptors.31 Studies have shown be one of the major stressors affecting fish in the Bay Delta endocrine disrupting effects from the pesticides atrazine, ecosystem. chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endosulfan, malathion, methoprene and methoxychlor in amphibians, salmon, mice, turtles and INSECTS aquatic arthropods.32 Wildlife studies of gulls, terns, fishes, Broad-spectrum pesticides used to destroy pest insects can whales, porpoises, alligators and turtles also link environmental disrupt the natural balance between pest and predator insects contaminants such as pesticides with disturbances in sex and indiscriminately kill beneficial insects as well. Many hormone production and/or action. beneficial insects play essential roles in pollination, soil aeration,

7 Studies suggest that pesticides can affect organisms at extremely low levels, even at concentrations too low to be detected; they also suggest that amphibians are likely to be far more sensitive to pesticides in the natural world than traditional laboratory tests used to establish regulatory standards indicate.33 A compelling example is the University of California study showing that exposure of low levels of atrazine prevented the masculine characteristics of male frogs from fully forming and in some cases caused hermaphroditism.34 This study exposed frogs to low levels of atrazine, which prevented the masculine characteristics of male frogs from fully forming and in some cases caused hermaphroditism. The extent of these deformities would likely be magnified in the natural environment because the highest atrazine levels coincide with the amphibian breeding season. Another study has demonstrated that exposure to multiple pesticides can cause endocrine, immune and behavioral changes even though no effects were noted from exposure to each chemical in isolation.35

8 Bay Area Pesticide Use

he California Department of Pesticide Regulation Sonoma County (CDPR) tracks registered pesticide use by total pounds Reported pesticide use in Sonoma County from 1999 to of active ingredient applied. A recent analysis by the 2003 averaged over three million pounds of active ingredients TPesticide Action Network comparing four years of reported per year. In 2003, over 2,890,000 pounds of pesticides were use and reported sales of pesticides found that non-reporting reported applied over 813,011 acres. The top five reported may be significant, with reporting rates from 9 percent to 138 pesticide uses in Sonoma County in 2003 were sulfur, 1,3- percent.36 Actual use of pesticides in California can typically dichloropropene, isopropylamine salt glyphosate, unclassified be up to three times the reported use,37 since home and garden petroleum oil and refined petroleum distillates. pesticide use and most industrial, commercial and institutional pesticide applications not made by professional applicators do Napa County not have to be reported to the state and are not reflected in Reported pesticide use in Napa County from 1999 to 2003 these totals. Pesticide uses that require reporting are generally averaged over two million pounds of active ingredients per year. agricultural uses or urban application by licensed pest control In 2003, over 1,930,000 pounds of pesticides were reported operators. applied over 577,747 acres. The top five reported pesticide uses in Napa County in 2003 were sulfur, isopropylamine salt In the five years from 1999 to 2003 (the most recent years glyphosate, potassium bicarbonate, refined petroleum distillates for which data is available), use of over 43 million pounds and copper hydroxide. of pesticide active ingredients was reported in the nine Bay Area counties.38 Over 8.6 million pounds of pesticide active Solano County ingredients were reported applied over 2.37 million acres in Reported pesticide use in Solano County from 1999 to 2003 the Bay Area in 2003 alone. In addition, a portion of the averaged just under one and a half million pounds of active estimated 150 million pounds of pesticides applied to crops in ingredients per year. In 2003, just under 1,090,000 pounds of the Central Valley each year is transported to the San Francisco pesticides were reported applied over 566,652 acres. The top five Bay and Delta. reported pesticide uses in Solano County in 2003 were sulfur, metam-sodium, unclassified petroleum oil, isopropylamine salt Reported Bay Area Pesticide Use from 1999 to 2003 (in pounds glyphosate and 2,4-D. of active ingredients) Contra Costa County Marin County 349,632 Reported pesticide use in Contra Costa County from 1999 to Sonoma County 15,320,916 2003 averaged over 590,000 pounds of active ingredients per Napa County 10,388,521 year. In 2003, over 990,000 pounds of pesticides were reported Solano County 7,337,722 applied over 183,061 acres. The top five reported pesticide uses Contra Costa County 2,970,945 in Contra Costa County in 2003 were petroleum distillates, Alameda County 1,632,484 sulfur, isopropylamine salt glyphosate, diuron and kaolin. Santa Clara County 4,123,478 San Mateo County 1,270,711 Alameda County San Francisco County 97,302 Reported pesticide use in Alameda County from 1999 to 2003 Total 43,491,711 averaged over 325,000 pounds of active ingredients per year. In 2003, over 440,000 pounds of pesticides were reported applied over 48,559 acres. The top five reported pesticide uses in Alameda County in 2003 were isopropylamine salt glyphosate, Pticide Use by County sulfuryl fluoride, diuron, 2,4-D and calcium hypochlorite. Marin County Santa Clara County Reported pesticide use in Marin County from 1999 to 2003 Reported pesticide use in Santa Clara County from 1999 to averaged about 70,000 pounds of active ingredients per year. In 2003 averaged almost 825,000 pounds of active ingredients per 2003, over 59,000 pounds of pesticides were reported applied year. In 2003, over 978,000 pounds of pesticides were reported over 9,508 acres. The top five reported pesticide uses in Marin applied over 150,730 acres. The top five reported pesticide County in 2003 were sulfuryl fluoride, sulfur, copper sulfate, uses in Santa Clara County in 2003 were sulfuryl fluoride, disodium octaborate tetrahydrate and formaldehyde. metam-sodium, sulfur, isopropylamine salt glyphosate and chloropicrin. 9 San Mateo County particular concern for amphibians such as the California red- Reported pesticide use in San Mateo County from 1999 to legged frog and California tiger salamander, and for fish such 2003 averaged over 250,000 pounds of active ingredients per as Delta smelt, salmon and steelhead trout. Reported Bay Area year. In 2003, over 273,000 pounds of pesticides were reported use of atrazine was only 3,700 pounds from 1999 to 2003, applied over 29,000 acres. The top five reported pesticide uses primarily in Solano and Contra Costa counties. However, in San Mateo County in 2003 were sulfuryl fluoride, petroleum the actual unreported Bay Area use of atrazine, including distillates, potassium n-methyldithio carbamate, disodium widespread home, garden and unreported commercial use, was octaborate tetrahydrate and liquefied nitrogen likely considerably higher.

San Francisco County CASE STUDY: CARBARYL Reported pesticide use in San Francisco County from 1999 Carbaryl is a carbamate insecticide that is very toxic to aquatic to 2003 averaged over 19,000 pounds of active ingredients invertebrates and to fish, particularly salmonids. This chemical per year. In 2003, over 12,000 pounds of pesticides were may affect swimming capability and increase vulnerability of reported applied. The top five reported pesticides used in San fish to predation. It is also toxic to honeybees, earthworms, Francisco County in 2003 were boric acid, isopropylamine salt crustaceans, stone flies and mayflies. For mammals, carbaryl glyphosate, butoxyethyl ester triclopyr, disodium octaborate is suspected to be a carcinogen, mutagen and viral enhancer tetrahydrate and acephate. and is suspected to decrease fertility. Carbaryl is an endocrine disruptor that may affect breeding success and reproduction for birds and fish due to long-term toxicity. It binds to soil and can find its way into water in run-off. Use of carbaryl in the Bay Pticid of Concern in the Bay Area Area is of particular concern for salmon, steelhead trout and the California red-legged frog. Reported use of carbaryl in the Bay CASE STUDY: ATRAZINE Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 87,000 pounds. However, Atrazine, the most commonly used herbicide in the United the San Francisco Estuary Project estimated that actual Bay States, is so dangerous to humans and wildlife that it was Area use of carbaryl in 2003 alone was 30,000 pounds, when recently banned by the European Union. Numerous studies have use of just over 10,000 pounds was reported.41 Thus, actual Bay provided overwhelming evidence linking atrazine to significant Area use of carbaryl from 1999 to 2003 may have approached human and wildlife health concerns, including endocrine over 250,000 pounds. disruption. Atrazine is also linked to declines of endangered amphibians in California and many other endangered species throughout the country. Recent studies by Dr. Tyrone Hayes CASE STUDY: CHLORPYRIFOS at the University of California have strengthened the case for Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide with both banning atrazine, the most common contaminant of ground, agricultural and urban uses. It is the most widely used surface, and drinking water. Dr. Hayes demonstrated that insecticide in the U.S. and consequently has been detected in atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that directly affects the groundwater and in surface water. Virtually all homeowner sexual development of amphibians, chemically castrating and uses of chlorpyrifos were banned in the U.S. in December of feminizing male frogs at concentrations 30 times lower than 2001. levels allowed by the EPA.39 Atrazine shrank the larynges of male frogs at doses as low as one part per billion, which is Chlorpyrifos has very high immediate toxicity for mollusks, significant because the frogs use vocalization to mate. fish, crustaceans, bees and aquatic insects; high to very high immediate toxicity for birds; and low to high immediate Furthermore, atrazine exceeds EPA toxicity levels of concern toxicity for amphibians. For mammals, chlorpyrifos can have for direct chronic effects on mammals, birds, fish, aquatic cumulative long-term effects, is known to be a fetotoxin and invertebrates and direct acute effects on non-target terrestrial delayed neurotoxin, and may cause sterility and impotence. and aquatic plants. Atrazine may persist in the environment Long-term exposure to chlorpyrifos can cause leg weakness at concentrations in excess of levels of concern for months. It and delayed neurotoxicity for birds, affect the growth of fish, is also highly toxic to aquatic plants and has sub-lethal and and affect the reproduction and equilibrium of crustaceans. indirect effects on aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. Due Chlorpyrifos is also toxic to some plants. Chlorpyrifos was to its high mobility and solubility, atrazine is likely to find its found to cause 80 percent mortality in 17 of 23 beneficial way into groundwater40 and thus poses a risk to the health insects tested by the International Organization for Biological 42 and integrity of aquatic communities. Specifically, reported Control. Bio-concentration of chlorpyrifos in ponds and sub-lethal effects of atrazine include endocrine disruption in estuarine areas may pose acute and/or reproductive risks fish and frogs and olfactory effects in salmon. Atrazine is also to aquatic birds and mammals feeding adjacent to treated 43 known to increase the toxicity of organophosphate insecticides, areas. Synergistic interactions have been observed between 44 such as chlorpyrifos. Use of atrazine in the Bay Area is of chlorpyrifos and other chemicals, enhancing its toxicity. 10 Use of chlorpyrifos in the Bay Area is of particular concern immediate toxicity of acephate is medium to high for birds for fish such as Delta smelt and Pacific salmon, and for the and high for bees. Acephate has been attributed elsewhere California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and to die-offs of birds. Long-term toxicity effects of acephate brown pelican. Reported use of chlorpyrifos in the Bay Area may include altered behavior and breeding success for birds, from 1999 to 2003 was over 264,000 pounds.45 However, the suspected carcinogenic and mutagenic effects for mammals, as San Francisco Estuary Project estimated that actual Bay Area well as toxicity to fetuses and some evidence of hormonal effects use of chlorpyrifos in 2003 alone was 80,000 pounds, when for mammals. Use of acephate in the Bay Area is of particular use of just over 15,000 pounds was reported.46 Thus, actual concern for the California tiger salamander and California red- Bay Area use of chlorpyrifos from 1999 to 2003 may have legged frog. Reported use of acephate in the Bay Area from approached over one million pounds. 1999 to 2003 was over 40,000 pounds.

CASE STUDY: DIAZINON Aluminum Phosphide Diazinon is a widely used, highly toxic organophosphate Aluminum phosphide is a burrow fumigant used as a insecticide. It has also been detected in groundwater and in rodenticide. Use of aluminum phosphide in the Bay Area is of surface water throughout the U.S., where it is highly toxic to particular concern for the San Joaquin kit fox. Reported use of aquatic invertebrates. Use of diazinon has been banned in the aluminum phosphide from 1999 to 2003 in the three East Bay U.S. on golf courses and turf farms, since field kills of waterfowl counties where the kit fox occurs was over 22,000 pounds. have been reported following use on turf. The EPA recently banned residential use of diazinon because of the growing Azinphos-Methyl nationwide protest against its use from environmentalists and Azinphos-methyl is a widely used agricultural insecticide public health advocates. commonly applied to fruit orchards. Azinphos-methyl is highly toxic to freshwater and marine fish and invertebrates. Potential Diazinon is very highly toxic to birds, mammals, fish, exposure from spray drift and surface residues also places birds amphibians, beneficial insects and freshwater, estuarine and and mammals at risk. Azinphos-methyl exceeds EPA toxicity marine animals. Diazinon is also toxic to some plants. The use levels of concern up to 47-fold for birds and 99-fold for small of diazinon as a seed dressing is of concern since it is highly mammals, strongly suggesting that adverse reproductive effects toxic to birds. Bird kills associated with diazinon have been are likely from chronic exposure to sub-lethal doses. Azinphos reported throughout the U.S, and in 1988 the EPA concluded methyl has caused massive fish kills throughout the U.S. There that the use of diazinon in open areas poses a widespread and is evidence that azinphos-methyl kills aquatic organisms and continuous hazard to birds. Diazinon has caused the second there are also documented kills of birds, mammals and reptiles. largest number of total known incidents of bird mortality Use of azinphos-methyl in the Bay Area is of particular concern of any pesticide in the U.S. Sub-lethal effects on aquatic for salmon, steelhead trout, California tiger salamander and invertebrate behavior and growth of early life stages of fish have California red-legged frog. Reported use of azinphos-methyl in been reported at low concentrations of diazinon. the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 21,000 pounds.

Use of diazinon in the Bay Area is of particular concern for Bensulide the California red-legged frog, many birds, and fish such as Bensulide is an organophosphate herbicide used on grasses the Delta smelt, tidewater goby and Pacific salmon. Reported and weeds in food crops and golf courses. The most significant use of diazinon in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over risk from bensulide is potential eggshell thinning for birds. 264,000 pounds.47 However, the San Francisco Estuary Project Bensulide residues on wildlife food items can also pose a risk estimated that actual Bay Area use of diazinon in 2003 alone to mammals. Bensulide exceeds EPA toxicity levels of concern was 50,000 pounds, when use of just over 15,000 pounds was for freshwater fish and freshwater invertebrates, with high reported, and the California Regional Water Quality Control immediate toxicity for fish. Reported use of bensulide in the Board reports that the Bay Area uses about 170,000 pounds of Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 17,000 pounds. diazinon each year.48 Thus, actual Bay Area use of diazinon from 1999 to 2003 may have approached one million pounds. Captan Captan is a fungicide used on fruit and golf courses. Most OTHER PESTICIDE USE food crop uses in the U.S. were cancelled in 1989. Captan Acephate exceeds EPA toxicity levels of concern for mammals, freshwater Acephate is an organophosphate insecticide used on field, fruit fish and invertebrates. Captan is known to have long-term and vegetable crops and golf courses. All uses of acephate form carcinogen effects on mammals and is a suspected mutagen the breakdown product methamidophos, which exceeds EPA and immunotoxin as well. Reported use of captan in the Bay toxicity levels of concern for endangered species of mammals, Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 8,000 pounds. amphibians, reptiles, insects and freshwater invertebrates. The

11 Carbofuran neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption. In November 2005 the Carbofuran is a carbamate pesticide widely used in agriculture. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Many of its granular uses have been phased out due to the announced its intention to list 2,4-D and related compounds risk of mortality to wildlife. Carbofuran is extremely toxic to as developmental toxicants under California’s Safe Drinking birds, affecting songbirds, waterfowl and raptors. This pesticide Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. Centers for Disease has been estimated to kill one to two million birds annually in Control studies indicate that one quarter of the U.S. population the U.S.49 and has caused the largest number of total known carries 2,4-D in their bodies, and children between the ages of incidents of bird mortality of any pesticide in California.50 six and 11 have significantly higher exposure rates. Use of 2,4- Application of carbofuran to crops has resulted in as many as D in the Bay Area is of particular concern for Pacific salmon, 17 bird kills for every five acres treated.51 Use of carbofuran steelhead trout and the salt marsh harvest mouse. Reported use in the Bay Area is of concern for all birds, particularly the of 2,4-D in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 262,000 peregrine falcon, and for the giant garter snake, San Francisco pounds. garter snake and Delta smelt. Reported use of carbofuran in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 9,000 pounds. 1,3-Dichloropropene 1,3-Dichloropropene is a fungicide and insecticide. 1,3-D is Chlorothalonil acutely toxic to terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates as well as Chlorothalonil is an organochlorine fungicide that has been fish. It is often contaminated with the more highly toxic and detected in groundwater throughout the U.S. Chlorothalonil persistent chemical 1,2-dichloropropane. Reported use of 1,3- is highly toxic to fish and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. D in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was 800,000 pounds. Chlorothalonil suspends to organic matter once in water and is slow to biodegrade in still waters, posing a risk to fish and their Dicofol habitat. Chlorothalonil is persistent in soils and is also acutely Dicofol is an insecticide used to kill mites on a variety of fruit, toxic to crabs, frogs and water fleas. Long term chlorothalonil vegetable, ornamental and field crops. Dicofol is manufactured exposure in mammals can result in cancer and damage to skin, from and is structurally similar to DDT. It is highly toxic eyes and kidneys. The EPA has stated that registered uses of to aquatic life and can cause eggshell thinning in some bird chlorothalonil “may adversely affect endangered species of birds species. Dicofol is highly to very highly toxic to a range of (chronically), mammals (chronically), freshwater fish (acutely aquatic organisms, including fish, invertebrates and estuarine/ and chronically), freshwater invertebrates (acutely) and aquatic marine organisms. Environmental concerns have prompted plants.”52 Sweden to ban dicofol. Use of dicofol in the Bay Area is of particular concern for the peregrine falcon and California red- Use of chlorothalonil in the Bay Area is of particular concern legged frog. Reported use of dicofol in the Bay Area from 1999 for the San Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail, salt to 2003 was over 15,000 pounds. marsh harvest mouse and listed butterfly species. Reported use of chlorothalonil in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over Disulfoton 109,000 pounds. Disulfoton is an insecticide primarily used on field crops, fruit and nut trees, ornamentals and Christmas trees. Endangered 2,4-D species levels of concern have been exceeded for birds, mammals, 2,4-D is a selective herbicide widely used as a weed killer for freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, marine/estuarine fish lawns. Forms of the chemical are found in approximately 660 and marine/estuarine invertebrates. Endangered terrestrial, agricultural and home use products. 2,4-D readily moves into semi-aquatic and aquatic plants may also be affected by this waterways, is capable of leaching into groundwater, and has pesticide. Use of disulfoton in the Bay Area is of particular been detected in groundwater and surface water throughout concern for the California red-legged frog, Swainson’s hawk, the U. S. 2,4-D is sometimes used as an aquatic herbicide and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and Delta green ground is used near waterways that may be drinking water sources. It beetle. Reported use of disulfoton in the Bay Area from 1999 is highly toxic to aquatic vertebrates and is clearly toxic to fish to 2003 was over 6,900 pounds. at early life-stages. 2,4-D is also toxic to crustaceans, birds and non-target insects. Although generally classified as non-toxic to Diuron beneficial insects, some adverse effects have been reported on Diuron is a highly persistent herbicide with a half-life of longer the early life-stages and adults of some insects and, because of than six months. Its toxicity to endangered plants is of great widespread use, insects of many kinds could be exposed. Long- concern. Use of diuron in the Bay Area is of particular concern term exposure to 2,4-D can affect egg production in birds and for listed plant species, Pacific salmon and California freshwater inhibit egg development in amphibians. shrimp. Reported use of diuron in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 424,000 pounds. The EPA has noted concerns about 2,4-D causing abortions, skeletal abnormalities in mammals, developmental 12 Endosulfan Reported use of ethoprop in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 Endosulfan is a highly toxic insecticide used on crops. was 900 pounds, almost all applied in Santa Clara County. Endosulfan produces neurotoxic effects and incident data has confirmed toxicity to birds and fish. Endosulfan poisoning Fenamiphos incidents account for the greatest percentage of non-target Fenamiphos is an organophosphate insecticide used on food mortality reported in the EPA’s Ecological Incident Information crops, ornamentals and golf courses. The immediate toxicity System outside of incidents associated with organophosphates of fenamiphos is very high for birds, medium to very high and carbofuran. The EPA also acknowledges that endosulfan for fish and high for bees. At current registered rates and is an endocrine disruptor. The EPA’s ecological assessment uses, endangered species levels of concern are exceeded for all indicates endosulfan is very highly toxic to both terrestrial terrestrial and aquatic organisms. The EPA stated that it has and aquatic organisms.53 Use of endosulfan in the Bay Area concerns about the risks posed to endangered aquatic and is of particular concern for the California red-legged frog and terrestrial animal species exposed to fenamiphos under current California tiger salamander. Reported use of endosulfan in the use practices and application methods.57 Use of fenamiphos in Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 9,800 pounds. the Bay Area is of particular concern for the California red- legged frog and California tiger salamander. Reported use Esfenvalerate of fenamiphos in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over Esfenvalerate is a pyrethroid insecticide used on vegetable 13,900 pounds. crops, tree fruit, and nut crops. Esfenvalerate is highly toxic to bees and fish. Use of esfenvalerate in the Bay Area is of Malathion particular concern for the California red-legged frog. Reported Malathion is an organophosphate insecticide used on agricultural use of esfenvalerate in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was food and feed crops, Christmas trees and landscaping. Drift over 3,800 pounds.54 However, the San Francisco Estuary from ultra-low volume aerial applications and the fate of Project estimated that actual Bay Area use of esfenvalerate in its breakdown product malaoxon in the environment are of 2003 alone was 4,000 pounds, when only 778 pounds were concern. Malathion has an endocrine disrupting effect and a reported.55 Thus, actual use of esfenvalerate in the Bay Area wide range of long-term effects on mammals including damage from 1999 to 2003 may have approached 20,000 pounds. to eyesight, abnormal brain waves, immunosuppression and delayed neurotoxicity. Malathion has a very high immediate Ethafluralin toxicity for bees, amphibians and aquatic insects. Endangered Ethafluralin is a selective herbicide used in crop areas. The EPA’s species levels of concern are exceeded for acute hazard to ecological assessment of ethafluralin found that endangered endangered fish, aquatic invertebrates and insects. Chronic species levels of concern were exceeded for freshwater organisms hazard levels of concern are exceeded by most uses for and estuarine/marine invertebrates. The EPA stated that it has endangered fish and invertebrates and are potentially exceeded concerns about the exposure of threatened and endangered for certain uses for threatened birds, mammals, amphibians plant and animal species to ethafluralin.56 Reported use of and reptiles. ethafluralin in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 14,000 pounds. Use of malathion in the Bay Area is of particular concern for the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Ethoprop Delta smelt and Pacific salmon. Reported use of malathion in Ethoprop is a fairly persistent organophosphate insecticide used the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 32,000 pounds.58 on agricultural crops and golf courses. Ethoprop is a known However, the San Francisco Estuary Project estimated that cholinesterase inhibitor that is very highly toxic to avian species actual Bay Area use of malathion in 2003 alone was 200,000 and causes reproductive effects. Ethoprop is applied on many pounds, when only 4,473 pounds were reported.59 Thus, actual crops during spring, a critical period for bird and mammal use of malathion in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 may have species, resulting in high acute and chronic reproductive risk approached over one million pounds. from ingestion of granules or contaminated food. Endangered species levels of concern are exceeded for single broadcast Mancozeb applications of granular and non-granular ethoprop for birds, Mancozeb is a fungicide for which most products have been for all feed items other than seeds and granular products cancelled in the U.S., but it is still being used. Mancozeb has an for mammals, and for freshwater fish and invertebrates and endocrine disrupting effect and its transformation product is a estuarine fish and invertebrates for all uses except golf course carcinogen and suspected mutagen. Mancozeb has high to very silt use. The likelihood of adverse effects on aquatic organisms high immediate toxicity for fish and long-term toxicity inhibits is increased by the fact that ethoprop can contaminate surface germination of pollen in some plants. Use of mancozeb in the water through runoff for up to several months after application. Bay Area is of particular concern for the California red-legged

13 frog. Reported use of mancozeb in the Bay Area from 1999 to Reported use of naled in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was 2003 was over 228,000 pounds. over 6,100 pounds.

Methamidophos Oxyflourfen Methamidophos is a restricted-use insecticide used on cotton, Oxyfluorfen is an herbicide used on tree and vine crops, and potatoes and tomatoes. Methamidophos is highly toxic to to control broadleaf and grassy weeds. Oxyfluorfen exceeds the pollinators, which are exposed to direct treatment on blooming endangered species levels of concern for terrestrial plants for crops. Endangered species levels of concern are exceeded for all uses, for birds and mammals at some applications, and for birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and freshwater and freshwater fish and invertebrates. Use of oxyfluorfen in the Bay estuarine invertebrates. Use of methamidophos in the Bay Area is of particular concern for Pacific salmon. Reported use Area is of particular concern for the California red-legged frog. of oxyfluorfen in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over Reported use of methamidophos in the Bay Area from 1999 to 148,000 pounds. 2003 was over 6,100 pounds. Permethrin Methomyl Permethrin is a pyrethroid insecticide with a known endocrine Methomyl is an insecticide used on field, vegetable and orchard disrupting effect. It is highly toxic to fish, marine invertebrates crops, turf, livestock quarters, commercial premises and refuse and honeybees. Permethrin also poses a risk to some endangered containers. Methomyl, which can contaminate surface waters terrestrial invertebrates. Although it degrades rapidly and does as a result of spray drift or runoff, poses acute risks to birds and not tend to persist in the environment, permethrin has been mammals that feed on short and tall grasses, broadleaf plants, detected in surface water. Use of permethrin in the Bay Area and small insects. The major concerns for non-target organisms is of particular concern for the California red-legged frog, San are chronic risks to mammals and freshwater invertebrates. Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail and salt marsh Risks to aquatic invertebrates are likely to occur wherever harvest mouse. Reported use of permethrin in the Bay Area methomyl is used. Reported use of methomyl in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 113,000 pounds.60 However, the from 1999 to 2003 was over 53,000 pounds. San Francisco Estuary Project estimated that actual Bay Area use of permethrin in 2003 alone was 30,000 pounds, when Methyl-Parathion only 23,500 pounds were reported.61 Thus the actual use of Methyl-parathion is a restricted-use insecticide used on permethrin in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 may have agricultural crops, particularly cotton. Acute and chronic effects approached 144,000 pounds. on birds, mammals, bees, and aquatic invertebrates are likely to occur as a result of application of methyl-parathion. Use of Phosmet methyl-parathion in the Bay Area is of particular concern for Phosmet is a broad-spectrum insecticide used primarily on the peregrine falcon. Reported use of methyl-parathion in the commercial tree and vine fruit. High rate and frequency of Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 26,000 pounds. application can lead to acute and chronic risk to terrestrial and aquatic species and residues can pose chronic and acute Metolachlor risks to birds and mammals. Phosmet has very high acute Metolachlor is a broad spectrum herbicide used for general toxicity to freshwater fish and freshwater and estuarine/ weed control and is the second most widely used herbicide marine invertebrates. Phosmet is also very highly toxic to bees in the U.S. Acute as well as chronic exposures to non-target and displays extended residual toxicity. The EPA voluntarily organisms can result from direct applications, spray drift and cancelled certain uses of phosmet in 2001. Use of phosmet in runoff. Levels of concern are exceeded at certain applications the Bay Area is of particular concern for the California red- for acute and chronic effects to endangered bird and mammal legged frog. Reported use of phosmet in the Bay Area from species eating short grass, and for freshwater fish in shallow 1999 to 2003 was over 62,000 pounds. water bodies. Metalochlor has been found to adversely affect the growth and development of juvenile fish at low level Pyrethrins concentrations. Reported use of metalochlor in the Bay Area Pyrethrins are natural insecticides produced from the from 1999 to 2003 was over 37,000 pounds. chrysanthemum plant. Pyrethrins are extremely toxic to aquatic life such as fish and tadpoles and are toxic to beneficial insects Naled such as honeybees. Reported use of pyrethrins in the Bay Area Naled is an insecticide primarily used to control mosquitoes and from 1999 to 2003 was about 2,500 pounds.62 However, the is also used on food and feed crops, in greenhouses and in pet San Francisco Estuary Project estimated that actual Bay Area flea collars. Naled poses acute and chronic risk to endangered use of pyrethrins in 2003 alone was 10,000 pounds, when only birds, mammals and aquatic organisms. Use of naled in the Bay 482 pounds were reported.63 Thus actual use of pyrethrins in Area is of particular concern for the California red-legged frog. the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 may have approached 50,000 pounds. 14 Triclopyr Triclopyr is an organochlorine herbicide. The immediate toxicity of triclopyr is medium for birds and low to high for fish. Triclopyr has been detected in groundwater and its long- term effects include a suspected carcinogen and mutagen for mammals. Use of triclopyr in the Bay Area is of particular concern for the California red-legged frog and Pacific salmon. Reported use of triclopyr in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 98,000 pounds.

Trifluralin Trifluralin is an herbicide used on a variety of food crops and residential sites. Most uses were cancelled in the U.S. in 1982, but it is still being used. The EPA is concerned about the exposure of threatened and endangered plant and animal species to trifluralin, since endangered species levels of concern are exceeded for birds, mammals, and semi-aquatic and aquatic plants. Trifluralin has been detected in groundwater and in surface water. Trifluralin has an endocrine disrupting effect and is a suspected carcinogen and mutagen. The immediate toxicity of trifluralin is very high for amphibians and high to very high for fish and crustaceans. Use of trifluralin in the Bay Area is of particular concern for the California red-legged frog and Pacific salmon. Reported use of trifluralin in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 was over 77,000 pounds.

15 Pesticide Use Threatens the Survival of Bay Area Endangered Species ven though pesticide use is high in the San Francisco Bay emerged 200 million years ago. Green sturgeon are among the Area, investigations into potential consequences lag far largest and longest living species found in freshwater, living up behind. Potential exposure risk for some Bay Area species to 70 years, reaching 7.5 feet in length, and weighing up to 350 Ecan be determined from California Department of Pesticide pounds. These ancient fish have snouts like shovels and mouths Registration data which overlay pesticide use information like vacuum cleaners that are used to siphon shrimp and other with endangered species habitat information.64 It is clear that food from sandy depths. pesticides are finding their way into ecosystems throughout the Bay Area and that many wildlife species are exposed to them in Although the effects of toxic substances from heavy metals numerous ways. Although the impacts to species on the verge to pesticides on green sturgeon are unknown, NMFS has of extinction are often difficult to determine, the presence determined that high exposure levels are possible and there is of pesticides at toxic levels in areas used by species listed as some degree of risk from contaminants for green sturgeon in the threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act Sacramento River and the San Francisco Bay and Delta.65 Long- potentially threatens their survival. lived adult sturgeon may accumulate contaminants through the food chain, which could interfere with reproduction.66 There are currently 51 federally endangered or threatened animal species that occur in the nine San Francisco Bay Area Counties. The USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/ or the EPA acknowledge that at least 30 of these federally listed species may be adversely affected by pesticide use. Unfortunately, for many of these species, the EPA has done nothing to limit or otherwise mitigate pesticide use in endangered species habitat in its process of registering pesticides. By failing to consult with the USFWS and NMFS, which have the statutory authority and responsibility to cooperate with other agencies in assessing impacts of agency actions and authority on threatened and endangered species, the EPA neglects to comply with federal Photo by: Greg Goldsmith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service law or even develop the information base for making the wise and cautious decisions about our most endangered wildlife. Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma and San Mateo Counties; extirpated from Contra Costa, Alameda and San San Francisco Bay and Delta Fish Spi Francisco Counties State Status: Species of Special Concern Federal Status: Endangered, 1994

The tidewater goby is a small ﬁsh that inhabits coastal brackish water along the coast of California. The USFWS is concerned about high diazinon levels that can cause water column toxicity in lagoons that are tidewater goby habitat, noting that some creeks in Marin County are considered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to be “Water Quality Limited” due to diazinon in urban runoﬀ.67 From 250,000 to one million pounds of diazinon were used from 1999 to 2003 Photo by: Daniel Gotshcall in the Bay Area.68

North American Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) Bay Area Occurrence: San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta State Status: None Federal Status: Proposed Threatened, 2005

The green sturgeon is one of the most ancient fish species in the world, remaining unchanged in its appearance since it first 16 plankton upon which the smelt feed may be depleted by these highly concentrated pulses of pesticides through the Delta. The Delta’s open water fish populations are mysteriously collapsing, with open water forage species including Delta smelt in severe decline. In fall of 2004, Delta smelt were at their lowest ever recorded levels.

Photo by: P.B. Moyle, The Native Fish Conservancy

Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpaciﬁcus) Bay Area Occurrence: Solano and Contra Costa Counties State Status: Threatened, 1993 Federal Status: Threatened, 1993

The Delta smelt is a nearly translucent steely-blue fish found only in the brackish waters from Suisun Bay upstream through Photo by: E.R. Keely, The Native Fish Conservancy the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Contra Costa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo Counties. Delta Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) smelt spawn in backwater sloughs and along channels with Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma and San Mateo tidal influence. Counties State Status: Endangered, 1995 (south of San Francisco Bay) Delta smelt habitat in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Federal Status: Central California Coast population75 - estuary receives flushes of high concentrations of agricultural Threatened, 1996 pesticides such as carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, and diazinon.69 The SWRCB lists all the important water bodies in the smelt’s range as impaired by one or more contaminants, commonly including pesticides such as diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion, chlordane, DDT and dieldrin.70 Up to one million pounds each of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion were applied in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003.71

Recent research indicates that toxicity of certain contaminants in smelt habitat occurs in episodes, often in runoff from rainstorms following periods of use of the chemicals. Acutely toxic pulses of pesticides move down the rivers and through the estuary with “remarkable persistence and relatively little dilution.”72 Researchers report episodic toxicity in winter associated with organophosphate pesticide treatment of dormant orchards; carbofuran and chlorpyrifos in the San Joaquin River and Photo by: Tom Holt Delta in spring, possibly associated with treatment of alfalfa; rice pesticides in late spring and early summer with release of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)76 rice field water; and a variety of herbicides from irrigation tail Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties water during the summer.73 Peaks of numerous other chemicals, State Status: California Coastal – None; Central Valley including the herbicides trifluralin and atrazine, have also been Spring-Run – Threatened, 1999; Fall/Late Fall-Run found.74 – Species of Special Concern; Sacramento River Winter-Run – Endangered, 1989 It is unknown what direct effect these toxins have on Delta Federal Status: California Coastal – Threatened, 1999; Central smelt, but there is growing evidence that other fish species in Valley Spring-Run – Threatened, 1999; Fall/Late Fall- the Delta are suffering direct mortality or additional stress from Run – Candidate Species; Sacramento River Winter- Run the presence of toxic substances. There is also evidence that the – Endangered, 1994 17 reduce production of testosterone by male salmon, which may weaken the chances that salmon will successfully mate.86

Large amounts of pesticides harmful to salmon and steelhead trout are used annually in agricultural areas in the Central Valley, concentrating in runoff that reaches the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay. Use of these chemicals is also prevalent in the Bay Area: from 1999 to 2003 more than one million pounds of diazinon and malathion, 424,000 pounds of diuron, 262,000 pounds of 2,4-D, 250,000 pounds of carbaryl, 98,000 pounds of triclopyr, 77,000 pounds of trifluralin and 21,000 pounds of azinphos-methyl were applied.87 Photo courtesy of National Park Service Fishing and environmental groups recently obtained a court order preventing the use of more than 30 harmful pesticides Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in no-spray buffers near salmon streams in California, Oregon, Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra and Washington. State agencies and pesticide retailers in urban Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties areas near salmon-supporting waters must also make a point- State Status: None of-sale notification available of the hazard these pesticides pose Federal Status: Central California Coast Population77 to salmonids: 2,4-D, carbaryl, diazinon, diuron, malathion, – Threatened, 1997 triclopyr, and trifluralin. Pacific salmon, including endangered and threatened runs of coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout, depend on clean water during the freshwater stages of their complex Tidal Marshland and Estuarine Spi life cycles. Many runs of Pacific salmon, including those in the Bay Area and San Francisco Bay Delta, are threatened by pesticide pollution of rivers and streams within their range.78 Pesticides have profound effects on salmon and steelhead trout and may be a significant factor in their decline. Numerous pesticides have been found in many west coast river systems in concentrations that threaten salmonid growth, development, behavior and reproduction.79 Pesticides can impair swimming ability and avoidance of predators, cause abnormal sexual development, interfere with feeding, and disrupt the salmon’s navigating abilities to return to its natal stream to spawn. Pesticides can further indirectly affect fish by changing the aquatic environment, reducing the food supply, or eliminating vegetative cover used by young salmon. The pesticides and herbicides that contaminate numerous water bodies often destroy aquatic life necessary for salmonid survival.80 Photo by: Mike Baird The EPA acknowledged in pesticide registration documents that approved uses of at least 36 pesticides used in the Pacific Northwest are expected to have a negative impact on salmon. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus These include the organophosphate insecticides azinphos nivosus) methyl, carbaryl, diazinon, and malathion, and the herbicides Bay Area Occurrence: breeds in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, 2,4-D, diuron, and trifluralin.81 For example, azinphos methyl Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties has caused massive fish kills throughout the U.S.,82 exposure State Status: Species of Special Concern to 2,4-D impairs trout swimming ability,83 and trifluralin has Federal Status: Threatened, 1993 been shown to cause bone abnormalities in salmon.84 All of these pesticides are found in harmful concentrations in Pacific The western snowy plover is a small shorebird that forages Northwest waters within the range of listed salmon species.85 on invertebrates along beaches, salt marshes, salt ponds and Diazinon has been found in northwest streams at levels that lagoons. The Pacific coast population nests primarily on coastal 18 beaches from southern Washington to southern Baja California. to rails in agricultural habitat, where applied to salt marshes, or Nests are usually built in barren or sparsely vegetated areas. leached into wetlands from nearby agricultural fields. Pesticides Human activity and disturbance are the key factors adversely can potentially reduce the prey base for black rails, although affecting snowy plover coastal breeding sites and breeding the effects of most pesticides and contaminants on rails are populations in California. Because snowy plovers are primarily poorly known.93 insectivorous, feeding both on aquatic and terrestrial insects, the bioaccumulation of environmental contaminants on their nesting and wintering grounds may harm their health and reproduction.88

Birds are particularly susceptible to organochlorine pesticides, which can reduce egg production, cause aberrant incubation behavior, delay ovulation, poison embryos and cause mortality of chicks and adults.89 Pesticide drift may also diminish habitat value for plovers where urban areas interface with natural habitats by reducing prey availability.90 Spraying of the mosquitocide fenthion in Florida has killed a variety of bird species, including snowy plover and piping plover (Charadrius melodus).91 The registration of fenthion was voluntarily cancelled by the manufacturer in 2003 and no use of fenthion was reported in 2003 for the seven Bay Area counties where the plover breeds.92 Photo by: Mike Baird

California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties State Status: Endangered, 1971; Fully Protected Federal Status: Endangered, 1970

The California brown pelican is a large, grayish-brown bird with a long, pouched bill. Pelicans nest from the Channel Islands of southern California southward to coastal southern Mexico. Threats to the species include disease outbreaks, nest abandonment and disturbance at roosting sites by humans and non-native mammals, entanglement in fishing nets and hooks, and reduction in available forage fish due to El Niño events. Graphic courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service As a bird at the top of the food chain, brown pelicans in California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis California experienced complete reproductive failure in the coturniculus) 1960s due to use of the pesticide DDT. After the ban on DDT Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa in 1972, there has also been a corresponding increase in the and Alameda Counties eggshell thickness and reproductive success of brown pelicans. State Status: Threatened, 1971; Fully Protected Although California breeding populations of the pelican have Federal Status: Candidate Species rebounded, persistent DDT residues in the coastal environment continue to cause chronic reproductive problems and some The California black rail is a tiny, elusive bird of wetland pelicans still show relatively high levels of pesticides in their habitats in the San Francisco Bay Area and the lower reaches of tissues. Bioaccumulation of other water-borne contaminants is the Colorado River in California and Arizona. Once abundant a possible threat to brown pelicans. The use of the pesticide in coastal California, California black rails are now restricted chlorpyrifos is of concern, since a brown pelican was killed in mostly to the tidal wetlands of the northern San Francisco South Carolina in 1998 due to poisoning by chlorpyrifos.94 Bay estuary, particularly where nesting habitat remains in San Up to one million pounds of chlorpyrifos were applied from Pablo Bay. Rails eat insects, small mollusks, amphipods and 1999 to 2003 in the Bay Area; however no use was reported in other invertebrates and some seeds. Pesticides may be a hazard proximity to California brown pelican habitat.95 19 The California least tern nests in colonies on bare or sparsely vegetated ground on isolated sand beaches, typically near estuaries, bays, or harbors where small fish are abundant. Residential and commercial development has fragmented tern habitat. Human activities and disturbance and human- enhanced populations of scavengers and predators (such as crows, domestic cats and non-native red foxes) threaten most remaining nesting colonies.

Contaminants such as organochlorine pesticides may be a factor contributing to recent declines of California least tern populations.98 A study of related Caspian terns (Sterna caspia) in Elkhorn Slough in Monterey County showed that tern hatchlings from eggs contaminated by organochlorines often do not survive to adulthood.99 Two related Forster’s terns Photo courtesy of California Department of Pesticide Regulation (Sterna forsteri) were killed in San Joaquin County in 1988 due to poisoning by the pesticide fenthion.100 The registration California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) of fenthion was voluntarily cancelled by the manufacturer in Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra 2003 and there was no reported use of fenthion in the nine Bay Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties; Area counties in 2003.101 extirpated from San Francisco County State Status: Endangered, 1971; Fully Protected Federal Status: Endangered, 1970

The California clapper rail is a coot-sized bird that inhabits cordgrass marshes only around San Francisco Bay. The clapper rail eats invertebrates such as mollusks and crustaceans. The number of clapper rails has plummeted because of loss and degradation of tidal marsh habitat, including introduction of non-native cordgrass, and predation by non-native red foxes. The population estimate as of 1992 was only 800 to 1,000 clapper rails. The USFWS considers the clapper rail vulnerable to contaminants from urban runoﬀ that can aﬀect its food sources.96 Over 130 pesticides are used in proximity to California clapper rail habitat in the Bay Area, including carbaryl, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, diazinon and permethrin.97 Photo by: Paul Kelly, Environmental Protection Agency

Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties State Status: Endangered, 1971 Federal Status: Endangered, 1970

The salt marsh harvest mouse is a small, mostly nocturnal rodent that lives in tidal and diked salt marshes only around the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. Harvest mice have declined Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service primarily because thousands of acres of wetlands habitat in the San Francisco Bay have been filled, degraded or converted California Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni) for agricultural use. Flood control and mosquito abatement Bay Area Occurrence: breeds in Contra Costa and Alameda activities as well as introduced predators and competitors are Counties; occurs in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties also threats. State Status: Endangered, 1971; Fully Protected Federal Status: Endangered, 1970 Pesticides that enter marsh habitats are also a threat to remaining harvest mouse populations.102 Over 110 pesticides 20 are used in proximity to salt marsh harvest mouse habitat in the can readily absorb the chemical chlorpyrifos through their Bay Area, including carbaryl, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 2,4- permeable skins, especially when migrating through recently D, diazinon, and permethrin.103 The USFWS has concluded treated fields. Use of azinphos-methyl in the vicinity of that use of eight rodenticides (brodifacoum, bromadiolone, tiger salamander habitat could directly affect salamander bromethalin, chlorophacinone, cholecalciferol, diphacinone, survival or indirectly affect their food supply. The USFWS warfarin, and zinc phosphide) in harvest mouse habitat could cited studies reporting severe toxicity to amphibians from jeopardize the continued existence of the species,104 but reported exposure to endosulfan, including extensive paralysis, delayed use of these rodenticides in the Bay Area counties where the metamorphosis and high death rates, noting that “endosulfan harvest mouse occurs was minimal in 2003.105 is extremely toxic at low concentrations to amphibians.” Use of over 1.3 million pounds of metam sodium, 1.1 million pounds of methyl bromide, 250,000 pounds of chlorpyrifos, 33,000 pounds each of acephate and maneb, 25,000 pounds Freshwater and Wland Spi of malathion, 20,000 pounds of azinphos-methyl and 9,800 pounds of endosulfan was reported from 1999 to 2003 for the five Bay Area counties where the tiger salamander occurs.107

Photo by: Gerald and Buﬀ Corsi

Photo by: Brad Alexander, California Herps California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense) Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma, Solano, Contra Costa, Santa Cruz Long-Toed Salamander Alameda and Santa Clara Counties; eliminated from San (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum) Mateo and Napa Counties Bay Area Occurrence: San Mateo County State Status: Species of Special Concern State Status: Endangered 1971; Fully Protected Federal Status: Threatened, 2004; Endangered in Sonoma Federal Status: Endangered 1967 County The Santa Cruz long-toed salamander inhabits coastal The California tiger salamander is a colorful amphibian that woodlands and upland chaparral near breeding habitat in breeds in seasonal ponds or vernal pools and is particularly ponds and freshwater marshes. Long-toed salamanders spend susceptible to environmental contaminants. The USFWS much of their lives in underground rodent burrows. Pollution considers exposure to toxic agricultural chemical contaminants from agricultural activities and development is a threat to water and landscaping chemicals to be a potentially serious threat quality in long-toed salamander breeding ponds.108 to the species, cautioning that even if toxic or detectable amounts of pesticides are not found in the breeding ponds or groundwater, “salamanders may still be directly aﬀected, particularly when chemicals are applied during the migration and dispersal seasons.”106

The USFWS highlighted use of pesticides thought tobe particularly harmful to tiger salamanders: acephate, azinphos- methyl, chlorpyrifos, endosulfan, fenamiphos, malathion, maneb, metam sodium and methyl bromide. Salamanders

21 phosmet, pyrethrins, strychnine, triclopyr and triﬂuralin.110 Ranid tadpoles are likely to be killed or paralyzed by some herbicides such as triclopyr and insecticides such as fenitrothion.111 Use of many of these pesticides from 1999 to 2003 was quite high in the Bay Area: more than 1.7 million pounds of glyphosate; one million pounds each of chlorpyrifos and diazinon; 250,000 pounds of carbaryl; 228,000 pounds of mancozeb; 144,000 pounds of permethrin; 98,000 pounds of triclopyr; 84,000 pounds of paraquat; 77,000 pounds of triﬂuralin; and 21,000 pounds of azinphos-methyl.112

California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties State Status: Species of Special Concern Federal Status: Threatened, 1996

The state’s largest native frog, the California red-legged frog has disappeared from more than 70 percent of its historic range in California. Habitat loss to urban development and the effects of introduced predators are the primary threats to red-legged frogs. Agricultural practices introduce pesticides into red-legged frog habitat in wetlands, ponds and streams. Since frogs are highly aquatic with little movement away from streamside habitat, Photo by: George E. Hansen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service herbicides, insecticides and fungicides pose hazards to aquatic life stages. Frogs are also susceptible to burrow fumigants when Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) they are in burrows and other terrestrial retreats. Bay Area Occurrence: Solano and Contra Costa Counties State Status: Threatened, 1971 The USFWS has concluded that exposure to wind-borne Federal Status: Threatened, 1993 agrochemicals may be an important factor in the decline of the species, noting a strong relationship between increasing The giant garter snake is one of the largest garter snakes. It levels of upwind agriculture and the percentage of extirpated is endemic to wetlands in the Sacramento and San Joaquin California red-legged frog sites.109 In the Sierra Nevada-Central Valleys and the San Francisco Bay Delta. Giant garter snakes Valley region, the percentage of upwind land in agriculture for are usually found in marshes, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low sites where the frogs have disappeared was six and a half times gradient streams, irrigation and drainage canals, and rice fields. greater than for sites where the frogs are still found. The USFWS Conversion of wetlands for agricultural, urban and industrial noted that pesticide contamination may result in deformities, development has eliminated over 90 percent of the suitable abnormal immune system functions, diseases, injury and death habitat for this species. of red-legged frogs. The USFWS suspects that heavy use of pesticides wasa The USFWS listed 150 pesticides or herbicides of concern contributing factor in the decline of this once abundant that are used within the same one square mile section known species.113 Preliminary studies have documented potential to be California red-legged frog sites or habitat. Twenty-five bioaccumulation effects on giant garter snakes or their prey chemicals are of particular concern due to high risk to red- species caused by contaminants derived from agricultural legged frogs, including: acephate, azinphos-methyl, carbaryl, products.114 Discharge of contaminants and pesticides into chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dicofol, disulfoton, endosulfan, wetlands may degrade habitat and adversely affect remaining esfenvalerate, fenamiphos, glyphosate, malathion, mancozeb, giant garter snake populations by affecting water quality methamidophos, methoprene, naled, paraquat, permethrin, and reducing prey populations.115 The pesticide of concern, 22 carbofuran – which is widely used on rice in California – may harm the giant garter snake. Th e CDPR has published stewardship guidelines for rice growers in an attempt to reduce risk to giant garter snakes.116 Over 8,300 pounds of carbofuran were reported applied from 1999 to 2003 in Solano and Contra Costa Counties.117

Photo by: Larry Serpa

California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris paciﬁ ca) Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties State Status: Endangered, 1980 Federal Status: Endangered, 1988

California freshwater shrimp are found only in low elevation perennial streams or intermittent streams with perennial pools in the northern San Francisco Bay Area. Freshwater shrimp require low gradient streams with diverse habitat structure including Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service undercut banks, exposed roots, woody debris and overhanging vegetation. Among other factors, shrimp populations and San Francisco Garter Snake habitat are threatened by inadvertent introduction of herbicides (Th amnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) and pesticides into creek water through aerial drift, spills and Bay Area Occurrence: San Mateo County runoﬀ .121 Freshwater shrimp may also be sensitive to pesticides State Status: Endangered, 1971; Fully Protected commonly used in vineyards. Over 85 pesticides are used in Federal Status: Endangered, 1967 proximity to California freshwater shrimp habitat in the Bay Area, including chlorpyrifos, diazinon and diuron.122 Th e most beautiful serpent in North America, the San Francisco garter snake has a broad greenish-yellow stripe on its back, bordered by black and red stripes on each side and a distinctive greenish-blue or turquoise-blue belly. Adults can grow to a length of two to three feet. All known populations of this snake occur in San Mateo County near freshwater marshes, ponds, and slow-moving streams along the coast.

Th e San Francisco garter snake may be threatened by pesticide use on private lands where it still occurs. Th e USFWS has noted that pesticides are a threat to other aquatic garter snakes in California.118 Pesticides used in proximity to San Francisco garter snake habitat in the Bay Area include carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, dinocap and permethrin.119 Use of over 52,000 pounds of these pesticides was reported _for San Mateo County from 1999 to 2003.120

Delta Green Ground Beetle (Elaphrus viridis) Bay Area Occurrence: Solano County State Status: None Federal Status: Th reatened, 1980

23 The Delta green ground beetle is a small metallic green and hawks primarily hunt small rodents, but will also take birds golden predaceous beetle associated with vernal pool habitats and insects. Most Swainson’s hawk territories are in riparian and seasonally wet pools. The species most likely historically zones adjacent to suitable grassland foraging habitats and occurred throughout much of the Central Valley, though it nests are commonly in large mature trees. The loss of suitable currently only remains in two vernal pools in Solano County. agricultural land and grassland habitat to residential and Elimination of vernal pool habitat due to development, tilling commercial developments is the major threat to the species. A for crops, or tapping pools for irrigation have caused the decline recent threat has been massive pesticide poisoning of Swainson’s of this species. Poorly managed grazing and crowding out of hawks and their prey animals on their wintering grounds in native vegetation by introduced plants are ongoing threats. South America. About 20,000 Swainson’s hawks were poisoned in Argentina during the winter of 1995-1996 by the pesticide The USFWS believes that use of herbicides and pesticides in monocrotophos, which has long been banned in the U.S. and transportation right of ways or grazing areas may adversely was finally banned in Argentina in March of 2000. impact Delta green ground beetles or their habitat.123 The California Department of Fish and Game cautions that the potential toxic effects of rodenticides used in agricultural lands on Swainson’s hawks must be monitored.124 Swainson’s Terrtrial Spi hawks can be adversely impacted by poisoning of prey animals, organophosphate and carbamate insecticide contamination in agricultural fields during times of the year when insects are the main prey, and potential bioconcentration of contaminants up the food chain. For example, poisonings of dozens of Swainson’s hawks were documented in Texas in the 1990s due to disulfoton and terbufos, pesticides that were used on corn and cotton.125 The Texas hawks had fed on insects that had in turn been feeding on the plants with pesticide residues. However, there was no reported use of terbufos and negligible use of disulfoton in 2003 in the three Bay Area counties where the Swainson’s hawk occurs.126

Photo by: Sidney Maddock

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Photo by: George Jameson, U.S. Geological Service Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) State Status: Endangered, 1971; Fully Protected Bay Area Occurrence: Solano, Contra Costa and Alameda Federal Status: Endangered, 1970; De-Listed, 1999 Counties State Status: Threatened, 1983 The peregrine falcon is one of the swiftest birds of prey, Federal Status: None swooping down and catching smaller birds in ﬂight. Peregrines nest and winter in a variety of habitats, including wetlands, The Swainson’s hawk is a medium sized hawk found inthe woodlands, forests, cities, agricultural lands and coastal areas. Central Valley and eastern Bay Area Counties. Swainson’s 24 Nesting sites require protective cliﬀs or ledges, and in urban areas some pairs nest on buildings and bridges.

The American peregrine falcon is an endangered species success story. Organochlorine pesticides such as DDT were the primary cause of the rapid and signiﬁcant decline in the number of American peregrine falcons in most of North America between the 1940s and 1970s.127 DDT’s principal breakdown product, DDE, accumulates in the tissues of species at the top of the food chain, such as peregrine falcons, and causes thin-shelled eggs and other complications. DDE interferes with calcium deposition during shell formation, resulting in the production of thin-shelled eggs that are easily crushed during incubation. Due to an EPA ban on the use of DDT in the United States in 1972, the environmental residue levels of DDE have steadily Photo by: Dr. Lloyd Glenn Ingles © California Academy of Sciences decreased in most areas. Peregrine numbers have increased since the banning of DDT, and in 1999 the USFWS de-listed the species.128 San Joaquin Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) Bay Area Occurrence: Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara However, peregrines and other birds at the top of the food Counties chain are still at risk from pesticides. The legal pesticide dicofol, State Status: Threatened, 1971 which is widely used in California agriculture, contains small Federal Status: Endangered, 1967 amounts of DDT as a manufacturing byproduct.129 A 1996 study of related prairie falcons (Falco mexicanus) in Pinnacles The San Joaquin kit fox is the smallest member of the dog National Monument, Mount Diablo, and Goat Rock in central family in North America, with an average weight of about ﬁve California revealed hatching failures similar to those observed pounds. San Joaquin kit foxes inhabit grasslands in the San 20 years earlier for DDT-contaminated eggs, attributed to Joaquin Valley and eastern Bay Area Counties. In the eastern ingestion of contaminated prey (birds, reptiles and small Bay Area, kit foxes mostly prey on California ground squirrels. mammals) from nearby agricultural areas in the Salinas Valley.130 Kit foxes either dig their own dens or use dens constructed by Concentrations of DDE in falcon eggs at Pinnacles were two to other animals. The primary threat to kit foxes is the loss and six times higher than the levels known to cause hatching failures. degradation of suitable habitat due to agricultural, industrial The study showed that no falcon chicks successfully hatched and urban developments. from the three nests with the highest concentrations of DDE or the pesticide of concern, lindane, over a three-year sampling Hundreds of San Joaquin kit foxes were destroyed in the past by period. Over 15,000 pounds of dicofol and minimal amounts strychnine-poisoned bait used for coyote control. The federal of lindane were applied in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003.131 government began controlling use of rodenticides in 1972 and Peregrine falcons have been killed recently in other parts of the prohibited above-ground application of strychnine within the U.S. by acute poisoning from other pesticides of concern, such range of the kit fox in 1988. However, use of 28 pounds of as carbofuran, methyl parathion and strychnine.132 Use of over strychnine was reported in 2003 for pest control in the East 9,700 pounds of carbofuran and 26,900 pounds of methyl Bay counties where the kit fox occurs.134 Intensive agricultural parathion was reported in the Bay Area from 1999 to 2003 and use in the Central Valley still exposes kit foxes to a wide array over 70 pounds of strychnine were applied in 2003 alone.133 of pesticides and rodenticides.

The USFWS has determined that use of some burrow fumigants (aluminum and magnesium phosphide), anticoagulant rodenticides (chlorophacinone, diphacinone and pival), and gas cartridges (potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate) in kit fox habitat could jeopardize the species.135 More than 22,000 pounds of aluminum phosphide was reported used from 1999 to 2003 in the East Bay counties where the kit fox occurs.136 At least 27 San Joaquin kit foxes were killed from poisoning recently in the Central Valley and two were poisoned in 1992 in the East Bay, primarily by the rodenticides brodifacoum, chlorophacinone and bromadiolone.137 Brodifacoum is a deadly rodenticide widely available to the public as an active 25 ingredient in rat and mouse baits such as Talon, Havoc and D-Con.

Pesticides and rodenticides may indirectly aﬀect the survival of kit foxes by reducing abundance of their staple prey species.138 For example, California ground squirrels, the staple prey of kit foxes in the northern portion of their range, were eliminated from Contra Costa County in 1975 by extensive rodent eradication programs. This severely reduced kit fox abundance through secondary poisoning and elimination of prey.139

Photo courtesy of www.WeForAnimals.com

Lange’s Metalmark Butterﬂy (Apodemia mormo langei) Bay Area Occurrence: Contra Costa County State Status: None Photo by: Gary A. Beeman Federal Status: Endangered, 1976

Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) The Lange’s metalmark butterfly is found only at the Antioch Bay Area Occurrence: Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara Dunes National Wildlife Refuge in Contra Costa County, Counties which was established primarily for the butterfly’s protection. State Status: Threatened, 1971 Metalmark butterfly larvae depend upon their food plant, Federal Status: Threatened, 1997 naked-stemmed buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum). When adult butterflies emerge in late summer they have one week to feed, The Alameda whipsnake is a slender snake with black dorsal mate and locate the host buckwheat on which to deposit coloring and distinctive yellow-orange racing stripes down each their eggs. The species declined in the early 1900s when the side. Adult whipsnakes grow from three to four feet in length. dunes were heavily mined for sand and their habitat has been Whipsnakes are extremely fast moving and hold their heads further impacted by construction, agriculture, trampling by high off the ground in a cobra-like manner while hunting for humans, fire and changes in dune structure that have reduced potential prey, which includes lizards, small mammals, snakes reproduction of the host buckwheat plants. The USFWS is and nesting birds. Alameda whipsnakes occupy disappearing concerned about pesticide use in the area that has the potential northern coastal scrub and chaparral habitats broken by to drift onto the Refuge and also affect potential pollinators on grassland and rocky hillsides, primarily in Contra Costa and adjacent lands.141 Alameda Counties. Whipsnake habitat has been severely reduced and fragmented by urban sprawl, road construction, livestock grazing and fire suppression.

The USFWS is concerned about exposure to rodenticides, herbicides and pesticides adversely aﬀecting the Alameda whipsnake directly or indirectly through prey reduction or habitat alteration.140

26 The bay checkerspot butterfly depends upon several different host plants during its life cycle: eggs are laid on a native plantain, which the larvae feed upon; if this food is not sufficient for development the larvae may move onto owl’s clover. The larvae then generally enter dormancy until the following winter, then emerge to feed again, pupating in late winter; finally the adults emerge shortly thereafter.

Populations of bay checkerspots historically occurred in numerous areas around the San Francisco Bay including the San Francisco peninsula, the mountains near San Jose, the Oakland hills, and several spots in Alameda County. Most of these have been eliminated due to explosive urban development; populations now remain only in San Mateo and Santa Clara Photo by: Charles Webber © California Academy of Sciences counties.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Pesticides have contributed to reduced numbers of bay checkerspots, and application or drift of pesticides may also (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) aﬀect their critical habitat.143 Precautions may be needed Bay Area Occurrence: Napa County for pesticide use on California oakworm or other pests near State Status: None bay checkerspot localities.144 Over 60 pesticides are used in Federal Status: Threatened, 1980 proximity to Bay checkerspot butterﬂy habitat in the Bay Area, including chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos and diazinon.145 The valley elderberry longhorn beetle is a colorful cylindrical beetle less than an inch long, associated with riparian elderberry trees during its entire life cycle. Riparian fragmentation and destruction due to urbanization, agricultural conversion, and waterway maintenance are the primary threats to this insect. Insecticide and herbicide use in agricultural areas and along roadsides may be factors limiting the beetle’s distribution. The USFWS cautions that pesticides or herbicides should not be sprayed within 100 feet of elderberry beetle habitat.142

Mission Blue Butterﬂy (Icaricia icariodes missionensis) Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, San Mateo and San Francisco Counties State Status: None Federal Status: Endangered, 1976

Photo by: Richard A. Arnold Formerly relatively widespread throughout the San Francisco and Marin peninsulas, the mission blue now remains at only Bay Checkerspot Butterfly a few sites in the coastal counties, primarily on San Bruno (Euphydryas editha bayensis) Mountain in San Mateo County. Mission blue larvae are Bay Area Occurrence: Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties; dependent on perennial lupines as their host plant. Pesticides extirpated from Contra Costa, Alameda and San Francisco of concern chlorothalonil and diazinon are used in proximity Counties to mission blue butterfly habitat.146 State Status: None Federal Status: Threatened, 1987 27 Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo courtesy of San Bruno Mountain Watch Behren’s Silverspot Butterfly San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Speyeria zerene behrensii) (Incisalia mosii bayensis) Bay Area Occurrence: extirpated from Sonoma County Bay Area Occurrence: San Mateo County State Status: None State Status: None Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 Federal Status: Endangered, 1976

San Bruno elfin butterflies inhabit rocky outcrops and cliffs only in the coastal scrub on the San Francisco peninsula. The butterflies are dependent upon stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium) as a host plant. San Bruno elfin butterfly larvae have a mutualistic association with ants. The larvae excrete a sweet honeydew liquid to attract ants, which provide protection from predators and parasites. The largest San Bruno elfin butterfly occurs on San Bruno Mountain, where management includes reducing pesticide use. The USFWS recovery plan for the species urged cutting back use of herbicides.147 Over 60 pesticides are used in proximity to San Bruno elfin butterfly habitat on the San Francisco peninsula, including chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos and diazinon.148

Photo courtesy of National Park Service

Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterﬂy (Speyeria zerene myrtleae) Bay Area Occurrence: Marin and Sonoma Counties State Status: None Federal Status: Endangered, 1992

These three silverspot butterflies, so named because of silver spots or scales on the undersides of their wings, are found only in the San Francisco Bay Area or coastal northern California. Photo courtesy of San Bruno Mountain Watch All are dependent upon native violets (Viola spp.) as their host and food plant. The callippe silverspot is primarily orange, tan Callippe Silverspot Butterfly and brown above. Historically, callippe silverspots inhabited (Speyeria callippe callippe) grasslands throughout much of the northern San Francisco Bay Area Occurrence: Alameda and San Mateo Counties; Bay region. Populations of this butterfly now remain only at extirpated from Contra Costa and San Francisco Counties two sites on grasslands in the Bay Area. Behren’s silverspot has State Status: None golden brown and orange wings, dappled with brown spots Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 and bands. Behren’s silverspot historically ranged from the 28 Russian River in Sonoma County north to Point Arena in Tiburon Indian Paintbrush (Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta)158 southern Mendocino County, but now remains in only a single Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, Napa and Santa Clara Counties population at Point Arena. Myrtle’s silverspot was formerly State Status: Threatened, 1990 widespread on the San Francisco and Marin peninsulas, but Federal Status: Endangered, 1995 now only four populations remain in northern coastal Marin County, in dunes, scrub, and grasslands habitats. Robust Spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta)159 Bay Area Occurrence: Extirpated from Alameda, Santa Clara Larvae of the Speyeria genus, the silverspots, are extremely and San Mateo Counties sensitive to pesticides and can even be killed by accumulation State Status: None of runoff in the soil after pesticide spraying.149 All of these Federal Status: Endangered, 1994 butterflies are susceptible to mortality from pesticide use in proximity to occupied habitat, and use of herbicides in the Sonoma Spineflower (Chorizanthe valida)160 vicinity of butterfly food plants needs to be carefully controlled Bay Area Occurrence: Marin County; extirpated from Sonoma to prevent drift.150 Over 50 pesticides are used in proximity to County callippe silverspot butterfly habitat in the San Francisco Bay State Status: Endangered, 1990 Area, including chlorpyrifos and diazinon.151 Federal Status: Endangered, 1992

Fountain Thistle( Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale)161 Bay Area Occurrence: San Mateo County Plants State Status: Endangered, 1979

The following federally or state listed Bay Area plant species Federal Status: Endangered, 1995 are either known or suspected to be adversely aﬀected by use of Suisun Thistle 162 herbicides or pesticides: (Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum) Bay Area Occurrence: Solano County Sonoma Alopecurus (Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis)152 State Status: None Bay Area Occurrence: Marin and Sonoma Counties Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 State Status: None Presidio Clarkia 163 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 (Clarkia franciscana) Bay Area Occurrence: Alameda and San Francisco Counties Pallid Manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida)153 State Status: Endangered, 1978 Bay Area Occurrence: Contra Costa and Alameda Counties Federal Status: Endangered, 1995 State Status: Endangered, 1979 Vine Hill Clarkia 164 Federal Status: Threatened, 1998 (Clarkia imbricata) Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County Marsh Sandwort (Arenaria paludicola)154 State Status: Endangered, 1978 Bay Area Occurrence: Extirpated from San Francisco County Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 State Status: None Soft Bird’s-Beak 165 Federal Status: Endangered, 1993 (Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis) Bay Area Occurrence: Napa, Solano and Contra Costa Coastal Dunes Milk-Vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi)155 Counties Bay Area Occurrence: Monterey County State Status: Rare, 1979 State Status: Endangered, 1982 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 Federal Status: Endangered, 1998 Pennell’s Bird’s-Beak (Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaries)166 Sonoma Sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri)156 Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County

Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County State Status: Rare, 1978

State Status: Endangered, 1992 Federal Status: Endangered, 1995 Federal Status: Endangered, 1991 Baker’s Larkspur (Delphinium bakeri) and Yellow Larkspur 167 White Sedge (Carex albida)157 (Delphinium luteum) Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County Bay Area Occurrence: Marin and Sonoma Counties

State Status: Endangered, 1979 State Status: Rare, 1979

Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 Federal Status: Endangered, 2000

Photo by: Emily Roberson

Photo by: Robert Potts (c) California Academy of Sciences Burke’s Goldfields Pitkin Marsh Lily 30 Santa Clara Valley Dudleya (Dudleya setchellii)168 Many-Flowered Navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. Bay Area Occurrence: Santa Clara County plieantha)177 State Status: None Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County Federal Status: Endangered, 1995 State Status: Endangered, 1979 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 San Mateo Wooly Sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum)169 Bay Area Occurrence: San Mateo County Colusa Grass (Neostapfia colusana)178 State Status: Endangered, 1992 Bay Area Occurrence: Solano County Federal Status: Endangered, 1995 State Status: Endangered, 1979 Federal Status: Threatened, 1997 Marin Dwarf Flax (Hesperolinon congestum)170 Bay Area Occurrence: Marin, San Mateo and San Francisco Calistoga Popcornflower (Plagiobothrys strictus)179 Counties Bay Area Occurrence: Napa County State Status: Threatened, 1992 State Status: Threatened, 1990 Federal Status: Threatened, 1995 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997

Santa Cruz Tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia)171 North Coast Semaphore Grass (Pleuropogon hooverianus)180 Bay Area Occurrence: all natural populations extirpated from Bay Area Occurrence: Marin and Sonoma Counties Marin, Sonoma, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties; State Status: Threatened, 2002 successfully reintroduced in Contra Costa County Federal Status: None State Status: Endangered, 1979 Federal Status: Threatened, 2000 Napa Bluegrass (Poa napensis)181 Bay Area Occurrence: Napa County Burke’s Goldfields (Lasthenia burkei) and Sebastopol State Status: Endangered, 1979 Meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans)172 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County State Status: Endangered, 1979 Hickman’s Cinquefoil (Potentilla hickmanii)182 Federal Status: Endangered, 1991 Bay Area Occurrence: San Mateo County State Status: Endangered, 1979 Contra Costa Goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens)173 Federal Status: Endangered, 1998 Bay Area Occurrence: Napa, Solano, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties; extirpated from Santa Clara County Kenwood Marsh Checkerbloom (Sidalcea oregana ssp. State Status: None valida)183 Federal Status: Endangered,1997 Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County State Status: Endangered, 1982 Pitkin Marsh Lily (Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense)174 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County State Status: Endangered, 1978 Metcalf Canyon Jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 albidus)184 Bay Area Occurrence: Santa Clara County Sebastopol Meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans)175 State Status: None Bay Area Occurrence: Sonoma County; extirpated from Napa Federal Status: Endangered, 1995 County State Status: Endangered, 1979 Showy Indian Clover (Trifolium amoenum)185 Federal Status: Endangered, 1991 Bay Area Occurrence: Marin County; extirpated from Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties Few-Flowered Navarretia State Status: None (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora)176 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 Bay Area Occurrence: Napa County State Status: Threatened, 1990 Crampton’s Orcutt Grass (Tuctoria mucronata)186 Federal Status: Endangered, 1997 Bay Area Occurrence: Solano County State Status: Endangered, 1979 Federal Status: Endangered, 1978

31 What is the EPA Doing to Control the Use of Pesticides? The Pticide Regiﬆration Proc a human health and environmental risk assessment. The FIFRA risk-benefit standard is not a safety standard, but he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rather a balancing standard under which, in the EPA’s own responsible for the oversight of pesticide sales and use in words, workers can be regularly exposed to “unacceptable the United States. Specifically, the Federal Insecticide, risks.” The environmental assessment evaluates the likelihood TFungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) charges the EPA that exposure to that pesticide may cause harmful ecological with reviewing and registering chemicals for use as insecticides, effects. The effects can be direct (e.g. fish die from a pesticide fungicides, rodenticides, and pesticides in the U.S.187 A new entering waterways), or indirect (e.g. birds become sick or do pesticide generally may not be sold or used in the U.S. unless not reproduce normally after ingesting contaminated fish). the EPA has registered it for that particular use. In recognition The studies conducted during the environmental assessment of rapid advancements in scientific understanding of the effects include: defining the chemical properties of the pesticide; of pesticides, Congress amended FIFRA in 1988, establishing determining how the pesticide behaves in the environment; a comprehensive re-registration program for all pesticides with and assessing its impact on plants and animals not targeted active ingredients that were initially registered before November by the pesticide (non-target organisms). Toxicology studies are 1, 1984. carried out on plants and animals that have been chosen for testing because they broadly represent non-target organisms. The EPA may register a pesticide only after making the following EPA toxicology studies analyze both acute (short-term) and determinations: (1) the labeling complies with FIFRA’s chronic (long-term) impacts, however the impacts analysis is requirements; (2) the composition claims are warranted; (3) limited to actual mortality of plants and animals as a result of the pesticide will perform its intended function; and (4) the exposure to the pesticide. Although the EPA’s risk assessments pesticide will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the are comprehensive with respect to what they cover, many environment. The culmination of the registration process is important ecological effects of pesticides are not considered. the EPA’s approval of a label for the particular pesticide, which then may not be used in a manner inconsistent with that label. To determine how the pesticide behaves in the environment, The EPA must classify pesticides for general or restricted use, the EPA measures the interaction of the pesticide with depending on their particular risks. Where necessary to guard soils, air, sunlight, surface water and groundwater. Some against unreasonable adverse environmental effects, the EPA of the basic questions that must be answered to determine must classify (or when the information becomes available, the “environmental fate” of the pesticide include: how fast reclassify) a pesticide as “restricted.” Restricted use pesticides and by what means does the pesticide degrade; what are may only be applied by a certified applicator or under the the breakdown chemicals; how much of the pesticide or its direct supervision of a certified applicator, and application breakdown chemicals will travel from the application site; and must follow all limitations on the frequency, type, location or where will the pesticide or its breakdown chemicals accumulate protective measures associated with its use. in the environment. Environmental fate analyses help develop estimates of pesticide concentrations in the environment. The Even after registering a pesticide, the agency retains discretionary EPA establishes the risk assessment by comparing possible involvement in and control over that registration. The EPA exposures to a pesticide, based on the environmental fate must periodically review registrations with a goal of reviewing analyses, with resulting harmful effects on plants and animals. each one every 15 years. The EPA also has the authority to The result will indicate the likelihood of mortality to plants compel registrants to submit data on potentially unreasonable and animals from use of the pesticide. However, the risk adverse effects that may be necessary for a re-registration review assessment does not incorporate sub-lethal impacts under its and can cancel pesticide registrations whenever “a pesticide or risk assessment evaluation. its labeling or other material required to be submitted does not comply with the provisions of this Act or, when used In determining the ecological risk posed by a pesticide (risk in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized characterization), the EPA integrates the results of the exposure practice, generally causes unreasonable adverse effects on the and eco-toxicity data to estimate the likelihood of adverse environment.”188 ecological effects. The means of integrating the results of exposure and eco-toxicity data is called the quotient method. The EPA’s re-registration decisions require a determination of For this method, risk quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing whether the pesticide causes unreasonable adverse effects to exposure estimates (estimated environmental concentrations people or the environment when used according to product or EECs) by eco-toxicity values (toxicity endpoint values, labeling. This determination is presented in a Re-registration such as the median lethal dose (LD50) or the median lethal Eligibility Decision (RED) document. The RED comprises concentration (LC50), both acute and chronic. RQs are then 32 compared to the EPA’s levels of concern (LOCs). The LOCs consumption patterns and vulnerabilities and to provide are criteria used by the EPA to indicate potential risk to non- additional safeguards while those data gaps are being filled. target organisms. The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects on non-target In the past, the EPA has acted as if no adverse impact would organisms. occur while missing studies were being conducted and initial indications of adverse effects had not been conclusively LOCs address the following risk presumption categories: (1) proven. Under the FQPA, additional protection must be acute high – potential for acute risk is high and regulatory action provided in the interim. The FQPA also established deadlines may be warranted in addition to restricted use classification; to complete the long languishing tolerance and re-registration (2) acute restricted use – the potential for acute risk is high, processes. Under FQPA, the EPA must further determine but may be mitigated through restricted use classification; (3) with “reasonable certainty that no harm” will come to infants, acute endangered species – endangered species may be adversely children or other sensitive individuals exposed to pesticides from affected; and (4) chronic risk – the potential for chronic risk food, water, and home and garden use. The FQPA requires that is high and regulatory action may be warranted. Generally, a the EPA consider the cumulative effects of different pesticides higher RQ is cause for greater concern. Calculated risk quotients in evaluating the safety of individual pesticides; however, this represent a screening level assessment. Risk characterization does not apply to occupational exposure to pesticides. The provides further information on the likelihood of adverse FQPA also established a prioritization scheme for reviewing effects occurring by considering the fate of the chemical in pesticides, under which the first priority group of pesticides the environment, geographic patterns of chemical usage, to be reviewed by EPA will be organophosphate pesticides, a communities and species potentially at risk, their spatial and group of closely-related pesticides that affect the functioning of temporal distributions, and the nature of the effects observed the nervous system. in the laboratory and field studies. When the RQ exceeds the LOC for a particular category, the EPA presumes a risk of After the EPA has issued a RED and declared a pesticide re- concern to that category. registration case eligible for re-registration, individual end-use products that contain pesticide active ingredients included in The types of measures included in Re-registration Eligibility the case still must be re-registered. This concluding part of the Decisions (REDs) to reduce risks that are of concern include: re-registration process is referred to as “product re-registration.” voluntary cancellation of pesticide products or deletion of In issuing a completed RED document, the EPA calls in any uses; declaring certain uses ineligible or not yet eligible (and product-specific data and revised labeling needed to make final then proceeding with follow-up action to cancel the uses or re-registration decisions for each of the individual pesticide require additional supporting data); restricting use of products products covered by the RED. to certified applicators; limiting the amount or frequency of use; improving use directions and precautions; adding more protective clothing and equipment requirements; requiring special packaging or engineering controls; requiring no- EPA’s Rponsibiliti under the Endangered treatment buffer zones; employing groundwater, surface water Spi Act or other environmental and ecological safeguards; and other measures. When a species has been listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), federal agencies have The EPA also regulates the use of pesticides through the Federal duties under the ESA to assess their programs and activities to Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which authorizes the ensure they do not jeopardize the survival and recovery of the EPA to set tolerance levels for pesticides used in or on foods or animal or plant in question. The ESA prescribes the process animal feed. In 1996, Congress further amended FIFRA and the to be followed to ensure compliance with each set of duties. FFDCA and unanimously passed the Food Quality Protection Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires that “each federal agency Act (FQPA), which refined safety standards for pesticide residue shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the in food. The EPA had previously established food tolerances for [Interior] Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, pesticides based on adult men’s consumptions and susceptibility or carried out by such agency … is not likely to jeopardize the to adverse health effects. However, the National Academy continued existence of any endangered species or threatened of Sciences found that children consume different foods in species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of greater quantities than adults, are more vulnerable to adverse habitat of such species which is determined by the Secretary . health effects due to their growth and development, and are . . to be critical.” particularly vulnerable to endocrine disruptors that can affect growth and sexual maturation. The FQPA directed the EPA to The ESA establishes an inter-agency consultation process revamp its tolerance-setting studies to account for children’s to assist federal agencies in complying with this duty under Section 7. Federal agencies must consult with the appropriate 33 expert fish and wildlife agency: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife to include “significant habitat modification or degradation Service (USFWS) for terrestrial species and non-oceanic which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly fish species, and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, for marine species to determine whether their actions will spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering.”190 As part jeopardize the survival or adversely modify the critical habitat of a consultation, The USFWS or NMFS determines whether of listed species and, if they do, to identify ways to modify to authorize the incidental take of listed species through the the action to avoid that result. An agency must initiate issuance of an incidental take statement. An incidental take consultation under Section 7 whenever it undertakes an action statement may be issued only if the action can proceed without that “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat. Conversely, causing jeopardy. An incidental take statement must: (1) an agency is relieved of the obligation to consult on its actions specify the impact of the incidental take on the listed species, only when the action will have “no effect” on listed species or (2) specify reasonable and prudent measures the USFWS or designated critical habitat. Effects determinations are based on NMFS considers necessary to minimize that impact, and if the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the action when necessary (3) set forth mandatory terms and conditions. added to the environmental baseline and other interrelated and interdependent actions. An incidental take statement insulates the federal agency from liability for take of a threatened or endangered species, provided Regulations implementing Section 7 broadly define the scope the agency complies with the statement’s terms and conditions. of agency actions subject to consultation to encompass “all This permission to take a species extends to any entity receiving activities or programs of any kind authorized, funded, or a federal permit, license, authorization or funding subject to, carried out, in whole or in part, by Federal agencies,” including and in compliance with, the statement. Thus, the ESA provides the promulgation of regulations and the granting of licenses. that: “[A]ny taking that is in compliance with the terms and Agencies must consult on ongoing agency actions over conditions specified in a written statement provided under which the federal agency retains, or is authorized to exercise, subsection (b)(4)(iv) of this section shall not be considered to discretionary involvement or control. Agencies must also be a prohibited taking of the species concerned.”191 consult on ongoing agency actions “if a new species is listed … that may be affected by the identified action.”189 The end Beyond Section 7 consultation duties, federal agencies must product of formal consultation is a biological opinion in which “utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of The USFWS or NMFS determines whether the action will this chapter by carrying out programs for the conservation jeopardize the survival and recovery of listed species or will of endangered species and threatened species listed” under adversely modify the species’ critical habitat. In order to make the ESA. As defined under Section 3 of the ESA, the term this determination, the USFWS or NMFS must review all “conservation” means to use all necessary methods and relevant information and provide a detailed evaluation of the procedures to bring an endangered or threatened species to the action’s effects, including the cumulative effects of federal and point at which the measures provided pursuant to the ESA are nonfederal activities in the area, on the listed species. no longer necessary. As a federal action agency, the EPA must review the programs it administers and consult with the expert The USFWS and NMFS have a statutory duty to usethe fish and wildlife agencies to ensure it utilizes its programs and best available scientific information in an ESA consultation. authorities to conserve listed species – especially in light of the If the USFWS or NMFS determines that the action is likely agency’s pesticide registration responsibilities. to jeopardize the species, the biological opinion must specify “reasonable and prudent” alternatives that will avoid jeopardy. The USFWS or NMFS must also formulate discretionary conservation recommendations to reduce or minimize the EPA’s Failure to Adequately Evaluate Risks to action’s impacts on listed species or critical habitat. Not Wildlife only does a Section 7 consultation assist the action agency in discharging its duty to avoid jeopardy, but the biological The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to develop “aquatic opinion also affects the agency’s obligation to avoid the “take” life criteria” (ALC) for specific pollutants to determine water of listed species. Under Section 9 of the ESA, it is illegal for quality and risk to aquatic life from water contamination. ALC any person – whether a private or governmental entity – to are supposed to accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge “take” without authorization any endangered species of fish or since they provide guidance to states and tribes in adopting wildlife listed under the ESA. By regulation, The USFWS has water quality standards and are the basis for regulating made the take prohibition applicable to all threatened species. discharges or releases of pollutants. The EPA has established few ALC for the thousands of registered pesticides. Nonetheless, “Take” is defined to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sampling has found that ALC wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in values are frequently exceeded in streams nationwide. such conduct. The USFWS and NMFS have defined “harm” 34 The EPA’s ALC most likely underestimate pesticide impacts biological opinion on endosulfan use is inadequate. It fails to to aquatic organisms. ALC do not address chronic exposure mention that jeopardy opinions were provided in 1989 on those to pesticide amalgamations or mixtures and fail to take into pesticides used for 43 species, including fish and mussel species, account possible additive or synergistic effects of more than as well as the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, Wyoming toad, one pesticide or combinations of pesticides, much less pesticide Nashville crayfish, piping plover and wood stork. EPA failed to transformation products. Combinations of two or three adopt nine of the 13 reasonable and prudent actions to avoid pesticides, which are commonly found in the environment at jeopardy . . . . EPA may be in violation of the Endangered low levels, can be up to 1,600 times more powerful in their Species Act.”192 The letter concludes: “the U.S. Fish and Wildlife impact on hormones than any of the pesticides individually. Service does not support the re-registration of endosulfan.” Some chemicals, which individually do not disrupt hormones, The USFWS further informed the EPA that “we do not believe greatly magnify the ability of other chemicals to disrupt that EPA has adequately evaluated or presented the ecological hormones. ALC do not address the prevalence or toxicity of risks of this pesticide . . . . In the event that EPA proceeds pesticide breakdown products, which can be found at higher with this registration, we believe that sufficient information levels and can persist much longer than the parent compounds. exists to assume this pesticide is likely to result in numerous ALC do not address the strong seasonality of concentration adverse effects to threatened and endangered species.” As of patterns (resulting in repeated pulses of high concentrations). 2004 the EPA had registered 103 products with endosulfan ALC do not evaluate some types of biological effects such as for general use and approximately 60 special uses. As discussed endocrine disruption. in this report, endosulfan has been implicated in population declines or is a threat to numerous listed amphibians such as The EPA’s pesticide risk assessments are also fundamentally the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. flawed for numerous reasons. Problematically, the risk assessment screenings are based on effects to organisms and Unfortunately, there are many other examples of the EPA’s not to habitat, ignoring indirect and chronic effects. The risk failure to address USFWS concerns and to regulate pesticide assessments only address active ingredients of a pesticide, failing use accordingly. For instance, the USFWS strongly urged that to take into account degradate products. While the EPA’s all uses of diazinon be restricted or cancelled due to its high models do address multiple applications of the same pesticide toxicity to wildlife, yet the EPA failed to implement prescriptions by the same landowner for pest control prescribed by the from a 1989 USFWS biological opinion finding diazinon use label, they do not capture multiple users and uses of the same jeopardizes the existence of 80 listed species.193 In another pesticide that impact the same water body or area of land. The case, USFWS identified serious data gaps in the EPA review of models fail to incorporate site-specific conditions such as water ecological impacts of atrazine, concluding: “it does not appear temperature, pH, changes in precipitation and climate. The that EPA will be able to fulfill its legal responsibilities under assessments fail to address impacts of inert or other ingredients [the ESA].”194 And in another example, the USFWS strongly of the pesticide. The EPA models also do not consider species disagreed with an EPA exemption allowing use of carbofuran, distribution or density, number of species actually exposed, or which was cancelled in 1991 due to bald eagle kills.195 the concentration and duration of exposure.

Of particular concern is how the EPA estimates the toxicity levels for species. Because their toxicity levels are based on EPA’s So-Called “Endangered Spi Proteion the median lethal concentration, the EPA’s determination of Program” allowable pesticide levels is based on mortality and not on potential adverse impacts – while “may affect” is the relevant The EPA displays a stunning lack of initiative in complying with trigger for consultations prescribed by the ESA. Consequently, the Endangered Species Act. The agency has shown reckless the EPA’s ecological risk assessments fail to adequately assess disregard for the impact of its Pesticide Regulation Program on sub-lethal effects that harm listed species. These failures, and wildlife, and most importantly, on endangered species. The EPA a misunderstanding of cause and effect, result in numerous has made occasional forays in addressing pesticide registrations invalid and unlawful effects determinations. through ESA consultation, but each attempt has failed to fully assess the impact of the pesticide program on endangered USFWS has repeatedly raised serious concerns about harm species. More importantly, the EPA has failed to implement to listed species from specific pesticides and inadequacies in an effective overarching program to address pesticide impacts the EPA’s risk assessments for ESA purposes. One example of to endangered species, abrogating its responsibility to further the EPA’s failure to regulate pesticides harmful to endangered conservation of threatened and endangered species as required species is their consultation with the USFWS on re-registration by Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. of the insecticide endosulfan. A letter sent by the USFWS in 2002 to the EPA stated that “EPA’s discussion of the USFWS’s

35 In 1972, the EPA assumed authority for registration of consulted species. In fact, the EPA has not submitted sufficient pesticides from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and in information to USFWS or NMFS to even start a consultation the wake of the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, on pesticide impacts to any listed species. In contrast to the EPA environmental standards were written into FIFRA. Pesticides are federal land management agencies, which have completed already in use were supposed to be brought into compliance ESA consultations with the USFWS on their use of pesticides with these standards but were not, leading to the EPA’s later re- in noxious weed control programs on federal lands. The land registration process and deadlines. Pesticides originally registered management agencies have imposed far greater pesticide in the 1950s and 1960s are still awaiting re-registration under restrictions than required by the EPA registration and label, FIFRA’s environmental standards. Congress passed the ESA in which has enabled the USFWS to have greater assurance that 1973 but the EPA did not begin consultations under the ESA listed species would not be jeopardized. with the USFWS for pesticides until 1981. Consultations were conducted on a case-by-case basis where an individual pesticide In the interim – while the EPA continues to fail to comply with was consulted on for specific uses. Recognizing that the case- the ESA – species have continued to be exposed to potentially by-case approach was inefficient, the EPA adopted a “cluster” harmful pesticides with no assessment of the consequences. approach where pesticides with similar use patterns were During its consultation period with the EPA in the mid- considered together. This approach began in 1983 with a series 1980s to early 1990s, the USFWS concluded that pesticides of biological opinions covering corn, grain, forest, mosquito jeopardized birds, amphibians, mammals, aquatic invertebrates, and rangeland uses. fish and reptiles in dozens of “jeopardy” determinations. The consultations found that registered pesticides jeopardized In 1989, the EPA reinitiated consultation on the pesticides the continued existence of over 100 species, yet the EPA reviewed in the clusters, focusing on impacts to aquatic continuously deferred any ESA consultation until the ESPP species. Additionally, in 1989, the EPA released a proposed was finalized. “Endangered Species Protection Program” (ESPP),196 which would establish how future consultations would take place. After years as a proposed voluntary program, the EPA finalized In 1993, the EPA found that the “cluster” approach was also the ESPP in November 2005. The revised ESPP describes the problematic and adopted a species-based approach where EPA’s approach to implementing its responsibilities under they evaluated the impacts of 16 vertebrate control agents section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, while at the same time not placing (i.e. rodenticides) on 56 species (mammals, birds, reptiles and an unnecessary burden on agriculture and other pesticide insects). The EPA intended to consult on another 15 pesticides users. However, the ESPP program is only implicated when but the biological opinion was never completed. After 1993, the EPA makes a subsequent determination that geographically the EPA continuously referred to the non-finalized 1989 ESPP, specific risk mitigation is necessary to protect federally listed deferring ESA compliance until it was finalized. threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat. If geographically specific pesticide use limitations are necessary, The EPA’s view was that previous opinions proved ineffective the EPA will then create a bulletin containing enforceable use in assessing impacts of pesticides and thus an overarching limitations for the pesticide. Bulletins will be referenced on the framework was necessary. Consequently, instead of complying pesticide product label and available on the EPA Web site. The with the ESA as pesticides continued to be registered and problems with the primary provisions of the finalized ESPP are new species continued to be added to the federal endangered as follows: species list, the EPA provided generic statements that it would address ESA issues when the ESPP was finalized. Of course, (1) The pesticide label will not specify restrictions necessary each year the EPA claimed it expected the ESPP to be finalized to protect endangered species. Rather, to learn what soon. In the interim, the agency relied on only partially- restrictions are required for a given pesticide, pesticide users implemented voluntary measures to protect species that will need to consult a Web site or call a toll-free number. received consultation up to 1993. Although there have been (2) The EPA will establish protections for endangered species numerous determinations by the USFWS that registered use of as part of its regular pesticide review process, in which pesticides would jeopardize listed species and many Incidental each pesticide is reviewed only once every 15 years. Since Take Permits have been granted with pesticide use conditions the EPA is now completing congressionally mandated for conserving listed species, the EPA has taken no action – not registrations of most pesticides currently on the market, it even the minimum step of developing a county bulletin that will postpone endangered species protections for another would lay out voluntary protections. 10-15 years and leave imperiled species at risk. (3) Unfortunately, the EPA has declined to institute monitoring Since 1993, except in the presence of litigation, the EPA has of endangered species impacted by pesticides and it will not completed a single consultation for newly listed species make only selective use of surface water monitoring or addressed new scientific information regarding previously undertaken by the USGS, states and tribes.

36 (4) The EPA will give chemical companies and pesticide users special rights to comment on any proposed restrictions on EPA’s New Regulations Weakening Endangered pesticide uses and the EPA will strive to minimize burdens Spi Proteions on pesticide users. The EPA will exclude the public from these special reviews, and places no comparable emphasis In July 2004 the Bush administration adopted new regulations on ensuring that endangered species receive the most that circumvent the consultation process established under the effective (as opposed to the least burdensome) protection ESA to ensure that federally permitted pesticide applications will from harmful pesticides. not wipe out endangered species. The new rules, promulgated by the USFWS and NMFS at the chemical industry’s behest, In comments on the proposed ESPP, conservationists called for reveal the EPA’s ongoing interest is avoiding its ESA obligations use restrictions to be placed directly on the pesticide label or rather than finding a way to bring its pesticide registration to be distributed along with the product at the point of sale. program into compliance with the ESA. They also called for the EPA to take swift action to develop and implement restrictions for the most harmful pesticides, pointing The new regulations will weaken endangered species protections to a giant loophole in the new program – a 15-year delay in primarily by shutting federal wildlife agency experts out of establishing much-needed protections for endangered fish and endangered species protection, instituting “self-consultations” wildlife from pesticides. This comes on the heels of a recent bill in which only the EPA assesses the potential for pesticide that passed in the House that would exempt pesticides from impacts on endangered species. The regulations will also make the ESA for a period of five years. Conservationists have faulted it more difficult to protect endangered species by requiring a the program as being sorely inadequate to ensure compliance greater show of harm to species before formal consultations with restrictions on pesticide use and call it a “don’t ask-don’t with wildlife agency experts are required and by deferring to the tell” program because information on pesticide restrictions will EPA’s assessments of pesticides and views even where the EPA be hidden on the EPA’s Web site rather than communicated lacks essential data and species expertise. The regulations allow directly to pesticide users. outdated science to be the basis for determining whether – and the extent to which – endangered species must be protected The EPA assumes it can solve the pesticide problem for from pesticides. They also give the chemical industry special endangered species through the use of “county bulletins.” participation rights that are not shared by the public. Under the ESPP, generic label statements will instruct pesticide users to consult local county bulletins, which inform the user A USFWS technical team of biologists and toxicologists on how to appropriately apply the pesticide in proximity to conducted an extensive review of the EPA’s proposed risk endangered and threatened species. Some county bulletins were assessment process under the new regulations. The technical created after the 1989 consultation to provide protections for team found significant deficiencies, specifically that EPA risk species covered in the 1989 biological opinion. Specifically, the assessments will likely underestimate exposures and risks bulletins contained the 1989 biological opinion’s reasonable of pesticides to listed species due to gaps in data on sub- and prudent alternatives to avoid jeopardy. However, the EPA lethal effects, inert ingredients, mixtures, numerous species, admits that these bulletins are totally outdated as they only “incorrect” risk thresholds, and limited models that overlook provide use instructions for a few species listed prior to 1993, various scenarios, such as shallow waters, shorelines, inhalation have not incorporated use limitations for species listed since exposure from soil fumigants, and skin exposures for frogs. 1993, and are used in only a select number of states across The team recommended updating the science underlying the the country. Although the EPA never updated the original EPA’s approach to incorporate additional species and effects in set of county bulletins, created to implement the mitigation the EPA’s tests and analysis, to expand the use of peer-review measures deemed necessary by the USFWS in the 1989 literature, and to ground the analysis of pesticides impacts in biological opinion, the EPA stated in the 2002 proposed ESPP the biological and ecological needs of listed species. The team that county bulletins will be updated annually. concluded that until such changes are made, the EPA’s risk assessments would not use the best science, consider all relevant Given the EPA’s proven inability to manage a very small aspects of pesticide impacts, or ensure against jeopardy to listed number of bulletins covering a limited number of species, it species. In response, the Bush administration disbanded the is difficult to believe that the EPA will be able to adequately team and the federal wildlife agencies signed off on the EPA’s protect endangered species through the use of county bulletins. risk assessment process despite persistent concerns and scathing Consequently, those species whose survival is jeopardized by critiques from technical team members. pesticide use receive no real protections and will continue to decline towards extinction while the EPA continues to find The EPA is poorly equipped to take on consultations without ways to avoid compliance with the ESA. oversight by wildlife agency experts. Although EPA staff may have a strong understanding of pesticides, the agency does

37 not have expertise about listed species and cannot, therefore, make requisite effect determinations absent the USFWS or The EPA and the Courts NMFS. In a nod to industry, this inadequate process allows Due to the EPA’s ongoing recalcitrance in complying with opportunities for pesticide manufacturers to contribute to the the ESA, many environmental organizations have been forced risk assessment while limiting the opportunity of the USFWS to seek recourse in the courts. The following is a brief review and NMFS to provide oversight. of resolved and pending lawsuits over the EPA’s neglect of endangered species that occur in the San Francisco Bay Area. Wildlife agency experts have repeatedly called into question the EPA’s assessments of the impacts of pesticides on fish and wildlife. For example, the USFWS comments on EPA’s WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION, ET AL. V. EPA atrazine risk assessment stated: “Risk assessments that fail to Concerned about the impacts pesticides pose to endangered address [the pesticide mixing] issue are likely to underestimate west coast salmon and steelhead trout species, the Northwest the true potential for ecological impacts, and as such, this Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Washington Toxics represents a critical data gap that EPA needs to address.” Coalition, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, NMFS and FWS have criticized the EPA for failing to account and Institute for Fisheries Resources sued the EPA in January for sub-lethal effects in its risk assessments and registration of 2001 for failing to complete ESA Section 7 consultations with pesticides.197 For example, NMFS stated in its 2002 biological NMFS for over 50 toxic pesticides found in salmon waters. opinion on pesticide use on public forests that “Rainbow While the EPA had made initial determinations for the trout behavior changed at chlordane (organo-chlorine pesticides, NMFS found that the information provided and insecticide) concentrations below the EPA’s not-to-be-exceeded analyzed by the EPA was insufficient for consultations because concentration, illustrating the inadequacy of using current EPA of serious gaps. application guidelines for avoidance of sublethal effects.” The EPA’s own assessment of the pesticide diazinon acknowledged In July 2002, the U.S. District Court in Seattle found that the that the EPA lacked knowledge about young chinook salmon EPA had failed to meet its Section 7 obligations, noting that life cycles and habitat needs. Furthermore, the EPA’s ability the EPA’s own reports document the potentially significant to assess the risks pesticides pose to salmon have been called risks posed by registered pesticides to salmonids. Based on EPA into question in letters from NMFS in which the overarching reports for 54 pesticides, the Court found that the EPA failed to conclusions were that the EPA’s pesticide assessments were not consult on the potential impacts of these pesticides on salmon. based on the best scientific information and may be biased The EPA was ordered to comply with the ESA by evaluating, toward concluding that a pesticide does not pose an ecological with the input of NMFS, the effects of these 54 pesticides on risk to listed resources, when in fact it does.”198 endangered and threatened salmon.

By eliminating the checks and balances built into the ESA In July and August 2003, the Court ruled that interim through formal agency consultation, the new rule makes it protective measures should be put in place while the EPA was easier for agribusiness and other industries to use highly toxic completing this process. In January 2004, the Court imposed pesticides. These changes to the way pesticides are regulated buffers that restrict the use of 38 pesticides near salmon streams under the ESA will have severe and detrimental effects to many and required point-of-sale warnings on products containing endangered species in the San Francisco Bay Area if they are seven pesticides that have polluted urban salmon streams. allowed to stand. Scientists, conservationists and members of Congress oppose the rule change, which the administration In 2004, the pesticide industry group CropLife America, along formulated with the help of the pesticide industry. Sixty-six with other agricultural interests, attempted five times to stay members of Congress wrote a letter to the Bush administration the January 2004 injunction while they appealed the ruling opposing the new pesticide regulations, including Bay Area with the District Court and eventually the Ninth Circuit Congressional members Barbara Lee, George Miller, Mike Court of Appeals. The District Court issued a strongly worded Thompson, Zoe Lofgren, Tom Lantos and Lynn Woolsey. In opinion denying the industry request. Lambasting the EPA, September 2004 a coalition of conservation and fishing groups the Court stated that “if EPA had expended as much effort filed a lawsuit challenging the new pesticide consultation in compliance with the ESA as it has expended in resisting regulations. this action, the lawsuit might have been unnecessary.” The 9th Circuit Court affirmed the injunction in full and the Supreme Court turned down the CropLife request for judicial review. Bay Area endangered species affected by the court ruling are steelhead trout, coho salmon and chinook salmon.

38 CALIFORNIANS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO TOXICS, ET endangered fish, aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial plants and AL. V. EPA aquatic plants. In 2000, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, the A recent University of California study demonstrated that frog Environmental Protection Information Center, and the larvae exposed to extremely low doses (0.01 parts per billion) Humboldt Watershed Council sued the EPA for failing to of atrazine resulted in the production of hermaphrodites.199 consult with the USFWS and NMFS before registering However, the EPA concluded that it is not possible to determine pesticides that may affect six listed salmonids and 33 listed plant the relationship of atrazine exposure to developmental effects species or their critical habitats in California. The plaintiffs in amphibians. The EPA’s independent Scientific Advisory settled the lawsuit in November 2002 with a consent decree, Panel (SAP) reviewed the literature on developmental effects of which established deadlines for the EPA to initiate consultation atrazine on amphibians and responded to the EPA’s conclusion. on the potential effects of 18 pesticides (acrolein, atrazine, The SAP noted that although it could not draw a conclusion bromacil, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, diuron, glyphosate, regarding a concentration-response relationship, it believes hexazinone, imazapyr, oxyfluorfen, 2,4-D-2 ethylhexyl ester, that the data support the hypothesis that the effect of atrazine molinate, oryzalin, simizine, sulfometuron-methyl, triclopyr on amphibian gonad development occurs with a threshold butoxyethyl ester, and triclopyr triethylammonium). The EPA concentration between 0.01 and 25 parts per billion.200 was required to consult with the federal wildlife agencies for all 18 pesticides by February 2005. Bay Area endangered species In a shocking move, the EPA ignored the overwhelming scientific affected by the consent decree are steelhead trout, coho salmon evidence on the harmful effects of atrazine, and in October and chinook salmon. 2003 approved the unrestricted use of this pesticide. The EPA made a “no effect” determination for atrazine for endangered CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY V. species, which is suspect and disregards the Hayes data. Under WHITMAN a court-approved consent decree with NRDC under another In April 2002, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the atrazine suit focused on public health concerns, the EPA was EPA for failing to consult on pesticides that may affect the required to further assess the use of this dangerous chemical. California red-legged frog. The suit identified over 250 However, in a private agreement with Syngenta, the primary pesticides that are used in red-legged frog habitat. Numerous producer of atrazine, the EPA required Syngenta to monitor scientific studies have definitively linked pesticide use with atrazine pollution from 2004 to 2005 in only 3 percent of the significant developmental, neurological and reproductive 1,172 watersheds nationwide that are known to be at high effects on amphibians. Pesticide contamination can cause risk of atrazine contamination. The EPA has not required any deformities, abnormal immune system functions, diseases, measures to protect the public and wildlife from atrazine use injury and death of red-legged frogs and other amphibians. in any of these watersheds. The EPA also alarmingly concluded In September 2005, the U.S. District Court in San Francisco that atrazine is not likely to cause cancer in humans, despite the ruled that the EPA violated the ESA by registering pesticides August 2003 report from the SAP, which found that atrazine for use without considering how these pesticides might impact may cause cancer and that the EPA’s focus on prostate cancer the continued existence of the red-legged frog and ordered the was potentially misleading. NRDC filed a lawsuit in February EPA to review the impacts these pesticides have on the frog “at 2005 challenging the EPA’s illegal negotiation of secret the earliest possible time.” The EPA must now consult with the agreements with chemical industry lobbyists over regulation of USFWS on the impacts of 66 of the most toxic and persistent atrazine. pesticides authorized for use in red-legged frog habitat in California. WASHINGTON TOXICS COALITION, ET AL. V. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL V. EPA In September 2004, a coalition of conservation and fishing The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the groups filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Seattle EPA in August 2003 for failing to consult on the impact of challenging the federal government’s new pesticide consultation the herbicide atrazine on numerous listed species. Although regulations. The Center for Biological Diversity joined the the lawsuit focuses on the EPA’s failure to protect sea turtles Washington Toxics Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife, Helping in the Chesapeake Bay, salamanders in Texas, mussels in Our Peninsula’s Environment, National Wildlife Federation, Alabama, and sturgeons in Midwest waters from atrazine, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest Coalition outcome will have a bearing on many Bay Area endangered for Alternatives to Pesticides and Pacific Coast Federation of species affected by atrazine use. Although atrazine is banned in Fishermen’s Associations/Institute for Fisheries Resources in much of Europe, the EPA refuses to ban the herbicide in the challenging the EPA’s latest attempts to eliminate important U.S. even though its risk assessments acknowledge potential protections for endangered species in the EPA registration harmful effects of atrazine – both directly and indirectly – on process. 39 The Bush administration’s new regulations allow the EPA to evade its legal obligations and determine itself whether a pesticide harms endangered species without consulting with federal wildlife agencies. The EPA’s attempt to determine whether pesticides may affect listed species through self- consultation is impermissible under the ESA and eliminates the checks and balances built into the ESA through formal agency consultation. The new rule would allow the EPA to conduct self-consultations based on deficiencies in EPA science and make it easier for agribusiness and other industries to use highly toxic pesticides.

Responding to the lawsuit, the EPA tried to ignore and conceal the widespread controversy and scientific dissension over approval of their new consultation regulations by submitting only final and official documents as the administrative record of the rulemaking. However, the federal court has ordered the EPA to provide the whole record, including internal dissent. This lawsuit is ongoing.

40 Recommendations ndangered Bay Area wildlife species exposed to toxic impacts on endangered species when registering pesticides, pesticides may prove to be sentinels that that are rather than merely identifying the need for monitoring. indicative of our own fate. Pesticides that are found in Ewildlife habitats are also are finding their way into our drinking • The EPA must conduct meaningful and relevant ecological water, food and air. Because it can often take decades of study risk assessments and correct scientific deficiencies in their to know for certain the harmful consequences of expanding assessments of pesticide impacts. The EPA must improve pesticide use, we should take a precautionary approach, and its science to require testing of actual formulations of phase out use of the most dangerous pesticides, reduce our pesticide products rather than just active ingredients reliance on toxic chemicals for pest control and promote in isolation, and test for sub-lethal effects of pesticides. ecologically based pest management. Pesticide manufacturers must be required to conduct long- term studies on ecosystem-wide impacts to demonstrate that a pesticide has no adverse effects before allowing it to be registered. Present regulations view a pesticide as Policy Rommendations for the U.S. innocent until proven guilty, with detrimental impacts to Environmental Proteion Agency (EPA) and environmental health. It is critical to know more about the Federal Government the long-term ecological effects of a pesticide before it is released into the environment. • Require the EPA to immediately begin consultation and to commit to an aggressive consultation schedule for all • Rather than regulate pesticides one at a time, the EPA registered pesticides that may affect endangered species. should develop a system of ecologically based pest The EPA should abandon its delay tactics and attempts at management that reduces the need for toxic pesticides. legislative exemptions from the ESA, and request adequate funding to clear up the backlog of consultations and • Prohibit toxic pesticide use on National Wildlife Refuges. prioritize compliance with the ESA for all registration and Enforce the mandate of the National Wildlife Refuge re-registration of pesticides. Improvement Act of 1997 to put wildlife first on wildlife refuges. If farming is to take place in these areas, it should • Require interim safeguards for toxic pesticides known or be restricted to organic farming of crops that are compatible suspected to harm endangered species, such as atrazine, with wildlife. carbofuran, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, prioritizing pesticides which have already been determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service to jeopardize any listed species. Policy Rommendations for the State of Use restrictions necessary to prevent listed species from California’s Environmental Proteion Agency exposure to these pesticides should be required until the EPA has consulted with the USFWS on the impacts of • Immediately ban statewide use of toxic pesticides most these pesticides. These pesticides should be not be used in harmful to wildlife and human health. This immediate ban known occupied habitat, designated critical habitat, or in should apply to the most toxic pesticides for which there buffer areas around habitats for federally listed species. is known and compelling information about their hazards, such as atrazine, carbofuran, diazinon and chlorpyrifos. • Rescind the new federal regulation that allows the EPA to consult with itself and stop the EPA from circumventing • Phase out the use of all toxic pesticides that are harmful the oversight of the expert fish and wildlife agencies in to wildlife and human health and reduce the use of other bringing its pesticide registrations into compliance with pesticides. Banning individual harmful pesticides usually the Endangered Species Act. results in shifting use to equally toxic substitute pesticides, with new and unknown adverse effects on wildlife. Rather • Revamp the EPA’s so-called Endangered Species Protection than regulating pesticides one at a time the state EPA should Program. The current ESPP relies on vague references to develop a system of ecologically based pest management county bulletins to supposedly protect endangered species. that reduces the need for toxic pesticides. The EPA should attach real prohibitions on proximate use or aerial spraying in zones around endangered species habitat • Make California’s current voluntary pesticide use buffers on pesticide labels as part of the registration process. The for endangered species. mandatory. The proposed buffers EPA should also require adequate monitoring of pesticide should be peer reviewed by federal wildlife agencies and 41 independent biologists to ensure they are adequate to as soaps, oils, and bio-pesticides to control insect pests. protect listed species from toxic pesticide drift and runoff. Watch out for “weed and feed” fertilizers containing toxic pesticides. If you hire others to do your gardening work, • Require the state of California’s Department of Pesticide insist that no toxic pesticides be used or hire landscaping Regulation to live up to its mission of protecting public and pest-control firms specializing in least-toxic methods health and the environment and enforce existing laws and of pest management. support alternative agriculture. For years the agency has consistently stonewalled enforcement of environmental • Buy organic foods whenever possible. Market forces are a regulations related to toxic pesticides and allocated few powerful incentive to encourage growers to go organic. resources to alternative pest management in agriculture and other sectors. • Insist on least-toxic pest management in your children’s schools and support efforts to phase out use of toxic • Provide extensive support for non-chemical methods of pest pesticides in schools. Many schools now have a “no toxic control and tax incentives to reduce toxic pesticide use. The pesticides” policy. If yours does not, work with other direct cost of applying a pesticide is only a small fraction parents and teachers to implement such a policy at your of the actual cost. Many of the costs associated with toxic school. pesticide use are borne by the public and the environment, such as human illness due to pesticide exposures, kills of birds and fish, loss of habitat and food for fish and wildlife, and increased crop damage due to pesticide-resistant pests. Giving growers a tax break for reducing toxic pesticide use and/or requiring pesticide manufacturers to pay more of the external costs associated with pesticide use will provide incentives to reduce use.

• Provide funding for additional monitoring of fish and wildlife populations, as well as chemical concentrations in water, sediments and wildlife tissues. Monitoring of chemical concentrations and fish and wildlife populations, including creation of a centralized system for reporting bird and fish kills, is essential for determining the long-term effects of pesticide use. Understanding pesticide effects on native species in the field, not just in the laboratory, is crucial.

Rommendations for Homeowners, Renters and Parents The amount of pesticides used on lawns, gardens and in homes and schools is estimated to be more than one-ﬁfth of total pesticide use in California. If you are a homeowner, renter or parent and wish to reduce your impacts on the environment while protecting your and your family’s health, here are some steps you can take.

• Use least-toxic pest control methods around the home and garden. Exclude pests by caulking cracks, and keep kitchens and other parts of the home free from food sources that attract pests. Use low-toxicity, contained baits instead of spraying potent toxicants into the environment. In the garden, control weeds by mulching or hand weeding and use beneﬁcial insects or least-toxic insecticides such

42 43 Maps of Bay Area Pesticide Use in Endangered Species Habitat

44 Major Tn'buta ries res of the Nine Bay /Vea Coun '

-· -·

45 Pesticide Applications Detrimental to lhe San Joaquin Kit Fox in the Nine Bay Area Counties

Pe$ticlde /14>pri<:~1lon Ate0:$ • - San Joaquin ktt fox 1ange ~

~"1:~•· --.ilfinumf~)#. blod~ Llo•n;Y~. ~ d~~ J60l 11ok;l.. ~m.a.-.i10. .-:t~

"""" .. .• r • • • • J'• • • • • • • • - • ... SOLAt'O

• I •

-· • --· .. SAtitMT(.0 I f

46 Pesticide Application5 Detrirnenta I to thfl' California Roo-legged Frog in t he Nine Say Area C()u ntie"S

1 Pesticide Applcat10111 /JJea'S C..lifofNa Ftcd.Je9Qed frog 2 h tal Critieal 1-fabital t 2001 \

.. lu•-.-.lt_., .. .·•.,.·'-' ~ · i ... :U-41--ifllllll:&IL~ tJI :u.a1'"'"·•n•111t~:!!I ...... ~ . t-£1'111f,1...... 'ftt.• •.Hi~U ...... _, &.ti1 .- tll~ .... t:: ~ ..'1' ',':'i'"' u .. ""_.. .__. •11 K"fl!A.T{ ~-1.• iu1r111 i-r-...:am • ~· • it9 I IC'EU&. ••r.N--'i•• .c- • C.UII1 C...:INf.t I" l:mDN'f'll_•-111 !C ...... ,1' ~ .....t-..1'1!M:• . mmI L ..."t ...! ...... ,...... , _ .... •n~.- ...... -- ~·l.El!l•'!'I: •Wt-::=tt".111 :. -· t:: : ~: ~- =~ ll•t-t« 11 .,.. t Llll!Ull11.1' M.1f lllO!!•-il !Cll P i Lli l lll':.""' ' K•F llV.i.•J l ..._ .,_. .... ta.!ll ~U M.-n . ....1 i1-. •••• •- .ur W.lr~-1i.•Lf :,,Ott :; ~ ~~~! ' ---:.• •1r ...... ~ · -,,,l'P .....'T"'liJ t 11 .• ...... 'Jr!1P ill • 1 11o>tI9 •L-4 _r I... -• HI . ..,....-no.·lllffil .••.•. • ...... l,_ •....,. • -..--·_..·...... ,."" ··-, , ,...... " .;I'll t-.to ...x• .. ~ .... R'.9') ...,.. li C.•tP&Jlf)f•U -='-~--··---· .. ··---· ••1 t•'VT•rw- .,PPJl... a.....l • t• , . ,., rfa.-; ..,...,_...... , ...V IC---"' ,..,PWT 111 I .....,.,.., •11 1~4J:lt'>; ••I '"'1111: ...... ,. • .,.,..,, .... n1~:i::;.1t rnr.ui 1 • s..--rr ~-· 47 Pesticiele Applications Detrimental to the California Tiger Salamander in the Nine Bay Area Counties PestloCe AWlle:r!ion Afu:S • .. Central Population Final Cncical Hat>U1 ~ __J Sonoma Populabon P1oposed C"'cal -la b&&? c:::J ObseNe___d l.oe3 tions' -...______,_ __ ...,. __ ,_ ···-__~ ,,,.. _o.o .. -...._-·...-- -''"''""'---... !·=-·'"':::"l!" !:S-- -· -

1 t0Afl: ISCO -· --· ··: .. .. . " ...... " ......

------·48 ------. 19 Kegley, S., et. al. 2003. Secondhand Pesticides: Airborne Pesticide Drift Referenc in California. Californians for Pesticide Reform. Available at www.panna. org/resources/ documents/secondhandDriftAvail.dv.html. 1 Silent Spring Revisited: Pesticide Use and Endangered Species is available on the Center for Biological Diversity Web site at www. 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Pesticide Registration biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/science/pesticides/index.html Notice 2001-X (8/9/01) Draft. Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products. Available at www.epa.gov/oppmsd1/PR_Notices/ 2 Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California prdraft-spraydrift801.htm. is available on the PANNA web site at www.panna.org/panna/resources/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Spray Drift of Pesticides. documents/disruptingSum.dv.html. Available at www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/spraydrift.htm. 3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Determination of Threatened Status 21 USEPA 2001, Op. cit. for the Sacramento Splittail. 64 FR 5963, 5974-80, Feb. 8, 1999. 22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Atrazine Interim Re- 4 registration Eligibility Decision. January 31, 2003. Available at www.epa. Houston, J. R, L. A. Allen, and K. M. Kuivila. 2000. Seasonal patterns gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/atrazine/, p. 93. and factors controlling the occurrence of dissolved pesticides in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Presented at CALFED Bay-Delta 23 See for example: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Program Science Conference, Oct. 3-5, 2000, Sacramento, CA. Abstract Chlorpyrifos Interim Deregistration Eligibility Decision. September 28, (#169), summary, and notes available at www.iep.water.ca.gov/calfed/ 2001. Available at www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/op/chlorpyrifos.htm, p. 95-97. sciconf/2000/publications/. Kuivila, K. M. 2000. Pesticides in the Sacramento-San Joaquin 24 Berrill, M., S. Bertram, A. Wilson, S. Louis, D. Brigham, and C. Stromberg Delta: State of Our Knowledge. Presented at CALFED Bay-Delta 1993. Lethal and sub-lethal impacts of Pyrethroid insecticides on amphibian Program Science Conference, Oct. 3-5, 2000, Sacramento, CA. Abstract embryos and tadpoles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12: 525- (#66), summary, and notes available at www.iep.water.ca.gov/calfed/ 539. sciconf/2000/publications/. Berrill, M., S. Bertram, L. M. McGillivray, M. Kolohon, and B. Pauli 1994. Moon, G. E, K. M. Kuivila, and J. L. Orlando. 2000. Exposure of Delta Effects of low concentrations of forest-use pesticides on frog embryos and Smelt to Dissolved Pesticides During Larval and Juvenile Stages in 1998 tadpoles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13(4): 657-664. and 1999. Abstract #183 presented at CALFED Bay-Delta Program Berrill, M., S. Bertram, B. Pauli, and D. Coulson 1995. Comparative Science Conference, Oct. 3-5, 2000, Sacramento, CA. Summary and sensitivity of amphibian tadpoles to single and pulsed exposures of the notes available at www.iep.water.ca.gov/calfed/sciconf/2000/publications/. forest-use insecticide Fenitrothion. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 14(6): 1101-1018. 5 Larson, S. J. et al. 1999. Pesticides in Streams of the U.S. Initial Results Berrill, M., D. Coulson, L. McGillivray, and B. Pauli 1998. Toxicity of from the National Water-Quality Assessment Program. USGS Water- Endosulfan to aquatic stages of anuran amphibians. Environmental Resources Investigation Report 98-4222. Toxicology and Chemistry 17(9): 1738-1744. Hall, R. and P. F. Henry 1992. Assessing effects of pesticides on 6 California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Region 2. 2003. 2002 amphibians and reptiles: Status and needs. Herp. Jr. vol. 2: 65-71. CWA Section 303(D) List of Water Quality Limited Segment. 25 Park, D., S.C. Hempleman, and C. R. Propper. 2001. Endosulfan exposure disrupts pheremonal systems in the red-spotted newt: A 7 California Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Region 2. 2005. mechanism for subtle effects of environmental chemicals, Environmental Revision of the Clean Water Act Section 303(D) List of Water Quality Health Perspectives 109:669-673. Limited Segments. Fact Sheets Supporting Revision of the Section 303(D) List. September, 2005. In 2005 the RWQCB also proposed de-listing much 26 Hayes, T.B., et al., 2002, Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after of the San Francisco Bay for diazinon, including the Sacramento-San exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses, Joaquin Delta, Carquinez Strait, Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, the central Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., April 16, 2002, Vol.99, Issue 8, 5476-5480. basin, central, lower, and south San Francisco Bay, Oakland Inner Harbor and San Leandro Bay, due to reduced levels of this pesticide in recent 27 Pollinators: Protecting the Birds and Bees. Global Pesticide testing. Campaigner, Vol.6, No.4. Dec. 1996. PANNA, www.pmac.net/birdbee. htm.Nabhan, G.P. 1996. Pollinator Redbook, Volume One: Global list of 8 threatened vertebrate wildlife, wildlife species serving as pollinators for RWQCB 2003. Op. cit. crops and wild plants. www.desertmuseum.org/conservation/fp/redbook.

9 html. USGS. 1999. Pesticides in Stream Sediment and Aquatic Biota. USGS Kearns, C.A., D.W. Inouye, and N.M. Waser. 1998. Endangered Fact Sheet 092-00. mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 29:83-112. 10 USGS. 1999. Op. cit. 28 Center for Bioenvironmental Research. Environmental Estrogens, Wildlife and Human Health Effects. Available www.som.tulane.edu/ecme/ 11 U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Pesticides Associated with Suspended eehome/basics/eeeffects/. Sediments in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, California. Brian A. Bergamaschi, Kathryn L. Crepeau, and Kathryn M. Kuivila. Open-File 29 Ibid. Report 97-24. 30 Short, P. and T. Colborn. 1999. Pesticide Use in the U.S. and Policy 12 Meade R.H. 1972. Transport and deposition of sediments in estuaries: Implications: A Focus on Herbicides, Toxicology and Industrial Health: An Geological Society of America, v. 133, p. 91-120. International Journal, Jan-March 1999, Vol.15, Nos. 1&2, 240-275. 13 Cox, C. 1995. Pesticide Drift-Indiscriminately from the Skies. Journal of 31 See EPA Science Policy Council, Handbook for Non-Cancer Health Pesticide Reform. Spring 1995, Vol.15, No.1. Effects Valuation. Available at www.epa.gov/osp/spc/Endoqs.htm. 14 National Research Council, Board on Agriculture, Committee on Long- 32 Park, D., S.C. Hempleman, and C. R. Propper. 2001. Endosulfan Range Soil and Water Conservation. 1993. Soil and water quality: An exposure disrupts pheremonal systems in the red-spotted newt: A agenda for agriculture, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 323- mechanism for subtle effects of environmental chemicals. Environmental 324. Health Perspectives 109:669-673. Gilbertson, M. K., G. D. Hafner, K. G. Drouillard, A. Albert, and B. 15 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1990. Beneath the Dixon. 2002. Immunosuppression in the Northern Leopard Frog (Rana bottom line: Agricultural approaches to reduce agrichemical contamination Pipiens) Induced by Pesticide Exposure. Environmental Toxicology and of groundwater. Report No. OTA-4-418. Washington, D.C., U.S. GPO. Chemistry 22(1):101–110. Welshons, W.V., et al. 1999. Low-dose bioactivity of xenoestrogens in 16 Cox 1995, Op. cit. animals: fetal exposure to low doses of methoxychlor and other estrogens increases adult prostrate size in mice. Toxicology and Industrial Health: An 17 Sparling, D.W., G.M. Fellers, and L.L. McConnell. 2001. Pesticides and International Journal, Jan-March 1999, Vol.15, Nos. 1&2, 12-25. Amphibian Population Declines in California. Environmental Toxicology Nagler, J.J., et al. 2001. High Incidence of a Male-Specific Genetic and Chemistry. Vol.20, No.7, 1591-1595. Marker in Phenotypic Female Chinook Salmon from the Columbia River. Lenoir, J.S., et al. 1999. Summertime transport of current-use Environmental Health Perspectives 109:67-69. pesticides from California’s Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountain Willingham, E.T., et al. 2000. Embryonic Treatment with Xenobiotics Range. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18:2715. Disrupts Steroid Hormone Profiles in Hatchling Red-Eared Slider Turtles (Trachemys scripta elegans). Environmental Health Perspectives 108(4): 18 Sparling et al. 2001, Op. cit. 329-332. 49 Pesticide Action Network North America. World wide web publication www. Dodson, S.I., et al. 1999. Dieldrin Reduces Male Production and Sex panna.org/panna/resources/documents/disruptingSum.dv.html. Ratio in Daphnia (Galeata mendotae). Toxicology and Industrial Health: An International Journal, Jan-March 1999, Vol.15, Nos. 1&2, 192-199. 51 Ibid. Harris, M., et al. Apple Orchard Insecticide and Fungicide Effects on Ranid Populations in Ontario. University of Guelph, Ontario, abstract found 52 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Chlorothalonil at www.pmac.net/ranid.htm. Registration Eligibility Decision. September, 1998. La Clair, J.J., J.A. Bantle and J. Dumont. 1998. Photoproducts and metabolites of a common insect growth regulator produce developmental 53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Reregistration Eligibility deformities in Xenopus. Environmental Science and Technology, 32: 1453- for Endosulfan. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/ 1461. endosulfan_red.pdf Gray, L.E., et al. 1999. The estrogenic and antiandrogenic pesticide methoxychlor alters the reproductive tract and behavior without affecting 54 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. pituitary size or LH and prolactin secretion in male rats. Toxicology and Industrial Health: An International Journal, Jan-March 1999, Vol.15, Nos. 55 SFEP 2005, Op. cit. 1&2, 37-47. 56 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Reregistration Eligibility 33 Short, P. and T. Colborn. 1999. Pesticide Use in the U.S. and Policy Decision for Ethafluralin. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ Implications: A Focus on Herbicides. Toxicology and Industrial Health: An oppsrrd1/REDs/2260.pdf International Journal, Jan-March 1999, Vol.15, Nos. 1&2, 240-275. Reylea, R.A. and N. Mills. 2001. Predator-induced stress makes the 57 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Interim Reregistration pesticide carbaryl more deadly to gray Eligibility Decision for Fenamiphos. Available at http://www.epa. treefrog tadpoles, Hyla versicolor. Proceedings of the National Academy of gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/fenamiphos_ired.pdf Sciences, USA, 98:2481-2496. Reylea, R.A. 2004. The growth and survival of five amphibian species 58 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. exposed to combinations of pesticides. Environ. Toxico. Chem. Reylea, R.A. 2004. Synergistic impacts of malathion and predatory 59 SFEP 2005, Op. cit. stress on six species of North American tadpoles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 23:1080-1084. 60 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. Reylea, R.A. 2003. Predator cues and pesticides: A double does of danger for amphibians. Ecol. Applic. 13:1515-1521. 61 SFEP 2005, Op. cit. 34 Hayes, T.B., et al. 2002. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after 62 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., April 16, 2002, Vol.99, Issue 8, 5476-5480. 63 SFEP 2005, Op. cit. 35 Porter, W.P., et al. 1999. Endocrine, Immune, and Behavioral Effects of 64 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1997. Species by Aldicarb (Carbamate), Atrazine (Triazine) and Nitrate (Fertilizer) Mixtures Pesticide (Volume I): An Index to Pesticides That Are Used in Proximity at Groundwater Concentrations. Toxicology and Industrial Health: An to Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species in California by International Journal, Jan-March 1999, Vol.15, Nos. 1&2, 133-150. Active Ingredient. Proximity to endangered species was presumed where pesticide use (or commodity location) and habitat intersected in the same 36 Pesticide Action Network. 2004. Analysis of Reported Pesticide Sales square mile area. The intersection of species with pesticide use or species Versus Reported Pesticide Use. October 17, 2004. with a commodity does not necessarily infer significant risk, because the pesticide may not be toxic to the species, or the dynamics of pesticide use 37 San Francisco Estuary Project. 2005. Urban Pesticides Use Trends (timing, method of application, etc.) may not result in significant exposure Annual Report 2005. to the species. 65 38 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2005. Summaries of National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005. Proposed Threatened Status Pesticide Use Data, Pounds of Active Ingredient by County, 1999-2003. for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm. Sturgeon. FR Vol. 70, No. 65, April 6, 2005. 66 39 Hayes, T.B., et al. 2002. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Recovery Plan for the Sacramento- exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. April 16, 2002, Vol.99, Issue 8, 5476-5480. 67 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for the 40 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Atrazine, Reregistration Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi). Eligibility Science Chapter, Environmental Fate and Effects Chapter. April 68 22, 2002 (“Atrazine RED”). CDPR 2003, Op. cit.; SFEP 2005, Op. cit. 69 41 San Francisco Estuary Project. 2005. Pesticides in Urban Surface USFWS 1996, Op. cit. Water: Urban Pesticides Use Trends Annual Report 2005. 70 USFWS 1996, Op. cit. 42 Hassan, S.A., et al. 1988. Results of the Fourth Joint Pesticide Testing 71 Program Carried Out by the IOBC/WPRSWorking Group, “Pesticides and CDPR 2003, Op. cit., SFEP 2005, Op. cit. Beneficial Organisms.” J. Appl. Ent. 105:321-329. 72 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Determination of Threatened 43 U. S. Environmental protection Agency. 2001. Chlorpyrifos Interim Status for the Sacramento Splittail. 64 FR 5963, 5974-80, Feb. 8, 1999. Registration Eligibility Decision. September 2001, p. 52. 73 Houston, J. R, L. A. Allen, and K. M. Kuivila. 2000. Seasonal patterns 44 Cox, C. 1995. Insecticide Factsheet, Chlorpyrifos, Part 3: Ecological and factors controlling the occurrence of dissolved pesticides in the Effects. Journal of Pesticide Reform. Summer 1995, Vol.15, No.2, p. 17. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Presented at CALFED Bay-Delta Program Science Conference, Oct. 3-5, 2000, Sacramento, CA. Abstract 45 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. (#169), summary, and notes available at www.iep.water.ca.gov/calfed/ sciconf/2000/publications/. 46 SFEP 2005, Op. cit. Kuivila, K. M. 2000. Pesticides in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: State of Our Knowledge. Presented at CALFED Bay-Delta 47 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. Program Science Conference, Oct. 3-5, 2000, Sacramento, CA. Abstract (#66), summary, and notes available at www.iep.water.ca.gov/calfed/ 48 SFEP 2005, Op. cit. sciconf/2000/publications/. California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2002. Staff Summary 74 Report: TMDL for diazinon and pesticide-related toxicity in San Francisco Moon, G. E, K. M. Kuivila, and J. L. Orlando. 2000. Exposure of Delta Bay Area urban creeks. Smelt to Dissolved Pesticides During Larval and Juvenile Stages in 1998 and 1999. Abstract #183 presented at CALFED Bay-Delta Program 49 Cox, C. 1991. Pesticides and Birds: From DDT to Today’s Poisons. Science Conference, Oct. 3-5, 2000, Sacramento, CA. Summary and Journal of Pesticide Reform, Winter 1991, Vol.11, No.4. Citing U.S. EPA, notes available at www.iep.water.ca.gov/calfed/sciconf/2000/publications/. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1989. Carbofuran: A special 75 review technical support document. Washington, D.C. The Central California Coast population of coho salmon includes naturally spawning coho between Humboldt and Santa Cruz Counties. 50 Kegley, S, L. Neumeister, and T. Martin. 1999. Disrupting the Balance: 76 Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California. Report published by The listed California Coastal population includes naturally spawned spring & fall chinook in Sonoma County from the Russian River north. 50 The Central Valley Spring-Run, Fall/Late Fall Run, and Sacramento River 95 CDPR 1997, Op. cit.; SFEP 2005, Op. cit.; CDPR 2003, Op. cit. Winter Run populations include fish traveling through San Francisco Bay and Delta to spawning streams in the Central Valley. 96 USFWS 1984, Op. Cit. 77 The Central California Coast Population includes steelhead trout 97 CDPR 1997, Op. cit. spawning from the Russian River, south to Soquel Creek, including San Francisco and San Pablo Bay basins. 98 Hothem et al. 2000, Op. cit. 78 National Marine Fisheries Service. 1992. Designated Critical Habitat; 99 California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Pesticide Laboratory Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon. 57 FR 36626, August 14, Report on Caspian Tern Eggs and Nest Cup Sediments from Elkhorn 1992. Slough. Lab No. P-1743, E.P. No. L-284-95, November 1995. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Listing of Several Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Steelhead. 62 FR 100 AIMS 2005, Op. cit. 43937, August 18, 1997. National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Designated Critical Habitat; 101 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. Central California Coast and Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho Salmon. 64 FR 24049, May 5, 1999. 102 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1999. Threatened Status for Two California Clapper Rail Recovery Plan. Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in California. 64 FR 50394, September 16, 1999. 103 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1997. Pesticides by National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Threatened Status for One Species (Volume II): An Index to Pesticides that are used in Proximity to Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) in California. 65 FR 36074, Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species in California by Active June 7, 2000. Ingredient. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Final Rule Governing Take of 14 Threatened Salmon and Steelhead Evolutionarily Significant Units 104 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Srvice. 1993. Effects of 16 Vertebrate Control (ESUs). 65 FR 42422, July 10, 2000. Agents on Threatened and Endangered Species. Biological Opinion National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Proposed Rule Governing issued in March, 1993. Take of Four Threatened Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Salmonids: California Central Valley Spring-run Chinook; California 105 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2003. 2003 Annual Coastal Chinook; Northern California Steelhead; Central California Coast Pesticide Use Report Indexed by Chemical. Coho. 66 FR 43150, August 17, 2001. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. Final Rule Governing Take 106 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Final Rule to List the Santa of Four Threatened Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Barbara County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salmonids. 67 FR 1116, January 9, 2002. Salamander as Endangered. 65 FR 57242, 57259, September 21, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Final Rule to List the Sonoma 79 Larson, S.J. et al, Pesticides in Streams of the U.S.: Initial Results from County Distinct Population Segment of the California Tiger Salamander as the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (“NWQA”), USGS Water- Endangered. 68 FR 13497-13520, March 19, 2003. Resources Investigation Report 98-4222, 1999. 107 CDPR 2003, Op. cit.; SFEP 2005, Op. cit. 80 National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Factors for Decline: A Supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast Steelhead 108 California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. The Status of Rare, Under the Endangered Species Act. Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California 2000-2004. 81 U S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Pesticide Threats to 109 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final Determination of Critical Endangered Species: Case Studies. January 2004. Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog. 66 FR 14626, March 13, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California 82 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Interim Reregistration Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Eligibility Decision for Azinphos Methyl, October 30, 2001. 110 USFWS 2002, Op. cit. 83 Dodson, J. J. and C. I. Mayfield. 1979. The Dynamics of and Behavioral Toxicology of Aqua-Kleen (2,4-D Butoxyethanol Ester) as Revealed by 111 Berrill, M., et al. 1993. Effects of Low Concentrations of Forest-Use the Modification of Rheotropism in Rainbow Trout. Transactions of the Pesticides on Frog Embryos and Tadpoles. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. American Fisheries Society 108:632-640. 13(4):657-664. 84 Wells, D. E. and A. A Cowan. 1982. Vertebral Dysplasia in Salmonids 112 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. and SFEP 2005, Op. cit. Cause by the Herbicide Truifluralin. Envir. Pollut. 29:249-260. 113 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Determination of Threatened 85 U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. National Water-Quality Assessment Status for the Giant Garter Snake. 58 FR 54053, October 20, 1993. (NAWQA) Program, 1998-2000. Circulars 1144, 1159, 1161, 1215, 1216, January 22, 2004. 114 CDFG 2005, Op. cit. 86 Moore, A. and C. P. Waring. 1996. Sublethal Effects of the Pesticide 115 USFWS 1993, Op. cit. Diazinon on Olfactory Function in Mature Male Atlantic Salmon Parr. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Journal of Fish Biology 48:758-775. Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas). 87 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. and SFEP 2005, Op. cit. 116 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1995. Managing Ricelands for Giant Garter Snakes. Brochure published by the California 88 Hothem, R. L. and A. N. Powell. 2000. Contaminants in Eggs of Western Department of Pesticide Regulation and the California Rice Industry Snowy Plovers and California Least Terns: Is There a Link to Population Association. World wide web publication www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/es/espdfs/ Decline? Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. (2000) 65:42-50. ggsbroch.pdf U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), Pacific Coast Population, Draft 117 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. Recovery Plan. 118 USFWS 1993, Op. cit. 89 USFWS 2001, Op. cit. 119 California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 1997. Species by 90 USFWS 2001, Op. cit. Pesticide (Volume I): An Index to Pesticides That Are Used in Proximity to Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species in California by Active 91 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2001. Interim Ingredient. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Fenthion. EPA 738-R-00-013, January 2001. 120 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. 92 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. 121 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for the California Freshwater Shrimp (Syncaris pacifica Holmes 1895). 93 Eddleman, W. R., F. L. Knopf, B. Meanley, F. A. Reid, and R. Zembal. 1988. Conservation of North American Rallids. Wilson Bulletin 100(3), 122 CDPR 1997, Op. cit. 1988, pp. 458-475. 123 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Delta Green Ground Beetle 94 AIMS 2005, Op. cit. (Elaphrus viridis) and Solano Grass (Tucloria mucronata) Recovery Plan. Portland, OR. 68 pp. 51 124 California Department of Fish and Game. 2000. The Status of Rare, 147 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. San Bruno Elfin/Mission Blue Threatened, and Endangered Animals and Plants in California. Butterflies Recovery Plan. 125 Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS). 2005. American Bird 148 CDPR 1997, Op. cit. Conservancy and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. World wide web publication www.abcbirds.org/aims/index.cfm. 149 USFWS 1997, Op. cit. 126 CDPR 2003. Op. cit. 150 USFWS 1997, Op. cit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft Recovery Plan for Behren’s 127 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Final Rule to Remove the Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene behrensii). American Peregrine Falcon from the Federal List of Endangered and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Seven Coastal Plants and the Threatened Wildlife, and to Remove the Similarity of Appearance Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly Recovery Plan. Provision for Free-flying Peregrines in the Conterminous United States. Federal Register 64:46542-46558. 151 CDPR 1997, Op. cit. 128 USFWS 1999, Op. cit. 152 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletins for Marin and Sonoma Counties. 129 CDFG 2000, Op. cit. 153 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral 130 Jarman, W. M., S.A. Burns, C.E. Bacon, J. Rechtin, S. DeBenedetti, and Scrub Community Species East of San Francisco Bay, California. J.L. Linthicum, and B.J. Walton. 1996. High Levels of HCB and DDE Associated with Reproductive Failure in Prairie Falcons (Falco mexicanus) 154 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for San Francisco County. from California. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 1996, v. 57, pp. 8-15. 155 CDFG 2005, Op. cit. 131 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. 156 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Determination of Endangered Status for Three Plants: Blennosperma bakeri (Sonoma Sunshine 132 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Aquatic Risk Assessment or Baker’s Stickyseed), Lasthenia burkei (Burke’s Goldfields), and for Methyl Parathion. Appendix 5 - Aquatic and Terrestrial Incidents with Limnanthes vinculans (Sebastopol Meadowfoam). 56 FR 61173 61182, Methyl Parathion. December 2, 1991. AIMS 2005, Op. cit. 157 California Native Plant Society. 2005. Inventory of Rare and 133 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. Endangered Plants (online edition, v6-05c). World wide web publication www.cnps.org/inventory. 134 CDPR 2003. Op. cit. 158 CDFG 2005, Op. cit. 135 USFWS 1993. Op. cit. 159 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletins for Alameda, Santa Clara 136 CDPR 2003, Op. cit. and San Mateo Counties. 137 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Potential Risks of Nine 160 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletins for Marin and Sonoma Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A Comparative Approach. Counties. Office of Pesticides Programs Environmental Fate and Effects Division, July 2004. 161 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Determination of Endangered U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Status for Ten Plants and Threatened Status for Two Plants from Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Serpentine Habitats in the San Francisco Bay Region of California. 60 FR 6671 6685, February 3, 1995. 138 Hegdal, P. L., K. A. Fagerston, T. A. Gatz, J. F. Glahn, and G. H. Matshchke. 1986. Hazards to Wildlife Associated with 1080 Baiting for 162 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Determination of Endangered California Ground Squirrels. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:11-21. Status for Two Tidal Marsh Plants – Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophioum Schitoskey, F., Jr. 1975. Primary and Secondary Hazards of Three (Suisun Thistle) and Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis (Soft Bird’s-Beak) Rodenticides to Kit Fox. Journal of Wildlife Management 39:416-418. From the San Francisco Bay Area of California. 62 FR 61916 61925, Wallace, L. T. 1976. Current Evaluation of the Use of Sodium November 20, 1997. Monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) for Ground Squirrel Control in Areas Inhabited by the San Joaquin Kit Fox. Unpublished memo to California 163 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil County Agricultural Commissioners. Species of the San Francisco Bay Area. 139 Orloff, S., L. Spiegel, and F. Hall. 1986. Distribution and habitat 164 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Sonoma County. requirements of the San Joaquin kit fox in the northern extreme of its range. Western Section Wildlife Society (CAL-NEV) Conference 165 USFWS 1997, Op. cit. Transactions 22:60–70. 166 USFWS 1995, Op. cit.; USFWS 1998, Op. cit. 140 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Determination of Endangered Status for the Callippe Silverspot Butterfly and the Behren’s Silverspot 167 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Determination of Endangered Butterfly and Threatened Status for the Alameda Whipsnake. 62 FR Status for Two Larkspurs from Coastal Northern California. 65 FR 4156, 64306, December 5, 1997 January 26, 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species East of San Francisco Bay, California. 168 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Santa Clara County. 141 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Antioch Dunes National Wildlife 169 USFWS 1995, Op. cit.; CNPS 2005, Op. cit.; California Department of Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. California/Nevada Fish and Game. 1992. Annual Report on the Status of California State Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, CA. Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants; McGuire, T., and S. Morey. 1992. Report to the Fish and Game Commission on the Status 142 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Conservation Guidelines for the of San Mateo Woolly Sunflower (Eriophyllum latilobum). Natural Heritage Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Division. Status Report 92-1. 143 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil 170 USFWS 1998, Op. cit. Species of the San Francisco Bay Area. California Department of Fish and Game. 1997. Recovery Workshop U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Final Determination of Critical Summary: Bay Area Serpentine Plants. Plant Conservation Program, Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis). Sacramento, CA. 66 Fed. Reg. 21450, April 30, 2001. 171 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Final Designation of Critical 144 USFWS 2001, Op. cit. Habitat for Holocarpha macradenia (Santa Cruz Tarplant). 67 FR 63967 64007, October 16, 2002. 145 CDPR 1997, Op. cit. 172 USFWS 1991, Op. cit. 146 CDPR 1997, Op. cit.

52 173 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Draft Recovery Plan for Vernal U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies and pesticide use Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. 69 FR 67602, recommendations for the general public are largely taken from the November 18, 2004. Pesticide Action Network North America 1999 report, Disrupting the Balance: Ecological Impacts of Pesticides in California. 174 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Sonoma County 175 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Sonoma and Napa Counties. 176 USFWS 2004, Op. cit. 177 USFWS 2004, Op. cit. 178 USFWS 2004, Op. cit.; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Species Account – Colusa Grass (Neostapﬁa colusana). World wide web publication http://sacramento.fws.gov/es/plant_spp_accts/colusa_grass. htm/.

179 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Napa County. 180 CDFG 2005, Op. cit. 181 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Napa County. 182 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Final Rule Listing Five Plants from Monterey County, CA, as Endangered or Threatened. 63 FR 43100, August 12, 1998; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Recovery Plan for Five Plants from Monterey County, California. 183 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Sonoma County. 184 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletin for Santa Clara County. 185 USEPA. 1999. Interim Measures Bulletins for Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano Counties. 186 USFWS 2004, Op. cit. 187 7 U.S.C §§ 136-136y. 188 7 U.S.C. § 136d(b). 189 50 C.F.R. § 402.16 (reinitiation of consultation). 190 50 C.F.R. § 222.102. 191 16 U.S.C. § 1536(o)(2). 192 Comment Letter from Everett Wilson, Fish and Wildlife Service, Chief, Division of Environmental Quality to Stacy Mila, EPA, Product Manager, Special Review and Reregistration Division (July 26, 2002). 193 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Unpublished comments on EPA’s risk assessment for diazinon (July 20, 2000). 194 Comment Letter from Everett Wilson, Fish and Wildlife Service, Chief, Division of Environmental Quality to Kimberly Nesci Lowe, EPA, Chemical Review Manager, Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (June 27, 2002). 195 Comment Letter from Jerry Brubander, Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma State Supervisor to Andrea Beard, EPA, Acting Section Head, Registration Support Branch (July 7, 1995). 196 54 Fed. Reg. 27984 (July 3, 1989). 197 National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. ESA § 7 Consultation Biological Opinion re: Travis Tyrrell Seed Orchard. December 18, 2002. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2002. ESA § 7 Consultation Biological Opinion re: Effects of Herbicide Treatment of Noxious Weeds on Lands Administered by the Salmon-Challis National Forest. September 16, 2002.

198 See for example, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2004. Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation for 28 Pesticide Registrations. Unpublished letter dated April 2004, obtained by Freedom of Information Act. 199 Hayes, T.B., et al. 2002. Hermaphroditic, demasculinized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. April 16, 2002, Vol.99, Issue 8, 5476-5480. 200 FIFRA Scientiﬁc Advisory Panel. 2003. June 17-20, 2003: Potential Developmental Effects of Atrazine on Amphibians.

* The following policy recommendations for the California and

53 Center for Biological Diversity Pesticides Reform Campaign

he Center’s Pesticides Reform Campaign is intended to hold the EPA accountable for pesticides it registers for Tpublic use, and to cancel or restrict use of harmful pesticides within endangered species habitats. Th e Pesticides Reform Campaign provides analysis of pesticide impacts on endangered species and education about the threats toxic pesticides pose to wildlife and human health. A key component of this campaign is the Center’s 2004 report detailing the failure of the EPA to regulate pesticides harmful to endangered species and this report on pesticide impacts to Bay Area endangered species. Th e Center is also ﬁ ling a series of strategic legal challenges against the EPA to compel it to adhere to federal environmental law when registering pesticides. Th e legal actions seek EPA compliance regarding pesticide impacts to speciﬁ c imperiled species and also programmatic changes in the agency’s registration process.

Th e Center and other conservation groups have been forced to fi le numerous lawsuits to attempt to compel the EPA to consult on pesticide impacts to endangered species. Th e Center fi led litigation in 2002 challenging approval of 250 pesticides that may aff ect the California red-legged frog. A federal court found in September of 2005 that the EPA violated the Endangered Species Act by registering 66 of these pesticides for use without considering how they might impact the continued existence of the red-legged frog. In January of 2006 the Center fi led a legal motion asking the court to prohibit use of the pesticides in and adjacent to core red-legged frog habitats until formal consultation is completed. Th e requested injunction would apply within and immediately adjacent to ponds, streams and wetlands within core recovery areas, encompassing 160 yard pesticide-free buff ers for aerial applications to prevent pesticide drift and 80 yard buff ers for ground applications to prevent runoff . Th e motion also asks for consumer hazard warnings where the pesticides are sold, so consumers can protect red-legged frogs.

More information about the Center’s Pesticides Reform Campaign can be found at http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/programs/science/pesticides/index.html

March 16, 2010

Supervisor Rich Gordon, President, Board of Supervisors Supervisor Mark Church Supervisor Carole Groom Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson Supervisor Adrienne Tissier

Re: Roadside Spraying with Herbicides

Dear Rich and Members of the Board,

On behalf of Committee for Green Foothills, I am writing to ask that the Board of Supervisors direct the Department of Public Works to adhere to its adopted Watershed Protection Maintenance Standards that have been in place since April, 2004. Apparently these standards have not been followed this past winter by some of the Department’s maintenance crews. Residents of the coastside have reported the crews spraying herbicides alongside County maintained roads – most troublingly - during the rainy season. The residents have photographed and documented several locations where herbicides were applied to vegetation in ditches that had standing water in them. This unfortunately allows herbicides to be transported from the ditches into our streams, in contravention of the County’s Watershed Protection Program and its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.

San Mateo County Department of Public Works has been recognized by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for its achievements in implementing Maintenance Standards that protect sensitive resources, including streams, lakes, and other waterbodies.

The County’s Watershed Protection Program Maintenance Standards, April, 2004, are available on the County Department of Public Works website. The section on Vegetation Management states (in relevant part):

Herbicides: “Herbicides shall not be applied during wet or rainy weather due to the potential for discharge into a water body.”… ”Herbicides shall not be broadcast sprayed but shall be selectively sprayed at the plants targeted for removal.” (page 59)

Roadsides and Ditches: “Vegetation on shoulders, berms, and unpaved (earthen) ditches shall be mowed as described in ‘Mowing’ below. Low grasses are highly desirable in earthen roadside ditches as they filter pollutants from stormwater runoff, and reduce the velocity of flows thereby reducing the erosive forces.” (page 62)

Mowing: “Roadside vegetation (i.e., grasses, vines, brush) is mowed throughout the year to maintain sight distance and reduce fire hazards to County roads.” (page 62)

3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.968.7243 PHONE [email protected] Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.968.8431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org

Committee for Green Foothills March 16, 2010 Page 2 of 2

“Special precautions shall be taken to avoid mowing endangered or sensitive plant species as described at the beginning of this section.” (page 63)

Since 2004, there have been major changes in personnel at the Department of Public Works. CGF is concerned that the Department, which invested a great deal of time and resources into developing these policies, has had an institutional memory lapse.

CGF would like to see San Mateo County become a leader in reducing - to the maximum extent possible - the County’s use of herbicides, for reasons of human health, health of our watersheds, and wildlife protection. We would be glad to work with relevant county departments to assess whether further programs will help achieve this goal.

In the meantime, we urge your Board to ask for a report from Public Works on roadside maintenance practices.

Thank you for consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Lennie Roberts, Legislative Advocate Committee for Green Foothills cc: Jim Porter, Director of Public Works

From: Karen McBride [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 11:23 AM To: Catherine Peery Cc: 'Matt Jacobs' Subject: RE: feasibility study revision money

Great. I’ll work with you and Marina on the app process and see what we can do. Also, I have been notified by our RCAC Loan Dept (Remember you and peter worked with Cindy from our loan dept as we tried to get you an RCAC loan for the $25 first) that they have $10,000 Grant to give to one of our projects. I just got off a team call and the manager announced that RCAC has 2 grants for $10,000 each for GREEEN projects. When I spoke to peter, he said he was going to incorporate GREEN into the revision. So I’m going to out in my 2 cents for this as they are asking those interested that have a GREEN project to apply and the CEO and Loan Dept will review and award. I will cc you on this and maybe we can be $10,000 closer and only ask $15,000 for the CDBG.

Karen D. McBride Rural Community Assistance Corporation Rural Development Specialist-Environmental Office (916) 447-9832 ext 1012 Cell (916) 549-3265 www.rcac.org www.rcap.org

Rural Community Assistance Corporation (RCAC) provides technical assistance, training and financing so rural communities achieve their goals and visions.

From: Catherine Peery [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:46 AM To: Karen McBride Cc: 'Matt Jacobs' Subject: feasibility study revision money

Karen,

I verified with Marina Yu that CDBG grant money is available for this, and that the next round of funding availability, which will begin around Dec 1st, due around the 3rd week in January, would be a good time to apply for this.

Catherine Peery d: 650-879-0150; f: 650-879-1847 toll free: 888-879-1846 x 101 [email protected] www.ben-e-fit.com

From: "Catherine Peery" Date: October 28, 2010 12:24:26 PM PDT To: "'PMAC Members'" Subject: FW: Meeting 11/2 re. roadside spraying in SMC

See below.

Catherine Peery d: 650-879-0150; f: 650-879-1847 toll free: 888-879-1846 x 101 catherine@ben-e-ﬁt.com www.ben-e-ﬁt.com

-----Original Message----- From: Patty Mayall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 7:26 PM To: Catherine Peery Subject: Fw: Meeting 11/2 re. roadside spraying in SMC

Greetings Catherine,

I hope that you are well and wanted to give you an update on our efforts to uphold our no spray zone in the La Honda area, and hopefully to expand the zones with the support of the Environmental Quality Committee. The EQC will be meeting on Nov.2nd, 2-3 pm, and this issue will probably be on the agenda which will be out tomorrow, and we are meeting with Supervisor Tissier and Sup. Church's aide at 1:30-2 the same day at the Board of Sup. ofﬁce.

If you are interested, you are welcome to join us. Supervisor Gordon wants to get this to the Board of Supervisors before he leaves ofﬁce, and I will be sending out an email to let you and others know about this in the next month asking people to contact the board for their support of expanding the no spray zones.

With gratitude for your support,

Patty Mayall 650-851-1902

--- On Wed, 10/27/10, Patty Mayall wrote:

From: Patty Mayall Subject: Fw: Meeting 11/2 re. roadside spraying in SMC To: "Adrienne Tissier" Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010, 9:32 PM

From: Patty Mayall

Dear Supervisor Tissier,

I am deeply grateful that Lorraine has scheduled for us to meet on Nov. 2nd at 1:30 regarding local efforts to end the DPW practice of herbicide spraying along unincorporated SMC roads. The Environmental Quality Committee is moving forward with plans on this issue which the Board of Supervisors may be reviewing soon. To update you, I have attached my letter and Lennie Roberts' letter to DPW Director Jim Porter (and to the BoS earlier this year), along with another local resident's formal request for disclosure when the DPW was not telling her what chemicals were sprayed on her road this past year.

I don't mean to inundate you with too much information, but the attached Center for Biological Diversity's Bay Area Pesticide Report describes some of the reasons why so many of us want to see this widespread, roadside spraying end. Our drinking water wells, residents' health, and the health of our watershed are not worth the potential risks to many of us, and we have only asked that the spraying end and that the more effective practice of mowing continue. I have always valued the crucial work of the DPW and have successfully worked with them in the past, but this year was a different story. So, I greatly appreciate the help of Supervisor Gordon and Supervisor Groom, as well as your attention on this matter.

If you would like any additional information, please just let me know. I look forward to meeting with you on November 2nd.

With gratitude,

Patty Mayall 650-851-1902

IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST

Today’s Date: April 9, 2010

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS: IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE REQUEST

To: Custodian of Records: Transportation Department, San Mateo County Road Services Division 752 Chestnut Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Phone: 650-363-4103

Name of Requester: Anneliese Agren 650-224-6313 [email protected]

Subject or Item Requested: Reports of herbicide spray activity in unincorporated San Mateo County for 2010 to include the following information:

Historic: What herbicide product(s) was sprayed, Quantity of herbicide product transported to spray corridors/sites, Quantity of herbicide product sprayed, a list of any other products sprayed, Locations of herbicide spray activity, Dates of herbicide spray activity, and weather reports used by San Mateo County Road Services Division to determine the dates when herbicide spray activity was scheduled.

Future: What product(s) will be sprayed, Quantity of product to be transported to spray corridors/sites, Quantity of herbicide product to be sprayed, a list of any other products sprayed, Locations of future/scheduled herbicide spray activity, Dates of future/scheduled herbicide spray activity, and weather reports used by San Mateo County Road Services Division to determine the dates when herbicide spray activity was scheduled.

My interest in this matter is purely as a community participant - I am not representing any party involved and I am concerned about the lack of openness in this process to date. I think roadside herbicide spray causes environmental harm, and I am concerned about the transparency of San Mateo County’s Road Services Division’s transparency in the use and application of herbicidal products as part of the roadside vegetation management. I would much rather see San Mateo County’s Road Services Division mow roadsides once a year and cease to use herbicidal broadcast spray.

I request that an estimate of cost be performed before incurring it and that all materials be provided online for public access so that no cost needs to be incurred for copies or postage. If only copies may be provided, then I would rather pick them up than have them mailed.

I am happy to volunteer some of my technology expertise and time to assist in this process.

Anneliese Agren

*Immediate Disclosure Requests: (Requests satisfied no later than the close of business on the day following the day of the request.) This deadline shall apply only if the words "Immediate Disclosure Request" are placed across the top of the request and on the envelope, subject line, or cover sheet in which the request is transmitted.

3RLVRQLQJ2XU,PSHULOHG:LOGOLIH 6DQ)UDQFLVFR%D\$UHD(QGDQJHUHG6SHFLHVDW5LVNIURP3HVWLFLGHV

"$FOUFSGPS#JPMPHJDBM%JWFSTJUZ3FQPSU 'FCSVBSZ 8SJUJOH+FĊ.JMMFS &EJUJOH+VMJF.JMMFS 1IPUP&EJUJOH%FTJHO5%F-FOF#FFMBOE .BQT$VSUJT#SBEMFZ

$&/5&3'03#*0-0(*$"-%*7&34*5: #&$"64&-*'&*4(00% .BSLFU4USFFU4VJUF 4BO'SBODJTDP$" XXXCJPMPHJDBMEJWFSTJUZPSH From: "Trish Chapman" Date: December 13, 2010 8:58:07 AM PST To: , , "'Andy Gunther'" , , , , "'Carmen Fewless'" , , , , , "'Curt Storlazzi'" , , , , , , , , "'James Ponton'" , "'Jerry Smith'" , "'Joanne Kerbavaz'" , , "'John Klochak'" , , "'Kate Symonds'" , , , , , "'Kit Crump'" , "'Kristine Atkinson'" , , , "'Michael Napolitano'" , , , , , , "'Nicole Beck'" , , , , "'Ruby Pap'" , , , , , "'Tim Frahm'" , "'Tom Taylor'" , , "'Katherine Smetak'" , "'Janet Diehl'" , "Kate Goodnight" , "'Jim Robins'" Subject: Proceedings from Dec 2008 Pescadero Marsh Restoration Forum

All –

Aached please ﬁnd the document Consideraons for Restoraon of Pescadero Marsh, a report based on the proceedings of the December 2008 public forum: Restoraon of Pescadero Marsh: Idenfying Problems and Exploring Soluons. This document was prepared by the Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoraon with funding from the State Coastal Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Please note that preparaon of this report was delayed for many months due to the Dec 2008 freeze on State-bond-funded projects.

An early dra of this document was circulated to members of the Pescadero Marsh Working Group as well as forum speakers for review and comment. Some reviewers provided comments on issues that were significantly different than those expressed at the forum and that presented significantly more controversy around a number of issues than was expressed at the forum. It seemed important to capture these comments in this document; therefore, the report goes beyond a summary of the forum proceedings and tries to also summarize the follow up comments and discussions. The original dra of the document was significantly revised based on comments received. Appendix 2 of the document provides a table of all comments received along with a response to each comment.

Unfortunately, the conclusion of this document is that there remains signiﬁcant disagreement among key stakeholders about how to move forward with restoraon at Pescadero Marsh.

Please forward this document to anyone who might be interested.

Trish

------Trish Chapman Central Coast Regional Manager Coastal Conservancy 1330 Broadway, Suite 1300 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 286-0749 [email protected]

Considerations for Restoration of the Pescadero Marsh

A Report Based upon the Proceedings of the December 2008 Public Forum Restoration of Pescadero Maarsh: Identifying Problems and Exploring Solutions

12/9/2010

Prepared for the Pescadero Marsh Working Group. Funding provided by the California Coastal Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Considerations for Restoration of the Pescadero Marsh

A Report Based upon the Proceedings of the December 2008 Public Forum Restoration of Pescadero Maarsh: Identifying Problems and Exploring Solutions

12/9/2010

Prepared for the Pescadero Marsh Working Group. Funding provided by the California Coastal Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Considerations for Restoration of the Pescadero Marsh

A Report Based upon the Proceedings of the December 2008 Public Forum Restoration of Pescadero Maarsh: Identifying Problems and Exploring Solutions

12/9/2010

Prepared for the Pescadero Marsh Working Group. Funding provided by the California Coastal Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. RCAC Green Project

Pescadero, San Mateo County

November 10, 2010

Background

The community of Pescadero first came to our attention through RCAC CEO Stan Keasling after attending a USDA/RD meeting in the area and meeting some of the local community contacts. A follow up contact was made to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco where background information was gathered as to the needs of the community. The following background narrative was supplied by the San Mateo County Director of Public Works:

The town of Pescadero is located in the unincorporated portion of San Mateo. Currently, each parcel has its own individual septic system. Presently there are estimated to be 78 residential and 16 onsite wastewater systems in the community. The community does not have a centralized sewer collection, treatment system in the community. In 2004, the California Regional Water Quality Control board issues Resolution 04-R2-0088 supporting a 2004 Public Health Declaration by the County of San Mateo Health Department that the soil and high groundwater conditions in the community are inadequate for treatment of septic wastewater from the existing residences and businesses in the community. And that this condition was resulting in a threat to public health. Based on this resolution and the County Public Works Department completed a Facilities Planning Report for the Pescadero Community Sewer project. The Facilities Plan presented a recommended plan for installing a centralized sewer, treatment and disposal system; however, the proposed projects were cost prohibitive and determined infeasible by the Community. Subsequently, the Community has identified several alternative site locations; treatment and wastewater reuse options that may significantly reduce the cost of the project. The County is seeking funds to complete a Facilities Plan Update to consider and evaluate the new options identified by the community. In summary, the proposed improvements will include a new centralized sanitary sewer system, a wastewater treatment plant, and land disposal system.

Green Project Scope

Fall Creek Engineering proposes the update to include Green elements in the following area; irrigation of the school playfield, as source water for local nurseries, greenhouses and agricultural fields in close proximity to town center, consider the reuse of treated effluent as part of a new fire suppression system for the community.

Funding

The dilemma of the project has been every funding option has been eliminated mostly for the reason that the Pescadero Municipal Advisory Council (PMAC) does not have non-profit status therefore the County would have to act on behalf of the community as the borrower. While the PMAC continues to move forward with obtaining 501c3 status, they fall behind in resolving their needed wastewater system upgrade and reuse projects.

Award Benefits

If awarded the seed amount of $10,000 the PMAC would be in a better position to leverage additional funds of $15,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from San Mateo County for the needed total of $25,000 as well as;

• RCAC would be complementing San Mateo counties effort in resolving the obstacle of revising the wastewater design to a more affordable Green design for the community

• RCAC would be paving the path for allowing a big picture approach for wastewater planning for both Pescadero and the nearby farm worker community of Puente which is currently being served by RCAC Housing staff

• RCAC would be establishing a joint effort partnership with the County of San Mateo on resolving one communities need for CDBG funding

• Pescadero would establish healthier environmental goals by setting up Green planning for future community projects

Budget

A total of $25,000 is needed for the revision of the wastewater treatment and disposal design.

$10,000 Grant form RCAC

$15,000 Grant from San Mateo County

The total would be for Fall Creek Engineering services to include alternative sites for a new wastewater treatment system, some additional wastewater treatment schemes and additional options for effluent reuse and disposal.