and this, as i mentioned, the red legged frog really relies on these open water habitats and what we have seen in terms of loss of open water here is a corresponding loss to the egg mass -- the number of egg masses that are laid here. the overall number of egg masses that exist in the property are increasing, but here where the [speaker not understood] cat tails are choking it out we've seen reduction in those egg masses. by clearing the vegetation and the sediment around the pumphouse and the connecting channel, not only are we protecting our infrastructure but we're restoring habitat for these species. thank you. i'm happy to take questions. >> thank you. colleagues, any questions? supervisor campos. >> thank you very much for the presentation. just a quick, quick question, and maybe this is a dumb question, but it's with respect to the compliance plan that was approved by the, the rec and park commission. does that ever go to the feds for review and approval?

how does that work? >> yes, it did in the form of our biological opinion. so, essentially the measures that were spelled out in the 2009 compliance plan were then forwarded to the fish and wildlife service for their evaluation during the, the biological opinion of 2012. >> do you have any fear that if you don't do environmental review in this case that you might end up in a situation where you're once again found in violation? ~ by the feds? >> well, we are under obligation to meet these measures that are spelled out in our permit and in the biological opinion. so, we have been working very hard to meet those measures. and we would like to be a good partner with fish and wildlife service and implement those measures in a timely way, according to the spelled out deadline.

>> kay, thank you. >> if i could follow-up on that. i wanted to ask questions around the lawsuit a couple years ago. my understanding was the environmental groups brought that, wanted to make sure there were appropriate mitigations for the endangered species we were talking about and it was dismissed when the biological opinion was agreed to between the parties. is that correct? so our colleagues can understand that because there's been a long history of this matter, if you could just explain the issues around the lawsuit, why it was dismissed and what is in place today as enforced by i believe the federal judge who laid out an order. >> yeah, i'll take a stab at it and ask the city attorney to chime in as well. the crux of the litigation was around the fact we were allegedly harming red legged frogs through pumping without a permit. and the biological opinion in

2012 issued that permit, evaluated those impacts, set forth some measures to offset those impacts such as the perennial pond. and through that biological opinion we received that permit that the plaintiffs were asking for. >> okay. thank you. colleagues, any additional questions to city departments? supervisor kim. >> thank you. actually, if i could just go back to the question that was just asked by president chiu. so, going back to the mitigation measures related to the water quality, so, one of the measures that was not contemplated in the original biological opinion was the [speaker not understood] and the [speaker not understood] these mitigations and monitoring measures have not been reviewed again by the fish and wildlife service and they don't have the capacity to implement those measures as stated in the e-mail. i know that is not a

requirement, but can you respond to this assertion? >> i would like to respond to that question. as we mentioned earlier, the mitigated negative declaration for this project has been circulated through a number of -- a number of agent sid, including u.s. fish and wildlife. ~ agencies and they did not provide any comments or concerns related to that mitigation measure at that point. and also i mentioned that previously, again, the city itself is the regulating sort of body to implement the mitigation measures. so, it will be implemented fully. >> is there a reason why you included in the mitigated

negative declaration that the u.s. fws would participate, though, in the mitigation? [speaker not understood] the portion referred to by the appellant. >> the sort of standard process as i understand. so, we -- we have been working in consultation with the federal and state agencies. so, we typically provide them with opportunities to comment with any concerns. so, that's the reason why we did that. >> okay. so, if as i'm reading it here, it says ufwf must review and approve. this is in the c-e-q-a document for the sharp park [speaker not understood] project. >> which item are you referring to? if you don't mind. >> i'm actually referring to the e-mail that mr. plater had

distributed to the board. so, i don't have the page number in front of me. i apologize. i can try to look for it. >> so, i believe the question is whether or not the fish and wildlife is required to review and approval -- approve this mitigation measure. i believe the answer is no. the mitigation measure requires us to provide information to the u.s. fish and wildlife, however, their review is not required to implement that mitigation measure. >> so, actually -- sorry. i'm going based off what the appellants have distributed. so, it would be helpful for you to clarify that so i can understand the importance of the evident that they're submitting. so, for example, on page 87 -- actually, there are several

throughout the document. on page 87 it says the first two lines at the end of the sentence, the s.f.r.p.d. shall implement remediation measures as approved by u.s. fws and cdfw. so, it doesn't list it as an option. says shall implement as approved by. ~ it says so if it is uswf is saying they don't have the capacity, staffing resources to [speaker not understood] the mitigation effort by sfpd, then how are we implementing measures as approved by them? >> sarah jones, environmental review officer. i'll respond to this. first i want to state that this communication was not -- we were never party to any of this e-mail communication. so, we really can't speak to the content of it or the

aspects of it. what we can speak to is the mitigation measure itself. sfrpd is obligated to provide the various options for -- in the event the [speaker not understood] are found, sfrpd is obligated, number one, to provide that, the results of that reporting and study to u.s. fish and wildlife as would be expected in a situation where special status species are affected. sfrpd is required to submit that and fish and wildlife is to be given the opportunity to review and comment. the specific lines as approved by sfrpd would indicate -- well what that's referring to is fish and wildlife may comment

on ~ which option sfrpd is proposing to use for remediation. so, if they were to indicate that there is a preferable approach, that is what sfrpd must implement. so, there's a lot of context to this mitigation measure. it is not something where this is requiring a large obligation on the part of u.s. fish and wildlife. and as i say, it would not be expected that u.s. fish and wildlife would have allocated any resources to this effort at this time. that doesn't mean they can't review and comment. it just means they don't have anything in front of them to comment on so they haven't put any resource he towards doing that. >> and i completely under that we can't expect fish and wildlife services to allocate hours or resources or staffing to this project ~.

there are certainly throughout the document statements that say simply we would submit it to them for review and comment and that's highlighted throughout the document. but, i mean, this one sentence says, sfrpd shall implement remediation measures as approved by u.s. fws and i can't read that any other way. if you go throughout the document there are certainly kind of statements you have stated which is that you would simply submit it to them for review and approval and it's in some ways up to them to respond back to it. although it seems like they don't have the resources to do that and maybe since you're not party to the e-mail, made clear to the point they don't have the resources to do that. it doesn't seem to be mandated in those statements in the document. and i guess this statement, it sound like a "shall." i just don't have another way

to read that statement. >> i do think it's speculative given that the document was provided to a fish and wildlife during the preliminary negative declaration stage and this discussion is now based on what we saw at this hearing is very brief e-mail communication from a staff member at fish and wildlife. we do not see any reason to assume that fish and wildlife cannot implement their role as defined in this. they also have certain obligations under the endangered species act which [speaker not understood] byrne can refer to. >> and i agree that, you know, the e-mail -- you can assume is speculative as that e-mail conversation didn't happen directly with rpd. but before i was to make a determination today, i would like that clarification, that

direct communication between usfws, i don't remember the acronym, just because it seems throughout the document there are line where it seems optional whether we need a response from them or not but then it seems clear am n parts of the document we need approval to move forward with remediation. there are sentences that says sfrpd shall select, shall select the remediation measure in consultation with usfws. it seems to me we kind of set up the document in a way that implies that we would do all of these thing. and it would be great for us to have that direct communication with you so that we know at least that commitment is there. and perhaps the comments would be, we think you're doing fine, go ahead. but at least we know that, you know, that communication is going to happen according to the document that's before us. >> supervisor, [speaker not

understood] director of the park and recreation department. just to provide a little context i think your comments are very well taken. i think the steps that are outlined in the mitigated negative declaration pretty much mirror consistently every conversation that we've had with fish and wildlife service and the california department of fish and game over the past 7 years that i've been working on this and [speaker not understood] has been working on this. and i think that if you ask fish and wildlife in 2004 whether or not they thought they had the resources to be working with us, they would probably say we have not worked that out at this time. but that did not prevent them from being excellent partners in providing consultation throughout the development of the compliance plan through the very first letter from fish and wildlife to recreation and park department when they were expressing concern about egg masses. so, rec and park has every intent of continuing to work with fish and wildlife as well as all the other regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction

over sharp park to solicit. but their feedback and concerns as we develop these [speaker not understood]. >> it would be great to have that clarification directly between rfpd and uswfa we go forward. the other thing i would say it would also be great to get clarification whether they're going to provide resources on this project because they're doing a great job and that's why they don't want to dedicate resources and because of the budgetary issue. they would like to have done it. they just simply can't given their constraints. and again, this is assuming that e-mail as stated that was presented to us is true. >> supervisors, i think it is important to note that fish and wildlife like our own agency and many others is a large bureaucracy with many levels of approval and authority within it and i can't speak to -- i think ms. goody is responding

in good faith to an e-mail that is kind of out of context. and, so, i think i'm happy to continue to work with fish and wildlife and the department from a policy perspective to figure out what that implementation task going forward is. but i think the measures that are outlined in the mitigated negative declaration are sound and actually completely consistent with both the roles and responsibilities of fish and wildlife and the roles and responsibilities of rec/park regardless of whether or not we have identified the specific resources to have the consultations. >> on a different track, it was mentioned earlier that we would be working with a consultant on the remediation to ask -- to act as the expert if it is the case that uswf can't participate and give their expert opinion, who that consultant is. >> well, we have been working

with the wetland aloe kohl gist and [speaker not understood] and other scientists from the firm tetra tech. we would possibly continue working with them through implementing of this mitigation measure. but i think that would make sense because they have the history and the background on the project. but i don't know that that has specifically been identified. >> okay. and i know that you stated earlier even if uswf can't provide the expertise that we would be able to provide that via in-house or via the consultant. so, again, it would be great to know with clarity who that [speaker not understood] would be in the case that usfws can or cannot provide that feedback. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. i do want to follow-up on the questions that supervisor kim was asking.

and i appreciate that in the last ten years i think people -- someone noted in the last ten years that the department rec and park has had a good relationship with us fish and wildlife service. and i appreciate that. nevertheless, it was nine years ago that this agency found the city in violation. and, so, one question that i have is, you know, has there been any confirmation from this federal agency that the mitigationses you're taking are adequate or sufficient? >> [speaker not understood] are spelled out in detail in our biological opinion. >> so, has there been -- do you have written confirmation from

them that the mitigations that you are undertaking are sufficient to address our obligations? >> are you referring to the mitigations in the c-e-q-a document in >> yes. >> that's been the topic of discussion. i think i need to have my colleagues at planning to answer that. >> is there such confirmation from the federal agency? >> deputy city attorney marlena byrne. if i could provide a little bit of context because i think there are a bunch of laws that are intersecting here which may make it -- >> i understand that. but i want to be very clear and simple about what i'm asking. so, there are mitigations that were taken in the c-e-q-a document. do we have confirmation from the federal agency that found us in violation in 2005 that those mitigations are sufficient to meet our legal obligations? >> sarah james environmental review officer. yes, we do have that confirmation since the mitigations come from the biological opinion that was

provided to us. by fish and wildlife. >> well, so, do you have a letter? do you have an opinion that states that? >> the opinion is the biological opinion, it's a 70-page report with a great amount of detail that spells out, as i said, over 40 measures that were we're required to implement in order to offset both the operation of the golf course ~ and for the specific project. >> let me he ask the city attorney this. is there any possibility ~ that notwithstanding what they're talking about that this federal agency could find us in violation with respect to the mitigations that the department is taking? >> the project itself, aspects of the project as proposed and the mitigation measures that have been imposed with conditions of approval are required by the biological opinion and there is a specific time frame set forth in the

biological opinion for meeting these requirements. so, it's possible that if the project is not actually constructed on u.s. fish ask wildlife services' timeline, we'll be found in violation. >> is there any possibility that if there is no environmental review that's conducted, full e-i-r that they could find us in violation? >> no. c-e-q-a is an obligation placed on the city. it's not an obligation placed on u.s. fish and wildlife service. u.s. fish and wildlife service is reweird to comply with the endangered species act which they regulate and enforce and meet the national environmental policy act ~. they would be the ones who would conduct [speaker not understood] on whatever permitting they issue. but no, they are not -- our environmental review, we are conducting into the [speaker not understood] of state law and it is an obligation on the city itself not on fish and wildlife. >> are there mitigations that could come out of the environmental review that would

be useful in terms of our federal object lay gaytions? >> i would leave that up to planning to answer. ~ obligations let me just say that the federal obligations actually require that this project be implemented and that certain other measures be done. the biological opinion actually covered three separate components. it covered the ongoing operation and maintenance of sharp park and those are the measures that ms. wane has already talked about that are currently being implemented to address the ongoing maintenance and operation. it required that this habitat reconstructed here as part of this project and it also required a bunch of condition placed on that construction. many of those are either part of the project description here itself or they're part of the mitigation measures that are being imposed that are in the mitigation. there is also a separate habitat project that was already approved by the recreation and park commission that was already considered in the biological opinion. >> thank you.

>> just two final questions. i know there have been a number of contentions during public comment that somehow the pumphouse project is actually going to harm the endangered species. what i understand, though, it was designed to help the species. i'm wondering if you could -- could you elaborate on that? i think there is a lot of public confusion on what the purpose of the project is supposed to be. >> the pumphouse project helps the species in a number of ways. it removes a golf cart path that goes right through our wetland where red legged frogs breed regularly. because they're out of the wetland and restores the habitat. it restores what was previously the most productive red legged frog breeding habitat around horse table pond that was shown in the pictures at the end of my presentation. so, that is the vegetation and sediment removal actually restore habitat for those species to breed in. and finally, we will be

creating a 1500 square meter pond that the sole express purpose of providing breeding habitat for the red legged frog. so, the more breeding habitat you have, the better the frog is going to do and by extension probably also the better that the snake will be doing. >> okay. and then a final question to ms. byrne. did you just say that if we were to do a full blown e-i-rs there, as chance that could put us in jeopardy with being in compliance with federal law? >> yes. only because -- let me clarify, not just say yes. but only because the biological opinion sets forth very specific timelines for when this habitat restoration work must occur by and some of the other components that are part of this proposed project must occur by. so, if we didn't meet those deadlines, which as you all are aware doing an e-i-r can often

take a year, two years to do, if we move those deadlines, obviously the city will try to work as much as possible with u.s. fish and wildlife to amend the biological opinion in order to continue to work with them to protect these species. however, we would not be able to meet the deadlines as currently written in the current biological opinion. and under the federal endangered species act, which we are starting to comply with here fully, we are allowed to do a certain amount of what's called take of a species. in other words, a certain amount of harm to the species as long as we receive a biological opinion that basically says doing other measures that protect the species so that overall the harm is lessened. that's why we need to comply with the biological opinion. >> okay, thank you. supervisor kim. >> i'm sorry. i would like to add to that response. the time involved is not the

issue for us in environmental planning in terms of our decision. whether an e-i-r is warranted and whether to do an e-i-r, we did an initial study which if that study identifies any possibility of significant environmental impact, that is the point at which you decide to do an e-i-r. this initial study which looked at all the environmental topics that are considered in an e-i-r process did not find any significant unavoidable impacts from this project. so, that was the basis for our decision here. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i actually had one more question i forgot to ask rpd. i was aware the department has concluded the appellant's [speaker not understood]. but if you had considered the alternative [speaker not understood] in the spring and summer so the aquatic vegetation only grows in shallow water will be drowned out or eliminated? >> sure, yeah.

lisa lynn san francisco recreation and park department. ~ waynn i have experience in wetland ecology. i can tell you most of the literature says that you can't eliminate cat tails or [speaker not understood] that emerge in vegetation there unless you have a minimum of three feet of standing water around the base of those plants. for basically permanent standing water. so, that would mean that in order to achieve that, to sort of naturally discourage this vegetation from growing, we would have to raise the water by three feet throughout the whole season. a three-foot increase over, say, current conditions will take us well beyond a very heavily rainfall flooded year out there. we would be significantly flooding the rest of our property. >> and that would include the golf course as well? >> absolutely.

a lot of the -- a lot of the golf holes that a join the wetland would be joined significantly half to maybe all of them in some cases. >> [speaker not understood] that would support less than three feet. you know what i heard earlier from the appellant, i'll ask the appellant later the same question, he alluded to a small rise in water level would be able to have that same impact. and are you then stating that that's not possible? >> yes. with all due respect, the literature is pretty clear about the threshold for tolerance of these emergent wetland plants and they can exist in water columns three feet and less very easily. sometimes more. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you. you keep often saying the literature. if you could be a little more specific and cite your source. what exactly are you referencing? >> supervisor, i don't have

that literature on me. i am just speaking from my experience in my master's degree and other literature that i've read over the years. >> what i'm trying to understand is are we talking about scholarly pieces? >> yes. >> peer review? >> yes, that's correct. so, things like the journal of ecology, journal of ecology, those kinds of peer reviewed scientific literature, that's correct. >> thank you. >> colleague, any final questions to city staff? okay. at this time why don't we hear from members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the proposal laid out by the rec and park department. and i want too thank everyone for your patience. this has been a long day, but these are complicated topics. why don't we he hear from our first speaker.

mr. president, supervisors, my name is jack scott. i am a 50-year resident of san francisco, a local general contractor for almost as long, a board member of the dee lancy street [speaker not understood]. public golf is low cost family entertainment and should not be considered an elitist game or sport. public golf course is a community builders and should be respected as such. the fortunate thing is that sharp park was a gift to san francisco and certainly a gift to the young golfers, the senior golfers, the blue collar golfers. they all have the distinct opportunity to play on a golf course that is an architectural

and historic treasure designed by the renowned golf course designer alastair mc kenzie. the proposed improvements to sharp park have been scrutinized by the san francisco planning department, the san francisco recreation and parks department, united states fish and wildlife service, army corps of engineers, all with unanimous approvals. the plan to upgrade sharp park's safety, its infrastructure improvements, and the habitat enhancement project must be approved and the appeal raised by wild equity must be denied. golfers of all ages, shapes, sizes, backgrounds, abilities have and should continue to employ the gift given to the city of san francisco, the city of pacifica, the residents of san mateo county, and, yes,