The Project Manager for the Lead Consultant Team is Mr. Clayton Creager, Tetra Tech Inc., Team Leader, with 20 years of project management experience, working with complex, dynamic teams, including:

• David Early, Design, Community & Environment, Lead Facilitator/Lead Planner, with experiences in urban design, land use planning, policy analysis and an instructor at UC Davis extension program, taught the subject of Updating General Plans and Preparing Specific Plans”
• EOA, Wendy Eddy/Lucy Buchan, staff lead for the Compare and Contrast Land Use Policy Analysis and watershed assessment activities as a part of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Program
• Lester McKee/Robin Grossinger, San Francisco Estuary Institute, over 10 years experience in historic ecology and landscape.
• Jeff Haltiner/Andrew Collison, Philip Williams Associates, over 30 years experience in water conveyance system design, and recent focus on multi-objective watershed management.

In addition, members of the WRPC expressed interests in influencing the work scope with the consultant team.

Sarah reminded the group of the charter for the Stewardship Planning Workgroup and the outreach strategies discussed early last year. The group recognizes the opportunities that the internal and external interests could potentially bring, e.g.,

• advanced buy-in from stakeholders for the planning process/products;
• potentially more meaningful and useful plans; and
• potential for building accountabilities for implementation of the plans.<
The group also pointed out some challenges:
• the project team (both District and the Consultant Team) to stay focused on maximizing the benefits of the consulting services contract while maintaining the integrity of a complex multi-faceted public process;
• limited time and number of meetings that staff from stakeholder entities could devote to the project; and
• reaching consensus among stakeholders on the best way for participating in the Stewardship Planning Processes
• reaching consensus on Elements of the Stewardship Plans Most Useful to the Municipalities and the County (e.g., decision support systems for resource allocations for different District Interests/Beneficial uses at a location subject to development, identification/mapping of hot spots, sensitive areas, or Early Consultation etc.)

The group recognized that members from WAS or other subgroups may be interested in the Stewardship Planning Workgroup, it is important that meeting notices on the Stewardship Planning Workgroup to be sent to all interested parties, especially in the initial few months.

The outcome of the planning efforts should include the following:

• Providing longitudinal profiling of each watershed, e.g., hot spots, sensitive reaches for sediments or erosions
• Clarify and prioritize management questions
• Reach consensus on sequence of filling data gaps
• Identify opportunities for management intervention, especially recognizing that over 50% land adjacent to the creek is privately owned

The group recognized differences in the needs each of the watershed might have, and the amount of available data that could be used for providing a longitudinal profiling of each of the watershed. For example, for the Guadalupe Watershed, they recommended the project team to consider including a workshop (a.k.a, Guadalupe 101), as a means for getting updates or centralizing information from Fisheries Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (FAHCE); the Capital Improvements Projects (CIPs), Stream Maintenance Program (SMP), Guadalupe Hg TMDL work, and related Trail and Recreational Planning efforts.

Possible ways, for District Watershed Program staff to contribute, included providing the insights on stakeholder processes and reviews of work products, serving as the liaison with the on –going watershed specific groups, e.g., the Guadalupe Watershed Integration Work Group. The group reminded Sarah that staff time from resource agencies would be very scarce for devoting to planning efforts. Thus, it is important to allow the planning process to be focused when working with these resource agencies. Ideas included:

• Putting the Stewardship Planning Update in GWIWG’s monthly meeting agenda, which is held in Oakland from 10 am-3 pm, the update can be given through dialing in by Sarah or by Watershed Program staff with adequate debriefing from Sarah ahead of the time
• Inquiring and checking in with FWS & DFG staff that they work with on key points, to ensure the best of use of their time and expertise
• Further consulting with West Valley/Lower Peninsular staff on how they would like to contribute

In keeping with the spirit of FMS’ parallel tracking, Sarah initiated contact with Assisting Operating Officer, Katherine Oven, who has oversight of many key capital projects at the beginning of the year. She compiled a memo providing guidance on using WMI as a stakeholder forum, tailored for District’s Capital Services Division, and reported that Ms. Oven provided a list of contacts for capital projects (See Attachment 1 for the list of contacts) and projects considered for the next couple of years. Louisa Valiella applauded the coordination efforts.

The group recognized that though FMS as a whole has not been able to track these capital projects, individual members have been participating in stakeholder processes hosted directly by the project team. Facing with budget cuts from many stakeholder agencies, the group suggested the following for parallel tracking efforts:

• Request the capital project teams to include WMI master mailing list for its public meeting announcements, or have the project team lead to coordinate with the WMI Project Coordinator to distribute meeting announcements, etc.
• Encourage WMI stakeholders to participate in public forums hosted by the project team, respond to the project-specific processes in accordance with the project team’s schedule, and work through issues directly with the project team; and
• Allow WMI Core Group or interested members to convene conflict resolution forums, only when interested parties participated in the project team sponsored workshops and tried to work out issues through the project team.

Sarah informed the group about the dilemma of the chair: if meetings were not held, some members expressed concerns about the lack of coordination; if meetings were held with inadequate participation from stakeholders, especially those resource agency representatives, District staff expressed concerns about effectiveness of the forum. The major feedback from resource agencies is that for them to participate, they need to link to a project; they can’t participate unless there is a project-related discussion. Given this reality, she suggested that the group consult with COS and/or Core Group and tie this issue to their WM2 restructuring discussions.