Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 03022015 - TWIC Agenda Pkt       TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE March 2, 2015 1:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Chair Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III, Vice Chair Agenda Items: Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee         1.Introductions   2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda, (speakers may be limited to three minutes).   3. Administrative Items, if applicable, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   4. REVIEW Record of meeting for the December 4, 2014 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Meeting. This record was prepared pursuant to the Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205 (d) of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   5. COMMUNICATION to/from the Committee, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   6. RECEIVE report from City of San Ramon staff regarding the San Ramon Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project, and take ACTION as appropriate, (Carrie Ricci, CC County Public Works/City of San Ramon staff).   7. CONSIDER report on Stormwater Funding and take ACTION as appropriate, (Tim Jensen, CC County Flood Control and Water Conservation District).   8. CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   9. RECEIVE a quarterly update on the County’s IPM Program from the IPM Coordinator and take ACTION as appropriate, (Tanya Drlik, Integrated Pest Management Coordinator).   10. CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the Committee for 2014, and take ACTION as appropriate. The attached table describes progress made on referrals in 2014, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   11. CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2015, and take ACTION as appropriate. The Committee is asked to review recommendations for Board referrals in 2015, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development).   12.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, April 6, 2015.   13.Adjourn   The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:Administrative Items Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This is an Administrative Item of the Committee.  Referral Update: Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments No file(s) attached. TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for the December 4, 2014 Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Meeting. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page: www.ca.contra-costa.ca.us/twic Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the December 4, 2014 Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 12-4-14 TWIC Meeting Record 12-4-14 sign-in sheet PFSE Submitted Testimony 12-4-14 TWIC handout, CCC Delegation Leadership Positions D R A F T TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE December 4, 2014 2:00 P.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair    Candace Andersen, Vice Chair    Attendees: Shirley Shelangoski, Parents For Safer Environment  Margaret Lynwood, Parents For Safer Environment  Susan Cohen, CCCounty Public Works  Angela Villar, CCCounty Public Works  Michelle Blackwell, EBMUD  Tanya Drlik, CCCounty IPM  Carrie Ricci, CCCounty Public Works  Julie Bueren, CCCounty Public Works  Michael Kent, CCCounty HazMat Ombudsman  Chad Godoy, CCCounty Agricultural Commissioner  Marc Watts, CCCounty Legislative Advocate  Cece Sellgren, CCCounty Public Works  Richard Long, Parents For Safer Environment  Doug Allen, CalFire/Office of State Fire Marshal  Linda Zigler, CalFire/Office of State Fire Marshal  Tim Ewell, CCCounty Administration  Susan JunFish, Parents For Safer Environment  Michael Sullivan, Parents For Safer Environment  Suzanne Llewellyn, Parents For Safer Environment  Don Mount, Citizen  1.Introduction See the attached sign-in sheet and "Attendees" section above. 2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this agenda. Speakers may be limited to three minutes. 3.Administrative Items. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) No Administrative Items were discussed. 4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the October 9, 2014 Committee meeting with any necessary corrections. The Record of Action for the December 4, 2014 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee meeting was approved unanimously. 5.Receive report from the Office of the State Fire Marshal regarding their recent review of Kinder Morgan’s Integrity Management Program. The Committee directed staff to bring the presentation to the appropriate Municipal Advisory Committees, and the report to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on consent. 6.I. ACCEPT a report on the status of implementing a taxicab permitting process in unincorporated Contra Costa County. II. PROVIDE feedback to staff as to how to move forward. The Committee received the report and approved staff pursuing the regional initiative being proposed and further directed staff to report back in the July - September 2015 timeframe, and to consider any implications of newer models of ridesharing such as Uber, Lyft, etc. 7.CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of specific recommendations in the report above. The Committee received the report. 8.Staff is awaiting feedback from the Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee (CBAC) on these projects. Staff will consider project recommendations from CBAC as well as TWIC prior to preparing the final grant applications which will be submitted in January. The County is eligible to submit three final projects – one each from West, Central, and East County. Although two projects each are being recommended for West County and East County, only one in each area of the County can be selected for final application to MTC. It is recommended the Public Works Director be authorized to submit, on behalf of the County, grant applications for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) 2015/2016 funding cycle for the projects discussed above which have been determined to be the most competitive for a funding award. The Committee approved the staff recommendation. 9.RECEIVE Report on PG&E Coordination with Cities and County for Street Light Maintenance. Background: The Public Works Department reported to TWIC at the October 2014 meeting regarding the conversion of LS-2 (County-owned) street lights to LEDs and referred this item to the County Board of Supervisors. On November 4, 2014 the County Board of Supervisors authorized the execution of PG&E Proposal Number 2 in an amount not to exceed $450,000 for PG&E to replace high pressure sodium vapor lights (HPSV) with LED lights on all County-owned street lights, beginning in December 2014 through February 2015, Countywide. As the LED conversion project is underway, this report will therefore focus on PG&E’s coordination with Cities and the County for street light maintenance. The Letter of Understanding (LOU), dated February 2008, between PG&E and County, states the commitment of PG&E for open communication and responsive service levels and actions in resolving issues related to street light performance. Communication channels have continued to remain open by conducting regular discussions at street light coordination meetings with the County, its constituent Cities and Towns. Continuing the effort initiated in May 2008, and since reporting to TWIC on December 5, 2013, the County Public Works Department, PG&E and Cities have met on a quarterly basis. In 2014, meetings took place at Pittsburg, City of San Ramon, and Contra Costa County Public Works Department. Topics discussed throughout this year included: 1) Street Light Vandalism (copper wire theft); 2) Street Light Maintenance and Cost-saving Measures; 3) Light Emitting Diode (LED) Financing and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Rate Schedules; and the 4) Group Lamp Replacement of Street Lights per the Letter of Understanding (LOU) with PG&E. The PG&E City/County quarterly meetings were valuable because those present were able to address issues related to street light maintenance, operations and increased efficiencies and LED conversions and rates. Topics discussed at quarterly PG&E Street Light Coordination meetings are described in more detail, and continued on the next page. Thefts of copper wire from street lights in several Cities and unincorporated County areas continue. Some cities in the County have opted to secure their electrical boxes with anti-theft devices such as security lids. Some cities are using more elaborate measures such as having tracking devices on copper wire to deter vandals from stealing the wire. 2) Street Light Maintenance and Cost-Saving Measures Overall coordination between PG&E, Cities and County on street light repairs is ongoing. Discussions in 2014 focused less on completion of routine calls for service than in prior years because that has improved a great deal over the past 24 months. PG&Es dedicated unit in Fresno has done well with the follow-up on street light outages and repairs. This was a team effort between PG&E and street light coordinators in Cities and the County. Notification is received – with a reference or case number – for outages reported directly to PG&E’s website. PG&E monthly repair reports use this same reference or case number. The result has made the tracking of cases and receiving information on closed cases (street light repairs) a much simpler and faster task. The County still sends PG&E a list requesting repair updates but response time for the repairs and the timing for getting information about the repairs is much improved over the last year. 14-day “routine” repair cases: Response time for most routine repairs has been within 14 days throughout the year, as stated in the LOU. When an outage repair takes longer, the number of cases is small and the flow of information and communications regarding the pending repairs is excellent. County staff and PG&E at the Fresno unit are in constant communication via email. We believe that the ongoing presence of the Fresno unit will continue to reflect this notable improvement in the notification process by PG&E regarding street light repairs. Electric Corrective (EC) 90-day cases: PG&E submits a monthly outage report to agencies. With this report, agencies can track repairs and also see outages of which they were previously unaware, that may have been reported directly to PG&E and not come through the County or City which they are located within. This can allow staff to follow-up, as needed. PG&E continues to provide the County monthly outage reports with information on outstanding and incomplete repairs for the EC 90-day cases. With the new improvements in the notification process, PG&E’s Streetlight Maintenance Department is now sending emails to County staff when street lights are repaired. However, County staff continues to assist PG&E by providing a list of outstanding cases and requesting their status. In the past, responses were not consistent and, at times, information about the status of a case was difficult to obtain from PG&E. This has notably improved in 2013-14 where immediate responses via email are now available to County staff by PG&E. 3)Light Emitting Diode (LED) Financing and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Rate Schedules •Light Emitting Diode (LED) Financing and related legislation, specifically AB 719 update Since reporting to TWIC on December 5, 2013 and throughout the year, Tom Guarino, PG&E, has been asked to deliver updates on legislation, specifically AB 719 which was approved by the Governor on October 7, 2013 and is now a chaptered law. This bill requires the PUC to order electrical corporations to submit tariffs by July 2015 to be used to fund energy efficiency improvements in street light poles owned by the electrical corporations. The PG&E City/County Street Light Coordination Meetings have not yet had a complete report about this legislation and the plan to implement. However, there have been draft tariff schedules shared with those present at the meetings. •CPUC updates: The CPUC approved a tariff for the conversion of PG&E-owned (LS-1) high pressure sodium vapor (HPSV) lights to LEDs throughout the state in 2012. As of August 2014, PG&E has an approved rate schedule for doing the conversions of HPSVs to LEDs. 4) Group Lamp Replacement of Street Lights per the Letter of Understanding (LOU) with PG&E PG&E’s Group Lamp Replacement Program, which was created to replace HPSV lights across the County and Cities at the end of their life cycle, has been completed in many areas including Discovery Bay, Brentwood, Martinez, Richmond, Lafayette, Oakley and Bethel Island; however, other locations remain incomplete at this time. The group lamp replacement program mainly focuses on areas that may have underground wiring issues due to third-party digging and damaged wires. Now that the CPUC has approved the rate schedule and the funds (approximately $50 million) for PG&E to convert HPSV lights to LEDs, the group replacement program should use those funds and continue the program to install LEDs throughout the County. As discussed at the PG&E Coordination meeting in October 2014, PG&E plans to do LED replacements on LS-1 (PG&E owned lights) in 2015, 2016 and 2017. 1) Street Lights Vandalism (Copper Wire Theft) Due to the timing of the start in 2015, we would encourage PG&E to consider adding the County (Unincorporated Area) to the list of jurisdictions to start in 2015. If this doesn’t take place, that work might end up falling into the PUC's General Rate Schedule that starts January 1, 2017, which could lead to further delays. The County has been patient about the group lamp replacement program that was not fully executed by PG&E and would like to assure that the LED Group Lamp Replacement Program be done as quickly as possible so that there is consistent and safe street lighting Countywide. At the recent PG&E Street Light Coordination meetings, there are the beginnings of discussions to revise the LOU to bring it current with street light technology and repair expectations. One change that will be recommended is to change the “group lamp replacement” to the conversion in a systematic manner of the high pressure sodium vapor lights to LEDs. More review at the PG&E Street Light Coordination meetings is needed before the revised LOU will be ready for Board of Supervisor’s discussion. Conclusion/Next Steps: The County, Cities, and PG&E are committed to continue the well-organized and efficient system for street lights. PG&E’s reorganization and relocation of the call center in 2012 has continued to provide ongoing program improvements in the timeliness and reporting of street light repairs. PG&E’s Fresno unit group dedicated to street light outages has improved customer service for the Cities, the County, and PG&E. 1. PG&E, Cities and the County should continue to coordinate on the LED replacement projects throughout the County. 2. PG&E, Cities and the County should continue to coordinate on and pursue changes to the LOU to reflect the challenges of 2014 and beyond. 3. PG&E Street Light Coordination meetings should continue on a regular basis as noted in the PG&E Letter of Understanding (LOU) dated February 22, 2008. These meetings enable City and County staff to collaborate on street light issues, cost effective methods to assure energy efficient street lighting and safety for the residents and visitors to the County and City. By working together to develop improvements in street lighting, Cities, the County and PG&E are able to improve the delivery of excellent quality street lighting throughout the County. The Committee accepted the report and directed staff to 1) bring it to the full Board of Supervisors, 2) to coordinate with the District Attorney as appropriate (relative to metal theft targeting), and 3) to contact Town Manager of Danville (relative to their LED initiative and types of lighting selected). Recommendations in the report included:  1. PG&E, Cities and the County should continue to coordinate on the LED replacement projects throughout the County. 2. PG&E, Cities and the County should continue to coordinate on and pursue changes to the LOU to reflect the challenges of 2014 and beyond. 3. PG&E Street Light Coordination meetings should continue on a regular basis as noted in the PG&E Letter of Understanding (LOU) dated February 22, 2008. These meetings enable City and County staff to collaborate on street light issues, cost effective methods to assure energy efficient street lighting and safety for the residents and visitors to the County and City. By working together to develop improvements in street lighting, Cities, the County and PG&E are able to improve the delivery of excellent quality street lighting throughout the County. 10.Accept Integrated Pest Management Annual Report, and take action as appropriate. The Committee received the report, directed staff to explore the possibility of using CCTV to publicize the dangers of using anticoagulant rodenticides for residential rodent control (considering the large private use of pesticides) and to raise awareness of the bed bug issue in the County  Public Comments were made on this item and they are attached to this meeting record. 11.The date and time for the next meeting will be announced. 12.Adjourn The meeting adjourned in the afternoon of December 4, 2014. The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the County Department of Conservation and Development, 30 Muir Road, Martinez during normal business hours. Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time. For Additional Information Contact:  John Cunningham, Committee Staff Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order):  Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act For Additional Information Contact: Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us Order  of  Public  Comments  from  PfSE  members:     1. Suzanne  Llewellyn,  resident  of  Walnut  Creek,  retired  from  UC  Berkeley’s   School  of  Public  Health,  Environmental  Health  Program.    Will  read  Dr.     Sharon  Hiner,  MD  CCRMC  Director  of  Oncology  Program  statement  on   pesticides  and  cancer.  CANCER  and  PESTICIDES     2. Robin  Spencer-­‐Holmes,  resident  of  Orinda,  environmental  consultant  and   certified  hazardous  materials  manager.    Inadequate  posting  to  give  people  a   choice  to  stay  away  from  pesticide  treatments  &  tracking  of  spraying   inadequate.    Highest  pesticide  usage  in  these  Right  of  Way  Program  along   with  Bad  Actor  Pesticides.    POSTING  &  PESTICIDE  TRACKING  IN  RIGHT  OF   WAYS  INADEQUATE;  EXPOSURE  TO  CHILDREN  AND       3. Richard  Long,  Orinda  life  long  resident,  recent  retiree  to  Rossmoor  will  read   Jared  Lewis’  statement  on  grazing  efficacy  to  replace  herbicides.    GRAZING,   EFFECTIVE  AND  NON-­‐CONTAMINATING  SOLUTION  FOR  FCD  WEED   CONTROL  NEAR  WATER     4. Shirley  Shelangoski,  Pleasant  Hill:  Costs  not  addressed  &  discouragement  to   reduce  pesticides  by  IPM  Staff.    LACK  OF  TRANSPARENCY  AND   ACCOUNTABILITY  ON  COSTS  OF  HERBICIDE  USAGE  AND  COMPARISON  TO   ALTERNATIVES     5. Susan  JunFish,  Moraga:    Lack  of  transparency  and  accountability  in   documents  and  still  difficult  to  get  records  to  improve  communication  and   collaboration.  VIOLATION  OF  PUBLIC  RECORDS  REQUESTS  in  2014;   OMITTED  &  MISLEADING  STATEMENTS  IN  STAFF  REPORTS     6. Michael  Sullivan,  Lafayette:  TRANSPARENCY  REQUESTS  IN  COUNTY  IPM   PROGRAM     7.  Margaret  Lynwood,  Walnut  Creek:    TRAPPING  COST  EFFECTIVE  IN  PLACE   OF  RODENTICIDES.    DIPLOMATIC/COLLABORATIVE  REQUEST  FOR  IPM   STAFF     December 3, 2014 Public Comment from Sharon Hiner, MD Addressed to the Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee Chairs, Supervisor Mary Piepho and Supervisor Candace Andersen I have been a staff of the Contra Costa County Regional Medical Center for the past 32 years and live in Martinez with my family. I was the Cancer Center Director for 25 of my years working at CCRMC. I support the work of Parents for a Safer Environment and regret that I cannot be there to give my testimony in person. By end of 2014, 1.66 million of us in the U.S. will be diagnosed with cancer; everyday 4, 500 people will be told they have cancer. Over 585,000 of them will result in death. Cancer is now the second most common cause of death in the U.S., accounting for nearly 1 of every 4 deaths. Behind each diagnosis is an individual’s life that is abruptly put in limbo even if the cancer does not result in death. The cancer patient is forced into a painfully harsh journey that was not chosen. The National Cancer Advisory Board stated bluntly in its 1994 report to Congress that a lack of appreciation for environmental contaminants has stalled cancer prevention efforts. It further asserted that government has a responsibility to identify and prevent environmental health hazards and called for a coordinated investigation of industrial chemicals and pesticides as causes of cancer. National Cancer Institute senior researchers have declared an epidemic of cancer in the U.S. stating, “Cancers of all types and all causes display all the characteristics of an epidemic in slow motion.” This unfolding crisis, they assert, is being fueled by “increasing contamination of the human environment with chemical and physical carcinogens and with chemicals supporting and potentiating their action.” I have hope that the leadership of this county would take the first steps to assure that your constituents of Contra Costa County do not bear more risk from cancer than absolutely necessary. The evidence today says that lowering population-wide exposures to hormone disruptors prevents breast cancer. The county is currently using numerous pesticides listed as hormone disruptors, possible human carcinogens, and known human reproductive or developmental toxins in its arsenal according to Parents for a Safer Environment’s analysis of county’s pesticides used in the most recent fiscal year. My understanding is that this is a great improvement over the past 12 years and is a testament to the leadership in Contra Costa County that is willing to listen and work with the community. Nevertheless, there is much improvement that can be made. It is difficult for me to understand as a physician who cares for cancer patients on a daily basis, that one arm of the county can be triggering or exacerbating illnesses while another arm of the county could be spending half a billion dollars annually in order to keep people healthy. Let’s first do no harm. Yours Truly, Sharon Hiner, MD TWIC  meeting,  Dec  4,  2014   Public  Comment  from  Robin  Holmes,  Orinda  Resident,  rspencerchmm@yahoo.com     My  name  is  Robin  Spencer  Holmes  and  I  am  a  resident  of  Orinda  and  an   environmental  consultant  and  certified  hazardous  materials  manager.    I  am  also  actively   engaged  as  a  volunteer  in  a  research  project  to  determine  environmental  causes  for  late   stage  breast  cancer  in  teenage  girls  in  the  West  Bank,  Palestine.  A  good  part  of  the   evidence  points  to  exposure  to  pesticides.    I  have  been  concerned  about  the  pesticide  usage  by  Contra  Costa  County  over   the  past  decade  and  wish  to  bring  to  your  attention  the  inadequacy  of  the  county’s   current  posting  program  that  fails  to  properly  notify  people  of  spraying.     The  County’s  Posting  Policy  states  that  posting  is  required  where  there  is  foot   access  by  the  public  or  where  the  area  is  used  for  recreation.         For  over  15  years,  the  county  has  been  applying  thousands  of  gallons  of  Bad   Actor  pesticides  annually  that  are  broadcast  sprayed  along  access  roads  of  the  Flood   Control  District  where  people  use  for  biking  and  walking.    There  is  no  posting  before,   during  or   after  treatments.  I  can’t   tell   you   how   much  is  sprayed  now   because  staff   decided  that  this  information  is  “not  useful”  to  them  nor  important  to  track  according  to   the  Transparency   Subcommittee   Report .    Most   IPM   professionals   would   agree   that   tracking  data  for  each  program  is  an  essential  element  of  a  performing  IPM  program.   Moreover,  the  Flood  Control  District  and  Roadsides  are  where  the  county  applies  by  far,   the  largest  amount  of  toxic  pesticides.         Trucks  on  each  side  of  the  access  roads  of  the  creeks  take  a  long  perforated  hose   that  are  manually  switched  on  and  off  for  a  less  than  precise  spraying  into  the  flood   control  channel  banks.    Inadvertent  spraying  and  drift  from  target  areas  is  a  given  under   the  slightest  amount  of  wind  because  the  spraying  occurs  well  above  6  feet  above  the   targets.       PfSE  has  shown  you  photos  of  children  walking  along  these  access  trails.    I  am   submitting  one  for  the  record.         These  access  roads  look  just  like  walking  trails  along  often  idyllic  looking  creeks   that  community  use  on  a  daily  basis.    No  one  in  this  room  would  choose  to  be  hit  with  a   wall  of  pesticide  drift  while  taking  a  walk  or  have  their  children  or  dog  track  pesticides   from  treatments  and  bring  it  home.  A  2003  published  study  by  Dr  Ruddel  showed  that   many  pesticides  tracked  indoors  do  not  break  down  for  months  to  years  (due  to  absence  of   sunlight  and  soil  microbes  in  part).    Of  particular  concern  are  for  those  who  are  pregnant,   have  a  baby  or  toddler  along  as  we  commonly  see  using  these  trails.  We  want  our  children   &  pets  to  stay  on  the  roads  but  maybe  we’ll  be  more  careful  if  we  saw  a  sign  for  spraying.     Posting  at  least  gives  people  a  choice  to  avoid  areas  if  they  wish.     The  community  deserves  to  know  where  and  when  the  county  staff  plan  to  spray  and  to   post  this  at  least  on  line  and  at  major  access  points  to  these  trails.    Even  though  the  Staff   Response  Table  to  PfSE  states  that  the  website  will  post  by  August  of  2014,  there  is  still  no   posting  to  date.           I  ask  you,  Supervisors  Andersen  and  Piepho  as  well  as  Directors  Julie  Bueren  and  Joe  Yee   to  help  us  prevent  breast  cancer  and  other  illnesses  in  the  first  place  by  decreasing   exposures.     TWIC Meeting of Dec 4, 2014 Good afternoon Honorable Board Members, Peipho and Andersen. My name is Richard Long. I have been a resident of central Contra Costa County for over 45 years. I am retired and recently moved to Rossmoor with my wife, Anne. I urge you to listen carefully to the information presented by the volunteers from Parents for a Safer Environment. Much new information is becoming available as scientists learn more about the serious public health dangers of pesticides used regularly in past years. I will be reading a public comment from Jared Lewis who is an environmental consultant for Bay Ecology. Thank you for the chance to share our thoughts with you this afternoon. Sincerely, Richard Long rlong3a@comcast.net December 2, 2014 To: Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee Chairs From: Jared Lewis, Bay Ecology & former research associate with Parents for a Safer Environment Many of us in the natural resource management community, as well as those tasked with implementing IPM strategies are acutely aware of the need to address pesticide and herbicide use at a broader scale. This is critically important to sustainability and environmental goals, and to reduce public health risks associated with herbicide and pesticide use. There is a growing consensus in the larger scientific community regarding the detrimental effects of herbicides and their impact on human and ecosystem health. At the same time, agencies are expected to implement environmentally sound vegetation management practices that can accommodate both practical and financial constraints. Public agencies are increasingly focused on protecting biological resources, which has generated renewed interest in novel ecological and environmental management approaches. The use of grazing animals for vegetation management is one of these novel approaches that has been used successfully by numerous public agencies. However, efficacy and contamination from grazing has not been well documented in the literature. In response to this research need, I worked with Parents for a Safer Environment to draft a review paper for my graduate study on the impacts of managed grazing systems, compiling and analyzing water quality data from four agency-managed grazing programs along watercourses, including projects here in the Bay Area. The conclusions of our research (soon to be published in a white-paper) are both promising and surprising, suggesting that grazing can be both an effective vegetation management tool and in many instances, ecologically beneficial. Most notably, in each of the four case studies, grazing had NO significant impact on water quality. It is my hope that this research can provide decision makers with confidence that managed grazing is an effective, economical and safe vegetation management tool along watercourses. Thank you, Jared Lewis, jaredalewis@gmail.com Environmental Project Manager/ Ecologist Bay Ecology  December  4,  2014  TWIC  meeting       Public   Comment  from   Shirley   Shelangoski,   Parents   for   a   Safer       Environment     My   name   is   Shirley   Shelangoski   and   I   have   been  volunteering  with   Parents  for  a  Safer  Environment  for  nearly  3  years  now.    The  single   most  underlying  problem  I  see  in  the  IPM  Program  is  that  there  is  little   to  no  leadership  in  guiding  county  staff  to  reduce  pesticides.    Nearly   every  step  of  progress  has  been  achieved  with  vigilant  oversight  and   participation  by  the  community  over  10  years.    The  community  expects   better  performance  from  the  IPM  program.       I  found  the  county’s  Vision  Statement  online  and  it  states:       “Contra  Costa  County  is  recognized  as  a  world-­‐class  service  organization   where  innovation  and  partnerships  merge   to   enable   our  residents   to   enjoy  a  safe,  healthy  and  prosperous  life.”     Contrary  to  the  county’s  Vision  Statement,  it  is  disconcerting  to  hear   IPM  county  staff  correcting  members  of  the  IPM  Committee  when  any   mention  is  made  about  reducing  pesticides  with  the  statement:       “IPM  is  not  about  reducing  pesticides.”     Due  to  this  coaching  from  staff,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  IPM  Advisory   Committee  accomplishes  very  little  of  its  original  objectives.     At  the  August  19,  2014  Cost  Accounting  subcommittee  meeting  that  I   attended,  IPM  Staff  directed  members  away  from  investigating  the  costs   to   spray   herbicides   in   the   Grounds   program  to   even   the   expressed   surprise   of   members.     The   justification   was   that   “since  such   small   amounts  were  used,  the  costs  for  its  usage  was  not  a  factor  that  needed   to  be  addressed  for  the  Grounds  Dept”.    That  cut  off  the  discussion  on   the  original  objective  of  the  Cost  Accounting  Committee,  which  was  to   come   up   with   costs  that   can   possibly   show   economic   feasibility   for   switching  to  alternatives.     I  looked  up  the  Grounds  pesticide  usage  in  the  county’s  spreadsheet  for   FY   13-­‐14   and  saw   that  they   used  a   known  human  reproductive   and   developmental  toxin  (Fusilade  for  Turf),  a  possible  human  carcinogen,   (Gallery)  and  a  Bad  Actor  rodenticide  (Weevilcide)  among  others  with   the  latter  being  applied  at  Livorna  Park  in  Alamo.    With  over  a  thousand   pounds  of   pesticide   products   being   used,   including  Bad   Actors,  it   certainly  appears  that  the  Grounds  Division’s  pesticide  usage  is  worthy   of  being  assessed  for  its  costs.     At  the  November  5th  full  IPM  Advisory  Committee  meeting,  staff  on  the   Cost   Accounting   subcommittee   noted   that  they   were   not   able  to   recommend  any  changes  nor  produce  any  helpful  information  on  cost   issues.    Instead  of  discussing  pesticide  issues,  the  IPM  staff  steered  the   Cost   Subcommittee   to  discuss  issues   that   had   nothing   to   do   with   addressing  costs  of  herbicide  usage.     The   community   has   steadfastly   worked   with   the   county   for   over   a   decade  and  many  improvements  are  slowly  starting  to  be  realized.    But   it  has  been  a  source  of  frustration  when  the  IPM  staff  impedes  good   discussion   and   work   by   the  Committee  and   redirects   members   to   pursue  objectives  that  do  not  promote  IPM  improvements.       Shirley  Shelangoski,     Pleasant  Hill  Resident   December  4,  2014     To:    Transportation,  Water,  and  Infrastructure  Committee     Co-­‐Chairs,  Supervisors  Mary  Piepho  and  Candace  Andersen     From:  Susan  JunFish,  Parents  for  a  Safer  Environment  (PfSE)                  (underlined  spoken)     RE:    Voids  in  Decision  Making  Flow  Charts  &  Transparency  Subcommittee  Report  Integrity     Honorable  Chairs  Piepho  and  Andersen:     I’m  really  happy  to  see  the  improvements  this  year,  particularly  in  the  area  of   rodenticide  application  that  was  300%  greater  a  year  ago.    This  is  a  reduction  to  about   1/3  and  it’s  also  assuring  to  learn  that  Special  District  of  the  Public  Works  Department   stopped  using  all  second-­‐generation  rodenticides  in  the  public  parks  and  elsewhere.     However,  the  community  still  wishes  to  see  the  cessation  of  all  rodenticides  used  in   open  space,  similarly  to  how  our  county  has  been  able  to  eliminate  all  rodenticides  for   maintenance  in  over  300  buildings  during  2006-­‐2009.     I  wish  to  bring  your  attention  to  the  way  decisions  are  made  for  choosing  pesticides.     As  a  side  note,  these  are  also  not  the  high-­‐risk  pest  control  programs  and  we  ask  the   county  why  the  high-­‐risk  programs  are  not  being  addressed  first.    Numerous  Decision-­‐   Making  Flow  Charts  have  been  drafted  this  year  for  mostly  Department  of  Agriculture   weed  control  and  the  Airports  weed  control  program  of  the  Public  Works  Dept.    The   problems  with  these  Decision-­‐Making  Flow  Charts  or  “trees”  are  the  following:         1. They  do  not  show  a  break  down  in  costs.    The  Cost  Subcommittee’s  objective   originally  was  to  look  at  the  break  down  in  costs  of  pesticide  usage  over  that  of   least  toxic  alternatives  of  programs  that  used  the  highest  risk  pesticides  that   were  risking  public  health  and  wildlife.    These  are  the  Flood  Control  District,   Special  District,  Grounds,  Roadside  and  the  Dept  of  Ag’s  ground  squirrel  control   and  aquatic  weed  control  programs.  We  have  yet  to  receive  the  cost   breakdowns  as  requested  multiple  times  over  many  years.     2. They  do  not  specify  if  a  product  is  listed  as  one  of  the  4  categories  for  cancer   causing  agents,  listed  as  a  human  hormone  disruptor,  or  listed  as  a  known   human  reproductive/developmental  toxin.    It  only  lists  Prop  65  and  this  is  just   one  category  and  does  not  cover  all  carcinogen  and   reproductive/developmental  toxin  categories.     The  Decision  Making  tree  will  be  helpful  only  if  it  is  actually  showing  least  toxic   options  and  if  it  justifies  clearly  why  the  safer  alternatives  were  not  chosen.    These   flow  charts  are  not  yet  providing  the  data  as  to  why  non-­‐chemical  options  are  not   chosen.    Costs  are  often  the  reason  for  not  choosing  the  alternative  methods.    If  cost  is   the  reason,  a  comprehensive  cost  breakdown  that  is  readily  trackable  as  well  as   attempting  to  estimate  the  risk  to  health  and  the  environment  needs  to  be  in  the   equation  even  if  it’s  an  unknown.             I  wish  to  also  request  that  the  FY  13-­‐14  final  report  of  the  IPM  Transparency   Subcommittee’s  Report  to  the  Board  reflects  the  correction  made  by  community   members  who  stated  that  they  did  not  make  the  conclusions  attributed  to  the   Subcommittee.    In  the  November  5th  meeting,  Dr.  Patti  Tenbrook  stated  that  she   did  not  prepare  the  comments  attributed  to  her  as  stated  on  top  of  the   document,  “Prepared  by  Patti  Tenbrook.”    In  addition,  Dr.  Cheng  Liao,  asked  if   the  statement  in  the  document  that  “tracking  of  pesticide  usage  in  each  flood   control  district  and  roadside  is  not  useful  to  the  department”  is  the  opinion  of   staff  since  he  didn’t  recollect  that  conclusion  being  made  “as  a  group.”    Each   Transparency  Subcommittee  member,  Patti  Tenbrook  and  Scott  Cashen  also   agreed  that  that  statement  appeared  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  staff  and  should  be   changed  to  reflect  such.    Ms  Drlik  conceded  and  said  she  would  make  the   changes.         The  community  is  aware  that  tracking  pesticide  usage  for  each  IPM  program  is  a   critical  component  of  assessing  an  IPM  program’s  effectiveness.    Without   separating  Right  of  Way  treatment  (Flood  Control  District  and  Roadside),  how   do  we  know  if  changes  in  a  pesticide  regime  is  working  well,  if  it’s  the  most  least   toxic  regime  that  can  still  provide  effective  pest  control?    Not  tracking  usage  of   each  distinct  program  can  result  in  using  unnecessarily  more  toxic  pesticides  to   obtain  acceptable  results.    Tracking  pesticide  usage  for  each  program  is   therefore  a  critical  component  of  a  well-­‐run  IPM  program  as  well  as  a   transparency  issue  for  the  community.     Please  assure  that  those  changes  are  reflected  in  the  final  Transparency   Subcommittee  report:     1) Patti  Tenbrook  is  not  noted  as  author  or  “preparer”  of  the  Transparency   Subcommittee  Report  that  the  IPM  Coordinator,  Tanya  Drlik,  prepared.   2)  Transparency  Committee  Community  members  did  not  agree  with  staff  that   “Public  Works  has  no  need  to  separate  the  data  on  the  Pesticide  Use   Reports....”   3) Transparency  Committee  Community  members  did  not  agree  with  staff  that   “…it  is  not  possible  to  separate  the  data  in  the  new  reporting  system.”  (for   Flood  Control  District  and  Roadsides)             I  wish  to  thank  the  Chairs  and  Staff  for  the  improvements  achieved  since  the   last  fiscal  year  and  we  look  forward  to  working  with  staff  to  improve  the   program  where  there  are  still  voids  and  much  room  for  improvement  such  as   tracking  pesticide  usage  in  each  program  and  making  that  public  information.         Public  Comments  to  the  TWIC  and  staff    December  4,  2014     My  name  is  Michael  Sullivan  and  I  am  a  retired  teacher  and  Lafayette   resident.    I  have  been  attending  IPM  meetings  for  years  and  wish  to   thank  you  for  the  many  improvements  in  the  recent  fiscal  year.         The  following  are  questions  regarding  existing  transparency  concerns   and  requests  that  Parents  for  a  Safer  Environment  has  compiled  on   behalf  of  community  members  throughout  Contra  Costa  County  who   wish  to  see  the  County’s  IPM  Program  become  self-­‐regulating  with  an   internal  desire  to  improve.     1) What  is  your  position  of  whether  pesticide  reduction  should  be  one   of  the  objectives  for  the  county’s  IPM  program?  This  basic  tenet   requires  definitive  clarity  to  provide  guidance  to  the  IPM  staff  who  is   leading  the  program  with  the  belief  that  reduction  of  pesticides  is  not   an  objective.     2) Require  each  program  to  track  its  pesticide  usage  and  post  pesticide   usage  reports  online  so  that  the  community  does  not  have  to  struggle   to  access  public  information.    Monthly  reports  are  required  by  the   State  and  a  copy  can  be  uploaded  simultaneously  for  the  IPM   website.    Maintstar  technical  staff  has  advised  PfSE  that  providing  all   the  pesticide  usage  data  is  simple  in  their  database  upon  request.     3) Implement  posting  on  the  website  and  in  all  areas  where  the  public   has  foot  access  such  as  access  roads  in  the  flood  control  district  and   roadsides  where  people  are  known  to  walk,  jog,  ride  bikes,  or  push   strollers.         4) Please  instruct  staff  to  provide  breakdown  costs  for  each  of  the   seven  pesticide  dependent  programs.      Please  provide  a  timeline  for   staff  to  provide  this  data  for  which  we  have  requested  for  nearly  six   years.         Michael  Sullivan,   Resident  of  Lafayette   swimmersullivan@yahoo.com   Public Comments to the TWIC and staff December 4, 2014 My name is Margaret Lynwood and I am a resident of Rossmoor in Walnut Creek and am delighted to learn that the county has stopped using all second-generation rodenticides recently. However, I wish to know why other rodenticides are still being used by the public works and Ag departments. I’d also like to see a more concerted effort to engage trapping experts in 2015 to control ground squirrels instead of using first generation rodenticides that impose risk of secondary poisoning. PfSE calculated that it would cost only $60,000 more per year according to former Ag Commissioner’s estimate that the entire program costs them $120,000 annually. A study conducted by Ventura County’s Agriculture Department concluded that trapping would cost 2 times more than the use of poisons. $60,000 is really a very small amount annually relative to the 1 billion dollar budget that the county has at its disposal. There are many men who are still unemployed and can be trained by expert trappers who service other public agencies for burrowing rodents. We can do this if you are open to collaboration. The community wishes IPM staff to focus on pesticide reduction in the areas where the largest amount is being applied and where the highest risk of exposure to wildlife and people exist. This has not been a priority of IPM program staff. Finally, please encourage the IPM Program staff to treat the community with respect and foster collaboration. We do appreciate the improved response to the public records request regardless of records being provided or not. It’s a good start. Thank you for the many improvements this past year. In order to keep up the progress we need strong leadership in the IPM program with earnest desire to reduce pesticides. We wish to see staff seeking and offering alternatives to the pesticide dependency by collaborating with the community and other public agencies. Posting by Contra Costa Operations in 2013 Date Location Number of Signs Notes Public Works Vegetation Management 1/7/13 Clyde Pedestrian Path Approx. 3 signs 1/7/13 Iron Horse Corridor: Concord Approx. 6 signs to Marsh & Clayton Valley Drain 2/11113 Iron Horse Corridor: Walnut Approx. 8 signs Creek Channel slopes 8/19/13 Iron Horse Corridor: fence-Approx. 14 signs lines for Drittrichia 10/7113 Iron Horse Corridor: pre-26 signs emergent on fence-lines Grounds Division November, 2013 Camino Tassajara between Approx. 10 signs total 1 event at each location Knollview and Oakgate, pre-(1 at each intersection) emergent for weeds: 1. Part of the bank going up from the sidewalk along Camino Tassajara 2. Near Casablanca off of Camino Tassajara Facilities No postings outside the Buildings serviced by Pestec permanent posting notices. have a permanent posting of a limited number of products that can be used without additional posting (this is similar to Santa Clara and San Francisco). Agriculture 9/11/13 In Brentwood for ground Approx. 25 signs (posted at The majority of the baiting 1 event squirrels, Marsh Creek Trail each public access point took place on the side where from Central Blvd . to Big along the trail) access is closed to the Break public. There were 2 small spot treatments done by hand on the public trail side (<1 lb. used on the public side--<0.0016 oz . of actual diphacinone) Public  Records  Review  Request  (PRRR)  Violations  in  FY  13-­‐14:     1. November  19,  2014  PRRR  for  a  .doc  file  of  the  FY  13-­‐14  Annual  IPM  Status   Report  was  denied  by  Ms.  Drlik.    On  Nov  21,  2014  Ms  Drlik  stated  that  “You   can  easily  make  comments  on  a  PDF  file.    Look  under  the  “Comments”  drop-­‐ down  menu  at  the  top  of  the  window.”    These  instructions  were  in  error.     “Annotate”  button  allows  for  some  insertions  of  color,  underlining,   highlighting  and  strike-­‐out,  but  no  insertions  of  text  are  allowable  on  PDF   files  so  the  format  provided  by  the  County  made  it  more  difficult  to  provide   comments  in  this  81  page  document.     Tracking  edits  on  a  PDF  file  is  impossible  and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons  why   PDF  files  exist,  to  prevent  editing  and  changes.         2. December  12,  2013  PRRR  for  the  Sampling  Plan  Grazing  Study  that  occurred   in  2013  was  not  provided  until  September  30,  2014  by  the  Public  Works   Dept.  10  months  after  the  initial  request  and  repeated  request.     3. September  26,  2014  PRRR  for  fecal  coliform  data  from  the  2013  Grazing   Study  to  Public  Works  Dept  was  denied  on  Oct  4,  2014  citing  Sect  6252(3)   of  the  CA  public  records  act  that  allegedly  does  not  bind  the  County  to   providing  the  data  that  is  not  prepared,  owned,  used,  or  retained  by  the   county.    Data  had  to  be  used  by  the  County  in  order  to  design  the  2014  study.     Collins Elementary School Children walk daily along Pinole Creek banks that was once part of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department's Flood Control District weed control program that received scheduled broadcast pesticide Treatments biannually during the rainy seasons of Feb/March and Dec/Jan TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:Communication to/from the Committee Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This is an Administrative Item of the Committee. Referral Update: REVIEW any communication to/from the Committee. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments No file(s) attached. TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:San Ramon Iron Horse Trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing Project Status Update Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: Carrie Ricci, Contra Costa County Public Works/City of San Ramon staff Contact: Carrie Ricci (925)313-2235 Referral History: N/A Referral Update: N/A Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The City has secured the appropriation of $620,000 in Contra Costa Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (CC-TLC) funding to initiate the San Ramon Iron Horse Trail Bicycle / Pedestrian Overcrossing Project (Community Engagement / Preliminary Design); of which $200,700 has been allocated to the Community Engagement / Outreach and Preliminary Design component. Prior to the allocation of the TLC grant, staff completed tasks related to the Project, including:  1. San Ramon Valley Iron Horse Trail Corridor Concept Plan – Finalized 2009; 2. Developed and circulated a Request for Proposals for Phase Two – Community Engagement / Outreach and Preliminary Design (December 18, 2012); 3. Conducted a Bidders Conference (January 15, 2013); 4. Received Proposals from 7 Firms (February 1, 2013); 5. Conducted oral board consisting of staff members from San Ramon, Contra Costa County 5. Conducted oral board consisting of staff members from San Ramon, Contra Costa County Public Works, Sunset Development, and East Bay Regional Park District; 6. Selected Biggs Cardosa Associates (BCA) Inc. to implement Phase II – Community Engagement and Preliminary Design; and, 7. Presented informational report to San Ramon Policy Committee (May 22, 2013). In 2004, voters of Contra Costa County approved Measure J, a ½-cent transportation sales tax program. Measure J includes Capital Improvement Projects and Countywide Capital and Maintenance Programs. Program Number 12 is titled - Transportation for Livable Communities (CC-TLC).  In the Expenditure Plan - CC-TLC program description is as follows:  The CC-TLC Program is intended to support local efforts to achieve more compact, mixed-use development, and development that is pedestrian-friendly or linked into the overall transit system. The program will fund specific transportation projects that: (a) facilitate, support and/or catalyze development, especially affordable housing, transit-oriented or mixed use development, or (b) encourage the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle and promote walking, bicycling and/or transit usage. Typical investments include pedestrian, bicycle and streetscape facilities, traffic calming and transit access improvements. Both planning grants and specific transportation capital projects may receive funding under this program. Jurisdictions will be eligible for projects that meet the eligibility criteria only if they are in compliance with the Growth Management Program at the time a grant is approved for funding allocation by the Authority. Eligible projects will be recommended to the Authority by each sub region based on a three- or five-year funding cycle, at the option of the Regional Transportation Planning Committee. Subregional programming targets will be based on the relative population share of the each in 2009, and adjusted every five years thereafter. Criteria are to include flexibility so that urban, suburban, and rural communities can be eligible. On November 12, 2013, Council approved Resolution No. 2013-102 – authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Contract between the City of San Ramon and Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. to implement the Community Engagement/Outreach and Preliminary Design for the Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing at Bollinger Canyon Road and Crow Canyon Road (CIP #5530 and 5531), in an amount not to exceed $200,700.  To date, staff and the Consultant Team have completed, and / or are in the process of completing a number of work tasks, including: Establish Project Development Team - Completed Initiate Site Evaluations - Completed Develop Public Outreach Campaign - Completed Implement Community Design Charrettes – Completed Implement Website/Online Survey/Social Media – Completed Develop Design Alternatives – In progress Solicit input from City Committees/Commissions – In progress Solicit Community Feedback – In progress On October 28, 2014, staff provided Council with a summary of the Project, including feedback On October 28, 2014, staff provided Council with a summary of the Project, including feedback received from the Design Charrettes held spring 2014. At that time, staff informed Council the next phase of the project related to outreach component. As of January 15, 2015, the following outreach activities have been completed:  1. Implemented the City of San Ramon on-line Open Government survey – residents and the community at-large had an opportunity to provide comments and feedback on the  architecture of 21 bridge concepts. The on-line survey was available Thursday, October 30 through Wednesday, December 31, 2014; 2. Attended two San Ramon Farmer's Markets; 3. Installed signage along the Iron Horse Trail informing the public to provide comment/feedback; and, 4. Attended Iron Horse Corridor Advisory Committee.  Staff will present the results of this phase of Community Engagement/Outreach component, including the findings from the on-line survey, farmers market, Iron Horse Trail Corridor Advisory Committee feedback, and press coverage.  STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL   1. Present Outreach Survey Results to City Commissions, Committees and key stakeholders, including: a. Planning Commission - February 2, 2015 b. Parks Commission – February 11, 2015 c. Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) – February 11, 2015 d. Transportation Advisory Committee – February 19, 2015 e. East Bay Regional Park District – February 6, 2015 f. Contra Costa County – February 6, 2015 g. East Bay Regional Park District – February 6, 2015 h. Contra Costa County – February 6, 2015 i. Transportation Demand Management Advisory Committee – March, 2015 j. San Ramon Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors – March, 2015 k. Sunset Development – March, 2015 l. Teen Council – March m. Senior Advisory Committee – March 2. Present feedback from City Commissions, Committees and stakeholders to City Council April, 2015; 3. Based on feedback from stakeholders, Council will select three (3) bridge designs – April 2015; 4. Consultant Team will refine cost estimates for the three bridge alternatives; 5. Present three bridge preliminary cost estimates to City Council – June 2015; 6. Council select final bridge structure – June 2015; and, 7. Initiate Environmental Review Phase of project – July 2015.  Fiscal Impact (if any): The Community Engagement/Outreach Component of the Project is funded with a CC-TLC grant in the amount of $200,700. There are no direct impacts to the City’s or County's General Fund. Attachments IHT Status update presentation Contra Costa County March 2, 2015 •Purpose 1.Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists; 2.Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at- grade crossings; 3.Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists; 4.Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the Iron Horse Trail; and 5.Increase trail usage by improving the comfort at the Bollinger Canyon and Crow Canyon Road crossings. San Ramon Iron Horse Trail Bike/Ped Overcrossing Background Phase One San Ramon Valley Iron Horse Trail Corridor Concept Plan – Completed 2009 –Evaluated the feasibility of constructing bike/Ped overcrossings to improve access and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians along the Iron Horse Trail and to create a bike/pedestrian-friendly environment at Sycamore Valley, Crow Canyon & Bollinger Canyon Roads –Developed concepts, evaluated the feasibility, identified costs and future funding sources Background Phase Two Community Engagement/Outreach and Preliminary Design – In progress City of San Ramon (Transportation/Engineering) Contra Costa County Contra Costa Transportation Authority East Bay Regional Park District Consultant Team (Biggs Cardosa Associate, Alta Planning and HNTB) Design Charrettes – Spring 2014 On-Line Survey - Fall 2014 •Phase One - Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) approved the allocation of Transportation Planning and Land Use funds (T-PLUS) to implement the SRV Corridor Concept Plan - Study completed in 2009 (full report is available upon request) •Phase Two - The CCTA approved the allocation of Measure J - Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) funding –Initiated Community Engagement/Outreach and Preliminary Design project overview HOW IS THE PROJECT FUNDED? Project Status Update – Funding Contra Costa Transportation Authority approved Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) grant totaling $620,000 AND a Priority Development Area Grant for $150,000 $200,700 Phase Two – In progress $419,300 Phase Three – Environmental $150,000 PDA Grant Approved-October 2014 Community Engagement/Outreach •San Ramon City Council – October 17, 2014 –Presented Findings from the Design Charrettes held Spring 2014 –Prepared and provided Technical Memo to Council –Presented “Open Government” on-line survey (21 bridge renderings) •On-Line Survey “live” October 30 through December 31, 2014 –Installed signage along IHT directing public to on-line survey –San Ramon website –Press Release Community Engagement/Outreach Community Engagement/Outreach •Design Charrette Activities –Virtual Site Tour –Brainstorming –Collaborative Map Making –Visual Preference Survey •Press Release Issued - October 30, 2014 •City Website •San Ramon/Danville Express •San Ramon Observer •San Ramon Patch •Contra Costa Times •Tri-Valley Times •Bishop Ranch •San Ramon Valley Unified School District •HOA’s - 26, representing 82 HOA’s Press Release Issued December 7, 2014 On-Line Survey On-Line Survey - Signage Installed •Iron Horse Trail at Alcosta - Walmart •Iron Horse Trail at Pine Valley Road •Iron Horse Trail at Montevideo •Iron Horse Trail at Norris Canyon Road •Iron Horse Trail at San Ramon Transit Center •Iron Horse Trail at Bollinger Canyon Road •Iron Horse Trail at Crow Canyon Road On-Line Survey •Iron Horse Trail Advisory Committee –October 29, 2014 –Presentation to Committee –Encouraged members to complete on-line survey and encourage local jurisdiction Online Survey Introduction: The City of San Ramon is currently studying a proposed bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing along the Iron Horse Trail at Bollinger Canyon Road. A feasibility study conducted in 2009 identified this overcrossing as an important connection to improve accessibility, safety, and traffic operations. Online Survey The purpose of the project is to: 1.Improve safety by eliminating conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists; 2.Improve motor vehicle circulation by removing the at-grade crossings; 3.Reduce and eliminate unsafe crossing maneuvers by pedestrians and bicyclists; 4.Enhance safety by providing an environment that encourages walking and bicycling along the Iron Horse Regional Trail; and 5.Increase trail usage by improving the comfort at the Bollinger Canyon Road crossing Online Survey The existing Iron Horse Regional Trail crossing at Bollinger Canyon Road aligns with a cross street at a T intersection. The crossing makes use of the signalized intersection, with bicyclists and pedestrians on the Iron Horse Regional Trail pushing a button at the signal and then proceeding in the crosswalk during the WALK phase. In the current phase of the overcrossing study, the City and their consultant team are gathering input from community members and trail users on potential alignments and configurations for the Bollinger Canyon overcrossing and whether to maintain the at-grade crossing facility, and the design aesthetic for the location. Please download the technical memo for a visual tour of the project and click on the POST button below to share your thoughts with the City. On-Line Survey – Bridge I Bridge Type: Concrete deck on steel members supported by steel arches Colors: White-painted steel, galvanized (grey) barriers and fences On-Line Survey – Bridge 2 Bridge Type: Concrete deck on steel members supported by combination of three overlapping steel arches Special Feature: Partial coverage by stretched fabric architectural roof Colors: Grey-painted steel (arches and barriers), white roof On-Line Survey Bridge 3 Bridge Type: Steel single tower cable-stayed main and secondary spans, supporting concrete deck on steel members Special Feature: Architectural lighting of cables and tower Colors: White-painted steel (tower, deck frame, safety barriers), grey concrete support elements and steel cables Online Survey – Bridge 4 Bridge Type: Concrete deck on steel members supported by steel prefabricated truss Colors: Brown-painted steel truss, white-painted handrails Online Survey – Bridge 5 Bridge Type: Concrete box girder below concrete deck Special Feature: Partial coverage by steel roof structure Colors: Cream-painted concrete (girder, deck, supporting columns), red-painted steel (railings, roof structure) On-Line Survey – Bridge 6 Bridge Type: Concrete deck on steel members supported by steel Virendeel truss, supported on concrete piers Special Feature: Ornate architectural detailing Colors: Teal-painted truss and ancillary architectural details, tan-colored concrete surfaces Online Survey – Bridge 7 Bridge Type: Concrete deck on steel members supported by circular steel tied arches Special Feature: Glass curtain walls integrated with deck support cables Colors: Light blue-painted steel (arches and deck frame) On-Line Survey – Bridge 8 Bridge Type: Concrete box girders below concrete deck, supported on concrete piers Special Feature: Applied arch-shaped panels, ornate architectural details Colors: Tan-colored concrete (pier structure), rubble stone-finished concrete (bridge spans) Online Survey- Bridge 9 Bridge Type: Concrete box girders below concrete deck, supported on concrete piers Special Feature: Partial coverage by steel and glass roof structure Colors: Tan-colored concrete (bridge girders and piers), blue-painted steel (roof structure) On-Line Survey – Bridge 10 Bridge Type: Concrete deck on steel members supported by tubular steel tied butterfly arches Special Feature: Architectural all-glass elevator Colors: Orange-painted arches, white-painted deck and railings, green-tinted glass elevator, grey concrete (structural supports, stairs) Online Survey- Bridge 11 Bridge Type: Concrete deck supported by concrete arch-shaped box girder Colors: Grey-colored girder and railing supports, tan-colored deck, rubble stone-finished abutment piers On-Line Survey – Bridge 12 Bridge Type: Concrete deck on steel members supported by prefabricated steel arch-shaped truss Colors: Salmon-painted steel (truss and deck frame), galvanized (grey) railings and fences On-Line Survey – Bridge 13 Bridge Type: Wooden deck on supporting structure Special Features: Sinuous deck, curvilinear aluminum cladding, bridge as “sculpture” Colors: Brown-stained wood deck, grey-silver colored steel panels, brushed aluminum “shingles” Online Survey- Bridge 14 Bridge Type: Deck supported by shallow steel continuous through-girder, supported on triangulated steel struts Special Features: Glass deck with views to water through circular openings in steel through-girder Colors: Blue-painted steel (through-girder, struts), transparent glass deck Online Survey- Bridge 15 Bridge Type: Steel deck supported by steel triangular-shaped truss girders Special Features: Architecture shaped to resemble a grasshopper Colors: Light red-painted steel (truss girders), grey-painted (or galvanized) steel (barrier frames, railings, added architectural features) On-Line Survey – Bridge 16 Bridge Type: Concrete deck supported on concrete box girders, supported by concrete piers Special Features: Chain-link screen roof shaped with peaks to resemble mountain range Colors: Grey-colored concrete (deck, girders, piers), grey (or galvanized) fencing and screen roof Online Survey- Bridge 17 Bridge Type: Steel girder bridge with concrete deck Special Features: Water drop shaped railing Colors: Salmon color paint On-Line Survey – Bridge 18 Bridge Type: Integral concrete deck on curved steel box girder, supported by concrete piers Special Features: Deck lighting features integrated in steel railing supports Colors: Grey-colored steel (girder, railing frames and infill), grey-colored deck surface Online Survey- Bridge 19 Bridge Type: Steel girder bridge Special Features: Open tube look with low railing Colors: Light brown On-Line Survey – Bridge 20 Bridge Type: Concrete deck supported by concrete box girders, supported by concrete piers Special Features: Covered by colored wave-form screen roof Colors: Tan-colored concrete (deck, girders, piers), red-painted steel (screen roof), grey-painted (or galvanized) steel (roof support frames, barrier infill) Online Survey- Bridge 21 Bridge Type: Concrete deck, supported by concrete precast beams, supported by concrete piers Special Features: Architectural railing shapes and light fixtures Colors: Tan-colored concrete (deck, beams, piers) On-Line Survey Results- Farmers Market •Thursday, November 20 –Bishop Ranch 3 •Saturday, November 8 •Saturday, November 15 •Bishop Ranch 1 (approximately 60 inquiries) On-Line Survey Results •San Ramon Open Government 483 Viewed on-line Survey for Bollinger 298 Viewed on-line Survey for Crow 781 TOTAL Viewed on -line survey On-Line Survey Results •Bollinger Canyon Road –483 Views – 71 Completed Survey AND Registered –78 Completed Survey NO Registration •Crow Canyon Road –298 Views – 41 Completed Survey AND Registered –78 Completed Survey NO Registration On-Line Survey Results •112 Total Responses – Registered on-line •23 Total Responses – Design Charrettes •135 Responses On-Line Survey Results Bollinger Canyon Results Bridge 1, 3, and 4 •Complement new City Center •Simple, modern, clean lines •Open look and feel that preserves open views to hills On-line Survey Results Crow Canyon Road Bridge 1, 3 and 11 •Minimal treatment •Simple, safe overcrossing •Warm stone and other natural elements preferred Design Charrette and On-Line Survey Results Overall Results: Online and Charrette Feedback for Both Locations •The same three bridge concepts for Crow Canyon Road scored highest, when on-line feedback and design charrette were considered together Next Steps •Seek Additional Input from Community –Parks Commission –Planning Commission –Transportation Advisory Committee –Transportation Demand Management Committee –Senior Advisory Committee –Teen Council –Economic Development Advisory committee –Open Space Committee –ARB –Sunset Development –San Ramon Chamber of Commerce –San Ramon Valley Unified School District Liaison –Mayors Breakfast Next Steps –City Council Presentation – April –Results from Community Outreach –Council - Select Three Concepts –Consultant Team Refine Cost Estimates for Three Concepts (April – May) –City Council select One-Final Concept – June –Implement Environmental Phase – PDA Grant Awarded to City to begin summer, 2015 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:Report on Stormwater Funding Submitted For: Julia R. Bueren, Public Works Director/Chief Engineer  Department:Public Works Referral No.: 6   Referral Name: CONSIDER report on Stormwater Funding and take ACTION as appropriate  Presenter: Tim Jensen, Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Contact: Tim Jensen (925)313-2390 Referral History: Staff presented a draft 2013 Status of Flood Protection Infrastructure to the Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) on October 3, 2013. Feedback was incorporated into a report that was accepted by the Board on November 5, 2013. An update entitled, “2014 Annual Report” was accepted by the Board on February 10, 2015, and referred to the TWIC. This report concludes that community outreach events were successful, capital programs made progress, and studies of aging infrastructure and unsustainable service levels continued to highlight some major concerns, primarily regarding financial sustainability. Referral Update: We found that the Flood Control District regional flood protection facilities and unincorporated community drainage facilities funding is inadequate. Historical expenditures have been capped due to limited revenue, resulting in service levels being at the bare minimum. After several years of this practice, the outcome has been poor facility conditions and an increasing backlog of deferred maintenance. The current funding level for our regional and community drainage maintenance is about $5 million per year, which is about 0.4% of our combined infrastructure value ($1.3 billion in 2010 dollars). To meet the industry standard for sustainable maintenance of 2% of infrastructure value, the funding need is about $24 million per year. When regional planning, capital improvement, and capital replacement needs are added to the maintenance need, the annual funding shortfall is approximately $83 million, as compared to the current revenue of about $11.5 million. We are now including capital replacement needs in our financial planning, because in 2029 the first regional flood protection facility reaches its expected service life of 75 years and will need replacement or major rehabilitation soon thereafter.  Historically, Flood Control District regional flood protection has not needed County General Fund support. Inadequate funding has been managed by reduced service delivery, deferred maintenance, deferred capital improvements, and loans from the Flood Control District. This is not sustainable as the Flood Control District discretionary fund is projected to be depleted in less than 10 years. Once that occurs, there is no backstop source of revenue other than County General Funds. Due to increases in community drainage maintenance costs, the need for County General Funds (provided prior to 1993) has returned. Current status and next steps: 1. Present the need for General Fund support to the County Administrator. This was completed in January and the CAO has recommended a budget allocation of $700,000 for FY 2015-16. That funding is a small part of the overall need. 2. Most flood protection, drainage, and stormwater agencies statewide suffer from inadequate funding. Proposition 13 froze tax rates at low levels, and Proposition 218 made it difficult to increase revenue. The Flood Control District has been working with the California State Association of Counties and the County Engineers Association of California on a Statewide Stormwater Funding Initiative to exempt stormwater agencies from Proposition 218 voter requirements, similar to the exemption that water and wastewater utility districts have. Support is building across the state, and legislation will be introduced in early 2015 to initiate this funding measure. We recommend that the County continue to support the legislative effort to get this funding measure into place. A presentation at the Legislative Committee was given on February 5, 2015, and they approved support. 3. The Flood Control District will continue implementation of the action plans outlined in the 2013 Annual Report. The key action for the next few years will be to focus on developing sustainable funding for regional flood protection and community drainage. 4. The effort to develop sustainable funding for regional flood protection and community drainage is presented to this Committee for consideration and feedback. A PowerPoint presentation of the funding programs and financial need will be given at the TWIC meeting.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): DIRECT staff to continue engagement with the Statewide Stormwater Funding Initiative, as well as considering other funding mechanisms, with a report back to the TWIC. Fiscal Impact (if any): 1. Annual General Fund contribution of $700,000 to fund community drainage maintenance starting in FY 2015-16. 2. Staff costs for support of legislation headed for November 2016 statewide ballot measure is estimated to be $125,000. 3. Anticipated staff costs for exploring and reporting to the TWIC and the Board on funding issues are $50,000. Attachments No file(s) attached. TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list and meeting agenda.  Referral Update: In developing transportation related legislative issues and proposals to bring forward for consideration by TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors, references the County's adopted Legislative Platforms, coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner agencies and organizations, and consults with the Committee itself. Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of this report and specific references to recommendations are underlined  in the report below.  This report includes three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2) STATE, and 3) FEDERAL: 1) LOCAL A)The 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) Update & Planning for Possible 2016 Ballot Measure: This is a standing item for the foreseeable future.  The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is in the process of developing the 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) which will be finalized and adopted in early 2015.  The planning process is expected to produce a financially unconstrained project/program list of approximately $5B. This list will ultimately be narrowed down to approximately $2.5B. At that point, a more detailed discussion regarding revenue options to pay for the proposed programs and projects will take place. The level of engagement of the County and the Board of Supervisors will vary depending on what funding option, if any, is pursued. March 2015 Update: Adoption is scheduled for the March 18th CCTA Board Meeting.  The latest draft of the CTP was recently released for review. Staff is currently reviewing the document and, given the time constraints, is requesting to bring any comments to the Board of Supervisors at their March 10, 2015 meeting.  For the Committee's reference, the latest draft is available on the Technical Coordinating Committee's February 19th agenda under Item 6: Review of Draft Final 2014 Countywide Transportation Plan :  http://ccta.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=1&event_id=272 2) STATE It is relatively early in the legislative session, but the attached document (Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015.pdf) includes a preliminary list of bills to monitor.  Mark Watts, the County's legislative advocate, will be present to provide a verbal report and has also submitted a written report which is attached, (February 2015 Sacramento Report.pdf).  2015 State Delegation (outgoing) AD 11: Jim Frazier AD 14: Susan Bonilla AD 15: Tony Thurmond (Nancy Skinner) AD 16: Catharine Baker (Joan Buchanan)  _____________________________ SD 9: Loni Hancock SD 7: Vacant (Mark DeSaulnier) 2) B) School Siting & Safety: Staff and the Board of Supervisors (BOS) have been pursuing improved school siting and safety. This effort has resulted in a number of initiatives, updates on each are below. Staff recommends continuing to work with appropriate parties to advocate for County and statewide school safety interests as outlined below. 2) B-1: School Siting Reform: A Joint Senate Informational Hearing K-12 School Facilities Program was held on February 18th. There was substantial discussion regarding school siting relative to Sustainable Communities and Greenhouse Gas Reduction. Comments from the State Allocation Board Executive Office (Bill Savidge) include an emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle safety and commenting that schools should not be driving sprawl. It is rare that these hearings include discussions about land use and transportation issues, the focus is typically on administrative and budget issues. Staff recommends immediately transmitting a letter to the Co-Chairs of the Committee (Liu and Block) with a copy to our delegation's member on the Committee, Senator Loni Hancock.The letter would communicate the concerns of the BOS for school safety and express gratitude for the Committees acknowledgement of land use and transportation issues relative to school siting.  2) B-2: School Zone Expansion: Last year Senator Anthony Cannella sponsored SB1151 which would have increased fines in school zones. The BOS supported the bill and made a friendly would have increased fines in school zones. The BOS supported the bill and made a friendly request that our school zone expansion concept be included. Cannella's staff supported the concept but for mostly administrative reasons could not include it in SB 1151. Late in 2014 we were contacted by Cannella's staff asking if they could move ahead with our school zone expansion concept. We considered the advantages with having our delegation move it forward. However, Cannella was able to move SB 1151 through the legislature with no opposition (w/the notable exception of the Governor's veto) so we opted to support his sponsorship. The County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, worked with both our delegation and Cannella's office to move the proposal forward. We anticipate a bill being introduced in the near future. 2) B-3: Increased Point Penalty in School Zones: Recognizing the Governor's opposition to increased fines, staff put together a proposal that increases the points levied against a driver's license for moving violations in school zones. The proposal mimics existing statutory language; professional-commercial drivers are held to a higher standard and points levied against their license are 1.5x the rate levied against a basic on non-commercial license. The proposal would have drivers operating in school zone also held to a higher standard. The proposal submitted to the Legislative Analyst's Office is attached, (Bill Draft Request VC points.pdf). 2) B-4: Omnibus Student/Pedestrian/Cyclist Safety Legislation: With the aforementioned safety bills, staff has been working with a coalition of other staff and advocates. A number of safety proposals look to be moving ahead in 2015. Discussion regarding packaging all the bills, informally, as a Student/Pedestrian/Cyclist Safety Omnibus Legislative Package was discussed.  2) B-5: Automated Safety Enhancement (ASE): One legislative proposal that is likely to come forward in an omnibus bill would change state policy and statutes to clearly authorize the use of radar and cameras to issue speeding tickets. The Committee should discuss this proposal given that 1) Contra Costa County potentially has gains to achieve (see walk/bike rate citation below), 2) and it may be bundled with other bills of specific interest to the BOS. Attached is an advocacy document (Automated Safety Enforcement Fact Sheet.pdf) originally drafted for a San Francisco specific bill. The document is currently being redrafted with a statewide focus. Staff recommends the following be discussed by the Committee when reviewing the ASE proposal: Contra Costa County's Bicycle Trip Rate: Research on this issue found that Contra Costa County has the lowest total trips (total = all days and all trip types) by bicycle in the Bay Area. [1 ] Considering the abundance of superior bicycle facilities and the largest number of BART stations outside Alameda County there should be an opportunity to improve on this statistic, improved speed enforcement would help in this area.  Additional Focus on Walk/Bike Encouragement: The proposal currently focuses on the prevention of injuries and death which is a worthwhile goal. Given the proposal came out of an intensely urban county that focus is even more understandable. However, in suburban areas additional focus should be added that addresses the fact that lower automobile speeds will encourage more people to walk and bike [2 ]. That isn't necessarily a primary concern in urban areas given 1) the inherently more walkable nature of the land development pattern typically results in high walk/bike rates, and 2) the substantial congestion and superior transit service, both typical in dense urban areas, also strongly encourages walking and cycling. Suburban areas don't typically have these characteristics and would benefit from both injury/fatality reduction and the resulting, effective student walking/cycling both injury/fatality reduction and the resulting, effective student walking/cycling encouragement. Increase the specificity of the proposal: Discussions on a legislative proposal contemplated blanket authorization. Staff recommends the County advocate for targeted authorization. The approach would be similar to our school zone expansion proposal which has garnered significant support, a locally conducted engineering and traffic survey would be necessary to establish the need and specific area for ASE implementation.  [1 ] Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2009, Regional Bicycle Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area. [2] U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Barriers to Children Walking to or from School United States 2004, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report September 30, 2005. These findings are also correlated at the local (CCTA SR2S Survey Data), state, national and international level.  3) FEDERAL The current extension for the primary federal surface transportation funding authorization (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century [MAP-21]) expires on May 31, 2015. On an almost daily basis there are new stories, comments and speculation from House and Senate leadership on how they plan to go about reauthorizing and funding the bill. At the time of the submission of this report there was no consensus or clear path forward. Staff will bring the most recent information to the Committee meeting for discussion.  2015 Delegation Listing Senators Diane Feinstein Barbara Boxer District Representatives Mike Thompson - 5th District Jerry NcNerney - 9th District Mark DeSaulnier - 11th District Other Bay Area Representatives Jared Huffman - 2nd District John Garamendi - 3rd District Nancy Pelosi - 12th District Barbara Lee - 13th District Eric Swalwell - 15th District Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER Report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and DIRECT staff to 1) bring final comments on the 2014 Countywide Transportation Update to the Board of Supervisors, 2) draft a letter to our State delegation regarding school siting and safety for the signature of the Chair of the Board of Supervisors, and take other ACTION as appropriate.  Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. There is no fiscal impact. Attachments Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015.pdf February 2015 Sacramento Report.pdf Bill Draft Request VC points.pdf Automated Safety Enforcement Fact Sheet.pdf Adopted Positions on Legislation of Interest – 2015 (Information Updated from Last Month is in bold/italics) Bill Status CC County ABAG BAAQMD CCTA CSAC LofC MTC Other Notes AB 2 (Alejo) Community Revitalization Authority Pending Watch AB 148 (Holden) School Facilities: General Obligation Bond Measure Pending SB 8 (Hertzberg) Taxation Pending Watch AB 4 (Linder) Vehicle Weight Fees: Transportation Bond Debt Service Pending Watch AB 6 (Wilk) Bonds: Transportation: School Facilities Pending   Watch AB 8 (Gatto) Emergency Services: Hit-and-Run Incidents Pending Watch AB 21 (Perea) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit: Scoping Plan Pending   Watch AB 23 (Patterson) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Pending   Watch AB 28 (Chu) Bicycle Safety: Rear Lights Pending   Watch AB 33 (Quirk) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Scoping Plan Pending Watch AB 157 (Levin) Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Pending Watch SB 1 (Gaines) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Pending Watch SB 5 (Vidak) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms: Exemption Pending (Wrong summary?) SB 9 (Beall) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program Pending Watch SB 16 (Beall) Department of Transportation Pending   Watch SB 32 (Pavley) California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Emissions Limit Pending Watch SB 39 (Pavley) Vehicles: High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes Pending Watch SB 40 (Gaines) Air Quality Improvement Program: Vehicle Rebates Pending Watch G:\Transportation\Legislation\2015\Positions on Legislation of Interest - 2015.docx Smith, Watts & Company, LLC. Consulting and Governmental Relations 980 Ninth Street, Suite 2000  Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 446-5508  Fax: (916) 266-4580 MEMORANDUM    TO:  John Cunningham     FROM:  Mark Watts    DATE:  February 18, 2015    SUBJECT: Legislative Report    Board of Equalization Fuel Tax Rate    Under the State‐enacted Fuel Tax Swap, the 2010/2011 legislative approach to funding Proposition 1B bond debt service  from transportation revenues, the Board of Equalization is required to annually establish a revenue neutral fuel tax rate  that equals what the older Proposition 42 Sales Tax on Fuels would have otherwise raised.    This coming week the Board has announced their intent to reduce the fuel tax rate by 7.5 cents per gallon (CPG) for the  2015‐16 fiscal year. The current excise tax rate that is subject to this annual process totals 36 CPG; the new tax rate would  be 28.5 CPG. If adopted this action would result in the elimination of $1.1 billion from state and local transportation  programs.     The table below depicts the impact of this adjustment for the coming Budget Year. The direct impact on streets and roads  is highlighted in grey.     Gas Tax Revenues  Current  Year‐CY  Budget  Year‐BY % Change  CY to  Revised BY Based on DOF projections for Caltrans 2014‐15 2015‐16  January January Revised   Estimated Gallons Purchased (billions) 14.742 14.742 14.742  Increment Tax Rate per Gallon  $0.180  $0.125  $0.105   ‐41.67%  Base Tax Rate ($)  $0.180  $0.180  $0.180  0.00%  Total Excise Tax Rate ($)  $0.360  $0.305  $0.285   ‐20.83%  Incremental Increase Needed  $0.035  $(0.055) $(0.075)  Total Excise Tax ‐ Base  $2,654  $2,654  $2,654 0.00%  Total Excise Tax ‐ Increment  $2,654  $1,836  $1,548 ‐41.68%  Increment Expenditures  Weight Fee Backfill (debt service)  $992  $1,015  $1,015 2.32%  General Fund Transfer  $118  $82  $69   ‐41.40%  STIP  $679  $325  $204   ‐69.96%  LSR  $679  $325  $204  ‐69.96%  SHOPP  $185  $89  $56   ‐69.92%  Total Expenditures  $2,654  $1,836  $1,548 ‐41.68%  2   The immediate effect of this is to reduce funding for local streets and roads (LSR) and the STIP for 2015/16 by 70%, each.  A broad‐based coalition has been formed to develop and implement a strategy to mitigate to the extent feasible this loss  of transportation revenues.     Thus far, detailed policy and fact‐finding discussions have been conducted with the leadership of the Board of  Equalization, seeking potential areas where adjustments could be made, as well as discussions with legislative leadership  and committee chairs in both houses.     Although the significant reduction in revenues for local roads is devastating, the prospect of the elimination of STIP  resources by 70% is equally alarming. Ironically, it appears that the potential need for immediate action by the CTC to  modulate STIP allocations may not yet be necessary, as the present status of overall allocation capacity will cover  expected requests in the near term.     Tolling and Managed Lanes     In contrast to the disappointing outcome last year with the failure of the Assembly Appropriations committee to approve  SB 983 (Hernandez), which would have extended indefinitely the California Transportation Commission's (CTC's) authority  to approve regional transportation agencies' applications to develop and operate high‐occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, and to  also expand the authority to include applications submitted by Caltrans, 2015 has started out in a more positive vein, with  several measures expected to be available to consider.     AB 194 (Frazier) was introduced in response to a request by the Self Help County Coalition (SHCC). Essentially, the bill  reflects the regional agencies’ approach and is modeled after the elements that were in last year’s measure. At present,  the treatment of eligible entities is under review by some counties; the bill includes a requirement that defined eligible  implementing agencies (i.e., MTC in the SF Bay Area) must consult on any proposed projects within the jurisdiction of the  local transportation agency.   SB 194 (Cannella) is a “spot bill” introduced to ensure there is a viable measure to develop in the Senate.   In addition, the Administration, pursuant to the relevant recommendation from the Secretary’s 2014 Transportation Work  Group, known as the California Transportation Infrastructure Priorities (CTIP), concluded that it was a viable time to move  forward to clarify the process for determining use of toll revenues, and streamlining the statutory process to use tolling  and pricing where appropriate. They have proposed Budget Trailer bill language (TBL) that sets forth their vision for the  state and local entities to secure authority to implement tolling or managed/express lane systems. The Self Help Counties  Coalition is working collaboratively to identity differences and similarities between the two versions.  Assembly Speaker Atkins’s Transportation funding proposal  On February 4th, Assembly Speaker Toni G. Atkins announced her proposal to increase transportation infrastructure  funding to improve safety and efficiency on California’s highways, bridges, and roads.  The Assembly plan would provide $10 billion for transportation infrastructure—$2 billion per year over the next 5 years— starting in 2015‐16, and specifically includes:  • $1 billion per year by returning truck Weight Fees to transportation instead of using them to repay general  obligation debt.                                                                    • $200 million per year for transportation funding by accelerating repayment of transportation loans.  • $800 million per year in new net funds for transportation by establishing a new “Road User Charge”.     3 Cap and Trade Project Allocations  Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP)    On February 9, the California State Transportation Agency CalSTA released their Call for Projects for the Transit and  Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) with $124.7 million in available funding. Project applications are due on April 10,  2015 and transit agencies may submit one project application per mode. CalSTA will announce project awards by June 30,  2015.    The release of the Call for Projects comes on the heels of CalSTA finalizing the guidelines for the 2015 TIRCP. Generally  speaking, CalSTA made some minor modifications to the initial guidelines, including a multi‐year commitment of funds,  clearer language regarding the eligibility of bus projects, and the ability for agencies to submit more than one project.    Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Workshops Underway    On January 30, the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) released the Notice of Funding Availability for the Affordable Housing  and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSCP). As part of the process of selecting projects, the SGC intends to review  project applications in two stages, first as concept proposals and then, if the project is selected by SGC, as full‐blown  project proposals subject to the criteria and scoring system outlined in the Final AHSCP Guidelines.  To assist applicants in developing concept proposals, SGC has held a series of technical assistance workshops that  conclude Thursday in Oakland. Additional information from the workshops can be found here. Concept proposals were  due February 19, with full project proposals due April 15.  Key Planned Legislative Hearings  Both Transportation committees have scheduled important informational hearings for the benefit of new committee  members and the public in the immediate future:  February 23:   Assembly Transportation Committee:  Basics of Transportation funding. Additionally, the Chair will investigate the Board of Equalization annual excise tax rate  adjustment process.  February 24:  Senate Transportation & Housing committee, jointly with Senate Budget Sub #2:  Funding the Transportation Maintenance Backlog.           Note: Credit for Fuel Tax Table, CSAC staff  4   Bill Draft Request    Please draft an unbacked bill as follows:    Amend Vehicle Code Section 12810.5 to add a new subdivision, as follows:    12810.5. (x) For purposes of this subdivision, each point assigned pursuant to  Section 12810 shall be valued at one and one‐half times the value otherwise  required by that section for each violation that occurs on a highway with a school  warning sign as established in Section xxxx. If a person is convicted of a second  offense within seven years, on a highway with a school warning sign, each point  assigned shall be valued at twice the value otherwise required by that section.    Note: A separate bill will add a new vehicle code section xxxx to establish new school warning signs requirements. Automated Safety Enforcement: A critical tool to achieve Vision Zero What is automated safety enforcement? • Automated safety enforcement (ASE) uses radar to measure speed and a camera to photograph and ticket speeding vehicles, similar to red light cameras.1 • ASE can be used with both fixed and mobile cameras (police vans).1 • ASE has been adopted in 75+ countries for 30+ years.2 1. San Francisco Department of Public Health. (2011). Automated Speed Enforcement – September 2011. Retrieved August 28 2014 from: http://www.sfhealthequity.org/component/jdownloads/finish/8-transportation/97-fact-sheet-on-automated-speed-enforcement/0?Itemid=62 2. Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department. (2014). DC StreetSafe: Automated Speed Enforcement. Retrieved August 28 2014 from: http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/dc-streetsafe-automated-speed-enforcement 3. Transportation Alternatives. (2013). Slowing Speeds, Saving Lives. The Case for Automated Speed Cameras in NYC. Retrieved August 28 2014 from: http://www.transalt.org/files/news/reports/slowingspeeds.pdf 4. Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department. (2014). DC StreetSafe: Automated Speed Enforcement. Retrieved August 28 2014 from: http://mpdc.dc.gov/page/automated-speed-enforcement-faq 5. AAA Foundation (2011). Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. Retrieved September 25 2014 from: www.aaafoundation.org 6. San Francisco Mayor’s Pedestrian Safety Task Force (2013). San Francisco Pedestrian Strategy. Retrieved August 28 2014 from: http://archives.sfmta.com/cms/rpedmast/documents/1-29-13PedestrianStrategy.pdf 7. City of San Francisco (2014). WalkFirst: San Francisco Pedestrian Safety Capital Improvement Program: A Step Towards Vision Zero. Available at: walkfirst.sfplanning.org Benefits of automated safety enforcement • Simply put, ASE saves lives. Numerous case studies clearly demonstrate the human benefits from ASE. • Expands enforcement capacity. Police cannot patrol all dangerous streets, at all times. ASE can double or triple traffic citations when compared with manual radar enforcement.3 • Program revenues offset cost of implementation. ASE revenues, generated from ticketing speeding offenders, make program adoption cost-free, and fees generated can be reinvested in projects to engineer safer streets.3 • The public supports ASE. According to a national survey of drivers, more than 70% were in favor of using cameras to reduce speeding and the running of red lights and stop signs.4 Why San Francisco needs automated safety enforcement now • The dangers of speed are exponential. A person hit by a vehicle traveling at 17 MPH has a 10% chance of severe or fatal injury; at 33 MPH, risk for severe and fatal injury increases 5 times.5 • Speed is a hidden killer. Speed is responsible for ten times the number of pedestrian injuries in San Francisco as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.6 • Traffic deaths are rising. San Francisco experienced a near-record high of people killed while walking or biking in 2013: 21 pedestrians and 4 bicyclists lost their lives to traffic. • Traffic deaths are a social justice issue. You are more likely to be hit and killed by a car if you are a person of color, low-income, non-English speaking, senior, or person with a disability. San Francisco’s most dangerous streets concentrate in areas that have historically lacked investment.6 • San Franciscans support ASE. A 2013 survey of over 3700 people asked the city to prioritize ASE.7 How to implement automated safety enforcement • Change state policy to allow ASE on city streets where speeding is a known cause of preventable deaths. • Station cameras along high injury corridors where speeding is a common cause of severe and fatal injuries, and in school and seniors zones with a history of traffic injuries. • Issue a fine of $35 to $200 - depending on severity of speeding - for any vehicle driving 6 MPH or more over the posted speed limit. Conduct a warning period prior to the citation period. • Process violations in a similar way as with current San Francisco parking violations. Registered vehicle owners are required to pay the fine, and no points are assessed against a drivers’ license. 8. Vance, S. (2014). Speed Camera Cut Dangerous Speeding Next to Senn Park By 73%. Streetsblog Chicago. Retrieved August 28 2014 from: http://chi.streetsblog.org/tag/speed-cameras 9. Transportation Alternatives. (2013). Slowing Speeds, Saving Lives. The Case for Automated Speed Cameras in NYC. Retrieved August 28 2014 from: http://www.transalt.org/files/news/reports/slowingspeeds.pdf 10. Health Resources in Action. (2013). Washington, DC: Automated Speed Enforcement, a Community Speed Reduction Case Study. Retrieved Augusted 28 2014 from: http://hria.org/uploads/catalogerfiles/2013-speed-reduction resources/DCCaseStudy_120313.pdf Automated Safety Enforcement Success Stories Chicago • One ASE camera placed in front of a public park and high school resulted in a 73% reduction in the number of dangerous driving behaviors.8 Washington DC10 • Following the implementation of 25 ASE cameras in 2003, the number of traffic fatalities dropped from 68 in 2003 to 19 in 2012. • A 2013 survey found that 76% of Washington DC residents support the ASE program. London • Two years after the implementation of ASE on a test corridor, the number of traffic related deaths fell from 68 to 20, and the number of serious injuries fell from 813 to 596.9 Victoria, Australia • Victoria experienced a 22% reduction in traffic collisions and a 34% reduction in fatalities over eight years of citywide ASE.9 British Colombia • BC experienced a 20% reduction in fatalities, and a 26% reduction in speeding vehicles associated with the implementation of ASE.9 Norway • ASE resulted in a 20% reduction in all traffic injuries and fatalities nationwide.9 Frequently Asked Questions: • Isn’t ASE just another way for the city to make money? The purpose of ASE is to reduce speeding and save lives. Cities across the U.S. have found that ASE generates much less revenue than predicted, by reducing the incidence of speeding. • Where does ASE revenue go? Revenue generated from fines would be used to pay for program costs; any additional revenues will be allocated for use only on Vision Zero safety improvements. • Isn’t Automated Safety Enforcement a civil injustice? San Francisco already successfully uses automated enforcement through red light cameras; the real civil injustice is the inequities in deaths and injuries among our city’s low-income communities, communities of color, and seniors. San Francisco’s streets should be designed so the consequences of individual mistakes are not fatal www.WalkSF.org 415.431.WALK (9255) TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:RECEIVE a quarterly update on the County’s IPM Program from the IPM Coordinator and take ACTION as appropriate.  Department:Health Services Referral No.: 8   Referral Name: MONITOR the implementation of Integrated Pest Management policy.  Presenter: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator Contact: Tanya Drlik, (925)335-3214 Referral History: The TWI Committee has asked the Integrated Pest Management Coordinator to update the Committee quarterly on the County's Integrated Pest Management Program. Referral Update: The IPM Coordinator will present the quarterly update to TWI Committee, (see attached reports). Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Accept Integrated Pest Management reports, and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. Attachments Memo 5 to 9-2014 Memo 2-17-15 County Staff Responses WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D. HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR RANDALL L. SAWYER DIRECTOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, California 94553-2229 Ph (925) 646-2286 Fax (925) 646-2073 • Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan • • Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers • February 17, 2014 TO: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Supervisor Andersen, Chair Supervisor Piepho, Vice Chair FROM: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator SUBJECT: Progress Report on IPM Activities PERIOD COVERED: May through September 2014 Please Note: Although the IPM Coordinator reported on IPM activities at the 2014 March and June meetings of the TWI Committee, she did not report at the September, October or November 2015 meetings because of meeting cancellations and other circumstances. 1. Staffed the May 7, July 2, and September 3, 2014 meetings of the IPM Committee (the Committee). IPM Advisory Committee On May 7, the Committee heard a presentation on anticoagulant rodenticides from Stella McMillin of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Ms. McMillin analyzes dead animals for rodenticide poisoning. She explained that it is not possible to determine when an animal was exposed to rodenticides, and that it is difficult to tease apart the effects of disease, nutrition, and pesticides. She also noted that mortalities from first generation anticoagulants (such as the diphacinone that the Agriculture Department uses for ground squirrel control in the County) are not common, though she has documented some exposure in the animals she sees. Since 2004 a total of 19 hawks and owls have been submitted from Contra Costa County to Ms. McMillin’s unit for testing. Of these, 10 were either too desiccated to test or were tested and no anticoagulant was found; the more deadly second generation anticoagulants were detected in 8 of the birds; and both a second generation anticoagulant and the first generation anticoagulant diphacinone were detected in one bird. At the July 2 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation on the current state of honeybee health from Dr. Eric Mussen of U.C. Davis, who is a world-recognized expert on honeybees. Dr. Mussen said that the current state of honeybees in California is not dreadful, but it is not good, and the past several years of drought have put considerable stress on bees. Honeybees suffer from many kinds of stress. Dr. Mussen believes that malnutrition (i.e., the loss of habitat for nectar plants from urbanization and paving over land) is perhaps the most important stressor. Honeybees are also afflicted with a number of serious parasites and diseases that weaken colonies. Colony Collapse Disorder, which has been much in the news lately, results in all the adult honeybees leaving the hive over a short period of time. The cause is still unclear, but it is probably a combination of factors. Pesticides have long been a problem for honeybees. As early as the 1800s, the lead arsenate pesticides used in agriculture were killing bees. Dr. Mussen noted that bee keepers use a number of pesticides directly in bee hives to combat parasites and disease. Currently a new class of pesticides called neonicotinoids, is under scrutiny. Dr. Mussen is not convinced that the agricultural use of neonicotinoids is causing a problem for bees. Landscape applications of these pesticides pose a far greater problem because there they are used at higher concentrations. These pesticides contaminate pollen to a degree that can be deadly to honeybees. This contamination does not last forever, and in trees and other perennial plants it decreases over time. Note that the County Grounds Division does not use any neonicotinoid pesticides. At the September 3 meeting, the Committee heard final reports from the 3 subcommittees (see #2 below), and heard updates from the Departments and the IPM Coordinator. The Committee decided to choose its 2015 work priorities at the November 2014 meeting instead of waiting until January 2015. Progress Report on IPM Activities 2 The term for the Environmental Organization seat, currently held by Scott Cashen, will end on December 31, 2014. Advertising for applicants for this seat will begin soon so that a new member can be seated in January 2015. 2. Staffed 13 subcommittee meetings (Transparency, Decision-Making, and Cost Accounting). a. The Transparency subcommittee reviewed how the County posts for pesticide use and learned about how the County responds to public records requests. b. The Decision-Making subcommittee reviewed four decision-making documents this year: artichoke thistle, Japanese knotweed, and purple starthistle from the Agriculture Department, and weed management at airports from Public Works Vegetation Management. c. The Cost Accounting subcommittee investigated the cost of a long-term transition to more sustainable landscaping around County buildings that would require less maintenance, energy and water, and minimal or no pesticide use. The committee found that the issue is quite complex and that there is no easy answer. The committee looked at the cost of converting areas of lawn to artificial turf; but decided that using artificial turf is not the answer to pesticide or maintenance issues. Artificial turf is expensive, still requires maintenance and herbicides (to kill any vegetation before it is installed and to kill weeds that grow on top of it), and the committee was concerned about the fact that it is a petroleum product and about the fate of the plastic once it is worn out. The committee learned that the Grounds Division does not use any insecticides or fungicides and does not use a large amount of herbicide on County landscapes. The largest amount of herbicide is used on the Marsh Creek Firing Range because bare ground must be maintained there to prevent fires. The committee also investigated the costs of traditional landscapes vs. native plant/drought-tolerant landscapes and found research from the City of Santa Monica that shows that native and drought tolerant landscapes use considerably less water, produce less green waste, and require much less maintenance. The committee concluded that where appropriate the County should strive for landscaping that is drought-tolerant and low maintenance. 3. Continued monitoring the work of Pestec, the County’s structural IPM contractor. Structural IPM 4. Coordinated the process for choosing the county’s structural IPM contractor. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Structural IPM Services for County buildings was published on May 16. On July 2 the County held a pre-bid conference and 10 pest control companies attended. Eight companies attended a building walk-through on July 8 to become familiar with some of the County’s properties. The companies were instructed to develop bids for the 6 representative buildings on the tour. These bids accompanied their proposals for how they would perform IPM services for the County and were due on July 22. Six companies submitted proposals, and a team that included the IPM Coordinator and representatives from Public Works Facilities and the Agriculture Department read and rated the proposals. The team chose three companies to interview. Interviews were conducted on August 5, and Pestec, the County’s current IPM provider, won the contract. 5. Arranged for and attended a workshop provided by Dr. Igor Laćan, U.C. Cooperative Extension Horticultural Advisor for the Bay Area, on managing landscapes during drought. Sixteen County staff from Public Works (administration, Special Districts, Grounds, and the Watershed Program) and two Town of Danville staff attended. Landscape IPM 6. Continued to organize bi-monthly meetings of the Contra Costa Bed Bug Task Force. Bed Bugs 7. Reviewed and commented on surveys that will be used to gather baseline information on bed bug infestations and control throughout California. This work is part of the bed bug grant that will compare “conventional” bed bug treatments with an IPM program for bed bugs in multi-family apartment buildings in Contra Costa County and in southern California. County Partners on this project include U.C. researchers, pest control companies in both Progress Report on IPM Activities 3 southern California and the Bay Area, Monument Impact (formerly the Chavez Center) in Concord, and this County’s IPM Coordinator 8. Responded to a number of calls from tenants for assistance with bed bug problems. 9. Provided a bed bug awareness talk to residents of Meadow Wood at Alamo Creek, a senior living facility in Danville, and follow-up help to individual residents and staff. 10. Accompanied Environmental Health inspectors and California Department of Public Health staff on the County’s second bed bug inspection in an apartment in Concord on July 21. 11. Advised the Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) Family Housing Program about bed bug prevention. Connected them with Target Specialty Products, which is conducting a fumigation training for pest control personnel in Richmond and is looking for a facility where they can demonstrate (for free) fumigation for bed bugs. Fumigation is an expensive control option for bed bugs and is generally only used when an infestation is extremely severe and widespread. The GRIP facility does not have a severe infestation, but fumigating the Family Housing Program quarters will let GRIP start anew and institute a strict prevention protocol to keep bed bugs out. On Friday, September 26, Target Specialty Products will meet with GRIP to view the facility and determine if it is appropriate for the fumigation. Other Projects 12. Wrote an article on the new state and federal regulations on rodenticides for Supervisor Andersen’s July eNewsletter. 13. Met with the newly hired Agricultural Commissioner, Chad Godoy. 14. Compiled pesticide use figures for County operations and began work on the IPM Annual Report. 15. Updated a document responding to various concerns from the public about the County’s IPM program (see County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public, attached). WILLIAM B. WALKER, M.D. HEALTH SERVICES DIRECTOR RANDALL L. SAWYER DIRECTOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS 4333 Pacheco Boulevard Martinez, California 94553-2229 Ph (925) 646-2286 Fax (925) 646-2073 • Contra Costa Alcohol and Other Drugs Abuse Services • Contra Costa Emergency Medical Services • Contra Costa Environmental Health • Contra Costa Health Plan • • Contra Costa Hazardous Materials Programs • Contra Costa Mental Health • Contra Costa Public Health • Contra Costa Regional Medical Center • Contra Costa Health Centers • February 17, 2015 TO: Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Supervisor Andersen, Chair Supervisor Piepho, Vice Chair r FROM: Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator SUBJECT: Progress Report on IPM Activities PERIOD COVERED: December 2014 through February 2015 IPM Advisory Committee 1. Staffed the January 14, 2015 meeting of the IPM Committee (the Committee). The Committee continued their discussion of work priorities for the year 2015 and decided to create 2 subcommittees, one on rodents and one on weeds. Since these are extremely broad topics, the subcommittees will need to discuss how to narrow their focus in their first meetings. The term for the Environmental Organization seat, which was held by Scott Cashen of Mt. Diablo Audubon, ended on December 31, 2014. The Clerk of the Board received one application for the seat from Sonce Devries of Island Watch Conservation Science. Note that during the previous recruitment for the Environmental Organization seat in 2012, the Clerk of the Board received 2 applications. Ms. Devries was interviewed by the Internal Operations Committee on December 1, 2014, and she was appointed by the full Board on December 9, 2014. Ms. Devries spent several years as the IPM Coordinator for the Fish and Wildlife Service, so she will be an asset to the IPM Committee. Structural IPM 2. Continued monitoring the work of Pestec, the County’s structural IPM contractor. Animals, mainly feral cats, have been entering crawl spaces at various Head Start facilities. Pestec has been using a hot pepper product to repel the animals. When the technicians are sure the animals are no longer entering the crawl space, the technicians have sealed all the openings where the animals were entering. Pestec has created a new report with photos for the County to alert Facilities staff to conditions that are conducive to pest entry or breeding. Bed Bugs 3. Continued to organize bi-monthly meetings of the Contra Costa Bed Bug Task Force. 4. With the assistance of Supervisor Andersen’s office, helped to distribute a bed bug management survey to apartment owners in Contra Costa County. This work is part of the bed bug grant that will compare “conventional” bed bug treatments with an IPM program for bed bugs in multi-family apartment buildings in Contra Costa County and in southern California. Partners on this project include U.C. researchers, pest control companies in both southern California and the Bay Area, Monument Impact (formerly the Chavez Center) in Concord, and this County’s IPM Coordinator. 5. Responded to 15 calls from residents asking for assistance with bed bug problems. Progress Report on IPM Activities 2 6. Participated in an EPA-sponsored webinar on bed bugs in schools and began exploring the possibilities of collaborating with EPA Region IX in San Francisco on bed bug outreach for schools in Contra Costa County. 7. Attended the 2015 Global Bed Bug Summit in Denver to learn about the latest research on bed bug biology, monitoring, and control. 8. Met with staff at the Bay Area Rescue Mission in Richmond to discuss bed bug prevention. 9. Met with County Code Enforcement, Environmental Health, County Homeless Services, and the Hazardous Materials Ombudsman to discuss bed bug and code violation issues at Love a Child Mission in Pittsburg. IPM in Contra Costa Cities 10. Continued work with the Cities of El Cerrito and San Pablo and the County Clean Water Program on guidance documents for city IPM coordinators. a. This ad hoc committee has produced 7 guidance documents on topics that include structural IPM, landscape IPM, and plant health care, and has developed model language for an IPM Policy and both structural and landscape IPM contracts. These documents will help Contra Costa County municipalities to comply with the Municipal Regional Permit to discharge stormwater. This permit mandates the use of IPM. b. The documents will be laid out in a consistent and easy to read format and collected in a notebook. They will also be available electronically. c. The ad hoc committee is planning a training session for municipal staff in April to alert them to the availability of the documents and to explain how they can be used. Other Projects 11. Met with the Alameda County IPM Coordinator to provide consultation on his IPM program. 12. Updated a document responding to various concerns from the public about the County’s IPM program (see County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public, attached). County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 1 Contra Costa County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public regarding the County Integrated Pest Management Program May February 217, 20154 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present IPM Contract Language 11/6/13-IPM 12/5/13-TWIC 2/26/14-IPM 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “the county still does not have IPM language in its contracts with pest control contractors” • 2009: the IPM Coordinator and County staff added IPM language to the contract for pest management in & around Co. buildings. The contractor emphasizes education, sanitation, and pest proofing as primary solutions. Insecticides, mainly in the form of baits, are used as a last resort. For the control of rats and mice in and around County buildings, the County only uses sanitation, education, and trapping. • Special Districts currently hires only 1 contractor for pest control. He is employed by means of a purchase order, which is not an appropriate vehicle for IPM contract language; however, o as a condition of his employment, he is required to abide by the Public Works “Landscape Design, Construction, and Maintenance Standards and Guidelines”1 o this has been explained to PfSE several times. which contain language outlining the IPM approach. This also applies to any other contractor hired by Special Districts. • Spring 2012: to reinforce the IPM standards, the Special Districts Manager sent a letter to each Special Districts’ contractor detailing the IPM approach expected of them. This is an on-going practice and any new contractors will receive the same letter to emphasize the County’s IPM principles. • On 11/28/12, Susan JunFish asked for Special Districts contracts and purchase orders; on 11/29/12 the IPM Coordinator sent her the contracts, purchase orders, and letters mentioned above that were sent out by Special Districts. • On 2/14/13, Susan JunFish asked again for copies of the letters and was sent them on 2/15/13. • The Grounds Division occasionally hires a contractor to apply pesticides that the Division does not have staff or equipment to apply itself. The IPM Coordinator considers that these contracts or purchase orders do not require IPM language because the contractor is hired for a specific pesticide application and not to perform IPM services or make any IPM decisions. In these cases the Grounds Division has already gone through the IPM decision making process and has decided the specific work ordered is appropriate. Unprofessional Behavior by County Staff 11/6/13-IPM 11/13/13-IO 12/5/13-TWIC 2/26/14-IPM 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “serious pattern of hostile and unprofessional treatment to the community by County staff” “continued name-calling, shouting, and put-downs by county staff and • Staff disagree with the assertions that staff have been hostile or unprofessional toward members of PfSE or that staff have engaged in name-calling, shouting, or put-downs in any committee meetings. However, without reference to specific incidents on specific dates, it is impossible for staff to respond in detail. • Members of the public have always had ample opportunity (within defined limits) to participate in all aspects of IPM Committee meetings. • Starting in 2014, IPM full committee and subcommittee meetings will strictly 1 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2147 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 2 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present Committee members at IPM meetings” “require staff to take training in order to learn how to work productively in public meetings” “record meetings with a camcorder” adhere to the Ground Rules adopted unanimously by the IPM Committee on May 5, 2010. The IPM Coordinator will distribute Committee Ground Rules with each agenda packet. This will make public participation more fair and prevent one or a few individuals from dominating public comment. This course of action should limit the potential opportunities for improper discourse. • Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, suggested that meetings be audio recorded (no video). The issue may be taken up at a future IPM Committee meeting. Intimidation of a member of Parents for a Safer Environment by the IPM Coordinator 2/12/14-TWIC 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “we ask that in the future, [County] staff not contact the community and pressure them to retract their public comments” On November 13, 2013, Margaret Lynwood submitted a written public comment to the Internal Operations Committee. In the comment, she stated that she had “been attending pesticide related meetings and [had] discovered a serious pattern of hostile and unprofessional treatment to the community by county staff.” Since Ms. Lynwood did not provide specific details, and the IPM coordinator had no record of her attending and did not remember seeing her in the last 4 years at any IPM Committee or subcommittee meetings, but only at TWIC and IO meetings, she contacted Ms. Lynwood by phone to understand her concerns and ask her if she felt that County Supervisors or other staff in TWIC or IO meetings had exhibited unprofessional behavior. She said, “No,” and was unable to cite a specific instance when she had witnessed such behavior. The IPM Coordinator did not ask her to retract her public comment. Use of Pre-Emergent Herbicides 11/6/13-IPM 12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “The Community wants to be assured that the Public Works Dept does not use pesticides along the Flood Control District that has [sic] residual activity before a forecasted rainstorm.” This is an issue about pre-emergent herbicides and was discussed in a subcommittee meeting on 10/29/13 and again in the Advisory Committee meeting on 11/6/13. Both meetings were attended by both Susan JunFish and Shirley Shelangoski of PfSE. The following points were made: • Pre-emergent herbicides have residual activity by design because they are meant to prevent the germination of weeds over an extended period of time, sometimes a number of weeks. • Pre-emergent herbicides are used by Public Works as part of their herbicide rotation program to prevent the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. Herbicide rotation is one of a number of best practices strongly recommended by the University of California and many other researchers to prevent herbicide resistance2 • Pre-emergent herbicides are not applied on flood control channel banks; they are used on flood control access roads above the banks. . Creating herbicide-resistant weeds is considered an extremely serious problem by weed scientists throughout the world. • Pre-emergent herbicides need irrigation or rainfall shortly after their application, typically within a few days to several weeks, to carry them shallowly into the soil where they become active. Because there is no irrigation on flood control access roads, pre-emergent herbicides must be applied prior to a rain event. • The Department follows all label requirements for the application of pre-emergent 2 2012. Norsworthy, Jason K., et al. Reducing the Risks of Herbicide Resistance: Best Management Practices and Recommendations. Weed Science 2012 Special Issue:31-62. 2000. Prather, Timothy S., J.M. DiTlmaso, and J.S. Holt. Herbicide Resistance: Definition and Management Strategies. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication #8012. 14 pp. County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 3 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present herbicides (and all other herbicides). Note that a pesticide label is law • The use of pre-emergent herbicides can reduce the total amount of herbicide needed to control weeds in the County because it takes a smaller amount of pre- emergent herbicide to control weeds in an area than it would with a post-emergent herbicide. and must be strictly followed. Use of Garlon 3A® (triclopyr) herbicide on flood control channel slopes 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “We want the Public works Department to consider the residual activity (or half-life) of pesticides prior to application. Particularly along the Flood Control District before a forecasted rain that can wash pesticides into the channels and contaminate the water that flows to the Bays” • Staff has reviewed EPA documents for triclopyr reregistraion; information on triclopyr in the Nature Conservancy’s Weed Control Methods Handbook; information on triclopyr in the Weed Science Society of America’s Herbicide Handbook; and the CA Department of Pesticide Regulation’s “Environmental Fate of Triclopyr” (January 1997); and has found that triclopyr: o Is practically non-toxic to birds, fish, and crustaceans o Is of very low toxicity to mammals and is rapidly absorbed and then rapidly excreted by the kidneys, primarily in unmetabolized form o Has an average half-life in soil of 30 days (considered short persistence) o Would have little toxicological hazard to fish and wildlife as currently used in forestry (CCC’s use is similar, although the County uses less product per acre than studies cited) o Has a low Koc, which indicates mobility in soil; however, studies show that triclopyr is only somewhat prone to lateral movement and is practically not prone to vertical movement. In addition, triclopyr is fairly immobile in the sub-surface flow. o Could be used without harm to nearby streams in forestry applications if buffer zones are used around streams and ephemeral drainage routes. • CCC Public Works Vegetation Management uses Garlon 3A as follows: o Garlon 3A is a broadleaf contact herbicide with no pre-emergent qualities. It does not kill grasses, so it is often used with Roundup (glyphosate), which does kill grasses. o Generally Garlon 3A is not used during the rainy season. o It is used on roadsides, flood control channel slopes, and flood control channel access roads. o On flood control channel slopes, Garlon 3A is sprayed down the slope no further than the toe of the slope. Flood control channels are trapezoidal in cross section, and the toe of the slope is where the slope meets the flat part of the channel. Depending on the site, the water in the channel is from 10- 50 ft. from the toe. o If there is a chance of the herbicide getting into the water, Public Works uses Renovate 3, which has the same active ingredient (triclopyr), but is labeled for aquatic use. Posting for pesticide use 11/6/13-IPM 12/5/13-TWIC 2/20/14-IPM 2/24/14-IPM 2/26/14-IPM 3/5/14-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “The county staff are still not posting when applying pesticide in parks, along hiking trails, major intersections of rights of ways, along flood control districts where many people, children and their • In 2009 the Departments developed a pesticide use posting policy. The policy does not require posting in “rights-of-way or other areas that the general public does not use for recreation or pedestrian purposes”. • The CCC posting policy, including the provision mentioned above, is consistent with, and very similar to the posting policies of Santa Clara and Marin Counties and with the City of San Francisco. • The policy was reviewed and discussed by the IPM Committee when it was first developed, and in 2012 was revised to allow web posting and allow permanent County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 4 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present 3/6/14-TWIC 4/2/14-IPM 12/4/14-TWIC 2/17/15-IPM pets frequent.” “Posting online of pesticide applications” “Posting online of pesticide use reports from each program as they are generated on a monthly basis [for fulfilling reporting requirements with the state Department of Pesticide Regulation]” Provide a list of where pesticide applications were posted for each IPM program and how many signs were used in 2013. (4/2/14) “The County’s Posting Policy states that posting is required where there is foot access by the public or where the area is used for recreation…PfSE has shown you photos of children walking along these access trails…These access roads look just like walking trails along often idyllic looking creeks that the community use on a daily basis.” (12/4/14) Concerns about pesticide posting (2/17/15) signs in certain areas. • County Departments have verified that they abide by the posting policy. • The County has been working on the online posting of pesticide applications (for the areas required by the CCC posting policy). By August 2014 the website will be live.This is currently in the hands of the Public Works Department. • Pesticide use reports that are generated for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation are provided yearly to Parents for a Safer Environment. Monthly reports are available if the public wishes to view them. • In the 5/27/14 IPM Transparency subcommittee meeting, the IPM Coordinator presented a chart with a list of pesticide application postings and the number of signs use for the 2013 calendar year. • Note that the County Posting Policy states that posting is “Not required in locations that the public does not use for recreation or pedestrian purposes” Recreation is defined as “any activity where significant physical contact with the treated area is likely to occur”. • On Pinole Creek, in the photo submitted by PfSE, the Public Works Department does not treat the access road the children are shown walking on. • Most of the County’s Flood Control access roads are within locked gates with signs saying “Property of Contra Costa. No Trespassing”. No one should be jogging or walking along these roads. • If PfSE can provide the County with information on specific access roads and specific times when people have been exposed to pesticide spraying, the County will investigate immediately Adopting an IPM ordinance 9/4/13-IPM 11/6/13-IPM 2/26/14-IPM 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): Issue of adopting an IPM ordinance for the County • In 2009, Susan JunFish proposed the need for an IPM Ordinance to the BOS. The Board directed the Committee to investigate the issue. • In 2009, County Counsel wrote an opinion recommending the use of an administrative bulletin to supplement the County’s IPM Policy. • At several meetings in 2010 and 2011, the IPM Committee studied the issue and heard presentations from PfSE and from other counties. In 2011 the Committee concluded unanimously that the County should adopt an IPM Administrative Bulletin to supplement the IPM Policy that the County adopted in 2002. In CCC an administrative bulletin serves to direct staff and carries consequences for non- compliance. • The IPM Committee found no advantage to adopting an IPM ordinance. • In April of 2013, the IPM Administrative Bulletin was adopted. • In the fall of 2013, the IPM Committee again reviewed the issue of adopting an IPM Ordinance. For the second time, the Committee saw no advantage to developing an ordinance and once again voted unanimously to recommend the continued use of the IPM Policy supplemented by the IPM Administrative Bulletin. Reporting “Bad Actor” pesticides 11/6/13-IPM From Parents for a Safer • Since FY 00-01, the County has been publishing pesticide use figures that County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 5 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present 12/5/13-TWIC 2/12/14-TWIC 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC 2/17/15-IPM Environment (PfSE): Disagreement on how the County should report “Bad Actor 3 include use figures for “Bad Actors”. ” pesticides in the IPM Annual Report • Note that all • Susan JunFish, of Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE), has been asking that additional pesticides be reported as “Bad Actors”. To resolve this issue, the IPM Committee heard presentations from Susan JunFish and held a special meeting of the Data Management subcommittee on March 25, 2013 devoted exclusively to this issue. Dr. Susan Kegley pesticides used by County operations are reported in the IPM Annual Report, regardless of the toxicity or hazards of the pesticide. At issue is the categorization of pesticides in the report, not whether all use is reported. 4 • After hearing Dr. Kegley’s presentation and discussing the issue with her and with representatives of PfSE, the subcommittee members concluded that the County should report as “Bad Actors” only those that are designated as such in the Pesticide Action Network database. was invited to speak, as requested by Susan JunFish. • June 26, 2013: The IPM Committee voted unanimously to make changes to the 2012 IPM Annual to reflect the recommendation from the Data Management subcommittee, as noted above. The IPM Coordinator continues to report pesticides as “Bad Actors” only if they are designated as such in the PAN database. 2/17/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “Use of paraquat for Aquatic Weed Control and other broad applied Bad Actor Pesticides by the Department of Agriculture.” (Particular mention of South American sponge plant in the Delta was made.) • The Agriculture Department has not used paraquat in any aquatic weed applications and does not apply herbicides to the Delta for aquatic weeds. In the past, the Department has treated purple loosestrife in County waterways that feed into the Delta, but from this point forward they will not be treating any aquatic weeds. • The State Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW) has treated various areas in the Delta for invasive aquatic weeds over the years, and in September 2012, Governor Brown signed legislation authorizing DBW to add South American sponge plant to the list of weeds they treat. • State weed science experts judged that South American sponge plant posed a serious threat to the ecosystems in California waterways. This was based on research, the biology of the plant, and the rapid rate of its spread in California. • Judicious use of herbicide to eliminate small infestations before they take over and completely clog Delta waterways is an excellent use of herbicide and will prevent huge expenditures of labor and herbicide in the future. This kind of preventive use of a pesticide to reduce the necessity to use large amounts of pesticide when the pest has built to great numbers is a recognized and legitimate IPM tactic. Providing comments on the kestrel study and rodenticides use issues 11/6/13-IPM 12/5/13-TWIC 2/20/14-IPM 2/24/14-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “We have asked the Dept of Ag and the IPM Advisory Committee to provide comments on the Kestrel study and PfSE's Draft • On 9/18/12 Susan JunFish circulated to members of the IPM Committee the abstract from the kestrel study mentioned at left. On 2/4/13, the IPM Coordinator circulated the actual research paper to all the members of the IPM Committee. • On November 22, 2013, Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner, sent a formal response to Susan JunFish regarding the kestrel study. (TWIC and the IPM 3 “Bad Actor” is a term coined by 2 advocacy groups, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and Californians for Pesticide Reform, to identify a “most toxic” set of pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of the following: known or probable carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, cholinesterase inhibitors, known groundwater contaminants, or pesticides with high acute toxicity. The pesticides designated as “Bad Actors” can be found in the PAN database on line: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ 4 Ph.D. Organic/Inorganic Chemistry; Principal and CEO, Pesticide Research Institute; former Senior Staff Scientist for Pesticide Action Network (PAN); instrumental in the development of the PAN database. County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 6 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC LD50 document in the past two years.” In conjunction with this research paper, PfSE has brought up its concern about the rodenticides used by County operations. Committee Chair and IPM Coordinator were cc’ed on this communication.) • On January 7, 2014, Vince Guise re-sent the formal response to Susan JunFish and Shirley Shelangoski. On January 16. 2014, Shirley Shelangoski confirmed having received the document. • Susan JunFish asked the Committee to comment on the study, and the formal response was provided by the Agriculture Dept. • Regarding “PfSE’s Draft LD50 document”, neither the Committee nor County staff can comment on data calculated by Susan JunFish that have no references or clear calculation methods. This was conveyed to PfSE in the Department of Agriculture’s Kestrel response letter. • Note that as part of the Department of Agriculture’s ground squirrel program, the Department surveys ground squirrel treated areas for ground squirrel carcasses (or any other carcasses). Staff rarely find dead ground squirrels above ground, which is consistent with U.C. research in the state and the experience of other agencies. Staff has never found secondary kill, such as raptors or predatory mammals, in areas the Department treats. This does not mean, nor does the County claim, that no secondary kill ever occurs in the course of the County’s treatment program. • The IPM Committee did not discuss the research paper specifically; however, the Committee and County staff took the following steps regarding the rodenticide issue: o In 2012, the Agriculture Dept. conducted an in-house trial of live-trapping of ground squirrels as a possible alternative to rodenticides treatment. See below for more detail. o At their January 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from the Agriculture Dept on the trapping study and heard a presentation from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife on secondary poisoning of raptors and other predators and the state’s efforts to restrict use of the more toxic 2nd generation anticoagulant rodenticides (CCC does not use 2nd generation anticoagulants because of their toxicity and their hazards to non-target animals that consume poisoned rodents). o At their March 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Dr. Jim Hale on wildlife issues in CCC that included discussion of the impacts of rodenticides. o At their May 2013 meeting, the Committee heard a presentation from Mt. Diablo Audubon on their campaign to curb the use of 2nd generation rodenticides. o The Agriculture and Public Works Departments jointly prepared a map of the County marking where rodenticides are used by the Agriculture Dept. This map was presented in separate meetings to Supervisors Gioia, Mitchoff, and Andersen, and to Susan JunFish & Shirley Shelangoski of PfSE. In these meetings the Agricultural Commissioner explained the Department’s ground squirrel program and the live trapping study. o The Agriculture Dept. prepared a very detailed decision making document for ground squirrel management in the County to record their decision making process and explain the complexities involved in their decisions, including biology, safety, efficacy, cost and the goals of the program. This document was discussed extensively in a subcommittee meeting and again in a regular Committee meeting. PfSE members were present and participated in the discussion. o In 2013, the Agriculture Dept revised its ground squirrel baiting methodology to make it safer for staff, to make applications more precisely targeted, and to reduce the amount of bait used each season. The amount of bait used by the County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 7 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present Department has been reduced by over 50% since 2011. Use has gone from 35,915 lbs in 2011 and 14,271 lbs in 2013. 14,271 lbs of bait is 1.4 lbs. of actual diphacinone. o In February and again in August of 2013, the IPM Coordinator investigated rodenticides use by contractors to Special Districts. She presented her findings to the Committee at the 9/4/13 meeting. o The Special Districts’ contractor has reduced his use of anticoagulant bait from 188 lbs in FY 12-13 to 88 lbs in FY 13-14. The amount of actual anticoagulant active ingredient in 88 lbs is 0.0044 lbs (0.07 oz). The contractor has increased trapping and is not using any of the more toxic and dangerous 2nd generation anticoagulants. o On 3/5/14, the IPM Committee heard an update from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on the regulations concerning 2nd generation anticoagulant rodenticides and on secondary poisoning of raptors and mammalian predators by anticoagulant rodenticides. Trapping for ground squirrels 12/5/13-TWIC 2/20/14-IPM 2/24/14-IPM 3/5/14-IPM 3/6/14-TWIC 10/9/14-TWIC 1/14/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “[PfSE] asked TWIC to instruct the Department of Agriculture and Public Works Dept to use trapping methods [for ground squirrels]” “Santa Clara spends only $25/ground squirrel trapping & removal” “Isn’t it worth the effort to learn how the other counties are doing using only trapping for ground squirrel control?” (10/9/14) “One cannot compare efficiency of our [County] staff applying rodenticides and compare that to them trapping and stacking up overtime costs during the learning curve…A good-faith comparison would have been to utilize expert trappers vs our staff applying rodenticides, and then comparing costs.” (10/9/14) “[The IPM Coordinator] states that the county would incur a charge of $16,720 per linear mile for ground squirrel control if we paid a contractor who charges $25/squirrel trapped. This is very speculative and we would like to see the county take bids from trappers and share the proposals with the Committee.” (1/14/15) • In 2012, the Agriculture Department ran an extensive, in-house ground squirrel live trapping trial to determine the feasibility of using live traps to protect critical County infrastructure from ground squirrel burrowing. o The trapping was successful in that staff were easily able to capture 152 ground squirrels in the 1,200 linear foot trial area along a County road over the 5 day trial period. o The squirrels were euthanized on site by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. o Unfortunately, squirrels from the surrounding area quickly moved into the vacant burrows. This makes trapping ineffective in areas with surrounding pressure from ground squirrels o When the Department uses rodenticide bait, the squirrels do not move back into the vacant burrows for an extended period of time. The Department surmises that because baited squirrels die mostly in their burrows, the carcasses repel any newcomers. . o The Department found that live trapping would be prohibitive. It would cost $5,074/linear mile compared to $220/linear mile using bait. The Department treats around 925 linear miles of roadway each year. o Note that along roadsides, the Department spreads bait in a 12 to 15 ft wide swath at a rate of 2 to 3 oat kernels per square foot. This treatment method takes advantage of the natural foraging habit of the ground squirrel, an animal that is highly adapted to finding individual seed kernels on the ground. o The Department verified the expense by contacting 2 pest control contractors. Using their fees per hour or per squirrel trapped, the Department estimated that the cost to use a contractor to trap ground squirrels would be between $12,524 and $16,700 per linear mile. o Note that at the $25/squirrel rate quoted by PfSE, it would cost the County $16,720/linear mile if the ground squirrel catch rate were similar to the 152 squirrels/1,200 linear feet. o One pest control contractor said he had also observed the ineffectiveness of trapping in areas with surrounding ground squirrel pressure. This is 3 times more than it cost for Agriculture Department personnel to trap over a linear mile, so using a contractor would not save money, even if this method were effective. o The Department also observed some other unexpected outcomes: County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 8 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present  Traps were checked daily, but staff found squirrels bloodied and wounded from fighting with each other or trying to chew their way out of the traps.  Traps were vandalized by the public even though large signs warned people to leave the traps alone. This exposed the public to health risks from bites and scratches and from transmissible diseases carried by ground squirrels. o In certain small areas that have a limited number of ground squirrel colonies, live trapping may be a viable alternative. • Santa Clara County Regional Parks find live trapping effective for their limited use of the method. They trap squirrels around Regional Park buildings to prevent undermining of foundations. This is a very small area compared to the hundreds of miles of roads involved in CCC. Park rangers are close by to educate the public and to observe the traps continually. This reduces vandalism and allows park personnel to have squirrels dispatched soon after they are trapped, which prevents harm to the squirrels from fighting or gnawing the cage. • In March 2006, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors directed county staff to avoid the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within county-owned properties and facilities. To address these concerns, the county hired a consultant and formed an ad hoc committee. The County developed an IPM program and as a result of a subsequent study, the ad hoc committee and the Board recommended broadcast baiting with diphacinone as the primary control method for ground squirrels. The Board approved this program in December 2006. • The CCC Agriculture Department has also evaluated kill traps but has chosen not to use that method for many reasons, including the increased risk of taking non- target animals, the risk of injury to curious children, and the expense. CCC is the only Bay Area county using rodenticides for ground squirrels 12/5/13-TWIC 10/9/14--TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “[Contra Costa is] currently the only Bay Area county to continue to use the archaic and non-specific to target pest method of rodenticides to kill grounds squirrels” “It’s great that the Agriculture Department has decreased usage of rodenticides from 36,615 pounds [of treated grain] applied two years ago to 14,391 pounds [of treated grain] applied in the most recent fiscal year. However it is still 14,301 pound [sic] more of bait applied than all Marin, San Francisco, and Santa Clara counties combined that do not use any rodenticides at all in open space.” (10/9/14) • Contra Costa County is not the only Bay Area county using rodenticide bait to manage ground squirrels. Note that CCC uses diphacinone-treated bait to protect critical infrastructure in the County from damage caused by ground squirrel burrowing. Diphacinone is a 1st generation anticoagulant that is less toxic and less persistent in animal tissues than 2nd generation anticoagulants. The Agriculture Department endeavors to maintain a relatively ground squirrel-free 100 ft buffer along various County roads (mainly in East County), along levees and railroad embankments, and around earthen dams and bridge abutments. To maintain this buffer, the Department treats a 12 to 15 ft. swath. o The Santa Clara Valley Water District uses diphacinone- and chlorophacinone-treated bait in areas similar to the sites the CCC Agriculture Department treats for the CC Water District. o Alameda County engages in a ground squirrel treatment program using diphacinone bait that is very similar to CCC. They treat roadsides and levees and Zone 7 Water District sites and use a similar amount of diphacinone- treated bait. • San Francisco City and County allows the use of bromadiolone bait (a 2nd generation anticoagulant rodenticide) at the SF Airport and by commercial lessees on city properties that are not adjacent to natural areas. Second generation anticoagulants are more toxic and more persistent in the tissues of poisoned animals than 1st generation anticoagulants, such as the diphacinone that CCC Department of Agriculture uses. Bromadiolone persists in liver tissues for 248 days compared to 90 days for diphacinone which makes sub-lethally County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 9 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present poisoned animals walking hazards for predators much longer. • Note that San Francisco allows the use of diphacinone for baiting rats in areas with high public health concerns and where trapping is infeasible. CCC uses only trapping to control rats and mice in and around County buildings. But note also that CCC is far less urbanized than San Francisco, and therefore does not have the same kind of pest pressure from rats. • Marin and Napa County Public Works Departments reported that they have nowhere near the kind of ground squirrel populations that East Contra Costa County has, and consequently, they don’t do anything about the few grounds squirrels along their roads. The County should use volunteers and free labor 12/5/13-TWIC 3/6/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): The County should use free labor programs • This could be particularly helpful around County buildings. The Grounds Manager would welcome Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE) volunteers to pull weeds at particular sites, but PfSE would first need to negotiate with the County to determine if PfSE volunteers would be permitted work on County landscaping. If the work were approved, PfSE would need to organize and supervise the volunteers. • Note that County unions have protested the use of inmate labor for jobs that could be filled by union members. The union recently won a grievance against the Sheriff’s Department regarding the use of inmate labor for grounds maintenance work. The union has filed a grievance against the fire department regarding the use of inmate labor to clear brush. The Grounds Manager does not anticipate that PfSE volunteers pulling weeds would precipitate these kinds of union actions. • In the County’s other IPM programs, using volunteers is more difficult. o “Free” labor involves considerable County resources including outreach to solicit volunteers, planning and organizing work sessions, staff time for training volunteers, transportation of volunteers, equipment for volunteers and staff time for supervision. o Almost all of the Agriculture Department’s noxious weed program involves activity on private land or on lands that are not owned or managed by the County. Use of volunteer help in these areas would involve liability for those land owners or managers. o Much of the Public Works Department’s creek and roadside vegetation management involves work in dangerous areas such as roadsides or steep and rocky slopes and requires the use of hazardous equipment such as chain saws and brush cutters. County liability for volunteers performing this kind of work would be extremely high. o The County’s structural IPM program is not suited to the use of volunteer labor. • Note that the County does use volunteers, most notably in creek restoration and clean up, for creek water quality monitoring and for outreach to the public about creek water quality and the value of healthy creeks and watersheds. Grazing has no significant impact on water quality 12/4/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “…[I]n each of the four case studies, grazing had NO significant impact on water quality. It is my • The County is aware that grazing does not have a significant impact on water quality. Economics and not water quality is the limiting factor in the vegetation management situations in the County. Public Works continues to expand its grazing program where it is most appropriate and/or cost-effective, and grazing has become a permanent tool in the County’s IPM Toolbox. County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 10 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present hope that this research can provide decision makers with confidence that managed grazing is an effective, economical and safe vegetation management tool along watercourses.” The County should expand goat grazing and competitive planting 12/5/13-TWIC 3/5/14-TWIC 2/17/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “The County should expand the competitive planting and goat grazing programs” “[One decision-making document] asserts that goat grazing costs much more than herbicide spraying, however it appears the the cost of grazing during the in- season are being compared with herbicide usage. Other case studies we are evaluating show that grazing is cost effective and even cheaper than herbicide usage.” (2/17/15) • The County Flood Control District is partnering with Restoration Trust, an Oakland-based non-profit, in a native planting experiment along Clayton Valley Drain (near Hwy 4 adjacent to Walnut Creek). The study involves planting 2 species of native sedge and 1 species of native grass. These are perennial species that stay green year round and are resistant to fire. The plants are compatible with flood control objectives because they do not have woody stems, and during flood events, they would lie down on the slope, thus reducing flow impedance. They are not sensitive to broadleaf herbicides that will be needed to control weeds at least until the plants have spread enough to outcompete weeds. County volunteers installed the first plantings on December 7, 2013 • Note that it is conceivable that herbicides may always have to be used on these plantings to prevent the area from being overrun with weeds because the surrounding weed pressure is very high. • Restoration Trust will be monitoring the test plots for the next 5 years to assess the survival of the native plants and their degree of successful competition with non-native annual species. The County will gather information over the next few years to determine whether, how, and where to expand this kind of planting. The County cannot expand this project without data on its costs and viability. • Over the last 3 years, the Public Works Department has expanded its use of goat grazing considerably. In 2012 they grazed 99 acres and in 2013 2014 they grazed 336189 acres. It is now a regular management tool for the Department. Every site the County manages differs in the ease with which goats can be used and their suitability for managing vegetation. The Department uses goats where they are appropriate and cost effective, and continues to gather data on costs and long-term effectiveness at individual sites. Cost is affected by many factors: o The size of the site—loading and unloading the animals is a fixed cost, so small sites cost more per acre than large sites o The ease of access to the site—the harder it is to get the goats into an area, the more expensive it is o The availability of water—if water must be trucked in, the cost is greater o The security of the site—the more fencing that required and the more the fences must be taken down and erected within the site both increase the cost o The time of year—because of law of supply and demand, cost is greater during the peak grazing season o The presence of endangered species—sites with endangered species and other restrictions from the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife are good candidates for grazing regardless of the cost o• Although the cost of off-season grazing is less expensive than during the peak grazing season, Public Works cannot effectively manage all the weeds that grow in the Flood Control District only with off-season grazing. Considering least-toxic alternatives before choosing pesticides 12/5/13-TWIC 2/26/14-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): • In 2012, the IPM Committee developed a form for recording IPM decisions made by the Departments. In 2013, each IPM program in the County produced at least County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 11 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present 2/17/15-IPM “Staff has still not demonstrated that for each pest control problem, least toxic alternatives were evaluated prior to choosing pesticides.” Estimates for costs of herbicide applications need to include cost of permits, tracking requirements, storage of chemicals, licensing, training, etc. “The IPM Advisory Committee has not yet reviewed several key data in the [decision-making documents] that justify using broadcast herbicide spraying along Right of Ways and rodenticide usage in open space.” (2/17/15) 1 decision-making document for a specific pest or pest management situation (the Agriculture Department produced 2 documents that year). • These documents show which least-toxic alternatives are considered and tested, which are being regularly employed, which are not, and why. • In 2013, each decision-making document was extensively reviewed by the Decision-Making subcommittee with PfSE members in attendance. • Recording the thought processes and decision-making path for each pest or pest management situation takes considerable time (approximately 40 hours of work). • In 2014, each IPM program will produce more decision-making documents, which will be reviewed by the Decision-Making subcommittee reviewed and, after numerous revisions, accepted 4 more decision-making documents. These discussions were conducted in public with members of PfSE in attendance. • In 2014, the Cost Accounting subcommittee will be gathering information on the costs of current and alternative pest management methods chose to research the costs associated with altering landscapes around County buildings to require less maintenance, less water, and less herbicide. The subcommittee concluded that this is a very worthy goal, but more complex to achieve than expected. Sites must be considered individually because one plan will not fit all, and in the midst of severe drought, it is not the time to begin replanting. The subcommittee also explored the idea of replacing lawns with artificial turf, but decided that it is not the answer except in very specific, limited situations. Artificial turf has high up- front costs, still requires maintenance, can become infested with weeds growing in soil that accumulates on top of the mat, and has environmental consequences at the end of its life, • Herbicide treatment costs reported in the 2013 IPM Annual Report included all associated costs mentioned by PfSE. When costs are compared in future documents, every effort will be made to include all related costs for both pesticides and alternatives. Excessive pesticide use in CCC 12/5/13-TWIC 2/26/14-IPM 12/4/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): Contra Costa County uses more pesticide than any other Bay Area County (or, than several Bay Area Counties combined) “lack of progress is evident in that the county has not significantly altered their use of pesticide since 2009” “The single most underlying problem I see in the IPM Program is that there is little to no leadership in guiding the County to reduce pesticides. (12/4/14) • The assertion that CCC uses more pesticide than any other Bay Area County, or other counties combined, is hard to evaluate since staff have not seen current pesticide use figures for County operations in other Bay Area Counties. • This could be researched, but would take time. It is difficult to compare counties, all of which vary greatly in their size, their budgets, their staff, their pests, their weather, and the kinds of responsibilities they choose to undertake. Staff feel that comparing pesticide use in various counties is not particularly relevant to how well Contra Costa County operations are implementing IPM. • In 2012 and 2013, the IPM Data Management subcommittee undertook to find additional metrics to evaluate the County’s IPM programs. This proved to be a difficult task, and the committee’s research did not discover any unique or innovative measures for evaluating IPM programs in other Bay Area counties, or across the U.S. • The subcommittee agreed that pesticide use data do not reveal whether the County is implementing IPM, and so in 2012, the subcommittee developed the IPM Priority Assessment Tool. This is a compilation of IPM best management practices (BMPs). The subcommittee asked the Departments to fill out the form in 2012 and 2013 and report the percentage of implementation of each of the BMPs. • It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase and decrease from year to year depending on the pest population, the weather, the invasion of new and perhaps difficult to control pests, the use of new products that contain small percentages of active ingredient, the use of chemicals that are less hazardous County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 12 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects to a department’s workload, and cuts or increases to budgets or staff that change priorities or workload. • Since FY 2000-2001, the County has reduced its pesticide use by 7760%--from 18,931 lbs of active ingredient in FY 00-01 to 4688 7494 lbs of active ingredient in FY12-13-14. • Since FY 2000-2001, each Department has been evaluating their pesticide use and researching options for eliminating or reducing pesticide use. County operations have eliminated the use of 22 of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides that they had been using. • The County’s pesticide use trend follows a trend typical of other pollution reduction programs. Early reductions are dramatic during the period when changes that are easy to make are accomplished. Once this “low-hanging fruit” has been plucked, it takes more time and effort to investigate and analyze where additional changes can be made. The County is entering this period, and if further reductions in pesticide use are to be made, it will require time for focused study and additional funding for implementation. • Note that County operations use about 2% of all the pesticide (active ingredients) that is required to be reported in the County. The total reported to the state does not include homeowner use, which researchers suspect is a considerable amount. CCC should do more IPM training and outreach to County staff and the public 12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “the County IPM Coordinator and the IPM Advisory Committee [should] provide annual IPM training and outreach programs to both county staff and the public” The County should “provide training and conferences such as those conducted by Santa Clara and San Francisco counties which train hundreds of interested participants.” • The IPM Committee is an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors and does not have a budget, nor does it have the staff or the mandate to provide outreach and training. • There is no need to duplicate San Francisco and Santa Clara’s regional IPM conferences, and it would be impossible for the IPM Coordinator to do so without staff and budget. • In 2012, the IPM Coordinator partnered with cities in CCC to provide a half-day landscape IPM training to City and County staff and will probably do so again in the future. • The IPM Coordinator has providesd extensive education in person and over the phone to County staff and Contra Costa citizens on bed bug awareness and an IPM approach to managing bed bugs. The IPM Coordinator produces educational materials on bed bugs for professionals and lay people. that Materials are housed on the Health Services bed bug website. • The Departments provide annual training to County staff that includes IPM. • County staff attend numerous trainings and conferences that include IPM training in order to stay current on pest management research and to maintain their various licenses. • The Department of Agriculture has a biologist on-call from 8 AM to 5 PM each weekday to answer questions from the public about pests and pest management. Biologists base their responses on IPM principles and on materials and resources from the U.C. Statewide IPM Program. • Every day in the course of their work, County staff from Public Works, Health Services and the Department of Agriculture engage citizens in dialog about the pest management work the County does and the IPM principles the County employs. • The Department of Agriculture provides many training sessions each year on pesticide safety, including IPM issues, to growers, farm workers, agencies, and County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 13 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present the pest control industry. • The Department of Agriculture is a member of the Egeria densa Integrated Pest Management Committee and developed the Contra Costa Delta/Discovery Bay Region Brazilian Waterweed (Egeria densa) Integrated Pest Management Plan. • The County Clean Water Program sponsors an annual Bay Friendly Landscaping training for County staff and professional landscapers throughout the county. This training includes information about IPM and about reducing inputs into and outputs from landscaping activities to prevent pollution in creeks and the Bay. • The County Clean Water Program provides support for watershed coordinators and friends of creeks groups that coordinate volunteers to conduct general outreach to the community about water quality in creeks and the value and importance of wildlife habitat, watersheds, and creek restoration. • The County Clean Water Program provides support to the Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour which educates the public about the many benefits of gardening with California native plants. • The County Clean Water Program supports the Our Water, Our World Program in Contra Costa County (a program originally developed by CC Central Sanitary District). This program provides in-store IPM education directly to consumers who are purchasing pesticides. • In 2014 the County Clean Water Program will be launching other IPM and pesticide public education programs. • The Contra Costa Master Gardener Program trains volunteers with a curriculum that includes IPM. Master Gardener volunteers are available Monday through Thursday from 9 to Noon to answer gardening and pest management questions from the public. Advice is based on materials and resources from the U.C. Statewide IPM Program. Master Gardeners also provide presentations on gardening and IPM to a broad cross section of Contra Costa citizens. • The IPM Coordinator has been working closely with the Cities of El Cerrito and San Pablo over the past 2 years to develop IPM guidance for cities on implementing IPM and to develop standard operating procedures for various pests. • The IPM Coordinator accepts many speaking engagements throughout the County and the region to provide training on IPM and especially on bed bug issues. • The IPM Coordinator and other County staff have been working closely with cities to provide guidance on the crises of bed bug infestations they are experiencing. • The IPM Coordinator is working with Code Enforcement in the City of Richmond to develop bed bug training for Code Enforcement officers throughout the state. • Every month the IPM Coordinator spends a significant number of hours talking with citizens about least-hazardous bed bug control. • The Agricultural Department represents the California Agricultural Commissioner’s and Sealer’s Association as the sitting member of the California Invasive Species Advisory Task Force. • In October 2013, County staff attended a Parents for a Safer Environment’s IPM workshop and found it informative. Parents for a Safer Environment can provide a useful community service by hosting more such workshops. • In April 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided an in-person IPM tutorial for the Grounds Division’s new spray technician. • In May 2014, the IPM Coordinator arranged an IPM workshop given by Pestec, the County’s Structural IPM Contractor, for the County’s Head Start Home Base educators. Pestec presented information on how to prevent pests in the home County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 14 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present and simple, non-toxic strategies for low income families to use to combat pest invasions. Home Base educators provide in-home education to Head Start families. • In May 2014, the Contra Costa Environmental Health Division sponsored a workshop on IPM for bed bugs for County Environmental Health Inspectors and code enforcement officers in Contra Costa municipalities. • In July 2014, the County will hosted a presentation by the U.C. Horticultural Advisor on how landscapes should be managed during drought and how to plan landscapes for what is likely to be continual droughts. County staff, both administrators and maintenance personnel, will be invited along with park personnel from the city of Danville attendedies in CCC. • In July 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided a bed bug awareness training for the residents of Meadow Wood at Alamo Creek, a senior living facility in Danville, along with subsequent consultation with individual residents and staff. • In September 2014, the IPM Coordinator provided the Greater Richmond Interfaith Program with assistance for a bed bug infestation at their Family Housing Program. • In February 2015, the IPM Coordinator met with staff at the Bay Area Rescue Mission in Richmond to discuss bed bug prevention. Violations of the Brown Act 12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “continued violations of the Brown Act including repeated disposal of original meeting minutes, repeated failure to provide public records at all or much later than 10 working day, and meeting minutes that do not accurately reflect comments made or not made by participants” • Staff always respond within 10 days to public records requests. In almost all cases staff respond within 1 to 3 days. The only reason for delay has been to find and collect documents that have been requested. • The County takes public records requests seriously and responds promptly to each one. • Hand written meeting minutes are recycled after official minutes have been typed up. Official minutes, once approved by the IPM Committee, are posted on the IPM website. • The IPM Committee approves the minutes for each meeting. The public is provided time to comment on the minutes, and as the IPM Committee sees fit, the minutes are corrected. • Staff is ready to respond to any specific instances or claims of Brown Act violations. Financial incentives to serve on the IPM Committee/Conflict of interest on the IPM Committee 12/5/13-TWIC 1/14/15 IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): The County should “discourage financial incentives of [IPM Committee] applicants by providing a minimum of a 5 year moratorium for those who serve to be eligible for receiving a county contract or any funding” “In 2009, Michael Baefsky, a community representative of the IPM Advisory Committee received a contract with the former Gerneral Services Department according to a document from Terry Mann, former Deputy Director of the • Staff disagree that there are any kinds of financial incentives to serve on the IPM Advisory Committee, but will defer to the Board of Supervisors on whether to impose such a moratorium. • Michael Baefsky was not a member of the IPM Advisory Committee when he was asked to contract with General Services to advise the County on non-chemical methods to manage weeds on the Camino Tassajara medians in 2009. His contract ended in 2009. That year he attended meetings of the IPM Task Force, an informal body with no official appointees. The IPM Advisory Committee was not created until 2010, and he was appointed by the Board to an At-Large seat in 2010. He has held no contracts with the County since 2009. • The IPM Committee bylaws state the following in sections III.B.2&3: • “Contractors who provide pest management services to the County may not serve on the Committee. The exception is A.1.d., above, the Current Structural Pest Management Contractor with General Services Department. County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 15 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present General Services Dept. After receiving that contract, Mr. Baefsky’s behavior on the Committee changed significantly.” • “If a member’s work status or residence changes, he/she must notify the Committee in writing, within thirty (30) days of their change in status. The Chair will review the change of status and determine if the member is still eligible for membership according to these by-laws. If they are found to be ineligible, the member will be asked to resign his/her position.” Monetary compensation or gifts from pesticide salespeople 12/5/13-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “We are requesting that TWIC require that all staff involved in ordering pesticides from salespersons fill out a form disclosing any monetary compensation or any other forms of gifts from pesticide salespersons” • County staff do not receive (and have not been offered) gifts or compensation in any form from pesticide salespeople or any other salespeople. Accepting gifts or compensation would be against County policy5 and would subject staff and their departments to disciplinary action. IPM Committee did not accept all of Parents for a Safer Environment’s priorities as their own 2/12/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): The IPM Committee is planning to include only 70% of PfSE’s priorities as the Committee’s priorities for 2014 • The IPM Committee devoted more than an entire meeting to the discussion of its work priorities for 2014. The public was fully involved in the discussion and PfSE provided documents and testimony detailing their own priorities. The Committee had a thorough discussion and then voted on which priorities to pursue. The IPM Committee needs a non-voting facilitator 2/12/14-TWIC From Parents for a Safer Environment: “an impartial, non-voting facilitator would make the meetings run smoother and become more viable” • Staff believe that meetings are run effectively and efficiently. • The new IPM Committee chair has been very effective at running the 2014 IPM Committee meetings and allowing the public ample opportunities to provide comment. Parents for a Safer Environment disagrees with responses to “unresolved” issues in the Triennial Review Report 11/6/13-IPM 2/12/14-TWIC 3/5/14-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment: Disagreement with the response by staff to “unresolved issues” in the Triennial Review Report for the IPM Advisory Committee • The response in dispute refers to the question in Section VIII of the Triennial Review report to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Committee: “The purpose of this section is to briefly describe any potential issues raised by advisory body members, stakeholders, or the general public that the advisory body has been unable to resolve.” • The response given to this question in the report accurately reflects the response 5 California Government Code § 1090 prevents county employees and officials from being "financially interested" in any contract made by them in their official capacity, or by anybody or board of which they are members. California Government Code § 81000 et seq., known as the Political Reform Act, requires, among other things, that certain public employees perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interest. See Cal Gov Code § 81001(b). It also prevents certain employees from using their positions to influence county decisions in which they have a financial interest. See Cal Gov Code 87100. The Act also requires certain employees and officers to file a Form 700, Statement of Economic Interests (the CCC Agricultural Commissioner, the managers in Public Works and the IPM Coordinator fill out this form) See Cal Gov Code 89503. CCC Administrative Bulletin 117.6, paragraph 6, can be read to prevent employees from accepting any gift which "is intended, or could reasonably considered as tending to influence business or applications pending before the Board of Supervisors." County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program 16 Date(s) Issue Raised to: T=TWIC IPM = IPM Committee or subcommittees IO=Internal Operations Committee Issues Raised by the Public Steps taken by the IPM Advisory Committee and County Staff from January 2009 to the present intended by the IPM Committee as agreed at their November 6, 2013 meeting. • The issue in question for the IPM Committee was whether to describe in Section VIII only issues that the Committee had been unable to resolve, or to also include a discussion of issues that PfSE felt were still unresolved. The Committee debated this and decided to also include a discussion of issues that PfSE felt were unresolved. However, it was completely clear from the discussion at the meeting that the Committee agreed that the issues described in this section (with the exception of the two that were noted as ongoing) had previously been given due consideration by the Committee, and that the Committee had addressed the issues. The Committee directed the IPM Coordinator to meet with the Committee Secretary to compile Committee and staff responses to the “unresolved” PfSE issues to include in the report and then to submit the report. • Note that in the IPM Committee’s extensive planning sessions for 2014 work, the Committee did not identify any of the “unresolved” issues as priorities for 2014. TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the Committee for 2014. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee. Referral Update: CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the Committee for 2014, and take ACTION as appropriate. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW Status Report and DIRECT staff to forward the report to the Board of Supervisors with revisions as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 2014 TWIC Report Status of Referrals DRAFT: Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2014 Page 1 of 4 g:\conservation\twic\2015\2-5-15 twic mtg\12-2014 twic items for first 2015 twic mtg\twic report - status of 2014 referrals.doc F REFERRAL STATUS 1. Review legislative matters ontransportation, water, andinfrastructure.Recommended the Board ADOPT positions of various state transportation bills as follows(Various dates):SUPPORT/SB 1151 (Cannella - School Zone Fines)SUPPORT/AB 1532 (Gatto – Vehicle Accidents)SUPPORT/AB 2398 (Levine – Vehicles: Pedestrians and Bicyclists)SUPPORT/AB 1811 (Buchanan – HOV Lanes)OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED/AB 2173 (Bradford – Motorized Bicycles)WATCH/SB1183 (DeSaulnier – Surcharge For Bicycle Infrastructure)Recommended the Board ADOPT positions of various federal transportation bills as follows(Various dates):SUPPORT/HR 3494 The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety ActSUPPORT/SB 1708 The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety ActAuthorized staff to develop and submit a school zone safety legislative proposal to CSAC incoordination with the Legislation Committee and CCTA.Authorized letters to the California School Boards Association regarding site selection for newschools and school safety. 1/12/14Received progress reports from the County’s legislative advocate regarding the Governor’s budget, fuel taxes and upcoming grant opportunities.Directed staff to work with Legislation Committee staff, Public Works staff, and CCTA staff, tocoordinate a visit from our federal legislative advocate.Received progress reports from the County’s legislative advocate regarding Iron Horse Corridortitle & related obligations approving meetings with state officials on the same topic. Various DatesRelative to the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) the Committee: 1)approved the document, 2) directed staff to bring the document to the BOS and set a hearing date,and 3) confirmed that the CRIPP should continue to be brought to TWIC as an ongoing practice.3/6/14Worked with Legislative Committee staff and the Chair of the BOS to assist MTC in appealing toour federal delegation to address the impending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. 3/6/14 DRAFT: Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2014 Page 2 of 4 g:\conservation\twic\2015\2-5-15 twic mtg\12-2014 twic items for first 2015 twic mtg\twic report - status of 2014 referrals.doc REFERRAL STATUS 2. Review applications for transportation,water and infrastructure-related grantsto be prepared by the Public Worksand Conservation & DevelopmentDepartments.ACCEPTED reports and provided direction and recommendations on transportation and planningprojects to be funded by various funding sources. Various dates including 5/1/14 (ATP).ACCEPTED report on Appian Way Alternatives Analysis/Complete Streets Study, directed staff toconduct outreach to the MAC, report to the BOS, and report back to the Committee by the end ofthe year. 6/5/14ACCEPTED report on the Olympic Corridor Trail Connector Study (Funded by CCTA – TLC Grant)and provided comments and direction to staff. 8/7/14See Item #14.3. Monitor the Contra CostaTransportation Authority (CCTA)including efforts to implementMeasure J.Received reports on the CCTA update to the Countywide Transportation Plan & forwardedcomments to the BOS for transmittal to CCTA. Ongoing Task/Various dates, letter authorized at10/21/14 BOS Meeting.4. Monitor EBMUD and CCWD projectsand activities.No items were brought to the Committee in 2014.5. Review issues associated with thehealth of the San Francisco Bay andDelta, including but not limited toDelta levees, flood control, dredging,drought planning, habitatconservation, development of anordinance regarding single-use plasticbags and polystyrene, and waterquality, supply and reliability.Received reports from staff on the Long Term Trash Management Plan and directed further outreach, research, consultation with the Committee, meet and consult with individual BOS members, meet with appropriate MACs, write a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board (stating concerns, achievements, and next steps of the County), monitor and determine necessary County action relative to the RecycleMore initiative, work with CCTA to broadcast presentation, implement coordinated program ensuring correct size and frequency of garbage service to all residences, multi-family units, and businesses, increase frequency of street sweeping inhigh/moderate trash rate areas, and other initiatives. 3/6/14, 6/5/14, 10/9/146. Review issues associated with Countyflood control facilities.No items were brought to the Committee in 2014.7. Monitor creek and watershed issuesand seek funding for improvementprojects related to these issues.No direct items were brought to the Committee in 2014, related initiatives were brought under item#5.8. Monitor implementation of theIntegrated Pest Management (IPM)Policy.Received reports on IPM program, and directed staff to respond to constituent concerns, work withCCTV to air best practices and bedbug control methods, etc. 3/6/14, 6/5/14, 12/4/14The Committee received testimony from members of the public, provided that testimony to IPMstaff and collaborated on responses. Various Dates DRAFT: Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2014 Page 3 of 4 g:\conservation\twic\2015\2-5-15 twic mtg\12-2014 twic items for first 2015 twic mtg\twic report - status of 2014 referrals.doc REFERRAL STATUS 9.Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues including, but not limited to, transfer of some County park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants.No items were brought to the Committee in 2014.10. Monitor the East Contra Costa CountyHabitat Conservation Plan.No items were brought to the Committee in 2014.11. Review the ability to revise the Countydesign standards for residentialstreets to address traffic calming andneighborhood livability issues whenthese roads are built.No items were brought to the Committee in 2014.12. Monitor and report on theUnderground Utilities Program.Related items covered in #15 – Iron Horse Corridor.13. Monitor implementation of Letter ofUnderstanding with PG&E formaintenance of PG&E streetlights inContra Costa County.Received report on status of coordination between Cities, County and PG & E for streetlightmaintenance, and authorized staff request for CSA L-100 funds for LED installation, directedfurther coordination with city peers and the District Attorney (re: targeting of metal theft). 10/9/14,12/4/1414. Freight transportation issues,including but not limited to potentialincreases in rail traffic such as thatproposed by the Port of Oakland andother possible service increases,safety of freight trains, rail corridors,and trucks that transport hazardousmaterials, the planned truck route forNorth Richmond; and the deepeningof the San Francisco-to-Stockton ShipChannel.Received report on Pedestrian-Rail Safety Issues and directed staff to pursue Operation LifesaverGrant in the next cycle, search for and pursue any other promising grant (technology, suicideprevention), coordinate with CCTV, and approach refineries for assistance with funding with thenexus being the increase in rail transport. 10/9/1415. Monitor the Iron Horse CorridorManagement Program.Received communication from the Office of the State Fire Marshall (OFSM) re: pipeline safety,directed staff to report back when OSFM completed their review of Kinder Morgan’s Integritymanagement Program. 6/5/14Received report from OSFM on the Kinder Morgan Integrity Management Plan directing staff tobring the report to the full BOS and directed Health Services Staff obtain the After-Action Report DRAFT: Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2014 Page 4 of 4 g:\conservation\twic\2015\2-5-15 twic mtg\12-2014 twic items for first 2015 twic mtg\twic report - status of 2014 referrals.doc REFERRAL STATUS on the 2004 S. Broadway Kinder Morgan pipeline explosion. 2/12/14  16. Monitor and report on the eBARTProject.No items were brought to the Committee in 2014.17. Review transportation plans andservices for specific populations,including but not limited to CountyLow Income Transportation ActionPlan, Coordinated Human ServicesTransportation Plan for the Bay Area,Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay PointCommunity Based TransportationPlan, Contra Costa County MobilityManagement Plan, and the work ofContra Costans for Every Generation.The Committee received a report from Contra Costa Transportation Authority Staff (Peter Engel)and County Connection Staff (Rick Ramacier) and directed staff to communicate a position on themobility management plan to CCTA. 2/12/1418.Monitor issues of interest in theprovision of general transportationservices, including but not limited topublic transportation and taxicabservices.Received report on proposed implementation framework responsive to prior Committee directionand State taxicab legislation from CAO staff and input from the Treasurer-Tax Collector, Sheriff’sDepartment, and County Counsel. 9/5/1319. Monitor the statewide infrastructurebond programs.Miscellaneous infrastructure financing and bond bills were brought to the Committee underReferral #1. TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 11. Meeting Date:03/02/2015   Subject:CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2015. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A   Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7833 Referral History: This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee.  Referral Update: CONSIDER Recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2015, and take ACTION as appropriate. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW recommended referrals to the Committee and DIRECT staff to forward the recommendations to the Board of Supervisors with revisions as appropriate.  Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 2015 Referrals to the TWI Committee g:\conservation\twic\2015\twic referrals draft 2015.doc DRAFT 2015 Referrals to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (For consideration by TWIC at their March 2, 2015 meeting) 1. Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure. 2. Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development Departments. 3. Monitor the Contra Costa Transportation Authority including efforts to implement Measure J. 4. Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District projects and activities. 5. Review issues associated with the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including but not limited to Delta levees, flood control, dredging, drought planning, habitat conservation, development of an ordinance regarding single-use plastic bags and polystyrene, and water quality, supply and reliability. 6. Review issues associated with County flood control facilities. 7. Monitor creek and watershed issues and seek funding for improvement projects related to these issues. 8. Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management policy. 9. Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues including, but not limited to, transfer of some County park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants and expenditure plan. 10. Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. 11. Review the ability to revise the County design standards for residential streets to address traffic calming and neighborhood livability issues when these roads are built. 12. Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program. 13. Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa. 14. Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases in rail traffic such as that proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible service increases, safety of freight trains, rail corridors, and trucks that transport hazardous materials, the planned truck route for North Richmond; and the deepening of the San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel. 15. Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program. 16. Monitor and report on the eBART Project. 17. Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including but not limited to County Low Income Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area, Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay Point Community Based Transportation Plan, Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan, and the work of Contra Costans for Every Generation. 18. Monitor issues of interest in the provision of general transportation services, including but not limited to public transportation and taxicab services. 19. Monitor the statewide infrastructure bond programs.