HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 12082016 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE
December 8, 2016
NOTE: TIME CHANGED TO **2:00 P.M.**
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, 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 November 10, 2016, 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.AUTHORIZE staff to submit project applications to the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) for the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG),
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC), and Pedestrian Bicycle and Trail
Facilities (PBTF) Funding Programs. (Mary Halle, Department of Public Works)
6.RECEIVE yearly update on the County’s IPM Program from the IPM
Coordinator, receive report on status of public comment/concerns and take
ACTION as appropriate. (Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator, Department of Public
Works)
7.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham,
Department of Conservation and Development)
8.CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the Committee
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 1 of 174
8.CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the Committee
for 2016, and take ACTION as appropriate. The attached table describes progress
made on referrals in 2016, (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and
Development).
9.The next meeting is TBA.
10.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 96 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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 2 of 174
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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 3 of 174
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:12/08/2016
Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.
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:
Staff will review any items related to the conduct of Committee business.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 4 of 174
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:12/08/2016
Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for November 10, 2016, Transportation,
Water and Infrastructure Meeting.
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:
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: http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the October 13, 2016,
Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
N/A
Attachments
11-10-16 TWIC Mtg Record
11-10-16 TWIC Sign-In Sheet
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 5 of 174
D R A F T
TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
November 10, 2016
1:00 P.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Candace Andersen, Vice Chair
Attendees: John Kopchik, DCD
Jason Chen, PWD
Ryan Hernandez, DCD
Carol Mahoney, Zone 7 Water Agency
Jody London, DCD
John Cunningham, DCD/Committee Staff
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.CONSIDER Administrative items and Take ACTION as appropriate.
4.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the October 13, 2016, Committee Meeting
with any necessary corrections.
The Committee unanimously approved the meeting record.
5.CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as
appropriate.
The Committee unanimously accepted the report, and further directed staff to bring additional gas tax
background information in support of the SB X 1-1 and AB X 1-26 discussion at the November 15th BOS
meeting, and to copy the East County City Managers on communication regarding school siting issues.
6.RECEIVE report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation
Plan, DIRECT staff to bring the report to the full Board of Supervisors.
The Committee unanimously accepted the report and directed staff to bring the report to the full Board of
Supervisors as a discussion item.
7.RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors AUTHORIZE the Director of the Department of Conservation and
Development, or designee, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding designating Zone 7 of the Alameda
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency under
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act for the portion of the Livermore-Amador Valley Groundwater
Basin (No. 2-10) that lies within Contra Costa County.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 6 of 174
The Committee unanimously approved the staff recommendation, and further directed staff to provide a
report to TWIC on Zone 7 activities related to the sustainable management of the Livermore Valley
groundwater basin at least once every two years.
8.RECEIVE this status report on the street light coordination survey.
The Committee unanimously accepted the report and directed staff to bring the report, including the change
in meeting schedule, to the full BOS on consent.
9.RECEIVE this status report on the street light coordination effort between Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E), the County Public Works Department (County), and Cities for street light maintenance and provide
direction as appropriate.
The Committee unanimously accepted the report and directed staff to bring the report to the full BOS on
consent in conjunction with Item 8.
10.RECEIVE communication and DIRECT staff as appropriate.
11.Adjourn to next meeting date, currently scheduled for **PLEASE NOTE DIFFERENT TIME
SCHEDULED FOR NEXT TWIC MEETING**, Thursday, December 8, 2016, at **2:00**p.m.
12.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 96 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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 7 of 174
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 8 of 174
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:12/08/2016
Subject:AUTHORIZE staff to submit project applications to the CCTA for the
OBAG, TLC and PBTF Funding Programs.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 2
Referral Name: Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be
prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development
Departments.
Presenter: Mary Halle, Department of Public
Works
Contact: Mary Halle
(925)313-2327
Referral History:
In 2013, the committee authorized submittal of applications to the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) for the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), Transportation for Livable
Communities (TLC), and Pedestrian Bicycle and Trail Facilities (PBTF) Funding Programs.
Similar to the previous cycle, the Public Works Department (PWD) provides the following staff
report with recommendations for candidate projects and requests authorization to submit these
applications to compete for funding.
Referral Update:
Staff was very successful in the previous cycle of these programs, resulting in total awards of
$5,642,300 to Contra Costa: $2,377,000 through OBAG, $2,845,000 through TLC, and $420,300
through PBTF. Together these programs provided funds for the following projects: 2015
Countywide Overlay Project, Port Chicago Highway/Willow Pass Road Pedestrian and Bicycle
Improvement Project, San Pablo Dam Road Walkability Project, Stone Valley Road Bike Lane
Gap Closure Project, Pacheco Boulevard II Sidewalk Gap Closure Project, and planning
documents for the Treat/I-680 Overcrossing and the SR4/Bailey Road Interchange Pedestrian &
Bicycle Improvement Project. The planning studies for the SR4/Bailey Road Interchange Project
yielded a greater result as the PBTF funded study resulted in a shovel ready project that was
awarded $4.1 Million last year through the Active Transportation Program (ATP).
CCTA decided to release the Call for Projects for these three programs (OBAG/TLC/PBTF)
combined in a consolidated effort with a common application. The competitive rating criteria for
each of these programs are as follows:
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 9 of 174
OBAG Rating Criteria:
Jurisdictions are rewarded who take on significant housing growth, including Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) published through California Department of Housing
and Community Development.
Project located within a Priority Development Area.
Project located within a Community of Concern.
Agency preserves and promotes affordable housing.
The Project will remedy a safety concern and protect public health.
The Project has the potential to reduce reliance on motor vehicles and promote growth to
become more compact in urban centers near transit.
The Project is consistent with the Air District’s Planning Healthy Places strategy.
The Project promotes Complete Streets.
TLC Rating Criteria:
Create walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and business districts.
Promote innovative solutions including compact building design and context sensitive site
planning.
Create a pedestrian friendly access link between housing, jobs, and transit.
Create affordable housing.
Encourage mixed use in community development.
Provide a variety of mode choices.
PBTF Rating Criteria:
Construct pedestrian and bicycle facilities including trails.
Competitive projects must also demonstrate the ability to deliver the project within the required
time constraints and if awarded must commit necessary matching funds. Grant applications are
due to CCTA on December 9, 2016.
RECOMMENDED CANDIDATE PROJECTS
In March of this year, Public Works Staff reached out to the Chief of Staff for each of the five
supervisorial districts, requesting project ideas for grant programs for the coming year. These
suggested projects along with community feedback were considered based upon the scoring and
eligibility criteria identified above. The most competitive projects are recommended to be
submitted for grant funding, and are listed below:
OBAG AWARDS BY FORMULA
Local Streets & Roads Preservation (LSRP) - Each jurisdiction in the County is allocated an
award through LSRP provided the agency complies with the screening criteria and can commit the minimum
local matching funds of 11.47% for roadway maintenance projects. The intended use of funds is to maintain
an acceptable average Pavement Condition Index throughout the County which in turn saves funds by
prolonging the life of roadway pavement and avoiding the need for full pavement reconstruction. Due to the
high number of road miles in unincorporated Contra Costa, our jurisdiction has been slated for an allocation
of LSRP funds of approximately $4,300,000 (Requiring local matching funds of approximately $560,000).
The slated projects for the potential road maintenance funds include a micro-surface treatment for El Portal
and Vasco Roads with a pavement overlay for San Pablo Dam Road.
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) - Similar to the LSRP award, the FAS funds have been designated for
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 10 of 174
Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) - Similar to the LSRP award, the FAS funds have been designated for
roadway maintenance projects, specifically for rural roadways within Contra Costa County. Provided Contra
Costa meets the screening criteria and commits the required 11.47% local matching funds, the award by
formula will be approximately $1,300,000 (Requiring local matching funds of approximately $170,000). The
slated project for the potential road maintenance funds is an open grade overlay for Kirker Pass Road.
OBAG COMPETITIVE AWARDS
The competitive portion of the OBAG awards is restricted to one project per each city and two for
unincorporated Contra Costa County. The minimum award is $400,000 and maximum is
$4,500,000. The recommended candidate projects have been determined to be the most
competitive respective to the scoring criteria and have been actively vetted through community
outreach.
Fred Jackson First Mile/Last Mile Connection Project - Fred Jackson Way First Mile/Last Mile
Pedestrian Connection Project will remove barriers to pedestrians and provide access to affordable housing,
transit, schools, employment, shopping, regional trails, senior center, and community facilities. The existing
sidewalks in this area of North Richmond represent barriers to mobility impaired users as the sidewalk width
is only three feet with utility poles located in the middle of the sidewalk. The proposed First Mile/Last Mile
Pedestrian Connection Project will eliminate this barrier and utilize excess vehicle lane width and parking
width to narrow the road and expand the sidewalks to eight feet wide. The widening of sidewalks on Fred
Jackson Way will extend approximately 1,400 feet from Grove Street to the Wildcat Creek Trail. The project
will also include construction of a new pedestrian path an additional 1,400 feet north of Wildcat Creek to
connect to the proposed Urban Tilth Farm which is scheduled to begin construction in 2017.
Urban Tilth is an Organic Farm to Table non-profit organization which trains and employs local youth in
organic farming techniques. Extension of the bicycle and pedestrian Improvements to Brookside Drive will
help residents commute to work at the farm or travel a short distance to purchase fresh produce. It will also
provide the arterial infrastructure that will encourage future growth in this industrial area that is currently
underutilized. North Richmond is identified as a Community of Concern and a Priority Development Area.
The proposed project will provide residents with improved access to safely walk their first mile and last mile
of their commute.
The project cost is estimated at $4,400,000 with a local match minimum of approximately $505,000. The
consolidated application form through CCTA will allow this project to apply for all three programs
(OBAG/TLC/PBTF) through simply checking a box to verify the project is eligible for all three funding
programs.
Bailey Road Complete Streets Project - The Bailey Road Complete Streets Project will create a
complete street corridor within a Priority Development Area and a Community of Concern that will improve
pedestrian safety and accessibility to the Bay Point BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Station as well as to all
core destinations within the community. The project improvements include narrowing the travel lanes in
order to provider wider sidewalks and buffered bike lanes as well as wayfinding signage, bus shelters, and
other streetscape improvements.
The proposed project is an implementation of the Bailey Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, approved by the
Board of Supervisors in 2010. Other phases of this ultimate vision are currently moving forward such as the
SR4/Bailey Road Interchange Pedestrian & Bicycle Improvement Project and Utility Underground District 31.
The project cost is estimated at $4,000,000 with a local match required of approximately $460,000.
TLC & PBTF CANDIDATE PROJECTS
TLC and PBTF programs do not require local matching funds; however, these programs do not
cover the cost of staff time; thus, local matching funds will be required to prepare the
environmental documentation, design, oversight, and administration of the projects. It is possible
that a project awarded OBAG funds could also be awarded TLC or PBTF funds which could
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 11 of 174
reduce the local matching funds required, but would not fully fund the project through grant
dollars. Projects with considerable leverage of local funds tend to compete better for funding.
Appian Way Complete Streets Project - WCCTAC Region, (West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee). Staff has worked with the El Sobrante community and City of Pinole staff on planning
studies for Appian Way. Staff is currently developing the complete streets concept for Appian Way that was
first identified in a study conducted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in collaboration
with the County and the City of Pinole. This study was approved by the Board of Supervisors in December
of 2013 which included adoption of the Complete Streets Alternative as the preferred alternative. This
planning study was an initial step towards implementation of the El Sobrante General Plan Amendment.
Preliminary layouts have been prepared to identify the scope and location of proposed bicycle and pedestrian
improvements on Appian Way. The plans were presented at two public workshops and to the El Sobrante
Municipal Advisory Council. During the most recent workshop, community members identified a priority for
improvements at the intersection of Appian Way at Valley View Road. The project will include installation
of a roundabout at the intersection of Appian Way and Valley View Road. Consistent with complete streets
policies, this project would assure that the transportation corridor is accessible for all modes and all users
with an emphasis on a pedestrian friendly environment that complies with Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) access standards. This project is located adjacent to a Priority Development Area. Staff will continue
to work with the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council in moving these planning efforts forward. The
project cost is estimated at $4,000,000 with requested funds at $3,600,000.
Rodeo Waterfront Infrastructure Project - WCCTAC Region, (West Contra Costa Transportation
Advisory Committee). The Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project proposes to improve pedestrian
infrastructure in the downtown Rodeo area between the Rodeo Creek trailhead on Investment Street, along
Pacific Avenue from Parker Avenue to the existing Lone Tree Point trail entrance at San Pablo Avenue and
future Bay Trail connection.
This project will install concrete sidewalks and ADA compliant curb ramps in various locations along Pacific
Avenue and Investment Street in the unincorporated community of Rodeo. A new ADA ramp will be
constructed at the end of Investment Street to provide access to Rodeo Creek Trail. The project also includes
reconfiguration of the Pacific Avenue/Rodeo Avenue/2nd Street intersection to install a raised curb area to
close a segment of the intersection to vehicles and create an area for storm water treatment. Wayfinding signs
will also be installed to direct visitors and residents around downtown Rodeo and identify destinations and
landmarks. The project cost is estimated at $1,200,000; however, the underfunded portion is approximately
$470,000 which is the requested funding amount through TLC/PBTF.
Pacheco Boulevard Pedestrian Bridge/culvert extension east of Las Juntas Elementary -
TRANSPAC Region (Transportation Partnership and Cooperation). This segment of Pacheco Boulevard is
the last remaining gap in pedestrian facilities along the unincorporated portion of Pacheco Boulevard, west of
Arthur Road. School administrators and the parent community at Las Juntas Elementary School requested
this improvement as a safety measure and have been enthusiastically supporting it through letter writing,
petitions, and media news stories. Currently, the sidewalk and road shoulder on Pacheco Boulevard
terminates on each side of Vine Hill Creek, leaving a sidewalk gap of approximately 60 feet. Students must
walk on the narrow road shoulder adjacent to high volume vehicle and truck traffic. The project will require
several permits from various state and federal regulatory agencies in order to allow work in the streambed to
extend the culvert.
The project will be shovel ready by the time awards are announced. The estimated project cost is
approximately $1,200,000 with an underfunded portion of approximately $700,000 which is the requested
funding with this application.
Study of the Iron Horse Trail Bike Express Route - SWAT & TRANSPAC Regions (Southwest
Area Transportation Committee & Transportation Partnership and Cooperation). A planning study is
proposed to outline opportunities and constraints related to adding an express bikeway within the Iron Horse
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 12 of 174
Corridor but separate from the pedestrians and recreational bicyclists. This concept has the potential to make
commuting via bicycle much more attractive. The first step is to study the feasibility of this infrastructure
element and also assess alternatives and costs. Staff has contacted city jurisdictions from Concord to San
Ramon as well as the Park District and has received letters of support from all of the jurisdictions to move
forward with a study of project feasibility. The cost of the planning study is estimated at $300,000 with
requested funds at $270,000.
NEXT STEPS:
If authorized to proceed, staff will submit the recommended projects to CCTA for potential
funding. Applications are due to CCTA on December 9, 2016.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
ACCEPT staff report and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, on behalf of the County, to
submit to CCTA grant applications for the OBAG/TLC/PBTF programs.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The fiscal impact of this grant program is substantial as the County is slated to receive a
minimum of $5.6 M for much needed roadway maintenance that will continue to save local funds
by prolonging the life of the road pavement. Depending on the outcome of the competitive portion
of these programs, the $5.6 M could grow to over $10 M. These grant funds would require a
minimum contribution of $730,000 from local road funds or up to $2,000,000 depending on
whether Contra Costa projects are selected for any of the competitive funding categories.
Although these projects may require a substantial County investment at a time when local road
funds are limited, these grant funds represent the potential to augment local road funds to provide
quadruple the investment in our infrastructure. This funding cycle extends until 2022 which
means these opportunities will not be available again until 2022. It is the hope of staff that State
Legislature and local officials will be able to resolve the local road funding crisis in the coming
year which will bring local agencies the matching funds required to capitalize on the sizeable
state and federal funds available.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 13 of 174
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:12/08/2016
Subject:RECEIVE yearly update on County’s IPM Program from IPM Coordinator,
receive report on status of public comment/concerns & take ACTION as
appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 8
Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the 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 yearly on the County's integrated pest management program.
Referral Update:
The IPM Coordinator will present the IPM Annual Report to TWI (see attached annual report and
report on public concerns).
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECEIVE report on Integrated Pest Management, and take ACTION as appropriate.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
None.
Attachments
A. 2016-11-22 IPM Annual Report
B. 2000-2016 CCC Pesticide Use Chart 11-22-16
C. 2016-11-22 County Staff Responses to PfSE Concerns
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 14 of 174
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee
2016 Annual IPM Program Status Report
to the
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
History of the IPM Advisory Committee ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Background on the IPM Advisory Committee .......................................................................................................................... 4
IPM Advisory Committee Priorities for 2016 ............................................................................................................................. 4
2016 Accomplishments of the IPM Advisory Committee and the IPM Coordinator ............................................. 5
2016 Department IPM Program Highlights and Challenges ............................................................................................ 9
Pesticide Use by Contra Costa County Operations ............................................................................................................ 28
Departmental Integrated Pest Management Priorities For 2017.................................................................................. 32
Attachment A. Report of the Decision-Making Subcommittee. ..................................................................................... 35
Attachment B. Report of the Bed Bug Subcommittee. ...................................................................................................... 49
Attachment C. Pesticide Use Reporting ................................................................................................................................... 54
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 15 of 174
Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee
2017 Annual IPM Program Status Report
to the
Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors
Executive Summary
Work of the IPM Advisory Committee
This year, the IPM Advisory Committee explored how vertebrate pests are managed in the County and considered
how to educate citizens about bed bug issues.
In 2012, the Committee developed a form for documenting pest management decisions. Since then, the
Departments have been using this form to systematically document management decisions for the pests they work
with. This year, the Public Works Special Districts Division developed a document for the management of rats in
Livorna Park. Together, Special Districts and the Grounds Division created a document for the management of
gophers in Special Districts and in County landscaping.
The IPM Committee followed the progress of California Assembly Bill 551, which prescribes the duties of
landlords and tenants in the event of a bed bug infestation. The bill was signed into law by the governor in the
fall. The Committee also reviewed and made recommendations on enhancing the County’s bed bug web site and
the educational materials housed there.
Pesticide Use Reduction by County Operations
Since FY 00-01, County operations have reduced their pesticide use by 73%. During the same time period, they
have reduced their use of “Bad Actor” pesticides by 88%.
Departmental IPM Programs
The Department of Agriculture continues to concentrate its invasive weed program on contracted work for
parkland and municipalities within the County.
A new species, the three-lined cockroach, has been invading County buildings. Although this cockroach was
identified from the County in 2009, it is only this year that it has begun invading buildings. Unlike other
cockroaches, this species does not seem to feed on human food and garbage. This makes controlling the three-
lined cockroach with baits very difficult because it is not interested in the food attractants in the currently
available cockroach baits. The County is exploring other tactics to reduce this pest.
Because of the drought, Argentine ants were a particular problem for the Facilities Division. The lack of food and
water outdoors forced ants inside in large numbers. Pestec, the County’s structural IPM Contractor, used baits
coupled with education for County staff to combat the ant invasions.
The Grounds Division began installing “smart controllers” for irrigation systems in County landscaping to better
manage water use during the continued drought. The Division also applied for a grant to purchase zero-emission
cordless landscape maintenance equipment.
The Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division continues to incorporate grazing into its vegetation
management program. This fiscal year the Division used goats to abate weeds on approximately 314 acres.
Drought conditions continue to select for weedier and more difficult to control species along the roads and flood
control channels. The extremely dry soil conditions have prevented the growth of some weeds, and without
competition, the hardier weeds have more room and freedom to grow.
The Public Works Department worked with Boy Scouts to install an owl box in Livorna Park. The County no
longer uses rodenticide to control rats in the park, and the Scouts distributed handouts to neighbors to inform them
of the installation and warn of the danger that anticoagulant rodenticides pose to owls.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 16 of 174
History of the IPM Advisory Committee
From 2002 to 2009, an informal IPM Task Force met to coordinate implementation of the IPM Policy that was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in November 2002. The Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Advisory
Committee, a formal body, was created by the Board of Supervisors in November 2009. This report is the seventh
annual status report from the IPM Coordinator and the IPM Advisory Committee.
Background on the IPM Advisory Committee
Purpose of the IPM Advisory Committee
The purpose of the Committee is to:
1. Protect and enhance public health, County resources, and the environment
2.Minimize risks and maximize benefits to the general public, staff, and the environment as a result of
pest control activities conducted by County staff and contractors
3. Promote a coordinated County-wide effort to implement IPM in the County in a manner that is
consistent with the Board-adopted IPM Policy
4.Serve as a resource to help the Agriculture and Public Works Departments and the Board of
Supervisors review and improve existing pest management programs and the processes for making
pest management decisions
5.Make policy recommendations upon assessment of current pest issues and evaluation of possible IPM
solutions
6.Provide a forum for communication and information exchange among members in an effort to
identify, encourage, and stimulate the use of best or promising pest management practices
Members of the IPM Advisory Committee
Currently the Committee has a total of 13 seats consisting of voting and non-voting members.
The 8 voting members include:
•One representative from Contra Costa Health Services
•One representative from the County Storm Water Program
•One representative from the County Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (note that this
seat is currently vacant)
•One representative from the County Fish and Wildlife Committee
•One representative from an environmental organization
•Three at-large members of the public
The 4 non-voting members include
•A representative from the Agriculture Department
•Two representative from the Public Works Department (Facilities Division and Maintenance
Division)
•One representative from the County’s pest management contractor
The Committee also has one public member alternate who only votes if one or more of the three at-large public
members, the PEHAB representative, or the Fish and Wildlife representative is absent from a meeting.
IPM Advisory Committee Priorities for 2016
The IPM Advisory Committee focused on the following two IPM program features:
A. IPM decision-making—documenting pest management decisions in County IPM programs
B. Outreach and education, focusing initially on bed bugs in the County—reviewing and/or creating
educational pieces for the public and County staff
The Committee formed two subcommittees to work on these priorities, the Decision-making subcommittee and
the Bed Bug subcommittee.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 17 of 174
2016 Accomplishments of the IPM Advisory Committee and the IPM Coordinator
Accomplishments of the IPM Committee
The IPM Advisory Committee (the Committee) held six regular meetings in 2016. The subcommittees held a total
of 9 meetings to address the above priorities. The IPM Coordinator serves as staff to the Committee and the two
subcommittees. According to the wishes of the Committee, the IPM Coordinator arranged for speakers for four of
the six regular Committee meetings held during 2016. The following were the topics and presenters:
1. Contra Costa County’s three-year grazing study, presented by Peter Gollinger, Public Works Assistant
Field Operations Manager and Cece Sellgren, Public Works Stormwater Manager
2. Mosquitoes as vectors of disease in the era of climate change, presented by Dr. Steve Schutz, Contra
Costa Mosquito and Vector Control
3. New and emerging pests in northern California, presented by Dr. Igor Lacan, U.C. Coorperative
Extension
4. Non-chemical weed management at Marin Municipal Water District presented by Janet Klein, Natural
Resources Program Manager
The accomplishments of the IPM Committee and its subcommittees are as follows:
Through the work of the Decision-Making subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee
Priority A: IPM Decision-Making
1. Gained a better understanding of the complexities involved in pest management in the County’s
Special Districts
2. Reviewed and provided suggestions for improvement to two decision-making documents:
a. Rats in Livorna Park (Public Works Special Districts)
b. Gophers in County landscaping (Public Works Special Districts and Public Works
Grounds Division
3. Gathered information on vegetation management on rights-of-way in neighboring Bay Area
Counties in preparation for a future decision-making document on this subject for Contra Costa
County
These detailed decision-making documents follow a form devised by the IPM Coordinator and a previous
Decision-Making subcommittee. Decision-making documents are considered current as of the date on the
document and may be updated in the future.
See Attachment A for the Decision-Making subcommittee’s final report and the two decision-making
documents.
Through the work of the Bed bug subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee
Priority B: Outreach and Education Focusing on Bed Bugs
1. Followed the progress of AB 551 in the California Legislature—the bill was signed into law in
September 2016 and prescribes the duties of landlords and tenants with regard to bed bug
treatment
2. Reviewed and provided suggestions for improvements in the County’s bed bug website, the bed
bug trifold brochure and a general purpose bed bug fact sheet—the suggestions included listing
the County’s 211 helpline on the website for citizens who need help with social services, housing,
or legal questions (the IPM Coordinator’s contact information will appear on the 211 list under
“bed bugs”)
See Attachment B for the Bed bug subcommittee’s final report.
Accomplishments of the IPM Coordinator
In addition to staffing the IPM Advisory Committee and working on the three subcommittees, the IPM
Coordinator worked on the issues listed below.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 18 of 174
Bed Bugs
The common bed bug continues to be one of the most serious pests in the County, a pest that has provoked
citizens to misuse pesticides to an alarming extent. Pesticides do not solve the problem, and in many cases
make the problem worse. We increasingly see bed bugs affecting the citizens of Contra Costa who have the
fewest resources to combat them.
Answering calls from citizens
The IPM Coordinator records each bed bug complaint, but it is unclear how many calls other staff in the
County are receiving that are not forwarded to the IPM Coordinator. We also have no way of knowing how
many calls city staff receive. In 2016, the IPM Coordinator investigated by telephone (sometimes with the
help of the Bed Bug Task Force) 75 bed bug calls (compared to 68 last year) and provided assistance to the
callers. The IPM Coordinator also met in person with a number of citizens to answer questions about bed
bugs and provide information on prevention and management.
A substantial number of complaints continue to come from West County. There are increasing numbers of
complaints from Pittsburg and Antioch, as well as Walnut Creek and Alamo, and it is generally acknowledged
that there are numerous apartment complexes in Concord with severe infestations throughout the buildings.
Some of these complexes have been infested for 5 or more years.
Encouraging the City of Richmond to address bed bug problems in their city
The IPM Coordinator worked with staff from the County’s Environmental Health Division to engage the City
of Richmond in developing a process to address bed bugs problems in their city. The IPM Coordinator revised
the City of Concord’s bed bug process to be used as the first draft of the City of Richmond’s process.
Cooperating on research to help low income residents of apartment complexes
In 2015 the County cooperated with a University of California research project that compared the efficacy of
IPM methods and conventional methods of bed bug management in multi-unit dwellings. Among the
collaborators in this research were the University of California Cooperative Extension (including Andrew
Sutherland, a public member of the IPM Committee), U.C. Riverside Department of Entomology, the Los
Angeles and the San Francisco Housing Authorities, Monument Impact in Concord, three pest management
companies, and the Contra Costa IPM Coordinator.
Each pest management company worked in one of the three apartment complexes chosen as field study sites.
Two complexes were selected in Contra Costa County and one in San Diego. Each company designed its own
program for managing bed bugs in its apartment complex. Each programs included monitoring, tenant
education, and a variety of treatment procedures. In all cases the companies reduced the density and incidence
of bed bugs in their complex. All three programs increased tenant participation in and satisfaction with bed
bug management. The cost for an IPM approach to bed bug management ranged from one and a half to five
times more than a conventional reactive approach (based on simply responding to complaints). The
researchers speculate that over time the costs of an IPM program would decrease. Much of the cost in each
program was associated with “cleaning up” bed bug infestations that in some cases may have been the result
of years of poor management.
Educating County staff and the public about bed bugs
The IPM Coordinator
•Continued to organize and staff the County’s Bed Bug Task Force—the Task Force meets every two
months and advocates for increasing public awareness of bed bug problems and for developing sound bed
bug management policy throughout the County
•Maintained the County’s bed bug website and added more information specific to various audiences—
from January 1, 2016 through June 30, 2016, there were 17,660 visits to the site from 13,079 unique
visitors (County staff visits were excluded from this tally in order to obtain a closer approximation of the
public use of the site)
•Provided a bed bug training for pest management professionals at a Univar bed bug seminar in Pacheco
•Provided a bed bug awareness training for County Agriculture Department staff
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 19 of 174
•Provided a bed bug awareness training for staff from Board and Care facilities in the County
•Provided a bed bug awareness and prevention training for a group of managers and owners of private
homeless facilities in the County
•Working with Peter Ordaz, Behavioral Health Services Division Safety Coordinator, developed
prevention procedures for County clinics and residential facilities, and guidelines for in-home visitors—
trainings on the procedures were provided for the following groups:
o Concord Adult Mental Health Clinic staff
o Concord Older Adult Mental Health staff
o Behavioral Health site safety coordinators
o Discovery House residential drug and alcohol treatment center managers
o Calli House youth shelter staff
The IPM Coordinator was assisted at several of these trainings by Pestec staff who provided information
on inspection, monitoring, and treatment for bed bugs.
•With Pestec staff, provided a bed bug refresher training for staff from the County’s Concord and
Brookside homeless shelters
•Revised a number of bed bug fact sheets in English and in Spanish for the County’s bed bug website and
made improvements to the website as suggested by the Bed bug subcommittee
Bed bug infestation in Riverhouse in Martinez
The IPM Coordinator continued working with Supervisor Andersen’s office, members of the County Mental
Health Commission, and staff from the Behavioral Health Division on a serious and long-standing bed bug
infestation in Riverhouse, a senior and disabled residence in Martinez. This infestation has begun to affect County
Behavioral Health clinics because clients who are Riverhouse residents have brought bed bugs into at least two of
the clinics. In the early part of 2016, Eden Housing (the owner of Riverhouse), finally agreed to hire a pest
management company to provide treatment for the affected apartments. This came after a number of meetings and
discussions with the County. Eden Housing hired Pestec whose staff inspected all the units and began
systematically heat treating the infested apartments. Service was interrupted twice because Eden Housing failed to
pay Pestec invoices. The County stepped in to help resolve the payment issue, and treatment resumed. At the end
of July, Pestec concluded three rounds of heat treatments. There are a number of apartments that still have bed
bugs for various reasons, and some that are newly infested. Pestec is considering using a new treatment protocol
on the chronically infested apartments.
Healthy Schools Act compliance for County Head Starts
In 2015, the IPM Coordinator worked with the County’s Head Start program to come into compliance with
California’s Healthy Schools Act. The IPM Coordinator developed an IPM plan for the Head Start program which
included identifying responsible parties for the provisions of the Act. The IPM Coordinator updates this plan each
year. The IPM Coordinator provided staff with templates for pesticide application posting and for parent and staff
notification of pesticide use.
This year, a new training provision came into effect for staff who apply pesticides, which in the law includes
disinfectants. Head Start staff completed their training by September of this year. The Head Start program is
keeping records of staff training, of each person who receives the required pesticide notification letter, and of
persons who wish to be notified of individual pesticide applications.
Advice and Outreach on IPM
The IPM Coordinator
•Worked with Beth Baldwin of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program on a Bay Friendly Landscaping
refresher training in April for municipal staff from around the County
•Gave a presentation at the Clean Water Program’s Municipal Operations Committee to assist municipal
staff with the IPM portion of their annual reports to the Regional Water Quality Control Board
•Gave an IPM training on household and garden pests for the Gardens at Heather Farm education program
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 20 of 174
•Met with the Alameda County IPM Coordinator to provide advice on his program
•Attended regular meetings of the Head Start Health and Nutrition Services Advisory Committee to report
on IPM issues
•Responded to a number of requests for pest management information from County staff and citizens
•Worked with Pestec on managing fire ants, three-lined cockroaches, and Argentine ants at various County
facilities
•Provided regular IPM program updates to the Board of Supervisors through their Transportation, Water
and Infrastructure Committee
Conferences and Trainings Attended
•2016 Bed Bug Global Summit
•2016 Pest Control Technology virtual bed bug conference
•Three invasive weed management webinars
•EPA webinar on pest prevention by design in schools
•EPA webinar on managing mosquitoes
•UC Cooperative Extension Gopher Forum
•EPA webinar on managing bats
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 21 of 174
Rangeland infested with artichoke thistle
2016 Department IPM Program Highlights and Challenges
Each Department maintains an IPM Plan that covers their pest management goals, sites under management,
decision making processes, key pests and best management practices, environmental stewardship, and training
requirements.
General Information about the Departments
In order to help new IPM Committee members understand the working of each department, the IPM Coordinator
has developed Department Overviews that cover department responsibilities in general and pest management
responsibilities in particular, funding sources and budget, pests under management and the methods used to
manage them, and department challenges.
Each of the County’s pest management programs must keep records of pesticides used and submit a report
monthly to the Agriculture Department for transmission to the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. Once a
year, the IPM Coordinator collates and analyzes this information for the annual report.
IPM Program Highlights
Agriculture Department
•
The Department participated as a member of the Decision-Making subcommittee.
Subcommittee work
•
For more than 30 years, the Department had actively helped ranchers in Contra Costa County control
artichoke thistle and purple starthistle on privately owned rangeland. In 2015 the Department began to
concentrate their efforts on contracted work for parkland and municipalities within the County. The
Department has successfully reduced artichoke thistle and purple starthistle to a level at which private
landowners can now manage these weeds on their own. The Department continues to recommend that
landowners who lease property to cattlemen include invasive weed control in their lease agreements to
encourage ranchers to maintain a weed management program.
Changes in the Department’s invasive weed program
The Department’s invasive weed treatments included hand removal, mechanical removal, and targeted
treatment with low toxicity herbicides. With rare exception, pesticide treatment involved highly focused
spot spraying using backpack sprayers. Approximately
40-50% of staff time was spent in surveying and
monitoring, with the remainder being spent on treatment
actions.
•
The Department surveys and treats properties under
contract for East Bay Regional Park District and Contra
Costa Water District. This year staff surveyed 44 sites
totaling 60,996 acres and treated 47 net acres for
artichoke thistle.
Artichoke Thistle (Cynara cardunculus)
Artichoke thistle is a highly invasive, non-native
perennial weed that displaces herbaceous plants and
annual grasses, decreasing the value of agricultural land,
open space, and wildlands. Horses and cattle will not consume this thistle, and at high densities, the
formidable spines on the leaves and stems and on the bracts around the flowers make it impossible for
animals or people to walk through stands of the weed.
In 1979 Contra Costa County was identified as one of the most heavily infested counties in the state. At
that time, at least 100,000 acres of land were infested with artichoke thistle to one degree or another. In
that year, the Department began their management program in cooperation with property owners by using
ground rigs and helicopters to spray large swaths of land. The artichoke thistle infestation has been
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 22 of 174
Red Sesbania
Kangaroo Thorn
reduced so much that staff primarily spot treat individual plants using a backpack sprayer. Because
seedlings form deep, fleshy taproots within the first year, mechanical or hand removal (digging out the
plants) is cost-effective only in a very limited area with a small number of very young plants. Mowing
and burning are neither practical nor effective.
•Japanese dodder (Cuscuta japonica)
Staff surveyed 32 historically infested sites and did not
find any recurrence of this weed. This is a California
Department of Agriculture “A rated” weed that the
Department is obligated to treat. Since two years have
passed since staff have found any dodder in the
County, the Department is declaring it eradicated.
Japanese dodder is an aggressive parasitic plant that
has the potential to severely alter the composition and
function of riparian areas. It also affects ornamental
plantings and agricultural crops. Japanese dodder is
native to Southeast Asia and was first discovered in
the county in 2005.
•
This was the eleventh year of red sesbania removal
at the primary infestation site of Kirker Creek,
Dow Wetlands. Staff surveyed 10 acres there and
removed 800 plants, up from 475 in 2015. All
plants were removed by hand.
Red sesbania (Sesbania punicea)
Red sesbania is a small tree that has a high
potential for environmental damage by displacing
native plants and wildlife in riparian areas. Red
sesbania is native to South America and is
poisonous to humans, livestock, and many native
vertebrates. It has been invading riparian areas
locally. Red sesbania was first detected in
California about ten years ago.
•
The County has one site infested with kangaroo thorn. The removal of the existing infestation in 2005
involved 52 hours of staff time. At that time the infestation covered a little less than one net acre. In 2014,
it took only 2 hours of staff time to accomplish the
surveying and seedling removal, all of which was done by
hand. Only small seedlings of less than one foot in height
were found, and the infested area totaled less than one
hundredth of an acre.
Kangaroo thorn (Acacia paradoxa)
Due to staffing constraints in 2015, the site was not
surveyed last year. This fall one staff member returned to
the site and found more plants than he could manually
remove in a day. Since some of the plants are two years
old, they will have to be removed with a weed wrench
rather than by hand pulling. Staff will return before the end
of the year to complete the work.
First Japanese dodder find in CCC, 2005
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 23 of 174
Purple Starthistle
Cairo inspecting packages at UPS
•
Under contract to the East Bay Regional Park District, the Department surveyed 21 sites covering 6,101
acres and treated 12 net acres for purple starthistle.
Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa)
This weed is a highly invasive non-native biennial that
displaces annual grasses, desirable vegetation, and
wildlife and decreases the production value of agricultural
land. The plant also has allelopathic properties, which
means it produces chemicals that inhibit the growth of
other vegetation. Its large spines and high densities can
form an impenetrable barrier to wildlife and livestock in
open rangeland as well as to horses and hikers in
parkland. Seed can remain viable in the soil for ten or
more years.
Purple starthistle in Contra Costa County is not as
widespread as artichoke thistle. However, being a prolific seed producer, it has the potential to become as
large scale a problem as artichoke thistle. Early identification and eradication of isolated populations is
key to preventing its establishment in uninfested agricultural lands.
•
The Department has been taking steps to reduce the amount of rodenticide it uses for ground squirrel
control in the County in order to mitigate harm to endangered and other non-target species. This year the
Department has begun employing bait stations with diphacinone treated grain in areas where this tactic is
feasible. Where it is not feasible, for instance along roads, the Department continues its procedure for
broadcasting diphacinone treated grain.
Managing ground squirrels to protect critical infrastructure
The Department manages ground squirrels to protect critical infrastructure including levees, earthen
dams, railroad beds, and roadways. The goal is to maintain a 100 linear foot buffer around the
infrastructure. Ground squirrel burrowing is the single biggest threat to California levees. Burrowing can
compromise the earthen embankments and create pathways for water leakage that can undermine the
structural integrity of levees, as well as earthen dams and railroad embankments. Burrowing and the
resulting pathways for water erosion can also cause damage to, or sudden failure of, roadsides and other
structures.
In 2013 the Department modified its broadcast baiting treatment procedure for safety and efficiency. Staff
are applying bait more precisely and have reduced the number of bait applications in an area from three to
two. Staff initially spreads untreated rolled oats to draw out squirrels and make it easy to find areas of
squirrel activity. Treatments are carried out by a team of two staff members so that one person can
concentrate on driving while the other operates the bait spreader to apply bait only where ground squirrel
activity is observed.
•
The Agriculture Department is the County’s first
line of defense against invading pests including
insects, plants, and plant diseases. Every day staff
perform inspections on incoming shipments at
destination points, including nurseries, the post
office, and express carriers (UPS, FedEx and
others) to look for quarantined plants as well as
pests that can hitchhike unnoticed on plant material
and other items such as household goods.
Exotic pest prevention
In 2006, the Department was the first in the state to
incorporate dog teams into parcel inspection. Since
then a number of other counties have followed
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 24 of 174
Three-lined cockroach (Phyllodromica
trivittata)
Contra Costa’s lead. The dogs greatly speed inspections and have significantly increased detections of
quarantined plants and exotic pests. The dog teams are a shared resource with other Bay Area counties
that do not have the expertise or resources to maintain an active surveillance program; therefore, as a
result of Contra Costa’s initiative, pest detections in those counties have increased.
This year the Department inspected 35,800 shipments and rejected 112 after finding various pests.
The Department also deploys and services numerous traps for the purpose of early detection of more than
17 different serious insect pests. This year the Department deployed 5,603 traps, and staff serviced those
traps 68,345 times.
•
This year the Department reduced its pesticide use dramatically from 154 lbs. of active ingredient to 76
lbs. This is largely because the Department has reduced its weed management responsibilities.
Pesticide use
Agriculture Department Challenges
•
The department continues to search for alternatives to treated grain bait. Unfortunately, raptor perches and
live trapping of ground squirrels have proved to be ineffective and/or too costly. Ground squirrels are
native to this area and will never be eradicated. Since the Department aims to create a fairly narrow buffer
zone around infrastructure, it is inevitable that in areas with ground squirrels pressure outside of the 100 ft
buffer, ground squirrels will eventually move back into the burrows left vacant by the squirrels that have
been poisoned, although this happens quite slowly. This leads to a yearly management program. Altering
the environment to prevent ground squirrel burrowing is difficult because the extent of the infrastructure
that must be protected and because the squirrels favor human-built infrastructure as sites for their
burrows.
Ground squirrel control alternatives
•
The Department will be working with landowners over the next few years to help them transition to
managing their own invasive weeds now that the County has reduced populations to manageable levels.
Invasive weed control on private land
IPM Program Highlights
Public Works Facilities Division
•
The Facilities Division manages 147 sites that comprise almost 3.3 million sq. feet.
Area under management
•
A representative from Pestec participated as a member of the Bed
Bug subcommittee and the County’s Bed Bug Task Force.
Subcommittee work
•
The three-lined cockroach (Phyllodromica trivittata) is native to
the Mediterranean and was first submitted for identification to the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) in
September 2009. The samples were collected by Dr. William
Shepard of the University of California at his residence in Pinole.
Although this was the first official submission of this cockroach to
CDFA, this insect was known to be in Marin County as early as
2004.
New cockroach causing problems in County buildings
In Europe and North Africa it is found in leaf litter and plant debris in dry habitats around the
Mediterranean. Dr. George Beccaloni of Natural History Museum (London) wrote, “It has been recorded
from Morocco, Algeria, Spain, Italy (Sardinia Island), Italy (Sicily), Libya, and Israel. Given that it has
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 25 of 174
Goodnature trap mounted on a tree.
not been recorded as being a pest in buildings in those countries (as far as I’m aware) it is unlikely to
invade buildings in the USA…” Unfortunately, the three-lined cockroach has been found this year in
buildings across the County: Building 500 of the Public Works Administration complex in Martinez, the
West County Detention Center in Richmond, the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, and
in the law enforcement training center in Pittsburg. Building occupants have complained of cockroaches
dropping from the ceiling, crawling on their desks, and out of their files.
This cockroach seems not to be attracted to human food or garbage, and baits formulated for other
cockroach species have not been effective in the County. Pestec has tried Niban® granular bait (5%
orthoboric acid), MotherEarth® granular bait (5% boric acid), and Advion® insect granule (0.22%
indoxacarb).
The most persistent problem has been at Building 500 of Public Works Administration. When the
cockroach baits did not provide building occupants relief, Pestec set up a series of pitfall traps baited with
liquid boric acid ant bait outside one wall of the Building 500. Although the pitfall traps caught more than
one hundred three-lined cockroaches over a number of days, the traps are difficult to anchor securely in
the loose soil at the edge of the building. Pestec technicians found some of the traps upturned, so the
company decided to remove them.
Pestec has also used diatomaceous earth to dust the weep holes where the outside wall meets the
foundation of the Public Works building. They have pulled mulch away from the outside of the building
and deployed numerous sticky traps inside the building to monitor for cockroaches. To try to close entry
holes, Pestec has installed three brush-style doorsweeps at Building 500 that may have helped. These are
a new product that is very inexpensive and quick and easy to install.
Pest-proofing buildings will undoubtedly help with this cockroach problem since the insects are mainly
living outside. This may be a long process because this cockroach is small, the holes are numerous,
especially in temporary buildings, and safety and accessibility repairs take priority for the Division. There
may be conditions outside the affected buildings that are conducive to the cockroach, and altering those
conditions will have to be considered.
•
Pestec has been experimenting with the Goodnature
automatic rodent trap at the Byron Boys Ranch. The trap is
powered by compressed gas from a small, recyclable
canister that activates and resets the trap multiple times
before needing replacement. The trap works by enticing the
rodent to investigate bait inside the cylinder of the trap and
then striking the skull of the rodent with a glass reinforced
polymer piston, killing the animal instantly. This ensures
other rodents are not deterred from investigating the trap and
being killed themselves.
New ground squirrel trap for Byron Boys Ranch
These are expensive traps at $170 each, but they can be used
over and over and kill humanely.
In order to use this trap for ground squirrels, Pestec modified the it to dispense grain bait and installed the
trap with the compressed gas canister (this can be seen projecting down from the right side of the trap in
the photo above) resting on the ground. Five traps were installed and rotated around the property. Initially
the traps dispatched quite a few ground squirrels, but then Pestec began finding fewer and fewer bodies. It
is unclear why this happened, but one thought is that animal scavengers were removing the carcasses
before Pestec could get to the traps. The Goodnature company will soon have a new trap equipped with a
counter making it easier to monitor the number of rodents killed.
It appears that the ground squirrel population in the most critical area of the Boys Ranch has been
reduced, but it remains to be seen how quickly the ground squirrels reinvade the burrows left behind by
the dead animals.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 26 of 174
Dig Defense covering a gap under a portable
building
Pestec will be experimenting with the trap at Juvenile Hall in Martinez to see if it is appropriate for killing
rats at the site. Since dead animals collect below the trap, Pestec would probably have to use the traps
only in areas where they would be out of sight and where there is no public access.
•
In the summer, construction began on a sewer upgrade in the Detention Facility kitchen that also involved
the loading dock. Because the area was open, there was an influx of mice into the modular units. The
Sherriff gave Pestec access to the interior of the walls in the modulars so Pestec was able to place a large
number of snap traps out of reach of the inmates. In September Pestec finished the trapping and has not
had any reports of mice since. The County is still working on the sewer upgrade.
Rodents at the Martinez Detention Facility
•
In June, native fire ants (Solenopsis xyloni) were discovered in and around the sandbox at a Head Start
facility in Oakley. Because fire ants sting, there was concern for the children that play in the yard. On a
Friday evening after staff and students had gone home, Pestec applied Advion® Fire Ant bait (0.045%
indoxacarb) to the ant mounds in the grassy area next to the sandbox. No bait was placed in the sandbox.
On Monday morning Pestec returned to remove any visible granular bait. After careful inspection, no bait
and no ants were found. Head Start staff have not seen any fire ants since.
Fire Ants at Head Start facility in Oakley
•
In this fifth year of California’s drought, very dry soil and reductions in irrigation have again forced
Argentine ants to move close to buildings where limited irrigation still provides water and food in the
form of plant-feeding insects and honeydew (this sweet liquid is produced by sap-sucking insects and is
the favorite food of adult Argentine ants). When ants establish colonies next to buildings, it is a short hop
into outdoor garbage cans as well as into the building to look for more food and water.
Increased ant infestations in County buildings
In the fall, Pestec, the Grounds Division, and the building occupants worked together to reduce ant
populations at the Employment and Human Services building in Antioch. Pestec installed bait stations
away from the building and helped building occupants become aware of behaviors that encourage ants,
such as leaving dirty dishes in the break room sink and failing to empty food garbage daily. The Grounds
Division mowed plants near the building that were harboring honeydew-producing insects, washed the
outside garbage cans, and began emptying the outside garbage every day.
A number of other County buildings experienced serious and repeated Argentine ant infestations,
especially in the late summer and early fall. Pestec has been using Intice Thiquid™ ant bait (5% borax),
but it has not been performing as well as in the past. Pestec is re-evaluating the ant baits they might use
and will perform baiting early in the year (by May) to prevent populations from building to such high
levels later in the season.
•
Head Start
Raccoon, opossum, and skunk proofing at Concord
This year, Pestec used a new product called Dig Defense® to
prevent animals from taking up residence under some of the
portables at George Miller Head Start in Concord. These
metal tines that are welded together into a large comb can be
pounded into the ground around the bottom of a structure or
along the bottom of a fence.
Pestec first removed the animals under the buildings by
trapping and by using coyote urine to repel them. After they
were confident that there were no animals left hiding, Pestec
installed Dig Defense to block off all entry points and places
where animals could dig to get under the building. Although
the product is more expensive than hardware cloth, it’s faster
to install and no trenching is required.
•Structural IPM program pesticide use
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 27 of 174
In FY 15-16, 30 lbs of pesticide active ingredients were used in and around the approximately 2.75
million square feet of County buildings that Pestec is contracted to manage. This is 14.5 lbs more than
last fiscal year and is almost entirely due to the severity of the ant infestations in the County this year. The
pesticides used by Pestec are primarily deployed as baits in bait stations or in cracks and crevices. Pestec
continues to successfully manage rats and mice exclusively with traps, sanitation, and pest proofing.
•
Because of staff and client vigilance, a strict intake protocol, and special cleaning procedures, neither the
Concord nor the Brookside homeless shelter has experienced a bed bug infestation this year. The chances
of new introductions of bed bugs to a shelter are very high with the daily influx of clients who sleep at the
facility, but with alert staff, any new introductions will be quickly found. Strict adherence to the
prevention procedures will make it unlikely that either shelter will experience a large or prolonged
infestation. Calli House, the County’s youth shelter, has never had an infestation; however, this year
Pestec joined the IPM Coordinator to train the staff in prevention and inspection for bed bugs, and in bed
bug biology and habits.
Bed bugs in County buildings
This year, staff at three mental health clinics reported seeing bed bugs and/or getting bitten by bed bugs.
Pestec inspected each clinic and found no bed bugs other than the original find. Traps left at the clinics
did not catch more bed bugs either. Presumably these incidents were the result of single introductions
from a client.
Incidents such as these are very distressing for staff, so the IPM Coordinator has been providing staff
training to each of the clinics and has developed written prevention procedures for them to use.
Facilities Division Challenges
•
This continues to be a challenge, but the Facilities Division is doing what they can with their limited
staffing and schedule. The Division’s first priority is to address health, safety, and access issues. As we
saw this year at the Martinez Detention Facility, pest proofing has a significant impact on reducing pest
problems.
Pest exclusion in County buildings
This year the Facilities Division replaced 21 roofs on County buildings. This will certainly prevent
problems with wood-destroying organisms as well as other pests.
•
Pestec will be reviewing the products used for baiting along with their baiting strategy in order to try to
provide better control for the very large ant populations seen in the last two years.
Ant baiting
•
This new insect presents a considerable challenge since it invades buildings and is not attracted to any of
the cockroach baits Pestec has tried. Conducive conditions and the feasibility of pest proofing will have to
be investigated. Whether this cockroach continues to be a pest in buildings remains to be seen. Winter
weather may curtail invasions, but during warmer weather next year it may invade again.
Three-lined cockroach
•
The IPM Coordinator and Pestec have heard from a number of sites that their offices are not regularly
vacuumed. In some instances offices have not been vacuumed for years. Some of these sites receive
janitorial services from the County and some from private companies. The lack of regular vacuuming
contributes to the buildup of debris that includes allergens that irritate humans, and detritus that provides
food for all kinds of pests. This issue needs to receive more attention in the coming year, and periodic
deep cleaning should be a regular part of janitorial services.
Cleaning
•
This year there have been a number of complaints about bed bugs in County behavioral health clinics.
These clinics are especially vulnerable because the clientele they serve often come from severely infested
dwellings. The more numerous the bed bugs in a person’s home, the more likely it is that the person will
Bed bugs in County buildings
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 28 of 174
Pittsburg Health front lawn before turf conversion (2015) Pittsburg Health front lawn area after turf conversion (2015)
Pittsburg Health front lawn area 1 year after turf conversion
(2016)
move them around on clothing or belongings. Pestec investigates each call for bed bug service by
inspecting the premises, setting out sticky traps, and returning to inspect the traps. So far there is no
evidence of any infestation in a County building, only stray bed bugs. The IPM Coordinator has been
working on providing training, educational materials, and prevention procedures for staff at each of the
behavioral health clinics. With alert staff instituting prevention measures, County buildings should not see
full blown infestations in which bed bugs are reproducing in offices.
IPM Program Highlights
Public Works Grounds Division
•
Last year in a pilot project, the Grounds Division converted about 70% of the lawn at the Pittsburg Health
Center to drought-tolerant landscaping and mulch. The photographs below show the evolution of the site.
Update on turf conversion project at Pittsburg Health Center
This project saved 912,000 gal of water from 2014 to 2015, and another 687,000 gal in 2016 through
October as compared to 2015 through October.
This is the fifth year of drought in California. This continuing lack of rain presents the perfect opportunity
to convince departments to convert their lawns to drought-tolerant landscaping with widely spaced plants
surrounded by wood chip mulch.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 29 of 174
The turf conversion project saved 912,000 gal of water from 2014 to 2015 and another 687,000 gal in
2016 from January through October 31 (as compared to 2015 January through October 31).
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Gallons of Water Used at Pittsburg Health Clinic
over 3 Years, as of October 31, 2016
2014
2015
2016
Turf conversion:
Saves water
Allows the County to be an example for its citizens
Saves on maintenance costs since turf requires a high level of maintenance
Allows maintenance staff to spend the time saved on turf on other crucial maintenance tasks
including managing weeds by physical means, such as hand pulling, as opposed to herbicide
applications
Reduces herbicide use in the landscape since reduced irrigation and mulch will greatly suppress
weed growth
Reduces other pesticide use since turf is susceptible to many pests and diseases
Reduces the possibility of citizen exposure to pesticides since the risk of exposure is greater in
landscaping than for example, along roadsides
Reduces greenhouse gas emissions from turf maintenance equipment and from pumping water to
irrigate the turf
Moves County landscapes in the direction of greater sustainability
Unfortunately, the turf conversion project has stalled because of lack of funding.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 30 of 174
Huge logs from native valley oaks that were killed by
drought and are awaiting chipping
Woodchips stockpiled at the Grounds Corporation Yard
Dying elm along Grayson Creek in Pacheco
Dead pine on Pacheco Boulevard in Martinez
• Drought and tree death
Five years of drought are taking a heavy toll on trees in the County and the Division is seeing one to two
dead trees a week. The Division has been removing dead trees and replacing them with more drought-
tolerant species wherever replacement is feasible. Last year saw a large number of dead trees, and this
year there are even more. These dead and dying trees are not only an aesthetic issue for the County, but
cost a great deal to remove, and create a serious hazard if they are not removed in a timely fashion.
• Premium mulch from pallets and dead trees
In F ebruary, the Grounds Division had stockpiled about 1,400 cu yds of woodchips ground from pallets,
trees downed in storms, and trees killed by the
drought. Considering that high quality wood
chips cost $32/cu yd delivered, this represents
$44,800 worth of mulch for the County.
This year staff spread about 700 cu yds at
various sites throughout the County. The chips
are of very high aesthetic quality because they
are a uniform color and don’t contain bits of trash or
leaf debris. Sites that receive this mulch have been
very pleased with the look. This can be important in
gaining acceptance for landscaping with fewer plants
and more mulch.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 31 of 174
The Grounds’ tree removal contract includes transport back to the Grounds Corporation Yard so the logs
can be easily chipped. PGE, Davey Tree, and the Public Works tree crew deliver logs to the Corporation
Yard that are too big for their chippers, and pallets come from a number of sources. The Grounds
manager has temporarily suspended delivery of logs and pallets until staff has time to spread more of the
mulch. This will allow them to grind and store chips from the logs and pallets already on site.
• Smart controllers for irrigation efficiency
As part of a long-range plan to rejuvenate aging County landscapes, the Division has purchased
WeatherTRAK® smart controllers to improve irrigation systems. The smart controllers will automatically
be installed in new buildings and landscapes, and the Division will choose older landscapes where the
controllers will be installed prior to re-landscaping. Currently there are smart controllers in Livorna Park
and at a small site in downtown Martinez. Installing the controllers is the first phase of the rejuvenation.
When money becomes available, new plants will be chosen and installed.
A “smart controller” is a computer that automatically updates a programmed watering schedule to allow
for changes in water needs as the weather changes throughout the year. Using these devices can
potentially save millions of gallons of water per year and improve the health of County landscaping. The
WeatherTRAK system uses temperature, wind, humidity, and solar radiation to accurately determine how
much water plants are using in order to deliver the right amount of water to a site. WeatherTRAK comes
with a mobile app so that Grounds Division staff can manage irrigation remotely. If a call about an
irrigation leak comes into the office or WeatherTRAK sends a leak alert to a mobile device, the irrigation
tech can immediately shut down the leaky irrigation from wherever he is in the County. The irrigation
tech currently has to interrupt his work and drive to the site to shut off irrigation. The Division considers
the remote shutoff feature as one of the most valuable aspects of WeatherTRAK. The smart controllers
will also make it easier to program water restrictions, such as a percentage reduction in water use or
specific days when watering is allowed.
• Managing gophers with trapping and CO2
The Division vertebrate pest manager continues to use trapping and CO2 for gophers in County
landscaping. Two years ago the Division purchased a device called the Eliminator® to inject CO2 into
gopher burrows to asphyxiate the animals. The Eliminator’s limitations are 1) it works best in moist soil
so that the CO2 doesn’t so easily escape through the pores in the soil and 2) it does not collapse the
burrows so that neighboring gophers move into the areas that have been cleared. The vertebrate pest
manager does not feel comfortable using traps where people and pets might have access to them unless
she is working in the immediate area, so together, trapping and the Eliminator seem to be working well.
• Grant application for zero-emission landscape maintenance equipment
The Division has applied for a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to replace gas-
powered equipment (a lawn mower, chainsaw, two hedge trimmers, and a leaf blower) with cordless
electric equipment. If the Division secures the grant and the equipment performs well, the Grounds
Manager would like to replace more gas-powered equipment.
• Pesticide use increased in FY 15-16
Five years ago, the Grounds Division consciously decided not to use any insecticides, miticides,
fungicides, or rodenticides in their work. The Division has chosen to manage arthropod pests and plant
diseases in County landscapes solely with good horticultural practices. If plants are severely affected, they
are removed.
Herbicides are the only pesticide used by the Division, and this year, staff used 94 more pounds than in
FY 14-15. For the last five years, the amount of herbicide active ingredient used on County landscapes
has fluctuated between 338 lbs and 492 lbs. As noted last year, the Division is continuing to try to
improve the condition of many of the County’s properties in order to move away from crisis management
and back to preventive maintenance. For a number of years the lack of funding made it impossible to
properly manage weed problems around County buildings and in the Special Districts the Division is
responsible for. This is now changing, but weeds that went unmanaged for years left huge amounts of
seed that will produce large crops of weeds for many years to come.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 32 of 174
Grounds Division Challenges
•Staffing needs
Grounds has 15 permanent employees (down from 18 last year), and 3 temporary employees. The
Division has work and budget for 24 full-time employees. Full staffing would include 21 to 22 permanent
employees and one to three temps. Although the Division has funding for all these positions, they have
not been approved. This means that every week crew members are working overtime. The Division is
having problems retaining temporary employees because the permanent positions are taking so long to get
approved. Job applicants often take temporary positions in hopes of applying for a permanent one in the
near future. The Division also has problems retaining permanent staff because the pay in Contra Costa is
so much lower than other counties and private business.
•Drought stress in the County
The Division is dealing with a large number of diseased, stressed, and dying trees. Many redwoods in the
County are partially dead and it could take from 5 to 10 years for them to die completely. Unless failing
trees pose a hazard, the Division will take them down over time since it will be easier aesthetically and
financially. It has been challenging to try to drought-proof landscapes, but the woodchips the Division is
producing play an important role.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 33 of 174
Students collecting trash on Clayton Valley Drain.
Public Works Department Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division
IPM Program Highlights
•Subcommittee work
Staff worked with the IPM Coordinator to create a list of questions to ask vegetation managers in other
counties, and interviewed personnel from both Alameda and San Joaquin Counties to obtain answers to the
questions.
•Annual habitat assessment refresher training
This year, 50 Public Works Maintenance employees attended the annual refresher training in habitat
assessment for endangered and threatened species in order to comply with the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA). The RMA stipulates that before work can
commence in an area, an assessment must be conducted to identify endangered species habitat. In FY 15-16
crews that were trained to identify potential habitat spent a total of 396.8 hours performing habitat
assessments. As endangered species are identified, they are reported to CDFW, which then provides County
staff with guidelines to move forward with work. These guidelines may include full time monitoring of the
jobsite by a professional biologist.
•Flood control vegetation and erosion management using California natives
The County Flood Control District is partnering with The Restoration Trust, an Oakland-based non-profit
organization promoting habitat restoration and stewardship, in a native planting experiment along Clayton
Valley Drain (near Hwy 4 adjacent to Walnut Creek). The study is examining the survival of several
California natives: Santa Barbara sedge, (Carex barbarae), common rush (Juncus effusus), Baltic rush
(Juncus balticus), field sedge (Carex praegracilis), and creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides).
The original planting occurred in December 2013, and in December 2014 volunteers focused on supplemental
planting in the same location to replace drought damaged plants. Santa Barbara sedge, common rush, Baltic
rush, and field sedge were planted on the lower terrace near the creek and the creeping wild rye was planted
on the slopes of the channel.
On December 12, 2015, 42 volunteers picked up over 20 bags of garbage along this area of Clayton Valley
Drain before planting 5,000 plugs of wild rye. Since the native
plants from 2013 and 2014 were thriving, the volunteers
concentrated on planting upstream from the original site to
expand the project.
The volunteers included students from Pittsburg High School,
Antioch High, and Boy Scout Troop 238 as well as Public
Works employees and community members.
This year volunteers will gather again to replant, weed, and
pick up trash on December 10.
The Division
continues, at the
request of The Restoration Trust, to spray the area for broadleaf
weeds to reduce competition and provide the native plants with an
advantage. The Division has also been providing hand and
mechanical mowing, as requested.
The native species that were planted spread from underground
rhizomes that anchor the soil and provide erosion control. They are
perennial species that stay green year around and thus are resistant
to fire. The plants are compatible with flood control objectives since they do not have woody stems, and
during flood events, they lie down on the slope which reduces flow impedance. They are not sensitive to
Students planting grass plugs.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 34 of 174
Scouts with the finished owl box
broadleaf-specific herbicides, and unlike non-native annuals, they provide carbon sequestration and remove as
much as ½ ton of carbon per acre per year.
The Restoration Trust will monitor these plots until 2018 to assess native plant survival and the degree to
which they compete with the non-native annual species.
• Owl box installation in Livorna Park
In August, the County Clean Water Program and the Public
Works Special Districts Division partnered with Boy Scout
Troop 815 to install an owl nesting box in Livorna Park in
Alamo. Eagle Scout, Henry Helstad, led a team of Boy Scouts in
building and installing the owl box. County staff and Susan
Captain, a public member of the IPM Advisory Committee,
provided assistance. Over 140 hours were volunteered to
propose, plan, and complete this project. Scouts distributed
handouts to residents around Livorna Park to inform the
neighbors of the project and the environmental benefits.
In October, Susan Captain made a presentation about the owl
box to the Alamo Municipal Advisory Committee, and spoke
about the importance of not using rodenticide so that the owls
will not be at risk for secondary poisoning from eating poisoned
rodents. The presentation was very well-received and excited
residents asked about how to erect owl boxes in their backyards.
Public Works Special Districts, which manages Livorna Park, no
longer uses rodenticide to control rats in the park. Rats had been
girdling plants along the edge of the park and rodenticide had been
used to control the population. Traps were also used, but nothing
was caught in the traps. The plants have grown considerably and are
no longer in danger from the gnawing, so the rat bait boxes have
been removed from the park.
The owl box is designed for a barn owl. A family of owls can
consume 3,000 rodents (voles, mice, rats, and squirrels) during a 4
month nesting period. Everyone is hopeful that a pair of barn owls
will find and occupy the box in the next year or so and help to
provide rat control at the park and surrounding neighborhood. Since
gophers spend most of their time underground, owls will likely have
little impact on that rodent. It is important to note that although
predators like owls can prune a rodent population, they will not
control the population, especially considering the fecundity of these animals.
The Special Districts vertebrate pest contractor will monitor the box for owls and clean the box annually once
it is occupied. Grounds maintenance staff at Livorna will also monitor the box.
• Grazing as a vegetation management tool
The Division continues to fine tune its use of grazing to improve the tool’s effectiveness and economic
viability. Using grazing as a management tool is complicated and very dependent on site-specific conditions.
Grazing is not appropriate in all situations and could not, for instance, be used on the side of County roads
without endangering both the animals and motorists. Many factors raise or lower the cost per acre for grazing,
including the size of the parcel (at larger sites the cost of moving the goats in and out is spread over a number
of acres), whether the animals can easily enter the site, the amount of fencing necessary, how many times the
animals must be moved within the job site coupled with the ease with which that can be done, whether water
is available or must be trucked in, and the season in which the animals are being used (costs are lower when
demand is lower, e.g., in fall and winter).
Scouts discussing the location of an owl box in
Livorna Park, Alamo
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 35 of 174
• Ideal grazing situations for fire prevention
The Division has found that the following situations are ideal for meeting fire prevention standards with
grazing:
1. Sensitive sites with endangered or threatened species where mowing could kill animals and where
herbicides are restricted
2. Sites where access is difficult for people or machines
3. Sites with steep slopes or uneven terrain that would have to be mowed by hand and that present
dangerous working conditions for staff
4. Sites that are too wet for either hand or machine mowing
• Areas not suited for grazing
1. One to two acre sites are not economical because of the cost of getting the animals in and out.
2. Unfenced areas along roadsides are not appropriate because of safety issues and because of the cost of
fencing off a narrow band of land and continually moving animals along the road.
3. In the winter, grazing animals cannot be used on the rain softened creek banks and the ground adjacent
to the banks because of the danger of causing erosion.
• Advances in grazing strategy
The Division continues to take advantage of the time after a site has been grazed. When goats remove
vegetation, staff can inspect flood control facilities much more effectively. Goats were used this year to
prepare various creeks for their annual or biennial inspection by the Army Corp of Engineers. This made the
Corp’s job much easier, and they were very grateful.
Staff have always monitored the integrity of the slopes and the presence of invasive and other problematic
weeds, but when vegetation is very low, it is much easier to see the condition of the flood control facilities
and easier to spot treat for hard-to-control weeds. This combination of grazing and herbicides has proven very
effective.
In the last few years, the Division has coordinated with the grazing contractor to use County land as staging
areas for goat herds in late summer and early fall. The County continues to improve their strategic use of
goats in the off-season. The County contracts for grazing on a certain portion of a creek, and then the
contractor is allowed to use that area and the surrounding area as needed, with the approval of the Division, to
stage animals between jobs for the County or other clients. The County is central to the area serviced by the
grazer so that animals need not be trucked back to their farm between each job. In return, the County gains the
benefit of free grazing on various creeks or detention basins.
• Grazing costs
Costs vary widely among sites. This year costs ranged from $3,440/acre to graze Lower Bogue Basin to
$546/acre to graze Trembath Basin. Lower Bogue is only 1.25 acres, but it is tucked behind an Alamo
subdivision with a locked gate, and water must be trucked in for the goats. Difficult access and no water
greatly increase the cost. Trembath Basin is 15 acres of open area with water and easy access.
By using goats in the off season (late summer through fall) and allowing the grazer to use County land for
staging herds, the County has been able to bring down the overall cost per acre for the year. Not all sites are
appropriate for these strategies, and while late season grazing has been beneficial for both the Division and
the grazer, it does not mean that just any location can be grazed in the off season at a reduced price.
Peak season grazing is used mainly for fire prevention, but off season grazing in flood control channels has
goals and benefits that are somewhat different.
The reduction of vegetation:
1. Lessens the late-season fire danger in the channels
2. Allows for a more thorough inspection of the channels to comply with Army Corp of Engineers
maintenance standards
3. Allows staff to more easily see and treat invasive and other problematic weeds
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 36 of 174
Mulch along the access road on Walnut Creek
4.Reduces obstacles in the channels that could impede the flow of water during a rain event
5.Reduces cover and thus discourages homeless encampments
Off season grazing benefits both the County and the grazer. It is less costly for the County because demand
for grazing is low in the off season, and the grazing contractor has forage for the animals, which must be fed
in the off season as well. Because of the arrangement the County has made with the grazer, their animals also
graze additional acreage for free in the late season. This year, because of a widespread shortage of feed and
hay, prices shot up making off season grazing in County flood control channels very attractive.
Cost of Grazing for Fire Prevention
Fiscal
Year
Acres
Grazed
and Paid
for
Total Cost
for Paid
Acres
Grazed
Average
Cost/Acre
Bonus
Acres
Grazed for
Free in Off
Season
Total
Acres
Grazed in
County
Average
Cost/Acre
for All Acres
Grazed
12-13 74 $88,100 $1191 0 74 $1191
13-14 113 $123,660 $1094 70 183 $676
14-15 190 $161,700 $851 177 367 $441
15-16 156 $148,900 $954 158 314 $474
•Grazing a permanent tool in the IPM toolbox
Grazing is now one of the Division’s established tools for vegetation management. Grazing is not appropriate
in every situation, but its use by the Division has been expanding and evolving to include quite a number of
different objectives. In the years to come, the Division will continue to refine the decision making process for
deploying grazing in order to increase effectiveness
and economy.
•Using mulch for weed suppression
The effects of the drought continue to kill thousands of
trees in the County. The Division chips prunings and
dead trees into mulch that is being used more
extensively along fencelines above flood control
channels and in empty County parcels. Logs that are
too large for the Division’s chipper go to the Grounds
Division for chipping and use on County landscapes.
•Fire fuel reduction challenges in 2016
Fire prevention weed abatement is time-sensitive, and
historically the deadline has been July 1. If weed
abatement was not completed by that date, the County
could incur fines from the fire districts. In FY 14-15, the dry weather forced the deadline to May 1. This year
fire districts were again requiring weed abatement to be completed in some areas by May 1. The Routine
Maintenance Agreement with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife stipulates that no work can begin in
Contra Costa flood control channels prior to April 15. Once again, it was impossible for staff to complete all
the mowing in the two to four week window mandated by the fire districts. Because some areas were mowed
so early in the season, crews had to return to mow them a second time because vegetation had grown back.
Rainfall was more predictable this past winter which made pre-emergent herbicides perform better than last
year. However, because of low staffing levels, the Division was not able to apply pre-emergents to all the
usual areas, which meant staff had to spend more time and herbicide on spot treatments of weeds throughout
the season. Pre-emergent herbicides are used to suppress germination of weeds so that less herbicide is needed
for control the rest of the year.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 37 of 174
Along flood control channels, the weed abatement crew is trying to apply pre-emergents around gates,
fencelines, and flood control structures so that when mowing crews come through, they can spend less time
hand mowing thus making it more likely that the County can meet its fire fuel reduction deadlines.
•Buffer zones for certain pesticides enjoined by the courts
Several lawsuits brought by environmental organizations against the EPA have been temporarily settled by
the delineation of buffer zones in and around habitat for a number of endangered or threatened species in the
Bay Area. The Department continues to work within the guidelines of the injunctions to assess work sites and
implement buffer zones before using any of the enjoined pesticides.
Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division Challenges
•Results of five years of drought
Even with a more or less normal rainfall this past winter, conditions continue to select for the tougher and
weedier species along the roads and flood control channels. The dry soil conditions have suppressed the
growth of some weeds, and without competition, the hardier weeds have more room and freedom to grow.
Crews are seeing a continued increase in kochia (Bassia sp.), stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens), Russian
thistle (Salsola spp.), fleabane (Conyza sp.) and mare’s tail (Conyza canadensis), all weeds that emerge late in
the season and are difficult to control. These weeds are often on private land adjacent to rights-of-way where
the County has no jurisdiction.
•El Niño winter
The Flood Control District took predictions of heavy rains very seriously and made sure that flood control
facilities were ready for the worst. As a consequence, all flood control facilities performed as they should with
the normal amount of rainfall received in the County this past winter.
•Cost implications of regulations
Compliance with Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA) requirements has considerable effect on the cost of
operations. As mentioned above, work within CDFW jurisdiction requires a habitat assessment prior to start
of work so that RMA-listed species are not harmed. Crews again identified listed species at a couple of job
sites and consultation with CDFW resulted in using alternative work methods that were more costly.
•Cost implications of various management techniques
In FY 15-16, 55% of the Division’s expenditures on vegetation management was spent on non-chemical
treatment methods, while the number of acres treated non-chemically was 23% of the total acres treated (see
the chart below for details).
Two years ago, the safety requirements for mowing were increased and these measures continue in effect.
These measures will help prevent fires and injuries to workers but will increase the cost of mowing. The
following are the additional safety mandates from CalFire:
1.Crews must have access to a water truck or a 5 gallon backpack type water fire extinguisher.
2. A worker trained in using the fire-fighting equipment on the truck must be added to a mowing
crew to continuously monitor the weather and serve as a lookout.
3. If the height of the vegetation requires that a worker scout the ground ahead of the mower, a
separate person must be assigned to perform that function.
4.If the ambient air temperature reaches 80° F, the relative humidity is 30% or lower, or if wind
speeds reach 10 mph or higher, mowing cannot begin or must stop immediately.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 38 of 174
Note: The legend to the right of the pie chart identifies slices starting from 12 o’clock and continuing clockwise.
7% 9%
4% 3%
61%
0% 16%
FY 15-16 Vegetation Management Methods
as Percentage of Total Acres Treated
Mowing
Chemical - Creek Access Roads
Chemical - Creek Banks
Chemical - Aquatic Applications
Chemical - Roads
Mulching
Grazing - Goats & Sheep
A Cost* Comparison of Vegetation Management Methods for Roadsides and Flood Control Channels
Fiscal Year 2015-2016
Vegetation Management Method
Acres
Treated
% of
Total
Acres
Treated
Total Cost
for all acres
treated Cost/Acre
% of Total
Cost for all
acres
treated
Chemical Treatment - Roads 1222 61% $196,968 $161 28%
Right of Way Mowing 150 7% $216,749 $1,445** 31%
Chemical Treatment – Creek Access Roads 178 9% $56,761 $319 8%
Chemical Treatment – Creek Banks 83 4% $18,462 $222 3%
Grazing – Peak and Off Season 314 16% $148,900 $474 21%
Chemical Treatment - Aquatic Applications 63 3% $45,931 $729 6%
Mulching 4 0.2% $17,929 $4,482 3%
Totals 2014 $701,700
*The cost figures above for each method include labor, materials, equipment costs, contract costs (for grazing), and overhead, which
includes training, permit costs, and habitat assessment costs. Licensing costs for staff members are paid by the individual and not by the
County. The cost of the Vegetation Management Supervisor when he supervises work is not included in any of the figures, but is
comparable among the various methods.
** The cost of right of way mowing continues to increase due to the new fire prevention regulations (FY13-14=$762/A; FY14-15=$828/A;
FY15-16 $1,445/A).
With limited budget, staff, and equipment, the Division must make strategic decisions about where to deploy their
resources in order to meet their mandates of managing vegetation for fire and flood prevention and for road
safety. The Division is managing weeds in a biological system, and factors such as weather, rainfall, weed growth
patterns, timing for optimum weed susceptibility to the treatment method, and threatened and endangered species
issues must also be factored into management decisions. The pie charts below further illustrate the cost of various
management techniques and show how the Division has allocated resources.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 39 of 174
•Weather
Mowing, as well as the application of herbicides, is highly dependent upon weather conditions. Weather
can affect when herbicides can or must be applied and can also affect when mowing can or should occur.
Weather can substantially alter the size and type of the weed load or its distribution over time and space.
The Department has a limited capacity to use mowing because of a number of factors including vacancies
in vegetation management staff, the Department’s limited budget for weed abatement, and the limited
number of tractor mowers (two). The Department faces a continued challenge of balancing the use of
herbicides to control weed growth with the Department’s capacity to mow or to graze with goats or sheep
within the confines of the budget and the timeline to prevent fires.
Using mowers during hot, dry weather also poses a hazard of its own: sparks caused by the metal mower
blades striking rocks or metal debris can ignite tinder-dry grass.
•Staffing
The Vegetation Management crew is still understaffed with four personnel as compared to a staff of six in
2009. Full staffing would consist of three vegetation management techs, two senior vegetation
management techs, and one supervisor. Currently the crew is short one vegetation management tech and
has no permanent supervisor. Peter Gollinger, who had been the Vegetation Management Supervisor, was
promoted to Assistant Field Operations Manager. Currently, Peter Gollinger is performing the duties of
both his old and new positions.
Note: The legend to the right of the pie chart identifies slices starting from 12 o’clock and continuing clockwise.
$1,445
$319 $222
$729 $161 $4,482
$474 FY15-16 Vegetation Management Costs per Acre
Mowing
Chemical - Creek Access Roads
Chemical - Creek Banks
Chemical - Aquatic Applications
Chemical - Roads
Mulching
Grazing - Goats & Sheep
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 40 of 174
Pesticide Use by Contra Costa County Operations
Starting in FY 00-01, the IPM Task Force annually reported pesticide use data to the Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee for the County departments involved in pest management. The IPM Coordinator has
continued this task. Below is a bar chart of pesticide use over the last 7 years. For information on pesticide use
reporting and for more detailed pesticide use data including total product use, see Attachment C and the separate
County Pesticide Use Spreadsheet.
FY 09-
10
FY 10-
11
FY 11-
12
FY 12-
13
FY 13-
14
FY 14-
15
FY 15-
16
Facilities 17 5 9 16 6 16 30
PW Special Dist. 10 45 7 7 2 0.003 0.001
Grounds 46 113 378 377 492 338 433
Agriculture 687 795 539 529 498 153 76
Public Works 8,165 6,439 5,713 6,565 4,688 4,780 4,607
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Lbs. of Active Ingredient CCC Operations Pesticide Use by Program
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 41 of 174
Increase in Pesticide Use by the Facilities Division
In FY 15-16 Pestec used 14 more pounds of active ingredients in and around County building than last year
primarily due to the numerous Argentine ant infestations. Argentine ants feed on honeydew produced by insects
such as aphids and scales. The sustained drought has reduced the vegetation that harbors these insects, and
watering restrictions have eliminated much of the soil moisture available in the summer. These two factors forced
Argentine ants closer to buildings where limited irrigation provided water and sustained plant growth. This led to
more incursions into buildings earlier in the year and more often as they searched for food and water.
Concern about “Bad Actor” Pesticides
There has been concern among members of the public and within the County about the use of “Bad Actor”
pesticides by County departments. “Bad Actor” is a term coined by the 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.
Parents for a Safer Environment has requested that additional pesticides be reported as “Bad Actors”, but in 2013
after studying this request and consulting Dr. Susan Kegley, who was instrumental in developing the PAN
pesticide database, the IPM Advisory Committee decided that the County will report as “Bad Actor” pesticides
only those that are designated as such in the PAN database.
The County’s use of these particular pesticides has decreased dramatically since FY 00-01 as shown in the chart
below. In Fiscal Year 2000-2001, County operations used 6,546 lbs. of “Bad Actor” active ingredients and this
year used only 779 lbs.
CCC Operations Total Pesticide Use vs. ‘Bad Actor’ Use
FY 00-01 FY 04-05 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16
Total Use 18,939 14,396 12,669 11,106 8,925 7,397 6,646 7,495 5,685 5,287 5,146
Total Bad Actors 6,546 3,183 3,494 2,899 2,556 1,596 1,126 1,353 1,043 1,021 779
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000 Lbs. of Active Ingredient
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 42 of 174
Rodenticide Use
The Department of Agriculture uses rodenticide for ground squirrels whose burrowing threatens critical
infrastructure in the County, such as roads, levees, earthen dams, and railroad embankments. In Special Districts,
at Livorna Park and around the playing field at Alamo School, gophers, moles, and voles are managed by trapping
with some limited use of rodenticides.
“First generation” vs. “second generation” anticoagulant rodenticides
Anticoagulants prevent blood from clotting and cause death by internal bleeding. In small doses they are used
therapeutically in humans for a number of heart ailments. Vitamin K1 is the antidote for anticoagulant poisoning,
and is readily available. (There are some types of rodenticides for which there is no antidote.)
When anticoagulant rodenticides are necessary, the County uses first generation anticoagulant baits. First
generation anticoagulants require multiple feedings over several days to a week to kill.
Second generation anticoagulants are designed to kill after a single feeding and pose a greater risk to animals that
eat poisoned rodents. If the rodent continues to feed on a second generation anticoagulant after it eats a toxic dose
at the first meal, it may build up more than a lethal dose in its body before the clotting factors run out and the
animal dies. Residues of second generation anticoagulants may remain in liver tissue for many weeks. Because
rodents poisoned by second generation anticoagulants can carry a heavier load of more toxic poison that persists
in their bodies for a long period of time, the risk of death is increased for a predator that eats rodents poisoned by
second generation anticoagulants.
The first generation materials are cleared much more rapidly from animal tissues and have a much reduced
potential for secondary kill when compared to second generation materials. However, the first generation
anticoagulants can also kill animals that eat poisoned rodents.
As noted earlier in this report, the Agriculture Department has revised its ground squirrel baiting procedure to
reduce the amount of treated grain used. The Agriculture Department also mitigates the risk of secondary
poisoning by performing carcass surveys in all areas treated with anticoagulants whether or not it is required by
endangered species restrictions.
Below, rodenticide use has been plotted separately from other pesticides used by the County.
*The Agriculture Department uses primarily diphacinone treated grain bait, but in years past they also used some gas cartridges as
fumigation agents.
In FY 15-16, Special Districts used only diphacinone, but in years past, their use was more than 99% aluminum phosphide, which is a
fumigant and not an anticoagulant rodenticide.
FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16
Agriculture Dept. 3 3 4 3 1 3 1.230
PW Special Dist. 9 12 7 7 2 0.003 0.001
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Lbs. of Active Ingredient Rodenticide Use by County Operations
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 43 of 174
Trends in Pesticide Use
A change in pesticide use from one year to the next does not necessarily indicate a long-term trend. Long-term
trends are more meaningful than short-term changes. It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase
and decrease 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 but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects to a department’s
workload, and cuts to budgets or staff that make it difficult or impossible to use alternate methods of control.
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. When this “low-hanging
fruit” has been plucked, it takes more time and effort to investigate and analyze where additional changes can be
made. Since FY 00-01, the County has reduced its use of pesticide by 73%. If further reductions in pesticide use
are to be made, it will require time for focused study and additional funding for implementation.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 44 of 174
Departmental Integrated Pest Management Priorities For 2017
Agriculture Department Priorities for 2017
•Continue the County’s highly effective invasive weed program
The Agriculture Department will give priority to weed work under contract with local parks and
municipalities. Artichoke thistle and purple starthistle will remain the primary target weeds for the 2017
season. The Department will move toward a more collaborative role with private landowners and will
help them develop weed management plans and will encourage landowners to take the primary role for
weed control on their properties.
The Department will continue to respond to any "A rated” weed that enters the county with surveys and
treatment.
•Ground Squirrel Management Program
The Agricultural Department will continue to provide information and resources to the County,
municipalities, growers and the general public on the control of ground squirrels. Without effective
control measures, ground squirrels will damage crops and infrastructure, such as earthen dams, levees,
and highways. The economic and environmental consequences would be substantial.
Over the years the Department has experimented with raptor perches, exclusion techniques, and live
trapping as alternatives to traditional baiting. Although some of these methods could provide reasonable
control with small, limited infestations of ground squirrels, all of these methods are considerably more
costly and less effective on a larger scale. The Department continues to search for the most effective, least
toxic, and most economical solutions for controlling ground squirrels within our county by consulting
with researchers, the University of California Cooperative Extension Service, the California Department
of Food and Agriculture, other counties, and with industry.
Public Works Department Priorities for 2017
Facilities Division
•Continue working to fix structural deficiencies in County buildings
•Continue monitoring the bed bug situation in County buildings and providing awareness training if
necessary
Grounds Division
•Fill the Grounds Supervisor position
•Continue removing hazard trees and trees killed by the drought—where appropriate and where there is
funding, trees will be replaced with drought tolerant species
•Continue installing smart irrigation controllers throughout the County, and continue to conserve water as
much as possible
•Continue diverting green waste from the landfill by chipping prunings and using the material in place
•Continue chipping large logs from PGE, tree companies, and Public Works Maintenance for mulch—the
mulch will be used to suppress weeds wherever possible
•Continue hand weeding wherever and whenever feasible—using mulch facilitates hand weeding
•Continue educating the public to help them raise their tolerance of weeds
•Continue working on the rejuvenation of aging County landscapes
•Continue raising the level of service on County property
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 45 of 174
Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division
•Fine-tune grazing in the off peak season
Grazing is working well during the peak season. The Department will continue working with grazing
contractors to fine-tune the use of goats and/or sheep during the off peak season at a reduced cost in areas
such as detention basins, flood control channels, and other secure locations.
•Continue to refine IPM practices
The Division would like to incorporate more innovation into the vegetation management program, and
will be looking at testing and/or incorporating new vegetation management techniques, technology,
software, equipment, machinery, and chemicals.
•Coordinate work efforts more closely with other Public Works Department crews
There are many instances where the Vegetation Management Crew could anticipate performing work that
can aid other Department crews such as Road Maintenance, Flood Control, and Airport Operations. Peter
Gollinger, as the new Assistant Field Operations Manager, is now in a position to facilitate that kind of
coordination.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 46 of 174
Attachment A.
•Report of the Decision-Making Subcommittee to the Contra Costa County IPM
Committee
•Decision-Making Documents
o Rats in Livorna Park
o Gophers in County Landscaping (Draft)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 47 of 174
Report of the Decision-Making Subcommittee
to the Contra Costa County IPM Committee.
Prepared by Andrew M. Sutherland, Subcommittee Chair, September 2016
Members
Susan Captain
Jim Cartan
Jim Donnelly – vice chair
Andrew Sutherland - chair
Larry Yost
The Decision-Making Subcommittee has met five times so far in 2016: April 21, May 20, June 16, August 12 and
September 16.
Considering feedback from the Departments as well as the community, the subcommittee decided that it would
tackle documentation of rodent management within Special Districts while simultaneously gathering information
from other counties about vegetation management along rights-of-way, focusing on roadsides and flood control
channels. Uses of rodenticides and herbicides by the County continue to be of interest to the community, and the
subcommittee felt that documentation of these pest situations may potentially lead to improved community
relations, consideration of alternative tactics and continued reductions in pesticide use.
Decision-making documents were developed for
•Gophers (Special Districts)
•Rats (Special Districts)
The subcommittee reviewed each document with the IPM Coordinator and made requests for a number of
changes, clarifications, and improvements. Improvements added include:
•A ‘Recommendations’ section where suggestions about alternative tactics, community involvement, and
special projects and ideas related to the pest situation could be entered.
•Increased documentation of sampling programs utilized, thresholds, and selection processes for
management tactics.
After hearing from the Special Districts Manager, the subcommittee was struck by the unique structure and
function of the County’s Special Districts. Programs are funded by the communities served, but there may not be
much awareness within the community of tactics utilized nor of the overall management strategies employed. The
subcommittee is still considering how the County may improve communication between parties within this
process. As part of the investigation into the Special Districts’ pest management programs, the subcommittee has
decided to review the County’s IPM Policy and associated Administrative Bulletin, the Public Works Landscape
Standards, and the purchase order / scope of work for the Special Districts’ rodent management contractor to
ensure contracts are in accordance with policies and to explore ways in which such accordances may be improved.
This investigation is ongoing.
In order to prepare for the creation and review of a very large and complex decision document (Weed
Management along Roadsides and Flood Control Channels), the subcommittee decided to begin gathering
information from other counties while the IPM Coordinator began documenting current County practices. This
information will enable the subcommittee to tackle this large decision document immediately during the next
term. Subcommittee members have already gathered detailed information about vegetation management practices
as well as associated costs and benefits from Alameda County, Yolo County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara
County, and Solano County. The subcommittee has suggested that invitations be extended to representatives of
some of these counties to travel to Contra Costa County in order to share their successes, failures, and general
experiences with the subcommittee during the decision document creation and consideration processes next term.
This information gathering process is ongoing.
It was decided that any improvements would be added to documents going forward, and previous documents
would be updated in the future. Decision-making documents are considered current as of the date on the
document.
The current versions of the decision-making documents that were reviewed this year are attached. The committee
considers the rat decision document to be finished, but the gopher decision document is still being reviewed and
may be revised in the future.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 48 of 174
Contra Costa County
DECISION DOCUMENTATION for RAT MANAGEMENT AT LIVORNA PARK
Date: 8/4/2016
Department: Special Districts
Location: Livorna Park in Alamo and potentially other sites in the future
Situation: Rat management to protect human health & safety, ornamental plantings, and
structures in Livorna Park
What are the management
goals for the sites?
Livorna Park is the only park managed by County Special Districts where rats have been a problem over the
past few years. They were damaging young hibiscus bushes at the edge of the park in the bed above the
retaining wall by chewing on the bark. Currently rats are not an issue at Livorna or in any other Special District
landscaping or park locations. However, it is possible that in the future Livorna Park or another area may have
rat problems. The management goals would still be the following:
•Prevent rats from killing or damaging plants by gnawing on the bark.
•Protect public health.
•Protect park structures from damage.
Who has jurisdiction over
the areas in question?
The County has jurisdiction over the facilities in question; however, the County does not control the source
and amount of funding for pest management.
How are the sites
monitored and how
frequently?
Various.
Livorna Park is monitored weekly by landscape maintenance personnel from the County Grounds Division.
The site is also monitored monthly by the vertebrate pest management contractor for Special Districts.
Monitoring is done by visual inspection, looking for evidence of chewing on shrubs, evidence of runs,
droppings.
The problem species have
been identified as the
following:
Roof rat (Rattus rattus)
Roof rats are omnivorous, but tend to more vegetarian preferences. Typical food is fresh fruit, plant material,
nuts and seeds, vegetables and tree bark.
Rats can damage or kill shrubs and young trees by gnawing on the bark or girdling the plant. Rats damage
structures by gnawing and can cause electrical fires by chewing off insulation around electrical wires. They
contaminate surfaces and food with urine and feces. These rodents are carriers of ectoparasites such as fleas
and mites that can bite people, and they are implicated in the transmission of 55 different human pathogens.
What is the tolerance level
for these species?
Tolerance level: Any evidence of roof rats, such as gnawing on bark, evidence of runs, droppings, or gnawing
on structures or wires, triggers a more thorough investigation. Treatment actions would begin if rats were
seriously damaging shrubs or if there were evidence of on-going damage to infrastructure. Treatment ceases
when new damage is no longer evident.
Are these sensitive sites? Is the site part of any of the court-ordered injunctions regarding threatened and
endangered species?
Are there other sensitive species to be aware of?
In urban areas, pets as well as birds of prey, and sometimes wild mammalian
predators feed on rodents. Pets and other urban wildlife could feed directly on
rodenticides if the bait were not secured inside a tamper-resistant bait station.
Livorna Park is not
part of any
injunction, but if
problems arose at
other sites, this
question would be
revisited.
Is there known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species at any of
the sites?
No for Livorna Park,
but for other sites,
this question would
be revisited.
Are any of the sites in or near an area where people walk or children play? Yes
Are any of the sites near a drinking water reservoir? N/A
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 49 of 174
Are any of the sites near a creek or flood control channel? N/A
Which cultural controls
were considered?
Limiting availability of shelter/harborage for rodents
•Trim bushes and ground covers at least 2 feet away from any structure to decrease cover for rodent
runways, to prevent hidden access to buildings, and to make inspections easier.
•Prune shrubs and hedges up from the ground at least 12 inches so the ground beneath is open and
visible. Remove weeds under shrubs.
•Thin bushes until daylight can be seen through them. Keep all plantings airy to eliminate harborage.
•Keep tree branches pruned at least 6 feet away from any structures.
•Do not plant vines.
•Do not plant dense ground covers or hedges.
•Do not plant ivy and date palms because rats can live in and feed on these plants.
•Remove rock and wood piles and construction debris.
•Seal holes in structures that allow rodents access to shelter or harborage in the buildings.
•Keep weedy grasses trimmed low and/or eliminate them to reduce harborage and food from seeds.
Limiting availability of food for rodents
•Use garbage cans that rats cannot access.
•Remove garbage daily, ideally before nightfall, since rodents will be feeding at night.
CONCLUSIONS: All of these tactics are very important in reducing the number of rodents in and
around structures. All of these tactics are used where appropriate in the County.
Which physical controls
were considered?
Trapping requires more time, effort, and skill than other control methods, but has several advantages: you can
see your success, no rodenticides are necessary, and there is no risk of secondary poisoning.
Live Trapping: Rats caught in live traps would have to be humanely euthanized and would require a
contractor with that capability.
Glue boards are useful in certain situations, but glue boards are generally considered inhumane since rodents
caught in the glue usually die slowly and with much struggle. Outdoors, glue boards would quickly be rendered
ineffective by dirt and debris.
Kill trapping: Snap traps are effective for roof rats and can be used both indoors and out at any time of the
year. In general, they should be baited with something that is attractive to the roof rats. Traps must be placed
where they will not attract attention and where children and adults will not accidentally encounter them. Trap
placement is crucial for success and in general, it is important to use more, rather than fewer traps.
Outdoors, snap traps can be used inside of rodent bait stations. This makes the trap inaccessible and hides
catches from public view. Pestec IPM Provider, the current County structural IPM contractor uses Protecta
Sidewinder® Bait Stations, but other brands that will easily accommodate the trap with its jaws open will work.
Pestec places an unset snap trap (T-Rex®) and a non-toxic feeding block (Detex Blox®) inside the bait
station. The purpose of the feeding block is to entice rats inside and to accustom them to entering the bait
station safely. When monitoring shows that rats are feeding on the Detex Blox, the snap trap inside the station
is baited and set. Pestec considers T-Rex traps to be the best choice for using inside a bait station. The bait
stations should be inspected within a week to remove trapped rodents. At this point, the bait is refreshed and
the traps are reset. When no more rodents are being trapped, the traps are deactivated and the technician
returns to monitoring the station for feeding activity.
Electronic traps are also available for rats and mice. These electrocute the rodent and need batteries to
operate. They are also 7 to 8 times more expensive than a T-Rex trap, and must be monitored for battery
replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: Trapping is very effective and is the only method of direct control used around
County buildings, barring a public health emergency. In Livorna Park, both trapping and rodenticides
have been used in the past; however, trapping was not successful, and no rats were caught.
Nevertheless, trapping should always be considered first.
Which biological controls
were considered?
Biological controls available: There are a number of animals that prey on rats and mice, including cats and
owls. Predators can prune rat populations, but they cannot provide the degree of control necessary in a
specific location. Cats and dogs are often found living in close association with an infestation of rats.
CONCLUSIONS: There are no biological controls that alone could reliably reduce the rat population
below the damage threshold.
The County, however, has erected an owl box in Livorna Park because natural predators can aid the
County’s efforts considerably. The County is not currently using rodenticide in the park but could not
control whether residents around the park use rodenticides. Any owls nesting in the box at Livorna
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 50 of 174
Park could be at risk for poisoning. To reduce the risk, the County will place posters in the park
explaining the purpose of the owl box, and the Eagle Scout who took on this project will prepare
information about owl boxes and alternative rodent management that will be reviewed by the IPM
Coordinator and then disseminated to the neighbors in hopes of curtailing the use of rodenticides.
Supervisor Andersen’s office will give a presentation at the Alamo Municipal Advisory Council’s next
meeting to explain the project and urge people to consider managing rodents around their homes with
methods other than rodenticides. An article about the project will also be in the Supervisor’s next
newsletter.
The scout troop will be responsible for maintenance of the owl box including a yearly cleaning.
Which chemical controls
were considered?
Since an owl box has been installed at Livorna Park, this biological control project must be considered
before any rodenticides are used in the Park.
Diphacinone (005%) Multiple Dose Bait Blocks (Eaton's Bait Blocks®)
Signal Word: CAUTION.
If rodenticides must be used, they will be used according to the Greenshield IPM Certification
Standards as follows:
i) used only after reasonable measures are taken to correct conducive conditions including preventing
access to water, food or garbage; removing clutter; sealing cracks or holes in foundations, sidewalks;
removing tall weeds; and trimming shrubs to expose the ground and discourage rat burrowing; and
ii) in bait-block form and placed in a locked, distinctively marked, tamper-resistant container designed
specifically for holding baits and constructed of metal or heavy duty plastic and securely attached to the
ground, fences, floors, walls or weighted bases, etc. such that the container cannot be easily
moved/removed; and
iii) baits are secured (e.g., on a rod) in the baffle-protected feeding chamber of the bait container and not
in the station’s runway
In addition, the bait stations must be labeled with the active ingredient in the bait and the name and
address (or phone number) of the contractor.
Diphacinone is a first generation anticoagulant that prevents blood from clotting and causes death by internal
bleeding. First generation anticoagulants require multiple feedings over several days to a week to kill. This is
different from second generation anticoagulants that are far more toxic and can kill within days of a single
feeding if enough bait is ingested.
Second generation anticoagulants pose a greater risk to animals that eat poisoned rodents. If the rodent
continues to feed on the single-dose anticoagulant after it eats a toxic dose at the first meal, it may build up
more than a lethal dose in its body before the clotting factors run out and the animal dies. Residues of second
generation anticoagulants may remain in liver tissue for many weeks, so a predator that eats many poisoned
rodents may build up a toxic dose over time. However, even the first generation anticoagulants may be
poisonous to animals that eat poisoned rodents. The first generation materials break down much more rapidly
in animal tissues and have a much reduced potential for secondary kill when compared to second generation
materials.
CONCLUSIONS:
The County is not currently using rodenticides for rat pest control in any Special District locations.
Rodenticide would only be used if damage were serious and trapping could not be used or was not
effective. In the event of a public health emergency, the County would use all available means to
control rats and/or mice, including rodenticides if necessary.
A first generation anticoagulant, such as diphacinone or warfarin, would be chosen. These
rodenticides are readily accepted by rats, effectively kill these rodents, and have a wide margin of
safety because they require multiple daily sequential feedings for toxicosis, and have a readily
available and easily administered antidote (Vitamin K). First generation anticoagulants also pose less
of a secondary poisoning risk.
Treatment actions would begin only if rats were seriously damaging shrubs or if there were evidence
of damage to infrastructure. Treatment ceases when new damage is no longer evident.
Which application
methods are available for
this rodenticide?
Rodenticide applications must be made in tamper-resistant bait stations anchored to the substrate and
situated along walls, other external parts of buildings, or along rodent runs.
What factors were
considered in choosing
the pesticide application
method?
Safety to the applicator, the environment, and nontarget species; endangered species considerations, the
effectiveness of the method, and the cost to the Special District.
What weather concerns Since the rodenticide would be protected inside a bait station, weather would not be a concern.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 51 of 174
must be checked prior to
application?
Recommendations from
the IPM Advisory
Committee
We recommend that the County investigate owl monitoring techniques and apply the most cost effective
method in Livorna Park to track the success of the owl box.
In an effort to build awareness and community buy-in, we recommend that information pertaining to pests in
Livorna Park and their most appropriate treatment mechanisms be disseminated to surrounding residents.
This is not necessarily the job of the contractor performing treatment. Appropriate outreach techniques and
personnel should be investigated.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 52 of 174
Pesticide Profile for: Diphacinone multiple dose bait blocks
Active Ingredient Diphacinone .005%
Injunction
Restrictions
This chemical is enjoined in particular locations for the following endangered species: Alameda whipsnake,
California tiger salamander, salt marsh harvest mouse, and San Joaquin kit fox.
Signal Word Caution (the lowest hazard level in EPA’s labeling system)
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer Not listed
Prop 65 Not listed
Known Groundwater
Contaminant
No
“Based on the available data, little if any contamination of surface and ground waters is expected for brodifacoum,
bromadiolone, chlorophacinone and diphacinone. These chemicals, although persistent, tend to be relatively
immobile in soil and fairly insoluble in water.” [from USEPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision Facts for Rodenticide
Cluster, July 1998]
Mammalian Hazard Highly toxic by ingestion with oral LD50 values for technical diphacinone of 0.3 to 7 mg/kg in rats, 3.0 to 7.5 mg/kg in
dogs. [EXTOXNET Diphacinone Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Bird Hazard “Diphacinone is slightly toxic to birds. The oral LD50 for diphacinone in mallard ducks is 3158 mg/kg, and in bobwhite
quail is 1630 mg/kg.” [EXTOXNET Diphacinone Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Secondary Poisoning Note that these multiple dose bait blocks are 0.005% diphacinone and the following only references 2nd generation
anticoagulants and 0.01% diphacinone.
“The Agency believes that there is a high risk of secondary poisoning, especially to mammals, from the use of these
rodenticides outdoors (i.e., “around” buildings) in rural and suburban areas. The available data indicate that
brodifacoum, bromadiolone, and 0.01% a.i. chlorophacinone and diphacinone baits may pose a secondary hazard
to avian and/or mammalian predators that feed on poisoned rodents. Brodifacoum and bromadiolone likely pose
the greatest secondary risks, because they are more acutely toxic, especially to birds, more persistent in animal
tissues, and can be lethal in a single feeding. In contrast, chlorophacinone and diphacinone tend to be less toxic to
birds, less persistent in the tissues of primary consumers, and must be eaten over a period of several days to cause
mortality. Therefore, a predator feeding only once on a poisoned carcass may not die if the rodent was poisoned
with diphacinone or chlorophacinone, but is more likely to die if the rodent was poisoned with brodifacoum or
bromadiolone.” [from USEPA Reregistration Eligibility Decision Facts for Rodenticide Cluster, July 1998]
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
“Diphacinone is slightly to moderately toxic to fish. The 96-hour LC50 for technical diphacinone in channel catfish is
2.1 mg/l, for bluegills is 7.6 mg/l, and for rainbow trout is 2.8 mg/l. The 48-hour LC50 in Daphnia, a small freshwater
crustacean, is 1.8 mg/l.” [EXTOXNET Diphacinone Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]. The method of use of the
treated bait will preclude waterway contamination.
Bee Hazard No data found though bee hazard is not expected considering the treatment method
Persistence “Diphacinone is rapidly decomposed in water by sunlight.” [EXTOXNET Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Soil Mobility “Diphacinone has a low potential to leach in soil.” EXTOXNET Pesticide Information Profile, 1993]
Use in County by the
Department
Roof rats at Livorna Park.
Method of
Application
Secured inside a locked and tamper-resistant bait station anchored to the substrate.
Special Cautions Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Causes moderate eye irritation. Avoid contact with eyes, skin or
clothing. Keep away from children, domestic animals and pets. Use waterproof gloves when directly handling bait.
Rate Used in Co. As per label: 2 to 8 2-oz blocks per placement.
Sources Label; MSDS; EPA registration and re-registration documents; carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for Research on Cancer, National Toxicology
Program; Prop. 65; California Department of Pesticide Regulation; Oregon State University Pesticide Properties Database; National Pesticide Information Center
(Oregon State), EXTOXNET (a coalition of a number of Cooperative Extension offices across the country); Thurston Co., WA Terrestrial Pesticide Reviews;
European Union; University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide Properties Database
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 53 of 174
Pesticide Profile for: Warfarin
Active Ingredient Warfarin (.025%)
Injunction
Restrictions
This chemical is enjoined in particular locations for the following endangered species: Alameda whipsnake.
Signal Word Caution (the lowest hazard level in EPA’s labeling system)
Federally, State, or
Locally Restricted
Use Material
No
Cancer Not listed
Prop 65 Listed as a developmental toxicant
DPR Groundwater
Protection List
Not listed
Mammalian Hazard Highly toxic by ingestion with oral LD50 values for technical sodium warfarin of 323 mg/kg in male rats and 58 mg/kg
in female rats; 60 mg/kg in mice; and 200-300 mg/kg in dogs. [EXTOXNET Warfarin Pesticide Information Profile,
1995]
Bird Hazard “The acute avian toxicity of warfarin indicates that it is practically non-toxic to game birds. In subacute studies,
warfarin ranged from moderately toxic to practically non-toxic to upland game birds and waterfowl.” [EXTOXNET
Warfarin Pesticide Information Profile, 1995]
Secondary Poisoning “One study exists on a 50/50 percent formulation of warfarin-sulfaquinoxaline technical. The warfarin-
sulfaquinoxaline caused secondary poisoning in mammalian carnivores such as mink and dogs when ingesting
prey killed after they were provided with treated bait (carrots containing 0.025% by weight of the test materials).
The first death occurred after 8 days of continuous exposure to treated nutria.” [EXTOXNET Warfarin Pesticide
Information Profile, 1995]
Aquatic Organism
Hazard
“The toxicity of warfarin to aquatic organisms is felt to be of low potential due to the fact that warfarin is insoluble in
water. A long field experience shows no potential hazards to aquatic organisms.” [EXTOXNET Warfarin Pesticide
Information Profile, 1995]
Bee Hazard “Warfarin used as a prepared bait (0.13%) is considered non-toxic to bees when used as prescribed.” [EXTOXNET
Warfarin Pesticide Information Profile, 1995]
Persistence No data found.
Soil Mobility No data found.
Use in County by the
Department
Warfarin is not currently being used by the Special Districts’ contractor. This profile has been prepared because
warfarin might be used as a rodenticide bait for rats in Livorna Park.
Method of Application If it were used, it would be secured inside of tamper-resistant bait stations anchored to the substrate.
Special Cautions Keep away from humans, domestic animals and pets. Harmful if swallowed or absorbed through the skin because
this material may reduce the clotting ability of blood and cause bleeding. Do not get in eyes, on skin or clothing.
Wash arms, hands and face with soap and water after applying and before eating or smoking.
Rate Used in Co. To be determined.
Sources Label; MSDS; EPA registration and re-registration documents; carcinogen lists from EPA, International Agency for Research on Cancer, National Toxicology
Program; Prop. 65; California Department of Pesticide Regulation; Oregon State University Pesticide Properties Database; National Pesticide Information Center
(Oregon State), EXTOXNET (a coalition of a number of Cooperative Extension offices across the country); Thurston Co., WA Terrestrial Pesticide Reviews;
European Union; University of Hertfordshire, U.K. Pesticide Properties Database
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 54 of 174
Contra Costa County
DRAFT
DECISION DOCUMENTATION for GOPHER MANAGEMENT in LANDSCAPES
Date: 5/12/16
Department: Public Works Grounds Division and Special Districts
Location: Countywide
Situation: Gophers in parks, frontage landscaping, and County landscaping
What is the
management goal for
the sites?
Gopher eradication is not a goal; the management goals are to prevent gopher damage to landscaping and to
building foundations or other infrastructure such as irrigation pipes and tubing, and prevent tripping hazards where
children, adults, and pets play. Historically, there was such a large population of gophers in the area above Reliez
Valley Rd. in the Hidden Pond Landscaping Zone that gophers were being controlled to minimize destabilization
of the slope to prevent landslides.
Who has jurisdiction
over the areas in
question?
The County has jurisdiction over the sites; however, in Special District frontage or other landscaping, the County
does not control the allocation of funds for landscape maintenance, including pest management.
How often are the sites
monitored?
This varies from site to site.
In the course of her other work, the Grounds Division gopher manager surveys for evidence of gophers. She also
responds to complaints about gophers from County staff and to information relayed by other members of the
Grounds crew. The vertebrate pest manager for Special Districts regularly surveys for gophers in Livorna Park,
Hidden Pond Landscaping Zone, and Driftwood Landscaping Zone.
The problem species
has been identified as
the following:
Pocket gopher, Thomomys sp.
From the UC IPM Pest Notes on pocket gophers (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7433.html):
“Pocket gophers are herbivorous and feed on a wide variety of vegetation but generally prefer herbaceous plants,
shrubs, and trees. Gophers use their sense of smell to locate food. Most commonly they feed on roots and fleshy
portions of plants they encounter while digging. However, they sometimes feed aboveground, venturing only a
body length or so from their tunnel opening. Burrow openings used in this manner are called “feed holes.” You
can identify them by the absence of a dirt mound and by a circular band of clipped vegetation around the hole.
Gophers also will pull entire plants into their tunnel from below. In snow-covered regions, gophers can feed on
bark several feet up a tree by burrowing through the snow.
“…A single gopher moving down a garden row can inflict considerable damage in a very short time. Gophers also
gnaw and damage plastic water lines and lawn sprinkler systems. Their tunnels can divert and carry off irrigation
water, which leads to soil erosion. Mounds on lawns interfere with mowing equipment and ruin the aesthetics of
well-kept turfgrass.”
Gophers sometimes girdle trees and shrubs and can kill trees with trunks several inches in diameter.
Gophers also mix, aerate, and loosen soil, all of which can promote plant growth.
What is the tolerance
level for this species?
One gopher burrowing in landscaping or a lawn will trigger management actions. Gophers in adjacent fields or in
areas that are more wild are not managed except at Hidden Pond Landscaping Zone if gophers become
numerous enough again to destabilize the hillside.
Are these sensitive
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 55 of 174
sites? Are any sites under management part of any of the court-ordered injunction? No for the 2 sites where
rodenticide might be used:
Hidden Pond and
Driftwood.
Are any of the sites known or potential habitats for any endangered or threatened
species?
No
Are any of the sites on or near an area where people walk or children play?
Care must be taken when using gopher traps, so that neither pets nor children are
likely to encounter them.
Yes
Are any of the sites near a drinking water reservoir? Not applicable
Are any of the sites near a creek or flood control channel? Not applicable
Are any of the sites near crops? No
Are any of the sites near desirable trees or landscaping? Yes
Are any of the sites on soil that is highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly? Not applicable
At any of the sites, is the ground water near the surface? Not applicable
Are there any well heads near the sites? Not applicable
What factors are taken
into account when
determining the
management
technique(s) for
gophers?
The proximity to foot traffic—traps cannot be used where children or other passersby might find and try to remove
or play with the trap. Other considerations are the following: safety to the gopher manager, the environment, and
non target species; endangered species considerations; the effectiveness of the method; and the cost to the
Department or the Special District.
What factors
contribute the cost of
gopher management?
1.The number of gophers at the site.
2.The number of gopher mounds at the site—each must be tamped down to determine which tunnels are
active.
3.The size of the site—if a large site must be surveyed on foot, it will take longer.
4.The distance of the site from the corporation yard.
5.The skill and experience of the pest manager—someone with little experience and skill will take longer to find
and trap gophers or kill them with CO2.
6.The frequency of re-invasion—sites near open fields, vacant lots, construction sites, and wildlands will
experience repeated gopher invasions.
Are special permits
required to trap or
otherwise kill gophers?
No special permits are required. Gophers are considered nongame animals by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, which means that if a property owner finds gophers that are injuring garden or landscape plants or
other property, the property owner can control the gophers at any time in any manner that is legal.
Which cultural controls
were considered?
Flooding: This method is not particularly effective and would use large amounts of precious water. Most gophers
survive flooding in their burrows. Some may be forced to the surface, but the pest manager would have to use
something like a shovel to kill those exiting burrows.
Planting buffers or repellent plants: A 50 ft. buffer planted in a grain, such as wheat, is mentioned in the
literature, but this is not practical for the County. There is no evidence for the efficacy of planting so-called gopher
repellent plants such as castor bean.
Conclusion: There are no practical or effective cultural controls for gophers in County landscaping.
Which physical
controls were
considered?
Trapping: Trapping is a very effective management method. There is skill and art to trapping, especially in finding
the proper burrow in which to place traps; therefore, the more experienced the trapper, the more successful they
are. Each management situation is unique and must be assessed at the time of inspection to determine a plan of
action.
There are a number of styles of gopher traps. The Grounds Division uses the Victor Black Box Trap. The Special
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 56 of 174
District contractor uses the Gophinator trap, and the GopherHawk trap.
•The gopher manager surveys the area to determine which gopher mounds look the freshest and flags those
mounds. The remaining mounds are flattened.
•The following day, the manager returns to determine which mounds are actually the newest. Brand new
mounds, or mounds that had been flattened and were then pushed up again, indicate the gopher is working
in those areas. Otherwise the flagged mounds are still the most recent.
•Working near the newest mounds, the manager uses a probe (a long pole) find the main gopher tunnel.
•A small area above the main tunnel is excavated so the traps can be inserted. Two traps are set, one in each
direction back to back, so that a gopher travelling along the tunnel in either direction will encounter the
business end of the trap.
•The hole is covered with a board. Recommendations vary on whether or not to cover the hole, and some
sources indicate that it doesn’t matter, but in the County, the hole should be covered to help prevent the
public from investigating the trap. The spot is marked with a small flag.
In an April 2013 paper in Crop Protection, Baldwin, et al. found that the Gophinator trap was more effective
than the Macabee trap [another similar body gripping trap], probably because it was able to capture larger
gophers. They also found that covering traps in late spring to early summer increased catches, but not during
autumn. They recommended that if efficacy is paramount, traps should be covered from late spring to early
summer, but if time is a constraining factor, traps should be left uncovered.
•Sometimes gophers are trapped immediately while the manager is still working at the site. If not, the manager
returns within 24 hours to check the traps.
Explosive Devices: The Rodenator injects a combination of 3% propane and 97% oxygen into a burrow and
ignites these gases. The resulting explosion collapses the tunnel and creates a shockwave that kills gophers in
the burrow. Approximately 5 years ago, the Grounds Division conducted a trial of the Rodenator outside the
Public Works Administration building on Glacier Drive in Martinez. Gophers were burrowing close to the building,
and it was feared that they might undermine the foundation. The device worked well and no gophers have been
seen in that area since. There are, however, some problems with this device. All the windows on the treatment
side of the building had to be protected with sheets of plywood, and the explosions rattled the windows and the
occupants of the building. The reports from the explosions, which sound like gunshots, precipitated calls to the
police, even though the surrounding neighbors had been notified. The Division has not pursued this strategy
because of this last issue. There is also a fire risk with this method.
Exclusion with wire mesh: Three-foot high ½” wire mesh buried 2 feet below ground and encircling a plant can
exclude gophers temporarily. These wire cages are only effective in protecting a small area and are very
expensive to make and install.
Conclusion: Trapping is the most effective and practical physical control for gophers in County
landscaping.
Which biological
controls were
considered?
Great blue herons, coyotes, domestic dogs and cats, foxes, and bobcats capture gophers at their burrow
entrances; badgers, long-tailed weasels, skunks, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes corner gophers in their
burrows. Owls and hawks capture gophers above ground.
Predators can prune a population, but none of these predators can control gophers to the extent that is necessary
in County landscaping. Owl boxes could attract more owls to certain areas of the County. More owls could mean
somewhat fewer gophers in open fields.
Conclusion: Biological controls alone for gophers in County landscaping cannot reliably reduce
populations to the level that will prevent damage to plants and infrastructure.
Which chemical
controls were
considered?
Fumigants
Extension and university literature recommend against using fumigants for gophers because the animals can
quickly backfill a tunnel when they perceive a threat, which prevents the gas from reaching them. Injecting gas
far enough into their extensive burrow system is difficult, and since their tunnels are close to the surface, gas
can leak out and never reach a concentration high enough to kill.
CO2 Injection
•The Grounds Division has purchased a CO2 injection device called the Eliminator which injects carbon
dioxide into the burrow system. So far the gopher manager has had good luck with this device. Perhaps this
is more effective since the CO2 initially sinks to the floor of the burrow.
•The gopher manager uses this device where foot traffic prohibits the use of traps.
•The manger uses the same preliminary procedures for using this device as she used for trapping (see
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 57 of 174
above).
•Before she deploys the device in the burrow, she closes any opening and flattens any remaining mounds to
help keep the gas inside the burrow.
•When the trigger on the device is pulled, there should be no hissing sounds.
•The day after the treatment the manager returns to determine the success of the treatment.
Aluminum Phosphide
Signal Word: DANGER
•Fumigation with aluminum phosphide is effective for gophers, although it is a restricted use material that
requires a permit from the County Department of Agriculture. Aluminum Phosphide is not used in the County
for gophers.
Baiting
Diphacinone (005%) Multiple Dose Bait Blocks (Eaton's Answer®)
Signal Word: CAUTION.
•This product overcomes a shortcoming of grain baits, which can degrade in the moist soils inside gopher
tunnels. It is blended with a water-resistant paraffin material and formulated in bait blocks. This bait was
developed with the objective of providing long-term control because the bait remains effective in moist
environments after killing resident gophers. Then, newly invading gophers feed on the bait and die as well.
•Bait blocks are placed underground in the main tunnel, about 4” to 12” deep and then covered. Usually one
block is used for an approximately 20’ run of main tunnel where fresh mounds are found on the surface.
Diphacinone is a first generation anticoagulant that prevents blood from clotting and causes death by internal
bleeding. First generation anticoagulants require multiple feedings over several days to a week to kill. This is
different from second generation anticoagulants that are far more toxic and can kill within days of a single
feeding if enough bait is ingested.
Second generation anticoagulants pose a greater risk to animals that eat poisoned rodents. If the rodent
continues to feed on the single-dose anticoagulant after it eats a toxic dose at the first meal, it may build up
more than a lethal dose in its body before the clotting factors run out and the animal dies. Residues of second
generation anticoagulants may remain in liver tissue for many weeks, so a predator that eats many poisoned
rodents may build up a toxic dose over time. However, even the first generation anticoagulants may be
poisonous to animals that eat poisoned rodents. The first generation materials break down much more rapidly in
animal tissues and have a much reduced potential for secondary kill when compared to second generation
materials.
Conclusion: CO2 injection seems to be useful for the Grounds Division, but more experience with the tool
is necessary.
Diphacinone bait blocks are used from time to time at Hidden Pond and Driftwood. The landscaping in
these two areas is located on frontage property. The County does not have control over the fees
assessed for maintenance on these properties and the budget is currently insufficient to afford trapping
as a control for gophers.
Recommendations
from the IPM Advisory
Committee
On-going monitoring should be used to adjust control activities to a level appropriate to the population of
gophers. Trapping and CO2 injection are the preferred control methods when sufficient funding is
available.
References Baldwin, R.A., D.B. Marcum, S.B. Orloff, S.J. Vasquez, C.A. Wilen, and R.. Engeman (2013). The influence of
trap type and cover status on capture rates of pocket gophers in California, Crop Protection, 46: 7-12.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 58 of 174
Attachment B.
• Report from the Bed Bug Subcommittee to the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory
Committee
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 59 of 174
Report from the Bed Bug Subcommittee
to the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee
Prepared by Michael Kent, subcommittee chair, September, 2016
Members
Luis/Carlos Agurto
Susan Heckly
Michael Kent - Chair
To date, the Bed Bug subcommittee has met three times in 2016: April 12, June 14, and August 9.
At their first meeting, after electing Michael Kent as chair, the subcommittee developed the following priorities
for themselves for the year:
• Develop a list of social service resources in the County for the bed bug website.
• Follow the progress of AB 551 (Nazarian) in the state legislature and consider the possibility of
recommending a County ordinance if the bill does not proceed.
• Review the draft ordinance that the 2015 Bed Bug subcommittee developed.
• Review the County bed bug website (cchealth.org/bedbugs).
• Review the general public fact sheets on the website and suggest revisions.
• Oversee the production of a professionally designed bed bug brochure for general use.
• Work on a model bed bug IPM plan for pest control companies to be posted on the website.
List of Social Services
After discussing this issue and considering their options, the subcommittee determined the best course of action to
accomplish this goal would be to provide a link to the 211 data base on the bed bug web site and ask that the IPM
Coordinator’s contact information be added to the 211 data base as a resource for bed bugs.
AB 551 and Draft County Ordinance
The subcommittee tracked the progress of AB 551 through the course of the legislative session. The bill was
inactive until the end of June when it was brought back to the Senate. It was amended several times and then
passed both houses of the legislature and was sent to the Governor on September 2nd. As of September 12th the bill
had not been signed or vetoed by the governor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 551, Nazarian. Rental property: bed bugs.
Existing law imposes various obligations on landlords who rent out residential
dwelling units, including the general requirement that the building be in a fit
condition for human occupation. Among other responsibilities, existing law
requires a landlord of a residential dwelling unit to provide each new tenant
who occupies the unit with a copy of the notice provided by a registered
structural pest control company, as specified, if a contract for periodic pest
control service has been executed.
This bill would prescribe the duties of landlords and tenants with regard to
the treatment and control of bed bugs. The bill would require a landlord to
provide a prospective tenant, on and after July 1, 2017, and to all other
tenants by January 1, 2018, information about bed bugs, as specified. The
bill would require that the landlord provide notice to the tenants of those units
inspected by the pest control operator of the pest control operator’s findings
within 2 business days, as specified. The bill would prohibit a landlord from
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 60 of 174
showing, renting, or leasing a vacant dwelling unit that the landlord knows
has a bed bug infestation, as specified.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1942.5 of the Civil
Code, proposed by AB 2881, that would become operative only if this bill and
AB 2881 are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2017,
and this bill is chaptered last.
The Committee did not consider the draft County ordinance further pending the fate of AB 551.
Bed Bug Website and the General Public Fact Sheet and Brochure
The committee reviewed the County’s bed bug web pages at cchealth.org/bedbugs, along with the fact sheet and
brochure and suggested a number of changes.
The revised fact sheet and brochure can be found on the web site: cchealth.org/bedbugs.
Production of a Professionally Designed Bed Bug Brochure and Model Bed Bug Plan
The committee has not yet taken up these two items.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 61 of 174
Attachment C.
•Pesticide Use Reporting
(See separate PDF for Contra Costa Operations Pesticide Use Data Spreadsheet)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 62 of 174
Attachment C. Pesticide Use Reporting
(See separate PDF for Contra Costa County Operations Pesticide Use Data Spreadsheet)
History of Pesticide Use Reporting
Since the 1950s, the State of California has required at least some kind of pesticide use reporting, but in 1990, the
comprehensive reporting program we have now went into effect.
California was the first state in the nation to require full reporting of all agricultural and governmental agency
pesticide use. The current reporting system exempts home use pesticides and sanitizers, such as bleach, from
reporting requirements. (Sanitizers are considered pesticides.)
What does “pesticide” mean?
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) defines pesticide as “any substance or mixture of
substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating insects, rodents, nematodes, fungi, weeds,
or other pests. In California plant growth regulators, defoliants, and desiccants, as well as adjuvants, are also
regulated as pesticides.”
“Adjuvants” increase pesticide efficacy and include emulsifiers, spreaders, foam suppressants, wetting agents, and
other efficacy enhancers. In FY 14-15, Contra Costa County operations used a total of 5,287 lbs. of pesticide
active ingredients, which included 1,815 lbs. of spray adjuvant active ingredients that were used to prevent
foaming, to reduce pesticide drift, and change the pH of local water used in spraying.
How Pesticide Use is Reported to the State
Pesticide use data is reported monthly to the County Agriculture Commissioner. The data is checked and sent on
to DPR, which maintains a database of pesticide use for the entire state. Although pesticide use is reported to DPR
as pounds, ounces, or gallons of pesticide product, DPR reports pesticide use in its database as pounds of active
ingredient.
DPR defines active ingredient as “[a]n agent in a product primarily responsible for the intended pesticidal effects
and which is shown as an active ingredient on a pesticide label.” (Since adjuvants are regulated as pesticides in
California, the active ingredients of adjuvants are also included in DPR’s database.)
How Pesticide Use is Reported by Contra Costa County Operations
The attached spreadsheet records pesticide use data only for County operations and not for any other agency,
entity, company, or individual in the County.
Since DPR reports California pesticide use in pounds of active ingredient, Contra Costa County does the same.
The County uses the same formula for converting gallons of pesticide product into pounds of active ingredient
that the state uses:
Pounds of Active Ingredient =
gallons of product used X 8.33 lbs/gallon of water X the specific gravity of the product X the % of active ingredient in the product
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 63 of 174
For liquid materials:Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x % AI
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
Adjuvant Activator 90 36208-50014 1.040 90.000 4786.31 3592.41 4248.36 3381.90
Adjuvant Agri-Dex 5905-50094-AA 0.879 99.000 84.75 614.34
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt AquaMaster 524-343 1.205 53.800 814.09 662.88 487.37 322.67 446.22 301.06 255.16 26.38 142.46
Chemtrol 36208-50015 0.995 1.000 1.16 1.82 0.70
Sodium salt of Imazxamox Clearcast 241-437-AA-67690 1.049 12.100 5.29 3.50 3.70 3.31 3.50
Copper ethanolamine
complexes, mixed Cutrine Plus 8959-10-AA 1.206 9.000 58.78 40.69 6.78 4.52
Dithiopyr Dimension 2EW 62719-542-AA 1.001 24.000 0.31 0.62
Indaziflam Esplanade 200 SC 432-1516-AA 1.050 19.050 4.17 41.66 25.14 41.89 28.44 47.39
Adjuvant Foam Fighter F 36208-50015 0.995 5.000 0.52 0.52
Dimethyl silicone fluid
emulsion Foam Fighter F
36208-50003, 72-
50005-AA 1.000 10.000 0.94 0.62 0.62 0.42 0.73 0.52
Triclopyr triethylamine salt Garlon 3A 62719-37-ZA 1.135 44.400 268.66 459.66 1862.78 1547.95 2048.03 1165.94 757.71 1008.02 502.44 166.75 699.99 153.13 642.81
Triclopyr BEE Garlon 4 62719-40 1.060 61.600 278.76 67.28 155.02 106.77 111.50 1.36 2.72 10.88 19.04
Oxyfluorfen Goal 707-174 0.990 19.400 3.20
Oxyfluorfen Goal Tender 62719-447-ZA 1.170 41.000 7.99 16.50 2.00 13.38 53.47
Oxyfluorfen Goal 707-243 1.120 22.000 13.34
Imazapyr, isopropylamine
salt Habitat 241-426-AA 1.068 28.700 5.75 17.08 34.40 13.10 5.75 2.25 2.19 5.59 3.55 9.07
Heavy-range paraffin
based petroleum
oil+nonionic emulsifiers Helena Agri-Dex 5905-50017-AA 0.879 99.000 2.00 14.50
Aminopyralid, tri
isopropanolamine salt Milestone 62719-519-AA 1.140 40.600 4.75 18.31
Aminopyralid, tri
isopropanolamine salt Milestone VM 62719-537-AA 1.140 40.600 173.26 238.42 241.39 229.05 225.43 120.12 57.36 13.09 50.48 8.72 33.63
Adjuvant
M.O.C. Methylated Oil
Concentrate 5905-50095-AA 0.891 100.000 2.75 20.41
Adjuvant MSO Conc w/Leci-Tech 34704-50053-AA 0.900 100.000 0.38 2.85
Adjuvant No Foam A
11656-50086-ZA &
AA 1.050 90.000 253.87 2731.53 2292.68 2267.57 2290.71 1817.22 209.00 1645.22 121.75 958.40
Adjuvant No Foam A 1050775-50015-AA 1.060 90.000 0.5 3.97
Pendimethalin Pendulum Aquacap 241-416-AA 1.175 38.700 121.21 28.41 5.00 18.94
Sethoxydim Poast 7969-58 0.935 18.000 5.61 20.33
Imazapyr, isopropylamine
salt Polaris 228-534-AA 1.057 27.700 26.83 29.32 0.33 0.80
Triclopyr TEA Renovate 3 62719-37-67690 1.140 44.400 277.27 324.71 309.95 171.84 137.05 183.44 145.49 366.88 35.13 148.15 27.63 116.52
Glyphosate,Rodeo 524-343 1.205 53.800 1193.46 660.83
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt Roundup Custom 524-343-ZC & ZG 1.206 53.800 29.94 161.82 49.19 265.86
Roundup Pro 524-475-ZA & ZB 1.170 41.000 2041.43 12.00 47.96 36.63 146.41
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.200 2352.35 588.28 1153.95 937.84 1006.75 1092.55 1496.00 1369.00 240.75 1206.57 238.63 1195.95
Glyphosate,
isopropylamine salt
Roundup Tough Weed
Formula 239-2636 1.070 18.000 98.07
Maleic hydrazide Royal Slo Gro 400-94-AA 1.135 21.700 41.03
Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt Stalker 241-398 1.050 27.600 13.58 318.05 20.98 9.05
PESTICIDES OF CONCERN ARE SHADED (Pesticide Action Network defined "Bad Actors")
Contra Costa County Public Works
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 64 of 174
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
Adjuvant Silicone Super Wetter 17545-50029-AA 0.994 100.000 1.57
Adjuvant Silwet L-77 36208-50025 1.007 100.000 14.26 8.39 15.77
Oryzalin Surflan A.S.62719-113 1.188 40.400 56.97 39.98
Oryzalin Surflan A.S.70506-44 1.236 40.400 112.33 87.36 47.84 33.28 2.08 12.00 49.92
Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 68891-50001-AA 1.118 53.400 197.06 189.57
Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 11656-50093 1.180 53.400 112.85 190.95 181.77 129.28 168.65 173.90 152.22 20.81 109.23 11.56 60.68
Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 34704-50086 1.096 33.000 9.56 28.80
Clopyralid Transline 62719-259 1.161 40.900 89.00 286.77 48.81 6.17
Adjuvant Unfoamer 34704-50062-AA 1.000 12.500 0.5 0.52 0.13 0.14
Vanquish 55947-46 1.250 56.800 1360.29
Dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 228-397 1.250 56.800 906.37 707.53 97.59 40.69 333.45 4.44 24.56 145.26 7.5 44.36
Weedar 64 71368-1-264 1.160 38.900 1979.96 357.09 18.79
Dry Materials For dry materials: Amt. Used x %AI (pounds)(pounds)
Dithiopyr Dimension Ultra 40 WP 62719-445 N/A 40.000 0.00 3.75 1.50
Diuron 80DF 66222-51 N/A 80.000 960.00 640.00
Direx 80DF 352-508-1812 N/A 80.000 2300.00
Endurance 55947-43 N/A 65.000 983.45 52.00
Prodiamine Endurance 228-398 N/A 65.000 1194.05 789.75 855.40 689.00
Isoxaben Gallery 75DF 62719-145 N/A 75.000 40.50 39.00 51.75 59.25 54.75 2.63 3.00 15.75 11.25 48.50 36.38
Gallery SC 62719-658 AA N/A 45.450 13.00 5.91 452.50 205.66
Sulfumeturon methyl Oust 352-401 N/A 75.000 20.53 137.25 152.25 108.12 76.55
Oust XP 352-601 N/A 75.000 75.85 96.61 14.25 9.56
Predict 55947-78 N/A 78.600 389.07
Prodiamine ProClipse 65 WDG 228-434 N/A 65.000 201.50 361.40 448.50 31.20 383.00 248.95
Prodiamine Resolute 65WG 100-834-ZE N/A 65.000 148.00 96.20
Ronstar 50WSP 264-538 N/A 50.000 60.00
Simtrol 90DF 35915-12-60063 N/A 90.000 387.00
Tebuthiuron Spike 80DF 62719-107 N/A 80.000 48.00 72.00 48.00 96.00 96.00 105.60 24.00 19.20
Chlorsulfuron Telar DF 352-522-ZA N/A 75.000 1.00 0.75
Chlorsulfuron Telar XP 352-654-AA N/A 75.000 4.88 5.16 6.00 6.76 16.00 12.00 0.63 0.47
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-404 N/A 75.000 19.031 10.448 13.313 10.88 6.38
TOTAL:16590.97 12589.20 11889.25 10367.44 8165.12 6438.92 5713.48 6565.25 4688.34 4780.08 4607.39
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 5764.53 2653.88 3493.47 2883.09 2545.49 1582.41 1117.04 1340.19 1032.82 1020.03 779.00
Contra Costa County Public Works (continued)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 65 of 174
Contra Costa County Public Works, Special Districts
Name of EPA or Calif.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.
Total Lbs
A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Reg #
Specific
Gravity
%
A.I.
Used FY 07-08 &
before FY 08-09 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI (gallons)(gallons)
Glyphosate Roundup ProMax 524-579 1.36 48.7 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.45
Dry Materials Amt. used x % AI (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)
Bromethelin Talpirid Mole Bait 12455-101 N/A 0.025 no data 0.0000008
Chlorphacinone Chlorophacinone 11071-CA-001 N/A 0.005 no data 0.00220
Chlorphacinone
Chlorophacinone
Treated Grain Rodent
Bait 10965-50004ZA N/A 0.005 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000190 0.0014375
Diphacinone
Diphacinone Treated
Grain Rodent Bait 10965-50003 N/A 0.010 no data 0.0001500
Diphacinone
Diphacinone Treated
Grain Rodent Bait 10965-50001-ZA N/A 0.005 no data 0.00375 0.00225 29.00 0.00145 1.00 0.00005
Diphacinone Eaton's Answer 56-57 N/A 0.005 no data 46.50 0.002325 0.00210 0.0009750 0.00095 0.00195 16.00 0.00080 17.00 0.00085
Diphacinone Eaton's Bait Blocks 56-42 N/A 0.005 no data 2.00 0.0001 0.000250 0.00020 0.00060 0.00020 8.50 0.00043 9.50 0.00048
Aluminum phosphide Fumitoxin 72959-1-5857 N/A 55.000 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81
Strychnine Alkaloid Gopher Getter AG Bait 36029-7 N/A 0.500 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0020
Diphacinone
Gopher Getter Type 2
AG Bait 36029-23 N/A 0.005 no data 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0002
Diphacinone
Gopher Getter Type 2
AG Bait 36029-24 N/A 0.005 no data 0.0004025 0.00009
Diphacinone
P.C.Q. Pelleted Rodent
Bait 12455-50003-AA N/A 0.010 no data 0.0005000 0.00365
Aluminum phosphide Phostoxin 72959-4 N/A no data 19.62 10.79 9.20
Oxadiazon Ronstar G 432-886 N/A 2.000 no data 6.00
Chlorphacinone Rozol 7173-242 N/A 0.005 no data 0.00010
Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 N/A 60.000 no data 0.00 0.00 0.66 11.64 6.7320000 7.140 1.59000
Zinc phosphide ZP Rodent Bait AG 12455-17 N/A 2.000 no data 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02
TOTAL 10.79 9.86 44.92 6.735666 7.151343 1.594400 0.00268 0.00138
0.04 oz 0.02
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 10.79 9.86 12.47 6.73 7.14 1.59 0.00 0.00
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 66 of 174
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
glyphosate Aquamaster 524-343 1.205 53.80 5.29 16.85
glyphosate Aqua Neat 228-365-AA 1.224 53.80 1.15
glyphosate Aqua Neat 228-365-4581 1.201 53.80 26.91
esfenvalerate Asana XL 352-515 0.930 8.40 0.00 0.09 0.01
Dicamba & 2.4 D Banvel 55947-1 1.211 48.20 72.51 0.00
2,4-D 34704-5 1.163 46.50 24.78 87.30
Bivert 2935-50157-AA 0.790 100.00 6.12 0.00
Carbaryl ("7")54705-4 1.100 41.20 30.01 0.00
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Clarity 7969-137 1.250 58.10 719.91 425.96 174.84 286.87 400.67 281.73 230.61 152.45 14.76 89.29 2.55 15.43
Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Garlon 4 Ultra 62719-527 1.110 60.45 8.85 49.47
Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Garlon 4 464-554 1.082 61.60 13.88 0.00
imazapyr isopropylamine salt Habitat 241-426 1.068 28.70 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.20 0.72 1.35 0.26 0.92 0.23
surfactant Hasten 2935-50160 0.900 100.00 1.20 0.15
Adjuvant
Herbicide Activator
(First Choice)11656-50024-ZC 0.900 100.00 0.00 0.94
Drift retardant--oils In Place 2935-50169 0.880 100.00 59.45 45.82 0.41 2.98
Aminopyralid,
triisopropanolammonium salt Milestone 62719-519 1.140 40.60 0.00 33.74 10.60 38.06 43.42 17.70 21.52 24.18 3.13 12.07 0.98 3.78
Aminopyralid,
triisopropanolammonium salt &
triclopyr, triethylamine salt Milestone VM Plus 62719-572 1.140 18.44 0.00 7.88 8.91 0.09 6.57
surfactant Pro-Tron 71058-50008-AA 0.984 95.00 195.84 51.47 137.75 165.86 4.93 38.39 0.11 0.86
Adjuvant R-11 2935-50142-AA 1.020 90.00 389.99 216.48 180.09 71.80 170.14 1.76
Clopyralid, triethylamine salt &
triclopyr, triethylamine salt Redeem 62719-337 1.140 45.10 19.28 0.30
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Rodeo 524-343 1.205 53.80 13.50 0.00
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro 524-475 1.170 41.00 276.35 75.90 104.04 195.97 182.66
Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.20 152.67 149.51 63.88 85.84 1.69 8.47 1.09 5.47
imazapyr isopropylamine
salt Stalker 241-296 1.060 27.60 0.00 0.30 0.56
imazapyr isopropylamine
salt Stalker 241-398 1.060 27.60 1.61 0.71 0.0004 0.001
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture
Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 67 of 174
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
Picloram potassium salt Tordon 22K 464-323 1.140 24.40 3.55 0.00
Clopyralid, monoethanolamine
salt Transline 62719-259 1.161 40.90 277.99 13.92 0.03 0.01
Adjuvant Tri-Fol Buffer 2935-50152-AA 1.120 34.00 0.00 0.25
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 55947-46 1.250 56.80 299.20 0.00 1.83 0.24
dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 100-884 1.250 56.80 0.35
Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Remedy 62719-552 1.080 61.60 0.00 16.63
Dry Materials (pounds)(pounds)
Diphacinone Diphacinone .005%10965-50001-ZA N/A 0.005 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.23 0.09 0.07 260 0.013 731.00 0.03655
Diphacinone Diphacinone .01%10965-50003-ZA N/A 0.01 1.57 2.56 2.58 2.34 2.78 3.37 3.10 2.75 1.31 27109 2.71 11888.50 1.18885
Sodium nitrate, charcoal Gas Cartridge 56228-2 N/A 81.00 0.00 2.58 1.94 2.07 4.56 5.47
Imidacloprid Merit 75WSP 3125-439 N/A 75.00 10.19 0.00
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-522 N/A 75.00 0.77 0.14 0.29 0.18 0.89 0.93 5.84 8.09 1.05 0.79
Picloram potassium salt Tordon 10K 464-320 N/A 11.60 0.99 0.23 0.36 0.06
Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 N/A 60.00 0.00 0.59 0.95 0.30
TOTAL:1420.66 1137.53 767.11 469.00 693.77 803.69 545.74 534.27 500.98 154.72 76.22
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 131.84 107.58 0.14 0.88 0.48 1.26 1.94 5.84 8.39 0.79 0.00
Amt . Used x %AI
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture (continued)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 68 of 174
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
Chlorantraniliprole Acelepryn 352-731 1.094 18.40 0.24
Clethodim Arrow 2EC 66222-60 0.970 26.40 0.06 0.13
Dikegulac sodium Atrimmec 2217-776 1.095 18.50 2.21 0.32
Prodiamine Barricade 100-1139 35.01
**Dicamba**, MCPA,
Triclopyr Cool Power 228-317 9.27
Adjuvant
Crop Oil (Monterey
Herbicide Helper)54705-50001-AA 0.900 100.00 0.60
Dursban 2E 464-586 1.000 24.10 3.87
Myclobutanil Eagle 62719-463 0.06
Embark 7182-7-AA 1.110 28.00 0.72
Bifenazate Floramite 400-508 0.03
Ethephon Florel 62719-145-AA 1.016 3.90 0.33
Ethephon Florel 264-543-54705 0.65
NAA, ammonium salt Fruit Stop 5481-66-65783 0.43
Fluazifop-P-butyl Fusilade II 100-1084 0.980 24.50 0.19 0.50 0.50 0.10
Goal 707-174 0.990 19.40 19.34
Grass Getter (Poast)7969-58-ZA-54705 0.935 18.00 0.55
Hexythiazox Hexygon 10163-208 0.11
Petroleum distillates Lesco Horticultural Oil 10404-66 2.13
Knox Out 2 FM 4581-335-449 1.036 23.00 0.89
Lindane 7001-279-AA 0.976 87.60 0.64
Adjuvant Magnify 17545-50018 1.220 51.50 0.47 0.01 0.05
Maintain A 400-396-AA 1.000 0.30 0.01
Malathion 655-598 1.032 0.50 0.06
Adjuvant No Foam A (Monterey)54705-50004-AA 1.050 90.00 1.18 0.22 1.73 0.003 0.02
Adjuvant No Foam A 1050775-50015-AA 1.050 90.00 0.0155 0.12
NuFarm Polaris 228-534-AA 1.057 27.70 0.04 0.10
Ornamec 2217-728-AA 0.880 6.75 0.18
Contra Costa County Public Works - Grounds
Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %A
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 69 of 174
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 Used FY 04-05 Used FY 07-08 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)
Glyphosate
isopropylamine salt RangerPro 524-517-ZB 1.169 41.00 14.62 58.37
Glyphosate
isopropylamine salt Razor 228-366 91.73
Glyphosate, diquat
dibromide Razorburn 228-446 1.146 43.10 4.11
Roundup Pro 524-445-ZB 1.020 41.00 156.00 158.75
Glyphosate isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro 524-475 1.170 41.00 23.98
Glyphosate isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.20 33.89 50.92 41.56 94.11 363.50 351.72 182.55
Glyphosate potassium salt Roundup Promax 524-579 1.356 48.70 1.87 290.01 56.51 310.86 55.28 304.09
Nonanoic acid Scythe 62719-529 0.66
Sevin SL 464-586 1.000 24.10 0.12
Bifenthrin Talstar 279-3206 0.02
Triclopyr 4EC 81927-11-AA 1.100 61.60 5.64 1.41 0.25 1.41
**Dicamba, MCPA**,
MCPP Tri Power 228-262 3.79
Triclopyr BEE Turflon 62719-258 1.060 61.60 1.96 0.98
Turflon Ester 17545-8-AA 1.08 60.45 0.003 0.02
Dry Materials Amt. Used x %AI (pounds)(pounds)
Isoxaben Gallery 75 DF 62719-145-AA N/A 75.00 97.08 102.38 44.42 14.25 4.88 8.25 2.25 18.38 13.79 80.00 60.00
Dithiopyr Dithiopyr 40 WSB 73220-13 N/A
0.125 lbs
ai/5 oz 1.63 2.72
30 oz (6
bags)0.75
5 oz (1
bag)0.125
Flumioxazin Payload 59639-120-ZA N/A 51.00 0.30 4.75 3.06 1.56 1.92 0.98
Lindane 20954-107-AA N/A 99.50 1.00
Orthene 59639-88 N/A 75.00 0.52
Acephate Orthene 59639-26 0.13
Sulfometuron methyl Oust 352-401 N/A 75.00 3.85 0.17
Oxadiazon Ronstar WP 264-538 N/A 50.00 648.63 414.50 0.00
Halosulfuron methyl Sedgehammer 81880-1-10163 N/A 75.00 0.007 0.005
Halosulfuron methyl Sedgehammer 81880-24-10163 N/A 5.00 0.10 0.03 0.0015 0.04 0.002
Flumioxazin SureGuard 59639-120 N/A 51.00 1.27 12.20 10.79 15.69 8.00 17.33 8.84
Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-522 0.06
TOTAL 927.37 684.98 57.87 240.06 45.89 112.97 377.74 376.77 492.33 338.26 432.68
"Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 649.14 421.59 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00
NOTE: The totals
for 07-08 only
account for
Grounds Div.
usaage and do
not include Tru-
Green usage.
Contra Costa County Public Works - Grounds (continued)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 70 of 174
CCC Public Works - Facilities
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total oz. A.I Amt Used
Total oz. A.I. by
wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Total OZ. A.I.Total OZ. A.I.Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (fl. ounces)Oz. by Wt.Oz. by Wt.Oz. by Wt.(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. Oz.)Oz. by Wt.
Orthoboric acid Drax Liquid Bait 9444-206 2.22 0.03
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate (Borax Advance Ant Gel 499-492 1.23 5.40 0.01 0.002
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Bait Arena 352-664 1.09 0.10 0.077 0.0063 0.00262
164 ea (Net
wt of Arena is
0.07 oz)0.013
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Bait Arena 100-1485 1.09 0.10
252 ea (Net
wt of Arena
is 0.07 oz)0.02
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate
Advance Liquid Ant
Bait 499-491 1.24 1.30 4.12 37.79 62.047 72.323 13.14360
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Gel 352-746 1.24 0.05 0.03 0.022 0.0346 0.05508 115.64 0.075
Indoxacarb Advion Ant Gel 100-1498 1.2 0.05 143.67 0.08965
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Bait
Arena 352-668 1.09 0.50 0.005 0.0014 0.00280
10 ea (Net wt
of Arena is
0.07 oz)0.00397
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Bait
Arena 100-1486 1.09 0.50
41 ea (Net
wt of Arena
is 0.07 oz)0.01627
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Gel
Bait 352-652 1.0442 0.60 0.01 0.000521 0.07871 0.20251 7.13 0.046
Indoxacarb
Advion Cockroach Gel
Bait 100-1484 1.123 0.60 14.61 0.10238
Chlorantraniliprole Altriset 100-1503 1.094 18.4 2.00 0.419
Cedar oil
Best Yet Insect Control
Solution Exempt 25b materia 1.00 10.00 128.00 12.800 16.00 1.66400
Cedar oil
Cedarcide PCO Choice
Concentrate Exempt 25b materia 1.00 85.00 10.00 8.84000
White pepper, mineral oil DeTour for Rodents Exempt 0.864 3.00 166.00 4.475
Hydroprene
Gentrol IGR
Concentrate 2724-351 0.08
Hydroprene Gentrol Point Source 2724-469 0.89 90.60 0.007 0.065 0.018 0.01509
Rosemary Oil EcoExempt 1C Exempt 1.66 79.99 8.32 112.49
2-phenethyl propionate EcoPco Acu 67425-14 0.00 0.01
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate (Borax Intice Thiquid Ant Bait 73079-7 1.33 1.00 43.26650 3554.00 49.159
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate (Borax Intice Thiquid Ant Bait 73079-7 1.33 2.50 4566.00 157.89228
Fipronil Maxforce Ant Bait Gel 432-1264 1.27 0.00 17.04 0.000013
Fipronil
Maxforce FC Select
Roach Gel 432-1259 1.1414 0.01 0.000006
Imidacloprid
Maxforce Quantum Ant
Bait 432-1506 1.43 0.03 27.90 0.012 31.71 0.01415
Fipronil
Maxforce FC Roach
Bait Stations 432-1257 1.00 0.05
1 ea (Net wt
of station is
0.053 oz)0.00003
Hydramethylnon
Maxforce Roach Bait
Gel 432-1254 2.15 0.13 1.13 0.03 0.00
sodium lauryl sulfate Oh Yeah Exempt 1 0.70 9.47 18.731 9.57444 7.80416 2222 16.176 78 0.56784
Capsaicin PiGNX Bird Repellent 844148-EPA 0.86 0.04 20 0.00716
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Precor 2000 274-483 0.5%
permethrin 0.0208
0.09%
methoprene 0.0000
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 71 of 174
CCC Public Works - Facilities, cont.
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total oz. A.I Amt Used
Total oz. A.I. by
wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Total OZ. A.I.Total OZ. A.I.Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16
Liquid Materials (fl. ounces)Oz. by Wt.Oz. by Wt.Oz. by Wt.(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.
Note: product has 4a.i. s
Precor 2000 Premise
spray 2724-490 1
0.085%
methoprene 16.00 0.01414
0.35%
permethrin 0.05820
0.3%
phenothrin 0.04990
2%
bicyclohepte
ne
dicarboximid
e 0.33280
1.4%
Piperonyl
butoxide 0.23290
(s) methoprene Precor IGR Conc 2724-352 0.789 1.20 1 0.010 8.00 0.07877
Foaming agent
Profoam Platinum
(foaming agent)1021148-50001-AA No data 60.00 2 1.200
coyote & fox urine
Shake Away:
Fox/Coyote 80917-5 1.00 5.00 20.488 2.31400
Sodium Tetraborate
Decahydrate (Borax
Terro PCO Bait
stations 149-8-64405 1.00 5.40 0.12 1.166 0.661
135-0.36
oz stations 2.6244
170-0.36
oz
stations 3.43699
Coyote urine WCS Coyote Urine N/A 1.00 100.00
Dry Materials OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Alpine Dust 499-527
0.25%
dinotefuran 0.00 0.000
95% DE 0.14 0.010
Incoxacarb Advion Fire Ant Bait 100-1481 0.05 3.17 0.0014
Abamectin Avert Dry Flowable Bait 499-294 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00
Orthoboric acid Borid 9444-129 0.00 7.00 6.93 0.99
Amorphous silicon dioxide
Concern Diatomaceous
Earth 73729-1-50932 85.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 2.09 1.700 0.680 0.23 0.1955 0.79 0.6715
Bromodialone Contrac Blox 12455-79 0.09 1252.00 0.06 0.02
non-toxic rodent monitoring food
bait Detex Blox Eco-019 236 N/A 267 N/A
Diatomaceous earth Mother Earth D 499-509 100
Note: product has 3 a.i. s Eco PCO WP-X None
3%
phenethyl
propionate 0.060 0.0792
5% Thyme
oil 0.100 0.132
0.05%
pyrethrins 0.001 0.00132
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 72 of 174
Note: product has 2 a.i. s Eco PCO DX 67425-16-655
1% 2-
phenethyl
propionate 0.00017
0.4%
pyrethrins 0.000068
Note: product has 2 a.i.s Essentira G (granules)Exempt
2.9 %
Eugenol 72 2.088
0.60%
Thyme Oil 0.432
Balsam fir oil
Fresh Cab Rodent
Repellent (granules)82016-1 2.00
8-2.5 oz
pouches 0.4
Oil of black pepper Havahart Critter Ridder 50932-10 0.48 3.8592 624 2.9952 458 2.1984
CCC Public Works - Facilities, cont.
Name of EPA or Calif.Specific %Total oz. A.I Amt Used
Total oz. A.I. by
wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Total OZ. A.I.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.Amt Used
Tot. oz. A.I.
by wt.
Product Applied Registration #Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 FY 08-09 Used 08-09 Used 09-10 Used 10-11 Used 11-12 Used 12-13 Used 13-14 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 14-15 Used 14-15
Dry Materials, cont.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.
Orthoboric acid
Niban FG/Mother Earth
Granules
64405-2
499-515 5.00 190.69 2150.56 107.53 62.64 35.98 56.875 156.300 18.75 3144.5 157.225 6038.5 301.925
Fipronil
Maxforce Ant Bait
Stations 432-1256 0.05 0.00 4.66 0.00 0.00 0.00008
Fipronil
Maxforce FC Prof.
Insect Cntrl Roach Bait
Station 432-1257 0.05 0.00021
Fipronil
Maxforce Ant Bait
Stations 64248-10 0.01 0.000005 0.000055
Fipronil
Maxforce Roach Bait
Stations 64248-11 0.05 0.00028 0.00016 0.000265
Hydramethylnon
Maxforce Roach Bait
Stations 432-1251 0.19 1.48 0.03 0.00
Boric Acid Perma Dust 499-384 142.71 682.00 242.11 94.08
Fox Urine
Shake Away Fox Urine
Granules 80917-4 5.00 196.5 9.825
OZ of A.I 335.55 365.04 274.37 85.64 140.824 260.426 89.401 247.829 480.749
LBs of A.I.20.97 22.81 17.15 5.35 8.80 16.28 5.59 15.49 30.05
OZ of BA 0.41 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.0014 0.00 0.00 0.0582
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 73 of 174
Contra Costa County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public
Regarding the County Integrated Pest Management Program
June November 2229, 2016
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
Using glue boards for rodents in County buildings
11/16/16-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“The rodent control method that is
horrible in particular is the use of
glue boards in the county buildings.
I hope to see this deplorable
practice stop before the beginning
of the NewYear. (11/16/16)
Pestec, the County’s structural IPM contractor, has not used glue boards this year.
In the past, glue boards have been used from time to time in detention facilities at
the request of the Sheriff who is concerned that snap traps, the alternative, could be
used by inmates as weapons. Glue boards are not used at any other facilities in the
County.
Chairing the IPM Committee should be rotated; a scribe not associated with the Committee should be
used to take notes
2/17/16-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“Chairing the IPM Advisory
Committee should be rotated
among members who wish to
chair. A Scribe should be
independent of Committee
members and staff involved with
the IPM Program.”
•Every 2 years the Committee holds an election for officers. Anyone who wishes
to chair the committee can nominate themselves.
•The Committee elects a secretary to help take notes for the Committee’s minutes
which are written by staff. There is no outside person who could be a scribe.
Staff has found no unique or innovative pesticide alternatives in the Bay Area or Nation
11/4/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“In the staff document provided
titled 2015 IPM Program
Accomplishments, I was very
surprised to read that staff believes
after reviewing programs
throughout the ‘Bay Area and the
nation’, that ‘there is nothing
unique or innovative in the Bay
Area or the nation.’”
•PfSE appears to be concerned that staff has found no unique or innovative
approaches to pest management. This concern seems to stem from a mis-
reading of the 2015 IPM Program Accomplishments document in the section on
the work history of the IPM Program Data Management subcommittee. The
phrase actually reads: “Looked for data other than pesticide use to measure
implementation of IPM in CCC; found nothing unique or innovative in the Bay
Area or the nation”
The IPM Coordinator does not allow the IPM Committee members and the public adequate time to
review documents
9/2/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
“People are often reluctant to admit
•The IPM Coordinator sends out agenda materials in accordance with the Brown
Act and County policy, which is 96 hours prior to the time of the public meeting.
•At the end of each meeting, the next meeting’s agenda is planned so that
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 74 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
that they have not had time to
review documents before voting on
minutes and other items.
Committee members are likely to
just go along with the majority and
vote to accept documents as Staff
submits them…It is more
reasonable to provide at least four
to six weeks of time for volunteers
to fit in the review amongst a busy
schedule.” (9/2/15)
“…I find it appalling that Staff
would propose to totally eliminate
the By-Laws language that
requires a timely distribution of the
meeting minutes to the IPM
Advisory Committee. It has been
difficult to read all the documents
required for review within 5 days
[from when] they are provided,
which is a recent improvement to
providing it 3 days prior to
meetings that was practiced before
my letter earlier this year…The By-
Laws currently states that minutes
be distributed 1 week after the
meeting…I believe it’s reasonable
to amend [the by-laws] to
distributing the materials within 2
weeks after the meeting to give
staff time to prepare the meeting
minutes, but eliminating this
important timeline is not acceptable
to the community.” (9/2/15)
members are aware of and can plan time for review of long or numerous
documents.
•Since the inception of the IPM Advisory Committee, the practice has been to
distribute the minutes with the agenda materials. Because the by-laws were
being updated to reflect the current designations for IPM Committee seats and to
change public member terms, the IPM Coordinator proposed changing the by-
laws to reflect the current practice regarding distribution of the minutes. On
9/2/15 the IPM Committee members discussed these by-laws changes and
heard comment from the public on the issue. The Committee voted to
unanimously approve all the by-laws changes. The changes were approved by
the full Board of Supervisors.
IPM subcommittees should focus on pesticide use and not on bed bugs or removing turf
2/16/15-IPM
2/17/15-IPM
2/20/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
3/4/15-IPM
5/6/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
9/2/15-IPM
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of the subcommittees
working on bed bugs, a community
problem, rather than County-only
pesticide issues and working on
turf removal around buildings
rather than on pesticide use in
rights-of-way
•Bed bugs affect 1000s of Contra Costa residents, both in municipalities and the
unincorporated areas of the County. In order to get relief, desperate citizens are
using many different kinds of pesticides in the home, throughout the bedroom,
and often on the bedding itself. Reports indicate that frequently pesticides are
used to excess and in a manner contrary to the labeled directions. This intimate
contact with, and misuse of, pesticides is very troubling. This is a serious issue of
pesticide exposure and contamination as well as an issue of the well-being of
Contra Costa residents that the County has an obligation to address.
•There are also bed bug issues that need to be addressed in County buildings.
Staff and buildings are vulnerable where the public goes in and out of offices
frequently and in large numbers. Staff and supervisors need training in identifying
risks, actual infestations, and opportunities for prevention.
•Converting turf to drought-tolerant landscaping accomplishes several things:
o Saves millions of gallons of water in this time of serious drought.
o Reduces the need for weed control and thus for herbicides. The limited
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 75 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
irrigation and wood chip mulch between the drought-tolerant plants is not
conducive to weed growth, Few weeds sprout in the dry soil under the
mulch, and those that do sprout can often be hand-pulled.
o Addresses herbicide use near buildings, which is where people have the
greatest chance of being exposed to these pesticides.
o Reduces maintenance hours because turf is a high maintenance plant.
o Frees Grounds maintenance staff to better manage other landscapes and
continue to reduce their use of pesticide.
o Reduces the amount of electricity used to pump water, the amount of gas
used in lawn mowers and trimmers and in trucks to travel to and from sites
for maintenance, and reduces the amount of pesticide and fertilizer used in
maintaining the turf. This reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
o Demonstrates that the County is a leader in landscaping more wisely for the
arid climate in which we live.
County not tracking pesticide use separately for Public Works rights-of-way/roadsides, flood control
channels, and County-owned parcels
3/2/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
3/16/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“We do not see any good reason
why pesticide usage is not being
provided to the community for each
roadside and flood control
program.” (3/2/15)
•The County has always tracked pesticide use separately for roadsides, flood
control channels, and County-owned parcels, but because of a recent change in
the way the Department reported pesticide use to the State of California, the
state Pesticide Use Reports for FY 12-13 and FY 13-14 were not separated. The
database that Public Works uses to track pesticide use cannot produce reports
for PfSE that are user friendly since the database was never intended to be a
pesticide use reporting tool. As a courtesy to PfSE, the Department has resumed
separating pesticide use for the 3 programs when it reports to the state. These
Pesticide Use Reports have been provided to PfSE for FY 14-15.
Report the total amount of pesticide used not just the active ingredients
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Report total amount, not just the
active ingredients of pesticides
used in usage spreadsheet”
•In the spread sheet prepared by the IPM Coordinator every year for pesticide use
by County operations, the total amount of pesticide product used is recorded as
well as the total amount of pesticide active ingredient used for each product.
•The California Department of Pesticide Regulation reports pesticide use for the
state in pounds of active ingredient. The County has adopted this system so that
pesticide use reporting is aligned with the state. But as noted above, the County
spreadsheet also records total pounds or gallons of pesticide product used.
•The spreadsheet is posted on the IPM website and attached to the annual report.
Corrections to the minutes of the IPM Advisory Committee or its subcommittees requested by PfSE
5/6/15-IPM
6/9/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
7/20/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of PfSE requesting changes
to the minutes and then changes
are not made
•The IPM Committee members vote on whether or not to make corrections to the
minutes. The members do not always vote to make PfSE’s corrections, additions,
and changes. The IPM Coordinator includes written changes from PfSE (as well
as other public comment) as attachments to the official record of the meeting.
The official agenda, minutes, public comment, and other attachments are posted
on the IPM website.
The herbicide Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) has been designated as a probable human
carcinogen by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
6/9/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer •The IPM Coordinator has been attending meetings in San Francisco with IPM
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 76 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
7/8/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
9/2/15-IPM
Environment (PfSE):
“Considering that RoundUp
products with the active ingredient,
glyphosate, is [sic] being applied at
the rate of nearly 1,000 lbs
annually in the Grounds Program
alone, and that glyphosate has
been listed as a Probable Human
Carcinogen by the World Health
Organization earlier this year, are
there any plans by the county to
eliminate this risky chemical to
reduce exposure to the community
and wildlife?”
coordinators and city and county staff from around the Bay to discuss the
Roundup issue. At this point we do not have a less hazardous product with
equivalent efficacy to replace Roundup, but we continue to look for one. The
Grounds Division uses Roundup as a spot treatment and uses a little as
necessary. In FY 14-15 the Grounds Division used 311 lbs. of glyphosate, the
active ingredient in Roundup.
•The most serious risk of exposure to Roundup is to the applicator because that
person is in close contact with the material, sometimes daily. The law and the
County require applicators to wear personal protective equipment and to be
trained annually to prevent exposure. In light of the new probable carcinogen
designation, the County is looking at whether there are additional precautions
that should be taken to protect workers.
•IARC identifies the potential for a chemical to cause cancer but does not quantify
any increased risk to people from a chemical so designated nor does it
recommend a safe level of exposure. Those designations are left up to regulatory
agencies around the world. The County is waiting for the USEPA to complete its
review of glyphosate.
•On 11/12/15, the European Food Safety Authority ruled that glyphosate probably
does not cause cancer in humans despite IARC’s findings.
Questions posed during public comment for items not on the agenda are not answered by the IPM
Committee
8/6/15-IPM
7/20/16-IPM
9/21/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“…please allow ample time for
answering and discussing these 6
questions as listed in order of
priority at the next meeting agenda.
Community members have been
waiting patiently since last year for
most of these questions to be
addressed.”
•The IPM Committee does not take up and discuss issues that are not on the
published agenda for the meeting as this would be a violation of the Brown Act.
•Members of the Committee can request to have public concerns put on the
agenda for a future meeting.
IPM Committee members should RSVP for each meeting
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“I attended the April 14, 2015
meeting when we waited for over
30 minutes for staff and community
members on the [Weed sub]
Committee to arrive to no avail.
Staff had to regretfully cancel the
meeting due to lack of a quorum.
…consider asking for a heads-up
from committee members if they
cannot attend a future IPM
meeting.” (6/9/15 and 7/8/15)
“Would the county request
Committee members to provide in
writing, anticipation of absenteeism
•IPM Committee members alert the IPM Coordinator when they know they will be
late or will be missing a meeting of either the full committee or a subcommittee.
Unfortunately, unexpected circumstances do arise from time to time.
•The Weed subcommittee meeting on April 14, 2015 was the first meeting of the
full IPM Committee or any of its subcommittees that had to be cancelled for lack
of a quorum since the IPM Advisory Committee was formed in 2010.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 77 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
so that those who arrive at
meetings are not waiting for an
hour only for the meeting to be
cancelled due to lack of a quorum.”
(8/6/15)
Quorums have been disregarded in previous subcommittee meetings
6/9/15-IPM
7/8/15-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“According to Shirley Shelangoski
who had attended all
subcommittees between 2012-
2014, quorums were not
considered in subcommittees until
the recent year. Before,
subcommittee meetings were held
regardless of a lack of quorum.”
•All subcommittees consider whether or not there is a quorum before proceeding
with a meeting. Attendance is tracked in each set of minutes.
Absences on the IPM Committee
8/6/15-IPM
8/26/15 Email
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“Will the county track absenteeism
and provide the data annually so
that those who missed more than
two in a given year be considered
for removal from membership as
stated in the By-Laws?”
•Absences are tracked in the minutes of every meeting of the full IPM Committee
and each of its subcommittees. Attendance at meetings is reported annually to
the Board of Supervisors.
Pesticide Use around the Hazardous Materials Office and Co. Admin Bldg in Martinez
2/20/15-IPM
8/615-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
11/16/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE)
Issue of members of PfSE
observing pesticide use around the
Hazardous Materials Office at 4585
Pacheco Blvd. in Martinez without
posting
“Currently, pesticides are used
outside the auspices of the County
IPM program in many buildings,
including the Hazardous Materials
building and the County
Administration building.” (2/17/16)
•The Hazardous Materials Program rents space from ERRG, a company that
occupies the top floor of the building. They and not the County are responsible
for maintaining the building and the property.
•The County’s posting policy does not require private owners of buildings to post
their pesticide use.
•On 8/6/15, PfSE videoed a Clark Pest Control technician spraying around the
building at 4585 Pacheco Blvd. Clark, the contractor for ERRG, was using a
pesticide called indoxacarb for ants that had been invading the building,
particularly the top floor. Indoxacarb is listed as a “reduced risk” pesticide by the
USEPA and is used by Pestec, the County contractor, in baits for cockroaches
and ants. Hazardous Materials staff who experienced ant problems were
educated by the IPM Coordinator, all food debris was removed, and boric acid
baits were used in the two Hazardous Materials offices with ants trailing through.
•No pesticides are being used in or around the County Administration building at
651 Pine Street that are not applied by Pestec, the County contractor, as part of
the County IPM program. We are not aware of any pesticides being used at other
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 78 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
County buildings that are not applied by Pestec. If PfSE has specific evidence of
this happening, we would gladly investigate.
IPM Contract Language and reviewing contracts
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
2/17/16-IPM
9/15/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“the county still does not have IPM
language in its contracts with pest
control contractors”
“Contractors conducting pest
control should be evaluated
annually by the IPM Advisory
Committee and contracts bid upon
and assessed for a strong IPM
track record.” (2/17/16)
“The Public Works Dept’s Special
District currently has on its payroll,
a contractor who did not have to
bid with IPM experience as a
criteria and uses only rodenticides,
including 2nd generation [sic] in
public parks.” (2/17/16)
Concerns about the letter from
Special Districts to its contractors
explaining the IPM approach
expected of them. (9/15/16)
•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.
•Reviewing contracts has not been in the purview of the IPM Advisory Committee.
•The 1 contractor hired by Special Districts for pest control (see also the 2nd bullet,
above) uses mostly trapping for vertebrate pests. In FY 15-16, hHe used 0.024
ounces of the rodenticide active ingredient diphacinone (a 1st generation
anticoagulant) in FY 14-15. He does not use any 2nd generation anticoagulants.
•Since the IPM Program began reporting data on pesticide use in Special Districts
in FY 08-09, no 2nd generation anticoagulants have been used.
•The concerns expressed by Susan JunFish on 9/15/16 about the clarity and detail
of the letter to contractors are valid and the Decision-Making subcommittee will
take up these concerns.
1 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2147
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 79 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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
Committee members at IPM
meetings”
“require staff to take training in
order to learn how to work
productively in public meetings”
•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
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.
Make Audio and/or Video Recordings of IPM Committee Meetings
3/6/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“record meetings with a
camcorder”
“The Community requested to have
IPM related meetings recorded to
achieve accurate meeting minutes
that reflect what actually happened
at the meetings and to encourage
professional behavior.”
•Vince Guise, Agricultural Commissioner in 2013, suggested that meetings be
audio recorded (no video). The issue may be taken up at a future IPM Committee
meeting.
•No other advisory bodies video or audio record their meetings. If the public wishes
to record meetings, they may do so and should announce their intention at the
beginning of the meeting.
•It appears that PfSE is recording all IPM Committee meetings on a laptop, so they
will be able to reference those recordings if need be.
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
2/17/16-IPM
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]
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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 80 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
residual activity before a
forecasted rainstorm.”
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
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 using a post-
emergent herbicide.
and must
be strictly followed.
Use of Garlon 3A® (triclopyr) herbicide on flood control channel slopes without considering its half-
life
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
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 reregistration; 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
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.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 81 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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
3/6/14-TWIC
4/2/14-IPM
12/4/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
11/16/16-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
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
•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
signs in certain areas.
•County Departments have verified that they abide by the posting policy.
•The County’s website for online posting of pesticide applications (for the areas
required by the CCC posting policy) was up and running as of 3/10/15.
•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
posting signs used during 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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 82 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
basis.” (12/4/14)
Concerns about pesticide posting
(2/17/15)
“Posting is still not done in most
treated areas where people have
foot access and where they
recreate per the CC County’s
Posting Policy.” (3/2/15)
“I’d also like to see that posting is
being done per policy.” (11/16/16)
will investigate immediately.
•Without information on specific locations, the County is unable to investigate this
concern about not posting “in most treated areas where people have foot access
and where they recreate…”.
Adopting an IPM ordinance
9/4/13-IPM
11/6/13-IPM
2/26/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
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.
•County Counsel continues to stand by their 2009 opinion.
•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
12/5/13-TWIC
2/12/14-TWIC
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
Disagreement on how the County
should report “Bad Actor 3
•Since FY 00-01, the County has been publishing pesticide use figures that
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
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.
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/
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 83 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
8/26/15-Email
9/2/15-IPM
of the Data Management subcommittee on March 25, 2013 devoted exclusively to
this issue. Dr. Susan Kegley 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 Ms. 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.
Use of Paraquat and Other Bad Actors for Aquatic Weed Control by the Department of Agriculture
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 concerns
11/6/13-IPM
12/5/13-TWIC
2/20/14-IPM
2/24/14-IPM
3/5/14-IPM
3/6/14-TWIC
8/26/15-Email
7/20/16-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
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.
•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
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
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.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 84 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
“Contractors [in Special Districts]
use pesticides [rodenticides] before
demonstrating alternatives first.”
(8/26/15)
“I would like to first point out that
the Special District program of
Public Works is still using
rodenticides in the county parks…It
would be helpful to see the
decision making tree on the way
rodenticides are chosen instead of
traps or asphyxiation methods
using safer gases like carbon
dioxide.” (3/16/16)
“The Public Works Special District
program is using about 50 lbs. of
rodenticides in parks.” (7/20/16)
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 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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 85 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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 and to 53.5 lbs in FY 14-15.
The amount of actual anticoagulant active ingredient in 53.5 lbs is 0.0027
lbs ( 0.04 oz). The contractor has increased trapping and is not using any of
the more toxic and dangerous 2nd generation anticoagulants.
o As of May 2016, Special Districts is no longer baiting with diphacinone for
rats in Livorna Park. The shrubs that were being damaged by rat gnawing
have recovered and are thriving. The contractor will continue to monitor at
Livorna for rat damage.
o In FY 15-16 the Special Districts vertebrate pest manager used 27.5 lbs. of
rodent bait, which is 0.0013 lbs. (0.02 oz.) of diphacinone. 9.5 lbs. of that
rodent bait was used in a park (Livorna Park). This is 0.0076 oz of
diphacinone. As noted above, the County is no longer using rodenticides in
Livorna or any other park.
o In the spring of 2016, the IPM Decision-Making subcommittee asked the
IPM Coordinator to create a decision-making document for gopher
management in the County. The document was finished in June 2016. In
the Grounds Division, the gopher manager uses only carbon dioxide
asphyxiation and traps to control gophers in County landscaping. The
Special Districts’ contractor uses trapping and diphacinone, a 1st generation
anticoagulant rodenticide, for gophers in Livorna Park. He uses trapping in
Livorna wherever it is safe to do so, i.e., where children are unlikely to find
and play with the traps. He uses diphacinone in the Hidden Pond and
Driftwood landscaping zones because the budgets in these two Special
Districts will not cover trapping, which is more labor intensive. Both those
landscaping zones are frontage property. The only other location where the
Special Districts’ contractor manages vertebrate pests is the Alamo School
field, where he is using traps.
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
8/26/15-Email
2/17/16-IPM
7/20/16-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
•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
.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 86 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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)
“Pilot Trial of rodenticides vs
tapping done in 2012, biased &
scientifically indefensible.”
(8/26/15)
“Cost of trapping inflated.”
(8/26/15)
“Trapping [for ground squirrels]
costs about 50% more according to
a Ventura County Ag Dept report,
or approximately $80,000 more for
CCC.” (7/20/16)
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 only in areas where
ground squirrels are active. 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. This does
not compare favorably to the Department estimate of $5,074/linear if work
were done by Department staff.
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 We are assuming that Susan JunFish’s 7/20/16 comment on the cost of
trapping ground squirrels comes from the IPM plan for Rodent Control for
Flood Control Facility Protection approved by the Ventura Board of
Supervisors in December 2006. PfSE provided a copy of this IPM plan to the
IPM Committee a number of years ago. In a table in that IPM plan, the
county summarizes the costs for various treatments for grounds squirrels.
The table makes it clear that the costs are “estimates [for] one treatment
event for a typical [flood control] facility.” The Ventura IPM plan estimates
the cost of trapping to be almost 100% more than the cost of broadcasting
diphacinone bait ($1700 for baiting vs. $2900 for trapping). Note that the
report does not define the “typical facility”, so it is not possible to compare
their estimates to the actual costs experienced in Contra Costa County. Note
also that Ventura did not run a trial prior to adopting their IPM plan to
determine the real costs of trapping or whether that strategy could be
effective within the 3 “treatment events” the IPM plan recommends. It is not
clear how Ms. JunFish calculated the $80,000 extra needed to trap ground
squirrels in Contra Costa County.
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 One of the pest control contractors who was contacted for an estimate said
he had also observed the ineffectiveness of trapping in areas with
surrounding ground squirrel pressure.
o The Department also observed some other unexpected outcomes:
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.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 87 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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
7/20/16-IPM
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
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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 88 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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 ground
squirrels along their roads.
The County should use volunteers and free labor
12/5/13-TWIC
3/6/14-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
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
8/26/15-Email
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
hope that this research can provide
decision makers with confidence
•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.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 89 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
that managed grazing is an
effective, economical and safe
vegetation management tool along
watercourses.”
“Small PfSE Pilot Trial in 2009
showed no contaminants
downstream of grazing.” (8/26/15)
The County should expand goat grazing and competitive planting
12/5/13-TWIC
3/5/14-TWIC
2/17/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
7/20/16-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
cost of grazing during the in-
season are [sic] 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)
Grazing costs are inflated and cost
of herbicide use is deflated.
(8/2615)
“With evidence that grazing causes
no more damage and can be less
expensive in the short term and
also less risk to public health and
the environment, we need to
expedite moving away from
herbicide usage and utilize more
grazing.” (7/20/16)
•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 yearsthrough
2018 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 yearssame time period 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 FY 12-13 they grazed 74 acres, in FY 13-14 they grazed
183 acres, and in FY 14-15 they grazed 367 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 is 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 the 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
•Although the cost of off-season grazing is less expensive than during the peak
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 90 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
grazing season, Public Works cannot effectively manage all the weeds that grow
in the Flood Control District only with off-season grazing.
•In 2016 Public Works continued to use grazing wherever possible and to allow
the grazer to stage goats on various channels and in detention basins in
exchange for free vegetation management from the goats.
•In FY 15-16 the County used goats to graze a total of 315 acres which included
158 free acres. Without the staging arrangement with the grazer, the County
would have paid around $950/acre for grazing. With the free acres, the cost
came down to $470/acre. This is twice what it costs to treat creek banks with
herbicide ($222/acre).
Considering least-toxic alternatives before choosing pesticides
12/5/13-TW IC
2/26/14-IPM
2/17/15-IPM
8/6/15-IPM
8/26/15-Email
11/4/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“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)
“Also, has the county investigated
least toxic methods in accordance
with the IPM Policy?” (8/6/15)
•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
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
per document).
•In 2014, 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 2015, the Weed subcommittee reviewed and revised 1 more decision-making
document which covered how the County decides to use grazing as a
management tool.
•In 2014, the Cost Accounting subcommittee 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 complicated 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
From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
•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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 91 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
12/4/14-TWIC
3/10/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
3/16/16-IPM
7/20/16-IPM
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)
“Compare the quantity and the type
of pesticides being used by
neighboring counties of Marin,
S.F., and Santa Clara Counties
[sic] for the same pest problems.”
(2/17/16)
“…I am concerned about the
exponential increase of herbicides
being applied by the Grounds
program in the last fiscal year [FY
14-15].” (3/16/16)
“The Right of Ways program of
Public Works alone used over
10,200 lbs of pesticides last fiscal
year, using 20 herbicides…These
[sic] program needs review of why
so much pesticides are required
and at such high rates.” (3/16/16)
“…CCC Ag Dept’s usage of the
active ingredient diphacinone
rodenticides in the last 5 years
increased by 15% in open space,
with a 90% increase between the
last 2 years.” (7/20/16)
“The Public Works Department’s
Grounds Program in the last 5
years increased their herbicide
usage by 73%. CCC Grounds
program used 700% more
herbicides than the counties of
Santa Clara and Marin combined
last year [presumably 2015] (600
lbs vs 100 lbs) even when Santa
Clara county has at least 50%
more grounds requiring
management.” (7/20/16)
The Public Works Department’s
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
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 From FY 2000-2001 through FY 15-16, the County has reduced its
pesticide use by 732%--from 18,931 lbs of active ingredient in FY 00-01 to 5287
5146 lbs of active ingredient in FY 14-15-16.
•Since FY 2000-2001, each Department has been evaluating its pesticide use and
researching options for eliminating or reducing pesticide use. By 2015 County
operations have had eliminated the use of 24 of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides that
they had been using. Since FY 2000-2001, the County hasand had reduced its
usethe lbs of “Bad Actor” pesticides active ingredients by 84%.
•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.
•In FY 14-15, the Grounds Division used only 1/3 of the pesticide it used in FY 00-
01. The amount used in FY 14-15 was 154 lbs. of active ingredient less than in
FY 13-14.
•In FY 14-15 the Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance
Division (the “Right of Ways program” that PfSE refers to) used 4,780 lbs. of
pesticide active ingredients. This is a little more than ¼ of the pesticide they used
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 92 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
Facilities program manages pests
in buildings and has been doing
great until last year when
insecticide usage inside building(s)
[sic] went up past 8 lbs.” (7/20/16)
in FY 00-01.
•In FY 14-15 the Agriculture Department used 346 lbs. less of the anticoagulant
diphacinone than the previous year. In FY 15-16, the Department reduced its use
even further. In FY 14-15 the Department used 154.7 lbs of diphacinone and in
FY 15-16 it used 76 lbs. Over the last 5 years, this is a dramatic decrease of 86%
and a decrease of 95% from the 1420.7 lbs. used by the Department in FY 00-01.
•The Grounds Division use of herbicide has indeed increased over the last 8
years. The Recession and its attendant budget cuts, along with decisions by the
former Grounds manager to stop almost all herbicide use, contributed to several
years of minimal use. Weeds and their seeds were not managed effectively for
several years resulting in large weed and weed seed loads at many County
properties. Over the last 6 years, the current Grounds Manager and his crew
have been working very hard to reduce the weed pressure and improve the
aesthetics of County landscaping. This has included the application of prodigious
amounts of woodchip mulch and reducing irrigation to prevent weeds, but it has
also meant the use of more herbicide. Inadequate budgets and staffing problems
have made the recovery of County properties slow. Currently (2016) the Division
is in much better shape and has enough money and almost enough staff to
properly maintain County landscaping. As the crew reduces the weed load, they
can more easily maintain relatively weed-free landscapes with physical methods
such as handpulling and mulching.
•Pestec, the County’s structural pest management contractor that manages pests
in and around buildings, has been battling very large ant populations the last 2
years, and this has increased the amount of insecticide used. Insecticides for
ants are all in the form of baits and pose very little exposure for County staff and
wildlife.
CCC should do more IPM training and outreach to County staff and the public
12/5/13-TWIC
2/17/16-IPM
3/16/16-IPM
11/16/16-IPM
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.”
“I would like to see Contra Costa
County, with more resources than
[Parents for a Safer Environment],
facilitate some training for
municipalities in our county for
some of the toughest problems that
trigger pesticide usage…”
(11/16/16)
•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 provides 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. Materials are housed on
the Health Services bed bug website (cchealth.org/bedbugs).
•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.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 93 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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
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. IPM training is also provided for nursery and hardware
store employees.
•In 2014 the County Clean Water Program launched 3 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 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 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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 94 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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
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 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, along with park personnel from the
city of Danville attended.
•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.
•In June 2015, the IPM Coordinator completed an IPM Guidance manual for
municipalities in Contra Costa County with help from Beth Baldwin of the County
Clean Water Program and Stephen Pree of the City of El Cerrito. The three had
worked for 2 years to develop IPM guidance for cities on implementing IPM and
to develop standard operating procedures for various pests. The three presented
an IPM workshop for municipal staff that included information on how to use the
manual and resources available to them within the County.
•In November 2015, the IPM Coordinator and Luis Agurto from Pestec provided a
bed bug training for County Adult Protective Services staff who have been
encountering bed bug problems in their clients homes more frequently.
•In April 2016, the IPM Coordinator helped arrange a County-sponsored Bay
Friendly Landscaping refresher training at the Pittsburg Civic Center open to all
Bay Friendly certified landscaping professionals in the County.
•In April 2016, the IPM Coordinator and Luis Agurto from Pestec provided a bed
bug awareness training for staff from the Behavioral Health Division.
•In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator arranged a talk on mosquitoes as vectors of
disease by Dr. Steve Schutz of CC Mosquito and Vector Control for the IPM
Advisory Committee.
•In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator gave a class in home and garden pests at the
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 95 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
Gardens at Heather Farms for the general public.
•In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator helped arrange a talk at the Richmond Civic
Center on vertebrate pest management for County and municipal staff and
professional landscapers.
•In May 2016, the IPM Coordinator provided a bed bug prevention training to the
County’s Discovery House staff.
•In June 2016, the IPM Coordinator and Carlos Agurto from Pestec provided a bed
bug prevention refresher training to the Concord Homeless Shelter and Calli
House youth shelter staff.
•In July 2016, the IPM Coordinator provided bed bug prevention trainings for both
Adult Mental Health and Older Adult Mental Health staff.
•In August 2016, the IPM Coordinator provided bed bug prevention trainings for
the Behavioral Health safety coordinators and for a group of board and care
owners and managers.
•In October 2016, the IPM Coordinator provided a bed bug prevention talk for
homeless care providers, worked with the City of Richmond to create a plan for
managing bed bugs in their city, and talked to staff at 1650 Cavallo about
preventing ant infestations.
Violations of the Brown Act
12/5/13-TWIC
3/2/15-TWIC
8/6/15-IPM
2/17/16-IPM
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”
“our county’s IPM policy and the
Public Records Act have been
violated at least on a quarterly
basis by staff since 2009.” (3/2/15)
“We are still waiting to learn where
Fusilade II Turf and Ornamental
herbicide had been applied by the
Grounds Program in the past
years” (8/6/15)
•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 are ready to respond to any specific instances or claims of Brown Act
violations. Staff maintain written logs of all public records requests.
•On July 8, 2015 Susan JunFish formally requested information about Fusilade
use by the Grounds Division. On July 16, 2015 the IPM Coordinator provided her
with a chart, created for her, showing how much and where Fusilade was used (0
used in FY 12-13 and FY 14-15 and 0.1 pound used once in a parking lot in FY
13-14).
Financial incentives to serve on the IPM Committee/Conflict of interest on the IPM Committee
12/5/13-TWIC
1/14/15 IPM
3/2/15-TWIC
2/17/16-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
•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.
•If the public has evidence of financial incentives for serving on the IPM
Committee, we request that they bring that evidence forward.
•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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 96 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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 General
Services Department according to
a document from Terry Mann,
former Deputy Director of the
General Services Dept. After
receiving that contract, Mr.
Baefsky’s behavior on the
Committee changed significantly.”
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.
•“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
3/2/15-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
•If the public has evidence of County staff taking bribes, we urge the public to
provide that evidence for investigation.
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.
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."
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 97 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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 Coordinator references statements by members of Parents for a Safer Environment that were never made
3/2/15 From Parents for a Safer
Environment (PfSE):
“PfSE members also feel a lack of
goodwill and collaboration when
the IPM Coordinator references
statements by members that were
never made. For example, in the
Response Table, it states that a
PfSE member stated at the
February 12, 2015 [sic] TWIC
meeting that ‘The IPM Committee
is planning to include only 70% of
PfSE’s priorities as the
Committee’s priorities for 2014.’
We would be thrilled if this was the
case…”
•In her written public comments to TWIC on February 12, 2014, Susan JunFish
states: “We believe that the Committee is planning to address about 70% of the
priority issues the community has raised, so we are hopeful. The two areas where
there has been no plan to address are columns 4 and 5 of the table.”
The IPM Committee needs a non-voting facilitator
2/12/14-TWIC
3/2/15-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 and
2015 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
3/2/15-TWIC
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
intended by the IPM Committee as agreed at their November 6, 2013 meeting.
•The Triennial Review Report has been accepted by TWIC and the BOS, and the
IPM Committee cannot go back and change the report.
•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
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 98 of 174
Date(s)
Issue
Raised to:
TWIC =
Transportation,
Water &
Infrastructure
Committee
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
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.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 99 of 174
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:12/08/2016
Subject:CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related
Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: 1
Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7883
Referral History:
This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list
and meeting agenda.
Referral Update:
Federal/State/Local: Election Recap/Update
Attached please find:
Report from the County's Federal Lobbyist, Alcalde & Fay: Election 2016: Results and
Analysis
(Alcalde&Fay2016 Election Analysis.pdf)
Report from the County's State Lobbyist, Nielsen Merksamer: 2016 Legislation and
Legislative Issues for Contra Costa County
(NielsenMerksamer 2016 Leg Issues.pdf)
Metropolitan Transportation Commission: 2016 Election Readout: SF Bay Area Ballot
Measures
(MTC Election Readout_ 11.09.16_1236PM.pdf)
Politico.com: Elaine Chao Tapped to be Trump's Transportation Secretary
(Elaine Chao - Transportation Secretary Nomination - POLITICO.pdf)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In developing transportation related legislative issues and proposals to bring forward for
consideration by TWIC, staff receives input from the Board of Supervisors (BOS), references the
County's adopted Legislative Platforms, coordinates with our legislative advocates, partner
agencies and organizations, and consults with the Committee itself.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 100 of 174
Recommendations are summarized in the Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s) section at the end of
this report. Specific recommendations, if provided, are underlined in the report below. This report
includes three sections, 1) LOCAL, 2) STATE, and 3) FEDERAL .
1) LOCAL
a) Accessible Transit Issues: As discussed at previous TWIC meetings and at the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA), there may be a general understanding amongst decision makers that the
manner in which accessible transit is administered and provided in the County should be reviewed. With the
failure of Measure X, how this issue will be addressed is not known. A small working group of staff from the
transit districts, the County, and CCTA has been meeting to discuss options.
Staff will report out from this working group, discuss the issue and requests direction from TWIC.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any local issues of note and take ACTION as
appropriate.
2) STATE
a) Legislative Report
If available, the legislative report from the County's legislative advocate, Mark Watts, will be attached
(December TWIC Report). Mr. Watts will be present at the December meeting to discuss state
legislation and other items of interest to the Committee.
b) Senate Bill 632/School Safety
Beginning in 2014 the County initiated an effort to reform/revise school zone statutes in order to increase
safety around schools. Legislation was drafted and went through the County's annual platform develop
process.
That effort resulted in SB 632 (Cannella, Baker, Bonilla) being introduced in 2015. Due to the technical
nature of legislation, the Senate Committee on Transportation & Housing (Senate T&H) referred the
legislation to the California Traffic Control Device Committee (CTCDC).
The CTCDC formed a "School Zone Subcommittee" to respond to the Senate referral and invited Contra
Costa County staff to participate. The work of the subcommittee resulted in the attached (CTCDC to Senate
T&H ReSchool Zone-SB632.pdf) draft response to the Senate T&H. County staff believes, and went on
record (CCCounty to CTCDC ReSchool Zone-SB632.pdf) with the CTCDC on many occasions, that there are
numerous technical and procedural problems with the CTCDC's handling of the issue and proposed response
to the Senate T&H. The input did not have any effect on the dialog or outcome.
Staff recommends that TWIC discuss this issue with staff, our legislative advocate, and direct that a letter be
sent from the Board of Supervisors to our Legislative Delegation and Senate T&H leadership highlighting the
following issues:
In the past the CTCDC has found numerous, substantial problems with "When Children Are Present"
signage. Those findings were not mentioned in the letter to the Senate T&H and no changes were
recommended to Senate T&H.
At the outset of the CTCDC process the Committee agreed that the existing statutes included arbitrary
figures for the establishment of school zones, and that any recommendation would not include any
arbitrary figures. The recommendation provided to Senate T&H continues the use of arbitrary figures
in conflict with the earlier agreement.
In defense of the CTCDC, the issue that was taken up is deceptively complex and it is clear that there
were not enough resources or time for the Committee to give the bill and underlying issues the
necessary attention.
We urge the Senate Committee to reject the input from the CTCDC and refer the issue to Caltrans and
the California Department of Public Health for a comprehensive study with appropriate resources,
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 101 of 174
analysis and outreach. The numerous, fundamental changes in state transportation policy (complete
streets, active transportation, safe routes to school, health in all policies, greenhouse gas reduction,
vision zero/toward zero deaths) and public health data now available strongly suggest that the subject
statutes be revisited in an appropriate manner.
c) Grant Award - Highway Safety Improvement Program
In August TWIC approved grant applications under the Federal Highway Administrations Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP), which is administered by Caltrans. In November, the County was
informed that five project grants for $5.6 million were approved. The details are in the attached table: HSIP
Cycle 8 Awards - CC County.pdf.
A portion of the local share was assumed to be gas tax revenue. With the reductions in state revenue staff
needs to determine how the local match will be funded. Staff will report out the impact of reduced state
funding and the resulting local match strategy for the HSIP grants at the December TWIC meeting.
d) Advocacy Discussion
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) regularly provides material (press releases, talking
points, sample tweets) to member agencies for use in advocating for issues of common interest. Staff would
like to discuss with, and receive direction from the Committee and the Board of Supervisors on how to best
and most appropriately use these materials. Attached (CSAC Streets and Roads Advocacy Package.pdf) is a
recent example of materials.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any state issues of note, DIRECT staff to bring a draft letter
regarding SB 632 to the full Board of Supervisors, and take other ACTION as appropriate.
3)FEDERAL
No written report in December.
RECOMMENDATION: DISCUSS any federal issues of note and take ACTION as appropriate.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and
take ACTION as appropriate including CONSIDERATION of any specific recommendations in
the report above.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact.
Attachments
Alcalde&Fay2016 Election Analysis.pdf
NielsenMerksamer 2016 Leg Issues.pdf
MTC Election Readout_ 11.09.16_1236PM.pdf
Elaine Chao - Transportation Secretary Nomination - POLITICO.pdf
CCCounty to CTCDC ReSchool Zone-SB632.pdf
CTCDC to Senate T&H ReSchool Zone-SB632.pdf
HSIP Cycle 8 Awards - CC County.pdf
CSAC Streets and Roads Advocacy Package.pdf
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Agenda Packet Pg 102 of 174
December 2014
ALCALDE & FAY
GOVERNMENT & PUBLIC AFFAIRS CONSULTANTS
E LECTION 2016: R ESULTS AND A NALYSIS
PRESIDENT
Donald J. Trump will be the nation’s 45th President, defeating Hillary Clinton in one of
the most surprising presidential election upsets in recent history. In a decisive victory
that undoubtedly helped down‐ballot Republicans retain control of the House – a
stretch for the Democrats in any event ‐ and Senate, Trump has accumulated 290
electoral votes, putting him well beyond the minimum 270 electoral votes required for
victory and far ahead of the 232 electoral votes won by Clinton. At the time of this
writing, vote counts are still being finalized in Michigan, although Trump looks likely
to carry Michigan as well which would bring him to 306 total electoral votes. The
victory shocked many from both parties (including in both campaigns!) and many in
the media, as nearly all public polling data modeling had anticipated a victory for
Secretary Clinton. At this time, Clinton is expected to retain her lead in the popular vote
(approximately 200,000 votes), making Trump the fifth President to win the Electoral
College vote while losing the popular vote.
The Trump campaign’s victory can largely be attributed to decisive wins in the key
battleground states of Florida, North Carolina and Ohio ‐ all states President Obama
carried in both his elections (with the exception of North Carolina, which Obama won in 2008
but narrowly lost in 2012). Perhaps the most damaging to Clinton’s election hopes were
Trump’s victories in the key Democratic firewall (or “blue wall”) rust belt states, where
Democrats have enjoyed significant success in the past several presidential elections.
Among Trump’s inroads in these blue states was a win in Pennsylvania, a solid “blue
state” for more than two decades, having last selected a Republican in 1988. Also of
considerable importance was Trump’s surprise wins in the traditionally “blue” states of
Wisconsin, which has not voted for a Republican since Ronald Reagan, and Michigan,
which like Pennsylvania has voted for Democrats in every presidential election since
1988. This election certainly revealed the changing demographics in the American
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 103 of 174
page 2 of 11
electorate and may dramatically shift party attention and targeting of certain states that
each may have previously thought to be “untouchable” in a presidential election.
Among the policy and legislative items Trump has outlined as priorities for his
administration are the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or
Obamacare), the construction of a wall along our Southern border with Mexico, and a
revenue‐neutral infrastructure plan that would seek to leverage public‐private
partnerships and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in
infrastructure investments over ten years. While at least some of these proposals are
likely to garner significant opposition from Congressional Democrats, and even some
Congressional Republicans, President‐elect Trump will have the benefit of his party
controlling both chambers of Congress; however, the slim Republican majority in the
Senate will allow Senate Democrats, namely incoming Minority Leader Chuck Schumer
(D‐NY) to use the filibuster and parliamentary maneuvers to slow or even halt the
progress of legislation deemed unacceptable by Democrats. With Senate Democrats
facing a perilous election cycle in 2018 (23 seats up for re‐election, including several in
red states), the extent to which the Democratic caucus will be able to obstruct Trump’s
legislative agenda remains unclear. And measures included in a reconciliation measure
require only a simple majority to pass. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R‐KY) has
already indicted that a full repeal of Obamacare will be at the top of the Congressional
agenda when the 115th Congress convenes in January, and this is something that could
happen as part of reconciliation. Of course, it will be incumbent on the President and
Congress to determine what will succeed the ACA. President‐elect Trump is also
expected to nominate a candidate to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the Supreme
Court. The pending nomination could trigger a confirmation fight between Democrats
and Republicans in the Senate, as many Senate Democrats remain upset that Senate
Republicans refused to consider President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, as they
sought to hedge their bets that a Trump election would yield a more conservative pick.
U.S. SENATE
With Senate Republicans expected to win the runoff in Louisiana to determine the
state’s open Senate seat, Republicans are projected to control 52 seats in the 115th
Congress, leaving Democrats with 48 (this total includes two independent senators, Bernie
Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine, who both caucus with Senate Democrats). The
projected seat totals are the result of another surprise of the 2016 election cycle, in so
much as Senate Republicans were able to secure enough victories in difficult elections to
retain their majority by a slim margin. Of particular note, Senate Republicans won key
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 104 of 174
page 3 of 11
races in states where just a few weeks ago polling suggested the races were toss‐ups
(Indiana, Missouri and North Carolina) or leaning Democrat (Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin), and hold on to seats in races previously considered challenging. Of the five
open senate seats this election, Democrats were able to secure victories in three states
(California, Maryland and Nevada, all seats previously held by Democrats), while
Republicans won in Indiana and are projected to win in Louisiana (both currently held
by Republicans).
Democrats were only able to flip two Republican‐held seats, with Democratic
Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth soundly defeating incumbent Republican Mark
Kirk in Illinois, and Democratic Governor Maggie Hassan narrowly edging out
incumbent Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire by 700 votes.
Party Current # of Seats
Incoming # of Seats
(pending runoff, final counts)
Net Gain/Loss
(pending runoff, final counts)
Republicans 54 52 ‐2
Democrats 46* 48 +2
*Includes two Independents who caucus with the Democrats.
As previously noted, the only other Senate race that remains undecided is in Louisiana,
where Senator David Vitter (R) chose not to seek re‐election for his seat following his
failed bid for Governor last year. With no candidate garnering 50 percent of the vote in
Tuesday’s election, a state‐wide runoff will be held on December 10, 2016, between the
top two vote‐getters: State Treasurer John Kennedy (R) and Public Service
Commissioner Foster Campbell (D). The latest projections suggest Republican voters in
the state, split among several nominees in Tuesday’s election, will likely unite behind
Kennedy in the runoff, thereby allowing Republicans to retain the seat.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
As expected, Republicans will retain their majority in the House, with races still to be
decided in California and Louisiana. In Louisiana, the two outstanding races will be
decided by a district‐level runoff election scheduled for December 10, 2016; however,
two Republicans will vie for the state’s 3rd district, ensuring Republicans retain that
seat, and they are heavily favored to also hold the state’s 4th district.
As charted below, the current vote tally would reflect a net gain of 6 seats for House
Democrats, falling short of the 10‐15 seats they were expected to pick up. Meanwhile,
Republicans remain well short of the 290 seats needed to overturn a Presidential veto,
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 105 of 1712-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 105 of 174
page 4 of 11
although that margin becomes less significant with an incoming President from their
own party.
Party
Current # of Seats
(currently 3 vacancies)
Incoming # of Seats
(pending runoff, final counts)
Net Gain/Loss
(pending runoff, final counts)
Republicans 246 238 ‐6
Democrats 186 193 +6
*Final numbers pending final vote counts.
The House Majority is expected to remain mostly unchanged, although leadership
elections are currently scheduled for November 15, 2016, just one day after Congress
returns to Washington following the seven‐week recess leading up to the elections. Of
particular note, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R‐WI) has said he will seek to retain his role
in the 115th Congress, although the reported tension with Trump throughout the
campaign, as well as with some of the more conservative members of his own party
(notably, those within the Freedom Caucus), could potentially hurt his chances of being
re‐elected.
What is more likely than an attempt to unseat Speaker Ryan at the outset of the
upcoming lame duck session, is a move to seek changes to existing House rules and
procedures that many in the Freedom Caucus view as limiting the power of rank‐and‐
file members of the caucus. Among the potential changes reportedly being discussed is
a modification to the process for selecting committee chairmen, allowing committee
members to select their own chairs instead of relying on steering committees comprised
of leadership and more senior caucus members. Freedom Caucus members are
reportedly waiting to see how Speaker Ryan fares during the lame duck session, and
whether he is willing to negotiate a deal that could cede more power to their members,
before agreeing to fully support Ryan’s bid to retain his position.
EXPECTED COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN & RANKING MEMBERS
Continued Republican control of Congress with only marginal net losses in each
chamber (two in the Senate and six in the House) is expected to leave many senior
Committee leaders in place. Nonetheless, intraparty divisions within the GOP reflecting
practical approaches to the Trump agenda and conservative ideology more generally
will loom large—particularly in the House.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 106 of 174
page 5 of 11
As noted above, the 40 members of the Republican Freedom Caucus in the House are
reportedly seeking several changes to House rules and procedures to not only modify
the process for selecting committee chairs, but also dramatically dilute the traditional
power of Committee chairs by creating a new sponsorship “threshold” to guarantee a
vote on legislation.
Pending any potential changes to the selection processes, both parties’ Steering
Committees will work to finalize Committee assignments by the time the new Congress
convenes in January. Below is a preliminary outlook for the expected Congressional
leadership, as well as the Chairs and Ranking Members for Committees of particular
importance.
CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP
Expected Senate Majority Leader – Mitch McConnell (R‐KY)
Expected Senate Minority Leader ‐ Chuck Schumer (D‐NY)
Expected Speaker of the House – Paul Ryan (R‐WI)
Expected House Majority Leader ‐ Kevin McCarthy (R‐CA)
Expected House Majority Whip ‐ Steve Scalise (R‐LA)
Expected House Minority Leader ‐ Nancy Pelosi (D‐CA)
Expected House Minority Whip – Steny Hoyer (D‐MD)
EXPECTED SENATE LEADERSHIP OF COMMITTEES OF INTEREST
Appropriations
Chairman: Senator Thad Cochran (R‐MS) is expected to remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Senator Patty Murray (D‐WA), Senator Leahy D‐VT (perhaps more
likely to keep his position on the Judiciary Committee), Senator Feinstein (D‐CA) or
Senator Richard Durbin (D‐IL) is expected to become Ranking Member.
Budget
Chairman: Senator Mike Enzi (R‐WY) is expected to remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Senator Bernie Sanders (I‐VT) may remain Ranking Member,
although he may pursue the comparable leadership position on the Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee should Senator Patty Murray (D‐
WA) move to assume retiring Senator Barbra Mikulski’s role as Ranking Member of
Appropriations. Sheldon Whitehouse (D‐RI) is also reportedly interested in the post
if Senator Sanders moves to HELP.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 107 of 174
page 6 of 11
Commerce
Chairman: Senator John Thune (R‐SD) is expected to remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Senator Bill Nelson (D‐FL) is likely to remain the Ranking Member.
Environment and Public Works (EPW)
Chairman: Senator James Inhofe (R‐OK) has served on EPW for a full six years, and is
expected to be replaced as Chair by Senator John Barrasso (R‐WY).
Ranking Member: Current Ranking Member Barbara Boxer (D‐CA) is retiring at the
end of the year; she is expected to be replaced by Senator Tom Carper (D‐DE).
Finance
Chairman: Senator Orrin Hatch (R‐UT) is expected to remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Senator Ron Wyden (D‐OR) is expected to remain as Ranking
Member.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP)
Chairman: Senator Lamar Alexander (R‐TN) is expected remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Senator Murray (D‐WA) may remain Ranking Member of HELP or
seek the same position on the Appropriations Committee. If she moves, Senator
Bernie Sanders (I‐VT) is expected to leverage increased visibility from the
Democratic primary in pursuit of the position. Senator Bob Casey (D‐PA) is another
possibility as Ranking Member.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Chairman: Senator Ron Johnson (R‐WI) is expected to remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Senator Claire McCaskill (D‐MO) will likely become the next
Ranking Member.
Veterans’ Affairs:
Chairman: Senator Johnny Isakson (R‐GA) is expected to remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Senator Richard Blumenthal (D‐CT) is expected to remain as
Ranking Member.
EXPECTED HOUSE LEADERSHIP OF COMMITTEES OF IMPORTANCE
Appropriations
Chairman: Current Chair Harold Rogers (R‐KY) is termed out. His successor is likely
to be either Robert Aderholt (R‐AL) or Rodney Frelinghuysen (R‐NJ).
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 108 of 174
page 7 of 11
Ranking Member: Nita Lowey (D‐NY) is expected to continue in this role.
Budget
Chairman: Representative Tom Price (R‐GA) is expected to remain as Chair.
Ranking Member: Representative Chris Van Hollen (D‐MD) has been elected to fill
retiring Senator Barbara Mikulski’s seat in the Senate. Potential replacements as
Ranking Member are John Yarmuth (D‐KY) or Bill Pascrell (D‐NJ).
Education and the Workforce
Chairman: Representative John Kline (R‐MN) is retiring after three terms chairing the
Committee. Representative Virginia Foxx (R‐NC) has been a leading candidate to
replace him for some time, though Representatives Phil Roe (R‐TN) and Joe Wilson
(R‐SC) are also possibilities.
Ranking Member: Congressman Bobby Scott (D‐VA) is expected to continue as
Ranking Member.
Energy and Commerce
Chairman: Current Chair Fred Upton (R‐MI) is relinquishing the chair after three
terms, leaving a wide range of possibilities that include Representatives Greg
Walden (R‐OR), Tim Murphy (R‐PA), and Marsha Blackburn (R‐TN).
Ranking Member: Congressman Frank Pallone (D‐NJ) is expected to continue as
Ranking Member.
Homeland Security
Chairman: Current Chairman Michael McCaul (R‐TX) has one term remaining as
chair and is expected to continue in this role.
Ranking Member: Congressman Bennie Thompson (D‐MS) is expected to continue in
this role.
Transportation and Infrastructure
Chairman: Current Chairman Bill Shuster (R‐PA) has one term remaining as chair
and is expected to continue in this role.
Ranking Member: Congressman Peter DeFazio (D‐OR) is expected to continue in this
role.
Veterans’ Affairs
Chairman: Representative Jeff Miller (R‐FL), who is retiring at the end of the year, has
chaired this Committee for three terms; his likely replacements include
Representatives Doug Lamborn (R‐CO), Gus Bilirakis (R‐FL) or Phil Roe (R‐TN).
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 109 of 174
page 8 of 11
Ranking Member: Acting Ranking Member Paul Takano (D‐CA) is expected to
formalize his role; Representative Tim Walz (D‐MN) is also a possibility.
Ways and Means
Chairman: Chairman Kevin Brady (R‐TX) is likely to continue in this role.
Ranking Member: Congressman Sander Levin (D‐MI) is expected to continue in this
role.
LAME‐DUCK CONGRESSIONAL FORECAST
The House and Senate will return to Washington next week for the final weeks of the
114th Congress. With a Republican entering the White House in January, the Republican
Party’s leadership will likely avoid most major policy disputes during the lame duck.
Instead, they are likely to push most such issues into next year, when circumstances will
be more favorable to the Party.
These circumstances notwithstanding, summarized below are a few issues of particular
importance that are likely to be addressed during the upcoming lame duck session.
FY 2017 APPROPRIATIONS
Congress returns to Washington next week to face tough decisions about the remaining
11 spending bills that must be passed to keep the federal government programs up and
running beyond the December 9 expiration of the current Continuing Resolution (CR).
House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers (R‐KY) who has not made any
decisions on process, timeline, or compilations of bills, has indicated his committee
continues to do the background work necessary so that quick progress can be made
when Congress returns. Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran (R‐MS), who
led the negotiations on the short‐term CR that passed in September, said his committee
was making good progress on the remaining bills, and that he would continue talks
once lawmakers return to the Hill.
The first hurdle determining whether a handful of appropriations bills should move on
a few legislative vehicles, known as minibuses, or if the remaining 11 spending bills
should move on one vehicle, known as an omnibus. Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R‐KY) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R‐WI) prefer a series of minibuses,
but they have yet to convince Democrats. Top congressional aides have already warned
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 110 of 174
page 9 of 11
that a short‐term extension may be necessary to allow for continued negotiations, likely
pushing the end of the session closer to Christmas.
Many Republicans, including most from the Freedom Caucus, believe that a CR should
be passed that would keep the government running until sometime next year when
they have a Republican in the White House and a debt ceiling increase that must be
passed which can be used as leverage to insist on budget cuts they would be seeking.
Supplemental Appropriations
In addition to trying to reach a consensus on final FY 2017 spending and sorting out
potential policy riders, many in Congress expect that a supplemental spending bill
could surface to address requests from Southeastern states affected by severe flooding,
most recently from Hurricane Matthew. Coupled with further investments sought for
overseas military activities and assistance relating to the Flint Michigan water crisis
(which Republicans have committed would be forthcoming), a potential supplemental
appropriations measure could total $20 billion. The supplemental could move on its
own or be attached to a catch‐all spending bill.
WRDA REAUTHORIZATION
The federal government undertakes substantial activities constructing and maintaining
water resources and infrastructure through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These
activities are primarily: constructing and maintaining navigable channels, providing
flood control protection, restoring aquatic ecosystems, and providing shoreline
protection. Corps activities are authorized by Congress in Water Resources
Development Acts (WRDAs) and funded annually in appropriations bills. The last
water resources bill, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act was signed into
law in 2014.
Congressional leaders in both chambers have been working throughout the year on
their respective versions of measures to reauthorize WRDA.
The House WRDA (H.R. 5303), passed on September 28, 2016, builds on the more‐
comprehensive WRDA enacted in 2014, and demonstrates the commitment of Congress
to return to the routine of reauthorizing WRDA every two years. The Senate bill (S.
2848), approved September 15, 2016, contains substantive provisions in regard to
drinking water infrastructure and environmental restoration through new activities
housed in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 111 of 174
page 10 of 11
Differences between the measures, though substantial, should be resolved in the
coming weeks and Congressional leaders are optimistic that an agreement will be
reached and a bill sent to the President by the end of the year.
ENERGY BILL CONFERENCE NEGOTIATIONS
Also on the lame‐duck agenda is a bipartisan effort to reconcile the House and Senateʹs
competing energy bills, which, if fruitful, would result in enactment of the first major
energy bill since 2007.
The Senate bill (S. 2012) passed in April 2016, while its companion legislation H.R. 8,
passed in December 2015. A Conference Committee met in early September, however
talks were delayed primarily by electoral activities. There also remain significant
divisions on issues including reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, drought protection. There is greater agreement on provisions to promote energy
efficiency and to expedite liquefied natural gas exports. Those areas where there is more
agreement may be peeled off as separate legislation in hopes of passing it during the
lame duck session. Only 16 days remain, however, where both chambers are in session
and further conference meetings could be scheduled. Some members are questioning
whether it is worthwhile to even pursue such a reduced bill, the details of which must
be negotiated in an increasingly compacted timeline, or if it is more advantageous to
seek a better deal in the next congress.
TAX EXTENDERS
Last year, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act made permanent a
number of expiring tax provisions. Despite these efforts, more than 30 other tax
provisions are due to expire at the end of this year. Lawmakers from both parties have
expressed interest in passing a balanced, end‐of‐year tax package. However, due to the
short time frame remaining in the 114th Congress, leaders would most likely only be
able to clear a PATH Technical Corrections bill instead. When recently asked about the
fall tax schedule, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R‐UT) continued to
be noncommittal about a specific plan. Similarly, fellow Committee member John
Thune (R‐SD) commented that it was highly unlikely that the tax‐writing panel would
be able to produce any tax vehicle this year due primarily to the fact that neither of the
tax‐writing panels have proposed an extenders package.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 112 of 174
page 11 of 11
A comprehensive list of expiring tax provisions for 2016 ‐ many addressing energy, the
deduction for mortgage insurance premiums, and Medical expense deductions among
others can be found here.
We hope you will let us know if you have any questions or concerns related to any
aspect of this memorandum.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 113 of 174
TO: David Twa, County Administrator
Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Contra Costa County
FROM: Cathy Christian
DATE: October 13, 2016
RE: 2016 Legislation and Legislative Issues for Contra Costa County
As another legislative year and two-year session come to a close, it’s time to take
stock of the events of 2016 and to look into the near future as the 2016 General
Election is upon us. Despite the fact that the Legislature and Governor were not
able to reach agreement on some pressing issues facing counties and the State, it
was a productive year overall.
I have prepared a 1) synopsis of significant legislation; 2) a summary of issues of
political import; 3) the Contra Costa County legislative advocacy program
outcomes, and I have also included some information about the 17 Propositions
that will appear on the November Ballot.
The Budget…
On June 25th, the Governor signed another on-time State Budget. The $167.6
billion plan included only about $900 million more in GF appropriations than
the revised 2014-2015 spending level. The Rainy Day fund received a total of
about $3.3 billion, bringing the total in the account to $6.7 billion (approximately
54% of the goal).
K-12 school and community college funding grew to $71.9 billion, the highest rate
in California history. Per-pupil K-12 spending was increased $440 from last
year’s level. UC and CSU tuition will remain at 2011-2012 levels.
The 2016-2017 budget begins to implement the state’s new $15 per hour
minimum wage by raising the statewide minimum to $10.50 per hour on January
1, and also funds the first COLA increase for SSI/SSP in over a decade. An
additional $145 million was appropriated for child care and early education
programs. Also in the budget was a policy change to end the Maximum Family
Grant in the CalWORKs program (CCC Support Letter to Governor).
State infrastructure improvements and maintenance will receive $2 billion, with
$1.3 billion going to construction for State (owned) building purposes and $270
million in lease-revenue bond authority for local jails and $485 million from the
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 114 of 174
GF for deferred maintenance at levees, state parks, universities, community
colleges, prisons, state hospitals and other state facilities.
A few days after the main budget and trailer bills were signed by the Governor,
the legislature passed another trailer bill, AB 1618, better known as the “No Place
Like home” initiative. This bill and its companion “implementing legislation”
(AB 1628), provide $2 billion for the construction and rehabilitation of
permanent supportive housing for homeless people with mental illness, through
a competitive grant program for counties. The funding mechanism for this
program provides for the issuance of $2 billion in bonds, to be secured by
Proposition 63 revenues. Governor Brown immediately signed AB 1618.
Better late than never…
Not everything that was “in the works” for the budget actually made it into the
budget and trailer bills. Of those subjects that were “punted” to the end of the
legislative session (or even after, in subsequent Extraordinary Session), not all
were addressed before the Legislature closed out the two-year session at
midnight on August 31st.
One major budgetary issue that was resolved was cap-and-trade spending. A last
minute agreement was reached to make $900 million in appropriations to
various programs covering clean vehicle rebates, black carbon wood smoke
programs, transformative climate communities programs, urban greening, water
efficiency, waste diversion, transportation programs and other climate change
fighting programs. Approximately $462 million was reserved for future
appropriations.
Remains to be seen…
Despite much negotiation and arm twisting, the legislature failed to move two
expensive and controversial initiatives forward before the 2015-16 legislative
session concluded. The first is transportation funding. The Governor, legislative
leadership, labor and environmental groups were unable to craft a deal that
would satisfy their constituencies, as well as the potential need for a 2/3 vote of
the legislature to come up with a multibillion dollar transportation infrastructure
plan. It is possible that the legislature comes back to address transportation
funding needs before the 2017-2018 session begins. Senator Beall and
Assemblymember Frazier have introduced bills in the First Extraordinary Session
that propose a gas tax hike, a diesel tax hike and the charging of a $165 annual fee
on owners of electric vehicles (SBX1 1 Beall and ABX1 26 Frazier / CCC Support).
There is no current plan for the legislature to meet before the next session begins,
but if they do, it would likely not be until after the election on November 8th.
The second contentious and expensive issue that the legislature was not able to
make significant progress on was affordable/low-income housing. Again, despite
much negotiation, the Legislature was unable to reach an agreement with the
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 115 of 174
Administration on the Governor’s proposed $400 million for low-income housing
projects. Most of the controversy seemed to stem from the Governor’s
requirement that a “deal” include a “streamlined” plan that would allow
developers to bypass (“by-right”) traditional aspects of local control and oversight
in development decision making. Assembly Speaker Rendon walked away from
negotiations in mid-August, after weeks of inactivity.
All indications are that the Governor is intractably committed to streamlining
development planning, much to the dismay of legislators and community groups
who know that any significant legislative spending on housing (in a budget or in
other legislation) will have to be signed by the Governor. (Senator Beall also
attempted to put a $3 billion housing bond on the ballot (SB 879), but that effort
failed to make it out of the legislature. Short of a deal for an appropriation or a
bond for housing, the legislature was able to send several housing related bills to
the Governor including a handful of hotly debated bills on the subject of
accessory dwelling units.
And also…
There were a number of significant bills this year that are worth mentioning…
AB 1921 (Gonzalez) - Permits a vote by mail voter to who is unable to return
his or her ballot to designate any person to return the ballot and prohibits a
designated person from receiving any form of compensation based on the
number ballots that person returns.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 820, Statutes of 2016
AB 2686 (Mullin) – Until January 1, 2021, as part of a pilot project, allows a
county to conduct a legislative or congressional vacancy special election as a
mailed ballot election if more than half the voters in the county are
permanent vote by mail voters.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 764, Statutes of 2016
SB 450 (Allen & Hertzberg) - Permits specified counties (not CCC) beginning
in 2018, and all other counties, beginning in 2020, to conduct elections in which
every voter is mailed a ballot and, among other things, vote centers and ballot
drop-off locations are available prior to and on election day, in lieu of operating
polling places for the election.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 382, Statutes of 2016
AB 2636 (Linder & Dababneh) - Allows an official, if an electronic request
for a certified copy of a birth, death, or marriage record is made, to accept an
electronic verification of identity of the applicant using a remote identity
proofing process, as specified, or a notarized statement of identity, to ensure the
applicant is authorized under law to receive that record.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 116 of 174
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 527, Statutes of 2016
AB 1234 (de León) - Relates to government private sector retirement savings
plans, individual retirement accounts and individual retirement annuities.
Requires the Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board to implement
the Secure Choice Savings Program.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 804, Statutes of 2016
SBX2 2 (Hernandez) - Establishes a new managed care organization
provider tax on licensed health care service plans, managed care plans
contracted to provide Medi-Cal services, and alternate health care service plans.
Establishes applicable taxing tiers and per enrollee amounts.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 2, Statutes of 2015-2016 2nd
Extraordinary Session
AB 1066 (Gonzalez) - Provides for the phasing in of overtime
requirements for agricultural workers, over the course of a specified multi-
year period.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 313, Statutes of 2016
AB 2835 (Cooper) - Requires certain public employers to provide newly hired
employees a specified public employee orientation within a certain number
of months of hiring. Requires, if employees are represented, that an exclusive
representative be given certain notice in advance of the orientation. Requires that
a representative be permitted to make a presentation. Requires an affected public
employee to provide certain employee information to a representative.
Status: Died on Senate Inactive File
SB 1170 (Wieckowski) – Prohibits local public agencies, including charter
cities, from delegating to a contractor the development of a storm water
pollution prevention plan and prohibits public agencies from requiring a
contractor on a public works contract that requires compliance with any of these
plans to assume responsibility for the completeness and accuracy of the plan.
Status: Held on Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File
(CCC Oppose)
AB 1399 (Baker) - Allows an individual to designate on his or her tax return
that a specified amount in excess of tax liability be transferred to the State
Domestic Violence Victims Fund created by this Act.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 289, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 117 of 174
SB 1322 (Mitchell) - Provides that a minor engaged in commercial
sexual activity will not be arrested for a prostitution offense and directs a law
enforcement officer who comes upon a minor engaged in a commercial sexual act
to report the conduct or situation to county social services as abuse or neglect.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 654, Statutes of 2016
SB 813 (Leyva) – Removes the statute of limitation for the prosecution
of rape, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts, continuous sexual abuse of a child, oral
copulation, and sexual penetration.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 777, Statutes of 2016
SB 32 (Pavley) - Requires the State Air Resources Board to approve a
statewide greenhouse gas emissions limits that are the equivalent to 40%
below the 1990 level to be achieved by 2030 and to adopt rules and regulations to
achieve the maximum, technologically feasible, and cost-effective greenhouse gas
emissions reductions.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016
AB 197 (E. Garcia) - Requires the State Air Resources Board to make
available, and update annually, on its Internet Web site, the emissions of
greenhouse gases, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants for each facility
that reports to the board and air districts. Adds two legislators as non-voting
members of CARB.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2016
And when the dust settled…
The last day for Governor Brown to act on legislation in the 2015-2016 session
was September 30th. This year, the Governor vetoed the highest percentage of
bills in either of his terms as Governor (15.1%). On his desk for 2016 were 1,059
bills. Of them, 159 were vetoed and only one bill this year was enacted without
his signature.
The next significant date for the Legislature is, of course, General Election Day
(November 8th). The 2015-2016 Legislative Session will adjourn, Sine Die, on
November 30th and the 2017-2018 Legislative Session will begin when legislators
return to Sacramento at noon on December 5th. Unless otherwise specified,
statutes enacted in the regular session take effect on January 1, 2017.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 118 of 174
State Ballot Propositions
Proposition 51 – School facility construction bonds: Authorizes $9
billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization
schools and community colleges.
(Support: CBIA, PTA, CalChamber Opposition: Governor Brown, CA
Taxpayers Action Network)
Proposition 52 – Hospital fees: Requires voter approval to change the
dedicated use of certain fees from hospitals used to draw matching federal money
and fund Medi-Cal services and requires a 2/3 majority vote of the California
Legislature to end the hospital fee program.
(Support: CHA, Dignity Health, Sutter Health Opposition: SEIU)
Proposition 53 - Bond issuance: Requires statewide voter approval before
any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the State for specified State projects if
the bond amount exceeds $2 billion.
(Support: Cortopassi, various anti-tax organizations Opposition: Governor
Brown, CSAC, Labor, CalChamber)
Proposition 54 - Legislative openness: Prohibits the Legislature from
passing any bill unless it has been in print and published on the Internet for at
least 72 hours before the vote, except in cases of public emergency.
(Support: Charles Munger, CalChamber, League of Cities Opposition:
Californians for an Effective Legislature – Maviglio)
Proposition 55 - Tax extension for education and healthcare:
Extends the personal income taxes approved in 2012 (Proposition 30) for 12
years in order to fund education and healthcare.
(Support: Teachers, Labor, Hospitals Opposition: CalChamber, Howard
Jarvis, NFIB)
Proposition 56 – Tobacco tax: Increases the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack,
with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes
containing nicotine.
(Support: Hospitals, Labor, CMA, Blue Shield Opposition: Philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds)
Proposition 57 – Criminal sentences: Increases parole and good behavior
opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, not
prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 119 of 174
(Support: Governor Brown, Dem Party, Reed Hastings Opposition: DA’s,
Crime Victims United, Law Enforcement)
Proposition 58 – English immersion: Repeals most of the 1998 Proposition
227, the "English in Public Schools" Initiative, thus effectively allowing non-
English languages to be used in public educational instruction. Placed on the
ballot per SB 1174 (Lara) from 2014.
(Support: CTA, School Administrators Opposition: Ron Unz)
Proposition 59 – Citizens United: (Advisory Question) Asks whether
California’s elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an
amendment to the federal Constitution overturning Citizens United.
(Support: NextGen CA, Common Cause Opposition: ???)
Proposition 60 – Condoms in adult films: Requires performers in adult
films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse.
(Support: AIDS Healthcare Foundation Opposition: AIDS Project LA, Free
Speech Coalition, Adult film industry)
Proposition 61 – State agency drug costs: Prohibits state agencies from
paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug
by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
(Support: AIDS Healthcare Foundation, CNA Opposition: Pharma)
Proposition 62 – Death penalty repeal: Repeals death penalty as maximum
punishment for murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility
of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death.
(Support: Reed Hastings, Nicholas McKeown, Lt. Gov. Opposition: CPOA,
PORAC. Misc. Law Enforcement)
Proposition 63 – Ammunition magazines: Prohibits possession of large-
capacity ammunition magazines, and requires their disposal by sale to dealer,
destruction, or removal from state. Requires most individuals to pass background
check and obtain Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition.
(Support: Lt. Gov., Dem Party, CMA Opposition: NRA, CA Rifle & Pistol
Assoc.)
Proposition 64 - Marijuana legalization: Legalizes marijuana and hemp
under state law and imposes sales and cultivation taxes.
(Support: Sean Parker, Drug Policy Action, ACLU Opposition: Teamsters,
CHA, DAs, Sheriffs, PORAC)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 120 of 174
Proposition 65 - Carry-out bags: Redirects money collected from the sale of
carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by
the Wildlife Conservation Board.
(Support: Bag Manufacturers Opposition: Enviros, CAs Against Waste)
Proposition 66 – Death penalty appeals: Changes procedures governing
state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and
sentences and imposes time limits on state court death penalty review.
(Support: CCPOA, PORAC Opposition: Lt. Gov., Reed Hastings, ACLU,
NAACP)
Proposition 67 – Single-use plastic bags: (Referendum) Would ratify a
state law previously approved by the Legislature and the Governor banning
single-use plastic bags if approved.
(Support: Albertsons Safeway, CA Grocers, CAs Against Waste Opposition:
Bag Manufacturers)
Contra Costa County Sponsored Legislation
AB 1692 (Bonilla) - Allows the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to
make the terms and conditions of disability retirement allowances currently
available to Tier Three members of the Contra Costa County Employees’
Retirement Association applicable to non-safety members subject to the
retirement benefit formula specified in the Public Employees' Pension Reform
Act of 2013.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 123, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support / Sponsor)
Contra Costa County Advocacy Legislation
AB 45 Mullin - Requires CalRecycle, in consultation with affected industries, to
adopt one or more model ordinances for a comprehensive program for the
collection of Household Hazardous Waste for adoption by a local jurisdiction that
provides for the residential collection and disposal of solid waste.
Status: Died in Senate Environmental Quality (CCC Oppose)
AB 171 (Irwin) - Modifies the formula by which the Department of Veterans
Affairs allocates state funds to county veterans service officers, and adds
reporting requirements to help determine how effectively and efficiently state
funds are being spent.
Status: Died on Senate Inactive File (CCC Support)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 121 of 174
AB 203 (Obernolte) - Extends the deadline to file a petition for
redetermination of the state responsibility area fire prevention fee from 30 days
to 60 days. Reestablishes the fire prevention fee at its current level ($152.33) and
on July 1, 2017 and annually thereafter allows the Board of Forestry to adjust the
fee.
Status: Died on Assembly Inactive File (CCC Support)
AB 1051 (Maienschein) - Requires the Department of Health Care Services to
increase provider reimbursement rates for the 15 most common dental services
provided in the Denti-Cal program to average commercial rates.
Status: Held on Senate Appropriations Suspense File (CCC Support)
AB 1159 (Gordon) - Establishes a product stewardship program for home-
generated medical sharps and household batteries until January 1, 2024, and
requires CalRecycle to adopt regulations by January 1, 2017.
Status: Died on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File (CCC
Support)
AB 1335 (Atkins) - Establishes the Building Homes and Jobs Act of 2015 (the
Act) to provide funding for affordable housing.
Status: Died on Assembly Third Reading (CCC Support)
AB 1399 (Baker) - Authorizes the addition of the California Domestic Violence
Victims Fund checkoff to the personal income tax return upon the removal of
another voluntary contribution fund from the return, or as soon as space is
available.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 289, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
AB 1554 (Irwin) - Prohibits the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
from issuing a license to manufacture, distribute, or sell powdered alcohol.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 742, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
AB 1568 (Bonta & Atkins) - Enacts the Medi-Cal 2020 Demonstration Project
Act, administered by the Department of Health Care Services which implements
the Special Terms and Conditions (STC) approved by the federal Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, including the Dental Transformation Initiative,
the Whole Person Care program and the evaluations required under the STCs.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 42, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 122 of 174
AB 1618 (Asm. Budget) - Makes necessary statutory and technical changes to
implement the Budget Act of 2016 related to the No Place Like Home Program to
further the development of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in
need of mental health services and are homeless, chronically homeless, or at risk
of homelessness.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 43, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Oppose)
AB 1708 (Gonzalez) - Imposes mandatory minimum 72 hours in custody for
persons convicted of purchasing commercial sex with specified times servable as
work furlough and recasts the crime of prostitution.
Status: Vetoed (CCC Support)
AB 1713 (Eggman) - Prohibits the construction of a peripheral canal in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta unless certain requirements are met.
Status: Died on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File (CCC
Support)
AB 1758 (Stone) - Extends the time period for meeting the State Advanced
Services Fund program goal and specifies the advanced communication services
threshold speeds to be met in achieving the goal.
Status: Died in Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee (CCC
Support)
AB 1897 (Mullin) - Directs the Department of Social Services to create an
optional “birth through entering first grade” category of day care licensure.
Status: Died on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File (CCC
Support)
AB 2128 (Achadjian) - Limits the power of a county clerk or the State Register
to reject a power of attorney from a member of the Armed Forces stationed
overseas and seeking to marry "by proxy."
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 130, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
AB 2263 (Baker) - Standardizes the confidentiality protections for Safe at
Home (SAH) program participants, regardless of whether their participation is
based on their status as victims of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault,
or on their status as a patient, employee, or volunteer at a reproductive health
care clinic and requires the Secretary of State to provide SAH enrollees with
information about how to protect their privacy on real property records.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 123 of 174
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 881, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
AB 2502 (Mullin & Chiu) - Authorizes the legislative body of a city or county
to establish inclusionary housing requirements as a condition of the development
of residential units.
Status: Died in Assembly Local Government (CCC Support)
AB 2583 (Frazier) - Places new requirements on the approval, financing, and
operation of any new conveyance facility in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Status: Died in Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife (CCC Support)
AB 2788 (Gatto) - Requires the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources’ emergency regulations related to underground gas storage projects to
remain in effect until the regulations are either made permanent, amended, or
repealed.
Status: Died in Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications (CCC
Oppose)
SB 554 (Wolk) - Extends the July 1, 2018, sunset date for the Delta Levee
Subventions program by two years. Specifically, this bill maintains the state's
75% maximum share for Delta levee maintenance costs in excess of $1,000 per
mile until July 1, 2020.
Status: Vetoed (CCC Support)
SB 815 (Hernandez & de León) - Enacts the statutory provisions of “Medi-
Cal 2020,” the state’s recently approved five-year federal Section 1115 waiver,
which runs through December 31, 2020.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 111, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
SB 819 (Huff) - Prohibits the purchase, sale, offer for sale, distribution,
manufacture, possession, or use of powdered alcohol and requires the
Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control to revoke the license of any
licensee who manufacturers, distributes, or sells powdered alcohol.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 778, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
SB 839 (Sen. Budget) – Resources Trailer Bill.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 340, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Oppose Unless Amended, letter not dated approx. 6/17/16)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 124 of 174
SB 867 (Roth) - Extends until January 1, 2027, the Maddy Emergency Medical
Services Fund, which authorizes each county to levy an additional $2 for every
$10 of criminal fines to establish an emergency medical services fund for
reimbursement of costs related to emergency medical services based on fees on
criminal convictions.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 147, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
SB 1113 (Beall) - Authorizes a county, or a qualified provider operating as part
of the county mental health plan network, and a local educational agency to enter
into a partnership for the provision of Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis,
and Treatment mental health services.
Status: Vetoed by Governor (CCC Support)
SB 1170 (Wieckowski) - Prohibits local public agencies, including charter
cities, from delegating to a contractor the development of a storm water pollution
prevention plan, a water pollution control program, or any other plan required by
a Regional Board to prevent or reduce water pollution or runoff on a public works
project.
Status: Died on Assembly Appropriations Suspense File (CCC
Oppose)
SB 1174 (McGuire) - Adds “acts of clearly excessive prescribing, furnishing, or
administering psychotropic medications to a minor without a good faith prior
examination of the patient and medical reason” to the Medical Board of
California’s list of priority cases for investigation and prosecution.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 840, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
SB 1291 (Beall) - Requires a mental health plan review to be conducted
annually by an external quality review organization that includes specific data for
specific data for Medi-Cal eligible minor and non-minor dependents in foster
care.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 844, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
SB 1300 (Hernandez) - Imposes a quality assurance fee on each transport
provided by an emergency medical transport provider in accordance with a
prescribed methodology. Requires the resulting revenue to be placed in a
continuously appropriated fund to be used to provide additional Medi-Cal
reimbursement to emergency medical transport providers, to pay for state
administrative costs, and to provide funding for health care coverage for
Californians.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 125 of 174
Status: Vetoed (CCC Support)
SB 1386 (Wolk) - Requires the Air Resources Board to approve and implement
the comprehensive short-lived climate pollutant strategy to achieve, from 2013
levels, a 40% reduction in methane, a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon gases,
and a 50% reduction in anthropogenic black carbon, by 2030.
Status: Signed by Governor, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016 (CCC
Support)
ABX2 18 (Bonilla) - Imposes a $0.05 per drink tax on all spirits-based
cocktails purchased in restaurants, bars, and other venues in the state to fund
developmental disability services and other health programs.
Status: Died in Assembly (John Gioia letter in Support)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 126 of 174
MTC-Endorsed Ballot Measures
Measure Summary Revenue
Estimate
(millions)
Pass/
Fail
Y N Eligible
Expenditure Type
County
BART Infrastructure Bond
(Measure RR)
30-year bond to fund BART's system-
renewal plan
$3,500
Pass
70% 30% Transportation Multi
AC Transit Parcel Tax
Measure
(Measure C1)
20-year parcel tax extension to provide a
steady source of operating funding for AC
transit
$600
Pass
82% 18% Transportation Multi
Alameda County Affordable
Housing Bond (Measure A1)
20-year general obligation bond to support
affordable housing, supportive housing,
and anti-displacement
$580
Pass
72% 28% Housing Alameda
City of Albany Sidewalk
Repair Special Parcel Tax
(Measure P1)
10-year special parcel tax to fund
sidewalk improvements in the city of
Albany
$2
Pass
78% 22% Transportation Alameda
City of Berkeley General
Obligation Bond
(Measure T1)
General obligation bond for infrastructure
and facilities improvements
$100
Pass
86% 14% Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Alameda
City of Berkeley Landlord Tax
(Measure U1)
Business license tax on owners of five or
more residential rental units to generate
funding for affordable housing
$120
(30 years) Pass
74% 26% Housing Alameda
City of Oakland Infrastructure
Bond
(Measure KK)
10-year infrastructure bond to support
transportation, housing, anti-displacement,
and other purposes
$600
Pass
82% 18% Transportation,
housing, and other
Alameda
City of Martinez Road
Improvement and Maintenance
1/2-Cent Sales Tax
(Measure D)
15-year, 1/2-cent sales tax to fund road
maintenance and improvements
$30
Pass
71% 29% Transportation Contra Costa
City of Pleasant Hill 1/2-Cent
Sales Tax (Measure K)
20-year, 1/2-cent general sales tax which
could fund various city services and
infrastructure
$80
Pass
66% 34% Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Contra Costa
Contra Costa Transportation
Authority 1/2-Cent Sales Tax
(Measure X)
30-year, half-cent sales tax to fund various
transit network improvements, local
streets and roads, and congestion
reduction projects
$2,900
Fail
62% 38% Transportation Contra Costa
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 127 of 174
MTC-Endorsed Ballot Measures (continued)
Measure Summary Revenue
Estimate
(millions)
Pass/
Fail
Y N Eligible
Expenditure Type
County
City of Mill Valley Municipal
Service Tax
(Measure H)
10-year municipal service tax extension
with revenues dedicated to fire safety,
street maintenance, and road repair
$18
Pass 77% 23%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Marin
Town of Fairfax 3/4-Cent
Sales Tax
(Measure C)
10-year, 3/4-cent sales tax measure to
fund city general operations and capital
projects, including street repair (increases
and extends the existing Measure D sales
tax)
$6.7
Pass 76% 24%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Marin
San Francisco Charter
Amendment (Measure J) and
General Sales Tax (Measure
K) for Transportation and
Homelessness
Charter amendment and general sales tax
increase to create 25-year general fund set
aside for a Homelessness Housing and
Services Fund ($50 million annually) and
a Transportation Investment Fund ($100
million annually)
$3,700
J - pass
K – fail
(no new
revenue)
J - 66%
K - 35%
J - 34%
K - 65%
Transportation and
housing
San
Francisco
City of Belmont 1/2-Cent
Sales Tax (Measure I)
30-year, 1/2-cent general sales tax
increase for city priorities, including
congestion relief and street repair
$39
Pass 55% 45%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
San Mateo
City of East Palo Alto 1/2-
Cent Sales Tax (Measure P)
1/2-cent general sales tax to fund city
priorities, including street repair
$54
(30 years) Pass 84% 16%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
San Mateo
San Mateo County 1/2-Cent
Sales Tax (Measure K)
20-year extension of Measure A, a 1/2-
cent general sales tax, to fund city
priorities including transit and affordable
housing
$1,600
Pass 70% 30%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation and
housing
San Mateo
Santa Clara County Affordable
Housing Bond (Measure A)
30-year bond to fund affordable housing
for low- and moderate income
households, including first-time
homebuyer assistance
$950
Pass 67% 33%
Housing Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Valley
Transportation Authority 1/2-
Cent Sales Tax
(Measure B)
30-year half-cent sales tax to fund the
final leg of the BART extension to Silicon
Valley, Caltrain grade separations and
capacity improvements, and high-priority
local street and road repairs
$6,500
Pass 71% 29%
Transportation Santa Clara
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 128 of 174
MTC-Endorsed Ballot Measures (continued)
Measure Summary Revenue
Estimate
(millions)
Pass/
Fail
Y N Eligible
Expenditure Type
County
City of Fairfield 1-Cent Sales
Tax
(Measure P)
15-year extension of Measure P, a 1-cent
general sales tax which funds city
priorities including street maintenance and
repair
$240
Pass 68% 32%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Solano
City of Suisun 1-Cent Sales
Tax
(Measure S)
10-year, 1-cent general sales tax with
revenues directed to a variety of purposes,
including road and street infrastructure
maintenance and repair
$18
Pass 68% 32%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Solano
City of Vacaville 3/4-Cent
Sales Tax
(Measure M)
20-year, 3/4 cent general sales tax
measure to fund city priorities, including
road repair (increases and extends the
existing Measure M sales tax)
$300
Pass 62% 38%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Solano
City of Vallejo 1-Cent Sales
Tax
(Measure V)
Extends Measure B, a 1-cent general sales
tax which funds city priorities, including
road work
$420
(30 years) Pass 64% 36%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Solano
MTC-Opposed Ballot Measure
Measure Summary Pass/Fail Y N County
California Public Infrastructure Bond Voter
Approval (Proposition 53) Requires statewide voter approval for any public
infrastructure revenue bond above $2 billion issued by a
joint powers authority created by the state or in which the
state is a member, even if that bond was meant to fund a
local or regional project
Fail 49% 51% Statewide
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 129 of 174
Infrastructure-eligible Revenue Ballot Measures
Measure Summary Revenue
Estimate
(millions)
Pass/
Fail
Y N Eligible
Expenditure Type
County
City of Berkeley Business
License Tax for Affordable
Housing (Measure DD)
Berkeley Rental Housing Association
alternative to the city-sponsored Measure
U1
$42
Fail 29% 71%
Housing Alameda
City of Lafayette 1-Cent Sales
Tax (Measure C)
29-year 1-cent general sales tax increase
for city priorities, including reducing
congestion and increasing downtown
parking
$87
Fail 43% 57%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Contra Costa
San Francisco Allocation of
Hotel Tax Funds
(Proposition S)
Re-directs existing hotel tax revenues from
the general fund to specific services that
support the arts and shelter for homeless
families
$69-103
(annually) Pass 63% 37%
Broad eligibility,
including housing
San Francisco
City of East Palo Alto
Landlord Tax (Measure O)
1 1/2-cent business license tax on owners
of five or more residential rental units to
generate funding for affordable housing
$18
(30 years) Pass 77% 23%
Broad eligibility,
including housing
San Mateo
City of San Jose Business Tax
(Measure G)
Measure to increase business tax rates on
select businesses for essential services,
such as police, emergency response, and
pothole repair
$380
(30 years) Pass
65% 35%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Santa Clara
City of Sunnyvale Utility Tax
(Measure N)
Extend 2-cent utility tax to mobile phones
and Internet-based communications and
direct new revenues to essential city
services, including street and sidewalk
repair
$45
(30 years)
Pass
77% 23%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Santa Clara
Town of Los Gatos Rental
Tax (Measure T)
2-cent rental tax increase on hotel and
AirBnB guests with revenues directed to
town priorities
$10-12
(30 years)
Pass
82% 18%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Santa Clara
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 130 of 174
Infrastructure-eligible Revenue Ballot Measures (continued)
Measure Summary Revenue
Estimate
(millions)
Pass/
Fail
Y N Eligible
Expenditure Type
County
City of Santa Rosa 1/4-Cent
Sales Tax
(Measure N)
8-year extension of 1/4-cent general sales
tax for city priorities, including
street/pothole repair and affordable
housing/homeless services
$64
Pass 72% 28%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation and
housing
Sonoma
Sonoma County Tourist Tax
(Measure L)
3-cent transient occupancy tax increase for
general county priorities, including road
maintenance and workforce housing for
families and veterans
$120
(30 years) Pass 68% 32%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation and
housing
Sonoma
City of Healdsburg Hotel Tax
(Measure S)
2-cent hotel tax to fund affordable housing
services and programs
$16
(30 years) Pass 68% 32%
Housing Sonoma
Sonoma County Regional
Parks 1/2-Cent Sales Tax
(Measure J)
10-year, 1/2-cent sales tax for regional
parks and water quality improvements,
including walking trail and bikeways
projects
$95
Fail 64% 36%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation
Sonoma
City of Sonoma 1/2-Cent
Sales Tax (Measure U)
Extends 1/2-cent general sales tax for 5
years to continue funding city services,
including sidewalk and street maintenance
and affordable housing programs
$11
Pass 73% 27%
Broad eligibility,
including
transportation and
housing
Sonoma
Housing and Land Use Ballot Measures
Measure Summary Pass/Fail Y N County
City of Alameda Rent Stabilization
(Measure L1) Measure to adopt the City's March 2016 Rent Stabilization Ordinance
Pass
56% 44% Alameda
City of Alameda Rent Control
(Measure M1)
City charter amendment limiting annual increases and enhancing tenant
protections Fail 34% 66% Alameda
City of Albany Parking Requirements
(Measure N1) Empower City to reduce parking requirements Pass 64% 36% Alameda
City of Berkeley Affordable Housing
Authorization (Measure Z1) Authorizes 500 affordable housing units in Berkeley Pass 83% 17% Alameda
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 131 of 174
City of Berkeley Rent Board
Ordinance (Measure AA) Updates rent board ordinance to enhance tenant protections Pass 72% 28% Alameda
City of Oakland Rent Stabilization
(Measure JJ) Updates Oakland's rent board ordinance to enhance tenant protections Pass 74% 26% Alameda
City of Richmond Rent Control
(Measure L)
Establish rent control, a rent board, and just cause eviction requirements
for the City of Richmond Pass 64% 36% Contra Costa
San Francisco Competitive Bidding
(Measure P) Requires at least three bids on any city-funded affordable housing project Fail 33% 67% San Francisco
San Francisco Middle Income
Housing (Measure U)
Expands income cap for affordable housing eligibility, allowing
households earning 110% area median income to qualify for select
affordable housing units Fail
35% 65% San Francisco
San Francisco Housing and
Development Commission Charter
Amendment (Measure M)
Charter amendment transferring city housing and economic development
oversight from the city to an appointed Housing and Development
Commission Fail
44% 56% San Francisco
San Francisco Candlestick Point and
Hunters Point Development
(Measure O)
Citizen initiative to exempt office development projects in Candlestick
Point and Hunters Point from a square foot limit imposed by voters
through Proposition M, a citizen initiative in 1986
Pass
53% 47% San Francisco
San Francisco Replacement Space for
Development Projects (Measure X)
Require developers to provide space to replace any locations zoned for
neighborhood arts, small businesses, or community services of certain sizes
that were destroyed or disrupted by a development project within the
Mission and South of Market neighborhoods
Pass
59% 41% San Francisco
City of Burlingame Rent Stabilization
(Measure R)
Establishes a rent stabilization program capping annual rent increases at 4
percent (superseding prior restrictions on rent control) Fail
32.56% 67.44% San Mateo
City of San Mateo Rent Control
Charter Amendment (Measure Q)
Charter amendment limiting annual rent increases to 4 percent and
establishing a rent control commission and policies Fail
39.06% 60.94% San Mateo
City of East Palo Alto Rent Control
(Measure J) Limits rent increases to 10 percent annually Pass 79.48% 20.52% San Mateo
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 132 of 174
City of Gilroy Urban Growth
Boundary (Measure H)
Measure to add an urban growth boundary to the city's general plan
through 2040 Pass 65% 35% Santa Clara
City of Milpitas Urban Growth
Boundary (Measure I)
Prohibits the city from extending public services to new developments near
the Milpitas foothills through 2038, reinforcing the existing urban growth
boundary
Pass 73% 27% Santa Clara
City of Milpitas Hillside Development
(Measure J)
Requires a vote by residents to make any changes in Milpitas foothills
development rules Pass 79% 21% Santa Clara
Town of Morgan Hill Slow Growth
Initiative (Measure S) Measure to cap Morgan Hill's population at 58,200 Pass 77% 23% Santa Clara
City of Mountain View Rent
Stabilization Charter Amendment
(Measure V)
Charter amendment limiting annual rent increases to inflation and adding
tenant protection provisions for just-cause evictions. Pass 53% 47% Santa Clara
City of Mountain View Rent
Stabilization Ordinance (Measure W)
Ordinance to strengthen tenant protections with just-cause eviction
provisions Fail 49% 51% Santa Clara
City of Cupertino's Vallco Town
Center Specific Plan Initiative
(Measure D)
Enacts the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan for mixed use business and
housing development Fail 45% 55% Santa Clara
City of Cupertino Development and
Height Limits (Measure C)
Revise the city's blueprint for growth to limit development of the Vallco
Shopping District Fail 40% 60% Santa Clara
City of Milpitas Land Use Authority
(Measure K)
Grant Milpitas residents land-use authority traditionally held by the City
Council, requiring a two-thirds vote from the public for any rezoning or
park and open space redevelopment
Pass 84% 16% Santa Clara
City of Sunnyvale Land Use
Authority (Measure M)
Reassign land purchase, sale and lease authority from the City Council to
the public, requiring that such transactions be approved by voters Fail 49% 51% Santa Clara
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 133 of 174
City of Santa Clara Land Use
Authority (Measure R)
Reassign city-owned property sales and land use changes for public
parkland, open space, or recreational facility from the City Council to the
public, requiring a two-thirds vote
Pass 89% 11% Santa Clara
City of Fairfield Land Preserve
(Measure T)
Amend General Plan to allow a land preserve and open space conservation
area at I-680 and Golden Hill Road Pass 72% 28% Solano
City of Healdsburg Affordable
Housing Zoning (Measure R)
Updates Growth Management Ordinance to support increasing low- and
middle income housing supply Fail 40% 60% Sonoma
Sonoma County Community
Separators
(Measure K)
Extends green space ordinance to require voter approval for any land
designation change within community separators Pass
81% 19% Sonoma
City of Cotati Urban Growth
Boundary
(Measure Q)
Extend existing urban growth boundary for 30 years and update affordable
housing exemption to apply only to 100% affordable developments Pass
69% 31% Sonoma
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 134 of 174
11/29/2016 Elaine Chao tapped to be Trump's transportation secretary POLITICO
1/2
Former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao was nominated on Tuesday by President-elect Donald
Trump to head the Department of Transportation.
Chao ran the Labor Department under the George W. Bush administration. She met with
the president-elect at Trump Tower last week to discuss labor and transportation policy,
according to Trump’s transition team.
Top Senate Democrats signaled that Chao may not face much of a fight to get confirmed,
with incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) congratulating her earlier
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 135 of 174
11/29/2016 Elaine Chao tapped to be Trump's transportation secretary POLITICO
2/2
on Tuesday for her exepcted nomination and praising her for her "long history of service to
our country."
"Senate Democrats have said that if President-elect Trump is serious about a major
infrastructure bill, backed by real dollars and not just tax credits and without cutting other
programs like health care and education, that we are ready to work with his
administration," Schumer said. "I hope Secretary Chao shares that ambitious goal and is
willing to work with Democrats to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create millions
of good paying jobs along the way.”
The wife of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Chao is the first Asian-
American woman to hold a Cabinet-level position. She also served as deputy secretary of
transportation under President George H.W. Bush. Chao was also a member of Trump’s
Asian Pacific American Advisory Council during the campaign.
McConnell declined to comment at length on his wife's impending nomination, noting
only that she's an "outstanding choice" and that he would not be recusing himself from
voting to confirm Chao.
When she came before the Senate in 2001 as the Labor secretary-designate for George W.
Bush, Chao was quickly approved on a voice vote.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 136 of 174
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION &
DEVELOPMENT
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Telephone: (925) 674-7878 Fax: (925) 674-7250
TO: California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC)
CTCDC Subcommittee on School Zones
c/o Chris Engelmann, PE, TE, CTCDC – Executive Secretary
COPY: Tyler Munzing, 12th Senate District
Kiana Valentine, California State Association of Counties
Mark Watts, Consultant to Contra Costa County
FROM: John Cunningham, Contra Costa County – Principal Transportation Planner
DATE: February 18, 2016
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 632 (Cannella) Prima facie speed limits: schools
Background and Response to Comments/Questions from the 2/9/16 CTCDC
School Zone Subcommittee Conference Call, and Responses to the 2/27/15
Senate Analysis on SB 632
Summary
This memo is a follow-up to the February 9th conference call with the School Zone
Subcommittee of the CTCDC regarding the subject legislation. There were some questions and
observations during the call that am responding to in this memo. In addition, I am providing a
response to the 2/27/15 analysis on the bill by Erin Riches.
Please refer to my February 4th memo (attached) for the general background on the goals of the
bill. That memo also responds to questions from the January 29th conference call.
To expand on the previously provided background and clarify some possible misunderstandings
of the bill that I observed during the conference call, please consider:
SB 632 is not intended to be an incremental fix to minor issue in the code. The intent is to be
transformational. The bill will assist in the effort to reverse the decline of children walking
and cycling to school. As established in the February 4th memo, SB 632 targets the largest
unaddressed barrier in this effort, which is children being prevented from using active modes
for the trip to/from school because of driver behavior or speeding.
While the bill is meant to target the specific school trip-related speeding problem, it also
addresses a much broader speeding problem as established by several advocacy organizations
referenced in the February 4th memo. These organizations include American Automobile
Association (AAA) for Traffic Safety. Furthermore, the solution represented by the bill is
consistent with the recommendations to solving the problem put forward by the AAA
Foundation, which is to address the problem in small, targeted areas with public support.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 137 of 174
2/9/16 Subcommittee Conference Call Follow Up/Responses:
Comment: Debate regarding the size of the school zone.
Response: The existing school zone distances and statutes recognize that students need some
additional safety and protection. There is physiological and epidemiological evidence to support
this need as established in the February 4th memo. As a CTCDC member pointed out, there was
no engineering or analysis when the original prescriptive distances in the statutes were
established. That said, we now have the opportunity to objectively develop those distances.
In developing an objective recommendation I would encourage the Committee to consider:
The 500’, 1000’ distances in the code are arbitrary. There is no argument for the extra
protection afforded by the school zone to end after these distances.
In addition to the aforementioned physiological and epidemiological evidence, I believe it is
also self-evident that the protection is needed from origin to destination (OD).
The 1320’ proposal being discussed by the Committee has some data supporting it. However,
relative to the need for protection during the entire OD trip, dropping the protection after
1320’ is still arbitrary.
The OD routes are best established by the local jurisdiction. The flexibility found in SB 632
reflects this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: Concerns with extending the school zone to such a distance that it is no longer
associated with a school.
Response: I agree with the concern and encourage the Committee to recommend to the
legislature that the school zone be decoupled from schools and establish a “neighborhood zone”
or “slow zone”. This would be consistent with policies in other jurisdictions1 and would allow
the zones to be extended to other areas with similar needs such as around parks, senior centers,
etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: The real solution to speeding is enforcement (automated safety/speed enforcement or
cameras), we shouldn’t focus on signage until adequate enforcement is present. (paraphrased)
Response: Currently, the school zones are inadequate as previously discussed. In order for
enforcement to be effective, the school zone statutes need to be reformed.
1 New York City, United Kingdom, Austria (kilometers per hour)
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 138 of 174
There is no single solution that is going to gain the desired effect, which is to increase safety and
the walk/bike rate of children traveling to/from school. Any single solution or tool can be taken
in isolation and characterized as “not solving the problem” and discounted. With that approach,
each and every tool could be disregarded. A diversity of tools needs to be made available.
It is not defensible to withhold an improved tool, expanded school zones in this case, in the hope
that some other tool is developed. The Committee has the authority and responsibility to improve
the statutes. I believe it should make full use of that opportunity even if the improvement may be
small or ultimately overshadowed by some future solution.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: Concerns with affording local public works departments too much flexibility in
determining the size of the zone.
Response: Originally the Committee was in agreement that affording local jurisdictions
flexibility to determine the size of the zone was a positive characteristic of the bill. However,
during the February 9th conference call, some Committee members expressed concern with
affording local jurisdictions “too much flexibility”. I believe some justification or explanation for
this concern should be provided.
If there is concern that the statutory changes would be used inappropriately, to blanket an entire
city for example, an easily implemented and reasonable restriction would be to limit the use of
the zone to a schools attendance boundary.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: What should the recommendation be regarding When Children Are Present (WCP)
signage?
Response: I believe a critical question the Committee must answer in developing a
recommendation is, when is it acceptable or safe to assume children are not present?
The ambiguities and weaknesses of the WCP signage are numerous and have been discussed at
length so I won’t repeat them here. I believe the answer to the question to be, only during very
limited times is it safe to make that assumption. That answer suggests that the WCP signage
should be replaced by hourly restrictions.
These restrictions would best be established by local jurisdictions which is consistent with the
current language in the bill regarding the definition of the size of the zone.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Response to the 2/27/15 Analysis
Comment: The author states that existing law, which authorizes speed limit reductions within
500 to 1,000 feet of a school, does not reflect actual pedestrian or bicycle access or use patterns
and is inconsistent with the state’s Health in All Policies initiative.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 139 of 174
Response: The observation is correct2. In addition, the changes in the bill are supportive of
numerous other statewide policies and efforts including the Active Transportation Program, Safe
Routes to School, and greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: 24/7 school zones? …overlapping school zones….
Response: The proposal to replace WCP signage with hourly restrictions responds to the
comment regarding 24/7 school zones.
The author is correct, overlapping zones may occur. I believe this to be a defensible scenario so
long as it is based on an engineering and traffic survey and the aforementioned proposal of
limiting the zone to school attendance boundaries is put in place.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: Changing behavior or punishing it?
Response: The flaws with the 85th percentile method of setting speed are too numerous to
address in this memo. However, one particular weakness of the method is particularly acute in
school zone. That weakness is that drivers self-select speed based primarily on their (the
driver’s) comfort level. This comfort level does not reflect the comfort or safety of more
vulnerable road users sharing the road space with automobiles.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: The author quoting testimony during a joint Senate/Assembly hearing entitled,
“Setting Speed Limits in California”: Speed limits that are set arbitrarily low would make
violators out of the majority of drivers and may cause drivers to disregard the limit altogether.
Reponses: As previously established, the speed zone is not “arbitrary”. Rather, there is a
demonstrable, physiologically sound need to reduce the speeds in the school zones.
Disregarding the speed limit is a violation. The existence of a violation, or increase in violations,
does not justify removing a statute or preventing the implementation of an expanded statute. It
speaks to a need for additional enforcement resources. That issue is not being discussed by the
Committee. Consistent with the language in the bill, local jurisdictions are best equipped to
determine if more enforcement is needed or if an expanded school zone is warranted.
Internal Copies:
John Kopchik, Director – Department of Conservation and Development
Maureen Toms, Deputy Director – Department of Conservation and Development
Steve Kowalewski, Deputy Director – Public Works Department
Attachments
2/4/16 Memo From John Cunningham to the CTCDC Subcommittee Re: SB632
File: Transportation > Legislation > 2016 > slow zone
c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\sb632\communication\memotoctcdcsubcmmteeresb632 -
ii.docx
2 Health in All Policies Task Force: Report to the Strategic Growth Council: Health in All Policies Recommendations:
Promote Healthy Communities: Active Transportation: I.A3. Incorporate safety considerations of all roadway users
into programs, policies, and community designs.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 140 of 174
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Telephone: (925) 674-7878 Fax: (925) 674-7250
TO: California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC)
Subcommittee on School Zones
c/o Chris Engelmann, PE, TE, CTCDC – Executive Secretary
COPY: Tyler Munzing, 12th Senate District
Kiana Valentine, California State Association of Counties
Mark Watts, Consultant to Contra Costa County
FROM: John Cunningham, Contra Costa County – Principal Transportation Planner
DATE: February 4, 2016
SUBJECT: Senate Bill 632 (Cannella) Prima facie speed limits: schools
Background and Response to Comments/Questions from the 1/29/16 CTCDC
School Zone Subcommittee Conference Call
Summary
The memo is a follow up to the January 29th conference call with the School Zone Subcommittee of
the CTCDC regarding the subject legislation. During the call, there were questions regarding the
need for SB 632 and requests for data or other evidence supporting the bill. This memo responds to
these questions and requests.
I provide some background on the goals of the bill below, which will answer some of these
questions and should assist the Sub-Committee in understanding the context of the bill. Direct
responses to specific questions are provided after the goals.
The bill has three goals as follows:
Goal 1) Safety: The bill is intended to increase safety in school zones where it is probable that
automobiles will share the road with other, active modes. The increase in safety associated with
lowered vehicle speeds, and the need for this increase in safety, is supported by studies and
epidemiological data1.
1Increase in Safety: The connection between vehicle speed and likelihood of injury or
death is well established:
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2014
Literature Review on Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries: “Results indicated
that higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of
pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated
that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20
miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100
percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 mph or more respectively.”
Ten Strategies for Keeping Children Safe on the Road” 2015 World Health Organization
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 141 of 174
Goal 2) Reverse the Decline of Children to Walking/Biking to School2: In addition to safety, the
bill is intended to increase the number of K-12 student-age children using active transportation
modes for the home/school/home trip.
Driver behavior (or speeding) is one of the two most commonly cited issues for children being
discouraged from traveling to/from school using active modes3. The other reason is proximity related
issues, more simply put: the distance between home and school is too great.
The subject legislation addresses driver behavior/speeding issues. The proximity issue is already
being actively addressed by other efforts at the state, regional, and local level. These efforts are
driven largely by state greenhouse gas related legislation4 and state school siting reform efforts5.
Goal 3) Address known issues in the vehicle code and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices relative to “When Children Are Present” (WCP) signage: While no action was taken, the
discussion at the CTCDC’s February 19, 2014 meeting suggests the WCP policies are problematic. I
won’t quote the minutes back to the Committee, but the following are suggested/known issues with
the signage, some of which are consistent with the CTCDCs discussion:
“…children have a delay from the moment they make their decision to the moment they
begin to act on their decision, which can be dangerous for them during normal riding
conditions and emergency situations.” "Bicycle Safety Education for Children from a
Developmental and Learning Perspective" “Younger children are limited by their
physical, cognitive and social development, making them more vulnerable in road
traffic than adults. Because of their small stature, it can be difficult for children
to see surrounding traffic and for drivers and others to see them. In addition if they
are involved in a road traffic crash, their softer heads make them more susceptible to
serious head injury than adults. Younger children may have difficulties interpreting
various sights and sounds, which may impact on their judgement regarding the
proximity, speed and direction of moving vehicles.”
2 “How Children Get to School: School Travel Patterns From 1969 to 2009” National
Center for Safe Routes to School: In 1969, 48 percent of K-8th grade students usually
walked or bicycled to school. By 2009, only 13 percent of K-8th grade students usually
walked or bicycled to school.
3 The two most common reasons for children not being allowed to use active modes are
“proximity” and “traffic safety”:
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 Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5438a2.htm
- AND -
Chaufan, C, Yeh J, Fox, P. The Safe Routes to School Program in California: An Update.
American Journal of Public Health
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300703
- AND –
CCTA SR2S Master Plan 2011: Existing Conditions: Data Summary: “By far, improving
traffic congestion and speeding around schools was the number one improvement that
administrators believe would do the most to encourage walking and biking to school.
This was also consistent among all four regional planning areas, where it ranked first
or second. Being accompanied by a parent was the only other condition that ranked in
the top five in all four regions.”
4 The “Priority Development Area” concept came out of AB32/SB375 and includes compact
development as a core component.
5 2012 - California’s K-12 Educational Infrastructure Investments: Leveraging the
State’s Role for Quality School Facilities in Sustainable Communities, Report to the
CA Dept. of Education by UC Berkeley Center for Cities & Schools, and 2011 - Schools
of the Future Report, Tom Torlakson/State Superintendent of Public Instruction
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 142 of 174
WCP signage unduly grants discretion to motorists as to when to adhere to a
posted/reduced speed limit and complicates law enforcements ability to enforce a lower speed
limit.
Schools are used for sports, community gatherings and other activities not tied to school
hours or year making WCP more difficult to interpret and anticipate.
Safety should not depend on the effectiveness of a motorist in identifying children, who
may or may not be visible, and who may not have physiological characteristics enabling them to
act in a rational or predictable manner (as evidenced in footnote 1 and 6).
It may be beneficial for the Committee to consider the following question; when, in a
residential area or school area, is it safe to assume children are NOT present?
To clarify, the original intent of the bill was to replace the WCP signage with appropriate hourly
restrictions, not wholesale elimination.
Note on Goals: Goal 1 and Goal 2 are related. Decisions by school administrators and parents to
discourage children from walking/biking to school are an intuitive reaction to the danger established
by the epidemiological data.
1/29/16 Subcommittee Conference Call Follow Up/Responses:
Comment: The one quarter mile (1,320’) expansion of the prescriptive size of the zone is
“arbitrary”. Some evidence or engineering should be provided to establish a nexus.
Response:
I agree that the legislative proposal should be based on evidence and data. This memo
provides a sample of data that establish the need. However, the existing figures in the statute
(500’/1000’) must also be subjected to the same evidenced-based test. This is consistent with the
comment heard during the subcommittee meeting, paraphrased, “…engineering wasn’t used
when the original statute and distances were established...”.
As mentioned during the conference call, the “quarter mile” distance is commonly used in
planning as the reasonable distance that people will walk to a destination. There is a body of
evidence that supports the figure.7 It is reasonable to assume that the distance students would
travel by bike is much greater than when walking. Given this, the 1320’ distance in the subject
bill could be viewed as a minimum figure.
There was a comment that the quarter mile change in the statute could be too far reaching.
I assume the comment is related to the cost or burden of expansive implementation. In writing
for the County (as one of the original contributors in the drafting of the legislation), we share this
6 Zeedyk, M. S., Wallace, L, & Spry, L., “Stop, look, listen, and think? What young
children really do when crossing the road,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34:43-50
(2002).
7 2010 Beyond the Quarter Mile: Examining Travel Distances by Walking and Cycling,
Montréal, Canada McGill University School of Urban Planning
~and~
2011“The Half‐Mile Circle: Does It Best Represent Transit Station Catchments?” Erick
Guerra, Robert Cervero, Daniel Tischler, Institute of Transportation Studies,
University of California, Berkeley.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 143 of 174
concern. A phased approach, rather than the potential need for expansive replacement or
additional signage, may be more favorably received.
Some language that either 1) strikes the quarter-mile change, or 2) provides for a range of
distances (as suggested during the conference call), or 3) has the new distance only apply to new
school sites may be acceptable to the County so long as the ability to allow local jurisdictions the
flexibility8 to expand the zone based on an Engineering and Traffic Survey remain in the bill.
Ownership of the language now resides with the sponsoring legislator(s); we are in a position of
having to make that request to the sponsors. I realize this direction may be out of scope for the
subcommittee, but wanted to suggest the alternate approach.
Comment: What is the need for the change represented by the statute, and what is the backup?
Response: In addition to the school specific examples found in the text and footnotes above, a more
general need to control speeds is established in the documents summarized below:
Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA)
National Forum on Speeding (2005) - Excerpts:
On suburban and urban roads, only 32-52 percent of traffic obeys the speed limit and the
85th percentile speed exceeds the speed limit by almost 10 mph.
Speeding is common, and on some roads almost universal. About 80 percent of all drivers
in NHTSA’s 2002 national survey reported they exceeded the posted speed limit on each
type of road -interstate, non-interstate, multi-lane, two-lane, and city streets- within the
past month, and about one-third reported this behavior on the day of the interview.
Participants agreed that raising the priority of speeding is perhaps the most important
step that can be taken.
Survey of the States: Speeding and Aggressive Driving (2012) - Excerpts:
GHSA recognizes the major role speed and aggressive driving play as contributors to
traffic death and injury.
The public’s attitude about speeding is enormously conflicted. A recent study has shown a
large disconnect between the significant majority of the public who condemn speeding
and the majority of drivers who admit to the behavior, making it a serious challenge to
create a safety-conscious environment in which speed limits are respected and obeyed.
Aggressive driving, which often involves speeding, is a great concern of motorists across
the country.
The action agenda included seven steps designed to…Set and achieve speed reduction
goals, focusing on the reduction of extreme speeders and/or all travel speeds in high risk
areas like school or work zones.
8 There was agreement during the conference call that affording local jurisdictions
flexibility was desirable.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 144 of 174
American Automobile Association: Foundation for Traffic Safety:
“Improving Traffic Safety Culture in the United States - The Journey Forward” (2007) -
Excerpts:
All roads have speed limits, but they are routinely ignored. Most drivers habitually speed.
Speed limits traditionally are set at the 85th percentile travel speed: this means that
speeding drivers may help raise speed limits even higher... The speeding culture can be
changed by efforts at national, state, and local levels... implement speeding control
programs in selected target areas with strong public support, again built on solid data.”
Build programs on sound scientific principles rather than on intuition or political
expediency.
Start locally: municipalities and states can lead by implementing strategies to address
their specific traffic safety problems.
Comment: “kids don’t walk like they used to…it’s not happening anymore…fear of the
public…”.
Response: The comment summarizes the very purpose of the bill. As detailed further above in this
memo, driver behavior/unsafe speeds is the largest unaddressed gap in the effort to get
children using active modes for the home/school/home trip.
“Fear of the public” or “stranger danger” are cited in surveys examining mode choice by
students/parents/school administrators. However, this issue consistently ranks lower than proximity
and unsafe speeds.
Internal Copies:
John Kopchik, Director – Department of Conservation and Development
Maureen Toms, Deputy Director – Department of Conservation and Development
Steve Kowalewski, Deputy Director – Public Works Department
File: Transportation > Legislation > 2016 > slow zone
c:\egnyte\shared\transportation\activeedits\ab1659-sb632\memotoctcdcsubcmmteeresb632.docx
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 145 of 174
John Cunningham
From:John Cunningham
Sent:Wednesday, June 08, 2016 8:59 AM
To:Engelmann, Chris@DOT
Cc:Tong, Duper C@DOT (duper.tong@dot.ca.gov)
Subject:RE: CTCDC subcommittee proposals on school zones
Chris,
I really don’t know where to begin in responding to this information. The proposal is a failure in regards to the proposed
policies as well as in terms of process. The proposal does not acknowledge or respond to the substantial amount of
information that has been provided to the committee by me. Below is just a very brief summary of the technical issues I
see with the proposal:
•The proposal retains the completely arbitrary distance figures that the Committee was unanimous in rejecting
at the outset of this process.
•The proposal ignores the stated goals of the SB632, increased safety, increased walk/bike rates in K‐12 schools,
address known issues in the MUTCD regarding the When Children Are Present (WCP) signage. All of these goals were
established and justified by substantial data and evidence. No evidence has been provided to indicate that the goals
are not appropriate or the evidence is flawed.
•The proposal regarding WCP signage ignores the established issues. In fact makes it worse by increasing the
complexity of the already problematic self‐assessment regarding the need for compliance.
I can provide a much more comprehensive response. However, I question the value given the information that I have
already provided has been ignored by the Committee. I cannot dedicate more public resources in light of the unbalanced
dialog and proposal.
At the outset of the effort, the Committee was unanimous in the opinion that whatever proposal is moved ahead should
be based on evidence. This has been violated in two ways, the evidence I have provided has been omitted from the
dialog and there is no rationale or evidence supporting the accompanying the proposal.
Procedurally, the Committee ceding the responsibility to create the basis for public policy to a single individual advocate
is problematic. This is made more troublesome considering the resources the State has at its disposal, Caltrans, OPR,
CDPH, all have professional staff with expertise that could be brought to bear on this situation.
By my read, Caltrans has been working hard on its image and more proactively dealing with progressive transportation
issues since the 2014 SSTI Report…I believe the Department has made great strides. In my opinion, this proposal will
take the Department in entirely the opposite direction it appears to be going.
I want to emphasize that I am submitting these comments respectfully, I appreciate the assistance you have given me
during this process. I also staff several committees with limited resources…I understand the position you are in.
However, as I mentioned at the CTCDC meeting in San Luis Obispo, this is a complex topic that will likely require more
resources to address adequately. Rather than moving the inadequate proposal forward, I recommend that the
Committee suspend the effort and request more time from the legislature so that the matter can be addressed with
adequate resources and expertise. Considering the fact that SB632/AB1659 are dead I would think such a request would
be granted. If this is not possible then there should be an extension that would allow alternate proposals to be
submitted and considered during a workshop format Committee meeting.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 146 of 174
If the Committee moves the proposal forward without some wholesale change in direction of the technical work and the
process, I intend on voicing all of the concerns listed above through the various mechanisms available to me as a County
representative.
‐ John
______________________________
John Cunningham
Principal Planner
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
Direct Line: 925‐674‐7833
Main Transportation Line: 925‐674‐7209
From: Engelmann, Chris@DOT [mailto:chris.engelmann@dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 3:25 PM
To: Bahadori.Hamid; Jay Walter; Jay@saferstreetsla.org; 'Bryan Jones'; John Cunningham;
mgreenwood@cityofpalmdesert.org; Yost Jr, Danny K@DOT; bill@saferoutespartnership.org; Carpenter, Rachel@DOT;
Rosas, Araceli M@DOT
Subject: CTCDC subcommittee proposals on school zones
Hello CTCDC subcommittee,
Jay Beeber has provided some language on options to consider for the school zone issues we are working on – Thank you
Jay. I have created a Word document with the text and made comments myself. Please use track changes and insert
comments as you see necessary. Please get your comments back to me within a week and I’ll compile everything.
Thank you.
Chris Engelmann, PE, TE
CA MUTCD Editor
CTCDC Executive Secretary
1120 “N” St., Sacramento, CA 95814
Division of Traffic Operations, MS 36
California Department of Transportation
(916) 653-1816
chris.engelmann@dot.ca.gov
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/mutcd/ca_mutcd2014rev1.htm
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/index.htm
2
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 147 of 174
John Cunningham
From:John Cunningham
Sent:Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:00 AM
To:Engelmann, Chris@DOT; Tong, Duper C@DOT; jay@saferstreetsla.org; Jay Walter;
Bahadori.Hamid@aaa-calif.com; Yost Jr, Danny K@DOT;
bill@saferoutespartnership.org; Carpenter, Rachel@DOT; Rosas, Araceli M@DOT;
bryanjones@altaplanning.com; Ferouz, Atifa@DOT; Mark Greenwood;
Lisa.Cirill@cdph.ca.gov; Mark Watts ; Kate.White@calsta.ca.gov
Subject:RE: Tomorrow's meeting in San Carlos re: School Zones/SB632
Attachments:MemoToCTCDCsubCmmteeReSB632 - #2.pdf; MemoToCTCDCsubCmmteeReSB632 - #
1.pdf
Chris,
Unfortunately I have a conflict and cannot participate in today’s school zone subcommittee meeting or tomorrow’s full
CTCDC meeting. However, I believe the Committee has all the information it needs in order to develop a defensible
recommendation to the Legislature if it makes that choice.
I believe the suggestions on the legislation provided in the various communications from Mr. Beeber require a
comprehensive response. Unfortunately, as explained in my last email, the County does not have the resources to
provide such a response. However, there is enough information in the 2/4/16 and 2/18/16 memos from the County to
invalidate the suggestions from Mr. Beeber if the Committee chooses to discuss and consider the information.
I have attached these previous memos to this email, my apologies for this duplication to the Committee members but I
have included additional recipients who do not have the benefit of the previously distributed information. In addition to
those memos, I am providing some brief comments below on Mr. Beeber’s input:
‐ The rationale provided to justify limiting the length of the school zone is fundamentally flawed. That driver compliance
with speed limits is reduced in longer length zones is not a reason to shorten the zone, it establishes a need for
additional enforcement. School zones are justified and put in place for justifiable physiological/public health, and other
policy reasons as detailed in the memos from the County and elsewhere. The suggestion that zones should be shortened
or remain short to accommodate drivers who choose not do not comply is senseless. I understand there is history with
this type of approach in the traffic engineering field. Fortunately Caltrans has made great strides in distancing itself from
these types of practices recently and I hope that progress continues with this issue.
‐ The discussion of the length of the school zone, in the absence of the Engineering and Traffic Survey called for in the
legislation, continues to be an arbitrary figure. In my recollection the Committee was unanimously in opposition to the
use of arbitrary figures instead relying on data/science.
‐ The history provided regarding school zones is irrelevant, speculative in many cases, and is a distraction from the core
of the discussion. The data regarding collisions and the contributing factors is irrelevant in light of other physiological
factors and policy issues related to the need to reduce speeds in areas where traffic is sharing roadway space with
vulnerable users, in particular underage vulnerable users whose actions can be unpredictable and whose situational
awareness is not yet fully developed. The Committee should base its decision on current polices, practices, and
data. The relevant data and rationale can be found in the February 4th, and 18th memos and with some consultation
with the CA Department of Public Health.
‐ I’ve pointed out some of the flaws of the TTI school zone studies above. However, more broadly the Committee should
recognize that California has a much different policy imperative than Texas which has changed in recent history. In
1
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 148 of 174
particular related to GHG legislation (compact development, greater reliance/support of active modes) and the
disproportionate impact that school pick up/drop off times have on congestion and GHG production.
‐ The suggestions provided regarding the “When Children Are Present” dilemma do not address the substantial, known
issues with the WCP signage. These are addressed in the County’s 2/4/16 memo but the Committee is already aware of
the issues as they debated them at length at the 2/19/14 CTCDC meeting. WCP signage should be in effect with
appropriate day/time limitations set by the local jurisdiction and should NOT be tied to school days/hours for reasons
discussed at length in various forums. There is no proposal to make School Zones 24/7.
‐ John
______________________________
John Cunningham
Principal Planner
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 94553
Direct Line: 925‐674‐7833
Main Transportation Line: 925‐674‐7209
From: Engelmann, Chris@DOT [mailto:chris.engelmann@dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 11:15 AM
To: John Cunningham; Tong, Duper C@DOT; jay@saferstreetsla.org; Jay Walter; Bahadori.Hamid@aaa-calif.com; Yost
Jr, Danny K@DOT; bill@saferoutespartnership.org; Carpenter, Rachel@DOT; Rosas, Araceli M@DOT;
bryanjones@altaplanning.com; Ferouz, Atifa@DOT; Mark Greenwood
Subject: Tomorrow's meeting in San Carlos
Good afternoon,
Hopefully most of you will be able to participate in person tomorrow in San Carlos. Attached is an agenda. If you are
unable to make it in person, please call in to the number shown on the top of the agenda.
Again, here are directions and other instructions from Jay Walter.
On June 29, 2016 we will be meeting at San Carlos City Hall, 2nd floor, Room 207, otherwise called the Enterprise
Conference Room. City Hall is located at 600 Elm Street, San Carlos CA 94070. Parking is available in the San Carlos
Library underground parking garage, located next door to City Hall. The parking garage entrance is located on Cherry
Street, near the corner of Elm Street. Street parking is also available, but it is 2 hour time limited around City Hall. After
you arrive, let me know where you have parked, and what time, and we will break the meeting so cars may be moved to
avoid a ticket. Sorry, but I don’t have the power to void parking tickets in my own town, so we will try to be careful to
avoid getting them!
I have attached prior documents for your reference. Looking forward to seeing everyone tomorrow.
Chris Engelmann, PE, TE
CA MUTCD Editor
CTCDC Executive Secretary
1120 “N” St., Sacramento, CA 95814
Division of Traffic Operations, MS 36
California Department of Transportation
(916) 653-1816
chris.engelmann@dot.ca.gov
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/mutcd/ca_mutcd2014rev1.htm
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/ctcdc/index.htm 2
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 149 of 174
Item 15-28 Draft Letter to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing from CTCDC
Agency Making Request/Sponsor: Caltrans/ Hamid Bahadori
Background
Senate Bill 632 proposed legislation that raised engineering issues that were beyond the expertise of the
Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing. The CTCDC has been requested to review and
examine these issues and report back in 2016. A CTCDC sub-committee was formed to examine these
issues and in June 30, 2016, the recommendations of the subcommittee were approved by the CTCDC
members. In the September 1, 2016 CTCDC meeting, Committee Members had requested a status
report on the letter to the Senate Transportation Committee replying to their request for a CTCDC
recommendation for school zones. The Draft Letter is being provided to the CTCDC members for their
review and comments.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 150 of 174
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 151 of 174
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 152 of 174
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 153 of 174
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 154 of 174
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 155 of 174
OriginalApplication ID Agency NameLocation of Work Description of Work Project Cost Federal Funds 04-Contra Costa County-1 Contra Costa County Intersections of Olympic Boulevard at Bridgefield Road and Walden Road at Westcliffe Lane (unincorporated Walnut Creek area). Construct ADA curb ramp, curb, gutter, and sidewalk; Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). $ 289,400 $ 224,400 04-Contra Costa County-2 Contra Costa County Marsh Creek Road from the City of Clayton limits to Camino Diablo, Vasco Road from Walnut Boulevard to the Alameda County line, and San Pablo Dam Road from City of Richmond limits to Bear Creek Road. Upgrade existing guardrails. $ 1,293,200 $ 1,293,200 04-Contra Costa County-3 Contra Costa County Danville Boulevard between Stone Valley Road and Jackson Way in unincorporated Alamo of Contra Costa County. Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Danville Boulevard and Orchard Court in addition to street improvements, such as sidewalk improvements and curb extensions. $ 2,978,000 $ 2,718,000 04-Contra Costa County-4 Contra Costa County San Pablo Dam Road between the Richmond City Limits and Bear Creek Road/Wildcat Canyon Road. Install centerline rumble strips along 4.6 miles of two-lane, winding roadway; Upgrade regulatory and warning signs and guardrail end treatments plus reconstruct median island curbs. $ 760,800 $ 760,800 04-Contra Costa County-5 Contra Costa County Byron Highway approx. 350 feet south of Byer Road to Hoffman Lane, adjacent to Excelsior Middle School in unincorporated Byron. Install southbound left-turn lane on Byron Highway on to Byer Road; Construct a two-way left turn lane to improve access at Excelsior Middle School; and widen roadway to provide paved shoulders. $ 1,046,000 $ 616,730 Total$5,613,13012-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 156 of 174
John Cunningham
From:Kiana Valentine <kvalentine@counties.org>
Sent:Tuesday, October 25, 2016 8:57 AM
To:Kiana Valentine
Cc:Chris Lee; Merrin Gerety
Subject:Just Released: 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment
Report
Attachments:2016 LSR Report_Executive Summary (FINAL).pdf; 2016 LSR Report_Talking Points
(FINAL).docx; 2016 Sample Local Press Release (FINAL).docx; 2016 LSR Report_Tweets
(FINAL).docx
To: County Public Works Directors
CEAC Transportation Policy Committee
From: Kiana Valentine, CSAC Legislative Representative for Transportation
Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst for Transportation
Re: Just Released: 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report
The 2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report was released this morning. Please visit
www.savecaliforniastreets.org to download a copy of the report. Please note that we are still making updates to the
website this morning but didn’t want to delay any longer getting you some of the attached information for your use in
answering any potential media inquiries.
No surprise to any of you, the 2016 Report found continued decline in pavement condition, bridges and essential
components that make up the local street and road system. The average condition has dropped from a 66 on the
Pavement Condition Index (PCI) (a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent)) to a 65 which is in the “at risk” category.
While this drop may not seem significant on its own, consider that since the inaugural report in 2008 the number of
counties with an average PCI in “good” condition has dropped from 16 to 6 in just 10‐years.
Under current funding scenarios, counties and cities receive $1.98 billion annually for local streets and roads. The 2016
Report concludes that without significant new investment in addition to current revenues, close to a quarter of local
roads will fall into a “failed” condition by 2026 costing tax‐payers much more in the future to bring the system into a
safe, good condition. It will take $3.5 billion annually just to maintain pavements at a 65 or “at risk” condition.
Moreover, to bring the system into Best Management Practices (BMP), which is the most cost effective condition to
maintain local streets and roads and requires significantly less totally investment on an annual basis into the future (of
$2.5 billion for all cities and counties annually), the state needs to invest $73 billion over the next ten‐years which is $7.3
billion annually.
Please note that the funding shortfall in 2014 was $78 billion. There are a few important reasons that the funding
shortfall is smaller in the 2016 Report than previous reports. First, cities and counties are often conservative with
funding projections when completing the study survey and now with 10‐years’ worth of data we are better able to
predict more accurate future funding levels which are slightly less conservative and therefore reduce the actual
backlog. Second, while the cost of some pavement preservation practices have increased slightly, the cost of roadway
reconstruction is still 18% lower than what it was in 2008 when we released the first report. Finally, local agencies are
really good at stretching dollars and using cost‐effective treatments and sustainable pavement practices to get the
most bang for their buck which impacts the shortfall.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 157 of 174
Attached for your immediate use is:
2016 Report Executive Summary
Talking points
Sample press release
Sample tweets
Please check the LSR website again later this afternoon to download addition tools such as a sample local resolution,
sample PPT, a fact sheet, FAQs and other great interactive information.
If you have any questions, please contact Kiana Valentine, CSAC Legislative Representative for Transportation at
916.650.8185 or kvalentine@counties.org or Chris Lee, CSAC Legislative Analyst for Transportation at 916.650.8180 or
clee@counties.org.
Kiana Valentine
Legislative Representative
Housing, Land Use, and Transportation
California State Association of Counties®
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
kvalentine@counties.org
Desk: 916/650.8185
Mobile: 916/266.3892
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 158 of 174
2016 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Report
Talking Points
Main Points
The local roads we all rely on are deteriorating at an exponentially faster rate, literally
crumbling beneath our tires, bikes and feet.
The conditions are getting so bad that if Californians don’t commit to prioritizing
funding to fix them, we could be facing a catastrophe.
The average pavement condition of California’s streets and roads is just 65, which is
considered “at risk”‐ on a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent).
Roads that at one time could have been fixed are deteriorating to the point they need to
be replaced.
The 10‐year funding shortfall to repair and maintain our roads is approximately $73
Billion.
o Please note that the funding shortfall in 2014 was $78 billion. There are a few
important reasons that the funding shortfall is smaller in the 2016 Report than
previous reports. First, cities and counties are often conservative with funding
projections when completing the study survey and now with 10‐years’ worth of
data we are better able to predict more accurate future funding levels which
are slightly less conservative and therefore reduce the actual backlog. Second,
while the cost of some pavement preservation practices have increased
slightly, the cost of roadway reconstruction is still 18% lower than what it was
in 2008 when we released the first report. Finally, local agencies are really
good at stretching dollars and using cost‐effective treatments and sustainable
pavement practices to get the most bang for their buck which impacts the
shortfall.
Current state, local and federal revenue available to cities and counties adds up to about
$1.9 billion per year.
We need $3.5 billion per year just to maintain local roads in their current condition.
We need approximately $7 billion per year to bring roads into compliance with industry
Best Practices.
Without new revenues, the average condition of local roads will fall to 56 on the PCI
scale, which is nearly in the “failed” category and the backlog grows by $20 billion in
just 10‐years!
State and federal funding to fix and maintain local roads and bridges has been woefully
inadequate for years.
From the moment we open our front door to drive to work, bike to school, or walk to
the bus stop, people are dependent on safe, reliable local streets and roads.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 159 of 174
Solutions
The Legislative Special Session on Transportation is still in effect through the month of
November.
The Legislature should reconvene under that session and pass legislation that
o increases revenue for local streets and roads and state highways,
o includes reforms to ensure the money is spent wisely,
o guarantees the revenue is dedicated to transportation
While there are a number of important local sales tax measures on the November
ballot, locally generated revenues are invested in a variety of modes and new capacity
projects, so we still need a statewide solution to address maintenance needs.
Everyone who benefits from local streets and roads — including personal and
commercial vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians — should bear the cost of
restoring them.
By investing in our local road system, we are investing in the safety and wellbeing of all
Californians and ensuring the reliability of one of the foundations of our economy.
Financial Cost
Roads and bridges are like cars or houses. If you don’t take care of them with regular
maintenance and repairs, you’ll either have to spend more money to fix larger
problems, or buy a new one. Worse yet, deferred house or car maintenance could
literally put you, your family, or others at grave risk.
Californians have a choice: We can either pay to fix and maintain our streets and roads
today, or pay much more in the future to replace them.
To spend the taxpayer’s money cost‐effectively, it just makes sense to preserve and
maintain our roads and bridges in good condition than to let them deteriorate and then
pay more to fix them.
To put our investment in context: Californians on average pay $540 for internet, $780
for their coffee habit, $852 for a cell phone, and an incredible $1,032 for cable every
year. By contrast, motorists only pay $350 in taxes used to maintain the roadways
necessary for everyday life.
Public Safety
It’s a matter of public safety. Police, fire and emergency medical services all need safe,
reliable roads to react quickly to calls. A few minutes delay can be a matter of life and
death.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 160 of 174
Reliable local streets and roads increase the safety and livability of our communities —
this is important whether you’re young or old, on foot or in a car, riding a bicycle, using
a wheelchair or taking the bus.
Repairs to local roadways are more than just fixing potholes; they include improvements
for sidewalks, storm water control, gutters, curb ramps, traffic signs and medians, all of
which make our roads safer.
Job Creation
Modernizing local streets and roads will create well‐paying construction jobs and boost
local economies.
California business relies on local streets and roads to connect with clients, vendors and
customers. Investing in road infrastructure is paramount to our continued economic
recovery.
The local street and road system is critical to California’s economy — the 8th largest in
the world. The “last mile” for the movement of goods from rail, airports and seaports
occurs on the local system. A functioning well maintained local network promotes
economic sustainability and vitality.
Environment
California is a leader in the fight against global warming. Cities and counties are doing
their part to build livable communities which provide multi‐modal transportation
options to walk, bike, and take transit to move around communities. This reduces stress
on our local roads, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and promotes public health
benefits of an active lifestyle.
Modernizing local streets and roads will reduce drive time and traffic congestion;
improve bicycle safety, and make walking more appealing — all of which leads to
reduced vehicle emissions.
Cars sustain less damage and use less fuel on well‐maintained streets.
Restoring roads before they fail will reduce construction time and that means less air
pollution from heavy equipment and less water pollution from site run‐off.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 161 of 174
2016 Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment Tweets
New report: California’s local streets & roads are deteriorating fast www.savecaliforniastreets.org
#FixCaRoads
Only six California counties have roads in good condition per 2016 local transportation report
www.savecaliforniastreets.org #FixCaRoads
New @CaCities & @CSAC_Counties report: 10‐year, $73B shortfall for local streets, roads & bridges.
www.savecaliforniastreets.org #FixCaRoads
Local streets & roads declining fast according to 2016 report. $7B/year to make roads optimal.
www.savecaliforniastreets.org #FixCaRoads
52 of 58 counties have local roads in poor or at risk condition according to 2016 assessment
www.savecaliforniastreets.org #FixCaRoads
New report: Not enough $$ for California local streets, roads, sidewalks, & bridges
www.savecaliforniastreets.org #FixCaRoads
Pay now or pay more later. California’s local streets & roads are declining w/out enough $$.
www.savecaliforniastreets.org #FixCaRoads
W/O more $ California’s local streets & roads will fail says new report. www.savecaliforniastreets.org
#FixCaRoads
Kids & families need safe streets. New report calls for $7B annually for sound streets and roads.
www.savecaliforniastreets.org #FixCaRoads
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 162 of 174
CITY/COUNTY LOGO
DATE: Contact:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Study Finds Majority of California’s Local Streets and Roads Are “At Risk”
Roads in city/county are Better/Worse than Statewide Average
Costs will rise if repair and maintenance are further delayed
CITY/COUNTY NAME— The results of the biennial California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs
Assessment are alarming. Released on Oct. 25, the new analysis confirms that pavement conditions around
the state are continuing to decline and that existing revenue doesn’t provide enough funding to properly fix
and maintain streets, roads, bridges, traffic signs and storm drains. The research shows that costs could
double if repairs and maintenance are delayed much longer. California cities and counties own and operate
more than 81 percent of the state’s road system and this new report projects that within a decade, one-
quarter of local streets and roads will have poor pavement condition. To download a copy of the report,
please visit www.savecaliforniastreets.org.
Localize here:
If condition is better: The city/county is fortunate because currently our pavement condition ranks higher than
the state average, however we are not entirely out of the woods. Local streets and roads in city/county will still
require significantly increased funding levels just to maintain the status quo and keep roads from falling into
disrepair. When pavement deteriorates quickly, construction costs continue to rise, meaning taxpayers will
have to pay more to repair or replace local streets and roads in the future.
If condition is worse or similar: (City/County) is not alone. In 52 of California’s 58 counties, the average
condition of streets and roads is considered either “at risk” or “poor”. This poses serious safety hazards for
drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians, and it means if we don’t act quickly to fix these roads, they will deteriorate
more and cost more to fix in the long run.
LOCAL QUOTE: “Current funding is not enough to ensure that our streets and roads are safe and reliable.
This is the system that carries our families to school and work and transports the goods that underlie
California’s economy,” said XXXX. “If we don’t deal with the problem now, costs to maintain our local system
will increase while the safety, quality and reliability of (XXX City’s/County’s) roads will decline. I am urging the
Governor, our state legislature, and specifically, our local legislative delegation including Assembly Member
XXXX and Senator XXXX, to act quickly to address the transportation funding shortfall. And I note that the
Legislature’s special session on transportation issues is in effect through November.”
The report is a collaboration between the California State Association of Counties, the League of California
Cities, the County Engineers Association of California, and the state’s regional transportation planning
agencies. Produced every other year since 2008, the 2016 report captured data from more than 99 percent of
the state’s local streets and roads. The report shows that California’s local streets and road conditions
continue to decline, moving us closer to the edge of a cliff.
Using a scale of zero (fail) to 100 (excellent) to rate pavement condition, the report notes that Conditions have
deteriorated since the first survey eight years ago when the statewide average was 68. By 2014 it had
dropped to 66. Now the average pavement condition has declined to 65, falling another full percentage point
in just two years.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 163 of 174
In the next 10 years, it is estimated that the local system will have a $70 billion funding shortfall. Existing
funding for California’s local streets and roads is $1.9 billion annually but $3.5 billion is needed just to
maintain the current statewide average rating of 65. Moreover, it would take $7 billion annually to bring the
state’s local streets and roads into a safe and reliable condition, to address critical bridge repairs, and to
maintain essential components such as sidewalks and storm drains.
To download a copy of the report, please visit www.savecaliforniastreets.org. For more information on the full
report, please contact Rony Berdugo, League of California Cities (916-658-8283) or Kiana Valentine,
California State Association of Counties (916-327-7500 x566).
###
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 164 of 174
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org Executive Summary 1
Breakdown of Road Centerline Miles by Agency
Executive Summary
California’s local street and road system continues to be in
crisis.
Nearly every trip begins on a city street or county road.
Whether traveling by bicycle, bus, rail, truck or family
automobile, Californians need a reliable and well-maintained
local street and road system. Unfortunately, these continue to
be challenging times due to increased demand and unreliable
funding. There is a significant focus on climate change and
building sustainable communities, yet sustainable
communities cannot function without a well-maintained local street and road system. The need for
multi-modal opportunities on the local system has never been more essential. Every component of
California’s transportation system is critical to providing a seamless, interconnected system that
supports the traveling public and economic vitality throughout the state.
The first comprehensive statewide study of California’s local street and road system in 2008 provided
critical analysis and information on the local transportation network’s condition and funding needs.
Conducted biennially, the needs assessment provides another look at this vital component of the state’s
transportation system and once again finds a significant funding shortfall.
The 2016 study sought answers to important questions: What are the current pavement conditions of
local streets and roads? What will it cost to repair all
streets and roads? What are the needs for the
essential components to a functioning system? How
large is the funding shortfall? What are the solutions?
Responsible for over 81 percent of California’s roads,
cities and counties find this study of critical
importance for several reasons. While federal and
state governments regularly assess their system
needs, no such data existed for the local component
of California’s transportation network prior to 2008.
Historically, statewide transportation funding
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 165 of 174
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org Executive Summary 2
investment decisions have been made without local pavement condition data. This biennial assessment
provides a critical piece in providing policy makers with a more complete picture of California’s
transportation system funding needs.
The goal is to use the results to educate policymakers at all levels of government and the public about
the infrastructure investments needed to provide California with a seamless, multi-modal transportation
system. The findings provide a credible and defensible analysis to support a dedicated, stable funding
source for maintaining the local system at an optimum level. The study also provides the rationale for
the most effective and efficient investment of public funds, potentially saving taxpayers from paying
significantly more to fix local streets and roads into the future.
This update surveyed all of California’s 58 counties and 482 cities in 2016. The information captured
data from more than 99 percent of the state’s local streets and roads – a level of participation that
makes clear the local interest in addressing the growing problems of crumbling streets and roads.
Pavements
The conditions of California’s local streets and roads are rolling off the edge of a cliff. On a scale of zero
(failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) has deteriorated to 65
(“at risk” category) in 2016. Even more alarming, 52 of 58 counties are either at risk or have poor
pavements (the maps illustrate the changes in condition since 2008). If the current funding remains the
same, the unfunded backlog will swell from $39 billion to $59 billion by 2026.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 166 of 174
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org Executive Summary 3
In order to use taxpayer money wisely, it makes more sense to preserve and maintain our roads in good
condition, than to let them crumble further and cost more to fix. The costs developed in this study are
based on achieving a roadway pavement condition called Best Management Practices (BMP). At this
condition level, preventive maintenance treatments (i.e., slurry seals, chip seals, thin overlays) are most
cost-effective. Preventive maintenance interferes less with commerce and the public’s mobility and is
more environmentally friendly than rehabilitation and reconstruction.
The importance of this approach is significant. As roadway pavement conditions deteriorate, the cost to
repair them increases exponentially. For example, it costs as much as fourteen times more to
reconstruct a pavement than to preserve it when it is in good condition. Even a modest resurfacing is
four times more expensive than maintenance in the BMP condition. Or to put it another way, employing
maintenance practices consistent with BMP results in treating as much as fourteen times more road
area for the same cost.
By bringing the local roadway system to BMP conditions, cities and counties will be able to maintain
streets and roads at the most cost-effective level. It is a goal that is not only optimal, but also necessary.
This study examines three funding scenarios in order to determine their impacts on the condition of the
roads over the next decade. Note that these are in constant 2016 dollars.
1.Existing funding levels of $1.98 billion/year – this is the current funding level available to cities
and counties from federal, state and local sources.
2.Funding to maintain existing conditions ($3.5 billion/year) – this is the funding level required to
maintain the pavement conditions at its current PCI of 65.
3.Funding required to reach Best Management Practices ($7.0 billion/year) – the optimal
scenario is to bring all pavements into a state of good repair so that best management practices
can prevail. To reach BMP levels, $70 billion is needed over the next ten years. This is an
estimated funding shortfall of $50.2 billion. After that, it will only require $2.5 billion a year to
maintain the pavements at that level.
Scenarios
Annual
Budget
($B)
PCI in
2026
Condition
Category
%
Pavements
in Failed
Condition
%
Pavements
in Good
Condition
Current Conditions (2016) - 65 At Risk 6.9% 54.8%
1. Existing Funding $ 1.98 56 At Risk 22.2% 47%
2. Maintain PCI = 65 $ 3.5 65 At Risk 21.8% 74%
3. Best Mgmt. Practices $7.5 87 Excellent 0.0% 100%
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 167 of 174
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org Executive Summary 4
Essential Components
The transportation network also includes essential safety and traffic components such as curb ramps,
sidewalks, storm drains, streetlights and signals. These components will require $32.1 billion to maintain
over the next 10 years, and there is an estimated funding shortfall of $21.1 billion.
Bridges
Local bridges are also an integral part of the local streets and roads infrastructure. There are 12,501
local bridges (approximately 48 percent of the total) in California. There is an estimated shortfall of $1.7
billion to maintain the safety and integrity of the bridge infrastructure.
Total Funding Shortfall
The table below shows the total funding shortfall of $73 billion (constant 2016 dollars) over the next 10
years. For comparison, the results from the previous updates are also included.
Transportation Asset Needs ($B) 2016
2008 2010 2012 2014 Needs Funding Shortfall
Pavement $ 67.6 $ 70.5 $ 72.4 $ 72.7 $ 70.0 $ 19.8 $ (50.2)
Essential Components $ 32.1 $ 29.0 $ 30.5 $ 31.0 $ 32.1 $ 11.0 $ (21.1)
Bridges - $ 3.3 $ 4.3 $ 4.3 $ 4.6 $ 2.9 $ (1.7)
Totals $ 99.7 $ 102.8 $ 107.2 $ 108.0 $ 106.7 $ 33.7 $ (73.0)
What are the Solutions?
The conclusions from this study are inescapable. Given existing funding levels available to cities and
counties, California’s local streets and roads will continue to deteriorate over the next 10 years. It is
alarming that local streets and roads have decayed to the point that funding will need to almost double
just to maintain current conditions.
Investing in California’s local streets and roads sooner will reduce the need for exponentially more
spending in the future. To reach that level – at which taxpayer money can be spent most cost-effectively
–will require an additional $50.2 billion for pavements alone, or $73 billion total for a functioning
transportation system, over the next decade. Only $2.5 billion per year will be needed to maintain the
pavements after they reach a level at which they can be maintained with best management practices.
To bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, thereby preserving the public’s $168
billion pavement investment and stopping further costly deterioration, $7.3 billion annually in new
funds are needed – that’s equivalent to a 49-cent-per-gallon gas tax increase.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 168 of 174
www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org Executive Summary 5
Failure to invest would be disastrous – not only for local streets and roads but for California’s entire
interrelated transportation system. Failure to invest will impact our ability to increase alternative
modes, active bicycle and pedestrian options, transit needs, meet air quality impacts, greenhouse gas
reduction policies, and other environmental policies.
It is imperative that cities and counties receive a stable and dedicated revenue stream for cost-effective
maintenance of the local system in order to reverse this crisis.
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 169 of 174
TRANSPORTATION, WATER &
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8.
Meeting Date:12/08/2016
Subject:CONSIDER report to the Board on the status of items referred to the
Committee for 2016.
Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE
COMMITTEE,
Department:Conservation & Development
Referral No.: N/A
Referral Name: This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee.
Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham
(925)674-7833
Referral History:
This is an annual Administrative Item of the Committee.
Referral Update:
See attached Status Report on Referrals to the Committee.
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
2016 Status Report on TWIC Referrals.pdf
12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 170 of 174
g:\conservation\twic\2016\mastertwicreferallreport(donotdelete).docx Status Report: Referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee - 2016 Submitted: December 8, 2016 TWIC Meeting Referral Status 1. Review legislative matters ontransportation, water, and infrastructure. Recommended the Board of Supervisors (BOS) ADOPT positions of various statetransportation bills as follows (Various Dates):Support: SB 313 (Monning) Local Government: Zoning Ordinances: SchoolDistrictsSupport: AB 1665 (Bonilla) Transactions and use taxes: County of Alameda,County of Contra Costa Contra Costa Transportation AuthoritySupport: AB 1592 (Bonilla) Autonomous Vehicles: Pilot ProjectSupport: SB 632 (Cannella, Baker, Bonilla) School Speed ZonesMonitor: AB1697 (Bonilla) Alternative and Renewable Fuel and VehicleTechnologyReceived reports regarding the status of the Iron Horse Corridor relative to legacyobligations to the State, provided direction to staff & consultant, traveled toSacramento to meet with Caltrans, California State Transportation Agency(CalSTA), and California Transportation Commission (CTC) leadership, andprovided documentation, communication and reports to the same. VariousDates. Activities also relate to Referral #s 12 & 15.Monitored and provided direction to staff and consultants, and maderecommendations to the full BOS regarding the efforts by the State Legislature andGovernor’s office to reform the state transportation funding system. Various DatesIn the context of reports of declining state transportation revenues, the Committeeprovided direction to staff on project prioritization in light of reduced availablefunding. April 2016, Various Dates.Provided direction to staff regarding proposed increases in California EndangeredSpecies Act fees and initiated communication to the Legislative Delegation and theDepartment of Fish and Wildlife. June 2016Received report and provided direction to staff on the Capital Road Improvement andPreservation Program, recommended a public hearing and adoption at the full BOS.July 2016 12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 171 of 174
g:\conservation\twic\2016\mastertwicreferallreport(donotdelete).docx The Committee received reports regarding local school district compliance with statestatutes related to land use and safety in the context of necessary changes to stateschool siting policies and the development of a local school safety ordinance. August2016, various dates.The Committee provided recommendations to the full BOS for revisions to theCounty’s state and federal legislative platforms. October 20162. Review applications for transportation,water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development Departments. The Committee approved grants to be submitted to Caltrans for the Highway SafetyImprovement Program. August 2016[pending] The Committee approved grants to be submitted to CCTA under the OBAG Program.December 2016 3. Monitor the Contra CostaTransportation Authority (CCTA) including efforts to implement Measure J. Monitored the development of CCTA’s Comprehensive Countywide TransportationPlan and Measure X Expenditure Plan, provided direction to staff, andrecommendations to the full BOS. Various DatesSent a letter to CCTA, through the BOS, requesting that the County be included in theChair/Vice-Chair rotation at the CCTA Board of Directors. March 2016Provided input and direction to staff on initiating an accessible transit study. VariousDates. Also relates to referral #17,4. Monitor EBMUD and Contra CostaWater District projects and activities. 5. Review issues associated with the healthof 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. Monitored and provided direction to staff on compliance and implementation ofNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. February 2016Monitored, received reports, and provided direction to staff on the response to theSustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) March 2016Monitored the implementation and implications of Municipal Regional Permit 2.0,provided direction to staff, initiated communication with the State Water ResourcesControl Board. June/August 2016The Committee recommended that the BOS execute an MOU designating with Zone7/ Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as the localGroundwater Sustainability Agency under the Sustainable Groundwater ManagementAct. November 20166. Review issues associated with Countyflood control facilities. 12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 172 of 174
g:\conservation\twic\2016\mastertwicreferallreport(donotdelete).docx 7. Monitor creek and watershed issues andseek funding for improvement projects related to these issues. 8. Monitor the implementation of theIntegrated Pest Management (IPM) policy. Received reports and provided direction to IPM staff on the program and interactionwith the public, and forwarded reports to the full BOS. July/December [pending] 2016 9. Monitor the status of county parkmaintenance 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 ContraCosta County Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The Committee received a presentation on the East Contra Costa County HCP anddirected that it be provided to the full BOS. November 201611. Review the ability to revise the Countydesign standards for residential streets to address traffic calming and neighborhood livability issues when these roads are built. Directed staff to proceed with implementation of complete streets processes perBoard Resolution 2016/374 and include vision zero and automated speedenforcement concepts in the implementation. August 201612. Monitor and report on theUnderground Utilities Program. Received reports on the implementation and recommendations of the Pipeline SafetyTrust Report, and provided direction to staff and recommendations to the full BOS.April/June/August 2016 - Activities also relate to Referral #1513. Monitor implementation of the Letterof Understanding (LOU) with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa. The received updates on the status of the LOU and referred them to the full BOS.November 201614. Freight transportation issues, includingbut 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 Monitored the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional GoodsMovement Plan and submitted comments to MTC, through the BOS, on the same.March 2016 12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 173 of 174
g:\conservation\twic\2016\mastertwicreferallreport(donotdelete).docx deepening of the San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel. 15. Monitor the Iron Horse CorridorManagement Program. See other, related activities under Referral #12 16. Monitor and report on the eBARTProject. 17. Review transportation plans andservices 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. Received reports and provided direction to staff on the efforts of Contra Costa HealthServices to coordinate access to healthcare service with County Connection andTriDelta Transit. June 2016, August 2016See Referral #3 for related actions.18. Monitor issues of interest in theprovision of general transportation services, including but not limited to public transportation and taxicab/rideshare services. Monitored staff’s effort in implementing a regional taxicab permitting process,received reports, provided direction to staff, and kept the full BOS apprised ofprogress. May 201619. Monitor the statewide infrastructurebond programs. 12-08-16 TWIC Mtg Packet Pg 174 of 174