Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02112019 - TWIC Agenda Pkt            TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE February 11, 2019 9:00 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV, Chair Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, 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 8, 2018, 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. REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2019 Calendar. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   6. CONSIDER referrals to the Committee for 2019 and SUBMIT recommendations to the full Board of Supervisors for approval. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   7. CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   8. 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)   9. RECEIVE Review of SunPower/Contra Costa County PV Portfolio Summary 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 1 of 311 9. RECEIVE Review of SunPower/Contra Costa County PV Portfolio Summary technical and economic pro-forma, and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (Frank Di Massa, Public Works)   10. CONSIDER report to the Board of Supervisors on the status of items referred to the Committee for 2018, and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   11. RECEIVE Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development)   12.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, March 11, 2019.   13.Adjourn   The Transportation, Water & Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend TWIC meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting. Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of members of the TWIC less than 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 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 2 of 311 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 3 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:Administrative Items, if applicable.  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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 4 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for November 8, 2018, 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 November 8, 2018, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 11-08-18 TWIC Minutes DRAFT 11-08-18 Sign-In Sheet - TWIC 10-31-18 COCO support letter final pdf 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 5 of 311 D R A F T TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE November 8, 2018 9:00 A.M. 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, 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: Karen Mitchoff, Chair    Candace Andersen, Vice Chair    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 8, 2018, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. The Committee unanimously APPROVED the meeting record. 5.CONSIDER a proposed ban of polystyrene food and beverage containers and the policy implications and objectives of a ban, PROVIDE staff with policy direction to develop a draft ordinance, and, if necessary, FORWARD the recommended policy direction to the full Board for consideration and concurrence. The Committee unanimously APPROVED the recommendation with further direction to staff in the event the Board of Supervisors approves the ordinance: 1) ensure the Public Information Officer is involved in implementation, and 2) return to the BOS with an implementation status report six months to one year after the ban goes in to effect. Dominic Williams (Save the Bay) testified in support of the ordinance. 6.RECEIVE and consider public comments on the Plan, ACCEPT the Plan, and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors, as the governing board of the District, adopt the Plan. The Committee RECIEVED the Draft Flood Control Capital Improvement Plan and unanimously APPROVED the recommendations. There was no public comment. 7.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. The Committee RECEIVED the report. 8.RECEIVE updates on referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee, and DIRECT staff 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 6 of 311 8.RECEIVE updates on referrals to the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee, and DIRECT staff as appropriate. The Committee RECEIVED the report and indicated they would follow up with the County Administrator's Office regarding the status of the County's effort to establish a Taxi Ordinance. 9.The next meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, December 10th, 9am. 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. John Cunningham, Committee Staff 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 7 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 8 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 9 of 311 1330 Broadway, Suite 1800 Oakland CA 94612 510.463.6850 www.saveSFbay.org October 31, 2018 Contra Costa County Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Chair Mitchoff and Vice Chair Andersen: On behalf of thousands of Save the Bay supporters in Contra Costa County and around the Bay Area, I urge you to move forward with a ban on the distribution and sale of expanded polystyrene products as soon as possible. Many local jurisdictions have enacted similar or more stringent bans, including Alameda County, Concord, El Cerrito, and Lafayette. In fact, in California alone, there are currently 117 local ordinances banning the sale and/or use of expanded polystyrene. We urge you to join these cities, including those within your county, in taking strong action against this polluting and unsustainable material. Polystyrene, specifically polystyrene foam, is one of the biggest culprits in clo gging municipal storm drains and is a major litter item that is suffocating our creeks, wetlands, and the Bay. Polystyrene never biodegrades; it will remain in the environment for thousands of years, harming wildlife and polluting our shores. Because polys tyrene foam is lightweight, it easily blows into storm drains and waterways, where it readily breaks apart and is often ingested by fish, birds and other wildlife. Polystyrene foam has no appreciable recycling market. Less than one half of one percent of polystyrene food service packaging – and less than one percent of all polystyrene – is actually recycled in California. The rest ends up in landfills and as litter in our streets and waterways. The dramatic increase in alternative food ware is being driven by consumer demand. While the quality of alternative food ware is increasing, the cost is steadily decreasing; complying with a ban could cost as little as $150 per year, according to San Mateo County. Currently, hundreds of Bay Area restaurants and businesses are complying with polystyrene bans – if they can do it, Contra Costa businesses can also adapt. Finally, Contra Costa County, like many other Bay Area cities and counties, are required to achieve ambitious stormwater pollution reductions under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. By 2022, the county must reduce the amount of trash in its stormwater by 100 percent; an 80 reduction must be achieved by 2019. Contra Costa can take a strong step toward meeting these goals by eliminating commonly littered products, such as polystyrene food ware. Now is the time to stop plastic pollution in our Bay and waterways. Save The Bay respectfully urges Contra Costa County to ban expanded polystyrene products. We look forward to working with you on this issue. Sincerely, David Lewis Executive Director 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 10 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2019 Calendar.  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: REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2019 Calendar. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) Referral Update: The Committee should review, revise if appropriate, and adopt the 2019 draft calendar. (In acknowledgement of Veteran's Day, please note the changed date and time.) Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): REVIEW, REVISE as appropriate, and ADOPT the 2019 Calendar. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments 2019 TWI Committee Schedule DRAFT 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 11 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, District II, Vice Chair 2019 Meeting Schedule The TWIC Committee meets the second Monday of each month, unless otherwise noted**. The Agenda Packets will be mailed out prior to the meeting dates. For Additional Information Contact: John Cunningham, Committee Staff Direct Line: 925-674-7833 Main Transportation Line: 925-674-7209 John.Cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us DATE ROOM TIME February 11 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. March 11 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. April 08 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. May 13 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. June 10 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. July 08 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. August 12 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. September 09 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. October 14 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. **November 14 651 Pine Street, Room 101,Martinez **1:00 to 2:00 p.m. December 09 651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. **In acknowledgement of Veterans Day, note the changed date and time. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 12 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:CONSIDER Referrals to the Committee for 2019, REVISE as necessary, and take ACTION as appropriate. 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 recommended referrals to the Committee for 2019. Discussion of recommended revisions: #24: Monitor the County’s conversion to solar/distributed energy systems. Conversations between Public Works (PWD) and TWIC staff resulted in the recommendation that new referral #24 (above) be included in the TWIC standing list of referrals. As PWD accelerates their installation of solar and distributed energy infrastructure, the need to have a structured process to oversee the implementation became apparent. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER recommendations on referrals to the Committee for 2019, REVISE as necessary, and DIRECT staff to bring the list to the full Board of Supervisors for approval. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. Attachments DRAFT TWIC Referrals 2019 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 13 of 311 DRAFT 2019 Referrals to the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (Submitted to TWIC at their February 11, 2019 Meeting. 1. Review legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure. 2. Review applications for transportation, water and infrastructure grants to be prepared by the Public Works and Conservation and Development Departments. 3. Monitor the Contra Costa Transportation Authority including efforts to implement Measure J. 4. Monitor EBMUD and Contra Costa Water District projects and activities. 5. Review projects, plans and legislative matters that may affect the health of the San Francisco Bay and Delta, including but not limited to conveyance, flood control, dredging, climate change, habitat conservation, governance, water storage, development of an ordinance regarding polystyrene foam food containers, water quality, supply and reliability, consistent with the Board of Supervisors adopted Delta Water Platform. 6. Review and monitor the establishment of Groundwater Sustainability Agencies and Groundwater Sustainability Plans for the three medium priority groundwater basins within Contra Costa County as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. 7. Review issues associated with County flood control facilities. 8. Monitor creek and watershed issues and seek funding for improvement projects related to these issues. 9. Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management policy. 10. Monitor the status of county park maintenance issues including, but not limited to, transfer of some County park maintenance responsibilities to other agencies and implementation of Measure WW grants and expenditure plan. 11. Monitor and report on the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan. 12. Monitor the implementation of the County Complete Streets Policy. 13. Monitor and report on the Underground Utilities Program. 14. Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa. 15. Freight transportation issues, including but not limited to potential increases in rail traffic such as that proposed by the Port of Oakland and other possible service increases, safety of freight trains, rail corridors, and trucks that transport hazardous materials, the planned truck route for North Richmond; freight issues related to the Northern Waterfront (and coordinate with the Northern Waterfront Ad Hoc Committee as needed), and the deepening of the San Francisco-to-Stockton Ship Channel. 15. Monitor the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program. 16. Monitor and report on the eBART Project. 17. Review transportation plans and services for specific populations, including but not limited to County Low Income Transportation Action Plan, Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for the Bay Area, Priorities for Senior Mobility, Bay Point Community Based Transportation Plan, and the Contra Costa County Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan. 18. Monitor issues of interest in the provision and enhancement of general transportation services, including but not limited to public transportation, taxicab/transportation network companies, and navigation apps. 19. Monitor the statewide infrastructure bond programs. 20. Monitor implementation and ensure compliance with the single-use carryout bag ban consistent with Public Resources Code, Chapter 5.3 (resulting from Senate Bill 270 [Padilla – 2014]). 21. Monitor efforts at the State to revise school siting guidelines and statutes. 22. Monitor issues related to docked and dockless bike share programs. 23. Monitor efforts related to water conservation including but not limited to turf conversion, graywater, and other related landscaping issues. 23.24. Monitor the County’s conversion to solar/distributed energy systems. G:\Conservation\TWIC\2019\2019 TWIC Referrals\TWIC Referrals 2019 ‐ DRAFT.Doc  02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 14 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:CONSIDER report on Local, State, and Federal Transportation Related Issues: Legislation, Studies, Miscellaneous Updates, take ACTION as Appropriate Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 1   Referral Name: REVIEW legislative matters on transportation, water, and infrastructure.  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)674-7883 Referral History: This is a standing item on the Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee referral list and meeting agenda. Referral Update: In developing transportation related 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. This report includes four sections, 1: LOCAL, 2: REGIONAL, 3: STATE, and 4: FEDERAL. 1. LOCAL 1.1: Update/Discussion regarding the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Strategic Planning Workshop 2. REGIONAL No written report in February. 3. STATE 3.1: Legislative Report The February State legislative report from the County's advocate, Mark Watts, is attached. The report covers the following issues: Governor Newsom Appointments State Budget Legislation of note 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 15 of 311 3.2 Specific Legislation Assembly Bill [#pending]: Salas (Kern/King Counties) Transportation: Seniors and Disabled Individuals Access to Transportation to Medical Services. A representative from the California Senior Legislature approached TWIC staff with a request for support regarding the attached proposal. The title of the proposal generally describes what is being funded and the revenue source is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Eligible areas are restricted to "rural, desert, mountain" areas, it isn't clear that Contra Costa County would benefit. The proposal could undermine the County's effort to access the GGRF for our own comprehensive proposal to fund this type of transportation statewide without geographic restrictions 3.3 Housing Strategy Discussion regarding the County's approach/process to engage in the housing dialog which will evolve in 2019. 3.4 Other The California State Association of Counties requested information from County staff regarding policy proposals relative to school siting. 4. FEDERAL No written report in February. See article in "Communication & News" regarding comments from Representative Peter DeFazio (Oregon) on the earmark ban. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): There is no fiscal impact. Attachments TWIC State Transportation Leg Report for Feb 2019 CA Sr. Legislature - Trans Leg Proposal 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 16 of 311 Smith, Watts & Hartmann, LLC.  Consulting and Governmental Relations    February 1, 2019    MEMORANDUM    TO:  CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: TRANSPORTATION, WATER, AND INFRASTRUCTURE  COMMITTEE    FROM:  MARK WATTS    SUBJECT: REPORT FOR FEBRUARY TWIC MEETING      Governor Newsom    Key Staff appointments  Governor Newsom has announced several key leadership appointments including, Ann O’Leary  as Chief of Staff and Lindsey Cobia serving as Deputy Chief of Staff. Additionally, Ana  J. Matosantos as Cabinet Secretary, Jason Elliott as Chief Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Executive  Branch Operations, and Angie Wei as Chief Deputy Cabinet Secretary for Policy Development.     State Budget  The proposed state budget introduce on January 10th includes a $144 billion general fund,  marking a 4 percent increase over the $138 billion spending plan former Gov. Jerry Brown signed  in June.     This year’s total budget — including money for special fund expenditures — exceeds $209  billion. Much of the increased spending would go to one‐time projects.     The Governor has indicated that his administration is preparing for a recession and are  developing plans to continue setting aside money in reserves. State budget reserves currently  amount to a projected $16 billion that could help the state  in the face of a recession. The  Legislative Analyst’s Office projects the state will have an additional $14.8 billion surplus that the  Legislature and Governor could use on practically anything     Transportation Budget Proposals   The Governor proposes to continue the implementation of the SB 1, the Road Repair and  Accountability Act, which provides stable, long‐term funding for both state and local  transportation infrastructure.        02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 17 of 311 Smith, Watts & Hartmann, LLC.  Consulting and Governmental Relations    SB 1 provides an average of $5.4 billion per year over the next ten years for state and local  transportation projects:    To this end, the Budget provides $4.8 billion in new SB 1 funding:   $1.2 billion is available to all 479 cities and 58 counties for local road repairs,   $1.2 billion for the repair and maintenance of the state highway system.   $400 million is to be available to repair and maintain the state’s bridges and culverts,   $307 million is available to improve trade corridors,     $250 million is available to increase throughput on congested commute corridors.   $458 million for local transit operations and $386 million for capital improvements for  transit, commuter, and intercity rail.      SB 1 also provides annual funding for other local transportation priorities, including:    $200 million for Local Partnership projects,   $100 million for Active Transportation Program (ATP) projects   $25 million for expansion of freeway service patrols, and   $25 million in local planning grants.     Infrastructure   The Governor indicated his administration would release a Five‐Year Infrastructure Plan to spell  out the state’s priorities for investments in the state’s infrastructure later this year.     Linking Housing to Transportation funds  Finally, in spite of the good news on SB 1 appropriations, the governor seeks to withhold SB 1  allocations to cities and counties that do not achieve their housing (RHNA) goals). His budget  document calls for formation of a stakeholder working group to address this concept.      Cap and Trade   The budget proposes a $1 billion Cap and Trade Expenditure Plan, separate from the 60%  continuously appropriated directly to specified programs such as Affordable Housing and  Sustainable Communities (AHSC).  This new plan is targeting support programs that reduce or  sequester greenhouse gases, including programs that benefit disadvantaged and low‐income  communities, and support training and apprenticeships necessary to transition the state’s  workforce to a low carbon economy.    Legislature  In the intervening period since the Legislature reconvened in December 2018, legislators have  introduced nearly 500 bills, including several constitutional amendments.     SB 137 (Dodd) ‐  This bill reduces duplicative federal transportation permitting and  environmental review by expanding the State’s existing program to exchange federal surface  transportation revenues for state transportation revenues.  02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 18 of 311 Smith, Watts & Hartmann, LLC.  Consulting and Governmental Relations      The Self‐Help County Coalition and CSAC are supporting this measure. Staff recommends that  the Authority consider a Support position, too.    AB 252 (Daly) – This bill would permanently allow Caltrans to assume the role of the US  Department of Transportation for NEPA decision making on projects within California. The Self‐Help  counties are strongly supporting this program extension and staff recommends the Authority  consider a Support position, too.     Other notable bills introduced so far include  the following:    1. SB 127 by Senator Scott Wiener which would require the creation of a division of active  transportation within CalTrans; also, it would require the department’s asset  management plan used for the SHOPP to establish performance measures for pedestrian  and bicycle facilities for each project; finally, the bill would  require including bicycle,  pedestrian, and transit facilities in many SHOPP projects.    2. SB 128 by Senator Jim Beall which would provide that bonds may be sold under an  enhanced infrastructure financing district (EIFD) without a vote of the public.  Current law  requires such bonds to have approval by a 55% majority of voters within the district  before they can be sold.  3. AB 185 by Assemblymembers Tim Grayson and Sabrina Cervantes which would add the  Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to meetings between the  Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) currently  required to be held twice a year.                  02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 19 of 311 RN1816542 AP 2 INTRODUCED BY SENIOR ASSEMBLY MEMBER WARREN (COAUTHORS: SENIOR ASSEMBLY MEMBERS BRANSON AND ROLFE) LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST AP 2: TRANSPORTATION: SENIORS’ AND DISABLED INDIVIDUALS’ ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION TO MEDICAL SERVICES. THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 DESIGNATES THE STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AS THE STATE AGENCY CHARGED WITH MONITORING AND REGULATING SOURCES OF EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES. THE ACT AUTHORIZES THE STATE BOARD TO INCLUDE THE USE OF MARKET-BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS. EXISTING LAW REQUIRES ALL MONEYS, EXCEPT FOR FINES AND PENALTIES, COLLECTED BY THE STATE BOARD AS PART OF A MARKET- BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISM TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND. EXISTING LAW CONTINUOUSLY APPROPRIATES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEYS FROM THE FUND FOR THE LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM TO PROVIDE OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES TO REDUCE THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES AND IMPROVE MOBILITY, WITH A PRIORITY ON SERVING DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 20 of 311 EXISTING LAW ESTABLISHES THE AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THAT IS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD FOR THE PURPOSES OF FUNDING PROJECTS RELATED TO, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE REDUCTION OF CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS AND IMPROVEMENT OF AIR QUALITY. EXISTING LAW ESTABLISHES THE CARL MOYER MEMORIAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT PROGRAM THAT IS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE BOARD TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO OFFSET THE INCREMENTAL COST OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS THAT REDUCE EMISSIONS FROM COVERED VEHICULAR SOURCES. THIS MEASURE WOULD MEMORIALIZE THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE USE OF MONEYS IN THE ELECTRIC PROGRAM INVESTMENT CHARGE TO FUND GRANT PROGRAMS IN COUNTIES TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO NONEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR THE SENIOR AND DISABLED POPULATIONS LOCATED IN RURAL, DESERT, AND MOUNTAIN AREAS THROUGH THE USE OF ENERGY RENEWABLE VEHICLES. VOTE MAJORITY. AP 2: RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION WHEREAS, CALIFORNIA HAS MANY SENIORS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES OR WHO SUFFER FROM CHRONIC, SERIOUS ILLNESSES OR MENTAL IMPAIRMENTS 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 21 of 311 THAT LIMIT THEIR MOBILITY AND WHO LIVE IN RURAL, MOUNTAIN, OR DESERT COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE; AND WHEREAS, RESOURCES FOR NON-EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION ARE LIMITED IN THOSE COMMUNITIES, AND, WHERE THEY ARE AVAILABLE, MANY VEHICLES USED IN THOSE COMMUNITIES USE FUELS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO AIR POLLUTION IN THOSE COMMUNITIES; AND WHEREAS, NONEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES INCLUDE SCHEDULED MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS, RETURN TRIPS FROM HOSPITAL EMERGENCIES, AND TRANSFERS BETWEEN HOSPITALS; AND WHEREAS, FOR TRANSPORTATION-DISADVANTAGED INDIVIDUALS, SUCH AS PERSONS WITHOUT A DRIVER’S LICENSE OR WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS, TRANSPORTATION ACCESS CAN BE A BARRIER TO RECEIVING MEDICAL CARE; AND WHEREAS, THE LACK OF TRANSPORTATION TO MEDICAL SERVICES IS A PRIME CONCERN BECAUSE OF THE LONG DISTANCES TO SPECIALIZED HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, WHICH ARE PRIMARILY OUTSIDE RURAL, MOUNTAIN, AND DESERT COMMUNITIES; AND WHEREAS, MISSING MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS CAN LEAD TO WORSENING OF HEALTH CONDITIONS AND INCREASED HEALTH CARE COSTS; AND WHEREAS, FOR EXAMPLE, THE COUNTIES OF LAKE AND MENDOCINO WITH A COMBINED AREA OF 7,320 SQUARE MILES HAVE A POPULATION OF 40,227 SENIOR CITIZENS, ABOUT 70 PERCENT OF THE COMBINED TOTAL POPULATION OF THOSE COUNTIES; AND 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 22 of 311 WHEREAS, OF THE POPULATION OF LAKE COUNTY, 55 PERCENT IS LOW INCOME; AND WHEREAS, THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING OF THE COUNTIES OF LAKE AND MENDOCINO, PLANNING AND SERVICE AREA (PSA) 26, PROVIDES NO FUNDING FOR TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE ITS FUNDING IS DEDICATED FOR THE SUPPORT OF SENIOR CENTERS; AND WHEREAS, TRANSPORTATION FOR SENIORS IS PRIMARILY PROVIDED BY COUNTY TRANSIT AGENCIES; AND WHEREAS, IN THE COUNTY OF LAKE, LAKE TRANSIT HAS BEEN MAKING A STRONG EFFORT TO EXPAND SENIOR TRANSPORTATION THROUGH GRANTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO EXPAND ITS FLEDGLING VOLUNTEER DRIVER PROGRAM; AND WHEREAS, LAKE TRANSIT HAS ALSO BEGUN TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION TO OUT-OF-COUNTY NONEMERGENCY MEDICAL FACILITIES AND EXPANDING ITS COORDINATION WITH HOSPITALS AND OTHER NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS RELATED TO MEDICAL SERVICES; AND WHEREAS, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO’S 307,000 SENIOR AND DISABLED POPULATION IS SITUATED IN AN AREA THAT IS OVER 20,000 SQUARE MILES OF RURAL, DESERT, OR MOUNTAIN AREAS; AND WHEREAS, TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR SENIORS AND DISABLED INDIVIDUALS IN THE COUNTY ARE PROVIDED THROUGH A VOLUNTEER DRIVER PROGRAM, WHICH IS NOT FUNDED BY THE AREA OFFICE ON AGING FOR THAT 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 23 of 311 COUNTY, IN WHICH PARTICIPANTS OF THE PROGRAM HAVE TO RECRUIT THEIR DRIVERS; AND WHEREAS, IT IS EQUALLY CHALLENGING FOR THE FOR MORE THAN 117,000 SENIOR AND DISABLED POPULATION IN THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 1,515 SQUARE MILES, TO ACCESS TRANSPORTATION TO NONEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BECAUSE THERE ARE NO TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SPONSORED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES FOR THAT COUNTY; AND WHEREAS, TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS IN THESE COUNTIES, AS WELL AS MANY OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED COUNTIES, STEM FROM THE RURAL, LOW- DENSITY POPULATION BASE, SEPARATED BY MANY MILES AND GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES, SUCH AS MOUNTAINS AND LAKES; AND WHEREAS, MANY SENIORS IN THESE COUNTIES NEED ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION TO NONEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, SUCH AS SPECIALIZED TREATMENT, WHICH ARE OFTEN PROVIDED IN FAR-OFF LOCATIONS, SUCH AS MORE URBAN AREAS, AND TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN THE SENIORS’ RESIDENCES AND MEDICAL FACILITIES IS OFTEN NONEXISTENT BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCES INVOLVED AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION; AND WHEREAS, CALIFORNIA, THROUGH THE ENACTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006 (DIVISION 25.5 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 38500) OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE), HAS ESTABLISHED A STATE POLICY TO REDUCE THE EMISSION OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN THE STATE; AND 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 24 of 311 WHEREAS, THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, IN ITS 3-YEAR INVESTMENT PLAN, IS REQUIRED TO ALLOCATE 25 PERCENT OF THE AVAILABLE MONEYS IN THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND TO PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE BENEFITS TO DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES, IDENTIFIED BY THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, AND 10 PERCENT TO PROJECTS LOCATED IN THOSE COMMUNITIES; AND WHEREAS, THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IS TARGETING INVESTMENTS OF MONEYS FROM THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY IN CALIFORNIA’S MOST BURDENED COMMUNITIES AND AT THE SAME TIME TO REDUCE THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES; AND WHEREAS, THE LOW CARBON TRANSIT OPERATIONS PROGRAM (PART 3 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75230) OF DIVISION 44 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE), FUNDED BY MONEYS IN THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND, PROVIDES OPERATING AND CAPITAL ASSISTANCE FOR TRANSIT AGENCIES TO REDUCE THE EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES AND IMPROVE MOBILITY, WITH A PRIORITY ON SERVING DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES; AND WHEREAS, THE AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (ARTICLE 3 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 44274) OF CHAPTER 8.9 OF PART 5 OF DIVISION 26 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE), THE CARL MOYER MEMORIAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT PROGRAM (CHAPTER 9 (COMMENCING WITH SECTION 44275) OF PART 5 OF DIVISION 26 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE), AND OTHER 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 25 of 311 SIMILAR PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR THE PURCHASE OF CLEAN VEHICLES; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE SENIOR ASSEMBLY AND THE SENIOR SENATE, JOINTLY, THAT THE SENIOR LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AT ITS 2018 REGULAR SESSION, A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS VOTING THEREFOR, THAT THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR ENACT LEGISLATION TO AUTHORIZE THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGING TO ALLOCATE AT LEAST ONE PERCENT OF THE MONEYS THE DEPARTMENT IS APPROPRIATED FROM THE GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND AND THE AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT FUND TO COUNTY DEPARTMENTS OF AGING AND ADULT SERVICES FOR GRANT PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION FOR NONEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES FOR THE SENIOR AND DISABLED POPULATIONS LOCATED IN RURAL, DESERT, AND MOUNTAIN AREAS OF THOSE COUNTIES THROUGH THE PURCHASE, LEASE, AND MAINTENANCE OF SEVEN-, 12-, OR 15-PASSENGER ZERO OR NEAR-ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT THE SENIOR LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESPECTFULLY MEMORIALIZES THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO ENACT APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE CONCERNS SET FORTH IN THIS MEASURE; AND BE IT FURTHER 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 26 of 311 RESOLVED, THAT A COPY OF THIS MEASURE BE TRANSMITTED TO THE SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY, THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE, AND THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 27 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:Integrated Pest Management Report Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 9   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, unless serious public concern issues arise. 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): Accept Integrated Pest Management report, and take ACTION as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. Attachments 2018 Annual IPM Report 1-29-19 County Staff Responses Appendix D Appendix E 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 28 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 1 12/10/18 Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee 2018 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 ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Background on the IPM Advisory Committee .......................................................................................................................... 5 IPM Advisory Committee Priorities for 2018 ............................................................................................................................. 5 2018 Accomplishments of the IPM Advisory Committee ................................................................................................... 6 2018 Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Advisory Committee ............................... 7 2018 Accomplishments of the IPM Coordinator ..................................................................................................................... 8 2018 Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Coordinator ................................................. 9 2018 Department IPM Program Highlights and Challenges .......................................................................................... 11 Pesticide Use by Contra Costa County Operations ............................................................................................................ 26 Departmental Integrated Pest Management Priorities For 2019.................................................................................. 30 Appendix A. Decision-Making Subcommmittee Report and Final Documents ..................................................... 33 Appendix B. Outreach Subcommittee Report and Pest Management Articles..................................................... 59 Appendix C. Pesticide Posting Task Force Recommendations ................................................................................... 73 Appendix D. San Francisco’s RFQ for Bed Bug Cleaning Services .......................................................................... 79 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 29 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 3 12/10/18 Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee 2018 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 reviewed the County’s pesticide use posting policy, delivered a pest management awareness training to around 235 County in-home visitors, and developed a series of articles on IPM for distribution to local media outlets. 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, with review from the Committee, the Public Works Department finalized documents for vegetation management along roadsides and flood control channels. In conjunction with the Agriculture Department, the Committee is reviewing the decision document for managing ground squirrels around critical infrastructure. Pesticide Use Reduction by County Operations Since FY 00-01, County operations have reduced their pesticide use by 79%. During the same time period, they have reduced their use of “Bad Actor” pesticides by 90.5%. Departmental IPM Programs Agriculture Department. The Department of Agriculture continues to concentrate its invasive weed program on contracted work for parkland and municipalities within the County. Facilities Division. A new species, the three-lined cockroach, began invading County buildings a couple of years ago. Unlike other cockroaches, this species does not feed on human food and garbage. This makes controlling the three-lined cockroach with commercial baits very difficult because the insect is not interested in the food attractants in currently available cockroach baits. In 2017, Pestec, the County’s IPM contractor, spent several days thoroughly sealing Building 500 at 255 Glacier in Martinez. This process appears to have worked very well, and no complaints about this cockroach have been lodged this year. Pest exclusion is successful because this insect lives outside in the mulch and leaf litter around the building. Pestec and the Facilities Division worked hard this summer to exclude the rats that were plaguing the West County Children’s Mental Health Clinic. The Spanish tile roof overhang where the rodents were getting in was stripped off, rat and bird debris was removed and the area sanitized, all entry holes were plugged, and the overhang was re-roofed with tar and gravel. Special Districts. Over the summer last year, the owl box installed in Livorna Park in Alamo housed its first owl family. The box was cleaned in the fall of 2017 to ready it for new occupants, and it appears that owls did come back to use the nest box this summer. When the box was cleaned this fall, only a few feathers and an unhatched and dried up egg were found. It’s unclear what might have happened to the family. We hope for a better outcome next year. Vegetation Management. The Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division continues to incorporate grazing into its vegetation management program. This past fiscal year the Division used goats to abate weeds on approximately 224 acres, mostly on flood control facilities. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 30 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 5 12/10/18 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 ninth 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. In 2017, a seat for the County’s Sustainability Commission replaced the seat for the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board, which was abolished in 2016. 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 Sustainability Commission • 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 representatives 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 Sustainability representative, or the Fish and Wildlife representative is absent from a meeting. IPM Advisory Committee Priorities for 2018 The IPM Advisory Committee focused on the following three IPM program features: A. IPM decision-making—documenting pest management decisions in County IPM programs B. Outreach and education—reviewing and/or creating educational pieces for the public and County staff C. Pesticide use posting—reviewing and making recommendations on the policy and the sign The Committee formed three subcommittees to work on these priorities, the Decision-Making subcommittee, the Outreach subcommittee, and the Posting Task Force. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 31 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 6 12/10/18 2018 Accomplishments of the IPM Advisory Committee Accomplishments of the IPM Committee The IPM Advisory Committee (the Committee) held six regular meetings in 2018. The three subcommittees held a total of 17 meetings to address the above priorities. The Committee also developed a policy and procedure for deciding on topics and speakers for presentations to the full committee. The IPM Coordinator serves as staff to the Committee and any subcommittees. According to the wishes of the Committee, the IPM Coordinator arranged for speakers for four of the six regular Committee meetings held during 2018. The following were the topics and presenters: 1. Ground Squirrel Control—History, Biology, and Implementing IPM, presented by Dr. Sheila Barry, U.C. Cooperative Extension Director, Santa Clara County 2. Investigating Rodenticide Pathways: a Research Update, presented by Dr. Niamh Quinn, Human-Wildlife Interactions Advisor, U.C. South Coast Research and Extension Center 3. Restoring Balance, Anacapa 10 years later (regarding rat eradication from the island), presented by Bruce Badzik, IPM Coordinator, National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area 4. Efficacy of a Steam Weeder in a Park Setting, presented by Dr. Cheryl Wilen, Area IPM Advisor, U.C. Cooperative Extension In 2018, at the request of Supervisor Burgis the Committee developed a policy for choosing presentation topics and speakers. The Committee voted unanimously to approve the following policy: IPM Advisory Committee Policy on Choosing Topics and Speakers for Meeting Presentations • The Committee welcomes the participation of the public in suggesting topics for presentations. At either the November or January meeting, the Committee will discuss possible topics and solicit ideas from the public. • Suggested topics and/or speakers can be sent to the IPM Coordinator throughout the year. • The Committee prefers topics that further the work of the Committee or its subcommittees, but this does not preclude other topics of interest to the Committee. • The Committee chair and the IPM Coordinator will work together to choose the appropriate number of presentations for the year taking into consideration the Committee’s work schedule. • The Committee chair and the IPM Coordinator will work together to choose suitable topics from among the suggestions from the Committee and the public, keeping in mind the mission statement in the Committee’s bylaws. They will also choose speakers for each topic endeavoring to find presenters with the appropriate level of expertise. • The ultimate decisions about topics and speakers will rest with the Committee Chair and the IPM Coordinator who will endeavor to follow the priorities set by the Committee. Work of the subcommittees Priority A: IPM Decision-Making Through the work of the Decision-Making subcommittee, the IPM Advisory Committee 1. Continued to gain a better understanding of the complexities involved in pest management along the County’s road and flood control rights-of-way 2. Continued to gain a better understanding of the challenges and complexities involved in the funding mechanisms for road maintenance 3. Reviewed, provided suggestions for improvement to, and approved two decision-making documents (a third document on ground squirrel management is still under review): a. Vegetation management along County roadsides and road rights-of-way (Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management Division) b. Vegetation management along flood control channels (Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management Division) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 32 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 7 12/10/18 The detailed decision-making documents follow a form devised by the IPM Coordinator and previous members of the Decision-Making subcommittee. Decision-making documents are considered current as of the date on the document and may be updated in the future. See Appendix A for the Decision-Making subcommittee’s final report and the two final vegetation management documents. Priority B: Outreach and Education This year, the subcommittee chose to resume its focus on the County’s most vulnerable populations through continuing outreach to in-home visitors with the goals of 1. Informing County staff of the public health risks of having pests in the home 2. Helping staff to recognize pest problems in their clients’ homes 3. Making staff aware of the resources available for their clients Using the pest management awareness PowerPoint created last year, subcommittee members and the IPM Coordinator provided training for a total of about 235 County employees. The presentations were uniformly well-received and participants said the information was very useful. The subcommittee also chose to create a series of articles for the general public on IPM for common pests. These are being published in a variety of local media outlets. See Appendix B for the Outreach subcommittee’s final report and the outreach articles. Priority C: Pesticide Use Posting Policy and Posting Sign The Posting Task Force reviewed the County’s posting policy and the posting sign with full input at each meeting from the public. The Task Force made recommendations for changes to both documents. The documents have been forwarded to the Public Works Department for their review. See Appendix C for the Posting Task Force’s recommended changes to the two documents. 2018 IPM Advisory Committee Attendance The full committee achieved a quorum at each of its six meetings during the year. The subcommittees achieved quorums at all but one of their 17 meetings. All seats on the full committee were filled until September when Jim Cartan, the chair, left to take a job in Alameda County. The terms for his seat (Environmental Organization representative), Public Member 3, and Public Member Alternate all end December 31, 2018. The IPM Coordinator recruited for these seats throughout the fall. 2018 Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Advisory Committee The IPM Committee makes the following recommendations to the Board: Regarding pest management: 1. Have County Departments continue to evaluate new and existing weed management tactics, considering efficacy, cost, impacts to the environment, and impacts to the public 2. Have County Departments include the Pest Management Flow Chart created by Public Works staff and the IPM Coordinator within all annual IPM and pesticide safety training programs for County staff 3. Allocate funding to the departmental IPM programs to enable pilot testing and evaluation of emerging and innovative pest management strategies and tactics Regarding the posting policy and posting sign: 1. Revise the County’s posting sign as indicated in Appendix C 2. Revise the County’s posting policy as indicated in the tracked-changes document in Appendix C 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 33 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 8 12/10/18 3. Investigate posting on flood control channel access roads where people frequently walk, or on other rights-of-way that are frequently used as walking paths 4. Investigate the feasibility of erecting permanent signs and determine the most useful placement for those signs 5. Investigate a way for people to make a complaint online about pesticide use 6. Investigate a way for pesticide treatment notifications to be sent to people who sign up for email notices 2018 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. 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 bed bug 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 2018, the IPM Coordinator investigated by telephone 51 bed bug calls (compared to 69 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. Complaints come from all over the County. This year there were a number of callers from health clinics, dialysis clinics, and nursing homes asking for information on how to deal with patients that bring bed bugs with them. 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 July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, there were a total of 33,550 visits to the site from 14,925 unique visitors (County staff visits were excluded from this tally in order to obtain a closer approximation of the public use of the site). The total number of visits is around 4300 more than last fiscal year. • Provided bed bug awareness training for the following: o John Muir Home Health program, for in-home visitors and their supervisors o Veterans Administration, Martinez Office, 2860 Howe Rd., for staff and clients o Riverhouse apartments in Martinez, for staff and managers o Behavioral Health staff o New Beginnings Clinic in Antioch (also spoke about lice and scabies), for staff o CVH Care in San Ramon, for staff o City of Berkeley Public Health staff • With the assistance of Pestec, provided bed bug awareness and prevention training for managers at the Concord and Brookside Shelters and Calli House Youth Shelter. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 34 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 9 12/10/18 Healthy Schools Act compliance for County Head Starts In 2015, the IPM Coordinator worked to help the County’s Head Start program come into compliance with new provisions of California’s Healthy Schools Act. The IPM Coordinator developed an IPM plan for the Head Start program that includes 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. The IPM Coordinator continues to oversee compliance with the Healthy Schools Act. Advice and Outreach on IPM The IPM Coordinator • Worked as a cooperator on a grant awarded to the University of California Extension called “Bed Bug IPM Education to Support Multi-unit Housing;” the Principal Investigator is Andrew Sutherland who is a member of the IPM Advisory Committee • Participated in the County’s Sustainability Exchange and the Sustainability Exchange Steering Committee • Attended bi-annual meetings of the Head Start Health and Nutrition Services Advisory Committee to report on bed bug and pest management issues • Responded to a number of requests for pest management information from County staff and citizens • Researched and compiled a notebook of information on herbicide alternatives to glyphosate for the Public Works and Agriculture Departments • Provided the annual IPM update to the County’s Fish and Wildlife Committee • Provided the regular IPM program update to the Board of Supervisors through their Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee Conferences and Trainings Attended • IPM workshop in Oakland organized by East Bay Regional Parks • Two meetings of the Bay Area IPM Coordinators’ group (helped to organize the meetings) • Field day on sampling for pesticides in water organized by Blankinship and Associates (Blankinship and Associates is the Public Works contractor for water sampling) • IPM webinar—A Simple Solution to Problem Pests in Elderly and Disabled Public Housing, organized by Stop Pests in Housing 2018 Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors from the IPM Coordinator The IPM Coordinator makes the following recommendations to the Board: 1. Fill the position of Public Works Vegetation Management Supervisor. There has not been a qualified person in this role for a year, and the IPM Coordinator is seriously worried about deterioration in the quality of the vegetation management program for roadsides and flood control channels without a knowledgeable and dedicated supervisor. 2. Fill other vacant positions on the Public Works Vegetation Management Crew, particularly the two Senior Vegetation Management techs. The crew has been decimated and cannot perform their vegetation management responsibilities. This is a dangerous situation for the County, especially considering the current wildfire threat in California. As the crew gets farther and farther behind in their work, the risk of fire and the length of time it takes to catch up on work both increase. 3. Fill vacant positions at the Grounds Division. The Division has 3 vacant gardener positions, a vacant pest specialist position, and a vacant irrigation tech position. The Division has16 staff members now. In 1999, the Division had 26 regular staff, 6 to 8 seasonal temps, 2 irrigation techs, and 2 pest specialists. Although the Division does not manage all the land it did in 1999, it is struggling to accomplish current work with existing staff. Some staff are working 6 to 7 days a week, and this is not sustainable. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 35 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 10 12/10/18 4. Provide funding and staff to explore alternatives to the herbicide glyphosate (Roundup). A recent lawsuit over glyphosate in San Francisco may raise the liability risk for the County. County Counsel and Risk Management are both aware of the lawsuit. If the Board is seriously interested in reducing the amount of glyphosate used on County property, it is imperative that staff determine what works best in various situations and what the additional cost will be. Staff in both the Grounds Division and the Public Works Maintenance Division are stretched very thin and would have great difficulty accomplishing current work and performing field trials. Unfortunately, there is no one chemical and no one non-chemical weed management technique that will replace glyphosate. Many of the alternative chemicals and all of the non-chemical methods will require significantly more time, energy, and funds to maintain County property close to the safety and aesthetic standards we have now. This is the conclusion not only of the Contra Costa IPM Program, but of all jurisdictions around the Bay. There are trade-offs with the available alternatives. Some are more hazardous for staff to use, and without a conversion to battery-powered equipment, increased use of the mechanical weed management methods will have green house gas impacts. We are well aware of all the alternatives, and we continue to network with other counties and municipalities to understand how they are reducing their glyphosate use, the efficacy of the alternatives they are testing, and the extra costs incurred. However, the County must experiment with various chemicals and techniques on its own in order to determine how they will work in the Contra Costa climate and with County staff. With the increasing threat of catastrophic wildfires in the state, it would be prudent to carefully consider the implications of an increase in unmanaged weeds on County property. 5. Consider a program to help low-income elderly and disabled residents to prepare for bed bug treatments. San Francisco recently sent out a request for qualifications for exactly such a program to be administered through Adult Protective Services. See Appendix D for San Francisco’s RFQ. This vulnerable population is incapable of complying with many of the preparation requirements that most pest control companies insist on before proceeding to treatment. If preparation is not completed satisfactorily, the companies refuse to conduct the treatment. These people often have no relatives or friends who can help them, and the County has no program. Without help, this population is doomed to live with more and more serious bed bug infestations which rapidly spread to their neighbors and out into the community. As these serious infestations grow and proliferate throughout the County, people coming from such infested homes are much more likely to spread bed bugs to public transit, taxis, ambulances, clinics, waiting rooms, theaters, and friends and family. The IPM Coordinator worked with staff from Behavioral Health this summer in an attempt to form a team to help tenants at Riverhouse in Martinez to clean and prepare for bed bug treatments. Because of a chronic infestation, Riverhouse residents have already carried bed bugs to County clinics. However, it became apparent that the enormity, difficulty, and hazards of the task were far beyond the scope of what Behavioral Health staff could be expected to do. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 36 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 11 12/10/18 Rangeland infested with artichoke thistle 2018 Department IPM Program Highlights and Challenges General Information about the Departments Each Department has been working with the IPM Decision-Making subcommittee to create documents that record how pest management decisions are made for various pests and pest situations. Between 2010 and 2013, each Department also created an IPM Plan that covers their pest management goals, sites under management, general decision-making processes, key pests and best management practices, environmental stewardship, and training requirements. In order to help new IPM Committee members understand the working of each department, the IPM Coordinator 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 County’s 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. Agriculture Department IPM Program Highlights • Subcommittee work The Department participated as a member of the Decision-Making and Posting subcommittees. • Invasive weed program The Department concentrates 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. To encourage ranchers to maintain a weed management program, the Department continues to recommend that landowners who lease property to cattlemen include invasive weed control in their lease agreements. The Department’s invasive weed treatments include hand removal, mechanical removal, and targeted treatment with low toxicity herbicides. With rare exception, pesticide treatment involved highly focused spot spraying using backpack sprayers. • Artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus) The Department surveys and treats properties under contract for East Bay Regional Park District, Mt. Diablo State Park, Town of Moraga Open Space, and other municipalities. In 2017, the department surveyed 41,714 acres at 44 sites, treating 45 net acres of infested rangeland. In 2018, the department surveyed 31,439 acres at 41 sites and treated 97 acres of infested rangeland. 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. In that year, the Department began their management program in cooperation with property owners by using ground rigs and 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 37 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 12 12/10/18 Kangaroo Thorn Red Sesbania helicopters to spray large swaths of land. The artichoke thistle infestation has been 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 not an option. Mowing and burning are neither practical nor effective. • Japanese dodder (Cuscuta japonica) Four years have passed since any of this “A” rated weed has been found in the County. Japanese dodder is officially considered eradicated in Contra Costa County; however, the Department continues to monitor previously infested sites to prevent the dodder from flaring up again. 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. • Red sesbania (Sesbania punicea) This was the thirteenth year of red sesbania removal at the primary infestation site of Kirker Creek, Dow Wetlands. Staff surveyed 10 acres there and removed around 520 plants, down from 800 in 2017. All plants were removed by hand. Two full bags of seed pods were collected and disposed of. 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 fifteen years ago. • Kangaroo thorn (Acacia paradoxa) The County has one site infested with kangaroo thorn—the Mira Vista Golf Course in El Cerrito. The first 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. Currently the infestation occupies only a fraction of that area. This year the new golf course superintendent had his staff remove most of the plants. Agriculture Department staff visited to monitor the site and removed another 53 plants by hand. • Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) Under contract to the East Bay Regional Park District, the Department surveyed 19 sites covering 2,538 acres and treated 5.81 net acres for purple starthistle in 2017. In 2018, the department surveyed 3,557 acres at 16 sites and treated 13 net acres of infested rangeland. First Japanese dodder find in CCC, 2005 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 38 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 13 12/10/18 Purple Starthistle Cairo inspecting packages at UPS 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 and to horses and hikers in parkland. Seeds 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. • 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 to reduce ground squirrel damage to a tolerable level. 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. 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. 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 spread 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. This year the Department has been working with the Decision-Making subcommittee to revise and enhance the Ground Squirrel Decision-Making Document. This will be completed next year. • Exotic pest prevention 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. 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 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 39 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 14 12/10/18 Three-lined cockroach (Phyllodromica trivittata) to maintain an active surveillance program; therefore, as a result of Contra Costa’s initiative, pest detections in those counties have increased. This past year the Department inspected 9,900 shipments and rejected 123 after finding various pests. The Department also deploys and services numerous traps for the purpose of early detection of 11 different serious insect pests. This past year the Department deployed 6,567 traps, and staff serviced those traps 93,906 times. • Pesticide use This year the Department used 94 lbs. of active ingredient as opposed to 68 lbs. in FY 16-17. This was due to an increase in the amount of herbicide used in the invasive weed program. Agriculture Department Challenges • Ground squirrel control alternatives 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 squirrel pressure outside of the 100 ft buffer, the animals will eventually move back into the burrows left vacant by the squirrels that have been poisoned, although this happens slowly. This leads to a yearly management program. Altering the environment to prevent ground squirrel burrowing is difficult because of the extent of the infrastructure that must be protected and because the squirrels favor human-built infrastructure as sites for their burrows. • Invasive weed management on private land The Department budget, labor pool, and other mandates have curtailed invasive weed management on private land. Without diligent landowners who include invasive weed control in their land management, invasive weeds will proliferate throughout the County. Public Works Facilities Division IPM Program Highlights • Area under management The Facilities Division manages 147 sites that comprise almost 3.3 million sq. feet. • Subcommittee work A representative from Pestec, the County’s structural pest management provider participated as a member of the County’s Bed Bug Task Force and a member of the Outreach subcommittee. Pestec staff provided text and illustrations for several of the articles created by the Outreach subcommittee. • New cockroach causing problems in County buildings In 2015, the three-lined cockroach (Phyllodromica trivittata) began invading buildings across the County. Pest exclusion seems to be the only solution for this cockroach because no effective commercial baits exist for this insect. In 2017, Pestec spent several days meticulously sealing all holes they could find on the exterior of Building 500 at 255 Glacier in Martinez. Building 500 had had the most numerous complaints about the cockroach. The three-lined cockroach is small and the holes were numerous. Pestec staff worked more than 51 person hours to complete this task. Since completion, there have been no complaints about three-lined cockroach from the building occupants. Pestec 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 40 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 15 12/10/18 Roof tiles moved to reveal rodent access behind Droppings and debris in the attic void continues to monitor at the site for this and other insects with sticky traps. In 2017 they counted 105 three-lined roaches in their traps and in 2018, only 22. The three-lined cockroach 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. In Europe and North Africa this cockroach is found in leaf litter and plant debris in dry habitats around the Mediterranean. This corresponds to the habitat in which the cockroach is found in Contra Costa. • Roof repair and rodent exclusion at the West County Children’s Mental Health Clinic This clinic in Richmond had been experiencing serious vertebrate pest problems for some time. Pestec had been trapping rats there, but it became apparent that the problem could not be solved without removing the Spanish tile roof overhang where the rats were getting into the building. Raccoons, opossums, birds, and probably cats had been entering the attic void under the tiles. If Spanish tiles on a roof are not blocked, rodents and other creatures can crawl into the holes created by the curved tiles and gain access to voids and attic spaces, and from there, access to the building interior. This summer Pestec worked with the Facilities Division to pest proof the attic void behind the roof overhang after the tiles were removed. Facilities had the void sanitized and then County staff re-roofed the overhang with tar and gravel. Pestec sealed the few remaining gaps and holes after the roofing was completed. There have been no complaints about rodents at the clinic since the repairs and pest proofing were completed. This is another example of permanent pest control being achieved through pest proofing and proper construction. • Other pest exclusion jobs in the County In April, Pestec completed bat-proofing at Employment and Human Services, 1650 Cavallo in Antioch. Pestec used approximately 976 ft of Xcluder Pest Block on the top ridge of the roof to keep bats out. Xcluder Pest Block is a stainless steel and poly mesh that can be stuffed into gaps to block entry for bats, rodents, and other creatures. At the West County Detention Facility in Richmond, small birds were entering some of the modular housing units and dropping feces on the lenses of the security cameras. Pestec installed Bird Barrier Optical Gel disks on the tops of the cameras in January this year and the problem has been solved. Bird Barrier says the Optical Gel disks give off infrared light that looks like flames to a bird. The gel is made with citronella and peppermint oil as repellent, and the gel is sticky in case a bird actually lands on a disk. The disks are supposed to last 2 to 4 years and can be used in difficult situations where traditional bird barriers cannot be installed. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 41 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 16 12/10/18 • Increased ant infestations in County buildings For the third year in a row, County buildings experienced serious and repeated Argentine ant invasions, especially in the late summer and early fall. The worst problems are mainly in dry, hot East County. The problem is not so much that people are leaving food and garbage out that attract ants, but that any small amount of water in the surrounding landscape, from irrigation or other sources, is an ant magnet. Ants establish large nests near these water sources and then easily move into buildings to wander around and annoy people. Pestec has been using various ant baits, mainly with the active ingredient boric acid or borate. They have supplemented the baiting with spraying a botanical oil insecticide on ant trails, in cracks and crevices, and on any nests they can find. Pestec experimented over the summer with the boric acid concentration in the baits and tried 1%, 2.5%, and 5%. The 1% bait was well accepted by the ants, but spoiled too quickly in the heat, and was not controlling the ants fast enough. The 5% bait seemed to be less attractive to the ants, and the concern with such a high percentage is that the ants will die before they get to the nest and feed the bait to their nest mates to kill the nest. The 2.5% was attractive, but Pestec was still having difficulty controlling the ants with that bait. • Cockroach cleanout at Brookside Shelter Pestec performed an extensive treatment of the Brookside Homeless Shelter in Richmond to remove a large cockroach population, mostly on the men’s side of the building. • Structural IPM program pesticide use In FY 17-18, 10 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 7 lbs. less than last fiscal year. Ant baits and soap solution accounted for 68% of the pesticide used. Pestec continues to successfully manage rats and mice exclusively with traps, sanitation, and pest proofing. • Bed bugs in County buildings In January and February, Pestec and the IPM Coordinator visited the Brookside and Concord Shelters to provide staff with refresher trainings in managing bed bugs. There were 19 calls from County staff about bed bugs this year, but only 4 were confirmed to actually be bed bugs. o Pittsburg Health Clinic found a bed bug in a waiting room in February. Pestec inspected the area and dusted the baseboards with Cimexa (silica aerogel). EVS cleaned the floor and the chairs. Pestec left sticky traps, and no more bed bugs have been found in the monitors or seen by staff. o In February the Concord Homeless Shelter had a small bed bug outbreak, but shelter staff cleaned, disinfected, and steamed the 21 affected beds. From time to time since, bed bugs have been found on beds, but staff have been diligent about cleaning beds and preventing an infestation. o The Brookside Shelter found bed bugs on one bed this year, but staff disinfected and steamed the bed without needing Pestec’s help. o Concord Adult Mental Health found a bed bug on a wall in March. Pestec inspected and confirmed the identification and left sticky monitors. Staff was instructed to clean thoroughly and no bed bugs have been found since. Facilities Division Challenges • Pest exclusion in County buildings This will always be a challenge, but the Facilities Division is doing a good job addressing the issues Pestec finds during inspections of County buildings. The Division’s first priority is to address health, safety, and access issues. As can be seen this year, pest proofing has a significant impact on reducing pest problems. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 42 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 17 12/10/18 Woodchips stockpiled at the Grounds Corporation Yard Logs awaiting chipping Wood chips used for weed suppression and water conservation in a County landscape • Ant baiting Pestec continues to review 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 three years. They continue to work on a proprietary bait station that they hope will be more effective in the County. • Bed bugs in County buildings The biggest challenge with bed bugs continues to be in the County shelters. This year we had one small bed bug outbreak at the Concord shelter, but staff handled the situation well. Keeping staff up-to-date on their bed bug prevention training is the key to keeping bed bugs as occasional invaders of shelters and not permanent infestations. Public Works Grounds Division IPM Program Highlights • Premium mulch from pallets and dead trees This year the Grounds Division ground about 800 cubic yards of woodchips from pallets, trees downed in storms, and trees killed by the drought. Considering that high quality wood chips cost at least $32/cu. yd. delivered, this represents around $25,600 worth of mulch for the County. The County’s 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. Pallets come from a number of sources. Staff continue to spread this woodchip mulch at numerous sites throughout the County for weed prevention and water conservation. They have spread approximately 400 cu. yds. (that covers approximately 32,400 sq. ft. at 4 inches deep) so far this year. Where possible, trees are chipped and used onsite; otherwise chips are hauled from the Corporation Yard. 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 43 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 18 12/10/18 • Using recycled water in County landscapes There are now seven sites using reclaimed water: 1. 2467 Waterbird (Grounds Division offices) 2. 920 Mellus (Sheriff/Coroner) 3. 2530 Arnold (Summit Center--Assessor, Redevelopment, Risk Management) 4. Hemme Station Park in Alamo 5. Livorna Park in Alamo 6. Martinez Detention Facility 7. Pittsburg Health Center • Irrigation Management The Division has installed Weather Trak 3, a smart irrigation system at 8 County sites (and 2 more are under consideration). This system can be programmed at the controller or remotely using a mobile device. The system uses weather data, and information about soil type and plants to deliver the right amount of water throughout the year. Staff can monitor irrigation performance from their mobile phones and receive alerts on their phones if there are irrigation problems. Systems can be shut down remotely if a repair is needed, which saves an emergency trip to the site. This system conserves water and grows healthier plants, plants that are more resistant to pests. • Interfacing with structural pest control Staff have learned to pay special attention to keeping plants, bushes, and trees away from structures to prevent pest access to buildings. • Managing gophers with trapping and CO2 The Division continues to use trapping and CO2 for gophers in County landscaping. Trapping is the main method. The CO2 device would be used if there were large areas with extensive infestations. • Pesticide use in FY 17-18 In 2010, the Grounds Division consciously decided to eliminate the use of 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 fiscal year, staff used 34 more pounds than in FY 16-17. This still represents a 64% reduction in pesticide use compared to FY 00-01 when the County started collating pesticide use records. The Division continues to improve the condition of County 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 has changed, but the seeds from plants that went unmanaged for years continue to produce large populations of weeds. • Where herbicides are not used The Grounds Division does not use pesticides on turf or around any Head Start or school facilities. Weeds at these sites are managed by hand pulling or mechanical means. Weeds in large open areas that the Division is responsible for are managed mechanically by Bodhaine Discing/Grading and The Landscape Company. Grounds Division Challenges • Staffing needs The Grounds Division now has a Maintenance Supervisor and is in the process of hiring 2 lead gardeners to fill recently vacated positions. They hired 3 new gardeners to fill positions that were vacated earlier this year. They have 1 irrigation specialist presently, but really need 2. The Division is lacking a Pest Specialist but hopes to fill that position soon. They have 1 temporary groundskeeper who they hope will apply for permanent status. Even so, the Division still has 3 vacant gardener positions. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 44 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 19 12/10/18 Clayton Valley Drain, looking west and downstream. The majority of the dark green vegetation is the planted native perennials. Drought stress in the County The Division continues to deal with a large number of diseased, stressed, and dying trees, although the death rate is slowing. 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. Public Works Department Roadside and Flood Control Channel Maintenance Division IPM Program Highlights • Subcommittee work Staff worked with the IPM Coordinator to finalize the decision documentation for vegetation management on County roads and on flood control channels. • Annual habitat assessment refresher training This year, Public Works Maintenance employees again attended the annual refresher training on 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 any work can commence in an area, an assessment must be conducted to identify endangered species habitat. Crews perform habitat assessments, and 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 This is the fifth year the County Flood Control District has been partnering with The Restoration Trust, an Oakland-based non-profit organization, 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). Over the 5 years since the original planting in December 2013, the Contra Costa County Flood Control District, The Restoration Trust, Boy Scout Troop 239, and hundreds of other hardworking volunteers have planted tens of thousands of native grass and sedge plugs, and removed thousands of pounds of trash. The Public Works Maintenance Division continues, at the request of The Restoration Trust, to occasionally spray the area for broadleaf weeds to reduce competition and provide the native plants with an advantage. The Division has also been providing weed management by mowing and grazing, 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 broadleaf- specific herbicides. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 45 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 20 12/10/18 Kestrel box in Kubicek Basin American kestrel A turkey stops by for a selfie This project has been the focus of considerable effort over the last 5 years, with volunteers planting, and County staff watering, weeding, grazing, and applying herbicides. The natives on the 0.2 mile stretch the project covers have not expanded enough to out-compete the weeds growing in this area. This is an admirable restoration project, but as an alternative to mowing or spraying the 76 miles of flood control channels in the County, establishing native vegetation would take a very long time and would be an arduous and expensive task. • Barn owl and kestrel boxes on County property The barn owl box installed at Livorna Park in August 2016 by Boy Scout Troop 815, in cooperation with the County Clean Water Program and the Public Works Special Districts Division, housed its first family of owls in 2017. The box was cleaned in October 2017 to ready it for new occupants. In October 2018, the nest box was inspected and cleaned again. Sadly, only a few feathers and an unhatched, dried egg were found. It appears that a nesting pair did use the box, but were unsuccessful. Public Works Special Districts, which manages Livorna Park, no longer uses rodenticides in any of its parks and other Special Districts. In response to drastic population declines of the American kestrel, the Contra Costa County Flood District partnered with a local citizen science group called “The Kestrel Campaign” to monitor reproductive activity in the greater Mount Diablo area, using dozens of nest boxes. Two nest boxes were permitted in the Kubicek Flood Detention Basin in Walnut Creek in 2017. The boxes are strategically placed along ideal habitat in an attempt to collect data for nation-wide research. The American kestrel is the smallest falcon in North America. This beautiful bird of prey was once abundant in our region but has declined precipitously by 69% due to loss of habitat, fewer viable nesting cavities, and secondary poisoning due to eating prey affected by rodenticides. Kestrels did not move into the Kubicek Basin boxes over the spring of 2018; however, three successful boxes just south of our boxes fledged several new falcons each, confirming the flood basin boxes are appropriately placed. The Kubicek Basin is situated between the foothills of Mount Diablo and the suburbs of Walnut Creek and is naturally home to a diverse variety of wildlife, including black-tailed deer, coyote, bobcat, alligator lizard, opossum, raccoon, rabbit, rodents, birds of prey, and so much more. Interestingly enough, a wildlife camera attached to one of the boxes snapped evidence of other feathered visitors to our two nest boxes: northern Flicker woodpeckers took nesting material out of the boxes, an owl frequently used the box as a night hunting perch, and a curious turkey wandered through. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 46 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 21 12/10/18 Mulch along the access road on Walnut Creek Pine Creek before grazing Pine Creek after grazing • Grazing as a vegetation management tool The Public Works Maintenance Division continues to use grazing as an effective tool for vegetation management, mainly on flood control facilities. Using grazing to manage vegetation 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). 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. Grazing costs Costs vary widely among sites depending on the factors mentioned above. This year costs ranged from $2533/acre to graze Pine Creek Dam to $411/acre to graze Walnut Creek channel. • 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 47 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 22 12/10/18 Pine bark beetle damage • Removing beetle infested and damaged trees This year the Division again spent considerable time removing damaged trees and dead trees infected with pine bark beetles. These trees must be chipped or otherwise disposed of onsite to prevent spread of disease or infestation. These problems have been exacerbated by the prolonged drought of the previous years that stressed and weakened many trees in the County. • Fire fuel reduction challenges in 2018 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 17-18, there was a large volume of weeds to be managed. Again, this year fire districts were requiring weed abatement to be completed in some areas by May 30. The Routine Maintenance Agreement with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife stipulates that no work can begin in Contra Costa flood control facilities prior to April 15. Once again, it was impossible for staff to complete all the mowing in the short four to six-week window available before the deadline. Because some flood control channels were mowed so early in the season, crews had to return to mow them a second time because vegetation had grown back. Along flood control facilities and access roads, the weed abatement crew is applying pre-emergents around gates, fencelines, and flood control structures so that when mowing crews come through, they can spend less time hand mowing which makes it more likely that the County will meet its fire fuel reduction deadlines. Some of the pre-emergent herbicide applications along roadsides failed because there was not enough rain at the right times to activate the herbicides in the soil. Staff went back to these areas to spot spray weeds that had broken through the pre-emergent treatment. • 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 • Lack of staff and a supervisor for the Vegetation Management Crew 1. The crew has been missing a Vegetation Management Supervisor for a year. 2. There are 2 Senior Vegetation Management Technician positions. Both are vacant. 3. There are 3 Vegetation Management Technicians. Two positions are filled and one is vacant 4. There are 4 Maintenance Worker positions. All 4 positions are filled. The Division is having considerable difficulty filling the supervisory and staff positions that are open. This seriously impacts the work the crew is able to accomplish. • Declining funds for road maintenance Road maintenance, including vegetation management, is funded solely from the gasoline tax. The County does not contribute any money from the General Fund to road maintenance except for a small amount going to specific drainage projects. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 48 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 23 12/10/18 Funds coming from the gas tax have been declining for years because the tax had not been increased. At the same time, cars have become much more fuel efficient. In addition, there are many electric vehicles on the road that pay no gas tax for maintenance of the roads on which they drive. In December 2016 California passed SB 1 (which sustained an attempt at repeal in November 2018) that will help counties with road maintenance; however, funds must first be applied to bring the Average Pavement Condition Index up to 80 (Contra Costa’s index is in the 60s) before any money would be available for vegetation management. • 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. If crews identify listed species at job sites, consultation with CDFW can result in using alternative work methods that were more costly. Four years ago, the CalFire increased the safety requirements for mowing, and these measures continue in effect. These measures help prevent fires and injuries to workers but increase the cost of mowing. 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. • Cost implications of various management techniques In FY 17-18, 75% of the Division’s expenditures on vegetation management was spent on non-chemical treatment methods, on 56% of the total acres treated (see the table below for details). 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 49 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 24 12/10/18 A Cost* Comparison of Vegetation Management Methods for Roadsides and Flood Control Channels Fiscal Year 2017-18 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 415 31.4% $114,365 $276 13.3% Right of Way Mowing (mainly flood control facilities) 521 39.4% $428,384 $822 49.9% Chemical Treatment – Flood Control Access Roads 120 9.1% $57,539 $479 6.7% Chemical Treatment – Flood Control Banks 8 0.6% $10,421 $1303 1.2% Grazing (mainly Flood Control facilities) 224.4 17.0% $212,800 $948 24.9% Chemical Treatment - Aquatic Applications 33 2.5% $32,848 $995 3.8% Mulching (flood control access rds & access rd shoulders) 0.1 0.0% $2,078 $20,780 0.2% Totals 1321.5 $858,435 * 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. Note: The legend to the right of the pie chart identifies slices starting from 12 o’clock and continuing clockwise. 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 above further illustrate the cost of various management techniques and show how the Division has allocated resources. • 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 39.4% 9.1% 0.6%2.5% 31.4% 0.0% 17.0% FY17-18 Vegetation Management Methods Mowing Chemical -Creek Access Roads Chemical -Creek Banks Chemical -Aquatic Applications Chemical -Roads Mulching Grazing -Goats & Sheep $822 $479 $1,303 $995 $276 $20,780 $948 FY17-18 Vegetation Management Cost / Acre Mowing Chemical -Creek Access Roads Chemical -Creek Banks Chemical -Aquatic Applications Chemical -Roads Mulching Grazing -Goats & Sheep 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 50 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 25 12/10/18 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 51 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 26 12/10/18 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 9 years. For information on how pesticide use is reported in California and for more detailed pesticide use data including total product use, see Appendix E 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 FY 16- 17 FY 17- 18 Facilities 17 5 9 16 6 16 30 17 10 PW Special Dist.10 45 7 7 2 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 Grounds 46 113 378 377 492 338 433 303 337 Agriculture 687 795 539 529 498 153 76 68 94 Public Works 8,165 6,439 5,713 6,565 4,688 4,780 4,607 4,321 3,473 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Lbs. of Active IngredientCCC Operations Pesticide Use by Program 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 52 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 27 12/10/18 Decrease in Pesticide Use by County Operations Since FY 00-01, the County has reduced its use of pesticide by 79%. Note that Departmental pesticide use fluctuates from year to year depending on many factors. 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 graph below. In Fiscal Year 00-01, County operations used 6,546 lbs. of “Bad Actor” active ingredients and this year used 622 lbs, a 90% reduction. CCC Operations Total Pesticide Use vs. ‘Bad Actor’ Use 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. The amount of rodenticide used by the Department increased by 0.75 lb due to larger ground squirrel populations. This is probably caused by the wet winter in 2016-17 and the average rainfall in 2017-18 that produced abundant vegetation. Ground squirrels feed on green vegetation and later in the year on seeds and nuts. The increased availability of food undoubtedly allowed more ground squirrels to survive and breed. The Grounds Division and Special Districts have eliminated the use of rodenticides and manage vertebrate pests with trapping and CO2. 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 FY 16- 17 FY 17- 18 Total Use 18,939 14,396 12,669 11,106 8,925 7,397 6,646 7,495 5,685 5,287 5,146 4,709 3,914 Total Bad Actors 6,546 3,183 3,494 2,899 2,556 1,596 1,126 1,353 1,043 1,021 779 899 622 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Lbs. of Active Ingredient 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 53 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 28 12/10/18 “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 is a bar chart to illustrate the decline in rodenticide use 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. From FY 14-15 to FY 16-17, 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. Special Districts no longer uses any rodenticides. All vertebrate pest management is accomplished by trapping. 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 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 Agriculture Dept.3 3 4 3 1 3 1.230 1.150 1.900 PW Special Dist.9 12 7 7 2 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Lbs. of Active IngredientRodenticide* Use by County Operations 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 54 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 29 12/10/18 less hazardous but not as effective, the addition or subtraction of new pest management projects in 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 79%. If further reductions in pesticide use are to be made, it will require time for focused study and additional funding for implementation. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 55 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 30 12/10/18 Departmental Integrated Pest Management Priorities For 2019 Agriculture Department Priorities for 2019 • 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 2019 season. The Department has moved toward a more collaborative role with private landowners and will encourage landowners to take the primary role for weed control on their properties. The Department will continue their surveillance for and removal of any Japanese dodder, red sesbania, and kangaroo thorn. 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 ways to reduce ground squirrel damage to a tolerable level 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 2019 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 • 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 56 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 31 12/10/18 Roadside and Flood Control Maintenance Division • Fill the Vegetation Supervisor position This position has been vacant for several years. The County has had difficulty in attracting candidates who possess the minimum requirements for the job. • Fill all other vacant positions • Work to insure continuity in the vegetation management program This is extremely important for maintaining the high quality of the vegetation management program, especially considering the current staffing problems. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 57 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 33 12/10/18 Appendix A. • Report of the Decision-Making Subcommittee to the Contra Costa County IPM Committee • Decision-Making Documents o Vegetation on Roadsides and Rights-of-Way o Vegetation on Flood Control Channels o Contra Costa County General Pest Management Decision Tree 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 58 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 35 12/10/18 Report of the Decision-Making Subcommittee to the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. Prepared by Andrew M. Sutherland, Subcommittee Chair, and Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator November 2018 Members Susan Captain Jim Cartan Jim Donnelly – vice chair Andrew Sutherland - chair Larry Yost The Decision-Making Subcommittee, as a service to the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee and the residents of the County, works to document situation-specific pest management decision-making processes and to revise existing County decision documents. The subcommittee is charged with making recommendations that may improve the County’s pest management processes while preventing or minimizing associated negative impacts. Since our last report (November 2017), the Decision-Making Subcommittee has met seven times: March 1, April 5, May 10, June 14, August 2, September 6, and November 6, 2018. For this report, recent activities have been grouped into three broad themes below: weed management by the Department of Public Works along rights-of- way, ground squirrel management by the Department of Agriculture, and generalized common elements of decision documents and the decision-making process. Weed management along rights-of-way The subcommittee continued review of decision-making for vegetation management by the Department of Public Works along County rights-of-way. This large pest management program was divided into two decision documents: Weed Management along Roadsides and Weed Management along Flood Control Channels. The revision of the roadsides document began during spring 2017, while revision of the flood control document began during summer 2017. Drafts of both documents were approved by the subcommittee on May 10, 2018. These documents, as approved, are both attached. Key findings from the subcommittee are as follows: • Funding is the limiting factor for decision making within these vegetation management programs. As explained by Allison Knapp (Public Works) during a presentation in September 2017, virtually all funding for this work is provided by gasoline taxes. The revenue from these taxes has been decreasing steadily due to improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and increases in electric, hybrid, and alternative fuel vehicles. • Mowing is considered a viable alternative to herbicide application in some areas, but terrain, endangered species issues, funding, and labor shortages preclude widespread use. • Grazing using goats is another tactic that is used as extensively as possible. Ground squirrel control by the Department of Agriculture The subcommittee began review of this pest management situation and the associated 2013 decision document Ground Squirrel Management for Critical Infrastructure. This pest situation is responsible for the largest County use of anticoagulant rodenticides (1.9 lbs of the active ingredient diphacinone in FY 17-18). The nontarget issues surrounding use of anticoagulants continue to be important to the County and its residents. The review process began on April 5, 2018 and is ongoing. Key findings from the subcommittee are as follows: • The Agriculture Department manages ground squirrels as a service for the Public Works Department and for two other County entities: the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) and the Byron Boys Ranch. The WCDF and the Byron Boys Ranch do not constitute critical infrastructure and will be considered within a separate decision document. Work on this document, tentatively entitled Ground Squirrel Management: On-Call Service, will begin when the Critical Infrastructure document has been completed and approved. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 59 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 36 12/10/18 • Some management tactics considered as alternatives to anticoagulants, such as fumigation (gas cartridges, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide), are most effective when carried out in spring when soil is moist. All Agriculture Department staff are committed to the noxious weed program during spring. This labor shortage presents a major limitation to the adoption and widespread use of these alternatives by the Agriculture Department. Because of this labor limitation, the County has traditionally used diphacinone- treated grain bait to manage ground squirrels around critical infrastructure. Baiting is only effective from around June through October when grasses are dry (ground squirrels prefer green grass over rolled oat bait when grass is available). • Monitoring for ground squirrels along County roads and flood control channels is carried out by road maintenance and vegetation management crews in the Public Works Department. Monitoring for ground squirrels at the two County airports is done by airport staff. Just prior to treatment, the Agriculture Department monitors sites they have been alerted to by other County staff as well as sites that have historically been infested by ground squirrels to ensure squirrels are present and will consume grain bait. Because Agriculture Department staff are unavailable during the spring, staff could not respond to a sighting of ground squirrel damage at that time unless it were an emergency. For the on-call services noted above, the Department may not know about ground squirrel issues until a large population causes problems, precluding the use of effective management tactics only appropriate for smaller populations. The County has transferred the responsibility for monitoring and managing ground squirrels at the WCDF and the Byron Boys Ranch to Pestec, whose staff regularly visit these sites. • The subcommittee decided to develop a decision tree that will be associated with Ground Squirrel Management for Critical Infrastructure. Work on this decision tree has not yet begun. Generalized common elements of the County’s IPM decision-making processes During discussions associated with review of the pest management situations and decision documents above, several resources, such as decision trees, checklists, and generalized language, were revised or developed that will improve common elements of the County’s decision documents and overall IPM program extension: • A generalized decision tree entitled Pest Management Flow Chart was reviewed (beginning in September 2017), revised, and approved on June 14, 2018. • A discussion on October 12, 2017 about posting requirements, posting policies, public access, and sensitive sites led to the formation of the Posting Task Force. This group solidified our understanding of these issues and made its own recommendations to the IPM Advisory Committee. • A discussion on March 1, 2018 about public information on known hazards associated with pesticide applications led to the development of new language and new resources associated with the decision document section Chemical Controls. These new items were incorporated into the rights-of-way decision documents approved during 2018 and noted above. • A discussion about presence of known aquifers, reservoirs, wells, and infiltration basins on May 10, 2018 led to new language associated with sensitive sites. • A comprehensive checklist that helps users define sensitive sites within pest management programs was developed during spring 2018 and approved by the subcommittee on August 2, 2018. Subcommittee Recommendations The Decision-Making subcommittee recommends the following: • The IPM Advisory Committee convene a panel of vegetation managers from neighboring counties to hear about IPM strategies used elsewhere; this would inform the County’s existing programs, present available alternatives, and provide recommendations for the future • The IPM Advisory Committee form an ad hoc subcommittee to arrange the above panel and choose the speakers • The County continue to evaluate new and existing weed management tactics, considering efficacy, cost, impacts to the environment, and impacts to the community • The roadside and flood control weed management documents be reviewed every three years, given ongoing development of new methods, changing environmental conditions, and potential changes to budgets 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 60 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 37 12/10/18 • The sensitive site checklist be included on all County decision documents • The Pest Management Flow Chart be made publicly available on the County’s IPM program web pages and that a link be provided within each decision document in the section ‘What are the management goals?’ • The Pest Management Flow Chart be included within annual IPM and pesticide safety training programs for County staff • The new language and new resources developed for the roadside and flood control decision documents be included in all County decision documents • All IPM decision documents, once approved, be made publicly available on the County’s IPM program web pages • The County Board of Supervisors allocate funding to the departmental IPM programs to enable pilot testing and evaluation of emerging and innovative pest management strategies and tactics • The IPM Advisory Committee make the Decision Making subcommittee a standing subcommittee 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 61 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 39 12/10/18 Contra Costa County DECISION DOCUMENTATION for VEGETATION MANAGEMENT on County Roadsides and Road Rights-of-Way Date: February 3, 2017 (last revision on 11/29/18) Department: Public Works Maintenance Division Location: Unicorporated rural areas Situation: Vegetation management along roadsides and road rights-of-way Note that management decisions are site specific for roads. Not every management technique will work equally well at all sites and for all weeds, and the costs of each technique will vary depending on the site. The County has developed a flowchart to aid the decision-making process. See the CCC General Pest Management Decision Tree for a summary of the decision-making process. What are the management goals for these sites? To reduce fire risk: The County is subject to the regulations of 8 separate fire districts. The following are the districts and the links to their regulations (if available): • Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ConFire) http://www.cccfpd.org/pdfs/WA-2-minimum-standards-17.pdf • Crocket-Carquinez Fire Protection District (regulations not apparent on website) • East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (same regs as ConFire) • Kensington Fire Department (same regs as Richmond) • Moraga-Orinda Fire District http://www.mofd.org/_literature_196457/Exterior_Hazard_Abatement_Standards • Pinole Fire Department (regulations not apparent on website) • Richmond Fire Department http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/38822 • San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District -- http://www.firedepartment.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4207 The County manages to the most restrictive regulations of the 8 fire districts, which are described in the County’s fire protection ordinance: Title 7, Division 722, Section 320.4.1 says, “No person who has any ownership or possessory interest in or control of parcel of land shall allow to exist thereon any hazardous rubbish, weeds, trees, or other vegetation that constitutes a fire hazard.” Title 7 Division 722, Section 320.4.2.1 says, “The Fire Code Official is authorized to cause areas within 10 feet (3048 mm) on each side of portions of streets which are improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic to be cleared of flammable vegetation and other combustible growth.” The Public Works Department tries to maintain an 8 foot strip, where practical, of vegetation-free ground (not including trees, shrubs, or landscaping) along each side of a road. Fire district regulations stipulate that vegetation management must typically be completed by May 1, and at the very latest by July 1, in order to avoid abatement notices from the local fire district. The May 1 deadline is a recent change and makes it more difficult for the crew to perform all the needed work between the time that weather conditions permit work and May 1. To maintain road safety: The County maintains road safety in accordance with the County’s best management practices. The following are some of the management practices: • Prevent sight line obstruction of signs, pullouts, ditches on sides of the road, obstacles on sides of the road (California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 1480-1485) • Prevent a perceived narrowing of the roadway from large plants growing close to the side of the road that can force drivers to move to the center of the road • Maintain adequate road drainage (vegetation can clog ditches and drains) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 62 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 40 12/10/18 • Keep pavement intact as long as possible o Plants next to pavement or growing into cracks in pavement can allow water to move down under the asphalt causing it to buckle and crack more. o Weeds growing along the shoulder can hasten the deterioration of the shoulder which can lead to hazardous roadside conditions, especially for bicycles, but also for cars if the drop from the road surface becomes large. To reduce liability for the County: Fires, accidents, and law suits against the County are a regular and costly occurrence. To prevent the movement of invasive plants along roadway corridors; Invasive plant seeds and parts can be carried far and wide by animals, wind, and water moving along roadsides. Even vehicle tires and undercarriages, bicycle tires, and people’s footwear can move weeds from one place to another. With these management goals in mind, the most appropriate management tactics are chosen based on cost, efficacy, impacts to the environment, public health, and other impacts to the public. Who has jurisdiction over the areas in question? The County owns the roads and rights-of-way and is responsible for their maintenance. The local fire districts are responsible for insuring that property owners and managers follow their regulations. Note: In general, in unicorporated areas where there are curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, the homeowner is responsible for vegetation management. Number of road miles under management The total number of road miles is 660 (a road mile includes both sides of the road). Approximately 325 to 375 road miles are under active vegetation management (the number changes with the weather and other factors from year to year). Not all of the 660 road miles are rural roads, many are in unicorporated residential areas where the Public Works Department does not manage roadside vegetation. Number of staff available for vegetation management activities Currently the Division has no Vegetation Management Supervisor; the position has been vacant for a year. There are 2 Senior Vegetation Management Technicians; both positions are vacant. There are 3 Vegetation Management Technicians; 2 positions are filled and the other is vacant. The 4 Maintenance Worker positions are filled. Source of funding Road maintenance, including vegetation management, is funded solely from the gasoline tax. The County does not contribute any money from the General Fund except for a small amount going to specific drainage projects. The funds coming from the gas tax have been declining for years because the tax has not been increased, while at the same time cars have become much more fuel efficient. In addition there are many electric vehicles on the road that pay no gas tax for maintenance of the roads on which they drive. With the passage of California Senate Bill 1 in December 2016, the County will see a much needed increase in funds for road maintenance; however, the extra funds must first go to bring the average Pavement Condition Index up to 80 or better. At present, CCC’s arterial Pavement Condition Index is in the 60s. Thankfully, SB 1 sustained an attempt at repeal in November 2018. The following are the main provisions of SB 1: • $0.12 increase in gasoline tax/gallon, with inflation adjustment • Increase to the Vehicle License Fee of between $25 and $175, with inflation adjustment, depending on the cost of the vehicle • $0.20 increase in the tax/gallon on diesel • An increase in vehicle registration fee for 2020 and later model zero-emission vehicles of $100 with inflation adjustment • The bill would impose various requirements on the department and agencies receiving these funds. The bill would authorize a city or county to spend its apportionment of funds under the program on transportation priorities other than those allowable pursuant to the program if the city’s or county’s average Pavement Condition Index meets or exceeds 80. How often is the site monitored? All sites in the county are monitored every few days. The Vegetation Management Supervisor spends part of every day inspecting roadways on a rotating basis. The road crews, the road crew supervisors, and the vegetation management crew are all trained to recognize vegetation issues on roadsides and road rights-of-way and to report them to the Supervisor. Monitoring information is recorded on the Vegetation Management Supervisor’s Daily Report. If a new weed species is found, the Supervisor identifies and researches the weed. If he/she cannot identify the specimen, he/she consults the County Department of Agriculture. If a weed on the California Department of Food and Agriculture A-rated list is found, the County Agriculture Department is also consulted. Weeds have been identified as the following: Any species that can pose a fire danger or sight obstruction, including volunteer trees and otherwise desirable species, will be managed to maintain the integrity of the road and road shoulder. Key weeds are listed below. The list is continually updated as vegetation changes. Invasive species: • Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) • Purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa) • Russian thistle, or tumbleweed (Salsola tragus) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 63 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 41 12/10/18 • Kochia (Kochia scoparia) • Stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens) • French broom (Genista monspessulana) • Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) • Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) • Algerian ivy (Hedera algeriensis) • Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) Other species: • Poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) • Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) • Mare’s tail (Conyza canadensis) • Mustard (Brassica spp.) • Mallow or cheeseweed (Malva spp.) • Various grasses The Department does not have a specific invasive weed management program; however, t he vegetation management crew is trained to look for invasives when they are out working. Are populations high enough to require control? The Vegetation Management crew manages vegetation as necessary to meet the management goals noted above. At times, vegetation re-growth may be sparse enough and the fire risk low enough that a decision might be made to leave the re-growth alone. Are these sensitive sites? Are any areas “highly sensitive sites” as defined by PWD Environmental staff? A highly sensitive site contains a known habitat for, or is close to sightings of, endangered or threatened species. Refer to the attached flow chart for an outline of how sensitive sites are determined and handled. No Are any areas under the Routine Maintenance Agreement with Fish and Wildlife? It’s possible if a road shoulder is under the riparian canopy. Are any areas part of the court-ordered injunctions? (see: https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/interim-use-limitations-eleven- threatened-or-endangered-species-san-francisco-bay) Some areas are included in the red legged frog injunction. The Department has a map of areas included in the red legged frog injunction. The injunctions specify buffer zones around designated habitat for certain species for particular pesticides, but they do not preclude the use of those pesticides outside the buffer zones. Yes Are any areas known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species? Some areas border habitat or potential habitat for species, but the actual gravel road shoulder is not suitable habitat for most vertebrates. No Are these areas places where people walk or children play? Most of the roads and rights-of-way covered by this document are not suitable for pedestrian traffic or for children to play. Areas where people walk are the following: • Iron Horse Trail • Clyde Pedestrian Path • Delta De Anza Trail (county only maintains a small portion) Occasionally Are they near an above ground drinking water reservoir? Yes, some Are they near crops? Yes, in some cases. Are they near desirable trees or landscaping? Yes, occasionally Is the soil highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly? Yes, in some areas. Hoffman Road is one. Yes Is the ground water near the surface? Unknown, other than Hoffman Road Are they within a Groundwater Protection Area? No 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 64 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 42 12/10/18 Are they within an infiltration basin? No What factors are taken into account when determining the management technique(s) for vegetation? • Species of plant • Stage of growth • Plant density • Plant location (accessibility, topography, adjacent properties) • Weather (precipitation, wind, temperature, relative humidity) • Road condition—if a road is in very poor condition, vegetation growing close to the edge can cause more damage than if a road is in good condition. Every 7 to 10 years, the road is scheduled for resurfacing and there must be a clear corridor for the work. • Personnel available to perform the management activities when they are needed • Safety (for the public, staff, wildlife, adjacent property, the general environment ) • Proximity to water resources and wildlife • Aesthetics of the site • State and local regulations • Budget available Are special permits required for work? If the Department were to use Vanquish (dicamba), which is restricted because of volatility, it would need to file with the County Department of Agriculture a Notice of Intent (NOI) to apply the material. Note that the Department has not used Dicamba in 5 years. Which cultural controls were considered? Mulching • It is difficult to contain mulch on the side of the road. There is a danger that it could clog drainage ditches and drains, run off into waterways, present road hazards to bicyclists. • Wood chip mulch is combustible and would only add to the fire danger. • The cost of buying and/or spreading mulch along roadsides would be prohibitive and very dangerous for the crew. Weed Barriers • Rubber mats can be used around guard rails, but are very expensive. Weeds can grow up through the joints in the mats and on top of the mats in accumulated soil and organic matter. Rubber mats are combustible, and the resulting fire releases noxious fumes. • Fabric barriers are expensive and very costly to install, hard to anchor to the ground, and vehicles can tear them, rendering them ineffective. • Weed seeds can germinate in the organic matter that accumulates on the weed barrier or is intentionally placed there. Planting Desirable Species • This has been used in some limited circumstances in Yolo County, but these areas are still managed with mowing, burning, and spot applications of herbicide. • Establishment takes time, money, water, and attention. • The plants must conform to very limiting specifications so as not to be sight hazards, fire hazards, etc. They could not be planted adjacent to the road. CONCLUSIONS: Mulching and weed barriers are problematic on roadsides. The Department has not found any areas where these would be appropriate. Planting desirable species is not used at this time because the Department must maintain a vegetation- free zone next to the road. Which physical controls were considered? Pruning: This is used on large vegetation where needed to meet management goals. Mowing by machine: Mowing is used on French broom to reduce the amount of vegetation before herbicide applications. Mowing is also used for blackberries and for willows in place of, or before, herbicide treatment. Mowing on the Iron Horse Trail is contracted out. Machine mowing is not used more extensively because of the following: • Terrain is a limiting factor. Many of the County’s rural roads have unim proved shoulders that are very uneven and have trees growing on them. This makes mowing very difficult. • Mowing may not meet fire regulations in many areas. • Moving in areas with threatened or endangered species can kill these creatures. • Mowing usually requires more than one pass per treatment which increases cost. Depending on the terrain, it may take several passes per treatment to mow down the vegetation. • With mowing there is always the risk of starting a fire when mower blades create sparks from striking rocks or other obstacles. This is a regular occurrence with both machine and hand mowing. • Recent changes in safety regulations for mowing have increased costs and the number of staff needed for each mower. This may have the effect of further limiting the work window. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 65 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 43 12/10/18 • Mowing can also transport invasive plant seeds and parts from one area to another. • There is a narrow window of time when mowing is most effective for meeting fire regulation deadlines. This is the same window of time in which flood control channels must be mowed. If mowing is done too early, the vegetation can grow back and require mowing a second or even third time to meet fire regulations. The Department does not have enough crew and equipment to complete all work by mowing in that space of time. • It is more costly than herbicide treatment. See Table 1 below. • The County’s Climate Action Plan requires a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing mowing would substantially increase those emissions. Mowing by hand: This has limited use on roadsides, but it can be useful around guard rails. • Mowing by hand (weed whacking) can be particularly dangerous for employees: o Traffic presents serious hazards. o Workers can sustain injuries from slipping on steep or rocky terrain. o Workers can sustain injuries from debris being thrown up and onto workers: rocks, glass, barbed wire, pieces of metal and pieces of mower blades. • Hand mowing is even more costly than machine mowing. • There is always a risk of starting a fire. Grazing • Logistics and safety on the side of a narrow country road are very difficult. The liability to the County is high. • Grazing animals can distract motorists, which can be a danger to both the animals and motorists. The animals temporarily remove the emergency parking available on the shoulder. • Grazing is costly for this application, especially because grazing a narrow strip necessitates moving the animals frequently, which is expensive. (See Table 1) Burning: Besides being dangerous, this technique could not be used on roadsides because the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board would not allow it. Electrothermal weeding (Ubiqutek): This method uses a probe carrying electricity at a high voltage (3, 000 to 5,000 to volts) and low amperage (0.5 to 2 amps) to heat plant tissue and kill both roots and above ground plant material. The probe must contact each individual weed. This method is more efficient than steaming or flaming weeds, but would be very slow compared to mowing by machine or hand. High voltage can be lethal, so the device is potentially dangerous to the operator. This method also poses a fire risk because of the intense heat at the point of contact with the plant that can produce sparks and small flames. Currently there have been no independent evaluations of this method. At this time, the Department does not consider this a viable tactic for use on roadsides. Steam weeding (Weedtechnics): This method works by sending water under pressure through a diesel boiler and then out through hoses to an application head. The water comes out at 205 to 218 degrees Fahrenheit. This method is slower than other weed management techniques (it appears that the applicator must drive around 2 mph to treat effectively). A new model (the SW3800KD) is advertised as killing weeds faster. It uses 30 L of water per minute, and with a 1000 L water tank (apparently the largest size available), staff would have to refill the tank about every ½ hour. This tactic should be considered as a contact-only treatment and should not be expected to kill underground portions of the plant. Treatment would have to be repeated periodically during the season. At this time, the Department does not consider this a viable tactic for use on roadsides. Concrete under guard rails or cement treated base for road shoulders: These treatments are long lasting, but very expensive. Currently the County is not installing any new guard rails or shoulders. It is quite difficult to make repairs to concrete slabs if they crack or erode. Once cracks form, weed seeds can sprout in the cracks. Repairing concrete or cement-treated base used on the road shoulder is also very difficult, especially if damage occurs at the edge from erosion. Everything must be torn out and replaced. See Table 1 for more information on costs. CONCLUSIONS: Pruning and machine mowing are used by the Department where they are appropriate. At this time, the other techniques are too dangerous, too costly, or not practical. The County continues to explore new tactics as they emerge. Which biological controls were considered? Biological controls are not applicable in this situation unless a particular invasive weed is the target, and it has an available biological control. Which chemical controls were considered? For more information on pesticides listed here visit the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). This a joint project of Oregon State University and the US During many years of research, experience, and experimentation, including consulting the literature, researchers, and colleagues about materials that are labeled for, and effective on, weeds in rights-of- way, the Division has chosen the herbicide options listed below. The Department continues to consult researchers and colleagues, as well as new literature, to identify new choices that may be more effective, more environmentally friendly, and of lesser human toxicity. Pesticides may potentially exhibit both acute and chronic toxicity. The Signal Words below refer to acute hazards. For information on chronic toxicity, contact NPIC (info on left). Herbicides and application methods are chosen that prevent or minimize the potential for drift and exposure to humans and wildlife. As with all weed control techniques, herbicides must be reapplied 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 66 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 44 12/10/18 EPA. http://npic.orst.edu/ You can communicate with an actual person at 1.800.858.7378 or npic@ace.orst.edu They are open from 8:00AM to 12:00PM Pacific Time, Mon-Fri periodically to suppress weeds over the long term. Note that the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) and the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) both create resistance group designations to help weed managers reduce the likelihood of creating resistant weeds. Every 2 to 3 seasons, the Division rotates herbicide active ingredients according to the resistance group designations from WSSA to limit the buildup of herbicide resistant weeds along the roadsides. Possible herbicide choices (These product names are subject to change.) Pre-emergent Herbicides Esplanade, Gallery, and Resolute are pre-emergent herbicides that are used in the buffer zone next to the road to maintain bare ground. They each belong to a different resistance management group and are used in rotation to prevent herbicide resistance. The Division uses pre-emergent herbicides to reduce the amount of post-emergent herbicides that are needed. Indaziflam (Esplanade®): This pre-emergent herbicide controls a broad spectrum of weeds if applied before germination. It does not generally control weeds after they have emerged. For maximum weed control, the herbicide needs to reach the soil surface and be activated by rainfall or adequate soil moisture. It is applied in the fall to control winter germinating weeds and in the spring to control spring germinating weeds. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 3 to 5 oz/acre Timing: Before weeds sprout in either fall or spring near the time rain is expected. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $125/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 29 On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater Isoxaben (Gallery® S.C.): This pre-emergent controls certain broadleaf weeds. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 20 to 30 oz/acre Timing: Before weeds sprout in either fall or spring near the time rain is expected. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $210/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 21 On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater Prodiamine (Resolute® 65 WDG): This pre-emergent herbicide controls grass and broadleaf weeds by preventing the growth and development of newly germinated weed seeds. Weed control is most effective when the product is activated by at least ½” of rainfall or irrigation, or shallow (1” to 2”) incorporation before weed seeds germinate and within 14 days following application. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 1 to 2 lbs/acre Timing: Before fall weeds or spring weeds germinate, and close to the time rain is expected. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $97/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 3 Post emergent (contact) herbicides Glyphosate (Roundup® Pro Concentrate): Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide (it is absorbed into the plant and circulates to kill the entire plant) that will kill most types of vegetation—grass, broadleaf, vines, brush, etc. Roundup is used as a contact herbicide for emerged grasses on road shoulders. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate for spot spraying on roadsides using a boom mounted on a truck: 2 pts in 20 gal of water/acre Rate for spot spraying by pulling hose with a handgun attached: 6 pts in 100 gal of water/acre This method is used mostly for parcels where a crew must walk rather than drive. Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load Cost to apply (includes material cost): • $135/acre for Roundup application from a boom mounted on a truck • $673/acre for Roundup application from a hose with a handgun Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 9 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 67 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 45 12/10/18 **Enjoined for red legged frog On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater Triclopyr TEA (Garlon® 3A): Garlon 3A is specific for woody plants and broadleaf weeds (but not grasses) and is used for spot treatments. It is usually tank mixed with Roundup. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): DANGER (for eye damage to mixer/loader and applicator) Rate for spot spraying on roadsides using a boom mounted on a truck: 2 to 4 pts in 20 gal of water/acre Rate for spot spraying by pulling hose with a handgun attached: 4 to 6 pts in 100 gal of water/acre This method is used mostly for parcels where a crew must walk rather than drive. Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load Cost to apply (includes material cost): • $146/acre for Garlon 3A application from a boom mounted on a truck • $714/acre for Garlon 3A application from a hose with a handgun Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 4 **Enjoined for red legged frog On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater Herbicides with both Pre- and Post-Emergent Activity Chlorsulfuron (Telar® XP): Telar XP is both a pre-emergent and post-emergent herbicide for the control of many invasive and noxious broadleaf weeds. Warm, moist conditions following application enhance the effectiveness of Telar XP since moisture carries the herbicide into weed roots and prevents them from developing. Weeds hardened off by drought stress are less susceptible to this herbicide. Telar is used primarily for control of difficult broadleaf weeds such as pepperweed. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 1.6 oz/acre Timing: Before fall weeds or spring weeds germinate and close to the time rain is expected. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $113/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 2 On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater Dicamba diglycolamine salt (Vanquish®): Vanquish is used selectively as a spot treatment for difficult to control broadleaf weeds, but it has not been used in the County for 3 years. It is registered for selective broadleaf and brush control and has both pre- and post-emergent qualities. Dicamba is a systemic herbicide that acts as a plant growth regulator, and is a federally restricted material due to the potential for harm to non-target plants. It can volatilize when temperatures are high. A special permit must be obtained from County Ag, and the applicator must notify County Ag in advance of the application. If the application is cancelled, County Ag must be notified. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 1 to 2 pts/acre Timing: Best when weeds are small Cost to apply (includes material cost): $95/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 4 Not on any injunction list On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater Aminopyralid (Milestone®): Milestone is a systemic herbicide with both pre- and post-emergent properties that controls broadleaf weeds without affecting grasses. Milestone is used for the more woody and thick-stemmed weeds on road shoulders. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 5 to 7 oz/acre Timing: Between fall and spring before seeds germinate, but it is a more flexible chemical because it also has contact properties Cost to apply (includes material cost): $96/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 4 Not on any injunction list On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater Sulfometuron methyl (Oust XP®): This pre-emergent and early post-emergent herbicide controls many annual 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 68 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 46 12/10/18 and perennial grasses and broadleaf weeds. The Department rarely uses this on roadsides. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 3.6 to 4.8 oz/acre Timing: Before or just after weeds germinate in the fall or spring. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $95/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 2 On Ground Water Protection list (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in groundwater CONCLUSIONS: When the IPM process calls for the use of herbicides, the products described above are used where most suitable considering cost, efficacy, the environment, human communities, and resistance management. Which herbicide application methods are available for these chemicals? The Department’s current equipment allows for 3 methods of application: • broadcast application or spot treatment from a boom attached to a truck • spot treatment from a handgun attached to a hose connected to a truck-mounted tank • and spot treatment with a backpack. Factors considered in choosing the method of application: 1. The size of the area to be treated a. If the area is large and requires a large quantity of herbicide, the large truck is used because it can hold more material b. If the area is small, and requires a small quantity of herbicide, the small truck may be used. c. If the weeds are limited and close to the road edge, the handgun may be used to spot spray from the cab of the truck. d. If a median island is being treated, a backpack sprayer would be used. 2. The amount of weed growth to be treated a. If weed growth is abundant, more herbicide will be needed and the larger truck would be used. b. If weed growth is less abundant, the smaller truck may be used. 3. The characteristics of the weeds/sites to be treated a. If cut stumps are to be treated, the squirt bottle would be used b. If a stand of poison oak 100 ft. from the road edge is being treated, the handgun and hose would be dragged to the poison oak. c. As noted above, if weed growth is limited and near the edge of the road, the handgun may be used. d. If large swaths of contiguous weed growth are to be treated, a truck, large or small, would be used. 4. The distance from a site where the truck can be reloaded a. There are a number of sites in the County where a Public Works truck could reload herbicide: Byron Airport; Brentwood, Martinez, and Richmond Corp. Yards; and fire stations. b. The distance of the work site from one of the reloading sites is taken into consideration when choosing the application method. c. It takes time and burns more fuel to drive back and forth to reload in the field d. The crew must carry undiluted product, which is more dangerous if there is an accident. 5. Safety a. The large truck is safer in the event of an accident. b. Not having to reload in the field is safer, since undiluted product is not being carried in the truck. c. Using a backpack on a median island is safer than dragging hose across the road. 6. Cost effectiveness a. For environmental reasons and for cost effectiveness, the minimum amount of pesticide needed to do the job should always be used. Therefore the application method should be carefully matched to the job. b. Driving back and forth multiple times to treat a site wastes time, money and fuel and should be avoided. CONCLUSIONS: The terrain, proximity to water, potential human or non-target exposure, kind of weed species, and goal of the treatment dictate the application method. What weather concerns must be checked prior to application? The Vegetation Management Supervisor takes into consideration the pesticide label and all site specific factors. Each day, the Vegetation Manager checks the weather when he/she arrives at work at 6:00 AM. Rain can prevent application of some herbicides because of the danger of runoff. For most pre-emergent herbicides, rain is needed after application in order for the herbicide to be effective. The Vegetation Manager must also consider wind speed (generally it should be <7 mph) and possible temperature inversions to avoid herbicide drift. Crews carry wind meters in their trucks. Crews measure and record weather factors prior to and during application. Excessive heat or cold makes plants shut down, and herbicide applications at that time could be ineffective. The Vegetation Manager uses these factors to write Pest Control recommendations for the crew to follow on the days that spraying takes place. Cost Comparisons for See Table 1, below. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 69 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 47 12/10/18 various mgmt methods on both roadsides and flood control channels Changes in management methods since the previous iteration of this document Since FY 12-13, the Department: • Decreased acres of roadsides treated with chemicals by 61% • Increased acres mowed on flood control channels by 25% • Decreased acres of access road shoulder and fenceline treatments by 37% • Decreased acres treated with chemicals on flood control banks by 92% • Increased acres grazed by goats by 151% • Decreased acres of aquatic chemical treatments by 31% Recommendations from the IPM Advisory Committee • Continue to review all vegetation management methods available for flood control channels and access roads considering efficacy, cost, impacts to the environment, and to the human community. • Encourage investigation into, and experimentation with, new methods. • Review this document every 3 years. Table 1. Methods, Acres Treated, and Cost* for Vegetation Management along Contra Costa Roadsides and Flood Control Channels, Averaged over Two Years (2016-2018)§ Vegetation Management Method Avg # of Acres Treated % of Total Acres Treated Avg. Total Cost for all acres treated Avg Cost/Ac % of Total Cost for all acres treated % Change in Total Acres Treated from FY 12-13 Chemical Treatment - Roads 714.5 48% $137,896 $193 18% -61% Right of Way Mowing (mainly flood control facilities) 318 22% $348,856 $1097 47% 25% Chemical Treatment – Flood Control Access Roads 144.5 10% $50,065 $346 7% -37% Chemical Treatment – Flood Control Banks 14.5 1% $7,467 $515 1% -92% Grazing (flood control facilities) 240.7 16% $158,355 $658 21% +151% Chemical Treatment - Aquatic Applications 41 3% $37,686 $919 5% -31% Mulching (flood control fence-lines and access road shoulders) 0.65 0.04% $6,642 $10,218 1% -89% Totals 1473.75 $746,967 -31% *Table lists the most accurate costs available and is not necessarily specific to roadsides. The cost figures above for each method include labor, materials, equipment costs, contract costs (for grazing), and overhead (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 Sup ervisor when he supervises work is not included in any of the figures, but is comparable among the various methods. §Table is updated each year in the IPM Annual Report. See cchealth.org/ipm. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 70 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 49 12/10/18 Contra Costa County DECISION DOCUMENTATION for WEED MANAGEMENT on County Flood Control Channels Date: October 2, 2017 (last revision on 7/2/18) Department: Public Works Roadside and Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management Div. Location: Flood Control Channels Situation: Vegetation management along 76 miles of flood control channels and creek banks; this includes areas ranging from unimproved natural creeks to concrete-lined channels, along with levies that are certified by the Army Corps of Engineers Note that management decisions are site specific for flood control channels. Not every management technique will work equally well at all sites and the costs of each technique will vary depending on the site. See the CCC General Pest Management Decision Tree for a summary of the decision-making process. What are the management goals for the site? To maintain vegetation along flood control channels and creek banks so that • erosion of the banks does not occur • vegetation does not impede the flow of water in a flood • vegetation does not collect silt and debris that could obstruct the passage of water • vegetation does not hide problems on banks such as ground squirrel burrows, erosion, beaver activity, etc. • vegetation does not pose a fire hazard • vegetation remains a mix of small herbaceous plants and grasses • homeless encampments cannot flourish unnoticed • waterways do not become a conduit for the spread of noxious weeds throughout the county • waterways provide habitat for wildlife • maintenance is performed in accordance with the Routine Maintenance Agreement (RMA) with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife • maintenance is performed in accordance with the regulations from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (San Francisco and San Joaquin) Vegetation is also managed along flood control access roads to maintain the integrity of the roads and ease of access for equipment. With these management goals in mind, the most appropriate management tactics are chosen based on cost, efficacy, impacts to the environment, public health, and other impacts to the public. How often is the site monitored? All sites in the county are monitored every few days to every few weeks. The Vegetation Management Supervisor spends part of every day inspecting waterways on a rotating basis. The road crews, the flood control supervisors, and the vegetation management crew are all trained to recognize vegetation issues on flood control channels and creeks and to report them to the Supervisor. Monitoring information is recorded on the Vegetation Management Supervisor’s Daily Report. If a new weed species is found, the Supervisor identifies and researches the weed. If he/she cannot identify the specimen, he/she consults the County Department of Agriculture. If a weed on the California Department of Food and Agriculture A-rated list is found, the County Agriculture Department is also consulted. Weeds have been identified as the following: Note that this is not a complete list, but a list of the main problem plants. Various grasses, including • Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica) • Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) • Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) • Wild oats (Avena fatua) • Quack grass (Elymus repens) Various broadleaf weeds including 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 71 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 50 12/10/18 • Mustard (Brassica spp.) • Cocklebur (Xanthium sp.) • Poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) • Wild carrot (Daucus carota) • Stinging nettle (Urtica sp.) • Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) Invasive weeds such as • Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) • Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) • Red sesbania (Sesbania punicea) On some engineered channels, cattails (Typha sp.) and trees (willow—Salix, walnut—Juglans, ash—Fraxinus) are considered weeds. The Maintenance Division’s vegetation management crew is trained to look for invasives when they are out working and report them to the Vegetation Manager who consults with the Agriculture Department about what action to take. Are populations high enough to require control? The Vegetation Management crew manages vegetation as necessary to meet the goals above. Is this a sensitive site? Is this a “highly sensitive site” as defined by PWD Environmental staff? A highly sensitive site contains a known habitat for, or is close to sightings of, endangered or threatened species. Refer to the attached flow chart for an outline of how sensitive sites are determined and handled. Some sites fit in this category. Yes Is this under the Routine Maintenance Agreement with Fish and Wildlife? All creeks are covered under the Routine Maintenance Agreement. Yes Is this part of any of the court-ordered injunctions? (see: https://www.epa.gov/endangered-species/interim-use-limitations-eleven- threatened-or-endangered-species-san-francisco-bay) Some areas are included in one or more injunctions. The injunctions specify buffer zones around designated habitat for certain species for particular pesticides, but they do not preclude the use of those pesticides outside the buffer zones. Yes Is this a known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species? Yes, some sites contain habitat for various sensitive species including salmonids, red legged frog, various nesting birds, dusky footed woodrat, salt marsh harvest mouse. Before any kind of work can be done in channels, each site must be assessed by a biological monitor (a trained Public Works staff member) or a Certified Biologist. Yes Is it on or near an area where people may walk or children may play? The Division does not manage pests on established (paved) trails. These trails are mainly under the management of the East Bay Regional Park District. In cases where established trails exist along flood control channels (some areas of Walnut Creek, Marsh Creek, and Wildcat Creek) they are situated above the creek slopes. Access roads along flood control channels are County property and are posted “No Trespassing.” The public should not be on the access roads and enter at their own risk. In general, the public is not allowed access to the slopes or waterway within these environments. Despite these prohibitions to public access, people may continue to visit these areas, and their presence should be noted when preparing to apply pesticides. Any person observed in the treatment area should be notified of the impending treatment and should be requested to vacate the area. Treatment should be suspended while people are present. Yes Is it near an above ground drinking water reservoir? None of the flood control channels that the Division maintains is near a reservoir. No Is it near crops? There are areas of Marsh Creek, Sand Creek, and Dry Creek that are near crops. Yes Is it near desirable trees or landscaping? Yes 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 72 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 51 12/10/18 There are some flood control access roads that are near residences. Is the soil highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly? Yes, in some areas. Yes Is it within a Groundwater Protection Area? No Is it within an infiltration basin? No What factors are taken into account when determining the management technique(s) for vegetation? • Species of plant • Stage of growth • Plant density • Plant location (in water/on land, accessibility, topography, adjacent properties) • Weather (precipitation, wind, temperature, relative humidity) • Personnel available to perform the management activities when they are needed • Safety (for the public, staff, wildlife, adjacent property, the general environment) • Proximity to water resources and wildlife • State and local regulations • Budget available Are special permits required for work? In some instances, depending on the kind of work to be done, it could be necessary to obtain a take permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This would be coordinated through the environmental staff at Public Works. Which cultural controls were considered? Mulching: Woodchips are used on flood control access roads where appropriate to prevent and suppress weeds. Creek banks cannot be mulched. Weed Barrier/Sheet Mulching: This cannot be used on the creek banks, and for the access roads, it would be an added and unnecessary expense since a deep cover of woodchips serves the same purpose. Planting Desirable Species: 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 and each year since, volunteers have replaced plants and planted new plugs. Originally, 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. These species spread from underground rhizomes and will anchor the soil to provide erosion control. They are all perennial species that stay green year around and 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, thereby reducing flow impedance. They are not sensitive to 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. Native grasses and sedges can potentially out-compete non-native broadleaf weeds and annual grasses, but they do require maintenance assistance from herbicides. The Division, at the request of The Restoration Trust, manages weeds to reduce competition and provide the native plants with an advantage. The Restoration Trust will monitor these plots through 2018 to assess native plant survival, the degree to which they compete with the non-native annual species, and the relative success of seeding versus planting plugs. CONCLUSIONS: Mulching can be and is used along flood control access roads where the mulch will not drift into the creek. The Public Works Department is experimenting with planting desirable species to out-compete weedy species. This is an IPM technique the Public Works Department is interested in exploring further. However, establishment of desired species takes considerable time, money, and attention and may require water and/or continued use of herbicide to prevent invasion of undesirable species. Which physical controls were considered? Pruning: Trees are pruned for equipment clearance and for line of sight along access roads. Trees that sprout in engineered channels on the slopes or in creek channels are cut down in order to comply with Army Corps of Engineers regulations. The top of the stump is generally painted with an herbicide to ensure control. Mowing by machine: Many creek slopes are mowed by tractor for fire prevention, as required by the Fire District. The channels are mowed along the top of the slope and a minimum of 6 ft. down the side of the slope. Mowing works best on open spaces without a lot of trees. Mowing by hand: Areas that are not mowed by machine or grazed by animals are usually mowed by a crew with weed whackers. Grazing: Grazing is used where the presence of endangered species, such as the red legged frog, make it difficult to mow, for example, on Pine Creek Dam. Grazing is also used in areas such as Pine Creek and Ygnacio Valley Drain where the creek sides are steep and dangerous for human workers. Although goats are more 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 73 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 52 12/10/18 expensive than hand mowing, their use can help avoid incurring indirect costs such as staff injuries in potentially hazardous locations. The County continues to use goats as a management technique wherever appropriate. For detailed information on how grazing is used in the County, see the decision document for weed management entitled Using Grazing Animals for Weed Abatement. Burning: This technique was used in the past but is no longer because the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board allows burning only in very limited circumstances. Electrothermal weeding (Ubiqutek): This method uses a probe carrying electricity at a high voltage (3, 000 to 5,000 to volts) and low amperage (0.5 to 2 amps) to heat plant tissue and kill both roots and above ground plant material. The probe must contact each individual weed. This method is more efficient than steaming or flaming weeds, but would be very slow compared to mowing by machine or hand. High voltage can be lethal, so the device is potentially dangerous to the operator. This method also poses a fire risk because of the intense heat at the point of contact with the plant that can produce sparks and small flames. Currently there have been no independent evaluations of this method. At this time, the Department does not consider this a viable tactic for use on flood control channels. Steam weeding (Weedtechnics): This method works by sending water under pressure through a diesel boiler and then out through hoses to an application head. The water comes out at 205 to 218 degrees Fahrenheit. This method is slower than other weed management techniques (it appears that the applicator must drive around 2 mph to treat effectively). A new model (the SW3800KD) is advertised as killing weeds faster. It uses 30 L of water per minute, and with their 1000 L water tank, staff would have to refill the tank about every ½ hour. This tactic should be considered as a contact-only treatment and should not be expected to kill underground portions of the plant. Treatment would have to be repeated periodically during the season. At this time, the Department does not consider this a viable tactic for use on flood control channels. See Table 1 for more information on costs. CONCLUSIONS: Each of these techniques, except burning and electrothermal and steam weeding, is used by the Department where appropriate. The County continues to explore new tactics as they emerge. Which biological controls were considered? Biological controls are not applicable in this situation unless a particular invasive weed is the target, and it has a biological control available. Which chemical controls were considered? For more information on pesticides listed here visit the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). This a joint project of Oregon State University and the US EPA. http://npic.orst.edu/ You can communicate with an actual person at 1.800.858.7378 or npic@ace.orst.edu They are open from 8:00AM to 12:00PM Pacific Time, Mon-Fri During many years of research, experience, and experimentation, including consulting the literature, researchers, and colleagues about materials that are labeled for, and effective on, weeds in rights-of- way, the Division has chosen the herbicide options listed below. The Department continues to consult researchers and colleagues, as well as new literature, to identify new choices that may be more effective or more environmentally friendly. Pesticides may potentially exhibit both acute and chronic toxicity. The Signal Words below refer to acute hazards. For information on chronic toxicity, contact NPIC (info on left). Herbicides and application methods are chosen to prevent or minimize the potential for drift and exposure to humans and wildlife. As with all weed control techniques, herbicides must be reapplied periodically to suppress weeds over the long term. Note that the Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) and the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) both create resistance group designations to help weed managers reduce the likelihood of creating resistant weeds. The designations below are from WSSA. Herbicide resistance groups are rotated every 2 to 3 seasons to limit the buildup of herbicide resistant weeds along the roadsides. Possible herbicide choices (These product names are subject to change): Pre-emergent Herbicides Esplanade and Resolute 65 WDG are pre-emergent herbicides that are used only on flood control access roads to prevent weed emergence. They each belong to a different resistance management group and are used in rotation to prevent creating herbicide-resistant weeds. The Department uses pre-emergent herbicides to reduce the amount of post-emergent herbicides that are needed. In some areas, it is very difficult to mow either by hand or by machine, and grazing would be too costly. Those areas are treated with herbicide. Indaziflam (Esplanade®): This pre-emergent herbicide controls a broad spectrum of weeds if applied before germination. It does not generally control weeds after they have emerged. For maximum weed control, the herbicide needs to reach the soil surface and be activated by rainfall or adequate soil moisture. It is applied in the fall to control winter germinating weeds and in the spring to control spring germinating weeds. Indaziflam can be used on flood control access roads, but not on creek banks or in water. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 3 to 5 oz/acre Timing: Before weeds sprout in either fall or spring near the time rain is expected. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $125/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 29 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 74 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 53 12/10/18 On Ground Water Protection List (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in ground water Prodiamine (Resolute® 65 WDG): This pre-emergent herbicide controls grass and broadleaf weeds by preventing the growth and development of newly germinated weed seeds. Weed control is most effective when the product is activated by at least ½” of rainfall or irrigation, or shallow (1” to 2”) incorporation before weed seeds germinate and within 14 days following application. Prodiamine can be used on flood control access roads, but not on creek banks or in water. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 1 to 2 lbs/acre Timing: Before fall weeds or spring weeds germinate, and close to the time rain is expected. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $97/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 3 Post emergent (contact) herbicides Glyphosate, which is not a selective herbicide, is used at a regular rate in areas where it is not necessary to maintain a cover of grasses. Glyphosate, at a much reduced rate, is used to chemically “mow”, or stunt, vegetation on creek banks where feasible. Garlon 3A and Renovate 3 are specific for broadleaf weeds and are used where the Department wants to keep a grassy cover on the creek slopes. Renovate is used to control cattail growth in areas not subject to the injunctions. Either might be used as a cut stump treatment. Clearcast is used for spot treating cattails in flood control channels. Glyphosate (Roundup® Pro Concentrate & Roundup Custom®): Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide (it is absorbed into the plant and circulates to kill the entire plant) that will kill almost any type of vegetation—grass, broadleaf, vines, brush, etc. Roundup Custom is used on creek slopes for many different weeds. Roundup Custom is used at a much reduced rate for chemical ”mowing” on creek slopes to stunt vegetation but not kill it. Roundup Custom is registered for use in water so the Department uses that formulation if applications are going to be very near water. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate for spot spraying on access roads using a boom mounted on a truck: 2 pts in 20 gal of water/acre Rate for spot spraying by pulling hose with a handgun attached: 6 pts in 100 gal of water/acre This method is used mostly where a crew must walk rather than drive. Rate for chemical mowing: 1/5 pt in 10 gal of water/acre Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load Costs to apply (includes material cost): • $135/acre for Roundup application from a boom mounted on a truck • $673/acre for Roundup application from a hose with a handgun • $606/acre for Roundup Custom used for chemical mowing Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 9 **Enjoined for red legged frog On Ground Water Protection List (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in ground water. Triclopyr TEA (Garlon® 3A and Renovate® 3): Triclopyr controls woody plants and broadleaf weeds, but not grasses. Garlon 3A is used when needed on flood control access roads. Renovate is registered for use within or adjacent to aquatic sites. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): DANGER (for eye damage to mixer/loader and applicator) Rate for Garlon 3A or Renovate on access roads using a boom mounted on a truck: 2 pts in 20 gal of water/acre Rate for use of Garlon 3A or Renovate pulling hose with a handgun attached: 4 pts in 100 gal of water/acre Rate for cut stump treatment: Undiluted material (using squirt bottle to spray the surface of the stump) Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load Cost to apply (includes material cost): • $146/acre for Garlon 3A application from a boom mounted on a truck • $714/acre for Garlon 3A application from a hose with a handgun • $130/acre for Renovate application from a boom mounted on a truck • $647/acre for Renovate application from a hose with a handgun Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 4 **Enjoined for red legged frog On Ground Water Protection List (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in ground 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 75 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 54 12/10/18 water Imazamox (Clearcast®): Imazamox is a post-emergent, slow acting, systemic herbicide for use in and around aquatic and non-cropland sites. Currently, it is only used for spot treating cattails with a hose and handgun in highly sensitive sites. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate for spot spraying cattails with a hose and handgun: 4 pt./100 gal/acre Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load Cost to apply (includes material cost): $730/acre Herbicide Resistance Group: 2 On Ground Water Protection List (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in ground water Herbicides with both Pre- and Post-Emergent Activity Chlorsulfuron (Telar® XP): Telar XP is both a pre-emergent and post-emergent herbicide for the control of many invasive and noxious broadleaf weeds. Warm, moist conditions following application enhance the effectiveness of Telar XP since moisture carries the herbicide into weed roots and prevents them from developing. Weeds hardened off by drought stress are less susceptible to this herbicide. This herbicide is used by the Department mainly for control of perennial pepperweed. Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 1.6 oz./acre Timing: Before fall weeds or spring weeds germinate and close to the time rain is expected. Cost to apply (includes material cost): $113/acre Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 2 Imazapyr (Habitat®): Habitat is registered for the control of undesirable vegetation in and around standing or flowing water, and can be used for wetland, riparian, and terrestrial vegetation growing in or around surface water when treatment might inadvertently result in application to surface water. Habitat has both pre - and post- emergent activity and is a systemic herbicide (is absorbed into the plant and circulates to kill the entire plant) that controls grass and broadleaf weeds, brush, vines, etc. It will not control vegetation submerged in water. Habitat is used only as a spot treatment for Arundo, pampas grass, ivy growing on fences and in creeks, and as a cut stump treatment for feral trees (the tree is cut down and the herbicide is immediately applied to the cut stump). Signal Word (indicates acute, or immediate, toxicity): CAUTION Rate: 8 oz./3 gal of water in a backpack for spot treatments and for cut stumps Timing: Timing: Varies depending on the location, the weather, the weed growth, the work load Cost to apply (includes material cost): $79/backpack load (3 gal) Herbicide Resistance Management Group: 2 **Enjoined for red legged frog On Ground Water Protection List (b): potential to contaminate ground water, but not yet found in ground water CONCLUSIONS: When the IPM process calls for the use of herbicides, the products described above are used where most suitable considering cost, efficacy, the environment, human communities, and resistance management. Which herbicide application methods are available for this chemical? Methods available: Current Department equipment allows for 4 methods of application: a boom attached to a truck, a handgun attached to a hose connected to a truck-mounted tank, spot treatment with a backpack, and spot treatment with a squirt bottle. The truck with a boom is used wherever possible since it is most efficient. A handgun attached to a hose is used where access is difficult for a truck, the backpack sprayer is used for small spot treatments, and the squirt bottle is used for cut stump treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The terrain, the proximity to the water, the kind of weed, and the goal of the treatment dictate the application method. What weather concerns must be checked prior to application? The Vegetation Manager takes into consideration the pesticide label and all site specific factors. Each day, the Vegetation Manager checks the weather when he/she arrives at work at 6:00 AM. Rain can prevent application of some herbicides because of the danger of runoff. For most pre-emergent herbicides, rain is needed after application in order for the herbicide to be effective. The Vegetation Manager must also consider wind speed (generally it should be <7 mph) to avoid herbicide drift. Crews carry wind meters in their trucks. Excessive heat or cold makes plants shut down, and herbicide applications at that time would be ineffective. The Vegetation Manager uses these factors to write Pest Control recommendations for the crew to follow on the days that spraying takes place. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 76 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 55 12/10/18 Cost Comparisons for various management methods See Table 1, below. Changes in management methods since the previous iteration of this document Since FY 12-13, the Department: • Decreased acres of roadsides treated with chemicals by 61% • Increased acres mowed on flood control channels by 25% • Decreased acres of access road shoulder and fenceline treatments by 37% • Decreased acres treated with chemicals on flood control banks by 92% • Increased acres grazed by goats by 151% • Decreased acres of aquatic chemical treatments by 31% Recommendations from the IPM Advisory Committee • Continue to review all vegetation management methods available for flood control channels and access roads considering efficacy, cost, impacts to the environment and to the human community. • When improved wellhead location information becomes available in the future, the Committee recommends that the County consider that information during the pest management decision making process. • Encourage investigation into, and experimentation with, new methods. • Review this document every 3 years. Table 1. Methods, Acres Treated, and Cost* for Vegetation Management along Contra Costa Roadsides and Flood Control Channels, Averaged over Two Years (2016-2018)§ Vegetation Management Method Avg # of Acres Treated % of Total Acres Treated Avg. Total Cost for all acres treated Avg Cost/Ac re % of Total Cost for all acres treated % Change in Total Acres Treated from FY 12-13 Chemical Treatment - Roads 714.5 48% $137,896 $193 18% -61% Right of Way Mowing (mainly flood control facilities) 318 22% $348,856 $1097 47% 25% Chemical Treatment – Flood Control Access Roads 144.5 10% $50,065 $346 7% -37% Chemical Treatment – Flood Control Banks 14.5 1% $7,467 $515 1% -92% Grazing (flood control facilities) 240.7 16% $158,355 $658 21% +151% Chemical Treatment - Aquatic Applications 41 3% $37,686 $919 5% -31% Mulching (flood control fence-lines and access road shoulders) 0.65 0.04% $6,642 $10,218 1% -89% Totals 1473.75 $746,967 -31% *Table lists the most accurate costs available. The cost figures above for each method include labor, materials, equipment costs, contract costs (for grazing), and overhead (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. §Table is updated each year in the IPM Annual Report. See cchealth.org/ipm. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 77 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 56 12/10/18 General Integrated Pest Management Decision Tree ST ART HERE No Yes No Yes SEE INSERT FOR PWD No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No Note that this pest management decision tree documents the current practices of Contra Costa County staff. Yes *See Decision Tree checklists for evaluating sensitive sites and control methods: Link to Checklists The overall goal of this process is to choose the least-hazardous management method that is effective and economically viable. Monitor site Pest present? Population high enough to require control? Assess sensitivity of site * Consider cultural controls * Consider physical controls * Consider chemical controls * Choose mgmt. method based on hazard, risk, environmental conditions, efficiency, efficacy, labor, budget, legal/regulatory constraints Implement mgmt technique. Evaluate management Was it safe/ effective? Consider strategies for future prevention of pest problems. Evaluate reason for failure Alter mgmt. method, chemical, timing, or training, as necessary. Consider strategies to prevent failure in future and to prevent future pest problems. Evaluate damage. Damage due to mgmt. or Damage due to timing or Damage due to employee training? Unforeseen damage to non-target spp./ Identify mgmt goals for site. If any exotic invasive pests present, alert County Department of Agriculture. Identify pest Consider biological control * Check weather conditions prior to implementation 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 78 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 57 12/10/18 INSERT ST ART HERE Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Is this a "Highly Sesitive Location" ? Is site under RMA with Fish and Game? Contact Certified Biologist to assess impact of work at site. Conduct a Habitat Assessment before any work Determine spp./habitat and consult injunction text and tables. Determine spp. and habitat. Review & comply w/any special restrictions and/or considerations for work/treatment at the site. Is site a known or potential habitat for any E/T spp.? Is site under a court-ordered injunction? Assess sensitivity of site. Were live spp. of concern found? Did Biologist find spp./habitat of concern? Was habitat of concern found? Review & comply w/any buffer zones for the particular pesticide used and the particular STOP! Contact Fish & Game. No work can be done w/o approval. Review & comply w/any special restrictions and/or considerations for work/treatment at Review & comply w/any special restrictions and/or considerations for work/treatment Return to Main Decision Tree 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 79 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 58 12/10/18 Decision Tree Checklists Check list for Cultural Controls Check list for Bio Controls Things to consider when evaluating management: • Is it possible to use education to alter sensitivity to or spread of pest problem?• Is an organism available for the target pest?• Were fire regulations met on time? • Is it possible to use education to alter habitat and availability of food for pest?• Is it effective for the target pest (consider theoretical and historical)?• Did mgmt increase air pollution? • Is it possible to use education to prevent pest entry?• Are there time constraints on the management of the target pest?• Did mgmt increase/decrease • Are the plants with pest problems suitable for landscape site?• How compatible is the organism with other management techniques? fire/flood hazards? • Is it possible to alter plant care to reduce or eliminate pests?• What is the cost of implementation? erosion? • Is it possible to replace or completely remove plants with pest problems?• Can the budget accomodate this management technique? biodiversity? • Is it possible to modify the environment to improve plant health?• Is staff/equipment available for implementation? herbicide resistance? • Is it possible to modify the environment to reduce or eliminate pests?• What is the proper timing for releasing this organism? customer complaints? Check list for Physical Controls Check list for Chemical Controls: • Is it effective for target pest (consider theoretical and historical)?• Is it effective for target pest (consider theoretical and historical)? • Is it suitable for the site and life stage of pest? • What is the toxicology of the pesticide? • What are the risks to staff safety of implementing the technique?• What are the label restrictions? • Can the budget accomodate this management technique?• Is the time of year/weather compatible with use of the chemical? • Is staff/equipment available for implementation? • Is it suitable for the site and life stage of pest? • Is this technique appropriate for the time of year/weather? • What is the proximity of sensitive sites, such as water, E/T spp. habitat, parks, schools? • Is there potential for damage to non-target plant spp.?• What is the environmental persisitence of chemical? • Is there potential for damage to non-target animal spp.?• Is there potential for damage to non-target plant spp.? • Is there endangered spp habitat present and will the technique affect that?• Is there potential for damage to non-target animal spp.? • Is there a potential for intro or spread of noxious weeds by using this technique?• Can the problematic aspects of the chemical be mitigated or eliminated? • Is there a potential for erosion? • Are any new chemicals available? • Are there time constraints on the management of the target pest?• Can the budget accomodate the use of this chemical? • What is the role of chemical in herbicide resistance mgmt? Check list for sensitive sites Other factors to consider: • Is it a "highly sensitive site" as defined by PWD Environmental staff?• Where do physical (and possibly cultural) controls make the most sense? • Is it under the PWD Routine Maintenance Agreement with Fish and Wildlife?• Where is it most cost effective to use physical controls? • Is it part of any of the court-ordered injunctions?• Where can herbicide use be reduced the most by substituting physical controls? • Is it a known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species?• Where can grazing save wear and tear on employees? • Is it on or near an area where people may walk or children may play?• Are there areas where using physical controls makes it possible to treat a larger area more efficiently than with chemicals? • Is it near an above ground drinking water reservoir?• Where and under what conditions is it most dangerous for employees to work? • Is it near crops?Note that these choices are evaluated for planning • Is it near desireable trees or landscaping?purposes as much as 1 or 2 yrs. in advance. Some things require considerable lead time. • Is the soil highly permeable, sandy or gravelly? • Is it within a Groundwater Protection Area? • Is it within an infiltration basin? 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 80 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 59 12/10/18 Appendix B. • Report from the IPM Outreach Subcommittee to the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee • Pest Management Articles 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 81 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 61 12/10/18 Report from the IPM Outreach Subcommittee to the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee Prepared by Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator, November, 2018 Members Carlos Agurto Jim Cartan Susan Heckly Michael Kent – Chair Gretchen Logue To date, the IPM Outreach subcommittee has met five times in 2018: March 1, April 26, June 28, August 23, and October 25. At their first meeting, after electing Michael Kent as chair, the subcommittee decided to continue the presentations to in-home visitors that began last year. A second task was to pursue outreach to the public through a series of articles about IPM for various pests. In-Home Visitor Presentations The goals of the presentations to in-home visitors are as follows: • Reaching some of the County’s most vulnerable residents through in-home visitors • Informing County staff of the public health risks of having pests in the home • Helping staff to recognize pest problems in their clients’ homes • Making staff aware of the resources available for their clients Committee members have given a total of 13 presentations to 10 County programs and approximately 235 County staff and volunteers. Every presentation was very well received, and the programs were grateful for the information. The programs were as follows: 1. CCC Aids Program 2. Head Start Comprehensive Services 3. Public Health Nurses 4. County Connect 5. TB Outreach Program 6. Aging and Adult Services 7. In Home Supportive Services 8. Fall Prevention 9. Senior Nutrition 10. Promotoras/Health Conductors In the future, the committee would like to widen the reach for the in-home visitor presentation to groups outside the County such as Kaiser, John Muir, and Sutter Health. Presentations could also be given to the County’s Housing Authority staff. The County’s Area Agency on Aging may have other contacts for in-home visitors. IPM Articles The subcommittee chose the following topics/pests for their series of articles and suggested times for their publication: • The County’s IPM practices (first article) • Ants (late summer) • Bed bugs (anytime) • Cockroaches (anytime) • Mold (fall/winter) • Mice (fall) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 82 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 62 12/10/18 • Rats (fall and spring) • Sheet mulching (fall) • General article on weeds (winter and/or spring) • Other possible pests: yellowjackets, paper wasps, bees, gophers, moles, skunks, and raccoons The committee reviewed and revised 7 articles and published them in the following media outlets: • Supervisor Andersen’s newsletter • Richmond Standard • Martinez Gazette • Community Focus • News 24/680 The committee will continue to pursue publication in other media outlets. The completed articles are attached. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 83 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 63 12/10/18 Goats working on Rodeo Creek Scout Troup 239 members with owl box in Kubicek Basin What is Contra Costa County doing about pest control? This is the first in a series of articles about the County’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program and how the public can use similar tactics at home. Contra Costa County has reduced its pesticide use by 75% since the County’s IPM Program began. The Board of Supervisors adopted an IPM Policy in 2002 that requires the County to focus on long-term pest prevention and to combine the use of physical, horticultural, biological, and chemical control methods to manage pests. When pesticides are used, they are selected and applied in a way that minimizes risks to human health, to beneficial and non-target organisms, and to the environment. In 2009, the County hired an IPM Coordinator and created an IPM Advisory Committee to advise the Board of Supervisors on pest management in County operations. The 13-member Committee is composed of both County staff and members of the public. The Committee is working with County staff to document the decision-making process for pests the County deals with. The Committee also created a presentation for in-home visitors to help them recognize pest issues in their clients’ homes and to provide information on pest prevention. To date, Committee members have trained 233 in-home visitors. The County manages rats, mice, ants, and cockroaches in and around 200 County buildings that comprise about 3.2 million square feet. The Grounds Division manages 132 sites on a weekly basis, and is on call for the rest of the landscaping around the more than 400 County properties. The Public Works Department manages vegetation on about 375 miles of the County’s 660 miles of road and on 76 miles of flood control channels. Over the past 15 years, the County has instituted a number of pest management innovations. In and around buildings, the County manages rats and mice solely by trapping—no rodenticide is used. Gophers and moles are managed by trapping or by injecting carbon monoxide into their burrows. Last year, the Public Works Department used goats to graze 375 acres of creek banks and flood control basins to reduce fire risk. Woodchips are used to suppress weeds on County properties, and every year the Grounds Division grinds dead trees into $25K to $45K of woodchip mulch. The County has piloted several alternative control methods for rodents. In 2009, the Agriculture Department erected 20 raptor perches on Lime Ridge and Shell Ridge Open Space to attract hawks to help with ground squirrels. In 2012, the Agriculture Department experimented with live trapping ground squirrels along an East County road. In 2016 and 2017 the County worked with Eagle Scouts to install three owl nest boxes: one in Livorna Park and two in Kubicek Basin along Pine Creek in Walnut Creek. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed and to using the least toxic and most cost-effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. This article was written by Tanya Drlik, Contra Costa IPM Coordinator, in conjunction with the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed, and to using the least toxic and most cost -effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. For more information on the Contra Costa County IPM Program, please visit cchealth.org/ipm 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 84 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 64 12/10/18 Argentine Ant Photo by Joyce Gross Are ants driving you crazy? Here are some tips from the Contra Costa Integrated Pest Management Program Where you see one ant you are bound to see more. Their small size allows them to easily enter your home. They crawl in through openings around water and electrical lines, and through cracks and crevices in the foundation. Argentine ants are the main nuisance ant in the Bay Area. They don’t bite and they don’t carry disease, but they invade homes. Outdoors, they protect insects like aphids and scales from natural insect enemies. Their ability to create giant colonies makes them difficult to control. The scouts, whose job it is to locate food for the colony, will search your home high and low for sugary drinks, fruit or other sweet foods, and meat. Adult ants feed only on liquids. One of their favorite foods is the “honeydew” produced by plant-feeding insects like aphids and scales. Adults collect solid food to feed to the young in the nest. Use the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods below to prevent this pest from infesting your home. How to identify them Argentine ants are ⅛ inch long and a shiny brown to black in color. They love the moist soil we create with our irrigation. They make shallow nests in the soil, under stones, logs, debris, concrete slabs, and often in potted plants. They make nests in wall voids, insulation, and cracks and crevices. They can even take up residence inside the overflow drain of a bathtub or sink, under carpets, and under piles of boxes. What You Can Do when Ants Are inside Your Home 1. Spray ant trails with soapy water and then wipe them up. 2. Clean up spilled food and drinks immediately. 3. Keep food in the refrigerator, or tightly sealed in metal, glass, or heavy plastic containers. 4. Use caulk to seal cracks and crevices around the interior of the home. 5. Apply gel bait at the entry points ants are using to get inside your home. What You Can Do to Keep Ants away from Your Home 1. Trim vegetation at least one foot away from the foundation to prevent access. 2. Remove or treat aphid-infested plants and trees and pick ripened fruit to reduce food sources. 3. Regularly clean the inside of garbage and recycling cans to remove residue that will attract ants. 4. Use caulk to seal cracks and crevices around the exterior of the home. 5. It is futile to try to kill all the ants outside your home, but where you see ant trails leading into the building, or find ant colonies that are close to the building, install exterior bait stations. This article was written by Pestec IPM Provider staff in conjunction with the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed, and to using the least toxic and most cost -effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. For more information on the Contra Costa County IPM Program, please visit cchealth.org/ipm. For more information on ants, ask a Master Gardener! See http://ccmg.ucanr.edu/Ask_Us/ Look for the Eco-friendly Pest Control fact sheets in your local hardware store or nursery. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 85 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 65 12/10/18 Don’t Invite a Pest by Eating at Your Desk In our fast paced world, eating at your desk is almost inevitable. It might be chips, chocolate, a piece of fruit, or a sandwich. You grab a quick bite and get back to your day. The downside of eating at your desk is that it can provide food for pests. When you’re eating at your desk you are often in a rush. Cleaning up food crumbs and properly storing food is probably the last thing on your mind. However, it is one of the easiest things you can do to prevent pests and the potential use of pesticide in the office. How Can You Help Prevent Pests? Education is the first step for prevention. By using the simple Integrated Pest Management (IPM for short) methods below you can prevent pest infestations at your desk and in the office. 1. FRUIT FLIES are attracted to overripe or fermenting fruits and vegetables. Food or sugary liquids left in the bottoms of wastebaskets, recycling bins, forgotten food containers, or food scraps left in desk wastebaskets over the night can all be sources of fruit flies. Solution: Don’t leave fruit or vegetables out overnight and be sure to throw food away in receptacles that get emptied daily or in bins outside building. 2. PANTRY PESTS include beetles and moths that lay eggs in nuts, cereal, crackers, and even chocolate. They can show up when you leave uneaten food in the drawers of your desk. Solution: Keep snacks and other food in rigid, sealed containers, not in plastic bags. 3. ANTS often come indoors to find food during summer and fall when they can no longer find food outside. Solution: Whenever you see ant scouts wandering around, take extra care to clean up food spills and wipe down your desk by the end of each day. If you see an ant trail wipe it up with a soapy water solution. 4. COCKROACHES thrive in cluttered conditions that provide food and water, preferring to live in cracks and voids and even corrugated cardboard. Solution: Reduce clutter such as stacked paper and cardboard boxes, report plumbing leaks to facilities, and clean food-soiled surfaces by the end of each day. Dispose of food waste in receptacles that are emptied daily. 5. MICE squeeze under doors or through holes around utility penetrations. They nest in clutter and will eat the food left inside of drawers. Solution: Reduce clutter in work areas and store items up off the floor in cabinets, on racks, or in bins. Store food in rigid containers with tight fitting lids and do not leave food out overnight. Dispose of food waste in receptacles that are emptied daily. Don’t leave doors to the outside open, especially in the fall when mice are looking for a nice warm place for the winter. This article was written by Pestec IPM Provider staff in conjunction with the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed, and to using the least toxic and most cost -effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. For more information on the Contra Costa County IPM Program, pl ease visit cchealth.org/ipm. For more information on pests, ask a Master Gardener! See http://ccmg.ucanr.edu/Ask_Us/ Look for the Eco-friendly Pest Control fact sheets in your local hardware store or nursery. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 86 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 66 12/10/18 Sheet mulching in the backyard Photo by C. Nardozzi Make lasagna in your back yard for non-toxic weed control! Whether you are growing ornamentals, California natives, or food, weeds are bound to pop up in the home garden. Every garden needs maintenance, and it seems like weeding is a constant chore for the backyard grower as well as the professional. Sheet mulching can be a great alternative to using herbicides. It’s a sustainable method of weed suppression that offers a host of additional benefits to the home garden, including increased organic matter, microbial activity, and water retention in your soil, not to mention that you can recycle and compost your cardboard boxes and egg cartons, old newspapers, or any other paper materials you have around the house! You can think of sheet mulching as the lasagna approach to weed control in your garden: building layer upon layer of suppressive materials such as cardboard/paper, compost/soil, wood chips, grass clippings, or leaves. This layering effect deprives existing weeds and weed seeds of the light they need to grow. As these materials break down over time, simply add more layers to your lasagna for improved weed control. You can use this technique around established plants in your yard or prepare a future planting area by sheet mulching first. Both approaches improve soil quality and decrease competition from weedy species. If using this approach, I recommend sheet mulching after a few fall rains have thoroughly moistened the soil. If you want to sheet mulch in the dry season, be sure to irrigate the area first, and sprinkle each layer you add. You can plant directly into an area that was sheet mulched, giving your starts an immediate boost of nutrients and water availability. Just cut a hole in the layers and set in your plant. You can also wait to plant in the spring or early summer. As the top layer decomposes, add more mulch. Weeds that sprout in the top of the mulch can easily be pulled out. If tough weeds are popping through, cut them off and add more layers of your materials. This will keep your plants happy until the next rainy season. For a detailed, step-by-step description of how to sheet mulch, see http://www.lawntogarden.org/residents Happy mulching! This article was written by Jim Cartan, former chair of the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed, and to using the least toxic and most cost-effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. For more information on the Contra Costa County IPM Program, please visit cchealth.org/ipm. For more information on weeds, ask a Master Gardener! See http://ccmg.ucanr.edu/Ask_Us/ Look for the Eco-friendly Pest Control fact sheets in your local hardware store or nursery. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 87 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 67 12/10/18 Having Rats in Your House is a Serious Problem! Rats cause millions of dollars in damage to structures by gnawing. They can cause fires, explosions, indoor flooding, and damage to computer systems. They can contaminate food and eating utensils and transmit a number of diseases to humans. They can also carry tropical rat mites that can bite humans and cause serious annoyance. Both the Norway rat and the roof rat can infest your home, but control is similar. Norway rats have small, thick ears and a blunt snout with a tail that is shorter than the body. Their habitat is generally near the ground in burrows, in basements, or on the ground floor. They might nest in the walls of a building, in cluttered areas, and in sewers and storm drains. Roof rats have large, thin, hairless ears and a pointed snout with a tail that is longer than the body. Their habitat is generally higher up, so they might nest in attics, in wall voids higher in the building, and in trees (especially palm trees). Signs of an Infestation • Rodent droppings, urine stains, and greasy rub marks along their pathways or feeding areas • Gnaw marks on wires, food packages, wood, and parts of the structure • Squeaking or other noises in the walls from gnawing or climbing • Live rats—if you are seeing them during the day, you probably have a serious problem Tip for Preventing an Infestation • Store pet food, bird seed, and grass seed in rodent-proof containers, or at least inspect often for signs of gnawing. • Pick up pet droppings and fallen tree fruit and nuts daily. • Never leave food (for pets or humans) inside or outdoors overnight. You cannot count on dogs or cats to keep rats away. • Fix leaky plumbing and eliminate any unnecessary standing water. • Dispose of all garbage in garbage cans with tight fitting lids that are kept closed. • Reduce clutter and debris; stack firewood up off the ground away from your house. • Trim trees, vines, bushes, grass, and weeds at least 3 to 6 feet away from the home to decrease rodent access. • Avoid large expanses of low groundcover, like Algerian ivy, that could allow rats to run for long distances without being seen. • Seal any opening, hole, or gap larger than ½” on the interior and exterior of your home. ○ Rodent exclusion materials include copper wool, sealant, ¼” stainless steel screen mesh, and rodent resistant door sweeps. What You Can Do if You Have Rats • Use snap traps (lots of them) to reduce the population. • Place snap traps along rodent pathways next to a wall and bait with food they are already eating. • Monitor traps regularly and frequently and keep bait fresh. Rats avoid old or rancid bait. • Only use rodenticides as a last resort. Poisoned rodents may die in inaccessible places and cause odor and fly problems, or they can be eaten by pets or wildlife which could then be poisoned. It is illegal to use rodenticides except to control rodents invading a building. • Always wear gloves when handling traps or carcasses. Wrap carcasses in plastic and dispose of in the trash. • To safely clean up rat droppings or nests, spray the area with a disinfectant, wait 10 minutes and then wipe up the debris. Use gloves and a mask. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 88 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 68 12/10/18 This article was written by Pestec IPM Provider staff in conjunction with the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed, and to using the least toxic and most cost -effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. For more information on the Contra Costa County IPM Program, please visit cchealth.org/ipm. For more information on rats, ask a Master Gardener! See http://ccmg.ucanr.edu/Ask_Us/ Look for the Eco-friendly Pest Control fact sheets in your local hardware store or nursery. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 89 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 69 12/10/18 Watch out for mouse invasions as the weather cools! As we move into fall, mice are often looking for a warm, dry space to spend the winter. The house mouse is a pest throughout most of the world because it reproduces quickly, requires very little food and water, and can enter homes through tiny openings. Once inside, mice live in small nooks and crannies and/or cluttered spaces where they can find food crumbs and make nests. Mice not only damage your property, but they can also contaminate food and transmit diseases through their droppings and urine. Mouse urine contains a powerful allergen that can trigger asthma attacks and allergic reactions. That is why it is so important to keep this pest out of your home. Use the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods below to prevent this pest from infesting your home. How to Identify a House Mouse Adult house mice range from 4 to 8 inches in length, including a tail that is typically the same length as their body. They range in color from a uniform light brown to nearly all black and typically weigh from 0.5 to 1 ounce. Signs of a Mouse Infestation ● Sightings of live or dead mice ● Droppings, urine stains, and “rub marks” on surfaces--rub marks come from the oils on their fur as they travel between their food source and nest ● Gnaw marks on wires, food packages, wood, and other parts of the structure ● Chewed and shredded items like paper and fabric that mice are using for nesting materials What You Can Do To Get Rid of Mice in Your Home 1. Identify food sources and store them properly or remove them from your home. 2. Identify nesting areas and use snap traps, rather than rodenticides or sticky traps, to eliminate the infestation. Use lots of traps and place them along walls or other edges where droppings have been found. 3. Use gloves to safely remove and dispose of mice that have been caught. 4. After all mice have been trapped, seal up entry points and any voids they were using as harborage. Use rodent proof materials such as 1/4” stainless steel screen mesh, brass wool, metal flashing, and concrete. Use durable doorsweeps in combination with a proper threshold to block mice from getting in under doors. 5. Safely clean up mouse droppings, urine, and nests by first spraying the material with a disinfectant and leaving for 10 minutes. Wear gloves and a dust mask to avoid touching the material or breathing the dust. What You Can Do to Prevent Mice in Your Home 1. Remove clutter such as stacked boxes, newspapers, and piles of clothes. 2. Keep food tightly sealed in metal, glass, or heavy plastic containers. 3. Store leftovers in the refrigerator instead of leaving food out on counters overnight. 4. Clean up spilled food and drinks immediately. 5. Fix leaky plumbing and prevent standing water around the home. 6. Empty garbage cans routinely and keep lids tightly closed. 7. Trim vegetation away from your home to reduce access to the building. 8. Seal openings large enough to stick a pencil through. Examples are broken screens or vents, gaps around utility pipes and wires, cracks in the foundation, and gaps under or between doors. This article was written by Pestec IPM Provider staff in conjunction with the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed, and to using the least toxic and most cost -effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 90 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 70 12/10/18 For more information on the Contra Costa County IPM Program, please visit cchealth.org/ipm. For more information on mice, ask a Master Gardener! See http://ccmg.ucanr.edu/Ask_Us/ Look for the Eco-friendly Pest Control fact sheets in your local hardware store or nursery. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 91 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 71 12/10/18 Adult bed bug on a dime Bed Bugs are Back! And they are causing serious problems here and in communities across the country. These bothersome bugs don’t spread disease, but they can cause severe stress and can be a nightmare to get rid of on your own. Bed bugs are a pest of exposure, meaning that if you are exposed to them, it’s possible to take them home with you—anyone can get bed bugs. I experienced an infestation as a teenager 40 years ago in my rural New Mexico home. We suffered for a year before figuring out what was causing the embarrassing red welts on our faces and arms. Bed bugs were rare in those days, and my family knew nothing about them. Powerful and persistent pesticides like DDT nearly eliminated bed bug infestations in this country, and our collective memory does not include information on how to identify or combat them. Unfortunately, the insecticides we have today don’t work well against bed bugs, and bringing back DDT would not help. Bed bugs quickly became resistant to DDT in the late 1940s and today show widespread resistance to pyrethroids, one of the main classes of insecticides in use for bed bug control. There is serious misuse of insecticides by people desperate to get rid of bed bugs. Consumer insecticides are not effective against bed bugs. Bug bombs and foggers do not work. Misusing insecticides is ineffective, illegal and endangers your health—more so than the bugs! The best strategy for homeowners and landlords is to hire a pest control company with extensive experience in controlling bed bugs. Ask for references and contact them. Talk to the company about their inspection techniques and control tactics. They should inspect thoroughly before recommending treatment and should be using a wide variety of tools, such as vacuums, steam machines, heat fumigation, traps, and mattress encasements, in addition to insecticides. Effective bed bug treatment can be expensive and involve repeat visits. Be prepared to do some of the work yourself, including laundering, bagging clothes and bedclothes and removing clutter. If you can’t afford a pest control company, there are things you can do to alleviate the problem. Eliminate clutter, seal all cracks and crevices. Clutter makes it challenging to inspect and difficult to treat for bed bugs. Eliminating holes and cracks will make it harder for bugs to hide and to move from room to room. Thoroughly inspect beds and furniture. Grab a strong flashlight and a magnifying glass to find every bug. Use a spray bottle filled with soapy water to slow them down and drown them. You can also use a vacuum or packing tape wrapped around your hand with the sticky side out to capture bed bugs. Put vacuum bags in a large plastic trash bag and knot it to make sure no bugs escape. Steaming with a commercial steamer will kill bed bugs, but you must move the steamer slowly over the surface, and be very diligent. Bug-proof bed and furniture. Move clean furniture away from walls and other furniture to eliminate bridges for bed bugs. Cover infested bedsprings with a high quality mattress encasement. Use insect interceptors, like ClimbUp®, under each furniture leg. These will catch bugs climbing down or trying to climb up. Use the dryer to kill bed bugs. Fifteen minutes on high heat will kill all stages of the bed bug on dry items. If you wash clothes first, dry them and then give them an extra 15 minutes on high to be sure any bugs are dead. Maintain good housekeeping. Once an infestation is under control, maintain good housekeeping to make it easy to regularly inspect for new infestations. Be careful when traveling. It’s also a good idea to inspect hotel rooms when traveling to ensure you don’t bring any bed bugs home. For more information about bed bugs, including photos, and control methods in English and Spanish, visit www.cchealth.org/bedbugs 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 92 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 72 12/10/18 This article was written by Tanya Drlik, Contra Costa IPM Coordinator, in conjunction with the Contra Costa County IPM Advisory Committee. The County is dedicated to continually improving how pests are managed, and to using the least toxic and most cost -effective control measures. With its IPM Program, the County endeavors to lead by example. For more information on the Contra Costa County IPM Program, please visit cchealth.org/ipm. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 93 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 73 12/10/18 Appendix C. • Posting Task Force Recommendations • Posting Sign Recommendation • Recommended Changes to Posting Policy 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 94 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 74 12/10/18 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 95 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 75 12/10/18 Recommendations from the Posting Task Force July 16, 2018 Members of the Task Force: Jim Donnelly (chair), Carlos Agurto, Gretchen Logue, Larry Yost The IPM Posting Task Force met six times and thoroughly discussed both the pesticide treatment notification sign and the posting policy. The public was in attendance at each meeting and was allowed input into all aspects of the discussions. The Task Force created a revised posting sign and posting policy and recommends that the County do the following: 1. Revise the County’s posting sign as indicated below. 2. Revise the County’s posting policy as indicated in the tracked-changes document below. 3. Investigate posting on flood control channel access roads where people frequently walk, or on other rights-of- way that are frequently used as walking paths. 4. Investigate the feasibility of erecting permanent signs and where those signs would be useful. 5. Investigate a way for people to make a complaint online about pesticide use. 6. Investigate a way for pesticide treatment notifications to be sent to people who sign up for email notices. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 96 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 76 12/10/18 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE TREATMENT Contra Costa County Public Works Contra Costa County has reduced its pesticide use by 79% since the County initiated its Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program began. The County’s IPM Policy focuses on long-term pest prevention and combines the use of physical, horticultural, biological, and chemical methods to manage pests. When pesticides must be used, they are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risk s to human health, to beneficial and non-target organisms and to the environment. Considering the above, it has been decided that a pesticide treatment is necessary in this area. Avoid area during active pesticide application. Pesticide Trade Name: Active Ingredient(s): Acute (short-term) health hazard warning: EPA Number: Target Pest(s): Method of Treatment: Area(s) to be Treated: Date of Scheduled Application: Date/Time it is okay to re-enter (per EPA label): Date Completed: Exposure to pesticides may cause acute or chronic health risks to humans or animals. PREVENTION FIRST NON-CHEMICAL METHODS NEXT LEAST-HAZARDOUS PESTICIDES AS A LAST RESORT ► ► For more information about this treatment, contact Contra Costa County Public Works at 925-313-7052 Tanya Drlik, IPM Coordinator at 925-335-3214 or tdrlik@hsd.cccounty.us For more information on IPM: cchealth.org/ipm For more information on pesticides, contact National Pesticide Information Center at 800-858-7378, 8am to noon, M-F www.npic.orst.edu 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 97 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 77 12/10/18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PESTICIDE USE POSTING AND NOTIFICATION POLICY General Provisions This policy applies only to land owned by the County of Contra Costa. Any County Department that uses or authorizes the use of a pesticide shall comply with the following posting and notification procedures: • Signs shall be posted at least three (3) days before application of the pesticide and remain posted at least four (4) days after application. In specific situations/locations, permanent signs may also be used. See provisions below under “Exemptions” and “Other Uses of Permanent Signs”. • Application information shall be posted on the County website’s pesticide posting page at least three (3) days before the application. If the application is postponed or changed, information on the website must be updated. • If treatment is in an enclosed area, signs shall be posted at all major public and employee entry points. • If treatment is in an open area, signs shall be posted at highly visible location(s). • Posting signs for rat and mouseIf rodenticides are used in bait stations for rats or mice, bait stations shall be posted at eye level on the wall or other structure above the bait station. • Exceptions to these provisions are listed below under “Exemptions”. Contents of Signs The signs shall be of a standardized design, easily recognizable by the public and County employees and shall contain the following information: 1. Name of pesticide product 2. Active ingredient(s) in the product 3. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or California State registration number 4. Target pest 5. Signal word on the product label indicating the toxicity category of the pesticide product 6. Date of posting 5. Acute health hazard warning (from the label’s precautionary statement) 6. Area to be treated 7. Method of treatment 7.8. Date(s) of anticipated use; a window of time for anticipated use is acceptable 8.9. Date of re-entry for staff and the public to the treated area, if applicable 10. Date application is completed 9.11. Name and contact number of County Department responsible for the application 10.12. WebsiteIPM website address for more information 13. IPM Coordinator name and contact information 14. National Pesticide Information Center contact information Exemptions Departments shall not be required to post signs in accordance with the provisions above 1. in roadway rights-of-way or •2. in other areas thatwhere the general public doeshas not been granted access for use for recreation or pedestrian purposes. Recreation is defined as any activity where significant physical contact with the treated area is likely to occur. Note: EachIn the case of numbers 1 or 2, each department that uses pesticides in such locations shall provide a public access telephone number for information about pesticide applications. The public access telephone number shall be posted in a prominent location at the department’s main office building. Information provided to callers shall include all items listed under “Contents of Signs”, above. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 98 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 78 12/10/18 •3. in or around County-owned or -leased buildings, if the pesticide is on a list agreed to by the IPM Advisory Committee. Note: Each County building shall post a permanent sign in a prominent location with a list of pesticides that may be used in or around the structure without individual postings. Pesticides not on this list must be posted in accordance with the provisions above. The permanent signs shall contain the following: oa. Name of the pesticide product ob. Active ingredient(s) in the product a. Signal word on the product label indicating the toxicity category of the pesticide product c. Acute health hazard warning (from the label’s precautionary statement) od. Areas inside or outside the building where the pesticide might be used oe. Name and contact number of County Department responsible for applications Any pesticide granted an emergency exemption for public health emergencies or other urgent situations by the County IPM Coordinator shall not be required to be posted prior to treatment. However, all other requirements for posting, as set forth above, shall be followed. Use of any pesticide listed by the Organic Materials Research Institute or of any products on the FIFRA 25(b) list or in California Code of Regulations Section 6147 ma y be posted on the day of application. All other provisions listed above apply. The County IPM Coordinator may, at his or her discretion, grant necessary exemptions to the posting requirements. Such exemptions will be documented with the reason for the exemption. Other Uses of Permanent Signs In addition to the provisions above regarding permanent signs in and around buildings, permanent signs are acceptable in areas away from county-owned or –-leased buildings where pesticide applications are a regular, periodic occurrence. The following provisions apply: 1. The permanent sign must contain, at minimum, the following information a. Target pest(s) b. Reason for treatment c. For additional information contact: Name and contact number of County Department responsible for the applicationapplications d. WebsitePosting website address for more information e. General statement on when treatment is likely to occur, e.g., “spring” or “May – June” 2. At least three (3) days before any pesticide application, the application information mus t be posted on the County website’s pesticide posting page. If the application is postponed or changed, information on the website must be updated. 3. On the actual day of the pesticide application prior to beginning application, a paper sign with the information listed above under “Contents of Signs” must be affixed to the permanent sign and remain for at least four (4) days. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 99 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 79 12/10/18 Appendix D. • San Francisco Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services (see separate PDF) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 100 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 80 12/10/18 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 101 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 81 12/10/18 Appendix E. • Pesticide Use Reporting (See separate PDF for Contra Costa Operations Pesticide Use Data Spreadsheet) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 102 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 82 12/10/18 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 103 of 311 2018 IPM Annual Report 83 12/10/18 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 16-17, Contra Costa County operations used a total of 4,709 lbs. of pesticide active ingredients, which included 2,322 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 104 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 1 Contra Costa County Staff Responses to Issues Raised by the Public Regarding the County Integrated Pest Management Program November January 29, 20198 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 3/16/17-IPM 1/18/18-IPM 1/17/19-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, used a small number of glue boards in 2016. 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. Pestec now has access to the interior space between the walls of cells where mice can roam, so technicians are able to set snap traps in those areas. Glue boards are not currently used at any other facilities in the County. The County will keep glue boards as a tool for rodent control that will be used when there is no effective alternative. Choosing topics and speakers for the IPM Advisory Committee meetings 1/18/18-IPM 3/15/18-IPM 5/17/18-IPM 7/19/18-IPM 1/17/19-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE) Speakers suggested by PfSE have not been chosen to give presentations to the IPM Committee. The public has always been able to participate in suggesting speakers and topics for the IPM Committee meetings. A number of speakers and/or topics suggested by the public have been used over the years. In 2018, the IPM Committee spent several meetings on defining how speakers and topics will be chosen, with full participation of the public. The Committee now has a written policy that has been unanimously approved by the members. Herbicide spraying in a city park on Grayson Creek with no posting 3/1/18-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE) “It was very upsetting to see these large areas treated with pesticide in such close proximity to where residents also spend time with their children and pets.” This should not have happened and as soon as the Public Works Department was alerted to the issue, they did an investigation and ultimately the employee responsible was disciplined. Using raptor perches to control ground squirrels 1/18/18-IPM 3/1/18-IPM 3/15/18-IPM 4/5/18-IPM 7/19/18-IPM 8/2/18-1PM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE) Ventura Co. has concluded a study showing that using perches for predatory birds reduce ground squirrel damage to levees by 50%. Contra Costa should adopt this method. This was a small pilot study. Dr. Roger Baldwin, vertebrate specialist and researcher at UC Davis said he would not place a lot of weight on this study. “It is a small pilot study from which they are drawing ‘massive’ conclusions. Raptors ‘may’ be able to assist in some capacity, but they certainly aren’t going to eliminate burrowing rodents from an area.” In 2012, the Agriculture Department piloted the use of raptor perches in two Open Space areas. The installation of raptor perches did not seem to significantly reduce ground squirrel populations and ground squirrels undermined the footings of two of the raptor perches. Note that members of PfSE have been saying that the Agriculture Department used metal perches and that is why they did not work. This is not true. The perches are 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 105 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 2 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 made of wood. The UC website, Ground Squirrel BMPs, says the following: “In California, predators of ground squirrels include red-tailed hawks, eagles, and coyotes. As ground squirrels and their native predators have evolved over hundreds of years, ground squirrels have developed behaviors and abilities to avoid predation. In certain habitats, ground squirrels are frequent prey of rattlesnakes, though some ground squirrels have evolved a resistance to snake venom. Owls are nocturnal and do not generally prey on diurnal ground squirrels. “In the majority of situations, predators are not able to control ground squirrel populations.” Chairing the IPM Committee should be rotated; a scribe not associated with the Committee should be used to take notes 2/17/16-IPM 1/17/19-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 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 • 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 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- 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 106 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 3 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 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) 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 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 107 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 4 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 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 1/17/19-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) “Posting online of pesticide use reports from each program simultaneously as they are generated [monthly]” (1/17/19) • 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. • There is not the staff available to post each of the monthly pesticide use reports on the IPM website, and there has been no interest for this expressed by the public except PfSE. These reports are public records and are available for anyone who wants to request them. 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 • In 2015, he IPM Coordinator attended meetings in San Francisco with IPM 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 108 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 5 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 7/20/17-IPM 11/16/17-IPM 1/18/18-IPM 9/20/18-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. • In March 2017, the Australian government’s Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) produced its Final Regulatory Position on whether to conduct a formal reconsideration of the chemical glyphosate. They stated that “[b]ased on this nomination assessment, the APVMA concludes that the scientific weight-of- evidence indicates that: exposure to glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans.” • In April 2017, Health Canada released the following statement, “Following a rigorous science-based assessment, Health Canada has determined that when used according to the label, products containing glyphosate are not a concern to human health and the environment.” • The County is still waiting for the final risk assessment from the USEPA. • In November 2017, researchers updated the Agricultural Health Study, which is a 20-year study of the effects of glyphosate on over 54,000 licensed pesticide applicators from North Carolina and Iowa. They found no statistically significant associations with glyphosate use and cancer in any part of the body. However, among applicators in the highest exposure quartile, there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia compared with those who had never used glyphosate, though this association was not statistically significant. The researchers noted that this association requires confirmation. • In August 2018, a San Francisco jury awarded a Benicia School District employee $289 million in his lawsuit alleging that Monsanto’s glyphosate caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In October 2018, the judge in the case reduced the award to $78 million. Monsanto is appealing the judgment. There may be some concern in the County about liability attached to continuing to use glyphosate to manage weeds. Both County Counsel and Risk Management are aware of the lawsuit. Questions posed during public comment for items not on the agenda are not answered by the IPM Committee 8/6/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer • The IPM Committee does not take up and discuss issues that are not on the 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 109 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 6 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 7/20/16-IPM 9/21/16-IPM 3/16/17-IPM 11/16/17-IPM 1/11/18 Email 1/18/18-IPM 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.” 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 11/16/17-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 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) • 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. 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 From Parents for a Safer • Absences are tracked in the minutes of every meeting of the full IPM Committee 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 110 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 7 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 1/17/19-IPM 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?” Grounds Division rep is absent from meetings.(1/17/19) and each of its subcommittees. Attendance at meetings is reported annually to the Board of Supervisors. • The Grounds Division itself does not have a seat on the IPM Committee. Facilities and Grounds is represented by Jerry Casey of Facilities. 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 1/17/19-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 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 1/17/19-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 • 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 which contain language outlining the IPM approach. This also applies to any other contractor hired by Special Districts. o this has been explained to PfSE several times. 1 http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=2147 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 111 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 8 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 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) • 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, he used 0.02ounces of the rodenticide active ingredient diphacinone (a 1st generation anticoagulant). 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. 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 1/17/19-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “record meetings with a camcorder” • 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 112 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 9 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 “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.” 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. • At the January 18, 2018 IPM Committee meeting, Carlos Agurto, representative from Pestec, the County’s structural IPM Contractor, volunteered to be secretary to the Committee. He will make audio recordings of the meetings and provide the IPM Coordinator with at transcript. With audio recordings, video is not necessary. Intimidation of a member of Parents for a Safer Environment by the IPM Coo rdinator 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] residual activity before a forecasted rainstorm.” This is an issue about pre-emergent herbicides and was discussed in a subcommittee meeting on 10/29/13 and again in the Advisory Committee meeting on 11/6/13. Both meetings were attended by both Susan JunFish and Shirley Shelangoski of PfSE. The following points were made: • Pre-emergent herbicides have residual activity by design because they are meant to prevent the germination of weeds over an extended period of time, sometimes a number of weeks. • Pre-emergent herbicides are used by Public Works as part of their herbicide rotation program to prevent the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. Herbicide rotation is one of a number of best practices strongly recommended by the University of California and many other researchers to prevent herbicide resistance2. Creating herbicide-resistant weeds is considered an extremely serious problem by weed scientists throughout the world. • Pre-emergent herbicides are not applied on flood control channel banks; they are used on flood control access roads above the banks. • 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 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 113 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 10 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 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 and must be strictly followed. • 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. 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 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 114 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 11 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 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 11/16/17-IPM 6/18/18-IPM 9/20/18-IPM 1/17/19-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 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) • 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 paved path next to the school that the children are shown walking on. • Most of the County’s Flood Control access roads are within locked gates with signs saying “Property of Contra Costa. No Trespassing”. No one should be jogging or walking along these roads. • If PfSE can provide the County with information on specific access roads and specific times when people have been exposed to pesticide spraying, the County will investigate immediately. • 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…”. • The IPM Committee has formed a Task Force to review the County’s posting policy and compliance with that policy. (11/16/17) • The Posting Task Force met six times throughout the spring and summer of 2018 and revised the posting sign and policy with public input at every meeting. The suggestions for revisions have been sent to the Public Works Department for review. Adopting an IPM ordinance 9/4/13-IPM 11/6/13-IPM 2/26/14-IPM 3/5/14-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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 115 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 12 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 3/6/14-TWIC 3/2/15-TWIC 2/17/16-IPM 1/19/17 IPM 1/17/19-IPM • 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 8/26/15-Email 9/2/15-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): Disagreement on how the County should report “Bad Actor3” pesticides in the IPM Annual Report • Since FY 00-01, the County has been publishing pesticide use figures that include use figures for “Bad Actors”. • Note that all 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. • Susan JunFish, of Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE), has been asking that additional pesticides be reported as “Bad Actors”. To resolve this issue, the IPM Committee heard presentations from Susan JunFish and held a special meeting of the Data Management subcommittee on March 25, 2013 devoted exclusively to this issue. Dr. Susan Kegley4 was invited to speak, as requested by Ms. JunFish. • 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. • 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 • 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 3 “Bad Actor” is a term coined by 2 advocacy groups, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and Californians for Pesticide Reform, to i dentify a “most toxic” set of pesticides. These pesticides are at least one of the following: known or probable carcinogens, reproductive or development al toxicants, cholinesterase inhibitors, known groundwater contaminants, or pesticides with high acute toxicity. The pesticides designated as “Bad Actors” can be found in the PAN database on line: http://www.pesticideinfo.org/ 4 Ph.D. Organic/Inorganic Chemistry; Principal and CEO, Pesticide Research Institute; former Senior Staff Scientist for Pesticide Action Network (PAN); instrumental in the development of the PAN database. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 116 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 13 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 Department of Agriculture.” (Particular mention of South American sponge plant in the Delta was made.) 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. “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) • 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 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 117 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 14 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 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 rodenticides use by contractors to Special Districts. She presented her findings to the Committee at the 9/4/13 meeting. 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. 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 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. In FY 16-17 the Special Districts vertebrate pest manager used 18 lbs. of rodent bait, which is 0.0009 lbs. (0.01 oz.). In FY 17-18, no rodenticides were used in Special Districts. The vertebrate pest manager used only trapping. o As of May 2016, Special Districts is no longer baiting with diphacinone for 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 118 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 15 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 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 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. • In 2018, the IPM Committee had presentations on ground squirrel management and rodenticide hazards. 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 at several IPM Decision Making Meetings throughout 2018 1/17/19-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): “[PfSE] asked TWIC to instruct the Department of Agriculture and Public Works Dept to use trapping methods [for ground squirrels]” “Santa Clara spends only $25/ground squirrel trapping & removal” “Isn’t it worth the effort to learn how the other counties are doing using only trapping for ground squirrel control?” (10/9/14) “One cannot compare efficiency of our [County] staff applying rodenticides and compare that to them trapping and stacking up overtime costs during the learning curve…A good-faith comparison would have been to utilize expert trappers vs our staff applying rodenticides, and then comparing costs.” (10/9/14) “[The IPM Coordinator] states that the county would incur a charge of $16,720 per linear mile for ground squirrel control if we paid a contractor who charges • In 2012, the Agriculture Department ran an extensive, in-house ground squirrel live trapping trial to determine the feasibility of using live traps to protect critical County infrastructure from ground squirrel burrowing. o The trapping was successful in that staff were easily able to capture 152 ground squirrels in the 1,200 linear foot trial area along a County road over the 5 day trial period. o The squirrels were euthanized on site by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. o Unfortunately, squirrels from the surrounding area quickly moved into the vacant burrows. This makes trapping ineffective in areas with surrounding pressure from ground squirrels. o When the Department uses rodenticide bait, the squirrels do not move back into the vacant burrows for an extended period of time. The Department surmises that because baited squirrels die mostly in their burrows, the carcasses repel any newcomers. o The Department found that live trapping would be prohibitive. It would cost $5,074/linear mile compared to $220/linear mile using bait. The Department treats around 925 linear miles of roadway each year. o Note that along roadsides, the Department spreads bait in a 12 to 15 ft wide swath at a rate of 2 to 3 oat kernels per square foot 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 119 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 16 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 $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) 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 120 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 17 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 • 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. Burrowing rodent control 1/20/17-IPM 11/16/17-IPM 1/17/19 From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): The IPM Committee should investigate the use of carbon monoxide for controlling burrowing rodents. In 2017, the IPM Committee heard a presentation on the use of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide for burrowing rodents. Dr. Roger Baldwin, from UC Cooperative Extension, gave the presentation on carbon monoxide (CO) and made the following points: • His research was done in alfalfa fields, but it probably relates fairly well to rights- of-way. (In CCC, the greatest amount of rodenticide is used on rights-of-way to reduce damage from ground squirrels. A tiny amount of rodenticide is used in Special Districts for gophers, and no rodenticides are used in County grounds.) • Using CO in rights-of-way will cost more than it did in his alfalfa fields. Efficacy still varies tremendously from site to site. It works best when soil is moist and not sandy. • It takes 3-4 minutes to treat each burrow, and other openings must be covered with soil, so the gas does not escape. It would be difficult to try to dig up hard packed clay in the summer to cover burrow openings. Sand bags might work, but they are heavy and time-consuming to load, unload, and carry to and from the truck to each hole. The Grounds Division Vertebrate Pest Manager already uses carbon dioxide to kill gophers and moles in County landscaping, in addition to trapping. In the summer of 2017, the Grounds Division hosted a demonstration of the carbon monoxide machine, which they are considering purchasing. Using either CO or CO2 along County roads would likely be very costly due to the many miles of road and the many ground squirrel burrows along some sections of road. It would be most effective in the winter or spring when the soil is wet and prevents gasses from leaking out. The Agriculture Department, the entity that manages ground squirrels for the Public Works Department, is engaged in invasive weed control and other duties during that time of year and could not attend to ground squirrels as well. In August when the Department has traditionally handled ground squirrels, the soil is dry and hard. Gasses leak out in dry soil, and as mentioned above, covering holes would be challenging. CCC is the only Bay Area county using rodenticides for ground squirrels 12/5/13-TWIC 10/9/14--TWIC 7/20/16-IPM 1/17/19-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 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 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 121 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 18 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 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) • The City and County of San Francisco does not have ground squirrel problems to contend with; however, as of February of 2016, their IPM program allows the use of bromadiolone bait (a 2nd generation anticoagulant rodenticide) for rats 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 as of February 2016, San Francisco allows the use of diphacinone for baiting rats in areas with high public health concerns and where trapping is infeasible. CCC uses only trapping to control rats and mice in and around County buildings. But note also that CCC is far less urbanized than San Francisco, and therefore does not have the same kind of severe 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 11/16/17-IPM 1/17/19-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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 122 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 19 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 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 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 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. 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 5/11/17-IPM 11/16/17- IPM 1/17/19-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 through 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 same 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, 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 123 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 20 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 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 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-TWIC 2/26/14-IPM 2/17/15-IPM 8/6/15-IPM 8/26/15-Email 11/4/15-IPM 2/17/16-IPM 11/16/17-IPM 1/17/19-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, 2014, 2015, 2016 & 2017, each new 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- 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 124 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 21 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 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 IPM Annual Reports from 2013 onward include all associated costs mentioned by PfSE. When costs are compared in future documents, every effort will be made to include all related costs for both pesticides and alternatives. Excessive pesticide use in CCC 12/5/13-TWIC 2/26/14-IPM 12/4/14-TWIC 3/10/15-IPM 2/17/16-IPM 3/16/16-IPM 7/20/16-IPM 11/16/17-IPM 1/17/19-IPM From Parents for a Safer Environment (PfSE): Contra Costa County uses more pesticide than any other Bay Area County (or, than several Bay Area Counties combined) “lack of progress is evident in that the county has not significantly altered their use of pesticide since 2009” “The single most underlying problem I see in the IPM Program is that there is little to no leadership in guiding the County to reduce pesticides. (12/4/14) “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 • The assertion that CCC uses more pesticide than any other Bay Area County, or other counties combined, is hard to evaluate since staff have not seen current pesticide use figures for County operations in other Bay Area Counties. • This could be researched, but would take time. It is difficult to compare counties, all of which vary greatly in their size, their budgets, their staff, their pests, their weather, and the kinds of responsibilities they choose to undertake. Staff feel that comparing pesticide use in various counties is not particularly relevant to how well Contra Costa County operations are implementing IPM. • In 2012 and 2013, the IPM Data Management subcommittee undertook to find additional metrics to evaluate the County’s IPM programs. This proved to be a difficult task, and the committee’s research did not discover any unique or innovative measures for evaluating IPM programs in other Bay Area counties, or across the U.S. • The subcommittee agreed that pesticide use data do not reveal whether the County is implementing IPM, and so in 2012, the subcommittee developed the IPM Priority Assessment Tool. This is a compilation of IPM best management practices (BMPs). The subcommittee asked the Departments to fill out the form in 2012 and 2013 and report the percentage of implementation of each of the BMPs. • It is important to understand that pesticide use can increase and decrease from year to year depending on the pest population, the weather, the invasion of new and perhaps difficult to control pests, the use of new products that contain small percentages of active ingredient, the use of chemicals that are less hazardous 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. • From FY 00-01 through FY 16-1717-18, the County has reduced its pesticide use by 79% --from 18,931 lbs of active ingredient in FY 00-01 to 3914 lbs of active ingredient in FY 16-17-18. • Since FY 00-01, each Department has been evaluating its pesticide use and researching options for eliminating or reducing pesticide use. By 2015 County operations had eliminated the use of 24 of the 31 “Bad Actor” pesticides that they had been using and had reduced the lbs of “Bad Actor” active ingredients by 84%. • By 2018 County operations had reduced the lbs of “Bad Actor” active ingredients by 90.5%. • 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 125 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 22 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 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 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) 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 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 3 (2015-2018) 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 3/16/17-IPM 1/17/19-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 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 126 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 23 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 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) 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. 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 127 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 24 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 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 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 128 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 25 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 • 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 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. • In January 2017, the IPM Coordinator gave a presentation on bed bugs for a group home in Antioch. • In February 2017, the IPM Coordinator provided the IPM presentation for the Bay Friendly Landscaping training in Concord. • In February 2017, the IPM Coordinator gave a bed bug talk at a home for HIV patients in El Cerrito. • During the spring of 2017, the IPM Coordinator consulted on a project of the Alameda County Healthy Homes program to create a three-part online training series on IPM for landlords and property owners. • In May of 2017, the IPM Coordinator participated in a bed bug investigation of a motel in Richmond and helped to educate the owner about bed bug prevention. • In August, the IPM Coordinator gave a bed bug awareness presentation to WIC staff. • During the summer of 2017, the IPM Outreach subcommittee of the IPM Advisory Committee developed a short presentation on pest management in homes for County in-home visitors. The subcommittee has three presentations scheduled 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 129 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 26 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 through the end of 2017, and will be contacting additional groups for presentations in the new year. As of November 2018, the subcommittee had given 14 presentations which trained 233 in-home visitors about the risks of pests and pesticides in the home and explained prevention and control measures for common pests. • In August of 2017, the IPM Coordinator and Carlos Agurto from Pestec, the County’s structural pest management contractor, provided a bed bug prevention training for Calli House Youth Shelter staff. In September, the IPM Coordinator provided a bed bug prevention presentation for WIC staff. In January and March 2018, they Pestec and the IPM Coordinator will provided additional training for all staff from all of the County shelters. They had provided this training in the past, but will now provide it at least annually to make sure new staff understand the threat, how to take precautions, and how to prevent infestations. • During 2018, the IPM Coordinator and members of the IPM Advisory Committee gave outreach presentations to 235 County staff and volunteers to help them assist their clients with pest management issues in the home. 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 for receiving a county contract or any funding” “In 2009, Michael Baefsky, a community representative of the • Staff disagree that there are any kinds of financial incentives to serve on the IPM Advisory Committee, but will defer to the Board of Supervisors on whether to impose such a moratorium. • 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 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 130 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 27 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 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.” 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 and would subject staff and their departments to disciplinary action • If the public has evidence of County staff taking bribes, we urge the public to provide that evidence for investigation. IPM Committee did not accept all of Parents for a Safer Environment’s priorities as their own 2/12/14-TWIC 11/16/17-IPM 1/17/18-Email 1/18/18-IPM 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 Taking PfSE’s priorities into consideration (11/2017 & 1/2018) • The IPM Committee devoted more than an entire meeting to the discussion of its work priorities for 2014. The public was fully involved in the discussion and PfSE provided documents and testimony detailing their own priorities. The Committee had a thorough discussion and then voted on which priorities to pursue. • The IPM Committee continues to hear from PfSE about, and involve them in, setting priorities for the Committee (11/2017 and 1/2018). 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 pub lic employees perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own fin ancial 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." 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 131 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 28 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 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 132 of 311 County Staff Responses to Public Concerns regarding the IPM Program-11/29/1711/29/198 29 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. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 133 of 311 City and County of San Francisco Office of Contract Administration Request for Qualifications # 799 For Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services Date issued: Friday September 21, 2018 Deadline for Questions: 5 p.m., Friday October 5, 2018 Responses due: 3 p.m., Thursday October 18, 2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 134 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) i [date] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction and Schedule ................................................................................................................. 1 II. Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................... 3 III. Submission Requirements .................................................................................................................. 5 IV. Evaluation and Selection Criteria ...................................................................................................... 8 V. Questions and Clarifications Regarding RFQ Requirements............................................................. 10 VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Responses ............................................................................... 11 VII. Contract Requirements....................................................................................................................... 15 VIII. Protest Procedures .............................................................................................................................. 19 Appendices: A. Required Information (Needs to be submitted) B. Sample P-245 Agreement (For your reference) C. Standard Forms: Listing and Internet addresses of Forms related to requirements for doing business with the City. (For your reference) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 135 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 1 of 19 09/17/18 I. Introduction and Schedule A. General General terms used in this Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) are defined as follows: Respondent refers to any entity submitting a Response to this RFQ, which may consist of any contractors who been pre-qualified. Response refers to the qualifications package submitted for this RFQ. Pre-Qualification refers to City’s evaluation process described below, which will result in a “pool” of pre-qualified Respondents. Contractor refers to any Respondent pre-qualified to contract for services under this RFQ. The Human Services Agency (HSA) of the City and County of San Francisco is issuing this RFQ to solicit responses from qualified firms who have the ability to provide heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services. This is the first of a two stage bid process to create a pool of pre-qualified firms available to all City departments. At this stage, the City will review and evaluate the information submitted with each response and will select respondents that meet the minimum qualifications to be placed in the pre-qualified pool. Whether a respondent is selected and placed in the pool will be determined through the evaluation process described in Section IV of this RFQ. The second stage will be the selection stage and will be carried out by individual programs wishing to use the pre-qualified pool to carry out their heavy cleaning and infestation preparation requirements. The City may select Contractors from the pre-qualified pool in its sole and absolute discretion. The manner of such selection includes but is not limited to request for quotes, invitations to bid, or any other method allowed by the City. The pre-qualified pool established during the first stage will be valid for a term of two (2) years from the date it is established. Respondents pre-qualified under this RFQ will remain eligible for consideration for contract negotiations on an as-needed basis for two (2) years from the Pre-Qualification Notification date. The City reserves the right to extend the duration of the pool for up to four (4) years, pursuant to the rules established in Chapter 21 of the San Francisco Administrative code. If the duration of the pre-qualified pool is extended, the pool will be re-opened to new qualified vendors by issuing the same RFQ. On an as- needed basis, City departments will select firms from the pre-qualified pool to enter into contracts with. Firms that are selected and placed in the pre-qualified pool are not guaranteed a contract or a minimum amount of work or compensation. The City is not required to Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation services exclusively from the selected vendors. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 136 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 2 of 19 09/17/18 B. Tentative Schedule The anticipated schedule for selecting a consultant is: Response Phase Date RFQ is issued by the City …………………………………. Friday September 21, 2018 Deadline for submission of written questions or requests for clarification ……………………………… 5 p.m. Friday October 5, 2018 Responses due …………………………………………… 3 p.m. Thursday, October 18, 2018 *Please be aware that these dates are tentative and subject to change. C. Contractors Unable to do Business with the City 1. Generally Contractors that do not comply with laws set forth in San Francisco’s Municipal Codes may be unable to enter into a contract with the City. Some of the laws are included in this RFQ, or in the sample terms and conditions attached. 2. Companies Headquarted in Certain States This Contract is subject to the requirements of Administrative Code Chapter 12X, which prohibits the City from entering into contracts with companies headquartered in states with laws that perpetuate discrimination against LGBT populations or where any or all of the work on the contract will be performed in any of those states. Respondent s are hereby advised that Respondent s which have their United States headquarters in a state on the Covered State List, as that term is defined in Administrative Code Section 12X.3, or where any or all of the work on the contract will be performed in a state on the Covered State List may not enter into contracts with the City. A list of states on the Covered State List is available at the website of the City Administrator. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 137 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 3 of 19 09/17/18 II. Scope of Work The City and County of San Francisco with the San Francisco Human Services Agency (HSA) is seeking a pool of qualified organization(s) to provide heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services. Please review this scope of work carefully and completely to be certain that your firm is able to provide at least one if not all of the service levels and types of services required for this contract. A. Definitions IPM – Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a decision-making process that utilizes regular monitoring to determine if and when treatments are needed, and to evaluate their effectiveness. IPM programs employ a mix of biological, cultural, mechanical/physical, educational, and least-toxic chemical strategies and tactics to keep pest numbers low enough to prevent intolerable damage or nuisance. Non-chemical methods and pest prevention are emphasized, and pesticides are used only as a last resort when other approaches prove insufficient. The goal of IPM is to achieve long-term, cost- effective, and environmentally sound pest control. B. General The successful Contractor (and approved subcontractors where applicable) will perform heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services as specified and coordinated by APS (Adult Protective Services). Contractor may be expected to coordinate services with property owners, building managers, tenants, or any other Responsible Party, as defined within San Francisco Health Code, Article 11, Section 580. The target population for the Services as specified is limited to low-income renters who are seniors or adults with disabilities (AWD) served by APS. APS receives referrals for Services from designated partners at Department of Public Health, the San Francisco Housing Authority, building managers, as well as the general public. C. Project Services 1. Assessment and Quote A selected Contractor from the pool will respond to case referrals by inspecting the client residence in person and providing to APS a written assessment detailing a service plan and the cost of the Service(s). A service plan includes, but is not limited to: Estimates of work-hours required, laundry volume, duration of visit(s), infestation estimates for pests, detailed list of pest prevention activities needed (for example, sealing of cracks and holes, minor repairs, etc.),. This Contractor may choose to quote on all the services required or just a portion of the required services necessary for the particular project. If a contractor chooses to quote on only a portion of the project, the Department can get a separate quote for the remainder of the project. It is at the discretion of the department to divide the work among several contractors or work with just one contractor. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 138 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 4 of 19 09/17/18 2. Treatment Prior to initiating Service(s), APS will get consent from the client that authorizes provision of Services. If necessary, APS may provide client with receptacles and instructions to store valuables prior to Service date(s). In some cases, the client will refuse to follow through with a heavy cleanup after initially agreeing to a Service Plan. Contractor shall work with APS to establish procedures for handling such situations, and APS will provide as much advance notice to the contractor as is possible To the greatest extent possible, Contractor shall commence and end all Services at a client residence on the same workday, unless otherwise coordinated by APS. Regardless of Service type provided, Contractor must complete and provide to APS a service report detailing Service Area pre-treatment, post-treatment, and any future Service recommendations. D. Contractor Responsibilities Contractor shall provide the following services during the term of this contract: Contractor shall recommend and provide heavy clean-up and area preparation for pest management strategies using the latest Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods.  Contractor shall perform heavy clean-up and/or the coordination of pest management services as specified and coordinated by APS (Adult Protective Services) or designated partners from the Department of Public Health. Referrals will be made to the Contractor by the APS or DPH partners via phone.  Contractor shall collaborate with APS and DPH partners during the clean-up process to ensure minimal negative impact on the client.  If specified by APS, Contractor shall provide services as follows: o Contractor will fill out the APS Heavy Cleaning Estimate form, and take before and after pictures of the work. o Contractor will vacuum and clean all floors/carpets. o Contractor will dispose of any hazardous waste. o Contractor will clean and sanitize all bathrooms. o Contractor will conduct a general cleaning of the unit in preparation of pest control service. o Contractor will discard all trash and items deemed too infested to remain in unit, placing bagged items in approved on-site containers for pick-up. o Contractor will vacuum all cracks and crevices on all items to remove pests and pest- produced waste prior to treatment. o Contractor will work with APS and the client to determine what clothing, bedding, and other washable items must be removed or washed by a service. o Contractor will bag items, and coordinate cleaning and/or hauling services. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 139 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 5 of 19 09/17/18 III. Submission Requirements A. Time and Place for Submission of Responses Responses must be received by 3:00 p.m., on Thursday October 18, 2018. Responses shall be submitted electronically by uploading them to the City’s PeopleSoft system, using its Supplier Portal located at: https://sfsupplierportal.sfgov.org/psp/supplier/SUPPLIER/ERP/h/?tab=DEFAULT Responses can also hand delivered, delivery by fax or Email will not be accepted. In order to submit a response in the Supplier Portal, Respondent must register in the system as a Sourcing Bidder. For more information about the system and registration, visit our SF City Partner website at: https://sfcitypartner.sfgov.org/ For hand delivery or any other mail options, submissions must be received at the Office of Contract Administration – Purchasing, City Hall, Room 430, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102, by the time and date indicated above. Please reference Request for Qualification No. 799 This contract opportunity is in the Supplier Portal as event “HSA RFQ 799 Heavy Cleaning and Infestation preparation Services” and has Event ID No. 0000001177. Respondents shall address any questions regarding the RFQ via email to the Office of Contract Administration’s Senior Purchaser Hermilo Rodis at Hermilo.Rodis @sfgov.org (415)557-5538. Respondents shall not contact other executives, managers or employees of the Office of Contract Administration and/or any other City department. Contact or correspondence with other executives, managers or employees during the procurement process may result in a cancellation of this RFQ. Late submissions will not be considered. Each response received will be screened to ensure that the information required in this RFQ is included. Partial or complete omission of any of these items from a response may disqualify responses from further consideration. B. Format For word processing documents, the City prefers that text be unjustified (i.e., with a ragged-right margin) and use a serif font (e.g., Times Roman, and not Arial), and that pages have margins of at least 1” on all sides (excluding headers and footers). Please include a Table of Contents and number every page. C. Content Firms interested in responding to this RFQ must submit the following information, in the order specified below: Omission of any of these items from a response may disqualify responses from further consideration. This information will not be scored, but will be used by departments wishing to hire firms in the pre-qualified pool. 1. Introduction and Executive Summary (No more than 3 pages) Submit a letter of introduction and executive summary of your response. The letter must be signed by a person authorized by your firm to obligate your firm to perform the commitments contained in the response. Submission of the letter will constitute a representation by your firm that your firm is willing and able to 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 140 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 6 of 19 09/17/18 perform the commitments contained in the response. The summary should cover the following: Brief history of your company, years of experience providing heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services, the location of your headquarters, a profile of your key personnel that will participate in this contract, what differentiates your company from the competitors, demonstrate an understanding of the City’s needs and intent as described in this RFQ, and a brief overview of your response’s key elements. 2. Respondent’s Qualifications (No more than 15 pages) a. Firm Qualifications Provide information on your firm’s background and qualifications which addresses the following: i. Name, address, and telephone number of a contact person; and ii. A brief description of your firm, as well as how any joint venture or association would be structured; and iii. A description of not more than three projects of similar scope prepared by your firm. (a) Your description should include: client reference and contact information, staff members who worked on each project, project budget, size (square feet) of facilities relocated to, amount of staff/people that were relocated, types of facilities worked with (office, garage, etc.), project schedule, and project summary. Descriptions should be limited to two pages for each project. (b) If joint consultants or sub-consultants are proposed provide the above information for each. b. Team Qualifications i. Provide a list identifying: (1) each key person on the project team, (2) the project manager, (3) the role each will play in the project, and (4) a written assurance that the key individuals listed and identified will be performing the work and will not be substituted with other personnel or reassigned to another project without the City’s prior approval. ii. Provide a description of the experience and qualifications of the project team members, including brief resumes. 3. Respondent Approach (No more than 10 pages) Describe the services and activities that your firm proposes to provide to the City for heavy cleaning and infestation preparation projects. This should cover services and activities that your firm typically provides for such projects, and those that are generally expected for such projects. Include the following information: a. All scope of work tasks and deliverables expected to be provided, along with a detailed description of what the tasks/deliverables would include; 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 141 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 7 of 19 09/17/18 b. Sample schedules and expected timelines to complete such projects; and c. Assignment of work within your firm’s work team. 4. Price Information (No more than 2 pages) Respondent must submit Price Information. The City intends to pre-qualify firms that it considers will provide the best overall services for its heavy cleaning and infestation preparation needs. The City reserves the right to accept other than the lowest priced offer and to reject any response that are not responsive to this request. Price Information will not be used in the Pre-Qualification evaluation process. Price Information will be made available to departments seeking to hire a pre-qualified vendor from the pool. Your Price Information should include: a. Typical fee structure for heavy cleaning and infestation preparation projects. This should include total fees charged for deliverables/tasks you would intend to provide to the City for heavy cleaning and infestation preparation projects. b. Hourly rates for all team members. Hourly rates and itemized costs may be used to negotiate changes in the Scope of Work if necessary. 5. Required Information Please provide a completed Appendix A: “Required Information.” Included in this document will be your References and a Minimum Requirements Checklist. 6. CMD Forms All responses submitted must include required CMD forms as listed in Section VI.N of this RFQ, as a separate file/attachment. Other forms may also be required to be filed with the City to meet City requirements, but may not have to be submitted with the response, if your firm is already compliant. For a list of the standard forms, see Appendix C. 7. Signed Addenda (if any) If the City has issued any addenda under this RFQ, please sign and submit each addendum with your response submission. It is respondent’s responsibility to constantly check the PeopleSoft Event for Addenda. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 142 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 8 of 19 09/17/18 IV. Evaluation Criteria This section describes the guidelines used for analyzing and evaluating the responses for pre-qualification. It is the City’s intent to pre-qualify Respondent(s) who provide the best overall qualifications to the City. Firms selected for pre-qualification are not guaranteed a contract. This RFQ does not, in any way, limit the City’s right to solicit contracts for similar or identical services if, in the City’s sole and absolute discretion, it determines the pre-qualified list is inadequate to satisfy its needs. A. Evaluation Team City representatives will serve as the Evaluation Team responsible for evaluating Respondents. Specifically, the team will be responsible for evaluating and rating the responses for pre- qualification, for conducting reference checks, and for interviews, if desired by the City. B. Minimum Qualifications The following table outlines the minimum qualifications that respondents who wish to be pre- qualified must possess. Any response that does not demonstrate that the respondent meets these minimum qualifications by the deadline for submittal of responses may be considered non- responsive and may not be eligible for pre-qualification. Table 1 Minimum Qualifications Minimum Qualification # Requirement Item to be submitted with Response 1 At least three (3) years’ experience providing heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services. The experience must be from the within the last five (5) years of the response due date. The “Executive Summary” in your response shall describe in detail your years of experience providing such services. See Section III.C.1. of this RFQ above. Three verifiable client references (See MQ #2). 2 Three (3) verifiable client references, for heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services, provided within the last five (5) years of the response due date. Each reference shall verify, to City staff, the information provided. Your references should demonstrate that you meet MQ #1. “References” section within Appendix A “Required Information.” See Section III.C.5. of this RFQ above. 3 At least three (3) prior projects for heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services for a company or organization. Respondent’s Qualifications section of your response. See Section III.C.2.a.iii. of this RFQ above. The City reserves the right to reject any response if the documentation submitted by the respondent fails to satisfy the City, and/or respondent is unable to supply the documentation within the time period requested. The City reserves the right to terminate a contract after the award if any of the documentation is found later to be misleading or the respondent has misrepresented their qualifications and experience. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 143 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 9 of 19 09/17/18 C. Evaluation Criteria for Pre-Qualification by OCA Each RFQ response that meets the Minimum Qualifications will be added to the pre-qualified pool. There is no numerical limit to the number of firms that may be pre-qualified. Table 2 Pre-Qualification Criteria Criteria Evaluation Method Minimum Qualifications Pass/Fail The evaluation team will review each response. A response that passes all minimum qualifications will be eligible for pre-qualification. A response that fails to meet the minimum qualifications may not be eligible for pre-qualification. The City reserves the right to request clarifications from respondents prior to rejecting a response for failure to meet the minimum qualifications. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the City and Respondent for the purpose of clarifying certain aspects of the response and will not provide a respondent the opportunity to revise or modify its responses. D. Contractor Selection Process by Departments City departments may choose firms from the pre-qualified pool for heavy cleaning and infestation preparation services on an as-needed basis. City departments will negotiate the specific scope of services, budget, deliverables, and timeline for each project they decide to pursue. The selection of any pre-qualified Respondent for contract negotiations shall not imply acceptance by the City of all terms of the response, which may be subject to further negotiation and approvals before the City may be legally bound thereby. If a satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated in a reasonable time with any pre-qualified Respondent, then the City, in its sole discretion, may terminate negotiations and begin contract negotiations with any other remaining pre-qualified Respondents. The City, in its sole discretion, has the right to approve or disapprove any staff person assigned to a firm’s projects before and throughout the contract term. The City reserves the right at any time to approve, disapprove, or modify proposed project plans, timelines and deliverables. There is no guarantee of a minimum amount of work or compensation for any of the respondents selected for pre-qualification. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 144 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 10 of 19 09/17/18 V. Questions and Clarifications Regarding RFQ Requirements. A. All respondents are encouraged to carefully review all pages of this Request for Qualification. All questions, comments, and concerns should be immediately be directed to the buyer before October 5, 2018. All questions and/or concerns should be sent to the buyer listed below: Hermilo Rodis, Senior Purchaser City and County of San Francisco Office of Contract Administration Purchasing Division City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4685 E-mail hermilo.rodis@sfgov.org Fax No. (415) 557-5538 Please reference Request for Qualification No. 799 B. Any respondent’s failure to raise concerns, in writing, related to this Request for Qualification requirements or failure to report an incorrect reference by October 5, 2018 will be deemed a waiver of the bidder’s right to protest any decision for contract award relating to the Request for Qualification’s requirements. C. For informational purposes: Questions and Answers of the respondent’s questions sent by October 5, 2018 may be posted on this Request for Qualification’s Event page in the Supplier Portal. The Event Number is 0000001177. D. It is the responsibility of the bidder to check for any Addendum and any other items posted, that will be posted on this Request for Qualification’s Event page in the Supplier Portal. The Event Number is 0000001177. Note that every Addendum will create a new version of the Event. Bidders should monitor the event for new versions. If there is a new version that means that something has been changed or added in the event. If addenda are issued, a signed receipt must be acknowledged by the bidder by including them as part of the bid submission to ensure that all requirements are included in the RFQ. Failure to include all addenda may result in your submissionion not being considered. The City will assume no responsibility for oral instructions or suggestions. If the City issues an Addendum after Respondent has submitted their RFQ, but prior to the Event end date, Bidder must retract their submission, and resubmit their bid along with the newly issued Addendum. Supplier Portal: https://sfsupplierportal.sfgov.org/psp/supplier/SUPPLIER/ERP/h/?tab=DEFAULT 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 145 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 11 of 19 09/17/18 VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Responses A. Errors and Omissions in RFQ Respondents are responsible for reviewing all portions of this RFQ. Respondents are to promptly notify the Department, in writing, if the respondent discovers any ambiguity, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the RFQ. Any such notification should be directed to the Department promptly after discovery, but in no event later than 72 hours prior to the date that responses are due. Modifications and clarifications will be made by addenda as provided below. B. Questions and Objections Regarding RFQ Any questions or objections concerning the requirements and terms in this RFQ must be submitted, in writing, via email to Hermilo.Rodis@sfgov.org by 10 a.m. on Friday October 5, 2018. Respondents who fail to do so will waive all further rights to protest, based on these requirements and terms. C. Objections to RFQ Terms Should a respondent object on any ground to any provision or legal requirement set forth in this RFQ, the respondent must, no later than 10 a.m. on Friday October 5, 2018, provide written notice via email to the Purchaser at Hermilo.Rodis@sfgov.org setting forth with specificity the grounds for the objection. The failure of a respondent to object in the manner set forth in this paragraph shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of any such objection. D. Change Notices/Addendum The City may modify the RFQ, prior to the response due date, by issuing RFQ Addendum(s), which will be posted on this Event’s page in the Supplier Portal. The respondent shall be responsible for ensuring that its response reflects any and all RFQ Addendum(s) issued by the City prior to the response due date regardless of when the response is submitted. If addenda are issued, a signed receipt shall be acknowledged by the Respondent by including them as part of the RFQ submission to ensure that all requirements are included in the response. Failure to include all signed addenda may result in your response not being considered. The City will assume no responsibility for oral instructions or suggestions. Therefore, the City recommends that the respondent consult the Event frequently, including shortly before the response due date, to determine if the respondent has downloaded all RFQ Addendum(s). It is the responsibility of the respondent to check for any Addendum, Questions and Answers, and updates, which will be posted on this Event’s page in the Supplier Portal at: https://sfsupplierportal.sfgov.org/psp/supplier/SUPPLIER/ERP/h/?tab=DEFAULT Note that every Addendum will create a new version of the Event. Respondent s should monitor the event for new versions. If there is a new version that means that something has been changed or added in the event. If the City issues an Addendum after Respondent has submitted their response, but prior to the Event end date, Respondent must retract their response, and resubmit their response along with the newly issued Addendum prior to the Response due date. E. Term of Response Submission of a response signifies that the proposed services and prices are valid for 180 calendar days from the response due date and that the quoted prices are genuine and not the result of collusion or any other anti-competitive activity. At Respondent’s election, the response may remain valid beyond the 180 day period in the circumstance of extended negotiations. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 146 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 12 of 19 09/17/18 F. Revision of Response A respondent may revise a response on the respondent’s own initiative at any time before the deadline for submission of responses. The respondent must submit the revised response in the same manner as the original. A revised response must be received on or before, but no later than the response due date and time. In no case will a statement of intent to submit a revised response, or commencement of a revision process, extend the response due date for any respondent. At any time during the response evaluation process, the Department may require a respondent to provide oral or written clarification of its response. The Department reserves the right to make an award without further clarifications of responses received. G. Errors and Omissions in Response Failure by the Department to object to an error, omission, or deviation in the response will in no way modify the RFQ or excuse the vendor from full compliance with the specifications of the RFQ or any contract awarded pursuant to the RFQ. H. Financial Responsibility The City accepts no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by a firm in responding to this RFQ. Submissions of the RFQ will become the property of the City and may be used by the City in any way deemed appropriate. I. Proposer’s Obligations under the Campaign Reform Ordinance Proposers must comply with Section 1.126 of the S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, which states: No person who contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for the rendition of personal services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies or equipment to the City, or for selling any land or building to the City, whenever such transaction would require approval by a City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves, shall make any contribution to such an officer, or candidates for such an office, or committee controlled by such officer or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations and the later of either (1) the termination of negotiations for such contract, or (2) three months have elapsed from the date the contract is approved by the City elective officer or the board on which that City elective officer serves. If a proposer is negotiating for a contract that must be approved by an elected local officer or the board on which that officer serves, during the negotiation period the proposer is prohibited from making contributions to: • the officer’s re-election campaign • a candidate for that officer’s office • a committee controlled by the officer or candidate. The negotiation period begins with the first point of contact, either by telephone, in person, or in writing, when a contractor approaches any city officer or employee about a particular contract, or a city officer or employee initiates communication with a potential contractor about a contract. The negotiation period ends when a contract is awarded or not awarded to the contractor. Examples of initial contacts include: (1) a vendor contacts a city officer or employee to promote himself or herself as a candidate for a contract; and (2) a city officer or employee contacts a contractor to propose that the contractor apply for a contract. Inquiries for information about a particular contract, requests for documents relating to a Request for Response, and requests to be placed on a mailing list do not constitute negotiations. Violation of Section 1.126 may result in the following criminal, civil, or administrative penalties: 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 147 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 13 of 19 09/17/18 1. Criminal. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates section 1.126 is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail term of not more than six months, or both. 2. Civil. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in a civil action brought by the civil prosecutor for an amount up to $5,000. 3. Administrative. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission held pursuant to the Charter for an amount up to $5,000 for each violation. For further information, proposers should contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at (415) 581-2300. J. Sunshine Ordinance In accordance with S.F. Administrative Code Section 67.24(e), contractors’ bids, responses to RFQs and all other records of communications between the City and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the disclosure of a private person’s or organization’s net worth or other proprietary financial data submitted for qualification for a contract or other benefits until and unless that person or organization is awarded the contract or benefit. Information provided which is covered by this paragraph will be made available to the public upon request. K. Public Access to Meetings and Records If a proposer is a non-profit entity that receives a cumulative total per year of at least $250,000 in City funds or City-administered funds and is a non-profit organization as defined in Chapter 12L of the S.F. Administrative Code, the proposer must comply with Chapter 12L. The proposer must include in its response (1) a statement describing its efforts to comply with the Chapter 12L provisions regarding public access to proposer’s meetings and records, and (2) a summary of all complaints concerning the proposer’s compliance with Chapter 12L that were filed with the City in the last two years and deemed by the City to be substantiated. The summary shall also describe the disposition of each complaint. If no such complaints were filed, the proposer shall include a statement to that effect. Failure to comply with the reporting requirements of Chapter 12L or material misrepresentation in proposer’s Chapter 12L submissions shall be grounds for rejection of the response and/or termination of any subsequent Agreement reached on the basis of the response. L. Reservations of Rights by the City The issuance of this RFQ does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will actually be entered into by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to: 1. Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, response, or response procedure; 2. Reject any or all responses; 3. Reissue a Request for Qualifications; 4. Prior to submission deadline for responses, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 148 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 14 of 19 09/17/18 provided under this RFQ, or the requirements for contents or format of the responses; 5. Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFQ by any other means; or 6. Determine that no project will be pursued. M. No Waiver No waiver by the City of any provision of this RFQ shall be implied from any failure by the City to recognize or take action on account of any failure by a proposer to observe any provision of this RFQ. N. Local Business Enterprise Goals and Outreach 1. Due to a mix of State and local funding, LBE discounts/bonuses will not be used in this RFQ. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 149 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 15 of 19 09/17/18 VII. Contract Requirements A. Standard Contract Provisions The successful proposer will be required to enter into a contract substantially in the form of the Agreement for Professional Services, attached hereto as Appendix B. Failure to timely execute the contract, or to furnish any and all insurance certificates and policy endorsement, surety bonds or other materials required in the contract, shall be deemed an abandonment of a contract offer. The City, in its sole discretion, may select another firm and may proceed against the original selectee for damages. B. Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits The successful respondent will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of Chapters 12B and 12C of the San Francisco Administrative Code. Generally, Chapter 12B prohibits the City and County of San Francisco from entering into contracts or leases with any entity that discriminates in the provision of benefits between employees with domestic partners and employees with spouses, and/or between the domestic partners and spouses of employees. The Chapter 12C requires nondiscrimination in contracts in public accommodation. Additional information on Chapters 12B and 12C is available on the CMD’s website at http://sfgov.org/cmd/. C. Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO) The successful respondent will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12P. Generally, this Ordinance requires contractors to provide employees covered by the Ordinance who do work funded under the contract with hourly gross compensation and paid and unpaid time off that meet certain minimum requirements. For the amount of hourly gross compensation currently required under the MCO, see www.sfgov.org/olse/mco. Note that this hourly rate may increase on January 1 of each year and that contractors will be required to pay any such increases to covered employees during the term of the contract. Additional information regarding the MCO is available on the web at www.sfgov.org/olse/mco. D. Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO) The successful respondent will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12Q. Contractors should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the HCAO is available on the web at www.sfgov.org/olse/hcao. E. First Source Hiring Program (FSHP) If the contract is for more than $50,000, then the First Source Hiring Program (Admin. Code Chapter 83) may apply. Generally, this ordinance requires contractors to notify the First Source Hiring Program of available entry-level jobs and provide the Workforce Development System with the first opportunity to refer qualified individuals for employment. Contractors should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the FSHP is available on the web at http://oewd.org/first-sourceand from the First Source Hiring Administrator, (415) 701-4848. F. Conflicts of Interest The successful respondent will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the applicable provisions of state and local laws related to conflicts of interest, including Section 15.103 of the 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 150 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 16 of 19 09/17/18 City's Charter, Article III, Chapter 2 of City’s Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, and Section 87100 et seq. and Section 1090 et seq. of the Government Code of the State of California. The successful respondent will be required to acknowledge that it is familiar with these laws; certify that it does not know of any facts that constitute a violation of said provisions; and agree to immediately notify the City if it becomes aware of any such fact during the term of the Agreement. Individuals who will perform work for the City on behalf of the successful respondent might be deemed consultants under state and local conflict of interest laws. If so, such individuals will be required to submit a Statement of Economic Interests, California Fair Political Practices Commission Form 700, to the City within ten calendar days of the City notifying the successful respondent that the City has selected the respondent. G. Insurance Without in any way limiting Proposer’s liability pursuant to the “indemnification” section of the Agreement (Appendix C), Proposer will be required to maintain in force, during the full term of any agreement, insurance in the following amounts and coverage 1. Required Coverages. Without in any way limiting Contractor’s liability pursuant to the “Indemnification” section of this Agreement, Contractor must maintain in force, during the full term of the Agreement, insurance in the following amounts and coverages: a. Workers’ Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers’ Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury, or illness; and b. Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; and c. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, “Combined Single Limit” for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable. 2. Commercial General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance policies must be endorsed to provide: a. Name as Additional Insured the City and County of San Francisco, its Officers, Agents, and Employees. b. That such policies are primary insurance to any other insurance available to the Additional Insureds, with respect to any claims arising out of this Agreement, and that insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought. 3. All policies shall be endorsed to provide thirty (30) days’ advance written notice to the City of cancellation for any reason, intended non-renewal, or reduction in coverages. Notices shall be sent to the City address set forth in Section 11.1, entitled “Notices to the Parties.” 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 151 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 17 of 19 09/17/18 4. Should any of the required insurance be provided under a claims-made form, Contractor shall maintain such coverage continuously throughout the term of this Agreement and, without lapse, for a period of three years beyond the expiration of this Agreement, to the effect that, should occurrences during the contract term give rise to claims made after expiration of the Agreement, such claims shall be covered by such claims-made policies. 5. Should any required insurance lapse during the term of this Agreement, requests for payments originating after such lapse shall not be processed until the City receives satisfactory evidence of reinstated coverage as required by this Agreement, effective as of the lapse date. If insurance is not reinstated, the City may, at its sole option, terminate this Agreement effective on the date of such lapse of insurance. 6. Before commencing any Services, Contractor shall furnish to City certificates of insurance and additional insured policy endorsements with insurers with ratings comparable to A-, VIII or higher, that are authorized to do business in the State of California, and that are satisfactory to City, in form evidencing all coverages set forth above. Approval of the insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease Contractor's liability hereunder. 7. The Workers’ Compensation policy(ies) shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors. 8. If Contractor will use any subcontractor(s) to provide Services, Contractor shall require the subcontractor(s) to provide all necessary insurance and to name the City and County of San Francisco, its officers, agents and employees and the Contractor as additional insureds. 9. Approval of the insurance by City shall not relieve or decrease the liability of Contractor hereunder. 10. City reserves the right to increase required limits for insurance coverage based on individual departmental needs. H. Failure to Deliver. If Contractor fails to deliver an article or service of the quality, in the manner or within the time called for by this Contract, such article or service may be bought from any source by Purchasing and if a greater price than the contract price be paid, the excess price will be charged to and collected from Contractor or sureties on its bond if bond has been required. I. Use of City Opinion. Contractor shall not quote, paraphrase, or otherwise refer to or use any opinion of City, its officers or agents, regarding Contractor or Contractor’s performance under this Contract without prior written permission of Purchasing. J. Resource Conservation. Contractor agrees to comply fully with the provisions of Chapter 5 of the San Francisco Environment Code (“Resource Conservation”), as amended from time to time. Said provisions are incorporated herein by reference. K. Cooperative Agreement. The selected Proposer will be asked to make a selection below upon Award. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 152 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 18 of 19 09/17/18 Contractor agrees ______ or does not agree______ (make a selection by an “X” mark) that during the term of this agreement and any authorized extension, the Director of Purchasing may allow other public agencies or non-profits made up of multiple public agencies to utilize this agreement to obtain some or all of the services and/or commodities to be provided by Contractor under the same terms and conditions as the City, pursuant to a Board of Supervisor Resolution. L. Reports by Contractor MULTI-YEAR TERM CONTRACT Each year, no later than February 15; Contractor shall submit a soft copy report of the total services ordered, by month, under this contract during the preceding calendar year (January 1 – December 31). The report must be in a format acceptable to City and must list by department or location the following: (1) all services awarded under this contract; and (2) total quantity and dollar value of each service ordered, including services for which there were no orders. Contractor must also furnish a separate similar report for the total of all services ordered by City which are not part of this Contract, and any usage reports required prior to the extension of a Contract or Contract Modification. Emailed reports must not be larger than 10MB. Contractor shall email reports to: OCAVendor.Reports@sfgov.org Any report files larger than 10MB must be submitted in electronic format on CD-ROM or USB drive and mailed to the address shown below with the term contract number and “Annual Vendor Reporting” clearly marked on the envelope/packaging. Contractor shall mail the reports to: OCA Vendor Reporting Re: Agreement No. 799 City and County of San Francisco Office of Contract Administration – Purchasing City Hall, Room 430 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102-4685 M. Emergency – Priority 1 Service. In case of an emergency that affects the San Francisco Bay Area, Contractor will give the City and County of San Francisco Priority 1 service. Contractor will make every good faith effort in attempting to provide emergency services. Contractor shall provide a 24-hour emergency telephone number of a company representative who is able to receive and act on requests for emergency services. In addition, Contractor shall charge fair and competitive prices for services ordered during an emergency and not covered under the awarded contract. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 153 of 311 HSA RFQ 799 Request for Qualifications for Heavy Cleaning and Infestation Preparation Services P-590 (4-17) 19 of 19 09/17/18 VIII. Protest Procedures A. Protest of Non-Responsiveness Determination Within five working days of the City's issuance of a notice of non-responsiveness, any firm that has submitted an RFQ and believes that the City has incorrectly determined that its response is non- responsive may submit a written notice of protest. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth working day following the City's issuance of the notice of non-responsiveness. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the proposer, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFQ provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protestor must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. B. Protest of Non-Responsible Determination Within five working days of the City's issuance of a notice of a determination of non- responsibility, a vendor that would otherwise be the lowest responsive proposer may submit a written notice of protest. The vendor will be notified of any evidence reflecting upon their responsibility received from others or adduced as a result of independent investigation. The vendor will be afforded an opportunity to rebut such adverse evidence, and will be permitted to present evidence that they are qualified to perform the contract. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth working day following the City's issuance of the notice of non-responsibility. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the proposer, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFQ provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protestor must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. C. Delivery of Protests All protests must be received by the due date. If a protest is mailed, the protestor bears the risk of non-delivery within the deadlines specified herein. Protests should be transmitted by a means that will objectively establish the date the City received the protest. Protests or notice of protests made orally (e.g., by telephone) will not be considered. Protests must be delivered to: Hermilo Rodis Office of Contract Administration 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall, Room 430, San Francisco, CA 94102 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 154 of 311 Name of EPA or Calif.Amt Used Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I. Product Applied Registration #FY 00-01 Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16 FY 16-17 Used 16-17 FY 17-18 Used 17-18 Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons) Adjuvant Activator 90 36208-50014 613.88 1.040 90.000 4786.31 Adjuvant Agri-Dex 5905-50094-AA 0.879 99.000 84.75 614.34 49.5 358.82 19.75 143.16 Chemtrol 36208-50015 14.00 0.995 1.000 1.16 Penoxulam Cleantraxx 62719-702-AA 1.177 0.850 1.5 0.13 Oxyfluorfen 1.177 40.310 1.5 5.93 Sodium salt of Imazxamox Clearcast 241-437-AA-67690 1.049 12.100 3.50 3.70 3.31 3.50 2.00 2.11 Copper ethanolamine complexes, mixed Cutrine Plus 8959-10-AA 65.00 1.206 9.000 58.78 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 25.14 41.89 28.44 47.39 24.96 41.59 22.21 37.01 Prodiamine Evade 4FL 34704-915-AA 1.184 40.500 21.25 84.88 Adjuvant Foam Fighter F 36208-50015 1.25 0.995 5.000 0.52 Dimethyl silicone fluid emulsion Foam Fighter F 36208-50003, 72- 50005-AA 0.00 1.000 10.000 0.38 0.32 Triclopyr triethylamine salt Garlon 3A 62719-37-ZA 64.00 1.135 44.400 268.66 166.75 699.99 153.13 642.81 186.38 782.39 122.00 512.13 Triclopyr BEE Garlon 4 62719-40 51.25 1.060 61.600 278.76 Oxyfluorfen Goal 707-174 2.00 0.990 19.400 3.20 0.00 Oxyfluorfen Goal Tender 62719-447-ZA 0.00 1.170 41.000 13.38 53.47 Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt Habitat 241-426-AA 0.00 1.068 28.700 2.19 5.59 3.55 9.07 0.39 1.00 0.47 1.20 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 14.06 54.21 15.39 59.34 Aminopyralid, tri isopropanolamine salt Milestone VM 62719-537-AA 0.00 1.140 40.600 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 2.38 17.66 2.63 19.52 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 0.00 1.050 90.000 209.00 1645.22 121.75 958.40 Adjuvant No Foam A 1050775-50015-AA 1.060 90.000 0.5 3.97 131.88 1048.03 125.25 995.34 Pendimethalin Pendulum Aquacap 241-416-AA 0.00 1.175 38.700 5.00 18.94 Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt Polaris 228-534-AA 1.057 27.700 0.33 0.80 Adjuvant Quest 5905-50076-AA 1.350 48.760 63.50 348.19 Triclopyr TEA Renovate 3 62719-37-67690 0.00 1.140 44.400 35.13 148.15 27.63 116.52 27.5 115.97 26.00 109.64 Glyphosate,Rodeo 524-343 221.00 1.205 53.800 1193.46 Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Custom 524-343-ZC & ZG 1.206 53.800 29.94 161.82 49.19 265.86 42.5 229.70 27.75 149.98 Roundup Pro 524-475-ZA & ZB 510.75 1.170 41.000 2041.43 12.00 47.96 36.63 146.41 PESTICIDES OF CONCERN ARE SHADED (Pesticide Action Network defined "Bad Actors") Contra Costa County Public Works 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 155 of 311 Name of EPA or Calif.Amt Used Specific %Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I. Product Applied Registration #FY 00-01 Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16 FY 16-17 Used 16-17 FY 17-18 Used 17-18 Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons) Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 0.00 1.199 50.200 240.75 1206.57 238.63 1195.95 280.13 1403.93 192.89 966.71 Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt Stalker 241-398 5.63 1.050 27.600 13.58 Adjuvant Silwet L-77 36208-50025 1.70 1.007 100.000 14.26 Adjuvant Smoke 5905-50104-AA 1.160 56.400 3.25 17.71 Oryzalin Surflan A.S.62719-113 14.25 1.188 40.400 56.97 Oryzalin Surflan A.S.70506-44 0.00 1.236 40.400 12.00 49.92 Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 68891-50001-AA 39.63 1.118 53.400 197.06 Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 11656-50093 0.00 1.180 53.400 20.81 109.23 11.56 60.68 Adjuvant/Surfactant Surphtac 34704-50086 1.096 33.000 9.56 28.80 23.19 69.87 0.50 1.51 Clopyralid Transline 62719-259 22.50 1.161 40.900 89.00 Adjuvant Unfoamer 34704-50062-AA 1.000 12.500 0.5 0.52 0.13 0.14 Vanquish 55947-46 230.00 1.250 56.800 1360.29 Dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 228-397 0.00 1.250 56.800 24.56 145.26 7.5 44.36 Adjuvant Weather Gard Complete 34704-50056-AA 1.010 100.000 8.25 69.41 Weedar 64 71368-1-264 526.75 1.160 38.900 1979.96 Dry Materials (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds) Dithiopyr Dimension Ultra 40 WP 62719-445 0.00 N/A 40.000 3.75 1.50 Direx 80DF 352-508-1812 2875.00 N/A 80.000 2300.00 Endurance 55947-43 1513.00 N/A 65.000 983.45 Isoxaben Gallery 75DF 62719-145 54.00 N/A 75.000 40.50 48.50 36.38 Gallery SC 62719-658 AA N/A 45.450 13.00 5.91 452.50 205.66 60.00 27.27 11.25 5.11 Sulfumeturon methyl Oust 352-401 27.38 N/A 75.000 20.53 Predict 55947-78 495.00 N/A 78.600 389.07 Prodiamine Resolute 65WG 100-834-ZE N/A 65.000 148.00 96.20 95.00 61.75 80.00 52.00 Ronstar 50WSP 264-538 120.00 N/A 50.000 60.00 Simtrol 90DF 35915-12-60063 430.00 N/A 90.000 387.00 Tebuthiuron Spike 80DF 62719-107 60.00 N/A 80.000 48.00 24.00 19.20 Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-404 25.38 N/A 75.000 19.031 TOTAL:16590.97 4780.08 4607.39 4320.83 3472.69 "Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 5764.53 1020.03 779.00 898.36 621.78 Amt used x %AI Contra Costa County Public Works (continued) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 156 of 311 Contra Costa County Public Works, Special Districts Name of EPA or Calif.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I. Product Applied Reg # FY 07-08 & before Specific Gravity % A.I. Used FY 07-08 & before FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16 FY 16-17 Used 16-17 FY 17-18 Used 17-18 Dry Materials (pounds)Amt used x % AI (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds) Diphacinone Diphacinone Treated Grain Rodent Bait 10965-50001-ZA no data N/A 0.005 no data 29.00 0.00145 1.00 0.00005 10.00 0.00050 Diphacinone Eaton's Answer 56-57 no data N/A 0.005 no data 16.00 0.00080 17.00 0.00085 5.00 0.00025 Diphacinone Eaton's Bait Blocks 56-42 no data N/A 0.005 no data 8.50 0.00043 9.50 0.00048 3.00 0.00015 Diphacinone Gopher Getter Type 2 AG Bait 36029-23 no data N/A 0.005 no data Diphacinone Gopher Getter Type 2 AG Bait 36029-24 no data N/A 0.005 no data Diphacinone P.C.Q. Pelleted Rodent Bait 12455-50003-AA no data N/A 0.010 no data Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 no data N/A 60.000 no data TOTAL 0.00268 0.00138 0.00090 0.00 T OTAL Oz.0.04 oz 0.02 0.01 0.00 "Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 157 of 311 Name of EPA or Calif.Amt Used Specific %Total Lbs A.I Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I. Product Applied Registration #FY 00-01 Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16 FY 16-17 Used 16-17 FY 17-18 Used 17-18 Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons) glyphosate Aquamaster 524-343 1.205 53.80 Dicamba & 2.4 D Banvel 55947-1 14.91 1.211 48.20 72.51 2,4-D 34704-5 5.50 1.163 46.50 24.78 Bivert 2935-50157-AA 0.93 0.790 100.00 6.12 Carbaryl ("7")54705-4 7.95 1.100 41.20 30.01 dicamba, diglycolamine salt Clarity 7969-137 0.00 1.250 58.10 14.76 89.29 2.55 15.43 1.38 8.35 7.87 47.61 Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Garlon 4 Ultra 62719-527 1.110 60.45 8.85 49.47 8.44 47.17 1 5.59 Triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester Garlon 4 464-554 2.50 1.082 61.60 13.88 imazapyr isopropylamine salt Habitat 241-426 0.00 1.068 28.70 0.00 surfactant Hasten 2935-50160 0.900 100.00 Drift retardant--oils In Place 2935-50169 0.880 100.00 0.41 2.98 2.25 16.49 Aminopyralid, triisopropanolammonium salt Milestone 62719-519 0.00 1.140 40.60 3.13 12.07 0.98 3.78 0.62 2.39 2.23 8.60 surfactant Pro-Tron 71058-50008-AA 0.984 95.00 4.93 38.39 0.11 0.86 1.11 8.64 1.8 14.02 Adjuvant R-11 2935-50142-AA 51.00 1.020 90.00 389.99 Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Rodeo 524-343 2.50 1.205 53.80 13.50 Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro 524-475 69.14 1.170 41.00 276.35 Glyphosate, isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 1.199 50.20 1.69 8.47 1.09 5.47 imazapyr isopropylamine salt Stalker 241-398 1.060 27.60 0.0004 0.001 Picloram potassium salt Tordon 22K 464-323 1.53 1.140 24.40 3.55 Clopyralid, monoethanolamine salt Transline 62719-259 70.28 1.161 40.90 277.99 0.01 0.04 dicamba, diglycolamine salt Vanquish 55947-46 50.59 1.250 56.80 299.20 Dry Materials (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds) Diphacinone Diphacinone .005%10965-50001-ZA 725.00 N/A 0.005 0.04 260 0.013 731.00 0.03655 236.00 0.0118 620.00 0.031 Diphacinone Diphacinone .01%10965-50003-ZA 15667.30 N/A 0.01 1.57 27109 2.71 11888.50 1.18885 11389.00 1.1389 18665.00 1.867 Sodium nitrate, charcoal Gas Cartridge 56228-2 0.00 N/A 81.00 Imidacloprid Merit 75WSP 3125-439 13.58 N/A 75.00 10.19 Chlorsulfuron Telar 352-522 0.00 N/A 75.00 1.05 0.79 Picloram potassium salt Tordon 10K 464-320 8.56 N/A 11.60 0.99 Aluminum phosphide Weevil-cide 70506-13 0.00 N/A 60.00 0.66 0.396 TOTAL:1420.66 154.72 76.22 68.14 94.21 "Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 131.84 0.79 0.00 0.40 0.00 Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI Amt . Used x %AI 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 158 of 311 Name of EPA or Calif.Amt Used Specific %Total Lbs A.I Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I.Amt Used Total Lbs A.I. Product Applied Registration #FY 00-01 Gravity A. I.Used FY 00-01 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16 FY 16-17 Used 16-17 FY 17-18 Used 17-18 Liquid Materials (gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons)(gallons) Clethodim Arrow 2EC 66222-60 0.970 26.40 0.06 0.13 0.03 0.06 Adjuvant Crop Oil (Monterey Herbicide Helper)54705-50001-AA 0.900 100.00 Fluazifop-P-butyl Fusilade II 100-1084 0.980 24.50 Goal 707-174 12.09 0.990 19.40 19.34 Adjuvant Magnify 17545-50018 1.220 51.50 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.37 Maintain A 400-396-AA 0.00 1.000 0.30 Adjuvant No Foam A (Monterey)54705-50004-AA 1.050 90.00 0.22 1.73 0.003 0.02 0.03 0.24 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 0.08 0.20 0.109 0.27 Glyphosate isopropylamine salt RangerPro 524-517-ZB 1.169 41.00 14.62 58.37 Roundup Pro 524-445-ZB 44.78 1.020 41.00 156.00 Glyphosate isopropylamine salt Roundup Pro Conc.524-529 0.00 1.199 50.20 39.13 196.19 59.32 297.42 Glyphosate potassium salt Roundup Promax 524-579 1.356 48.70 56.51 310.86 55.28 304.09 16.13 88.73 Triclopyr 4EC 81927-11-AA 1.100 61.60 0.25 1.41 Triclopyr BEE Turflon 62719-258 0.36 1.060 61.60 1.96 Turflon Ester 17545-8-AA 1.08 60.45 0.003 0.02 Dry Materials (pounds)%AI (pounds)(pounds)(pounds)(pounds) Isoxaben Gallery 75 DF 62719-145-AA 129.44 N/A 75.00 97.08 18.38 13.79 80.00 60.00 11.78 8.84 40.80 30.60 Dithiopyr Dithiopyr 40 WSB 73220-13 N/A 0.125 lbs ai/5 oz 30 oz (6 bags)0.75 5 oz (1 bag)0.125 Flumioxazin Payload 59639-120-ZA N/A 51.00 3.06 1.56 1.92 0.98 3.33 1.70 4.10 2.09 Orthene 59639-88 0.69 N/A 75.00 0.52 Sulfometuron methyl Oust 352-401 5.13 N/A 75.00 3.85 Quali-Pro Dithiopyr 66222-213-AA N/A 40.00 0.63 0.25 2.81 1.12 Oxadiazon Ronstar WP 264-538 1297.25 N/A 50.00 648.63 Halosulfuron methyl Sedgehammer 81880-1-10163 N/A 75.00 0.007 0.005 Halosulfuron methyl Sedgehammer 81880-24-10163 N/A 5.00 0.03 0.0015 0.04 0.002 Flumioxazin SureGuard 59639-120 N/A 51.00 15.69 8.00 17.33 8.84 13.76 7.02 10.19 5.20 TOTAL 927.37 338.26 432.68 303.22 337.06 "Bad Actors" w/May 2013 changes 649.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Contra Costa County Public Works - Grounds Gal. used x 8.33 lbs/gal H20 x sp. Grav. x %AI 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 159 of 311 CCC Public Works - Facilities Name of EPA or Calif.Amt Used Specific %Total oz. A.I Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I. Product Applied Registration #FY 07-08 Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16 FY 16-17 Used 16-17 FY 17-18 Used 17-18 Liquid Materials (fl. ounces)(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. Oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. Oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. Oz.)Oz. by Wt. Indoxacarb Advion Ant Bait Arena 100-1485 1.09 0.10 252 ea (Net wt of Arena is 0.07 oz)0.02 112 ea (Net wt of Arena is 0.07 oz)0.00889 30 ea (Net wt of Arena is 0.07 oz)0.002 Indoxacarb Advion Ant Gel 100-1498 1.2 0.05 143.67 0.08965 202.70 0.12648 165.70 0.103 Indoxacarb Advion Cockroach Bait Arena 100-1486 1.09 0.50 41 ea (Net wt of Arena is 0.07 oz)0.01627 10 ea (Net wt of Arena is 0.07 oz)0.00397 1 ea (Net wt of Arena is 0.07 oz)0.0004 Indoxacarb Advion Cockroach Gel Bait 100-1484 1.123 0.60 14.61 0.10238 60.10 0.42115 41.44 0.290 Chlorantraniliprole Altriset 100-1503 1.094 18.4 2.00 0.419 Chlorantraniliprole Altriset (DuPont)352-829 1.094 18.4 7.00 1.46543 Abamectin Avert Cockroach Bait Station 499-467 1.065 0.05 2 ea (Net wt of Station is 0.52 oz)0.00058 Cedar oil Best Yet Insect Control Solution Cedarcide Exempt 25b material 1.00 10.00 128.00 12.800 16.00 1.66400 76.00 7.90400 172.00 17.888 Cedar oil Cedarcide PCO Choice Concentrate Exempt 25b material 1.00 85.00 10.00 8.84000 5.08 4.49072 3.20 2.829 White pepper, mineral oil DeTour for Rodents Exempt 0.864 3.00 166.00 4.475 8 0.21565 Sodium Tetraborate decahydrate Doninant Liquid Ant Bait 64405-24 1 1.00 20.00 0.20800 673.00 6.99920 Botanical oils: thyme, rosemary 2- phenethyl propionate Eco Via Exempt 25b material 0.95 42.00 6.00 2.490 Botanical oils: peppermint, rosemary, geraniol Essentria IC3 Exempt 25b material 0.985 17.00 132.00 22.988 Oil of black pepper Havahart Critter Ridder 50932-10 1.001 0.48 624 2.9952 458 2.1984 1371 6.5808 278.00 1.389 Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate (Borax Intice Thiquid Ant Bait 73079-7 1.33 1.00 3554.00 49.159 1952.3 27.00421 3861.8 53.416 Fipronil Maxforce Ant KillerBait Gel 64248-21 1.05 0.00 1.12 0.00001 Fipronil Maxforce FC Magnum 1.14 0.05 1.05 0.00062 Clothianidin Maxforce Impact Roach gel 432-1531 1.1 1.00 33.5 0.383 Imidacloprid Maxforce Quantum Ant Bait 432-1506 1.43 0.03 27.90 0.012 31.71 0.01415 20.2 0.00901 8.09 0.004 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 160 of 311 CCC Public Works - Facilities, cont. Name of EPA or Calif.Amt Used Specific %Total oz. A.I Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I.Amt Used Total OZ. A.I. Product Applied Registration #FY 07-08 Gravity A. I.Used FY 07-08 FY 14-15 Used 14-15 FY 15-16 Used 15-16 FY 16-17 Used 16-17 FY 17-18 Used 17-18 Liquid Materials (fl. ounces)(fl. oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. Oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. Oz.)Oz. by Wt.(fl. Oz.)Oz. by Wt. Methyl Ethoxy Pyridine Nyguard IGR Concentrate 1021-1603 0.939 10.00 0.6 0.05859 Methyl Ethoxy Pyridine Nyguard IGR Concentrate 1021-1620 0.854 1.30 0.10 0.001 Methyl Ethoxy Pyridine Nylar (Archer)100-1111 0.847 1.30 3 0.03435 Methyl Ethoxy Pyridine Nylar IGR 11715-307-57076 0.8 1.30 1.00 0.011 sodium lauryl sulfate Oh Yeah Exempt 1 7.00 2222 161.762 78 5.67840 865.5 63.00840 70 5.096 coyote & fox urine Shake Away: Fox/Coyote 80917-5 2.70 5.00 5.00 0.70200 Imidacloprid Temprid Ready Spray Insecticide 432-1527 1.00 0.05 10.00 0.00520 Cyfluthrin 1.00 0.03 10.00 0.00260 Fipronil Termidor SC (termites)7969-210 1.06 9.10 3.20 0.32102 Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate (Borax Terro PCO Bait stations 149-8-64405 1.00 5.40 135-0.36 oz stations 2.6244 170-0.36 oz stations 3.43699 149-0.36 oz stations 3.01242 Sodium Tetraborate Decahydrate (Borax Terro PCO Liquid Ant Bait 149-8-64405 1.00 5.40 19.44 1.09175 Dry Materials (ounces)% A.I.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt.OZ. by Wt. Dinotefuran Alpine Dust 499-527 0.25 0.11 0.0003 Diatomaceous earth 95.00 0.11 0.1045 Dinotefuran Alpine WSG 499-561 0.40 0.353 0.0014 Incoxacarb Advion Fire Ant Bait 100-1481 0.045 3.17 0.0014 0.49 0.0002 Incoxacarb Advion Insect Granule 352-651 0.22 9.64 0.0212 Amorphous silica gel Cimexa 73079-12 100.00 5.12 5.1200 3.20 3.200 Amorphous silicon dioxide Concern Diatomaceous Earth 73729-1-50932 85.00 0.23 0.1955 0.79 0.6715 1.29 1.0965 Sodium nitrate, sulfur, charcoal Giant Destroyer gas cartridge 1055-1 97.00 Orthoboric acid Niban FG Mother Earth Granules Niban granular 64405-2 499-515 64405-2 3813.7600 5.00 190.69 3144.5 157.225 6038.5 301.925 2886.5 144.3250 940.50 47.025 OZ of A.I 335.55 393.414 485.859 267.343 164.117 LBs of A.I.20.97 24.59 30.37 16.71 10.26 OZ of BA 0.41 0.00 0.0582 0.0006 0.00 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 161 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:RECEIVE Review of SunPower/Contra Costa County PV Portfolio Summary Technical and Economic Pro-Forma. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.:   Referral Name: N/A - TWIC is considering the addition of a referral which would authorize their monitoring of this issue.  Presenter: Frank Di Massa (925 )957-2473 Contact: Frank Di Massa (925)957-2473 Referral History: This item is being brought to the TWIC for the first time. Conversations between Public Works and TWIC staff resulted in the staff recommendation, considered earlier on the February TWIC Agenda, that the monitoring of the County's conversion to solar/distributed energy be taken up by TWIC. Referral Update: Background In December, 2017, the BOS approved Public Works to submit Interconnection Applications to PG&E for the installation of solar PV systems under advantageous grand-fathered Time-of-Use rates. On July 10, 2018 the BOS approved Public Works Distributed Energy Resources (DER) plan which included permission to issue an RFQ to select a solar partner to install PV systems under a Power Purchase Agreement in accordance with California Contracting Code 4217.  Through the RFQ process Public Works selected SunPower Corporation. SunPower submitted the above-mentioned Interconnection Applications to PG&E for selected County Facilities and has developed a PV Portfolio Summary which will be presented to TWIC with a request to oversee the process of negotiating a Power Purchase Agreement for the implementation of the solar PV systems in County facilities. As part of the Board approved Distributed Energy Resources Program Plan, Public Works is pursuing the installation of solar PV systems at selected County-owned facilities through a Power Purchase Agreement with SunPower Corporation. SunPower, selected by the County through an RFQ process, has delivered the Contra Costa County PV Portfolio Summary, a financial pro-forma delineating the power production and cost savings from technically feasible solar energy systems at County-owned facilities. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 162 of 311 Public Works requests that the TWIC receive information on the PV Project Proposal and agree to oversee the development of the associated Power Purchase Agreement. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): DIRECT staff to process of the review and vetting of the Power Purchase Agreement for Solar Photovoltaics project through TWIC. Fiscal Impact (if any): No Fiscal Impact Attachments Contra Costa County Project Overview Updated 12-19-2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 163 of 311 Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation Contra Costa County PV Portfolio Summary Kevin Johnston, Yuan Zhang, Ian Creelman December 2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 164 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 2 Project Executive Summary – •3.71 MW solar project across 9 sites •Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) financing •Fixed 25 Year PPA Rate Below Utility Market Rate •2.5 MW potential energy storage system with pending Option S tariff •Provides increased financial savings and energy security Project •~$11 million in net utility savings over 25 Yrs (Solar Only) •~$6.6 million in Net Present value over 25 Yrs (Solar Only) •55% Average Facility Energy Load Offset •Over 360,000 metric tons of GHG offsets over 25 Yrs Benefits •County Project Approval Jan. 2019 •SGIP Step 2 Jan. 2019 •Option S Tariff Availability Dec. 2018 •Engineering / Permitting June 2019 •NEM 3 Review (County retains NEM 1 and 2)Oct. 2019 •Investment Tax Credit Step Down Jan. 2020 Timeline Project Benefits Timeline 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 165 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 3 Financial Summary PPA for Base (solar) and Alternate (solar+storage) Assumptions •25 Year Fixed Rate PPA Term •25 year 90% Performance Guarantee (PeGu) •Commercial Operation Date -late 2019 •Discount rate 3% •Utility rate escalator 3% * $0.0306 PPA Rate Adder in Years 1 thru 15 to pay for energy storage system (ESS). PPA rate drops to $0.1315/kWh for years 16 thru 25 The pending Option S utility tariff will add significant savings for the County’s energy project. SUNPOWER is actively lobbying to optimize and expedite the launch of Option S. Without the Option S tariff the County still has a fantastic solar PV opportunity. Scenario System Size Energy Production PPA Rate ($/kWh)Year 1 Net Savings First 5 Yrs Net Savings ($) 25-Year Nominal Net Savings 25-Year NPV of Savings NPV/Watt ($/W) (kWp)(kWh)25 yr fixed rate ($)($) PPA Base Case 3,715 kW Solar 5,998,109 $0.1315 $219,492 $731,319 $11,041,612 $6,834,728 $1.84 (Solar Only) PPA Alternate 3,715 kW Solar 5,998,109 $0.1620*$295,288 $1,194,968 $13,158,636 $8,454,684 $2.28 (Solar + Storage)2,500 kW Storage 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 166 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 4 PPA Financial Summary –Base Case (solar only) Assumptions •25 year Operations & Maintenance and 90% Performance Guarantee (PeGu) •Commercial Operation Date -late 2019 •Discount rate 3% Site Solar System Size (kWp) Energy Production (kWh) Energy Storage Size (kW) Year 1 Net Savings ($) Solar 25-Year Nominal Net Savings ($M) Solar 1000 WARD ST 323 507,596 500 $18,575 $934,407 30 DOUGLAS DR 987 1,637,911 500 $59,937 $3,015,147 50 DOUGLAS DR 355 572,039 500 $20,933 $1,053,038 30 Muir 166 256,703 0 $9,394 $472,551 2530 ARNOLD DR 526 780,534 500 $28,562 $1,436,844 4549 DELTA FAIR BLVD 212 339,968 0 $12,441 $625,830 597 CENTER AVE 116 175,542 0 $6,424 $323,146 595 CENTER AVE 312 532,976 500 $19,503 $981,127 4545 DELTA FAIR BLVD 437 720,968 0 $26,383 $1,327,193 1305 MACDONALD AVE 282 473,873 0 $17,341 $872,328 Total 3,715 5,998,109 2,500 219,492 $11,041,612 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 167 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 5 PPA Financial Summary –Alternate Case Solar + Storage Upside Assumptions •$0.0306/kWh Storage PPA Adder for Year 1-15 •25 year Operations & Maintenance and 90% Performance Guarantee (PeGu) •Commercial Operation Date -late 2019 •Discount rate 3% Site Solar System Size (kWp) Energy Production (kWh) Energy Storage Size (kW) Year 1 Net Savings ($) 25-Year Nominal Net Savings ($M) 1000 WARD ST 323 507,596 500 $41,340 $1,113,562 30 DOUGLAS DR 987 1,637,911 500 $80,860 $3,593,246 50 DOUGLAS DR 355 572,039 500 $33,766 $1,254,938 30 Muir 166 256,703 0 $9,394 $563,154 2530 ARNOLD DR 526 780,534 500 $37,944 $1,712,332 4549 DELTA FAIR BLVD 212 339,968 0 $12,441 $745,822 597 CENTER AVE 116 175,542 0 $6,424 $385,104 595 CENTER AVE 312 532,976 500 $37,494 $1,169,240 4545 DELTA FAIR BLVD 437 720,968 0 $26,383 $1,581,658 1305 MACDONALD AVE 282 473,873 0 $17,341 $1,039,581 Total 3,715 5,998,109 2,500 295,288 $13,158,636 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 168 of 311 6Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | PPA Portfolio Pro-forma –Solar Only Base Case Project Economics System Size (kWp)3,715 25-Year / 0% PPA Rate $0.1315 Cumulative NetSavings (25yr)$11,-41,612 25 Year Net Present Value (NPV)$6,834,728 1 $1,797,092 5,998,109 $0.1680 $789,133 $0.1315 $788,467 $1,577,600 $219,492 $219,492 2 $1,851,005 5,983,114 $0.1462 $976,149 $0.1315 $786,496 $1,762,644 $88,360 $307,852 3 $1,906,535 5,968,156 $0.1506 $1,007,686 $0.1315 $784,530 $1,792,215 $114,320 $422,172 4 $1,963,731 5,953,236 $0.1551 $1,040,231 $0.1315 $782,568 $1,822,799 $140,932 $563,104 5 $2,022,643 5,938,353 $0.1598 $1,073,816 $0.1315 $780,612 $1,854,428 $168,215 $731,319 6 $2,083,322 5,923,507 $0.1646 $1,108,474 $0.1315 $778,660 $1,887,134 $196,188 $927,507 7 $2,145,822 5,908,698 $0.1695 $1,144,238 $0.1315 $776,714 $1,920,952 $224,870 $1,152,378 8 $2,210,197 5,893,927 $0.1746 $1,181,144 $0.1315 $774,772 $1,955,916 $254,280 $1,406,658 9 $2,276,502 5,879,192 $0.1798 $1,219,228 $0.1315 $772,835 $1,992,063 $284,439 $1,691,097 10 $2,344,797 5,864,494 $0.1852 $1,258,528 $0.1315 $770,903 $2,029,430 $315,367 $2,006,464 11 $2,415,141 5,849,833 $0.1908 $1,299,081 $0.1315 $768,976 $2,068,056 $347,085 $2,353,550 12 $2,487,596 5,835,208 $0.1965 $1,340,927 $0.1315 $767,053 $2,107,980 $379,616 $2,733,165 13 $2,562,224 5,820,620 $0.2024 $1,384,107 $0.1315 $765,136 $2,149,243 $412,981 $3,146,146 14 $2,639,090 5,806,068 $0.2085 $1,428,664 $0.1315 $763,223 $2,191,887 $447,203 $3,593,349 15 $2,718,263 5,791,553 $0.2147 $1,474,641 $0.1315 $761,315 $2,235,956 $482,307 $4,075,656 16 $2,799,811 5,777,074 $0.2212 $1,522,083 $0.1315 $759,411 $2,281,494 $518,317 $4,593,973 17 $2,883,805 5,762,632 $0.2278 $1,571,035 $0.1315 $757,513 $2,328,548 $555,257 $5,149,230 18 $2,970,319 5,748,225 $0.2346 $1,621,547 $0.1315 $755,619 $2,377,166 $593,154 $5,742,384 19 $3,059,429 5,733,854 $0.2417 $1,673,666 $0.1315 $753,730 $2,427,396 $632,033 $6,374,417 20 $3,151,212 5,719,520 $0.2489 $1,727,444 $0.1315 $751,846 $2,479,290 $671,922 $7,046,338 21 $3,245,748 5,705,221 $0.2564 $1,782,934 $0.1315 $749,966 $2,532,900 $712,848 $7,759,186 22 $3,343,121 5,690,958 $0.2641 $1,840,189 $0.1315 $748,091 $2,588,280 $754,841 $8,514,027 23 $3,443,414 5,676,731 $0.2720 $1,899,264 $0.1315 $746,221 $2,645,485 $797,929 $9,311,956 24 $3,546,717 5,662,539 $0.2802 $1,960,219 $0.1315 $744,355 $2,704,574 $842,143 $10,154,099 25 $3,653,118 5,648,382 $0.2886 $2,023,110 $0.1315 $742,494 $2,765,605 $887,513 $11,041,612 Total $65,520,653 $145,539,204 $35,347,537 $19,131,504 $54,479,041 $11,041,612 NPV $6,834,728 Net Savings ($) Cumulative Net Savings ($) Year Utility Bill No Solar ($) Hybrid Bill Utility + Solar ($) Residual Utility Bill ($) Annual PPA Rate ($/kWh) PPA Payment ($)* Solar Energy Generated (kWh) Avoided Cost ($/kWh) Savings Costs 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 169 of 311 7Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | 1 $1,797,092 5,998,109 $0.1680 $259,101 $530,032 $0.1315 $788,467 $183,305 $1,501,804 $295,288 $295,288 $219,492 $219,492 2 $1,851,005 5,983,114 $0.1462 $266,874 $709,275 $0.1315 $786,496 $182,847 $1,678,617 $172,388 $467,676 $88,360 $307,852 3 $1,906,535 5,968,156 $0.1506 $274,880 $732,806 $0.1315 $784,530 $182,390 $1,699,725 $206,810 $674,486 $114,320 $422,172 4 $1,963,731 5,953,236 $0.1551 $283,127 $757,104 $0.1315 $782,568 $181,934 $1,721,606 $242,125 $916,611 $140,932 $563,104 5 $2,022,643 5,938,353 $0.1598 $291,620 $782,195 $0.1315 $780,612 $181,479 $1,744,286 $278,357 $1,194,968 $168,215 $731,319 6 $2,083,322 5,923,507 $0.1646 $300,369 $808,104 $0.1315 $778,660 $181,025 $1,767,790 $315,532 $1,510,501 $196,188 $927,507 7 $2,145,822 5,908,698 $0.1695 $309,380 $834,858 $0.1315 $776,714 $180,572 $1,792,144 $353,678 $1,864,179 $224,870 $1,152,378 8 $2,210,197 5,893,927 $0.1746 $318,662 $862,483 $0.1315 $774,772 $180,121 $1,817,376 $392,821 $2,257,000 $254,280 $1,406,658 9 $2,276,502 5,879,192 $0.1798 $328,221 $891,007 $0.1315 $772,835 $179,671 $1,843,513 $432,990 $2,689,989 $284,439 $1,691,097 10 $2,344,797 5,864,494 $0.1852 $338,068 $920,460 $0.1315 $770,903 $179,222 $1,870,584 $474,213 $3,164,203 $315,367 $2,006,464 11 $2,415,141 5,849,833 $0.1908 $348,210 $950,871 $0.1315 $768,976 $178,773 $1,898,620 $516,522 $3,680,725 $347,085 $2,353,550 12 $2,487,596 5,835,208 $0.1965 $358,656 $982,271 $0.1315 $767,053 $178,327 $1,927,650 $559,945 $4,240,670 $379,616 $2,733,165 13 $2,562,224 5,820,620 $0.2024 $369,416 $1,014,691 $0.1315 $765,136 $177,881 $1,957,708 $604,516 $4,845,186 $412,981 $3,146,146 14 $2,639,090 5,806,068 $0.2085 $380,499 $1,048,166 $0.1315 $763,223 $177,436 $1,988,824 $650,266 $5,495,452 $447,203 $3,593,349 15 $2,718,263 5,791,553 $0.2147 $391,914 $1,082,728 $0.1315 $761,315 $176,992 $2,021,035 $697,228 $6,192,680 $482,307 $4,075,656 16 $2,799,811 5,777,074 $0.2212 $0 $1,522,083 $0.1315 $759,411 $0 $2,281,494 $518,317 $6,710,997 $518,317 $4,593,973 17 $2,883,805 5,762,632 $0.2278 $0 $1,571,035 $0.1315 $757,513 $0 $2,328,548 $555,257 $7,266,254 $555,257 $5,149,230 18 $2,970,319 5,748,225 $0.2346 $0 $1,621,547 $0.1315 $755,619 $0 $2,377,166 $593,154 $7,859,408 $593,154 $5,742,384 19 $3,059,429 5,733,854 $0.2417 $0 $1,673,666 $0.1315 $753,730 $0 $2,427,396 $632,033 $8,491,441 $632,033 $6,374,417 20 $3,151,212 5,719,520 $0.2489 $0 $1,727,444 $0.1315 $751,846 $0 $2,479,290 $671,922 $9,163,362 $671,922 $7,046,338 21 $3,245,748 5,705,221 $0.2564 $0 $1,782,934 $0.1315 $749,966 $0 $2,532,900 $712,848 $9,876,210 $712,848 $7,759,186 22 $3,343,121 5,690,958 $0.2641 $0 $1,840,189 $0.1315 $748,091 $0 $2,588,280 $754,841 $10,631,051 $754,841 $8,514,027 23 $3,443,414 5,676,731 $0.2720 $0 $1,899,264 $0.1315 $746,221 $0 $2,645,485 $797,929 $11,428,980 $797,929 $9,311,956 24 $3,546,717 5,662,539 $0.2802 $0 $1,960,219 $0.1315 $744,355 $0 $2,704,574 $842,143 $12,271,123 $842,143 $10,154,099 25 $3,653,118 5,648,382 $0.2886 $0 $2,023,110 $0.1315 $742,494 $0 $2,765,605 $887,513 $13,158,636 $887,513 $11,041,612 Total $65,520,653 145,539,204 $30,528,540 $19,131,504 $52,362,017 $13,158,636 $11,041,612 NPV $8,454,684 $6,834,728 Hybrid Bill Utility + Solar ($) Solar OnlySolar + Storage Cumulative Net Savings ($) Net Savings ($) Cumulative Net Savings ($) Net Savings ($) Residual Utility Bill ($) Annual PPA Rate ($/kWh) PPA Payment ($)* Storage Payment ($) Solar Energy Generated (kWh) Avoided Cost ($/kWh) Savings from Energy Storage Savings Costs Year Utility Bill No Solar ($) PPA Portfolio Pro-forma -Solar + Storage Upside Solar + Storage Economics System Size (kWp)3,715 Storage Size (kWp)2,500 25-Year / 0% PPA Rate $0.1315 Storage PPA Adder $0.0306 Cumulative Net Savings (25yr)$13,158,636 25 Year Net Present Value (NPV)$8,454,684 Solar Only Economics System Size (kWp)3,715 25-Year / 0% PPA Rate $0.1315 Cumulative Net Savings (25yr)$11,-41,612 25 Year Net Present Value (NPV)$6,834,728 Increased Savings w/ Storage $2.5M Greater Savings Thru Year 15 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 170 of 311 ULD LOCATIONAT 2000A, 480VPOINT OF INTERCONNECTION(INSIDE ELECTRICAL ROOM)X1C143INVERTER10'181'-2"177'-3"XXXXXPROPOSED SOLAR SWITCHBOARD LOCATIONAC RUNуϮϯϭ>&25INVERTERINVERTER INVERTER 502596, REV K SCALE:1ARRAY LAYOUT1/16" = 1'-0"SHEET1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH RICHMOND, CA 94804 USA ( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0 REV DESIGN #DESCRIPTION DATE DB CBPROJECTOPPORTUNITYREVISIONS ENGINEER'S STAMP1"012"IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY 50 DOUGLAS DRIVE 1000 WARD ST. MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ---43214321ABCDABCDAL10001557288_AL_50 DOUGLAS DRIVE_HDT & PFT_A.DWG8/27/2018 10:19 PMARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1THE PROPOSED ARRAY LAYOUT SHOWN IS DESIGNED TO FIT EXISTINGCONDITIONS AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED ON THIS DRAWING. LAYOUT ANDQUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SUNPOWER VERIFICATION OFACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.LEGEND:PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVALPROPOSED TREE REMOVALPROPOSED EQUIPMENT PADPROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTIONAC CONDUITS (SSB-POI)AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB)AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB)XWIND SPEED ASCE 7-10 (MPH)110EXPOSURE CATEGORYCTRANSITIONAL DISTANCE (FT)GROUND SNOW LOAD (PSF)SPECTRAL RESPONSE (SDS)1.013Ss1.52S10.6SIESMIC HAZARD LEVEL2SITE CLASSSEISMIC IMPT. FACTOR (IP)1.5OCCUPANCY CATEGORYIIRACKING TYPEROOF ARACKING TECHNOLOGYHELIX DUAL-TILTANCHOR TYPEOMG PowerGrip PlusBALLAST BLOCK WEIGHT (LBS)14ROOF MEMBRANESEISMIC OFFSETS FOR UNANCHOREDARRAYSMAX ROOF SLOPE1:12MIN. OFFSET FROM ROOF EDGE (FT)15RACKING TYPESTRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERSROOF HEIGHT (FT)44ROOF LENGTH (FT)181ROOF WIDTH (FT)177PARAPET HEIGHT (FT)3SPWR AZIMUTH (DEGREES)-40MAX ALLOWABLE PRESSURE (PSF)12MAX ALLOWABLE WEIGHT (LBS)BUILDING CHARACTERIZATIONSSYSTEM WEIGHT (LBS)75196AVERAGE PSF5.8MAX PSF12.0# BALLAST PER ROOF2993# OF ANCHOR PER ROOF95# MODULE PER ROOF672TOTAL # OF BALLASTS2993TOTAL # OF ANCHORS95TOTAL # OF MODULES672BALLAST AND ANCHOR SUMMARYPROJECT SUMMARY ROOFCARPORTTOTALTOTAL # OF MODULE 672240912MODULE TYPE SPR-X22-360-COM SPR-X21-470-COM# OF INVERTER426DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)241.92112.80354.72AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)22492316PROJECT SUMMARYoARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - ROOFARRAYM60U_121(18 STR)M60U_121(14 STR)M42U_121(12 STR)TOTALSTRINGSTOTAL #OFMODULEDC POWER(KW)AC POWER(KW)AC-RUN(INV-SSB)1112144 51.84 46 2202115180 64.866 1603336 12.964114 168 60.48 66655112 144 51.84 46 19511256 672 241.922240001557288A D-0091301 PROPOSAL 08-17-18 RA DJNOTES:1. 110 MPH WIND ZONE (ASCE 7-10) CATEGORY II, EXPOSURE C.2.KZZK^/KEZd͗΀ϭ͘ϬђŵͬLJƌ͘΁͕΀Ϯ͗ϭϭй͕ϯ͗ϵϵй΁3. METER #101005435914. ARRAY SHOWN ON AERIAL IMAGE5. ARRAY MOUNTING STRUCTURE HELIX CARPORT 1.56. STANDARD CANOPY LOW-END CLEARANCE: 13.5' PROVIDED FORSTANDARD VEHICLE7. BUILDING CODE REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE FROM EXISTINGBUILDINGS8. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE ALONG EMERGENCYACCESS ROUTES9. TOTAL OF TREES TO BE REMOVED: 610. TOTAL OF LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED: 0ARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - PFTCANOPY LABEL #MODULE #STRINGKW(DC)M42U_121(12 STR)KW(AC)TILT AZIMUTH CSIAZIMUTHSPWRAC RUN(INV-SSB)C1 4x60 240 24 112.8292ϭϬΣ ϭϰϬΣ ͲϰϬΣ42 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 171 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 172 of 311 R1 R2 R3 ULD, SSB AND STEP-DOWN TRANSFORMER LOCATION AT 1600A, 208V POI (INSIDE ELECTRICAL ROOM AT GROUND FLOOR)187'-5"R4 114'-7"97'- 6 " 142' - 4 " A B EXISTING PANELS TO BE REMOVED 502596, REV KSCALE:1 ARRAY LAYOUT 1/32" = 1'-0" SHEET 1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTHRICHMOND, CA 94804 USA( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0REVDESIGN #DESCRIPTIONDATE DB CB PROJECT OPPORTUNITYREVISIONSENGINEER'S STAMP 1"0 1 2" IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY30 MUIR RD30 MUIR RDMARTINEZ, CA 94553--- 4321 4321 A B C D A B C D AL1 0001557288_AL_30 MUIR RD_PFT_A.DWG8/24/2018 2:30 PM ARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1 THE PROPOSED ARRAY LAYOUT SHOWN IS DESIGNED TO FIT EXISTING CONDITIONS AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED ON THIS DRAWING. LAYOUT AND QUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SUNPOWER VERIFICATION OF ACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS. LEGEND: PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVAL PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PAD PROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AC CONDUITS (SSB-POI) AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB) AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB) X WIND SPEED ASCE 7-10 (MPH)110 EXPOSURE CATEGORY C TRANSITIONAL DISTANCE (FT) GROUND SNOW LOAD (PSF)0 SPECTRAL RESPONSE (SDS)0.8 Ss 1.5 S1 0.6 SIESMIC HAZARD LEVEL 1 SITE CLASS D SEISMIC IMPT. FACTOR (IP)1.0 OCCUPANCY CATEGORY II RACKING TYPE ROOF A ROOF B RACKING TECHNOLOGY HELIX DUAL-TILT HELIX DUAL-TILT ANCHOR TYPE OMG PowerGrip Plus OMG PowerGrip Plus BALLAST BLOCK WEIGHT (LBS)14 14 ROOF MEMBRANE SEISMIC OFFSETS FOR UNANCHORED ARRAYS MAX ROOF SLOPE 1:12 1:12 MIN. OFFSET FROM ROOF EDGE (FT)6 6 RACKING TYPE STRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERS ROOF HEIGHT (FT)27 29 ROOF LENGTH (FT)188 115 ROOF WIDTH (FT)143 98 PARAPET HEIGHT (FT)3 3 SPWR AZIMUTH (DEGREES)28 28 MAX ALLOWABLE PRESSURE (PSF)12 12 MAX ALLOWABLE WEIGHT (LBS) BUILDING CHARACTERIZATIONS SYSTEM WEIGHT (LBS)27769 17035 AVERAGE PSF 5.1 4.9 MAX PSF 11.3 9.4 # BALLAST PER ROOF 1059 595 # OF ANCHOR PER ROOF 27 16 # MODULE PER ROOF 280 180 TOTAL # OF BALLASTS 1059 595 TOTAL # OF ANCHORS 27 16 TOTAL # OF MODULES 280 180 BALLAST AND ANCHOR SUMMARY PROJECT SUMMARY ROOF TOTAL # OF MODULE 460 MODULE TYPE SPR-X22-360-COM # OF INVERTER 3 DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)165.60 AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)171.60 PROJECT SUMMARY o 0001557288A D-0091302PROPOSAL08-16-18 JF DJ ARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - ROOF ARRAY M60U_121 (18 STR) M36U_121 (10 STR) TOTAL STRINGS TOTAL #OF MODULE DC POWER (KW) AC POWER (KW) AC RUN (INV-SSB) 1 1 18 180 64.8 66 285 2 1 1 10 3.6 39.6 430399032.4 4 1 18 180 64.8 66 40 TOTAL 2 1 46 460 165.6 171.6 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 173 of 311 ULD LOCATIONAT 2000A, 480VPOINT OF INTERCONNECTION(INSIDE ELECTRICAL ROOM)X1C143INVERTER10'181'-2"177'-3"XXXXXPROPOSED SOLAR SWITCHBOARD LOCATIONAC RUN≈231 LF25INVERTERINVERTER INVERTER502596, REV K SCALE:1ARRAY LAYOUT1/16" = 1'-0"SHEET1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH RICHMOND, CA 94804 USA ( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0 REV DESIGN #DESCRIPTION DATE DB CBPROJECTOPPORTUNITYREVISIONS ENGINEER'S STAMP1"012"IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY 50 DOUGLAS DRIVE 1000 WARD ST. MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ---43214321ABCDABCDAL10001557288_AL_50 DOUGLAS DRIVE_HDT & PFT_A.DWG8/27/2018 10:19 PMARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1THE PROPOSED ARRAY LAYOUT SHOWN IS DESIGNED TO FIT EXISTINGCONDITIONS AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED ON THIS DRAWING. LAYOUT ANDQUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SUNPOWER VERIFICATION OFACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.LEGEND:PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVALPROPOSED TREE REMOVALPROPOSED EQUIPMENT PADPROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTIONAC CONDUITS (SSB-POI)AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB)AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB)XWIND SPEED ASCE 7-10 (MPH)110EXPOSURE CATEGORYCTRANSITIONAL DISTANCE (FT)GROUND SNOW LOAD (PSF)SPECTRAL RESPONSE (SDS)1.013Ss1.52S10.6SIESMIC HAZARD LEVEL2SITE CLASSSEISMIC IMPT. FACTOR (IP)1.5OCCUPANCY CATEGORYIIRACKING TYPEROOF ARACKING TECHNOLOGYHELIX DUAL-TILTANCHOR TYPEOMG PowerGrip PlusBALLAST BLOCK WEIGHT (LBS)14ROOF MEMBRANESEISMIC OFFSETS FOR UNANCHOREDARRAYSMAX ROOF SLOPE1:12MIN. OFFSET FROM ROOF EDGE (FT)15RACKING TYPESTRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERSROOF HEIGHT (FT)44ROOF LENGTH (FT)181ROOF WIDTH (FT)177PARAPET HEIGHT (FT)3SPWR AZIMUTH (DEGREES)-40MAX ALLOWABLE PRESSURE (PSF)12MAX ALLOWABLE WEIGHT (LBS)BUILDING CHARACTERIZATIONSSYSTEM WEIGHT (LBS)75196AVERAGE PSF5.8MAX PSF12.0# BALLAST PER ROOF2993# OF ANCHOR PER ROOF95# MODULE PER ROOF672TOTAL # OF BALLASTS2993TOTAL # OF ANCHORS95TOTAL # OF MODULES672BALLAST AND ANCHOR SUMMARYPROJECT SUMMARY ROOFCARPORTTOTALTOTAL # OF MODULE 672240912MODULE TYPE SPR-X22-360-COM SPR-X21-470-COM# OF INVERTER426DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)241.92112.80354.72AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)22492316PROJECT SUMMARYoARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - ROOFARRAYM60U_121(18 STR)M60U_121(14 STR)M42U_121(12 STR)TOTALSTRINGSTOTAL #OFMODULEDC POWER(KW)AC POWER(KW)AC-RUN(INV-SSB)1112144 51.84 46 2202115180 64.866 1603336 12.964114 168 60.48 66655112 144 51.84 46 19511256 672 241.922240001557288A D-0091301 PROPOSAL 08-17-18 RA DJNOTES:1. 110 MPH WIND ZONE (ASCE 7-10) CATEGORY II, EXPOSURE C.2. CORROSION RATE: [1.0µm/yr.],[C2: 11%, C3: 99%]3. METER #101005435914. ARRAY SHOWN ON AERIAL IMAGE5. ARRAY MOUNTING STRUCTURE HELIX CARPORT 1.56. STANDARD CANOPY LOW-END CLEARANCE: 13.5' PROVIDED FORSTANDARD VEHICLE7. BUILDING CODE REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE FROM EXISTINGBUILDINGS8. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE ALONG EMERGENCYACCESS ROUTES9. TOTAL OF TREES TO BE REMOVED: 610. TOTAL OF LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED: 0ARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - PFTCANOPY LABEL #MODULE #STRINGKW(DC)M42U_121(12 STR)KW(AC)TILT AZIMUTH CSIAZIMUTHSPWRAC RUN(INV-SSB)C1 4x60 240 24 112.8292 10° 140° -40° 42 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 174 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 175 of 311 This document contains proprietary information. Reproduction, disclosure, or use without specific written authorization of the SunpowerCorporation is strictly forbidden.POI LOCATION Meter# 1009390327 480V/800A SSB AND ULD LOCATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY1305 MACDONALD AVE, RICHMOND, CA 94801SPR-X21-470W Modules282.0 kWp/240.6 kWAC180⁰ Az, 10⁰ TiltSystem SpecificationsC1 C2 x x x x 1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTHRICHMOND, CA 94804 USA(510) 540 - 0550 Additional Specifications 4 trees to be removed with permission from the City of Richmond 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 176 of 311 INVERTE R INVERTER195'-2" 126'-3"123480 POINT OF INTERCONNECTION(INSIDE ELECTRICAL ROOM)ULD LOCATION(MOUNTED OUTSIDE)PROPOSED SOLARSWITCHBOARD LOCATION502596, REV K SCALE:1ARRAY LAYOUT1/16" = 1'-0"SHEET1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH RICHMOND, CA 94804 USA ( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0 REV DESIGN #DESCRIPTION DATE DB CBPROJECTOPPORTUNITYREVISIONS ENGINEER'S STAMP1"012"IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY 597 CENTER AVE 597 CENTER AVE MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ---43214321ABCDABCDAL10001557288_AL_597 CENTER AVE_HDT_A.DWG8/28/2018 3:30 PMARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1THE PROPOSED ARRAY LAYOUT SHOWN IS DESIGNED TO FIT EXISTINGCONDITIONS AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED ON THIS DRAWING. LAYOUT ANDQUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SUNPOWER VERIFICATION OFACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.LEGEND:PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVALPROPOSED TREE REMOVALPROPOSED EQUIPMENT PADPROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTIONAC CONDUITS (SSB-POI)AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB)AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB)XWIND SPEED ASCE 7-10 (MPH)110EXPOSURE CATEGORYBTRANSITIONAL DISTANCE (FT)0GROUND SNOW LOAD (PSF)0SPECTRAL RESPONSE (SDS)0.8Ss1.5S10.6SIESMIC HAZARD LEVEL1SITE CLASSDSEISMIC IMPT. FACTOR (IP)1.0OCCUPANCY CATEGORYIIRACKING TYPEROOF ARACKING TECHNOLOGYHELIX DUAL-TILTANCHOR TYPEOMG PowerGrip PlusBALLAST BLOCK WEIGHT (LBS)14ROOF MEMBRANESEISMIC OFFSETS FORUNANCHORED ARRAYSMAX ROOF SLOPE1:12MIN. OFFSET FROM ROOF EDGE (FT)4RACKING TYPESTRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERSROOF HEIGHT (FT)45ROOF LENGTH (FT)196ROOF WIDTH (FT)127PARAPET HEIGHT (FT)3SPWR AZIMUTH (DEGREES)-26MAX ALLOWABLE PRESSURE (PSF)12MAX ALLOWABLE WEIGHT (LBS)14BUILDING CHARACTERIZATIONSSYSTEM WEIGHT (LBS)34502AVERAGE PSF5.3MAX PSF11.3# BALLAST PER ROOF# OF ANCHOR PER ROOF# MODULE PER ROOFTOTAL # OF BALLASTS1307TOTAL # OF ANCHORS0TOTAL # OF MODULES336BALLAST AND ANCHOR SUMMARYPROJECT SUMMARYROOFTOTAL # OF MODULE336MODULE TYPESPR-X21-345-COM# OF INVERTER2DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)115.92AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)105.60PROJECT SUMMARYoARRAYM60U_121(18 STR)M36U_121(10 STR)TOTALSTRINGSTOTAL #OFMODULEDC POWER(KW)AC POWER(KW)AC RUN(INV-SSB)118 96 33.1239.6 10022 248.283118 216 74.52 66 25TOTAL1 128 336 115.92 105.60001557288A D-0091447 PROPOSAL 08-27-18 JF DJ 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 177 of 311 INVERTERINVERTERINVERTER INVERT ER IN V E R T E RINVERTER PROPOSED SOLARSWITCHBOARD LOCATIONULD LOCATIONAT 1600A, 480V POI(INSIDE ELECTRICAL ROOMON GROUND FLOOR)AC-RUN(SSB-ULD)≈ 160 LF2 3 4 6 5 1502596, REV K SCALE:1ARRAY LAYOUT1/32" = 1'-0"SHEET1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH RICHMOND, CA 94804 USA ( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0 REV DESIGN #DESCRIPTION DATE DB CBPROJECTOPPORTUNITYREVISIONS ENGINEER'S STAMP1"012"IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1000 WARD ST 1000 WARD ST MARTINEZ, CA 94553 ---43214321ABCDABCDAL10001557288_AL_1000 WARD ST_HDT_A_JF.DWG9/5/2018 12:25 AMARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1THE PROPOSED ARRAY LAYOUT SHOWN IS DESIGNED TO FIT EXISTINGCONDITIONS AS THEY ARE DESCRIBED ON THIS DRAWING. LAYOUT ANDQUANTITIES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED ON SUNPOWER VERIFICATION OFACTUAL SITE CONDITIONS.LEGEND:PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVALPROPOSED TREE REMOVALPROPOSED EQUIPMENT PADPROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTIONAC CONDUITS (SSB-POI)AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB)AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB)XWIND SPEED ASCE 7-10 (MPH)110EXPOSURE CATEGORYBTRANSITIONAL DISTANCE (FT)GROUND SNOW LOAD (PSF)0SPECTRAL RESPONSE (SDS)0.8Ss1.5S10.6SIESMIC HAZARD LEVEL1SITE CLASSDSEISMIC IMPT. FACTOR (IP)1.0OCCUPANCY CATEGORYIIRACKING TYPEROOF ARACKING TECHNOLOGYHELIX DUAL-TILTANCHOR TYPEOMG PowerGrip PlusBALLAST BLOCK WEIGHT (LBS)14ROOF MEMBRANESEISMIC OFFSETS FORUNANCHORED ARRAYSMAX ROOF SLOPE1:12MIN. OFFSET FROM ROOF EDGE (FT)4RACKING TYPESTRUCTURAL DESIGN PARAMETERSROOF HEIGHT (FT)47ROOF LENGTH (FT)97ROOF WIDTH (FT)106PARAPET HEIGHT (FT)1SPWR AZIMUTH (DEGREES)-38MAX ALLOWABLE PRESSURE (PSF)12MAX ALLOWABLE WEIGHT (LBS)BUILDING CHARACTERIZATIONSSYSTEM WEIGHT (LBS)936622AVERAGE PSF9MAX PSF5# BALLAST PER ROOF# OF ANCHOR PER ROOF# MODULE PER ROOFTOTAL # OF BALLASTS3311TOTAL # OF ANCHORS0TOTAL # OF MODULES936BALLAST AND ANCHOR SUMMARYPROJECT SUMMARYROOFTOTAL # OF MODULE936MODULE TYPESPR-X21-345-COM# OF INVERTER6DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)322.92AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)296.00PROJECT SUMMARYoARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - ROOFPANELBOARD -ROOFARRAYM60U_121(16 STR)M42U_121(14 STR)M42U_121(12 STR)TOTALSTRINGSTOTAL #OFMODULEDC POWER(KW)AC POWER(KW)AC RUN(INV-SPB)AC RUN(SPB-SSB)SPB011 116 192 66.24 66 1403002112144 49.68 46 853114 168 57.964660SPB0241 12 144 49.68 464515051 12 144 49.68 46 6061 12144 49.68 46 25TOTAL1 1 4 78 936 322.92 2960001557288A D-0091449 PROPOSAL 08-28-18 AA DJ 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 178 of 311 X o o o o X TREE HT ≈ 42FT 502596, REV KSCALE:1 ARRAY LAYOUT 1/32" = 1'-0" SHEET 1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTHRICHMOND, CA 94804 USA( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0REVDESIGN #DESCRIPTIONDATE DB CB PROJECT OPPORTUNITYREVISIONSENGINEER'S STAMP 1"0 1 2" IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY2530 ARNOLD DR2530 ARNOLD DRMARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553--- 4321 4321 A B C D A B C D AL1 0001557288_AL_2530 ARNOLD DR_PFT_A.DWG8/31/2018 9:46 AM ARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1 PROJECT SUMMARY CARPORT TOTAL # OF MODULE 1120 MODULE TYPE SPR-X21-470-COM # OF INVERTER 7 DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)526.40 AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)490.00 PROJECT SUMMARY LEGEND: PIER LOCATION PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVAL PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PAD PROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AC CONDUITS (SSB-POI) AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB) AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB) X o NOTES: 1. 110 MPH WIND ZONE (ASCE 7-10) CATEGORY II, EXPOSURE C 2. CORROSION RATE: [1.7um,/yr],[C3: 83%, C4: 99%] 3. METER #1004577984 4. ARRAY SHOWN ON AERIAL IMAGE 5. ARRAY MOUNTING STRUCTURE HELIX CARPORT 1.5 6. STANDARD CANOPY LOW-END CLEARANCE: 11' PROVIDED FOR STANDARD VEHICLE 7. BUILDING CODE REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE FROM EXISTING BUILDINGS 8. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE ALONG EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTES 9. TOTAL OF TREES TO BE REMOVED: 19 10. TOTAL OF LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED: 9 0001557288A D-0091444PROPOSAL08-27-18 BS DJ ARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - CARPORT PANELBOARD - CARPORT CANOPY LABEL #MODULE #STRING KW (DC) M80U_121 (18 STR) M60U_121 (16 STR) M42U_121 (12 STR) KW (AC)TILT AZIMUTH CSI AZIMUTH SPWR AC RUN (INV-SPB) AC RUN (SPB-SSB) SPB01 1 4x60 240 24 112.8 2 92 10°157°-23°30,140 302 6x60 360 36 169.2 2 166 10°157°-23°65,205 SPB02 3 6x60 360 36 169.2 2 166 10° 157° -23° 30,140 1504 4x40 160 16 75.2 1 66 10° 157° -23° 70 TOTAL 1120 112 526.4 4 1 2 490 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 179 of 311 XXXXXXXooooo123 PROPOSED SOLARSWITCHBOARD LOCATIONXXSPB02SPB01AC RUN (SSB-POI)≈50 LFPOINT OF INTERCONNECTION,METER #9281R7502596, REV K SCALE:1ARRAY LAYOUT1/32" = 1'-0"SHEET1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH RICHMOND, CA 94804 USA ( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0 REV DESIGN #DESCRIPTION DATE DB CBPROJECTOPPORTUNITYREVISIONS ENGINEER'S STAMP1"012"IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY 4545 DELTA FAIR BLVD 4545 DELTA FAIR BLVD ANTIOCH, CA 94509 ---43214321ABCDABCDA D-0091445 PROPOSAL 08-27-18 AA DJ 0001557288AL10001557288_AL_4545 DELTA FAIR BLVD_PFT_A.DWG8/29/2018 2:45 PMARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1PROJECT SUMMARYCARPORTTOTAL # OF MODULE930MODULE TYPE SPR-X21-470-COM# OF INVERTER6DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)437.1AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)407PROJECT SUMMARYNOTES:1. 110 MPH WIND ZONE (ASCE 7-10) CATEGORY II, EXPOSURE C2. CORROSION RATE: [1.2µm/yr],[C2: 4%, C3: 99%]3. ARRAY SHOWN ON AERIAL IMAGE4. ARRAY MOUNTING STRUCTURE HELIX CARPORT 1.55. STANDARD CANOPY LOW-END CLEARANCE: 11' PROVIDED FORSTANDARD VEHICLE6. BUILDING CODE REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE FROM EXISTINGBUILDINGS7. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE ALONG EMERGENCYACCESS ROUTES8. TOTAL OF TREES TO BE REMOVED: 99. TOTAL OF LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED: 5ARRAY SUMMARY TABLE - CARPORTPANEL BOARD - CARPORT CANOPY LABEL #MODULE #STRINGKW(DC)M80U_121(18 STR)M60U_121(15 STR)M42U_121(12 STR)KW(AC)TILTAZIMUTHCSIAZIMUTHSPWRAC RUN(INV-SPB)AC RUN(INV-SSB)SPB011 6x50 300 30 141 11 129 10° 144° -36°3026x45 27027126.91111210° 144° -36° 95SPB023 6x60 360 36 169.2 2166 10° 144° -36°160TOTAL930 93 437.1 312407LEGEND:PROPOSED TREE REMOVALPROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVALPIER LOCATIONPROPOSED EQUIPMENT PADPROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTIONAC CONDUITS (SSB-POI)AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB)AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB)Xo 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 180 of 311 XX XXXX o oo o POINT OF INTERCONNECTION METER #1010084119 SOLAR SWITCHBOARD ULD AC-RUN (SSB-POI) ≈150 LF 502596, REV KSCALE:1 ARRAY LAYOUT 1/32" = 1'-0" SHEET 1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTHRICHMOND, CA 94804 USA( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0REVDESIGN #DESCRIPTIONDATE DB CB PROJECT OPPORTUNITYREVISIONSENGINEER'S STAMP 1"0 1 2" IF BAR IS NOT ONE INCH, DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALECONTRA COSTA COUNTY4549 DELTA FAIR BLVD 4594 DELTA FAIR BLVDANTIOCH, CA 94509--- 4321 4321 A B C D A B C D AL1 0001557288_AL_4549 DELTA FAIR BLVD_PFT_A.DWG8/31/2018 9:37 AM ARRAY LAYOUTTIER 1 PROJECT SUMMARY CARPORT TOTAL # OF MODULE 450 MODULE TYPE SPR-X21-470-COM # OF INVERTER 4 DC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)211.50 AC SYSTEM SIZE (kW)177.60 PROJECT SUMMARY NOTES: 1. 110 MPH WIND ZONE (ASCE 7-10) CATEGORY II, EXPOSURE C 2. CORROSION RATE: [1.8µm/yr],[C3: 75%, C4: 99%] 3. ARRAY SHOWN ON AERIAL IMAGE 4. ARRAY MOUNTING STRUCTURE: HELIX CARPORT 1.5 5. STANDARD CANOPY LOW-END CLEARANCE: 11' PROVIDED FOR STANDARD VEHICLE 6. BUILDING CODE REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE FROM EXISTING BUILDINGS 7. FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES 20' MIN. CLEARANCE ALONG EMERGENCY ACCESS ROUTES 8. TOTAL OF TREES TO BE REMOVED: 4 9. TOTAL OF LIGHT POLE TO BE REMOVED: 4 CANNOPY LABEL # MODULE # STRING KW (DC) M42U_121 (12STR) M36U_121 (9 STR) KW (AC)TILT AZIMUTH CSI AZIMUTH SPWR AC RUN (INV-SSB) 1 6x35 210 21 98.70 1 1 85.6 10° 255° 75° 95, 95 2 6x40 240 24 112.80 2 92.0 10° 255° 75° 30 TOTAL 450 45 211.50 3 1 177.6 0001557288A D-0091446PROPOSAL08-28-18 HG DJ LEGEND: PROPOSED LIGHT POLE REMOVAL PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL PROPOSED EQUIPMENT PAD PROPOSED POINT OF INTERCONNECTION AC CONDUITS (SSB-POI) AC CONDUITS (SPB-SSB) AC CONDUITS (INV-SPB) X o PIER LOCATION 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 181 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 8Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | Option S Decision Overview –Critical for Storage Option The August 9th CPUC decision mandates PG&E to create an Option S Rate •Option S will be available at the earlier of 1) the same time proposed rate tariffs are available for opt-in enrollment (Oct 2019), or 2) January 1, 2020 •“The energy storage system must have a rated capacity in watts which is at least 10% of the customer’s peak demand over the previous 12 months.” •“Option S shall collect all distribution demand charge revenue through daily demand charges for participating E-19V, E-19, and E-20 customers, for Option S customers.” •“After duplicating the Option R rate design, 80%of the revenue that would otherwise be collected from customers by non-coincident distribution demand charges (referred to by PG&E as “maximum” demand charges) shall be collected instead through daily demand charges assessed during the peak period only (4 p.m. to 9 p.m.for MLLP customers) for customers on Option S.” •“20%of the revenue that would otherwise be collected from customers by non-coincident distribution demand charges shall be collected through a non-coincident distribution demand charge for customers on Option S, except that no distribution demand charges may be assessed between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m. each day.” •Cap of 150MW (50MW per rate class for E-19V, E-19 and E-20) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 182 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 9Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | How Option S Impacts Customer Savings •Duplication of Option R rate design and associated energy rates, preserves solar economics under Option S •Having the majority (80%) of demand charges assessed from 4pm -9pm creates a demand period that Solar + Storage are very effective at managing •Charging from Off Peak Solar and Discharging during On Peak to manage demand charges creates stacking energy arbitrage value OnPeak 4pm-9pm 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 183 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 10Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | 2500 Alhambra, July 21st OnPeak 4pm-9pm Option R Grandfathered •704 kW Average Max Monthly Demand •$36,080 ESS Demand Savings •$20,592 ESS Energy Savings Option S Annual: •289 kW Average Daily Max Demand •$70,280 ESS Demand Savings •$49,775 ESS Energy Savings 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 184 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 11Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | Contra Costa County Portfolio Option R Option S Site Name Solar Rate ESS System Size (kW) ESS System Size (kWh) ESS Cost ($/year) ESS Energy Savings ($/year) ESS Demand Savings ($/year) Total ESS Savings ($/year) Net Savings ($/year) ESS Energy Savings ($/year) ESS Demand Savings ($/year) Total ESS Savings ($/year) Net Savings ($/year) 1000 Ward E19S Option R 500 950 $34,035 -$293 -$425 $22,280 -$11,755 $23,463 $34,344 $57,807 $23,772 30 Douglas E19 S Option R (Grandfathered)500 950 $34,035 -$2,807 $20,714 $20,003 -$14,032 $7,974 $46,902 $55,965 $21,930 50 Douglas E19S Option R 500 950 $34,035 $207 -$3,009 $23,730 -$10,305 $2,992 $44,882 $47,875 $13,840 2350 Arnold E19S Option R 500 950 $34,035 $1,227 $407 $23,707 -$10,328 $5,909 $38,514 $44,423 $10,388 595 Center E19S Option R 500 950 $34,035 $468 -$3,602 $18,029 -$16,006 $16,931 $36,101 $53,032 $18,997 2500 4750 $170,175 -$1,197 $14,084 $107,748 -$62,427 $57,268 $200,743 $259,101 $88,926 2500 Alhambra E20P Option R 1000 1900 $57,641 $20,592 $36,080 $55,914 -$1,728 $49,775 $70,281 $120,056 $62,415 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 185 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 12Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | Option S Unknowns •Daily Demand Rates •CALSSA has requested illustrative Daily Demand Rates from PG&E that are expected to be released by end of Nov 2018 •Estimate of Daily Demand rate calculated by scaling the Daily Demand Rate estimated by SEIA that was given in a Rate Design Q&A Session •Securing Option S allocation under 150MW cap •More information about how to apply for Option S will be in PG&E advise letter •Will there be a queue? •Will existing storage customers be able to switch to Option S? 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 186 of 311 Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation Execution Certainty Best Products and Solutions Committed Partner Your Best Partner for Sustainable Energy Savings Target Store, Petaluma, CA 502kWp, Roof system 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 187 of 311 Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation Execution Certainty We make solar seamless and easy for you. Expertise in in product selection, project design, financing, construction, grid connection and operations. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 188 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 15Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | 0 50 100 150 200 250 Ameresco EnterSolar SoCore Energy Coldwell Solar Nexamp REC Solar Greenskies Wunder Capital WGL Borrego Geronimo Energy NextEra Energy NRG Tesla SunPower 2017 Capacity (MW) Source: Greentech Media Research, 2018 SunPower is the trusted #1 commercial solar provider for large corporate customers, with more than 33 years’ experience, 9.2 gigawatts installed and $10 billion financed worldwide. We’ve simplified the process, providing you with the best possible solar experience. A recent GTM Research report confirms SunPower is the No. 1 U.S. commercial solar provider based on 2017 delivered projects - and information collected from installers, developers, asset owners and financiers. Full service, coast to coast SunPower Installed and deployed solar systems 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 189 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 16Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation | 0 50 100 150 200 8 of Top 10 corporate solar buyers chose SunPower Source: Solar Means Business 2017 System capacity (MW) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 190 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 17 Over $10B in solar project financing The SunPower solar financing team are helpful facilitators for our customers. Our primary goal is finding and executing the best financial solution to achieve your organization’s energy objectives and the very best long-term ROI. Financing that fits your needs, with maximum returns. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 191 of 311 Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation Best Products and Solutions SunPower technology is different, and better. For uncompromised performance and dependable results. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 192 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 19 vs. SunPower®Maxeon ®Cell Technology •25.2% efficient solar cell maximizes system power production •Fundamentally different design enhances reliability, eliminating 86% of the reasons cells fail1 •This adds up to better reliability and more power over time, giving you improved economics and more savings Higher savings start with different, better cells Lines of metal paste Metal paste on back of cell Thin connections No grid lines on cell front Solid metal backing Thick connections Conventional Solar MORE ENERGY HIGHER RELIABILITY HIGHER RELIABILITY 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 193 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 20 SunPower® Module Technology •Highest efficiency module you can buy 1 •Unmatched reliability2 •Up to 60% more energy in the same space over the first 25 years3 •Best choice for constrained areas to maximize lifetime energy production •Superior in every way to Conventional Modules—efficiency, quality, and reliability •Backed by the same 25-year Product and Power Warranty covering Maxeon cell-based modules •Best choice for minimizing up-front project costs SunPower®Performance Series Modules SunPower®Maxeon®Cell- based Modules Module choice so you can select the right technology for your project 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 194 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 21 Our Warranty The industry’s best modules, best warranty •The proven reliability of SunPower®modules enables the industry’s best warranty •We eliminate the loopholes and gaps found in other solar warranties to offer the highest level of protection on your investment •We stand behind every module we ship to homes, businesses and power plants around the world to provide you with the confidence to secure your energy future POWER SunPower’s power warranty is the highest in solar—for 25 years PRODUCT SunPower covers all product defects for the full 25 years SERVICE SunPower will repair or replace defective modules within 25 years of purchase vs. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 195 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 22 Commercial Carport and Rooftop Solutions SunPower®Helix™ Carport System •Designed by architects and engineers to deliver the best in value, performance and elegance •Each component is engineered for greater reliability and longer system life •System features surpass industry standards for safety and durability Make a visible statement on your sustainability goals SunPower® Helix™ Roof Single Tilt System •Optimizes energy output per kW •Ideal for unconstrained roofs •Ideal for customers prioritizing IRR 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 196 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 23 SunPower®Helix™Storage Maximizing the value of solar + storage •Lower your electricity costs Realize significant reductions in your monthly utility demand charges with Helix™ Storage. •Realize savings quicker Design, installation, and O&M services are seamlessly integrated to provide a turnkey solution that speeds your time to savings. •Minimize disruptions Your system is delivered on a timeline and budget that’s right for you—certainty that’s backed by SunPower’s 30+ years of experience. Storage Image courtesy of Lockheed Martin 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 197 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 24 Commercial Storage Solutions Solar and storage are better together While solar does provide demand charge savings; when paired with energy storage that is charged and discharged at the most opportune times. demand charge reductions become more reliable. Smaller peak reduction from “flatter” usage pattern Limited value for morning and evening peaks Maximum savings STORAGE ALONE SOLAR ALONE SOLAR + STORAGE SOLAR + STORAGE kW REDUCTION SOLAR kW REDUCTION STORAGE kW REDUCTION 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 198 of 311 Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation Committed Partner We are committed to your success and sustainability goals. Sustainability matters to you and to us. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 199 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 26 Rigorous safety protocol helps ensure your project is on time and on budget Our safety standards are based on decades of experience and ensure the well-being of our contractors and workers. Safety lapses cause delays, higher costs and accidents, which is why we plan ahead to protect your investment at every milestone. •Design review and approval •Project kickoff with hazard analysis and site safety plan •Weekly safety and quality control audits •Daily team reports, review of on -site hazards and construction calls •Thorough investigation of near misses, accidents and corrective actions •Customer solar safety training •Dedicated to safe, injury-free workplaces •Training required for staff, managers and executives •Extensive programs: fall protection, excavation, crane, rigging, OSHA compliance, etc. •Quarterly reviews and awards •Total RIR reporting 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 200 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 27 Sustainable manufacturing At every step of the product lifecycle, from manufacturing to end of life, we work to minimize resource usage and maximize environmental benefits. SunPower facilities in De Vernejoul and Toulouse, France, and Mexicali, Mexico have landfill-free verification from NSF Sustainability, meaning these facilities divert more than 99% of their waste, with 1% or less going to landfills. SunPower is the world’s first and only solar panel company to earn the prestigious Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM Silver designation for our direct current E-Series and X-Series panels.1 In 2016, SunPower published its first Declare label for E- and X-Series panels, providing details on where the products are assembled, their life expectancy and end-of-life options. SunPower has LEED certifications at facilities globally, including our San Jose headquarters and Mexicali manufacturing sites. The SunPower Malaysia administration building is certified LEED Platinum and the manufacturing facility is certified LEED Gold. The regional operating headquarters in the Philippines is certified LEED Platinum. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 201 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 28 Strengthen your sustainability goals and increase your facility value •40 points are required for Basic LEED Certification, and a SunPower solar system with Cradle to Cradle Certified™ solar panels can contribute across several credit categories. •On a typical project2, a solar system contributes 5 points, and Using Cradle to Cradle™ certified SunPower products and reducing construction waste can yield an additional 10 points. -Renewable energy production - Heat Island Reduction -Environmental product declarations -Material ingredients - Sourcing of raw materials - Construction + waste management - Avoidance of chemicals of concern 3 3 2 2 10 LEED POINTS SunPower Maxeon Panels Conventional Panels SunPower systems contribute more for your LEED certification SunPower is a member of the US Green Building Council, the organization which denotes expertise in the field of green building. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 202 of 311 Confidential I © 2018 SunPower Corporation 29 Execution Certainty Best Products and Solutions Committed Partner Get your projects done right Deliver great savings •33 years of global experience installing 9.2GW with over $10B in financing. •No. 1 U.S. commercial solar provider based on 2017 delivered projects3 •The most expertise in product selection, project design, financing, construction, grid connectionand operations. Cupertino Apple Campus 15MW, Roof system •World and industry record breaking technology in cells, modules and systems with the highest performance and the lowest degradation rate. •A broad portfolio for more choice and a better fit for your needs. •Solutions that deliver the most energy for predictable savings and dependable results. •Industry’s largest investment in solar R&D and the best warranty. •No other solar company offers such a complete best technology and delivery, custom financing options, customer service, community programs and sustainability practices. •Highest safety standards in the industry. •Commitment to our communities, with programs like Horizons and Solar Academies for learning, mentorship and workforce training opportunities. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 203 of 311 Confidential | © 2017 SunPower Corporation SUNPOWER, the SUNPOWER logo, DEMAND BETTER SOLAR, ENERGYLINK, MAXEON, SIGNATURE, and HELIX are trademarks or registered trademarks of SunPower Corporation in the U.S. and other countries as well. Cradle to Cradle CertifiedTM is a certification mark licensed by the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Important Information 1.Based on search of datasheet values from websites of top 10 manufacturers per IHS, as of January 2017. 2.A typical project assumes core and shell or major renovation with at least 48% of the energy offset by solar, sufficient products to qualify for Material and Resource categories, and at least 33% of the hardscape covered with solar. LEED, USGBC and the related logo are trademarks owned by the U.S. Green Building Council and are used with permission 3.Greentech Media Research, 2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 204 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 10. Meeting Date:02/11/2019   Subject:CONSIDER report to the Board of Supervisors on the status of items. 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 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): None. Attachments TWIC2018ReferralReport 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 205 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 206 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 207 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 208 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 209 of 311 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 11. Meeting Date:02/11/2019 Subject:REVIEW Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. 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: "Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest" is a standing item on the TWIC agenda. Referral Update: Communication Received: CCTA  CCTA 2018 Activities and Accomplishments Report January "Items of Interest" report Leland Frayseth - Resident Email Re: Los Vaqueros Dam Erosion News/Articles/Editorials/Etc: "Transport Topics", December 2018: Rep. DeFazio on Earmarks Ban: ‘Don’t Think We Need That Rule’ Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments January 16, 2019 RTPC Memo ("Items of Interest") Rep. DeFazio on Earmarks Ban_ ‘Don’t Think We Need That Rule’ _ Transport Topics LelandFraysethLVerosion CCTA - 2018_Accomplishments.pdf 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 210 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 211 of 311 QUARTERLY PROJECT STATUS REPORTS October - December 2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 212 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018   ON-GOING PROJECTS A. PROJECTS MANAGED BY AUTHORITY 1106S2 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes – Segment 2 ....................................................................................................................... 1 5002 State Route 4: Mokelumne Bike Trail/Pedestrian Crossing ........................................................................... 3 5005 State Route 4: Balfour Road Interchange – Phase 1 ........................................................................................ 5 6001 Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvements: State Route 4 Widening – Phase 3 .............. 7 6002/6004 State Route 242/Clayton Road Ramps .................................................................................................................. 9 6006 State Route 4 Operational Improvements: Interstate 680 to Bailey Road ................................................. 11 7002 Interstate 80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Improvements .................................................................. 13 7003 Interstate 80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvements ............................................................................. 15 8001 Interstate 680 Carpool Lane Completion/Express Lanes ................................................................................ 17 8009 Innovate 680 .............................................................................................................................................................. 19 10001-06 Shared Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Program ...................................................................................................... 21 28002 State Route 4 (SR4) Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) ......................................................................... 23 B. PROJECTS MANAGED BY BOTH AUTHORITY AND OTHER AGENCIES 1001/1698 Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore ................................................................................................................................ 25 3001/1407 State Route 4 East Widening: Somersville Road to State Route 160 ............................................................ 27 4001 Hercules Rail Station ................................................................................................................................................. 29 C. PROJECTS MANAGED BY OTHER AGENCIES 1216/24003 Pacheco Boulevard Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 31 1222 Operational Improvements on Parallel Arterials ............................................................................................... 33 1723 Danville Road and Street Preservation ................................................................................................................. 35 2001/2101 East County Rail Extension (eBART) (new) ........................................................................................................... 37 4002/27001 Martinez Intermodal Station – Phase 3 ............................................................................................................... 39 10001-03 Comprehensive Wayfinding System for Central Contra Costa BART Stations ........................................... 41 10001-04 Electronic Bicycle Facilities at Central Contra Costa BART Stations .............................................................. 43 10001-05 Concord BART Plaza Redesign ............................................................................................................................... 45 10001-07 Pleasant Hill Parking Structure Elevator Renovation ......................................................................................... 47 10001-08 Walnut Creek BART TOD Public Access Improvements ................................................................................... 49 10002-01 Transit Oriented Development and Access Improvements at West Contra Costa BART Stations ....... 51 10002-03 Electronic Bicycle Facilities at West Contra Costa BART Stations .................................................................. 53 10002-05 Comprehensive Wayfinding System for West Contra Costa BART Stations ............................................... 55 10002-07 El Cerrito del Norte BART Station .......................................................................................................................... 57 10003-03 Lafayette BART Bike Station ..................................................................................................................................... 59 10003-07 Lafayette Station Site Improvements ..................................................................................................................... 61 10003-08 Downtown Orinda Streetscape Master Plan ....................................................................................................... 63 24004 Kirker Pass Road Truck Lanes (Northbound) ...................................................................................................... 65 24011 Downtown Corridors Traffic Improvements ......................................................................................................... 67 24012 Farm Bureau Road Safe Route to Schools .......................................................................................................... 69 24014 St. Mary’s Road - Rheem Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road Roundabouts ........................................ 71 24016 Canyon Road Bridge Replacement ...................................................................................................................... 73 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 213 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018   ON-GOING PROJECTS C. PROJECTS MANAGED BY OTHER AGENCIES (continued) 24022 Crow Canyon Road Pavement Rehabilitation ..................................................................................................... 75 24024 Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements .......................................................... 77 24031 Alhambra Creek Bridge and Ferry Street Enhancements ............................................................................... 79 24032 Clayton Major Streets Improvements .................................................................................................................. 81 28003 Main Street Downtown Improvements – Norcross Lane to 2nd Street ...................................................... 83 Indicates delay in schedule, increase in cost and/or increase in funding shortfall since last update 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 214 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018   COMPLETED PROJECTS SOUTHWEST COUNTY Measure C 1104 I-680/Stone Valley Road Interchange, 1998 1105 I-680/El Cerro Boulevard Interchange Ramp Signalization, 1994 1106 I-680 Auxiliary Lanes Segments 1 and 3, 2007 1107 I-680/Fostoria Way Overcrossing, 1994 1214 Commerce Avenue Extension, 2015 1600 Moraga Road Safety Improvements, 2005 1602 Camino Pablo Carpool Lots, 1996 1607 Moraga Way at Glorietta Boulevard and Camino Encinas, 2001 1608 Moraga Way Safety Improvements, 2002 1609 Moraga Way /Ivy Drive Roadway Improvements, 2004 1611 Mt. Diablo Corridor Improvements, 2001 1612 Moraga Road Corridor Improvements, 2005 1621 St. Mary’s Road – Phase 2, 1999 1622 Moraga Road Structural and Safety Improvements, 2005 1623/1623W Santa Maria Intersection Improvements, 2016 1624 Bryant Way/Moraga Way Improvements, 2005 1625/ 1625SW Moraga Way Rehabilitation and Improvements, 2011 1711 St. Mary’s Road Improvements, 1995 1715 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Improvements – Phase 1, 1996 1716 Stone Valley Road Circulation Improvements, 2003 1717 Camino Tassajara Circulation Improvements, 2004 1718 Crow Canyon Road Improvements, 2001 1719 Sycamore Valley Road Improvements, 2008 1720 San Ramon Valley Boulevard Widening – Phase 1, 1997 1722 Santa Maria Park and Ride Lot Slide Repair, 2017 1801 Camino Pablo (San Pablo Dam Corridor), 1996 2206 I-680/Sycamore Valley Road Park & Ride, 1998 2209 San Ramon Intermodal Transit Facility, 1996 3101 Iron Horse Trail – Monument to Alameda County Line, 1994 3103 Reliez Valley Road Trail – Phase 2, 2003 3106 St. Stephens/Bryant Way Trail, 1998 Measure J 10003-02 Electronic Bicycle Facilities - Southwest County BART Stations, 2016 10003-06 Orinda BART Downtown Access Ramp and Lighting, 2018 24010 Olympic Boulevard/Reliez Station Road, 2017   24015 Rheem Boulevard Landslide Repair and Repaving, 2017 24017  Camino Pablo Pavement Rehabilitation, 2016 24018 Ivy Drive Pavement Rehabilitation – Phase 2, 2017 24021 Alcosta Boulevard Pavement Rehabilitation, 2016   CENTRAL COUNTY Measure C 1101 I-680/Burnett Avenue Ramps, 1995 1103 I-680/North Main Street Bypass, 1996 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 215 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018   COMPLETED PROJECTS CENTRAL COUNTY Measure C (continued) 1108 Route 242/Concord Avenue Interchange, 1997 1113 Route 242 Widening, 2001 1116 I-680 HOV Lanes, 2005 1117 I-680/SR4 Interchange, 2009 1203 Alhambra Avenue Widening, 2011 1205 Taylor Boulevard/Pleasant Hill Road/Alhambra Road Intersection Improvements, 2000 1209 South Broadway Extension, 1996 1210 Monument Boulevard/Contra Costa Boulevard/Buskirk Avenue Improvements, 1996 1215 Geary Road Improvements, 2002  1217 Bancroft/Hookston Intersection, 2004 1218 Buskirk Avenue Improvements, 2005 1219 Iron Horse Trail Crossing at Treat Boulevard, 2010 1220 Ygnacio Valley Road Slide Repair, 2008 1221 Contra Costa Boulevard Signal Coordination 2009 2208 Martinez Intermodal Facility – Phase 1, 2001 2208 Martinez Intermodal Facility - Phase 2, 2006 2210 Pacheco Transit Hub, 2014 2296 Martinez Bay Trail, 2007 3102 Walnut Creek Channel to CC Shoreline Trail, 2001 Measure J 8002 I-680 Southbound Carpool Lane Extension (restripe), Nov 2011 24005 Court Street Overcrossing – Phase 1, 2014 24006 Buskirk Avenue Widening – Phase 2, 2014 24007 Geary Road Reconstruction – Phase 3 24013 Salvio Street Complete Streets – Sidewalk, 2017 24026 Contra Costa Boulevard Improvements, December 2014 24027 Ygnacio Valley Road Permanent Restoration – Phase 2, 2015 24028 Clayton Road/Treat Boulevard/Denkinger Road Intersection Capacity Improvements, 2018 24029 Old Marsh Creek Road Overlay, 2010 WEST COUNTY Measure C 1300 Richmond Parkway, 1996 1501 SR4 (W) Gap Closure – Phase 1, 2002 1503 SR4 (W) Willow Avenue Overcrossing, 1996 2302 Richmond Transit Village BART Parking Structures, 2015 2303 Hercules Transit Center, 2009 3111 Atlas Road Bridge, 2017 9002 Richmond Parkway Lighting, 2017 10002-01 BART – Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Access Improvements at El Cerrito Plaza and del Norte BART Stations, 2014 Measure J 7005 Interstate 80 Integrated Corridor Mobility, 2016 9001 Richmond Parkway Upgrade Study, 2008 9003 Marina Bay Parkway Grade Separation, 2016 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 216 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018   COMPLETED PROJECTS   EAST COUNTY Measure C 1401 SR4 (E) Willow Pass Grade Lowering, 1995 1402 SR4 (E) Bailey Road Interchange, 1996 1403 SR4 (E) Bailey Road to Railroad Avenue, 2001 2101 BART Extension to Pittsburg/Bay Point, 1996 3003 State Route 4 East Widening: Loveridge Road to Somersville Road, 2014 3110 Marsh Creek Trail Overcrossing at SR4, 1997 3112 Big Break Regional Trail, 2010 Measure J 2002 Pittsburg Civic Center Station, 2018 5001 State Route 4/State Route 160 Connector Ramps, 2016 5006 Vasco Road Safety Improvements Project – Phase 1, 2011 5010 SR4 Bypass: Segments 1 and 3, 2008 5002/5003 State Route 4: Widen to 4 Lanes – Laurel Road to Sand Creek Road & Sand Creek Road Interchange, 2015   02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 217 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018   ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB 1171 Assembly Bill 1171 ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ATP Active Transportation Program BAIFA Bay Area Infrastructure Financing Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program CMIA Corridor Mobility Improvement Account ECCRFFA East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority EEMP Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation IIP Interregional Improvement Program IMD Interstate Maintenance Discretionary Funds HM7 Maintenance program for radio communications LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund LPP Local Partnership Program in SB1 PPM Planning, Programming, and Monitoring RIP Regional Improvement Program RM 1 Regional Measure 1 RM 2 Regional Measure 2 PBTF Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (Measure J program) RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Plan SCCR South Contra Costa Regional Fee SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program SLPP State Local Partnership Program STA State Transit Assistance STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TBD To be determined (funding not currently identified) TDA Transportation Development Act TE Transportation Enhancement TCRP Traffic Congestion Relief Program TIGER II Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery II TLC Transportation for Livable Communities (Measure J program) TVTDF Tri-Valley Transportation Development Fee WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee – Subregional Transportation Mitigation Program 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 218 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 680 Auxiliary Lanes, Segment 2 (# 1106S2) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion Southwest County Scope Construct auxiliary lanes between Crow Canyon Road in San Ramon and Sycamore Valley Road in Danville along I-680 in both directions. The project is the last segment of auxiliary lanes in both directions of I-680 between Bollinger Canyon Road in San Ramon and Diablo Road in Danville. Status The auxiliary lanes were opened to traffic in July 2014. The field work for the landscaping and first year of plant establishment was accepted by Caltrans at the end of April 2018. The Authority awarded a 4-year plant establishment and maintenance contract CT478 to Bortolussi & Watkin (B&W) on March 21, 2018. Work under this contract started on April 25, 2018. Issues/Areas of Concern None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report Four-year plant establishment period is underway. The plants and trees are doing well and have noticeably grown. A final report on the use of SLPP funds was submitted to Caltrans. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction Complete Post Construction 2015-2022 Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management $983 Planning — Environmental Clearance — Design 3,834 Right of Way and Utilities 10 Construction 27,664 Construction Management 4,336 Total $36,827 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount SCCR $7,100 TVTDF 7,800 IMD 3,200 STIP 18,000 SLPP 1,000 Total $37,100 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 219 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 680 Auxiliary Lanes, Segment 2 (# 1106S2) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract/ Resolution No. Amend No. Expiration Date Agency Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 317 1 12/31/2019 Mark Thomas & Co. Design Services for I-680 Auxiliary Lane –Segment 2 $3,705,000 $3,221,243 $3,515,000 86.9% 100% 336 8 12/31/2018 S&C Engineers, Inc. Construction Management Services for I-680 $2,048,670 $2,030,220 $2,048,670 99% 99.5% 407 1 6/30/2018 Bortolussi & Watkin, Inc. Landscaping Contract $1,807,586 $1,678,594 $1,762,586 92% 100% 478 — 5/25/2022 Bortolussi & Watkin, Inc. Plant Establishment and Maintenance $611,000 $132,935 $611,000 21.7% 15% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 220 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Mokelumne Bike Trail/Pedestrian Overcrossing (portion of # 5002) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion East County Scope Construct a pedestrian and bicycle overcrossing (POC) near the Mokelumne Trail at SR 4. The overcrossing will include a multi-span bridge with columns in the SR 4 median. The bridge approaches will be constructed on earthen embankments. Status  The CEQA clearance is complete.  The current focus is to obtain approval of Caltrans Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER).  100% design is currently being developed.  Right of Way appraisals are underway. Issues/Areas of Concern  Construction funding for the project has not been secured.  Project costs may escalate as schedule is impacted by funding shortfall.  The NEPA clearance, if needed, may be problematic.  BART’s eBART Next Segment Study identifies a potential future station in the vicinity of the Mokelumne Trail POC. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The project team is working with Caltrans on the approval of the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) and Encroachment Permit.  Staff is assisting with facilitation of the maintenance agreement between Caltrans and the City of Brentwood.  Addendum #14 to the environmental document for the SR4 Bypass Project was approved by the SR4 Bypass Authority to reflect the latest POC design.  Agreement No. 511 with East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) was approved on October 17, 2018 for Fee-for-Services related to Right-of- Way and approval of project.  Cost has been updated based on latest information. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design 2014-2019 Right of Way and Utilities 2018-2019 Construction 2019-2020 Post Construction — Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management $45 Planning — Environmental Clearance — Design 872 Right of Way and Utilities 1,380 Construction 8,845 Construction Management 1,025 Total $12,167 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $522 Measure J – BART 150 BART 200 ECCRFA 1,270 TBD 10,025 Total $12,167 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 221 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Mokelumne Bike Trail/Pedestrian Overcrossing (portion of # 5002) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 358 1 6/30/2019 Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. PS&E $872,000 $603,738 $872,000 69% 85% 511 — 10/17/2021 East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) ROW and Project Approval $3,000 $0 $3,000 0% 0% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 222 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Balfour Road Interchange – Phase 1 (# 5005) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority/SR 4 Bypass Authority Subregion East County Scope Construct a new SR 4 bridge crossing over Balfour Road in Brentwood providing one southbound and one northbound lane for SR 4; northbound and southbound SR 4 loop on-ramps, servicing both westbound and eastbound Balfour Road traffic; and northbound and southbound SR 4 diagonal off-ramps. Status  Project is in the construction phase.  The notice-to-proceed (NTP) for the construction contract was issued on February 6, 2017.  PG&E, Kinder Morgan, and AT&T utility relocation activities are complete.  Ribbon cutting was held on December 10, 2018. Issues/Areas of Concern  There were concerns over night-time pile driving and noise impacts to residents. Construction phas- ing was changed for work to be performed during the day and be completed before school starts. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The project was scheduled for completion in De- cember 2018. However, due to temperature- sensitive paving operations, the completion of the project, which may include additional paving on lo- cal streets, is now expected to be Spring of 2019.  Ribbon cutting held on December 10, 2018.  Construction activities are concluding. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction 2017-2019 Post Construction — Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management $1,651 Planning — Environmental Clearance 628 Design 4,939 Right of Way and Utilities 14,684 Construction 42,745 Construction Management 8,018 Total $72,665 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $46,000 ECCRFFA 26,000 CCWD 1,580 Total $73,580 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 223 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project SR 4 Balfour Road Interchange – Phase 1 (# 5005) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 354 4 6/30/2016 / Closed Quincy Engineering, Inc. Design Services $4,938,891 $4,938,823 $4,938,891 100% 100% 369 2 6/30/2018 / Closed Kinder Morgan Design and Long Lead Procurement $3,530,000 $3,400,761 $3,400,761 96.3% 100% 404 2 12/31/2019 PSOMAS Construction Mgmt. Services $6,710,400 $6,057,730 $6,710,400 90.2% 80% 410 2 6/30/2019 PG&E Joint Trench $2,155,279 $2,004,701 $2,155,279 95.7% 99% 411 — 12/31/2017 / Closed PG&E Transmission Towers $1,895,280 $1,007,946 $1,007,946 53% 100% 419 1 12/31/2018 East Contra Costa Co. Habitat Conservancy Habitat Conservation Plan $467,303 $465,185 $467,303 99.5% 100% 420 1 3/16/2021 / Closed Kinder Morgan Pipeline/Facility Relocation $7,237,500 $6,972,227 $6,972,227 96.3% 100% 427 — 6/30/2019 Brosamer & Wall/Bay Cities Joint Venture Construction Services $37,973,146 $34,564,197 $40,811,317 91% 86% 430 2 12/31/2019 Quincy Engineering, Inc. Design Services during Con-struction $1,307,395 $1,048,379 $1,327,964 80% 76% 436 — 12/31/2018 AT&T Utility Relocation $400,410 $400,410 $400,410 100% 100% 441 1 3/16/2021 Kinder Morgan Pipeline Inspection/Monitoring $390,000 $219,473 $390,000 56% 72% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 224 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvement: State Route 4 Widening, Phase 3 (# 6001) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion Central County Scope Construct three-level interchange, as follows:  Phase 1 – NB I-680 to WB SR 4 connector.  Phase 2 – EB SR 4 to SB I-680 connector.  Phase 3 – SR 4 widening: Morello Avenue to SR 242 and replacement of Grayson Bridge.  Phase 4 – SB I-680 to EB SR 4 connector.  Phase 5 – WB SR 4 to NB I-680 connector. Due to a funding shortfall, Phase 3 will be constructed first. The remaining phases will be constructed as funding becomes available. Status  Phase 3 construction contract was awarded on October 17, 2018. Issues/Areas of Concern  Funding has not yet been secured for future phases. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Construction contract 505 was awarded to Brosamer & Wall by the Authority Board on October 17, 2018.  Contractor obtained all necessary encroachment permits to mobilize to the site.  Contractor is in process of submitting all documents needed to proceed with the work. All regulatory permits were received along with the mitigation requirements. Agreements with mitigation bank were executed.  Utility relocation work was completed in November 2018.  A need for temporary construction easement and permanent footing easement at Solano Creek requires an eminent domain process. Process was initiated; however, a work around right of way (ROW) certification was issued by Caltrans in March 2018. The full ROW was issued by Caltrans with an effective date to enter the easement on December 26, 2018. Location Schedule Phase 3 Other Phases Planning Complete Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Complete Design Complete TBD Right of Way and Utilities Complete TBD Construction 2018-2021 TBD Post Construction 2020-2021 TBD Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Phase 3 Other Phases Project Management $1,700 — Planning 583 — Environmental Clearance 2757 $900 Design 10,111 32,400 Right of Way and Utilities 12,921 10,900 Construction 97,449 270,400 Construction Management 10,674 32,400 Total $136,195 $347,000 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Phase 3 Other Phases Measure J $35,000 — Measure C 17,300 — STIP-RIP 23,900 — SHOPP 21,596 — LPP (formula) 4,799 — LPP (competitive) 33,600 $347,000 Total $136,195 $347,000 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 225 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 680/State Route 4 Interchange Improvement: State Route 4 Widening, Phase 3 (# 6001) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 372 6 12/31/2018 WMH Corporation Design $10,015,789 $10,011,865 $10,015,789 99.9% 100% 398 2 6/30/2020 Contra Costa Flood Control Hydraulic Evaluation and Permitting $125,148 $77,578 $125,148 70% 75% 473 — 12/31/2021 The Hanna Group Construction Management $9,414,978 $329,437 $9,414,978 3% 2% 493 — 12/31/2018 Elsie Gridley Mitigation Bank Sale of Vernal Pool Establishment Credits $606,150 $606,150 $606,150 100% 100% 494 — 12/31/2018 Elsie Gridley Mitigation Bank Reservation of Vernal Pool Establishment Credits $450,000 $171,000 $450,000 38% 50% 495 — 3/31/2021 WMH Corporation Design Services during Construction $999,937 $109,694 $999,937 10% 0% 496 — 6/30/2021 Contra Costa Flood Control Design on Lower Walnut Creek Restoration $190,000 $190,000 $190,000 100% 0% 505 — 12/31/2022 Brosamer & Wall Construction Services 86,305,703 $0 $86,305,703 0% 0% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 226 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 242/Clayton Road Ramps (# 6002/6004) Sponsor City of Concord/Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion Central County Scope Construct an interchange and local road improvements on SR 242 between I-680 and Concord Avenue to improve circulation within the Concord central business area. Improvements may include constructing an on- ramp and associated acceleration/weaving lane to northbound SR 242 near the intersection of Clayton Road and Market Street in Concord and an off-ramp and associated deceleration lane from southbound SR 242 near Clayton Road. Status  The Environmental Document (ED) was certified in December 2016 and the Project Report (PR) was approved in June 2017. Issues/Areas of Concern  The project has a significant funding shortfall.  Conflicts between current project plan and recommendations from bicycle advocacy group will need to be addressed during final design. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The project is on hold while funding for future phases is being identified. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design TBD Right of Way and Utilities TBD Construction TBD Post Construction — Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management $730 Planning 670 Environmental Clearance 2,400 Design 5,700 Right of Way and Utilities 16,200 Construction 40,200 Construction Management 6,800 Total $72,700 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $4,990 TBD 67,710 Total $72,700 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 227 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 242/Clayton Road Ramps (# 6002/6004) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 321 4 9/29/2017 /Closed WMH Corporation Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS) and Project Approval/ Environmental Document (PA/ED) $2,442,582 $2,442,499 $2,442,582 100% PSR/PDS 100% PA/ED 100% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 228 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Operational Improvements: Interstate 680 to Bailey Road – Initial Phase (# 6006) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority/City of Concord Subregion Central County Scope Initial Phase (Eastbound): 1) Replace the existing acceleration lanes at Port Chicago Highway (PCH) on ramp with an auxiliary (Aux) lane from PCH on ramp to Willow Pass Road off ramp. 2) Extend this Aux lane from Willow Pass Road off ramp to Willow Pass Road on ramp. 3) Add second exit lane San Marco Blvd off ramp. Future Phases (as funding becomes available): Eastbound B/w Port Chicago Hwy Interchange (I/C) and Willow Pass Rd I/C 1) Add Aux lane b/w PCH on ramp & Willow Pass Rd off ramp. B/w Willow Pass Rd I/C and San Marco Blvd I/C 2) Add Aux lane b/w Willow Pass Rd on ramp & San Marco Blvd off ramp. At San Marco I/C 3) Add new mixed flow lane from San Marco Blvd off ramp to San Marco Blvd on ramp. B/w San Marco Blvd I/C and Bailey Rd I/C 4) Add Aux lane from San Marco Blvd loop on ramp to existing deceleration lane at Bailey Rd off ramp. From SR 242 off ramp to Port Chicago Highway off ramp 5) Extend existing mixed flow lane from I-680 on ramp to PCH off ramp. Westbound At SR242/SR4 I/C 6) Modify one of the existing mandatory exit lanes to SR242 to an optional exit lane, allowing 3 lanes to both SR242 exit and WB SR4. From Port Chicago Hwy I/C to Willow Pass Rd I/C 7) Add mixed flow lane from Willow Pass Rd on ramp to existing mainline lane just east of Port Chicago Hwy (PCH) off ramp. 8) Add second exit lane at Port Chicago Highway off ramp. 9) Add Aux lane from Willow Pass Road on ramp to second exit to PCH. At Willow Pass Rd I/C 10) Add mixed flow lane b/w Willow Pass off ramp & Willow Pass on ramp. B/w Willow Pass Rd I/C and San Marco Blvd I/C 11) Add Aux lane b/w San Marco Blvd on ramp and Willow Pass off ramp. At San Marco Blvd I/C & b/w San Marco Blvd I/C and Bailey Rd I/C 12) Extend existing acceleration lane at Bailey Rd on ramp to existing Aux lane b/w San Marco on ramp & Willow Pass off ramp. Status  PSR-PDS was approved in May 2017.  The Initial Phase of the project is in the Project Approval/Environmental Document (PA/ED) Phase. Issues/Areas of Concern  The Overall Project has significant funding shortfall. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Consultant team has begun the Data Collection task and has submitted Traffic Analysis Approach Memo to Caltrans for review  Staff and consultant team is working with Caltrans to strategize on the type of ED for CEQA/NEPA clearance.  Cost has been updated based on latest information. Location Schedule Initial Phase Remaining Phases Planning Complete Complete Environmental Clearance 2018-2021 TBD Design 2021-2022 TBD Right of Way and Utilities 2021-2022 TBD Construction 2023-2025 TBD Post Construction — TBD Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Initial Phase Remaining Phases Project Management $314 — Planning 834 — Environmental Clearance 1,800 $7,300 Design 7,500 22,900 Right of Way and Utilities 300 850 Construction 49,600 183,000 Construction Management 8,500 31,300 Total $68,848 $245,350 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Remaining Initial Phase Phases Measure J $4,515 — STIP 7,500 — STP 1,100 — TBD (shortfall) 55,733 $245,350 Total $68,848 $245,350 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 229 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Operational Improvements: Interstate 680 to Bailey Road – Initial Phase (# 6006) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 391 4 12/31/2018 Mark Thomas & Co. Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS) $640,000 $640,000 $640,000 100% 100% 499 (Task Order 1) — 9/19/2018 Mark Thomas & Co Project Approval/ Environmental Document (PA/ED) $1,603,529 $2,668 $1,603,529 1% 0% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 230 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Improvements (# 7002) Sponsor City of San Pablo/Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion West County Scope Reconstruct the existing I-80/San Pablo Dam Road interchange (including modifications to the El Portal Drive and McBryde Avenue ramps) and provide improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities. To match available funding, the project will be completed in two phases. The first phase will relocate the El Portal Drive on-ramp to westbound (WB) I-80 to the north, extend the auxiliary lane along WB I-80 between San Pablo Dam Road off-ramp and El Portal Drive on-ramp, and reconstruct the Riverside Avenue pedestrian overcrossing. Remaining improvements including the construction a new connector road on the west side of I-80 to connect SPDR to McBryde Avenue with a new bridge over Wildcat Creek, reconstructing the on- and off-ramps to SPDR, replacing the existing SPDR overcrossing with a 6-lane structure, and realigning Amador Street will be completed as part of the second phase when funding becomes available. Status  Construction of Phase 1 is complete.  The new pedestrian overcrossing opened to the public on October 25, 2016.  The new El Portal Drive on-ramp opened to traffic on Monday, February 20, 2017.  The bridge has been accepted by Caltrans. Issues/Areas of Concern  Staff is coordinating with the City of San Pablo to determine EBMUD’s responsibility for the relocation cost of a water main along El Portal Drive.  Phase 2 has a significant funding shortfall. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The as-builts are currently being reviewed by Caltrans.  WCCTAC approved allocation of $436,000 in Subregional Transportation Mitigation Fees for Phase 1 at its meeting on December 14, 2018. Location \ Schedule Dates Phase 1 Phase 2 Planning Complete Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Complete Design Complete 2019-2020 Right of Way and Utilities Complete 2020-2022 Construction Complete 2022-2024 Post Construction — 2024-2025 *$1.1 million in Measure J was exchanged with STP funds from MTC. Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Phase 1 Phase 2 Project Management $399 $200 Environmental Clearance 2,239 — Design 6,691 2,015 Right of Way and Utilities 7,971 14,000 Construction 22,200 56,500 Construction Management 3,006 8,035 Total $42,506 $80,750 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Phase 1 Phase 2 Measure J* $13,110 — Local City 3,009 — STIP-PPM 9 — STIP 15,000 $9,200 RM2 8,000 — ATP 2,000 — WCCTAC 1,136 5,964 EBMUD 242 — TBD — 65,586 Total $42,506 $80,750 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 231 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 80/San Pablo Dam Road Interchange Improvements (# 7002) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 212 3 12/31/2010 / Closed URS PA/ED $2,238,684 $2,238,684 $2,238,684 100% 100% 316(1) 4 12/31/2018 URS Design $6,691,000 $6,670,441 $6,691,000 99.7% 99.8% 330 9 12/31/2018 S&C Engineers, Inc. CM/Utilities $65,300 $64,421 $64,421 98% 100% 362 3 3/31/2025 Contra Costa County Right of Way $802,900 $765,701 $802,900 95.5% 99% 370 1 12/31/2018 EBMUD Design/Utilities $499,590 $499,590 $499,590 100% 100% 381 1 3/31/2025 PG&E Utilities/Electrical $550,167 $529,469 $529,469 96% 100% 382 — 3/31/2025 AT&T Utilities $31,049 $0 $31,049 0% 100% 384 — 3/31/2025 PG&E Utilities/Gas $362,503 $35,327 $362,503 9% 0% 385 1 3/31/2025 EBMUD Construction/Utilities $2,647,750 $2,470,260 $2,470,260 96% 100% 386 — 3/31/2025 WCWD Utilities $6,250 $5,845 $6,250 91% 100% 415 2 12/31/2018 / Closed The Hanna Group Construction Services $2,869,102 $2,869,098 $2,869,102 100% 100% 416 1 12/31/2018 Brosamer & Wall Construction $22,200,000 $21,929,657 $21,929,657 100% 100% 432 — 12/31/2017 / Closed California Conservation Corps Construction $28,530 $0 $28,530 0% 0% (1) Design Services During Construction (DSDC) task was added to contract and funded from savings on completed tasks. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 232 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvements (# 7003) Sponsor City of Richmond/Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion West County Scope Improve overall traffic operations at the I-80/Central Avenue interchange and along Central Avenue between Rydin Road and San Pablo Avenue. The project will be completed in two phases. The first phase will redirect left turns from westbound Central Avenue onto westbound I-80 to the adjacent I-580 eastbound on-ramp at Rydin Road during weekend peak hours; and will install traffic signals at the I-580 ramps. The second phase will increase the spacing between the signalized intersections east of I-80 by connecting Pierce Street and San Mateo Street, converting Pierce Street access at Central Avenue to “right-in, right-out,” and relocating the traffic signal at Pierce Street/Central Avenue to the San Mateo Street/Central Avenue intersection. Status  Phase 1 construction activities are complete.  Phase 2 (Local Roads Realignment project) is managed by the City of Richmond. Environmental Clearance phase is currently underway with completion expected in 2019. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Phase 1: Contractor is performing punch list activities. Post traffic analysis is underway.  An action to decrease the construction allotment by $34,166 was approved by the Authority Board on September 19, 2018.  An action to decrease the construction allotment by $8,394 was approved by the Authority Board on December 19, 2018.  Amendment No. 2 to Contract 453 with Ghirardelli was approved by the Authority Board on September 19, 2018 for additional construction management services.  Amendment No. 4 to Contract 406 with WSP was approved by the Authority Board on December 19, 2018 to provide additional DSDC and extend the term of the agreement.  WCCTAC, at its meeting on December 14, 2018, approved programming $485,000 in STMP funds for I-80/Central–Phase 2.  At the January 2019 Authority Board meeting, approximately $436,000 in Measure J funds will be proposed to be reprogrammed back to I-80/Central- Phase 2 in lieu of future STIP funds commitment. Location Schedule Dates Phase 1 Phase 2 Planning Complete Complete Environmental Clearance Complete 2016-2019 Design Complete 2019-2020 Right of Way and Utilities — 2019-2021 Construction Complete 2021-2023 Post Construction — — . Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Phase 1 Phase 2 Project Management $805 — Planning — — Environmental Clearance 1,253 $500 Design 1,122 2,000 Right of Way and Utilities 25 6,500 Construction 4,370 5,500 Construction Management 681 — Total $8,256 $14,500 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Phase 1 Phase 2 Measure J $7,556 $3,300 Federal Earmark — — WCCTAC — 627 STIP — 7,773 Future MTC Commitment — 2,800 City of Richmond 700 — Total $8,256 $14,500 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 233 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 80/Central Avenue Interchange Improvements (# 7003) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Expiration Date Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 214 — 12/31/2013 / Closed PB Americas, Inc. Project Study Report (PSR) and Project Approval/ Environmental Document (PA/ED) $1,571,815 $1,224,251 $1,224,251 78% 100% 406 4 6/30/2019 WSP USA Inc. (formerly PB Americas, Inc.) Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) $1,130,207 $1,084,070 $1,130,207 96% 99% 445 — 12/31/2017 UPRR Right of Entry $20,000 $2,699 $20,000 14% 100% 453(1) 3 6/30/2019 Ghirardelli Associates Construction Management Services $714,799 $711,622 $714,799 99.5% 99% 463 — 12/31/2019 Ghilotti Brothers Construction $4,326,948 $3,990,124 $4,326,948 92% 99% (1) An amendment for date extension was approved by the Authority Board on November 14, 2018. Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Expiration Date Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 16-50-P 10/19/2016 — 10/18/2019 City of Richmond PA/ED, Design, and ROW $2,970,000 $370,942 4/30/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 234 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 680 HOV Completion and Express Lanes Project (# 8001) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority/MTC/Caltrans Subregion Central County Scope Construct a high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane on southbound I-680 between North Main Street in Walnut Creek and Rudgear Road in Alamo and convert the HOV lane to an express lane on southbound I-680 from just south of Marina Vista Avenue in Martinez to Rudgear Road in Walnut Creek. Status  Construction contract 491 was awarded to Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. on July 18, 2018. Project is now under construction and the Authority is administering the construction contract.  MTC will administer the construction contract for the installation of the Express Lane equipment which will follow the completion of the civil work under contract 491.  Cost estimate does not include TransCore work currently estimated at $12 million, which will be entirely funded by BAIFA. Issues/Areas of Concern  The relocation of the backhaul fiber from Livorna to Olympic must be closely coordinated due to timing of the work. Schedule coordination has started and project team does not currently anticipate any impacts but will continue to monitor closely. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  All utility relocations were completed as of August 2018.  Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. started construction in October 2018.  TransCore will submit tolling system 100% Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) to Caltrans in December 2018 for permit.  Construction progress can be followed at https://680xpresslanesproject.com/home/. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction 2018-2021 Post Construction 2020-2021 *$6.49 million is expected to be paid back by TVTC in FY2024 and FY2025. ** BAIFA will also fund TransCore work estimated at $12 million bringing total funding to $127 million. Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management $1,885 Planning — Environmental Clearance 8,400 Design 9,900 Right of Way and Utilities 400 Construction 77,470 Construction Management 14,200 Total $112,255 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J* $40,000 RM2 19,400 STIP/RIP 15,600 BAIFA** 40,000 Total $115,000 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 235 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Interstate 680 HOV Completion and Express Lanes Project (# 8001) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 320 — 12/31/2014 / Closed Parsons Feasibility Study/ Environmental Clearance for I-680 HOV Completion $2,492,550 $2,395,267 $2,395,267 96% 100% 376 6 12/31/2018 HDR Engineering, Inc. Feasibility Study/ Environmental Clearance / PS&E for Express Lanes and Design for I-680 HOV Completion $12,470,000 $12,268,973 $12,270,000 98.3% 100% 448 — 12/31/2020 WSP/Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Management Services $10,238,924 $957,680 $10,238,924 9.3% 10% 454 — 12/31/2018 Contra Costa County ROW Acquisition Services $43,000 $38,610 $43,000 89% 89% 462 — 12/31/2018 PG&E Utilities $20,000 $0 $20,000 0% 100% 476 — 9/20/2018 / Closed ArborWorks, Inc. Construction Services/Tree Removal $688,723 $635,272 $635,272 99% 100% 479, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484 — 12/31/2021 PG&E Construction of Service Points on behalf of Caltrans $50,000 $0 $50,000 0% 0% 491 — 12/31/2021 Bay Cities Construction Services $64,570,784 $952,512 $64,570,784 1% 2% 497 — 12/31/2021 HDR Engineering, Inc. DSDC/ Landscape PS&E $1,099,492 $53,319 $1,099,492 4.8% 5% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 236 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Innovate 680 (# 8009) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion Central and Southwest County Scope Implement the following strategies: Strategy No. 1: Complete HOV/Express Lanes Eliminate the gap in existing carpool lanes in the NB direction and convert to an express lane to increase efficiency. Strategy No. 2: Cool Corridor “Hot Spots” Improve congestion “hot spots” caused by high-volume weaving areas around N. Main Street, Lawrence Way, Treat Blvd, and other locations south of SR 24 (Livorna Road, etc.). This strategy will be completed with Strategy 1 since they are interdependent. Strategy No. 3: Increase Efficiency of Bus Service Increase bus service efficiency by improving express bus service, implementing bus operations on shoulder (BOS), and increasing technology-based intermodal transit centers/managed park and ride lots. Strategy No. 4: Enhance TDM Strategies Provide enhanced 511 mobile app providing options to make informed decisions about mode choice, travel time, and cost per trip. Strategy No. 5: Provide First Mile/Last Mile Connections Implement Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) to improve transit connectivity and to shift travelers from Single Occupant Vehicles (SOVs). Strategy No. 6: Innovative Operational Strategies Deploy a suite of technology-based solutions to maximize the efficiency of the roadway system integrating adaptive ramp metering, integrated corridor management, incident management, and decision support systems. Strategy No. 7: Prepare Corridor for the Future Prepare corridor to accommodate the evolution of CV applications and AV technologies for improved traffic flow by building new and upgraded vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-vehicle communications.    Status  Caltrans approval of the final Project Study Report/Project Devel- opment Study for the I-680 NB Express Lane project (Strategies 1 & 2) was delayed as a new District Directive called to eliminate oversight costs to project sponsor was issued in November 2018. Issues/Areas of Concern  Significant funding is needed for all projects.  BOS may require special legislation and will need CHP approval. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The Authority approved the release of the RFP to procure Corridor Manager and Project Innovative Team to manage the program.  I-680 NB Express Lane (Strategy 1 & 2) – The Authority approved the release of the NB EL RFP to prepare Project Approval and En- vironmental Clearance of the project in September 2018.  MTC has programmed an additional $6 million in STP funds for project in September 2018 as part of a fund exchange agreement with the Authority.  Bus on Shoulder (Strategy 3) – Authority staff is in negotiation with selected consultant to prepare the PSR-PR and other documents for project approvals. Location Schedule NB HOV Strategy 1-2 BOS Strategy 3a Technology Strategy 4-7 Bus Service Strategy 3b Planning 2017-2018 2017-2019 2017-2019 2017-2019 Env. Clearance 2019-2021 2019-2020 2019-2020 2019-2020 Design 2020-2022 2020-2021 2020-2021 2019-2020 Right of Way/Utilities 2021-2022 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 Construction 2023-2025 2021-2022 2021-2022 2021-2022 Post Construction — — — — NB HOV Strategy 1-2 BOS Strategy 3a Technology Strategy 4-7 Bus Service Strategy 3b Project Management $4,500 $200 $900 $600 Planning 600 400 1,000 600 Env. Clearance 15,450 500 2,900 1,000 Design 28,325 900 5,400 1,500 Right of Way/Utilities 5,000 — — 12,000 Construction Mgmt. 38,625 1,100 6,500 3,500 Construction 257,500 6,000 36,000 39,000 Total $350,000 $9,100 $52,700 $58,200 **operations costs estimated at $18 million/year not included Estimated Cost by Phase ($ 000s) Funding by Source ($ 000s) NB HOV Strategy 1-2 BOS Strategy 3a Technology Strategy 4-7 Bus Service Strategy 3b Measure J* $6,584 $4,100 $18,200 $6,116 STMP (TVTD) — — 2,000 — MTC (STP) 14,205 — — — Measure J (TLC) — — — 1,500 SB1-LPP Formulaic 2,286 — — — Regional Measure 3 75,000 5,000 1,800 3,200 TBD (shortfall) 251,925 — 30,700 47,384 Total $350,000 $9,100 $52,700 $58,200 *$4 million in Measure J funds was exchanged for STP funds. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 237 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Innovate 680 (# 8009) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete -- 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 238 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Shared Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Program (# 10001-06) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion Central County Scope The project will initiate the planning and testing required for the implementation of the Shared Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Program. Project activities include testing, design, and consensus building with stakeholders. Initial project testing will be conducted at the GoMentum Station site as well as on non-public roads within the Bishop Ranch Development. Status  Project is in the planning stages. Early deployment is anticipated to be at a BART station in Central County.  Working on the approval of the First Mile/Last Mile concept Issues/Areas of Concern  Regulatory approval is needed.  Complete funding has not been identified.  Obtained DMV approval to allow SAV on public roads. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Testing on public roads in the City of San Ramon through a signalized intersection is scheduled to occur in the first quarter of 2019. Location Schedule Dates Planning 2016-2020 Environmental Clearance — Design 2016-2021 Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2020-2022* Post Construction — *Construction refers to deployment of shuttles *Construction refers to deployment of shuttles Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management $950 Planning 829 Environmental Clearance 374 Design 2,676 Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2,371* Construction Management — Total $7,200 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $250 Private Funding 500 TFCA 1,000 State TBD 1,500 3,950 Total $7,200 S O GoMentum Station Bishop Ranch 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 239 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Shared Autonomous Vehicle Pilot Program (# 10001-06) - continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 435 4 6/30/2019 Stantec Project Management of SAV program $2,331,000 $1,543,944 $2,331,000 N/A N/A 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 240 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) (# 28002) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority Subregion East County Scope Use state-of-the-practice Intelligent Transportation Sys- tem (ITS) technologies to enhance the effectiveness of the existing transportation system along State Route 4 (SR 4) and parallel/crossing arterials between State Route 160 and Interstate 80. Project elements include the following:  Operational strategies based on real-time traffic conditions along the corridor (a.k.a. Decision Sup- port System)  Adaptive ramp metering  Incident management with speed harmonization  Traffic and transit Information System  Arterial and transit improvements  Connected Vehicle (CV) applications/technologies  Integration with the I-80 ICM The SR 4 ICM may be combined with one or more packages of the SR 4 Operational Improvements (Project 6006). Status  Project was awarded a FHWA Integrated Corridor Management Planning Grant.  Completed SEMP 2 System Requirements Concepts of Operations report. Issues/Areas of Concern  Must compete for additional grants: a) $6 million for Phase 2 implementation b) $4.75 million CV Pilot Deployment Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Project is on hold pending future funding. Location Picture Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance 2018-2019 Design 2019-2020 Right of Way and Utilities 2019-2020 Construction 2020-2022 Post Construction — Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management $2,250 Planning 340 Environmental Clearance 530 Design 2,175 Right of Way and Utilities 555 Construction 8,550 Construction Management 750 Total $15,150 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $200 FHWA 200 Measure J (Planning Funds) 200 TBD 14,750 Total $15,350 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 241 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) (# 28002) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 435 — 6/30/2019 Stantec Project Management $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 100% 100% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 242 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore (# 1001/1698) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority/Caltrans Subregion Southwest County Scope Construct a new two-lane fourth bore between Contra Costa and Alameda counties along SR 24 north of the existing bores. Status  The new bore opened to traffic in November 2013.  Caltrans accepted the tunnel construction contract on March 12, 2015.  Final habitat restoration work is in progress.  All planting work included in the landscaping project has been completed.  The 3-year plant establishment period began in February 2016. Issues/Areas of Concern  CCTA and Caltrans are in discussions over the Caltrans administration and project support costs. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Caltrans Accounting Unit completed the final accounting for project.  CCTA has requested and will review the cost breakdown.  Caltrans is seeking an extension to the Construction Cooperative Agreement to allow for completion of all reimbursement transactions.  Landscaping plant establishment period will end in February 2019.  Cost updated to reflect enhancement projects in Berkeley and Oakland, as well as final cost accounting provided by Caltrans. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction Complete Post Construction Complete Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management — Planning — Environmental Clearance $20,487 Design 33,105 Right of Way and Utilities 1,100 Construction 301,295 Construction Management 57,164 Total $413,150 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $121,130 Federal Earmark (SAFETEA-LU) 1,440 STIP-RIP 4,000 STIP-IIP 15,300 TCRP 20,000 RM2 44,767 ARRA 195,129 CMIA 11,043 Maintenance HM7 (State) 350 Total $413,150 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 243 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Caldecott Tunnel Fourth Bore (# 1001/1698) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 261 10 9/30/2017 / Closed Parsons On-Call Design Services during Construction $9,228,000 $9,227,119 $9,227,119 99.9% 100% 262 4 6/30/2015/ Closed PB Americas, Inc. Construction Management $17,938,466 $17,723,759 $17,723,759 99% 100% 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 244 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Widening: Somersville Road to State Route 160 (# 3001/1407) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority/Caltrans Subregion East County Scope Widen SR 4 East to eight lanes (three mixed flow lanes and one high occupancy vehicle lane in each direction) from Somersville Road to Hillcrest Avenue (plus auxiliary lanes) including a wide median for transit; and to six lanes (three mixed flow lanes in each direction) from Hillcrest Avenue to the interchange with SR 160 and the new SR 4 Bypass. The project was constructed in five segments:  Segment 1: Somersville Road to Contra Loma Blvd.  Segment 2: Contra Loma Blvd. to A St./Lone Tree Way.  Segment 3A: A St./Lone Tree Way to Hillcrest Ave.  Segment 3B: Hillcrest Ave. to SR 160.  Corridor-wide: Landscaping. Status Segment 1 – Somersville Interchange  Segment was open to traffic in December 2013. Segment 2 – Contra Loma Interchange & G St. Overcrossing  Construction began in March 2012 and was completed in February 2016. Segment 3A – A Street Interchange & Cavallo Undercrossing  Construction began in August 2012 and was accepted as complete in May 2017. Segment 3B – Hillcrest Avenue to SR 160  Construction began in March 2013 and was substantially completed in September 2016 and closeout activities are ongoing. Bike safety improvements have been implemented. Corridor-wide  Ribbon cutting ceremony held on July 20, 2016. Corridor Landscaping  Contract 1 (Loveridge to Century) bids were opened in December 2017. Construction started in early 2018 with project completion, inclusive of the plant establishment period, in 2021.  Contract 2 (Somersville to Cavallo) was advertised on March 12, 2018 and construction has started. Completion, inclusive of plant establishment, is anticipated to be in 2022/23.  Contract 3 (Hillcrest to Laurel Rd. and on SR 160) design was completed and construction bid opened in December 2018. Completion, inclusive of plant establishment, is anticipated to be in 2022/23. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The three corridor landscape contracts are all in the construction phase. Location Schedule Dates Planning — Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction (highway) Construction (landscape) Complete 2018-2019 Post Construction 2017-2022 *Under project 1406/3003 Estimated Cost by Project Phase ($ 000s) Amount Project Management —* Preliminary Studies/Planning —* Environmental Clearance $400* Design 35,500* Right of Way and Utilities 61,800* Construction 220,000* Construction Management 57,000* Total $374,700* Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure C $31,900 Measure J 94,100 CMIA 68,300 STIP/RIP 38,500 Federal (SAFETEA-LU) 1,600 Federal Earmark (other) 1,100 SLPP 24,400 Bridge Tolls (e-BART median) 64,000 Measure J (e-BART median) 26,000 Bridge Tolls (e-BART structures) 13,600 Measure J (e-BART structures) 15,300 City 1,800 Total $380,600 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 245 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project State Route 4 Widening: Somersville Road to State Route 160 (# 3001/1407) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 183 — Closed Mark Thomas & Co. Strategic Planning Study $78,432 $78,432 $78,432 100% 100% 202 5 12/31/2012 / Closed Mark Thomas & Co. Final Design $6,310,895 $6,310,895 $6,310,895 100% 100% 203 6 6/30/2012 / Closed BKF Engineers Final Design $7,197,373 $7,197,373 $7,197,373 100% 100% 204 8 12/31/2012 / Closed TY Lin International Final Design $15,491,438 $15,491,438 $15,491,438 100% 100% 208 8 12/31/2019 Contra Costa County Real Property ROW Acquisition Svcs /Closeout $7,948,054 $7,370,902 $7,948,054 92.5% 93.5% 211 10 12/31/2018 Harris & Associates Corridor Integration Team $3,719,411 $3,710,142 $3,719,411 99.7% 99.8% 219 1 12/31/2010 / Closed PB Americas Construction Management $93,058 $93,058 $93,058 100% 100% 270 2 6/30/2014 / Closed Vali Cooper & Assoc. Construction Management $3,630,881 $3,630,881 $3,630,881 100% 100% 271 6 6/30/2016 / Closed Jacobs Construction Management $5,133,375 $4,926,777 $4,926,777 96% 100% 284 4 6/30/2016 / Closed Scott Systems, Inc. Architectural Treatment $328,840 $328,014 $328,014 100% 100% 305 1 6/30/2015 / Closed Mark Thomas & Co. Design Svcs During Construction $625,000 $617,560 $617,560 99% 100% 341, 348, 355, 402* — 12/31/2025 PG&E & AT&T Utility Relocation $2,693,473 $2,592,208 $2,700,000 96.2% 100% 327 4 6/30/2019 BKF Design Svcs During Construction $1,409,500 $1,365,634 $1,391,704 96.9% 98.7% 330 9 12/31/2018 S&C Engineers** Construction Management $10,991,025 $10,906,695 $10,991,025 99.2% 100% 332 1 12/31/2016 / Closed Jacobs Project Management Co. Construction Management $5,084,360 $4,267,954 $4,267,954 83.9% 100% 339 5 6/30/2019 TY Lin International Design Svcs During Construction $2,634,155 $2,617,546 $2,634,155 99.3% 99.5% 350 — 5/16/2020 BART Construction Services $9,000,000 $8,818,702 $8,818,702 100% 100% 351 — 6/30/2018 Bay Cities Paving Construction – Segment 3B $56,113,358 $52,826,845 $56,113,358 94% 100% **Only open contracts shown **S&C Engineers contract includes $65,300 for San Pablo Dam Road work 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 246 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Hercules Rail Station (# 4001) Sponsor City of Hercules Subregion West County Scope Construct a passenger rail station (including interim parking,station platform, signage, plaza, etc.) and track-relatedimprovements (including retaining walls and signalequipment relocation in Hercules). The City of Hercules nowcommonly refers to this project as the “Hercules IntermodalTransit Center Project” to scope the project for both rail andferry transit service. This multi-modal center would unite theAmtrak intercity rail (Capitol Corridor and San JoaquinCorridor), WestCAT local and regional buses and the WaterEmergency Transportation Authority trans-bay ferry servicewith additional access for cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists.  Due to the high cost and limited funding, the project will becompleted in several stages as follows:  Bay Trail (East): Construct Bay Trail from Refugio Creek to Victoria by The Bay ($10.9M).  Path to Transit: Construct sewer improvements, Refugio Greenway/Creekside Trail, John Muir Parkway (Phase II) and Bayfront Boulevard ($17.6M).  Bay Trail (West): Construct Bay Trail from Sante Fe to Bayfront ($1.9M)  Fuel Pipe Relocation: Relocate oil pipelines, fiber optic line and construct retaining walls for utilities ($22.8M).  Track and Signal Work: Construct railroad bridge, track, and signal work, retaining wall for rail station, ($24.8M).  Initial Rail Station: Construct rail station building, and Transit Plaza ($7.9M).  Trails and Plazas: Remaining Bay Trail/Civic Plaza ($4.1M). Status  Construction of Bay Trail (East) is complete.  Construction of “Path to Transit” is complete.  Construction of Bay Trail (West) is complete. Issues/Areas of Concern  Project has significant funding shortfall.  Capitol Corridor has yet to agree to add Hercules as a stop along its route. Public outreach effort is under- way to secure a commitment.  Funding secured can only be used on specific stages, increasing risk for funding loss. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Resolution 18-66-P was approved by the Authority Board on November 14, 2018 supporting the project.  At its December 14, 2018 meeting, WCCTAC allocated a base amount of $500,000 in STMP fees to project. Location Schedule Bay Trail (East) Path to Transit Bike Trail (West) Remaining Phases Planning — — — — Env. Clearance Complete Complete Complete Complete Design Complete Complete Complete TBD Right of Way and Utilities Complete Complete Complete TBD Construction Complete Complete Complete TBD Post Construction Complete Complete Complete — Bay Trail (East) Path to Transit Bike Trail (West) Remaining Phases Project Management — — — — Planning — — — — Env. Clearance — — — — Design* $2,800 $3,100 $175 $13,400 Right of Way and Utilities — — — 17,900 Construction 8,061 14,502 1,750 28,300 Total $10,861 $17,602 $1,925 $59,600 *Includes environmental clearance, project & construction management Estimated Cost by Phase ($ 000s) Funding by Source ($ 000s) Bay Trail (East) Path to Transit Bike Trail (West) Remaining Phases Measure J $508 $3,568 — $3,885* Measure – TLC — 1,240 — — Measure J – PBTF — 600 — — OBAG — — $1,705 — Local 1,000 4,959 — — STIP 3,882 4,118 — — STIP – TE 1,959 — — — TIGER II 1,465 — — — Bay Trail 198 — — — East Bay Reg. Park 564 570 220 — TCRP — 700 — — STMP — 1,000 — 500 Other 1,285 847 — — TBD (shortfall) — — — 55,215 Total $10,861 $17,602 $1,925 $59,600 *2.162 million has been used to acquire ROW and $400,000 is appropriated for public outreach. $1.323 million currently un- appropriated. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 247 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Hercules Rail Station (# 4001) – continued Major Project Contracts Managed by Authority Contract No. Amend No. Contract Expiration Agency/ Consultant Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Estimate at Completion Percent Billed Percent Physically Complete 383 1 12/31/2016 / Closed Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. Construction Management $1,262,000 $1,262,000 $1,262,000 100% 100% Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 12-08-P 3/12/2012 3 7/15/2018 Hercules Construction—Path to Transit and Bay Trail (East) $4,076,000 $3,447,045 9/20/2018 12-06-P* 7/20/2012 2 3/21/2015 / Closed Hercules Right of Way $2,162,000 $2,162,000 7/20/2012 15-42-G 7/15/2015 — 7/1/2024 / Closed Hercules Construction—Bay Trail (Part of Path to Transit) $1,240,000 $1,240,000 12/30/2017 15-43-G 7/15/2015 — 7/1/2024 / Closed Hercules Construction—Creekside Trail Gap Closure (Part of Path to Transit) $600,000 $600,000 12/08/2017 16-34-P 7/20/2016 — 7/20/2019 / Closed Hercules Public Outreach and Agency Coordination $400,000 $400,000 1/19/2018 *City must repay Authority no later than July 1, 2024 if Station Building construction doesn’t start by July 1, 2022. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 248 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Pacheco Boulevard Widening (# 1216/24003) Sponsor Contra Costa County/City of Martinez Subregion Central County Scope Widen Pacheco Boulevard from Blum Road to Morello Avenue, construct a railroad overcrossing, and allow for bicycle lanes, sidewalks, a median, two-way center turn lanes, and landscaping, where appropriate. The project may be completed in phases to match the funding as follows. Phase 1 (County) Blum Road to South Martinez city limits: Widen to two through lanes in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane. Phase 2 (City) South Martinez city limits to North Martinez city limits: Widen to two through lanes in each direction. Phase 3 (County) Realign the roadway in the vicinity of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks, including the new overcrossing. Phase 4 (County) North Martinez city limits to Arthur Road: Widen to two through lanes in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane. Status  An alignment study was completed in June 2017. Under separate contract, A follow-on study of Phase 3 constructability and Blum Road is under way.  A sub-project to widen Pacheco Blvd. at Vine Hill Creek to add sidewalks and bike lanes was completed in October 2018.  A sub-project to improve Pacheco Blvd at Arnold Drive and install a traffic signal is in the project development phase. This project also includes street widening and utility relocation and undergrounding from Arnold Drive to Sunrise Drive.  Measure C funds were used to environmentally clear a portion of the project near the railroad overcrossing and acquire part of the Right-of-Way. Issues/Areas of Concern  A significant funding shortfall exists to complete entire project.  Coordination with the State and BNSF is required to replace the railroad overcrossing. Update from Previous Quarterly Report Studies  Recommendations of Alignment Study will be presented to the Board of Supervisors in Summer 2019. The traffic and constructability study is underway and anticipated to be complete in Spring 2019. Widening at Arnold Drive  Utility coordination with PG&E has been initiated for the relocation and undergrounding of overhead facilities from Arnold Drive to Sunrise Drive. Utility relocation is tentatively planned for FY2020-21. Widening at Vine Hill Creek  Construction was substantially completed in October 2018, with punch list items completed in November 2018. Location Schedule Widening at Vine Hill Creek Widening at Arnold Drive Remaining Phases Planning Complete 2018-2019 TBD Environmental Clearance Complete 2018-2019 TBD Design Complete 2018-2019 TBD Right of Way and Utilities Complete 2020-2021 TBD Construction Complete 2020-2021 TBD Post Construction — — TBD *In addition to amounts shown, $1,794,000 in Measure C was appropriated and spent to environmentally clear and acquire right-of-way near the railroad track. In addition, $450,000 in Measure C was appropriated to complete an alignment study. Funding by Source ($ 000s) Widening at Vine Hill Creek Widening at Arnold Drive Remaining Phases Measure J — $1,400 $4,400 Martinez Area of Benefit — — 1,200 Measure C* $570 300 175 Tosco/Solano Fund — — 5,200 ATP 619 — — Other Local 87 15 — TBD (shortfall) — 1,785 22,925 Total $1,276 $3,500 $33,900 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 249 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Pacheco Boulevard Widening (# 1216/24003) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 01-12-P 7/18/2001 1 Closed Contra Costa County Design Services $493,675 $493,675 Prior to 2009 02-17-P 7/17/2002 — Closed Contra Costa County Project Management $429,522 $429,522 Prior to 2009 02-18-P 7/17/2002 — Closed Contra Costa County Right-of-Way Acquisitions $871,071 $871,071 5/19/2010 15-13-P 4/15/2015 1 4/15/2018 / Closed City of Martinez Study $410,663 $410,663 7/03/2017 17-17-P 5/17/2017 1 5/17/2020 Contra Costa County Environmental Clearance, Design, and ROW services $382,000 $112,818 7/23/2018 17-41-P 9/20/2017 — 9/20/2020 City of Martinez Environmental Clearance, Design, and ROW Services $300,000 $112,996 5/31/2018 18-14-P 4/18/2018 — 12/31/2018 Contra Costa County Constructability and Traffic Study $117,884 $0 — 18-36-P 6/20/2018 — 6/20/2021 Contra Costa County Construction Phase $188,000 $0 — 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 250 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report November 2018 Project Operational Improvements on Parallel Arterials (Measure C #1222) Sponsor City of Concord Subregion Central County Scope This project will improve traffic flow along the I- 680/SR242 corridor in Central County by improving the efficiency of traffic operations on the parallel arterials in downtown Concord. CCTV cameras and fiber optic interconnect cable will be installed based on available budget within the corridor to improve real-time traffic monitoring, central communications, and system wide incident management. Status  The construction contract was awarded in September 2017.  Construction completion is targeted for January 2019. Issues/Areas of Concern  Previous concerns regarding conduits irregularities were overcome by change orders. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Cable for Concord Avenue, Diamond Boulevard and Galindo Street have been installed and commis- sioned. Cable for Willow Pass Road was installed in December and will be commissioned in January 2019.  City Council acceptance expected in February 2019.  Cost and schedule were updated to reflect the lat- est information. Location Schedule Dates Planning — Environmental Clearance — Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2017-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure C $2,893 Local Funds 1,255 Total $4,148 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 251 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Apr - Jun 2018 Project Operational Improvements on Parallel Arterials (Measure C #1222) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (4/30/2018) Last Billed Date 16-03-P 1/20/2016 1 1/20/2019 City of Concord Design Services $185,747 $177,569 12/26/2017 17-13-P 4/19/2017 — 4/18/2020 City of Concord Construction $2,707,356 $1,174,503 4/30/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 252 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Danville Road and Street Preservation (Measure C #1723) Sponsor Town of Danville Subregion Southwest County Scope This pavement rehabilitation project includes pavement repairs and overlay; bridge abutment slab stabilization; traffic signal improvements; curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements; and pavement striping (Class II bike lanes) on El Cerro Boulevard and Sycamore Valley Road. The project limits consist of Sycamore Valley Road overcrossing from San Ramon Valley Blvd to Camino Ramon and El Cerro Boulevard from El Pintado Road to the El Cerro Bridge (west of La Gonda Way). Status  Project was awarded on April 17, 2018  Construction began in June 2018. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Project is nearly complete. Town Council ac- ceptance expected in January 2019.  Project will be moved to completed list in the next update. Location Schedule Dates Planning — Environmental Clearance — Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2018-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure C $1,048 OBAG I 933 Local Funds 97 Total $2,078 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 253 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Danville Road and Street Preservation (Measure C #1723) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 18-13-P 4/18/2018 — Town of Danville Construction Phase $1,048,000 $0 — 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 254 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project East County Rail Extension (eBART) (# 2001/2101) Sponsor Contra Costa Transportation Authority/BART Subregion East County Scope Extend rail service eastward from the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Station to Hillcrest Avenue within the median of SR 4 (Project 1). In addition, the parking lot at Antioch BART station at Hillcrest Avenue will be expanded by 800 spaces (Project 2). Status  Project #1: Revenue service started in May 2018.  Project #2: Currently in the environmental clearance and design phase. Issues/Areas of Concern  None Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Project #2 is currently in the environmental clearance and design phase.  The Authority appropriated a total of $5.08 million at its October 2018 meeting for the expansion of Antioch BART parking lot.  BART Board approved the project environmental clearance document at its December 6, 2018 meeting. Location Schedule  Dates   Project #1  Project #2  Preliminary Studies/  Planning  Complete  Complete  Environmental Clearance  Complete  2018‐2019  Design  Complete  2018‐2019  Right of Way and Utilities  Complete  2018‐2019  Construction  Complete  2019‐2020  Landscaping  —  —  Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Project #1 Project #2 Measure J $137,700 $5,080 BART 2,700 4,300 T-Plus 1,000 — Prop 1B 37,000 — RM 2 95,500 — RM 1 61,400 — AB1171 111,500 — ECCRFFA 35,000 3,000 STA 300 — TCRP 5,250 — STIP/RIP 13,000 — MTC — 3,650 Other 11,191 — Total $511,541 $16,030 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 255 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project East County Rail Extension (eBART) (# 2001/2101) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 09-59-P 12/16/2009 2 12/31/2014 / Closed BART Transfer Platform $20,000,000 $20,000,000 1/13/2014 12-15-P 5/16/2012 3 2/21/2018 / Closed BART Rail Procurement $18,254,106 $18,254,106 6/8/2016 12-16-P 5/16/2012 2 5/16/2018 BART Automatic Fare Collection Equipment $4,000,000 $3,978,716 8/16/2018 12-53-P 9/19/2012 1 9/19/2018 BART Destination Sign Procurement $700,000 $698,223 6/12/2018 12-54-P 9/19/2012 1 9/19/2018 / Closed BART Sanitary Sewer Contract $500,000 $500,000 2/15/2018 13-23-P 6/19/2013 2 6/30/2019 / Closed BART Design Services $442,679 $442,679 2/26/2018 13-24-P 6/19/2013 1 6/19/2017 BART Construction Management $15,000,000 $14,533,823 6/30/2017 13-25-P 6/19/2013 1 12/31/2017 / Closed BART Switch Machines Procurement $600,000 $600,000 6/30/2017 13-49-P 11/20/2013 2 11/20/2018 BART Maintenance Facility Completion $33,594,960 $31,851,760 8/7/2018 18-60-P 10/17/2018 — 10/17/2021 BART Construction $3,257,320 $0 — 18-61-P 10/17/2018 — 10/17/2021 BART Construction $1,824,611 $0 — 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 256 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Martinez Intermodal Station (# 4002/27001) Sponsor City of Martinez Subregion Central County Scope Acquire the warehouse property north of the existing intermodal facility; demolish the existing structures; construct a parking facility to provide 175 replacement parking spaces and up to 425 additional parking spaces for use by train patrons, along with improved roadway access from Ferry Street; construct a pedestrian overcrossing above the Union Pacific Railroad facilities (to provide pedestrian access from the new parking facility to the station building); and construct a vehicle bridge over Alhambra Creek to provide a second connection to the parking facility near Berrellesa Avenue. Status  Construction of the pedestrian overcrossing and Ferry Street entrance are underway.  The pedestrian overcrossing is being constructed with the Ferry Street Improvements. Issues/Areas of Concern  PG&E relocation of lines and temporary shutdown of transmission line to allow installation of pedes- trian bridge.  Coordination with the Railroad during the installa- tion of the pedestrian overcrossing. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Pedestrian overcrossing improvements are being constructed with the Ferry Street improvements.  Construction is expected to be substantially com- pleted by March 1, 2019 and is 75% complete as of end of October 2018. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction 2017-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $10,658 STIP 5,500 Measure C 300 Total $16,458 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 257 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Martinez Intermodal Station (# 4002/27001) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 11-10-P 9/21/2011 2 12/31/2018 / Closed City of Martinez Design $1,035,000 $1,028,606 8/19/2015 14-48-P 10/15/2014 1 10/15/2020 City of Martinez Design $116,700 $112,402 5/31/2018 07-01-PJ 5/16/2007 — 5/16/2010 / Closed City of Martinez Right of Way $5,419,768 $5,419,768 10/27/2008 11-32-P 9/21/2011 1 9/20/2020 / Closed City of Martinez Right of Way $315,168 $169,322 5/31/2018 08-03-PJ 12/17/2008 — 12/17/2011 / Closed City of Martinez Construction $124,110 $124,110 8/15/2011 13-28-P 7/17/2013 — 7/16/2016 / Closed City of Martinez Construction $887,123 $887,123 4/16/2014 13-29-P 7/17/2013 1 7/17/2016 / Closed City of Martinez Construction $843,096 $843,096 8/19/2015 17-22-P 5/17/2017 — 5/17/2020 City of Martinez Construction $2,044,904 $754,330 10/23/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 258 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Comprehensive Wayfinding System – Central County BART Stations (# 10001-03) Sponsor BART Subregion Central County Scope Create and implement a cohesive, integrated wayfinding system for Central County BART stations. Improvements can be phased by station. Status  Construction was completed in 2013 at the Pleas- ant Hill Station.  Construction was completed in 2017 at North Concord, Concord, and Walnut Creek stations. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  BART is continuing design of the Real-Time Dis- plays integration into the BART network. These displays will enhance and improve communication and reliability of information. The implementation is expected to be complete by early 2019. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design 2017-2018 Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2017-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $2,600 Total $2,600 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 259 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Comprehensive Wayfinding System – Central County BART Stations (# 10001-03) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 10-02-P 1/20/2010 2 6/30/2019 BART Design and Construction $2,600,000 $2,507,240 11/19/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 260 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Electronic Bicycle Facilities – Central County BART Stations (# 10001-04) Sponsor BART Subregion Central County Scope Install secure bicycle parking spaces at Concord, North Concord, Walnut Creek, and Pleasant Hill BART stations. The bicycle parking area design will include signage and other enhancements to create an inviting and functional bicycle parking area. Status  To date, a total of 527 spaces have been installed at the Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Concord, and North Concord stations.  The Pleasant Hill Bike Station is complete and oper- ational. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The Concord Bike Station project will be incorpo- rated with Phase 1 of the Concord BART Station Modernization Project. Design work has started on improvements to the bike parking in the paid area of the station. The project will replace the legacy wave style racks with inverted U style racks provid- ing more spaces and the ability to lock more se- curely (two locking points per bike).  Design work has started on the Bikeep installation of 20 spaces to supplement BikeLink locker parking. BikeLink locker use at Concord is above 80%. BART intends to have the Bikeep racks installed before Spring 2019 when bike parking demand will in- crease. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2010-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $1,805 BART 150 Total $1,955 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 261 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Electronic Bicycle Facilities – Central County BART Stations (# 10001-04) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 10-03-P 1/20/2010 3 3/15/2020 BART Design and Construction $1,805,000 $1,297,034 7/26/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 262 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Concord BART Plaza Redesign (# 10001-05) Sponsor BART Subregion Central County Scope This project will redesign and reorient the public plaza to better connect to the City’s downtown area, add landscaping and upgrade lighting, provide pigeon mitigation, improve several critical pathways and crosswalks from the surrounding streets to the station fare gates, add sustainability features such as storm water treatments, and add decorative elements to reinforce the station’s identity with the City of Concord. Status  Project is in the construction phase. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Project work was sequenced to be constructed in 2 Phases. Phase 1 Substantial Completion was achieved in May 2018.  Phase 2 construction was completed in Septem- ber 2018.  BART is currently working on the project’s close- out phase.  Project will be moved to completed list in the next update. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance — Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction Complete Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Prop 1B (Lifeline) $400 Prop 1B (BART) 1,500 BART 100 Measure J 4,500 Total $6,500 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 263 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Concord BART Plaza Redesign (# 10001-05) – continued Local Agency Project Contracts Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 16-16-P 5/18/2016 — 5/18/2019 BART Construction $4,500,000 $4,019,149 8/16/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 264 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Pleasant Hill Parking Structure Elevator Renovation (# 10001-07) Sponsor BART Subregion Central County Scope Perform site visit and inspection of each elevator and evaluate current state of equipment. The inspection will include the following items: door operators, door locks and pick-up rollers, door tracks and hanger rollers, fixtures, and wiring. Replace and upgrade equipment identified during the inspection as being obsolete, outdated, or at the end of its useful life. Status  Construction began in March 2018 and project is currently wrapping up the construction phase.  First two elevators were returned to service in mid- September. Issues/Areas of Concern  Possible need for contract time extension. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Construction on the final two elevators was completed in November and state/BART inspection will take place by early 2019.  BART aims to close out project by end of April 2019.  Project will be moved to completed list in the next update. Location Schedule Dates Planning — Environmental Clearance — Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2018-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $600 BART 1,000 Total $1,600 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 265 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Pleasant Hill Parking Structure Elevator Renovation (# 10001-07) – continued Local Agency Project Contracts Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (12/31/2018) Last Billed Date 16-43-P 9/21/2016 — 9/21/2019 BART Construction $600,000 $4,647 7/31/2017 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 266 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Walnut Creek BART TOD Access Improvements Project (# 10001-08) Sponsor BART Subregion Central County Scope The scope of the project is to design and construct public access improvements at the Walnut Creek BART Station connecting to the transit oriented development (TOD), Transit Village, and to help create a sense of “place” in the station area. Improvements to the area immediately outside the existing fare gates and beneath the elevated guideway will be aimed at enhancing sightlines, passenger safety, a sense of place and station accessibility, while reducing fare evasion. Improvements will create a more welcoming, convenient, accessible, and iconic BART station. These improvements may include public access paths and plazas, upgraded station and platform lighting, dynamic parking signage, bicycle facilities, additional vertical circulation, security features, landscaping, and other public improvements to accommodate and promote growing ridership and the new TOD. Status  The preliminary studies and planning for the access improvements project are complete. The project is now in the design phase and is in coordination with the Transit Village plans. Issues/Areas of Concern  Must coordinate funding with STIP funding timelines. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  BART completed reviews with the adjacent developer and City of Walnut Creek on the overall proposed project layout.  BART is confirming fire/life safety, phasing, and placemaking project components. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance 2017-2019 Design 2017-2019 Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2020-2023 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount BART Funds Measure J – BART STIP $100 3,850 5,300 Total $9,250 Phase III TOD Phase II TOD 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 267 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Walnut Creek BART TOD Access Improvements Project (# 10001-08) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 17-10-P 3/15/2017 — 3/15/2020 BART Design $350,000 $111,024 8/15/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 268 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Access Improvements at West Contra Costa BART Stations (# 10002-01) Sponsor City of El Cerrito Subregion West County Scope Construct station and access improvements that will enhance and support the development of transit- oriented development at West County BART stations and help create a sense of “place” in these station areas. These improvements may include parking, pathways, plazas, and sidewalks, upgraded lighting, restroom renovations, bicycle facilities, signage, additional vertical circulation, security features, landscaping, and other public improvements. Project #1: Multimodal Capital Improvement Program  The City of El Cerrito has adopted the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan and Complete Streets Plan and has prepared the Multimodal CIP identifying multimodal transportation improvements within 0.5-mile of both BART stations. Project #2: Ohlone Greenway BART Station Area Access, Safety, and Placemaking (ASP) Improvement Project  The project will improve on the mixed used path, landscape, streetscape, and public access along the Ohlone Greenway and adjacent streets at the El Cerrito Plaza and Del Norte BART stations. Status  Project #1: Project is complete.  Project #2: Construction began in April 2018 and is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2018. Issues/Areas of Concern  Project #2: The project construction schedule has been extended to account for changes in work, utility conflicts and utility connections. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Construction is nearing completion except for utility connection. Construction completion expected in January 2019. Location Schedule  Project #1    Project #2   Future     Work  Planning  Complete  Complete        TBD  Environmental Clearance  N/A  Complete        TBD  Design  N/A  Complete        TBD  Right of Way and Utilities  N/A  Complete        TBD  Construction  N/A    2018‐2019        TBD  Post Construction  N/A  —        TBD  Funding by Source ($ 000s)     Project #1    Project #2    Future     Work  Measure J  $250  $300     $2,932  Measure J West County  Sub‐Regional Needs   —  500             —    WCCTAC STMP Fees    —   300    18,200  Local    —        150           —  One Bay Area Grant  (OBAG)        —   3,468            —  Total $250     $4,718  $21,132  02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 269 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Access Improvements at West Contra Costa BART Stations (# 10002-01) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 13-09-P 4/17/2013 — 4/17/2016 / Closed BART Preliminary Engineering $125,000 $125,000 10/1/2014 13-14-P 5/15/2013 — 12/31/2016 / Closed City of El Cerrito Preliminary Engineering $125,000 $124,366 5/13/2016 15-14-P 4/15/2015 — 4/15/2018 / Closed City of El Cerrito Environmental Clearance and Design $ 34,462 $34,462 8/11/2016 16-29-P 6/15/2016 — 6/15/2019 City of El Cerrito Construction $ 265,538 $265,538 9/26/2018 17-11-P 3/15/2017 — 3/14/2020 City of El Cerrito Construction $ 500,000 $192,259 9/26/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 270 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Electronic Bicycle Facilities at West Contra Costa BART Stations (# 10002-03) Sponsor BART Subregion West County Scope Install 92 secure bicycle parking spaces at the El Cerrito del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza, and Richmond BART stations. Design bicycle parking area to include signage and other enhancements to create an inviting and functional facility. Status  To date, a total of 128 spaces have been installed at El Cerrito Plaza, El Cerrito del Norte, and Richmond stations. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The bicycle parking installations at the El Cerrito Plaza and Richmond stations are complete. BART staff continues to proceed with close-out steps.  Project will be moved to completed list in the next update. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction Complete Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $402 Total $402 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 271 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Electronic Bicycle Facilities at West Contra Costa BART Stations (# 10002-03) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 10-04-P 1/20/2010 3 6/30/2019 BART Design and Construction $402,000 $366,998 5/15/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 272 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Comprehensive Wayfinding System at West Contra Costa BART Stations (# 10002-05) Sponsor BART Subregion West County Scope Create and implement a cohesive, integrated wayfinding system for west county BART stations to improve orientation, wayfinding, and ease of station use for customers traveling to, from, and through the facilities; facilitate connections with other transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; and encourage new ridership by making services accessible and convenient. Status  At its May 8, 2014 board meeting, BART awarded a contract to LC General Engineering and Construc- tion, Inc. for design, construction, and installation of wayfinding signage at 16 BART stations includ- ing west Contra Costa County stations. BART is- sued the construction Notice to Proceed in early January 2015. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  BART is continuing design of the Real-Time Dis- plays integration into the BART network. These displays will enhance and improve communication and reliability of information. The implementation is scheduled to be complete by early 2019. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2014-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $1,600 Total $1,600 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 273 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Comprehensive Wayfinding System at West Contra Costa BART Stations (# 10002-05) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 10-05-P 1/20/2010 2 6/30/2019 BART Design and Construction $1,600,000 $1,386,456 11/20/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 274 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project El Cerrito del Norte BART Station Modernization (# 10002-07) Sponsor BART Subregion West County Scope This project will expand the existing paid area, add new elevators and stairs, station agent booth, restrooms, and additional fare equipment. In addition, the project will upgrade the station lighting, the intermodal waiting area, refinish surfaces and add paint, security cameras and pedestrian lighting along the Ohlone Greenway. Status  Bids were opened on December 6, 2016. Contract was awarded to Clark Construction Group.  Project is in the construction phase. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  BART issued Options 3 (bus shelters) & 4 (ADA, seating and LED lighting) in order to implement a more maintenance-friendly and cost-effective de- sign.  Completed construction activities include backfill foundations to grade (Phase 1A), and grade beams and elevator pit walls (Phase 2).  BART staff continues to coordinate with City of El Cerrito staff on their Ohlone Greenway and Paving project, which is adjacent to the Station Moderni- zation project. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2017-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J – BART $11,503 Measure J – TLC 2,120 Measure J – PBTF 280 WCCTAC 1,000 Prop 1B 21,550 BART General Fund 547 Total $37,000 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 275 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project El Cerrito del Norte BART Station Modernization (# 10002-07) – continued Local Agency Project Contracts Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 16-17-P 5/18/2016 — 5/18/2019 BART Construction $11,503,000 $5,338,491 11/14/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 276 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Lafayette BART Bike Station (# 10003-03) Sponsor BART Subregion Southwest County Scope This project will design and construct a Bike Station, providing secure bicycle parking for up to 125 bicycles, at the Lafayette BART station. A Bike Station is an enclosed, sheltered space with bicycle racks and a controlled access system. Status  The project is in the Design Phase.  The Construction phase is estimated to begin in the second quarter of 2019. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The City of Lafayette has a design team under contract. Initial site feasibility and engineering studies are underway. Location Schedule Dates Planning — Environmental Clearance — Design 2016-2019 Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2019-2020 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $600 BART 100 Total $700 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 277 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Lafayette BART Bike Station (# 10003-03) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 18-02-P 1/17/2018 — 1/17/2021 BART Design $25,000 $0 — 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 278 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Lafayette Station Site Improvements Project (# 10003-07) Sponsor BART Subregion Southwest County Scope The scope of the project is to construct intermodal im- provements in the two lower parking lots on the north side of the Lafayette BART Station. The intermodal im- provements will consist of new pavement, new sidewalks with ADA curb ramps, new parking lot lighting and emer- gency call box, restriping of parking stalls, reconfiguration of vehicle pick-up/drop-off area, new bus stops, and new wayfinding signs. Status  Project is in the construction phase.  Phase 1 is complete. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Phase 2 work, which includes new bus stops and shelters, is substantially complete. BART will proceed with the project close out phase.  Project will be moved to the completed list in the next update. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities — Construction Complete Post Construction 2018-2019 Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $1,300 BART 3,840 Prop 84 Grant 2,240 Total $7,380 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 279 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Lafayette Station Site Improvements Project (# 10003-07) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 17-09-P 3/15/2017 — 3/15/2020 BART Construction $1,300,000 $1,235,000 7/12/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 280 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Downtown Orinda Streetscape Master Plan (# 10003-08) Sponsor City of Orinda Subregion Southwest County Scope The scope of work for the project would include:    Prepare a draft conceptual design-level plan to up- date the “Orinda Way Streetscape Master Plan” as the “Downtown Orinda Streetscape Master Plan” with the following changes: o Update the existing conceptual design for Orinda Way o Add Village district side streets, pedestrian connection to BART and Crossroads district to the conceptual design.  Identify access improvement projects connecting to the BART station  Conduct at least two public meetings to review the conceptual plan.  Prepare a final version of the Downtown Orinda Streetscape Master Plan.  Begin preparation of design documents based on the conceptual plan to the point necessary for envi- ronmental review.  Conduct environmental review for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Status  The project was awarded Measure J TLC funds in 2017. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  City planning staff and the consultant team are formulating project alternatives to be discussed at a workshop scheduled for January 2019. Location Schedule Dates Preliminary Studies/Planning 2017-2019 Environmental Clearance 2018-2020 Design — Right of Way and Utilities — Construction — Landscaping — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J – TLC Measure J Local – City of Orinda $200 50 50 Total $300 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 281 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Downtown Orinda Streetscape Master Plan (# 10003-08) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 17-56-G 11/15/2017 — 11/15/2020 City of Orinda Design and Construction $250,000 $0 — 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 282 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Kirker Pass Road Truck Lanes – Northbound (# 24004) Sponsor Contra Costa County Subregion Central County Scope Add a truck climbing lane in the northbound direction along Kirker Pass Road from Clearbrook Drive in the city of Concord to the eastern intersection with Hess Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Status  The project is in the pre-construction phase.  Construction is scheduled to begin in FY 2020/21. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The CTC allocated STIP funds for construction at its October 2018 meeting.  The project is currently being advertised with bids to be opened on January 15, 2019. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction 2019-2020 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $6,351 STIP-RIP 2,650 State Match Funds 1,993 Local Funds 7,323 Total $18,317 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 283 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Kirker Pass Road Truck Lanes – Northbound (# 24004) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 14-03-P 2/19/2014 — 12/19/2020 Contra Costa County Design, Environmental Clearance, and ROW $2,574,000 $2,139,872 7/23/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 284 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Downtown Corridors Traffic Improvements (# 24011) Sponsor City of Lafayette Subregion Southwest County Scope In March 2018, Lafayette completed a traffic study to develop recommendations to improve multi-modal traffic operations while reducing congestion during peak periods in Lafayette’s downtown. This project is now in the implementation phase, to design and construct a series of low-cost recommendations resulting from the study. Project can be phased based on available funding. Status  Corridor study began in April 2014.  Study completed in March 2018.  The project is currently in the implementation phase. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The project is currently in the testing phase of the additional right turn lane on Northbound Moraga Road at the intersection of Mount Diablo Boule- vard to reduce upstream Moraga Road traffic con- gestion.  Final signal timing operation will be finalized in January.  Additional corridor improvement strategies to be implemented in future phases, based on available funding. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction 2018-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $56 Total $56 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 285 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Downtown Corridors Traffic Improvements (# 24011) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 18-39-P 7/18/2018 — 7/18/2021 City of Lafayette Construction Phase $19,000 $0 — 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 286 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Farm Bureau Road Safe Route to School/Complete Streets Improvement (# 24012) Sponsor City of Concord Subregion Central County Scope Construct Safe Route to School / Complete Streets improvements on Farm Bureau Road between Willow Pass Road and Wren Avenue (Phase 1), and between Wren Avenue and Walnut Avenue (Phase 2), including sidewalks, street lighting, on-street parking, Class 2 bicycle lanes, shortened crosswalks, and ADA access. Status  Phase 1: Construction is complete.  Phase 2: The project is currently in construction. Issues/Areas of Concern  All project issues such as PG&E utility box adjustments and signal pole installation have been resolved. Update from Previous Quarterly Report Phase 2  All full depth reclamation work has been completed and asphalt paving work is completed as well.  Roadway utilities, striping, installation of loops and irrigation and landscaping work have all been completed.  Minor punchlist items remain. Contractor needs to remove his storage yard fence and complete clean- up of this area. Project acceptance by the City Council expected to occur in January 2019. Location Schedule Dates Phase 1 Phase 2 Planning Complete Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Complete Design Complete Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Complete Construction Complete 2018-2019 Post Construction — — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Phase 1 Phase 2 Measure J $300 $3,780 SR2S Grant 400 — Local 700 400 Total $1,400 $4,180 Phase 1 Phase 2 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 287 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Farm Bureau Road Safe Route to School/Complete Streets Improvement (# 24012) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 15-05-P 2/18/2015 — 2/18/2018 / Closed City of Concord Construction $281,000 $281,000 12/14/2016 15-52-P 9/16/2015 1 9/16/2018 / Closed City of Concord Design – Phase 2 $248,442 $248,442 4/11/2018 17-12-P 4/19/2017 1 4/19/2020 City of Concord Construction $3,551,558 $1,207,833 8/20/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 288 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project St. Mary’s Road–Rheem Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road Roundabouts(# 24014) Sponsor Town of Moraga Subregion Southwest County Scope Based on the analysis of sight distance, Level of Service and queuing under existing and cumulative conditions, the Town of Moraga proposes to construct a pair of roundabouts on St. Mary’s Road at the Rheem Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road intersections. This would provide operational improvement under existing and cumulative traffic volumes, and reduce hazards caused by the existing inadequate sight distance, as all vehicles would slow down to move through the roundabout in- tersections. The roundabouts will provide additional benefits of reducing vehicle queuing and reducing driver delay. Potential conflicts with pedestrians and bicycles will be reduced with the roundabouts by allowing pedes- trians to only need to cross one lane of traffic at a time, while having the ability to wait in the refuge island until there is a break in traffic. Bicyclists traveling through the roundabouts will also benefit by allowing them to take up the travel lane as bicyclists will be traveling near the speed of the vehicles (since roundabouts are designed to be traveled at 20 mph). Status  The project is in environmental clearance and pre- liminary engineering phase. Issues/Areas of Concern  Project has significant funding shortfall. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The design consultant and City staff presented an update to the Town Council in October on the project, including results from the Benefits/Costs analysis and a summary of the public feedback from the September community meetings.  Design consultant continues to make progress on environmental clearance and preliminary design. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance 2017-2019 Design 2017-2019 Right of Way and Utilities 2018-2020 Construction 2019-2020 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $464 Lamorinda Fee and Finance Authority 141 TBD 6,378 Total $6,983 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 289 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project St. Mary’s Road – Rheem Boulevard and Bollinger Canyon Road Roundabouts (# 24014) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 17-08-P 3/15/2017 — 3/15/2020 Town of Moraga Environmental Services and Preliminary Design $464,000 $113,870 7/31/2017 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 290 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Canyon Road Bridge Replacement (# 24016) Sponsor Town of Moraga Subregion Southwest County Scope Replace the existing structurally-deficient, 104-foot long multi-span bridge with a new 40-foot wide bridge including a sidewalk on one side. The new bridge will provide a safe, economical structure that meets current design criteria and the needs of today’s users. In addition, the new bridge will meet the functional requirements for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles that travel over the bridge, and meet the hydraulic design criteria for the creek flow underneath the bridge. Status  Project CEQA document has been adopted by the Town of Moraga. Caltrans has approved the NEPA.  Design and Right of Way phases are complete. Issues/Areas of Concern  Project delays due to landslide. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  The existing Canyon Road Bridge has been closed since mid-April 2017 due to a landslide damaging the bridge. The Town of Moraga Council has ap- proved funding for a one lane temporary bridge as an emergency project. This temporary bridge was opened to public traffic on November 22, 2017. The alignment for the permanent bridge will be revised to move away from the landslide. This will require some of the Environmental Studies to be updated for the permanent bridge replacement project. These studies have been completed.  Design has been completed. Request for funding authorization for Construction has been submitted to Caltrans.  Right of Way acquisition has been completed. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction 2018-2019 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J Measure J Return to Source $418 235 Federal Highway Bridge Program 4,242 Total $4,895 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 291 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Canyon Road Bridge Replacement (# 24016) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 14-13-P 4/16/2014 — 3/15/2020 Town of Moraga Design $76,442 $76,422 7/12/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 292 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Crow Canyon Road Pavement Rehabilitation (# 24022) Sponsor City of San Ramon Subregion Southwest County Scope The project work includes pavement removal; installing new pavement; pavement grinding; pavement base repairs; installation of traffic signal detector loops; concrete curb, gutter, sidewalk replacement; curb ramp reconstruction for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act; utility adjustments; and traffic striping. Status  Construction is anticipated to start in Summer 2019.  The Authority appropriated Measure J funds for the design phase in May 2018. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Design is currently underway. 35% submittal is anticipated in January 2019. Location Schedule Dates Preliminary Studies/Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design 2018-2019 Right of Way and Utilities — Construction 2019-2020 Landscaping — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $1,473 Total $1,473 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 293 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Crow Canyon Road Pavement Rehabilitation (# 24022) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 18-20-P 5/18/2018 — 5/18/2021 City of San Ramon Design $250,000 $0 — 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 294 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements (# 24024) Sponsor Contra Costa County Subregion Southwest County Scope To enhance safety and mobility of non-motorized travel along Danville Boulevard and Stone Valley Road throughout the business district. The project will con- struct a roundabout at the Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court intersection. The roundabout will include curb ex- tensions, curb ramps and entry medians at the rounda- bout to reduce vehicle speeds and improve pedestrian crossings. Sidewalks will be reconstructed through the corridor along with curb extensions and curb ramps in order to meet ADA requirements and accommodate existing ma- ture trees in the sidewalk. The project also includes a slurry seal and restriping of the roadway to reduce it to one travel lane in each direc- tion through the roundabout. Other project features in- clude storm drain modifications, stormwater treatment areas, signage, utility adjustments, and relocation of ex- isting roadside features. Status  The project is in the design phase. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  NEPA and CEQA documents are complete.  65% design completion is expected in January 2019. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design 2017-2021 Right of Way and Utilities 2019-2020 Construction 2020-2021 Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $1,370 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 2,718 Local Funds 57 Total $4,145 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 295 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Danville Boulevard/Orchard Court Complete Streets Improvements (# 24024) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 17-02-P 2/17/2017 — 2/14/2020 Contra Costa County Public Works Environmental Clearance and Design $243,000 $49,824 2/08/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 296 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Alhambra Creek Bridge and Ferry Street Enhancements (# 24031) Sponsor City of Martinez Subregion Central County Scope Construct a vehicle bridge over Alhambra Creek to provide a second connection to the Martinez Intermodal Station Phase 3 parking lot, and the Martinez Regional Shoreline Park; and construct roadway enhancements to Ferry Street from the Union Pacific Railroad right of way to the easterly boundary of the Martinez Intermodal Station Phase 3 parking lot. Status  Alhambra Creek Bridge work was accepted as complete by the City Council on February 1, 2017 and a Notice of Completion was filed.  Ferry Street work is concurrently under construc- tion with the balance of the Intermodal Station Im- provements. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Construction of the Ferry Street extension is near- ing completion and all improvements are expected to be completed by March 1, 2019. Location Schedule Dates Alhambra Creek Bridge Ferry Street Enhancements Planning Complete Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Complete Design Complete Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Complete Construction Complete 2017-2019 Post Construction — — Amount Alhambra Creek Bridge Ferry Street Enhancements Measure J $3,600 $6,971 Total $3,600 $6,971 Funding by Source ($ 000s) 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 297 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Alhambra Creek Bridge and Ferry Street Enhancements (# 24031) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 14-49-P 10/15/2014 1 12/31/2018 City of Martinez Design $573,825 $418,826 5/31/2018 15-22-P 5/20/2015 1 5/20/2021 City of Martinez Construction $3,081,090 $2,899,906 5/31/2018 17-21-P 5/17/2017 1 10/18/2020 City of Martinez Construction $6,140,772 $2,091,193 8/27/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 298 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Clayton Major Streets Improvements (# 24032) Sponsor City of Clayton Subregion Central County Scope Project is proposing repairs at various locations along Clayton Road, Marsh Creek Road and Oakhurst Drive. These will include base failure repairs, crack sealing, subgrade stabilization, pavement/curb lifting, and microsurfacing. Phase 2 scope includes improvements to the north side of Pine Hollow Road, from the Western City limit to Gibson Lane, to close a gap in the sidewalk between the westerly city limit line and Mt. Diablo Elementary School. Status  Phase 1 of the project is complete.  With the savings from Phase 1, Phase 2 was added to the project per Amendment No. 3 of the 2016 Measure J Strategic Plan. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Design of Phase 2 is underway. Scope has been ex- panded to include more of Pine Hollow Road than simply the north side.  The City will add local funds to cover the expanded project scope. Location Schedule Dates Phase 1 Phase 2 Planning — — Environmental Clearance Complete Complete Design Complete 2018-2019 Right of Way and Utilities — — Construction Complete 2018-2019 Post Construction — — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Phase 1 Phase 2 Measure J $849 $375 Total $849 $375 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 299 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Clayton Major Streets Improvements (# 24032) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriation Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 16-51-P 11/16/2016 1 11/16/2019 / Closed City of Clayton Construction and Construction Management - Phase 1 $849,327 $849,327 7/31/2017 17-51-P 10/18/2017 — 10/18/2020 City of Clayton Design of Phase 2 $28,500 $28,500 7/26/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 300 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Main Street Downtown Improvements – Vintage Parkway to O’hara Avenue (# 28003) Sponsor City of Oakley Subregion East County Scope The project will update all necessary traffic signal equipment at the intersections of Main Street/Vintage Parkway, Main/Norcross Lane, and Main Street/O’hara Avenue with new ATC 2070 controllers, video detection, and advanced pedestrian push buttons. The existing controller at the intersection of Main Street and Vintage Parkway is currently a 170 controller and will be upgraded to match the two adjacent intersections. Install communication lines between all three intersections and City Hall to facilitate implementation of a functional Central Management System. The new system will monitor and control traffic flow to adjust time-of-day plans, as needed in the area. Status  The project is complete, and all elements have been implemented. Issues/Areas of Concern  None. Update from Previous Quarterly Report  Final connections to the Central Management Sys- tem and software configurations were completed on November 14, 2018.  Ribbon cutting was held in November 2018.  Project will be moved to the completed list in the next update. Location Schedule Dates Planning Complete Environmental Clearance Complete Design Complete Right of Way and Utilities Complete Construction Complete Post Construction — Funding by Source ($ 000s) Amount Measure J $87 Total $87 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 301 of 311 Quarterly Project Status Report Oct - Dec 2018 Project Main Street Downtown Improvements – Vintage Parkway to O’hara Avenue (# 28003) – continued Local Agency Measure C/J Funding Appropriations Resolution No. Original Resolution Date Revision No. Resolution Expiration Agency Description Appropriated Amount Billed to Date (10/31/2018) Last Billed Date 18-01-P 1/17/2018 — 1/17/2021 City of Oakley Construction and Construction Management $87,000 $26,085 7/31/2018 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 302 of 311 Eugene Mulero | Staff Reporter December 5, 2018 3:00 PM, EST Rep. DeFazio on Earmarks Ban: ‘Don’t Think We Need That Rule’ DeFazio says the ban on earmarks is no longer necessary. (Zach Gibson/Bloomberg News) WASHINGTON — The next chairman of the transportation policy panel in the U.S. House of Representatives said the ban on earmarks the GOP imposed nearly a decade ago is no longer needed. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told an audience at an event hosted by The Atlantic magazine on Dec. 5 the ban is “nonsensical” and said that, if properly applied, earmarks can be useful. Prior to the ban, members of Congress often dedicated federal funds for specic projects in their districts. At times, earmarking allowed a lawmaker to bypass authorizing committees. DeFazio will lead the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee beginning in January and acknowledged he has sought to reform the earmark process. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 303 of 311 Eugene Mulero @eugenemulero DeFazio: The President really wants to do an infrastructure bill; people are tired of being stuck in congestion #AtlanticFixIt 7 8:07 AM - Dec 5, 2018 See Eugene Mulero's other Tweets “Do we think that all of the wisdom on how to better serve the people of your district, of your state if you’re a senator, comes from [U.S.] DOT in D.C. or your state DOT? No,” DeFazio said. “If we have a totally transparent process with people who are more accountable than the Secretary of Transportation, or more accountable than the bureaucrats who run your state agency, you might get some projects done that they’re ignoring,” he said. Concerns raised by watchdog groups, academics and congressional observers about potential misappropriation of funds related to earmarks helped to convince Republican leaders to ban them after the 2010 Tea Party wave elections. Earmarking funds for Alaska’s “bridge to nowhere” — a project spearheaded by that state’s late Sen. Ted Stevens — brought the issue national exposure. © 2019 Transport Topics All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 304 of 311 1 John Cunningham From:Leland Frayseth <leland.frayseth@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 20, 2018 9:30 AM To:armando.quintero@cwc.ca.gov; carol.baker@cwc.ca.gov; andrew.ball@cwc.ca.gov; joseph.byrne@cwc.ca.gov; daniel.curtin@cwc.ca.gov; joe.delbosque@cwc.ca.gov; catherine.keig@cwc.ca.gov; maria.herrera@cwc.ca.gov; Yun, Joseph@DWR; cwc@water.ca.gov; Shoemaker, Brianna@DWR; holly.stout@water.ca.gov; amy.young@water.ca.gov; Paul.Cambra@cwc.ca.gov Cc:Jerry Brown; eavila@avilaassociates.com; jburgh@ccwater.com; Marguerite Patil; Jennifer Allen; Rachel Murphy; Sponsler, Michael; Gerringer, Teresa; John Cunningham; Brown, Ryan-Thomas; Lia Bristol; sharon.tapia@water.ca.gov; Kristen@DWR; lfrayseth@wavecable.com Subject:New Copernicus images - metastasized Los Vaqueros algal bloom, no evidence of dam crest road storm drains Attachments:090215-4 LV Dam Erosion Repair.pdf Dear California Water Commission (CWC) Commissioners Quintero, Baker, Ball, Byrne, Curtin, Del Bosque, Keig, Herrera, staff, the public Please study this newly available Copernicus satellite imagery dated 6/28/2018 revealing the Los Vaqueros algal bloom has metastasized throughout the entire body of water. I encourage you to install Google Earth and study the images there where you can see the normal water color without an algal bloom in nearby Bethany reservoir and Clifton Court forebay under identical lighting. The imagery reveals dam face repairs and associated construction equipment at the base of the dam. What is missing are storm drains and provisions to carry storm water from the dam crest road runoff down into Kellogg Creek that were shown in yellow on the attached 2015 CCWD board docket item. 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 305 of 311 2 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 306 of 311 3 I have written this California Water Commission twice previously on this matter please reference this link https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC- Website/Files/Documents/2018/Correspondence/060518_LelandFrayseth_LosVaqueros.pdf and please note the link that is embedded within that reference is broken because of your recent web re-design. Contra Costa Water District is raising my 2019 rates I believe because they need to match money you are giving them to expand this failed project to 275,000 AF. CCWD's board president Lisa Borba never met a water rate increase she didn't like in the 3 years she has been president my rates have gone up every year. I voted no on last month's $9 billion water bond as did the majority of California voters. I am getting weary of seeing poor water project design and management like Oroville and this project and I want to see concrete actions to change the leadership, staff and culture. Thank you for reading my comments and studying the Copernicus images. Leland Frayseth 34+ year CCWD ratepayer, citizen, voter, taxpayer 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 307 of 311 4" Agenda Hem No, __ _ Meeting Date: September;:;. 20J 5 Resolution: ( ) Yes eX) No AGENDA DOCKEI t'ORM SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR SERVICES FOR THE LOS VAQUEROS DAM EROSION REPAIR PROJECT SUMMARY: In December 2014, heavy rains and inadequate drainage along the dam crest roadway caused surface soil erosion on the downstream face of the Vaqueros (LV) Dam, Though not threatening to dam safety, repair of the area is needed to prevent funher erosion is required by the California Division of Safety of Dams, The damaged area has been evaluated by a geotechnical engineer, a repair approach has been designed, and the area has dried sufilciently to allow the repair to proceed. This project replace the eroded material with material stockpiled in the LV Watershed that matches the remainder of the dam face, In addition, this project will improve the roadway drainage in this location to eliminate future erosion as a result of roadway runoff, Erosion repairs will be completed October 15, 2015. The Board authorized contracts ",ith two contractors, C. Overaa Co, (Overaa) and GSE ConstlUction (GSE), on August 6, 2014 to provide Constructiqn and Repair Services for planned capital projects, as well as assistance in responding to unplarmed, urgent work, such as this repair. Consistent with the project controls and authority levels established for the Constmetion and Repair Services contracts, pricing was obtained'from both. contractors. Ovema provided the lowest pricing of $109,500. The Engineer's Estimate for tbe repair was SI50,600. To account for the potential of changed conditions such as over-excavation of additional loose soil, $130,000 of contract authority is requested. This task order exceeds the $100,000 General Manager task order ceiling, and Board authorization for this task order is needed. FISCAL IMP ACT: The total requested authori7Ation is $130,000. Funding for this work is available fi'om the FY 16 Untreated Water ReservoirRehabilitation Program budget, which was made available by re-prioritizing roadway and fencing projects in the Untreated Water Facility Improvements Program. RECOIVIlVfENDED ACTION: Authorize execution of a task order in the Construction and Repair Services contract with C. Overaa & Co. for Los Vaqueros Dam Erosion Repair Project services in an amount not to exceed $130,000, ~, for Rachel Murphy : Director of Engineering Assistant General Manager _ ... ~~~~~ .... J ~ ... __ _ RRMlCH:mc Attachment: Location Map Jerry Bro General Ma ager 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 308 of 311 0.25 0 .5 ,M il es Location Map • ., !l,0S '\Ia<!l ~'e n;J S . )I.\Iate[~he.d iFl eM (;Jl!!Hrt er,s \ ," \ Attachment Replace erosion area wi th material to match dam face 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 309 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 310 of 311 02-11-19 TWIC Meeting Agenda Packet - Pg. 311 of 311