Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 12122022 - TWIC Agenda PktTRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE December 12, 2022 9:00 A.M. To slow the spread of COVID-19, in lieu of a public gathering, the meeting will be accessible via Zoom to all members of the public as permitted by Government Code section 54953(e). Supervisor Diane Burgis, 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. Pubic comment may be limited to two minutes. To attend via Zoom Please click the link below: https://cccounty-us.zoom.us/j/83979512242 Meeting ID: 839 7951 224 Or by Telephone, dial: USA 214 765 0478 US Toll USA 888 278 0254 US Toll-free Conference code: 198675 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.REVIEW record of meeting for October 10, 2022, Transportation, Water and Infrastructure 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) (Page 4) 4.RECEIVE the status report on the Letter of Understanding (LOU) for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa County and MONITOR its implementation by PG&E. (Rochelle Johnson, Department of Public Works) (Page 8) 5.RECEIVE yearly update on the County’s IPM Program from the IPM Coordinator & take ACTION as appropriate. (Wade Finlinson, Contra Costa County Health Services) (Page 15) 6.RECEIVE update on the Marsh Creek Corridor Trail Feasibility Study, CONSIDER the report, provide COMMENT and DIRECT staff as appropriate, including: 1) bringing the Marsh Creek Corridor Trail Feasibility Study to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration, and 2) coordinate with corridor stakeholders to pursue funding opportunities for implementation, as directed by the Committee. (Jamar Stamps, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 49) 7.RECEIVE update on the Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study, provide COMMENT, and DIRECT staff as appropriate, including forwarding the Study to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance or other action. (Robert Sarmiento, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 142) 8.CONSIDER report on Local, State, Regional, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 372) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 1 of 394 9.RECEIVE Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) (Page 381) 10.The next Committee meeting is TBD. 11.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) 655-2915, Fax (925) 655-2750 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 2 of 394 Glossary of Acronyms, Abbreviations, and other Terms (in alphabetical order): Contra Costa County has a policy of making limited use of acronyms, abbreviations, and industry-specific language in meetings of its Board of Supervisors and Committees. Following is a list of commonly used abbreviations that may appear in presentations and written materials at meetings of the Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee: AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACA Assembly Constitutional Amendment ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AOB Area of Benefit BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District BATA Bay Area Toll Authority BCDC Bay Conservation & Development Commission BDCP Bay-Delta Conservation Plan BGO Better Government Ordinance (Contra Costa County) BOS Board of Supervisors CALTRANS California Department of Transportation CalWIN California Works Information Network CalWORKS California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids CAER Community Awareness Emergency Response CAO County Administrative Officer or Office CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority CCWD Contra Costa Water District CDBG Community Development Block Grant CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second (of water) CPI Consumer Price Index CSA County Service Area CSAC California State Association of Counties CTC California Transportation Commission DCC Delta Counties Coalition DCD Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development DPC Delta Protection Commission DSC Delta Stewardship Council DWR California Department of Water Resources EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EIR Environmental Impact Report (a state requirement) EIS Environmental Impact Statement (a federal requirement) EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GHAD Geologic Hazard Abatement District GIS Geographic Information System HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation HOT High-Occupancy/Toll HOV High-Occupancy-Vehicle HSD Contra Costa County Health Services Department HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development IPM Integrated Pest Management ISO Industrial Safety Ordinance JPA/JEPA Joint (Exercise of) Powers Authority or Agreement Lamorinda Lafayette-Moraga-Orinda Area LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCC League of California Cities LTMS Long-Term Management Strategy MAC Municipal Advisory Council MAF Million Acre Feet (of water) MBE Minority Business Enterprise MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOE Maintenance of Effort MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission NACo National Association of Counties NEPA National Environmental Protection Act OES-EOC Office of Emergency Services-Emergency Operations Center PDA Priority Development Area PWD Contra Costa County Public Works Department RCRC Regional Council of Rural Counties RDA Redevelopment Agency or Area RFI Request For Information RFP Request For Proposals RFQ Request For Qualifications SB Senate Bill SBE Small Business Enterprise SR2S Safe Routes to Schools STIP State Transportation Improvement Program SWAT Southwest Area Transportation Committee TRANSPAC Transportation Partnership & Cooperation (Central) TRANSPLAN Transportation Planning Committee (East County) TWIC Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers WBE Women-Owned Business Enterprise WCCTAC West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRDA Water Resources Development Act 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 3 of 394 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 3. Meeting Date:12/12/2022   Subject:REVIEW record of meeting for October 10, 2022, 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) 655-2915 Referral History: County Ordinance (Better Government Ordinance 95-6, Article 25-205, [d]) requires that each County Body keep a record of its meetings. Though the record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the meeting. Referral Update: Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached to this meeting record. Links to the agenda and minutes will be available at the TWI Committee web page:  http://www.cccounty.us/4327/Transportation-Water-Infrastructure Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the October 10, 2022, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments October 2022 TWIC Meeting Record 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 4 of 394 D R A F T TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE RECORD OF ACTION FOR October 10, 2022   Supervisor Diane Burgis, Chair Supervisor Candace Andersen, Vice Chair    Present: Diane Burgis, Chair      Candace Andersen, Vice Chair    Staff Present:John Cunningham, TWIC Staff; Jerry Fahy, PWD; Nancy Wein, PWD; Jill Ray, District 2; Lia Bristol, District 4; Alicia Nuchols, District 3; Monica Nino, CAO; John Kopchik, DCD; Steve Kowalewski, PWD; Jody London, DCD  Attendees:Ryan Buckley, Jonathan Goodwin, Sveinn Erik Ólafsson, Dan Gronski, Mark Watts                   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).    No public comment.   3.Staff recommends approval of the attached Record of Action for the May 9, 2022, Committee Meeting with any necessary corrections.       The Committee unanimously APPROVED the meeting record.   4.ACCEPT the Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) for fiscal year 2022/2023 to 2028/2029 and RECOMMEND the Board of Supervisors fix a public hearing for approval of the CRIPP.       Testimony was provided by Jonathan Goodwin (Canyon resident) regarding needed repairs on Pinehurst Road. Supervisor Andersen indicated that District 2 would continue to provide the liaison function with the residents relative to the needed repairs. Testimony was provided by Dan Gronski and Ryan Buckley (Saranap residents) regarding needed bicycle/pedestrian safety improvements needed along the Olympic Boulevard and that the Olympic Boulevard Trail Connector Study should be implemented. Staff suggested that the cross-jurisdictional nature of the project make it a good candidate for CCTA involvement which was supported by the Committee. Supervisor Burgis indicated the plan is a bit dated at this point and staff committed to bringing back a "mini-update" at a future TWIC meeting. Supervisor Andersen indicated support for a Study update and for staff to examine opportunities to move incremental components of the Study recommendations forward. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 5 of 394   5.CONSIDER report on Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate.       The Committee RECEIVED the report.   6.DISCUSS and REVISE the County's 2022-23 State and Federal Legislative Platforms (TWIC Referrals Only) and DIRECT staff as appropriate.       The Committee unanimously APPROVED the State and Federal Legislative platforms with the development of one revision delegated to staff and Chair Burgis to better reflect the County's interest in improving transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities. The revision is below and was submitted to the County Administrator's Office with the APPROVAL of the Committee. SUPPORT the provision of a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible transportation system that balances social, environmental, and economic needs of the County through participation in planning and legislative initiatives (at the state and local level) which emphasize transportation improvements for seniors and persons with disabilities .   7.RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate.      The Committee RECEIVED the communication and news of interest.   8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for November 14, 2022.   9.Adjourn      For Additional Information Contact:  John Cunningham, Committee Staff Phone (925) 674-7833, Fax (925) 674-7250 john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 6 of 394 Hi John, Below is a written testimony extrapolating on what Ryan and I shared earlier this week. Please feel free to include in the meeting minutes. The community of Saranap (Unincorporated CCC) is drastically changing - looking at just the southern half of Saranap (below the hill, south of Juanita) counts 96 children of middle school age or younger. We have a strong network of families who envision their kids riding bikes to the Lafayette/Moraga trail and Stanley Middle School, however, there is a very dangerous, very slim part of the bike path. On Olympic Blvd from Bridgefield to Newell Ct (image below) the bike lane is approximately 2 ft wide, with commuter cars rushing by at 45-50 mph only feet away. While re- exploring the viability of the 2016 Board approved Olympic Trail Connector Study would be ideal longer term, we believe addressing this ~100 yard slim stretch of bike lane would be the "best bang for the buck" and deliver substantial benefits in three areas; 1) Provide a safe bike path for our kids to ride to school 2) Connect the Saranap community to the Lafayette/Moraga trail 3) Create a safer car intersection at Bridgefield & Olympic (currently, there is a partially blind left turn, which forces cars to nose out into oncoming traffic) We currently have 12 families we have spoken with about these efforts - and based on their eager willingness to support, I am confident we could 2x that number if/when it is helpful. We appreciate your willingness to let us share more about this ground swell effort to bring safety to our community. If there is anything else that would be helpful please do not hesitate to reach out to Ryan or me. Thank you. Dan 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 7 of 394 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 4. Meeting Date:12/12/2022   Subject:RECEIVE annual report on the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E street lights in Contra Costa County. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 14   Referral Name: Monitor implementation of the Letter of Understanding with PG&E for the maintenance of PG&E streetlights in Contra Costa.  Presenter: Rochelle Johnson, Department of Public Works Contact: Rochelle Johnson, (925) 313-2299 Referral History: The Transportation, Water and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) accepted the 2021 status report regarding the coordination between Cities (Countywide) and PG&E on November 8, 2021. Referral Update: The TWIC requested that Public Works management report annually on the status of street light maintenance coordination efforts with PG&E. Management last reported to the TWIC on November 8, 2021 regarding this item.  Background: The Letter of Understanding (LOU) dated February 2021, between PG&E and the County, states the commitment of PG&E for open communication, responsive service levels, and actions in resolving issues related to street light performance. For almost two (2) years, Public Works management has utilized the current LOU as a guide for service level management for street lights within the county, towns and cities. Both Contra Costa County and PG&E have been monitoring service levels provided by PG&E. Towns and Cities have reported marked improvement in communication with PG&E administrative staff and associated repairs. A feature of the LOU is to maintain open communication channels. This is accomplished by conducting regular discussions at Street Light Coordination meetings which include the County, its constituents, and Cities and Towns. Since the last report period, the Coordination meetings have convened once per quarter.  These meetings have included regular attendance by participating agencies. In response to the needs of participating agencies amid the pandemic, the meetings have been hosted by the County via Zoom. Meeting using this platform has been a convenience to participating agencies and allowed opportunities to review effective practices throughout the County. As agencies move beyond the pandemic, staff will determine the effectiveness of in-person and hybrid meetings for this body. County staff continually polls Cities and Towns for presentation topics of interest.  To date, meeting topics have included: • Copper wire theft and luminaire manufacturing defects; • Street light energy efficiency; • Legislative updates; • PG&E customer relations; 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 8 of 394 • Emerging technology; • LightSpec West Conference review; • Letter of Understanding (LOU) Revision Review; and • Improving inventory records management. To support PG&E in addressing related matters, the County has established a relationship with the California Street Light Association (CAL-SLA). This organization has maintained a continued relationship to support the needs of Coordination Meeting Participants. In preparation for this report, Cities and Towns were invited to report any service level concerns. Reported feedback was generally positive with City, Town, and County staff stating that PG&E management staff responsiveness was consistent with the LOU. PG&E has stated that services levels should continue to improve once Salesforce support is incorporated into their services. Agencies have reported that while responsiveness has improved, ticket status and closure reports are inconsistent. Additionally, when tickets are complex, agencies have received better support by by-passing the newly established system and working directly with PG&E management staff. The relationship with PG&E management staff and public agency staff are initiated and fostered by the quarterly coordination meetings.  There is an ongoing request for PG&E to provide participating agencies with GIS data of streetlights. The intention of this request is to mitigate inventory and billing discrepancies. PG&E has stated that they are not able to provide this data as the costs are excessive, and that it is anticipated that the implementation of Salesforce should help cleanup inventory and billing discrepancies. While PG&E has made efforts to rectify the inventory and billing discrepancies, the process is slow and on-going. As such, the County, Cities and Towns continue to request a GIS inventory be provided to the respective agencies. The County can receive all data and distribute on behalf of PG&E to support this effort. It is recommended that GIS inventory be provided by PG&E at least once every four (4) years beginning June 2023, to support inventory and billing reconciliations.  Details of the PG&E billing structure are described in the Electric Schedule, approved by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and provided by PG&E. The most recent version is effective March 2021. We have recently learned that the guiding language for determining the responsible party for lights meeting the LS1E criteria had been inconsistently applied by PG&E. Over the course of the past year, PG&E has confirmed that LS1E street lights are owned and maintained by PG&E. Staff will continue to monitor ownership and maintenance issues related to billing and inventory and report findings to the TWIC. The County has been in regular communication with Cities and Towns to collect their feedback and recommended to revisions to the LOU. Overall, they have been pleased with the responsiveness of PG&E. There has been some concern with staffing inconsistencies, however it seems that PG&E is resolving that matter.  The County, Cities, and Towns have continued to monitor overall service levels as detailed in the LOU as well as service needs that, at present, have not been included in the LOU. Cities and Towns have provided feedback based on their experiences.  They have requested: • More transparency from PG&E with their planned maintenance projects. This will allow Cities and Towns to coordinate  services and inform the local community to manage expectations. • A mechanism for public agencies to report imminent hazards directly to PG&E staff without using the standard reporting features, which can result in a delayed response. • GIS map of street lights. • Consistent response times to down and/or out street lights as described in the LOU. • Consistently updating the reporting system to reflect status of repairs and an indication of when the work is complete. • Providing Cities and Towns with an advisement of General Rate Case (GRC) changes that are planned to be submitted to the  PUC. This will allow public agencies to plan for changes in their respective financial and maintenance responsibilities. Contra Costa County Public Works recommends revising the LOU to support these service needs. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 9 of 394 Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE and COMMENT on the status report on the street light service coordination effort between PG&E and the County Public Works Department, Towns and Cities for street light maintenance. Fiscal Impact (if any): Fiscal Impact (if any) None. All costs for street lights are funded by County Service Area L-100 and Community Facility District 2010-1. Attachments PGE LOU 2021FINAL_signed 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 10 of 394 PGE LOU 2021 Revision FINAL.docx Street Light Service Level Commitment To Contra Costa County [2021] PG&E is committed to delivering a high level of service to street light customers and providing features which enhance community safety. To ensure a high level of responsiveness to street light maintenance issues in Contra Costa County and the 19 Cities, PG&E is committed to the following (for street light facilities maintained by PG&E): 1) Reporting Street Light Problems and Tracking Results PG&E will continue to utilize its web based system where street light service requests and problems can be reported via an on-line request form. PG&E is committed to improving communication during this resolution process. The link for reporting streetlight outages and checking the status of street light outages is: http://www.pge.com/en/myhome/servicerequests/streetlights/single/index.pag. This will be updated as needed to reflect the most up to date reporting method. In addition, street light service requests can be reported through PG&E’s email address: streetlighttrouble@pge.com. This email address is monitored Monday - Friday, 630am - 330pm. For escalated streetlight requests outside of those hours, please report to 800-743-5000. Outages reports are acknowledged via automated email response when received, when case numbers are assigned, and when the street light service request work is completed or resolved. PG&E is committed to improving this system, and developing more robust on-line reporting and tracking systems that will serve to improve communication with all customers. PG&E will provide a one (1) page process flow chart for the resolution process to county staff upon availability. Upon providing this process, PG&E will clarify if email or web based platforms are preferred. *Note that the customer will receive an automated reply and within a few days a tracking number will be received 2) Responding to Street Light Outages a. Response to Reported Street Light Outages PG&E will respond, assess and complete repair of reported street light outages (burnouts) within 14 days of being notified of the outage. b. Outages Resulting from Poles that are "Knocked Down" Where a PG&E owned or maintained street light pole is "knocked down", PG&E will provide an immediate response to the "knock-down", secure the site, and make the situation safe to the public prior to leaving the site. PG&E will complete any remaining required repairs within 90 days. If PG&E, for any reason, will not be able to complete repairs within 90 days PG&E will notify the customer and will provide an estimated date of completion for repairs. If PG&E should become aware of a knocked down pole by customer call or staff inspection, they will notify the County. This will allow for transparency in service provision and improved customer support. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 11 of 394 PGE LOU 2021 Revision FINAL.docx c. Monthly Report PG&E will provide a monthly report to Contra Costa County which details the status of outages and knocked down poles. This report shall detail the resolution if the matter has not been resolved at the time of the report, the report shall include a proposed timeline and resolution. d. Credit Adjustment In the event that a customer is without service as a result of an inoperable street light beyond fourteen (14) business days, the customer shall notify their PG&E Local Customer Relationship Manager (LCRM) for a service credit. 3) Requesting Street Lights and Shields Installation PG&E will continue to utilize the Customer Connection Online web based system where street lights and shields installation can be reported via the on-line request form. The link for requesting street lights and shields installation is Customer Connections https://www.pge.com/en_US/small-medium-business/building-and- property/building-and-maintenance/building-and-renovation/manage-your- services.page?WT.mc_id=Vanity_CustomerConnections. Shields may also be requested by calling our Customer Connections’ telephone number (1-877-743-7782). PG&E will acknowledge these requests via automated email response when received by the New Business Service Planning representative. PG&E will continue communication of the planning and installation process status via email, provide an estimated date of completion, and inform the customer of the next steps including approval, and installation. Upon receipt of new installation applications, PG&E will contact the applicant within 1-3 business days to advise them of the result and next steps. Any contract information will be submitted via email or regular mail and any costs associated with the planning and installation will be included in the contract. PG&E will give 10 days to sign and return contract to initiate the installation process. The cost of installing any shield (front, back or cul-de-sac) will be forwarded to the customer and included in the provisions of the associated contract. 4) Pole Maintenance, Replacement, Painting, and Cleaning For street light poles that need painting, cleaning due to graffiti, or have rust staining, PG&E will accommodate requests based on the demand of the community. All requests can be forwarded to the email: streetlighttrouble@pge.com or by calling 1(800)743-5000. These services may include time and materials costs at PG&Es expense. PG&E will respond to an initial assessment of the request for street light graffiti removal within 14 days of being notified. Upon notification of painting or rust abatement service need, PG&E will complete the service within 180 days. In the event that there is not an established maintenance schedule, PG&E will provide information to County staff pertaining to pole viability and associated replacement plans on a case by case basis. Any additional devices attached to agency LS2 street light poles must be processed through Customer Connections’ to execute an unmetered pole contract agreement. All lights must have a badge number and lamp sticker that corresponds to PG&E records. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 12 of 394 PGE LOU 2021 Revision FINAL.docx 5) Billing Improvements PG&E will work with Contra Costa County to explore methods to improve billing and inventory procedures in order to help resolve discrepancies, if any. It is incumbent upon the agency to respond timely to PG&E requests for information such as receiving account number or Service Agreement Identification (SAID), removal/start/ or stop dates etc. It is the agency’s responsibility to inform PG&E of ANY changes to LS2A lights as they are not PG&E owned or maintained. If LS2A  Agency needs to inform PG&E date of power loss and billing will stop.  Agency needs to inform PG&E of the date of restoration and billing will re-start. IF LS1  Agency should inform PG&E of the issue and PG&E can investigate internally for approximate date of removal and restoration and correct billing to field activity. PLEASE NOTE ELECTRIC RULE 17.1 allowing PG&E to back date & bill correct up to 3 years only. https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_RULES_17.1.pdf 6) Annual Inventory Update PG&E will make every effort to work with Contra Costa County and Cities to rectify billing conflicts on an on - going basis. This will include providing the agencies with streetlight individual billing data, on an as-needed basis, so that they can conduct their own internal reviews. PG&E will provide a report of what is actively billed. The agency can use the report to cross check against their own inventory and PG&E will make corrections based on their findings. For LS1, PG&E owned and maintained, PG&E will provide the spatial data annually. For LS2A, agency owned and maintained, the spatial data may be purchased through a 3rd party vendor or the agency can purchase through PG&E’s New Revenue Development (NRD) department. Please contact the Local Customer Relations Managers (LCRM) assigned to your agency. 7) On-going Communication and Reporting Quarterly Coordination Meetings As determined by the survey of participating Cities in 2015, PG&E will continue to participate in Quarterly Coordination Meetings in as long as the agenda includes maintenance and repairs of streetlights. On occasion, PG&E may be invited to present evolving and new technologies, features, and services. PG&E will maintain open communication and responsiveness in assisting the County to coordinate and plan for these meetings. TWIC Participation PG&Es Division Sr. Manager or representative of local leadership team or the subject matter expert, will attend the annual Transportation Water and Infrastructure (TWIC) meeting in October to join the County in providing an annual report on coordination efforts. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 13 of 394 PGE LOU 2021 Revision FINAL.docx 8) Staffing Updates To assist Contra Costa County staff in facilitating communication, PG&E will provide Contra Costa County with a list of key management representatives on an annual basis. Additionally, PG&E will provide an advisement of key staffing. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION LED and Photocell Group Maintenance and Replacement Program PG&E will establish and perform a group assessment program for the newly converted to LED street lights and photocells by the end of 2026. The life expectancy for LED street lights is approximately 20 years (with warranty of 10 years) and for photocells is 5 years. When the replacement of existing LED infrastructure occurs, PG&E will work closely with Contra Costa County to provide information related to new product choices selected for characteristics related to improved energy efficiency and as technology evolves, reduced glare and control of upward directed light as they become available and are approved for use . PG&E will replace LED street lights as they fail. When group lamp replacements are performed, PG&E will also perform other maintenance work, such as testing and replacement of photocells (as required) and cleaning of glassware, reflector, or refractor. Additionally, PG&E will provide to the County any cleaning schedule available for glassware. Invoice and Billing PG&E will work with Contra Costa County to identify how to simplify invoicing and keep track of inventory in order to resolve issues such as inaccurate inventories and multiple billing. PG&E will address changes to the inventory to not only clarify and reorganize the current information—but to insure that new additions or removals are reflected in the billing documentation. County agrees to adhere to the LS2A rate schedule. ##END## This LOU is a good faith understanding between Contra Costa County, representing the 19 included cities and PG&E. Victor Baker Date Senior Manager – Diablo l North Bay l Sonoma Divisions Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) 2/25/2021 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 14 of 394 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 5. Meeting Date:12/12/2022   Subject:RECEIVE yearly update on the County’s IPM Program from the IPM Coordinator & take ACTION as appropriate. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 9   Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the Integrated Pest Management Policy.  Presenter: Wade Finlinson, Health Services of Contra Costa County Contact: Wade Finlinson, (925) 655-3214 Referral History: The Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee (TWIC) annually reviews the County’s Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program and monitors the implementation of the IPM Policy. Referral Update: The IPM Coordinator will present program highlights from 2022 (see attached annual report, Decision Documentation for Vegetation Management at County Airports, and tracking table of recommendations from the IPM Advisory Committee). Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE the 2022 Integrated Pest Management Program update and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Attachments 2022 IPM Annual Report (PDF) 2022 0915 PWD Decision Documentation for County Airports (PDF) IPM Advisory Committee Recommendations Tracking Table (PDF) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 15 of 394 0  2022 IPM Annual Report              2022 Integrated Pest Management  Annual Report  IPM Advisory Committee Members  Jim Donnelly, Chair………………………………………………Public Member #3 Seat  Kimberly Hazard, Vice Chair…...Sustainability Commission Representative  Carlos Agurto, Secretary………..County Pest Management Contractor Seat  Susan Captain……………………………..……………………….Public Member #1 Seat  Stephen Prée……………………………………………………….Public Member #2 Seat  Amy Budahn……………………………………………..Public Member Alternate Seat  Andrew Sutherland………….….Environmental Organization Representative  Susan Heckly………………………...Fish & Wildlife Commission Representative  Michele Mancuso……………….County Stormwater Program Representative  Michael Kent…………………….….Health Services Department Representative  Dave Lavelle…………………………………………..Public Works Facilities Designee  Chris Lau……………………………………..Public Works Deputy Director Designee  Beth Slate…………………………………………Agriculture Commissioner Designee Hills above Marsh Creek Detention Facility  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 16 of 394 1  2022 IPM Annual Report  Executive Summary  Pesticide Usage  For the first time in the history of the IPM Program, the amount of pesticide applied to County property has increased for two consecutive years.  Usage numbers from 2018 to 2021 are misleading since the Public Works Department Maintenance Division (PWD‐Maintenance) suspended herbicide applications during that time.  Nevertheless, usage this year represents a nine‐year high and merits a closer examination of the program in 2023.  The following chart shows the total amount of pesticide used by County operations since 2000. IPM Program Highlights  •The IPM Advisory Committee developed a new IPM plan template to help County pest management operations comply with Administrative Bulletin 542.  The new, simplified format is nimbler than previous versions and highlights information relevant to public observation.  Each section within the template provides guidance for County staff while promoting a process that refines how the Committee monitors pest management activities in County operations. The Committee anticipates annually reviewing each completed departmental or divisional IPM plan during its meetings. •The Committee initiated the process to revise the County IPM Policy and Committee bylaws. Potential revisions were identified during Committee discussions about potentially adding seats to represent University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR) and the Public  Works Airports Division (PWD‐Airports).  Additional alterations being discussed include converting the Public Member‐Alternate seat to an at‐large public member seat and designating all seats as voting members. Committee membership has historically been listed in both the IPM Policy and the bylaws.  The Committee will likely propose removing the membership section from the Policy so future revisions to either document would not require an update to both. •The Committee completed Decision Documentation for Vegetation Management at County Airports.  The document transparently depicts how vegetation management decisions are made at both County airports and identifies areas for refinement.  An enhanced use of the Pesticide Risk Footprint Tool is incorporated in the chemical controls section. •The IPM Coordinator assisted the Board of Supervisors in preparing Resolution Number 2022/96 commemorating the 100th anniversary of the birth of IPM pioneer Dr. Robert van den Bosch in Martinez.  The resolution passed unanimously and is now on display in the Martinez Museum. Van, as he was primarily known, coauthored a seminal article that is largely credited with the introduction of several concepts now known as integrated pest management. FY 00‐ 01 FY 04‐ 05 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 FY 18‐ 19 FY 19‐ 20 FY 20‐ 21 FY 21‐ 22 Total Use 18,93914,396 8,925 7,397 6,646 7,495 5,685 5,287 5,146 4,709 3,914 2,319 924 3,687 6,578 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Lbs. of Active IngredientTotal Pesticide Use by County Operations Since 2000  (not including antimicrobial pesticides such as sanitizers and disinfectants)  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 17 of 394 2  2022 IPM Annual Report  2022 Integrated Pest Management Annual Report  Introduction  Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has never been—nor will it likely ever become—a tidy system of definitive  rules and rigid metrics.  IPM also has never been and probably won’t ever be the first topic of choice in most  conversations that occur amongst our species.  Even within peculiar circles of professionals and citizens who  share concerns about weeds, bugs, germs, rodents and other accoutrements of the natural world, the topic is  often queued below a list of more elegant subjects.    Nevertheless, the IPM Advisory Committee continues to simultaneously engage in the ongoing experiment of  democracy as well as this sordid, yet critical pursuit.  The difference between IPM victories and failures are  rarely clear.  2022 is no exception.  On one hand, pesticide usage in County departments reached a 9‐year‐ high.  On the other, the Committee developed an IPM plan template that should illuminate paths toward the  refinement of pest management programs in the County.    November 12, 2022 marked exactly twenty years since the Board of Supervisors (Board) adopted Contra Costa  County’s first IPM Policy.  Another local anniversary significant to the global practice of IPM was also observed  earlier in the year.  On March 31st, the Board  commemorated the centennial of the birth of IPM  pioneer Robert van den Bosch (Van) in Martinez.  Van was born and raised in Martinez; he and his  wife Peggy were residents of Kensington.  Along  with contemporaries he initiated concepts of pest  containment in agricultural systems that have  since been incorporated into urban integrated  pest management programs.    As we reflect on the legacy of Professor Van den  Bosch and two decades of IPM in the County, the  quest to pursue a more perfect program endures.  Pesticide use reporting will continue to be a key  component of the IPM Program, but it does not  fully convey contextual complexities.  Climate  impacts, staff shortages, and other considerations  will continue to complicate an already dynamic  overlap between natural systems and the built  environment. The new IPM plan format for  operations within the County is intended to move  towards an elevated level of stewardship.    Perhaps the next 20 years of the IPM program will feature enhanced mechanisms for measuring holistic  management outcomes. Most land and structural properties operated by the County and similar institutions  are typically managed with a focus on a single function.  An expanded view of many of these parcels reveal  latent beneficial resources that extend beyond useful square footage or road miles.  Co‐benefits of an  ecosystem‐based strategy could include drought resilience, carbon sequestration, habitat improvements and  many others.    A copy of the journal Hilgardia and the Robert  van den Bosch Medal in Biological Control & IPM  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 18 of 394 3  2022 IPM Annual Report  Pesticide Usage  Between 2000 and 2020, the County reduced pesticide use by 95%.  In the two years since that point, usage is  now trending upwards.  This year, the amount of herbicide applied on County properties reached the highest  point it has been since fiscal year (FY) 2012‐13.  The increase is attributed to PWD‐Maintenance who manage  vegetation on roadsides, rights‐of way, and Flood Control properties.  The Decision‐Making Subcommittee and  PWD‐Maintenance intend to review herbicide use as part of the process of revising pertinent decision  documents in 2023.   PWD‐Maintenance has four Vegetation Management Technician positions and FY 2021‐22 was the first time in  several years that all four positions were filled.  Since then, three of the four have either retired or resigned.   The combination of being fully staffed during the reporting period and the need to catch up on deferred  maintenance in untreated areas during the 26‐month suspension of herbicide applications, contributed to the  drastic increase.  This was also the first full year of herbicide applications in the Maintenance Division since FY  2017‐18.  It’s important to note that a single year’s data does not represent a trend, and the planned  engagement with PWD‐Maintenance in 2023 will further clarify details of this critical program.  A guiding  principal will be to appropriately juxtapose chemical controls with mandated fire prevention, traffic safety,  and flood prevention expectations.  The chart below shows the last 12 years of pesticide usage broken down by department or division.    Note  that these totals with limited exceptions do not include sanitizers and disinfectants which are classified as  pesticides by the Environmental Protection Agency. The full Pesticide Use Summary Comparison details  Countywide pesticide usage in FY 2021‐22.  FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 FY 15-16 FY 16-17 FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22 PWD-Airports 000000004513452588740 PWD-Facilities 5 9 16 6 1630171016193232 PWD-Special Dist.457720.0030.0010.00100000 PWD-Grounds 113 378 377 492 338 433 303 337 647 400 304 259 Agriculture 795 539 529 498 153 76 68 94 26 160 350 196 PWD-Maintenance 6,439 5,713 6,565 4,688 4,780 4,607 4,321 3,473 1,179 0 414 5,351 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 Lbs. of Active IngredientPesticide Use by Division/Department Since 2010 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 19 of 394 4  2022 IPM Annual Report  Development of the Departmental/Divisional IPM Plan Template  The most notable achievement of the Committee in 2022 was the creation of a departmental/divisional IPM  plan template.  The Committee reviewed existing departmental IPM plans in 2021 and advised the IPM  Coordinator to draft an updated template.  The first draft was introduced in January. The Committee worked  from January through July to refine the format to be more user‐friendly for County staff while promoting a  process that improves how the Committee—and the public, by extension—monitors pest management  activities in County operations.  With the exception of the PWD‐Facilities IPM plan developed by Pestec, the other departmental IPM plans had  not been revised since 2013 (PWD‐Facilities require selected structural pest management contractors to  submit an IPM plan as specified in the competitive bidding process).  The 2013 versions were thorough and  included an admirable level of detail.  However, the Committee found that a simpler format would better  support the goals of the IPM Policy.   Administrative Bulletin 542 requires the Agriculture and Public Works Departments to "develop and maintain  a written IPM Plan, or its equivalent, specific to the operational needs of the department and consistent with  the (University of California Statewide IPM Program) IPM definition." The policy also requires each  department to designate a departmental IPM Coordinator and provide an annual report of pest management  activities to the County IPM Coordinator by September 30th of each year.  One key role of the IPM Advisory Committee as stated in the IPM Policy is to "serve as a resource to help both  department heads and the Board of Supervisors review and improve existing programs and the processes used  for making pest management decisions."  The Committee will be better situated to fulfil that role if the new  template is adopted by each applicable department or division.  The IPM Advisory Committee anticipates annually reviewing each completed divisional IPM plan during regular  meetings.  This is in addition to the requirement that each departmental IPM Coordinator provide an annual  report to be included with the Committee report as referenced above.  Presumably, the discussion that occurs  during the annual IPM plan review will clarify expectations for the divisional IPM annual reports to be  submitted later in the year.  The proposed template including written guidance for every section is featured in Appendix A.  Previous  versions of departmental IPM plans can be found at the following links:  2013 IPM Plan for the Agriculture Department 2013 IPM Plan for PWD‐Maintenance 2021 IPM Plan for PWD‐Facilities (Pestec) 2013 IPM Plan for PWD‐Grounds Initiated Revisions to Committee Bylaws and the County IPM Policy During the July meeting, the Committee reviewed their bylaws which were last updated in 2017.  That discussion led to the creation of an ad hoc subcommittee to examine potential changes.  Since many elements of the bylaws are replicated in the County IPM Policy, the subcommittee simultaneously reviewed both documents.  They met four times between September and November.  The full Committee discussed the recommended revisions in their November meeting and will continue to deliberate on the topic in 2023. The most substantial bylaws change being considered includes amending Committee membership to add a representative from University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (UCANR) as well as a staff seat representing PWD‐Airports.  The Committee is also considering the designation of all seats as voting members. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 20 of 394 2022 IPM Annual Report  Pending changes to the IPM Policy involve the removal of duplicate items also found in the bylaws as well as  minor editorial modifications.  There is precedent for inclusion of UCANR in the County IPM Program.  The previous iteration of the  Committee (prior to 2009) had a designated UC seat.  The current Environmental Organization Seat is filled by  Dr. Andrew Sutherland, an IPM Advisor with the Cooperative Extension (a program of UCANR).  Dr. Sutherland  also served in the Public Member #2 At‐Large Seat from 2016 through 2019. There are several UCANR‐ affiliated professionals in the region whose areas of expertise would benefit the work of the Committee on a  wide range of IPM‐related topics.  Those include human‐wildlife interactions, urban forestry, specialty crops,  rangeland management, urban agriculture, and other relevant disciplines.  The rationale for adding a representative from PWD‐Airports is that they now manage all components of their  sizable vegetation management program. Prior to 2018, airport herbicide applications were performed by  PWD‐Maintenance staff.  Airport Safety Officers now use chemical controls to supplement their vegetation  management efforts that consist of mechanical, cultural, and biological tactics.  Other changes to staff seats  on the Committee were explored.  The executive management teams of the Agriculture and Public Works  Departments were consulted during this process and are supportive of the modifications under consideration.  Additional Accomplishments of the Committee  Other notable activities of the Committee in 2022 included the development of Decision Documentation for  Vegetation Management at County Airports and the facilitation of discussions on the following topics:  1.IPM specifications on leased property. 2.Per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in artificial turf. 3.Review of previous Committee recommendations. 1.Decision‐Making Subcommittee members raised concerns about potential liabilities associated with pest management activities conducted by private lessees on County property near the Buchanan Field Airport.  Representatives from the Public Works Real Property Division (PWD‐Real Property) and PWD‐ Airports attended the March meeting of the full Committee to discuss the concerns.  The presenters noted that current lease agreements—both for when the County acts as lessee and lessor—do not specifically include language that requires or encourages IPM practices.  The IPM Policy applies only to County‐maintained properties, but Administrative Bulletin 542 requires “reasonable efforts to negotiate the use of IPM practices as a part of” leases with terms of more than three months.  5 Habitat Management Lands at Byron Airport  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 21 of 394 6  2022 IPM Annual Report  2.During the May meeting, Dr. Salar Parvini from the National PFAS Workgroup Council presented information regarding PFAS in artificial turf.  The item was of interest to the Committee since it included the installation of artificial turf as a type of cultural control in Decision Documentation for Vegetation Management at Juvenile Hall.  The Committee referred additional consideration of the issue to the Decision‐Making Subcommittee who discussed it in August.  Subcommittee members expressed the importance of being aware of these hazards, but cited the lack of regulatory guidance and general information about exposure risks to formally make recommendations pertaining to the topic.  In September, this was reported back to the full Committee who declined to take action. 3.Supervisor Candace Andersen attended the March meeting to discuss previous recommendations from the Committee.  The discussion highlighted progress on some recommendations and identified implementation barriers on others.  It was noted that even though many recommendations may not be feasible within current operations, they embody IPM values that County departments should aspire to. A tracking table of all recommendations made since 2018 is updated annually and provided to TWIC. In 2022, PWD‐Maintenance and PWD‐Grounds made progress on recommendations from previous years as pictured below. Carlos Agurto from Pestec  operates a CO‐Jack machine to  control ground squirrels along a  Rheem Creek levee in Richmond.   PWD‐Maintenance initiated the  pilot in response to excessive  burrowing at this location.  In  2019, the Committee  recommended using this tactic as  part of a year‐round effort to  protect critical infrastructure.   Pest populations were reduced as  a result of this effort.  Ongoing  trials and analysis are needed to  fully evaluate potential expansion.  In 2020, the Committee made a  recommendation to explore partnerships  with organizations like Save Mount Diablo  (SMD) who own property adjacent to the  154‐acre parcel that contains Marsh Creek  Detention Facility.  County staff met with  members of SMD’s Land Stewardship  Team to assess plant communities and  other ecological assets. Pictured left to  right is Sean Burke‐SMD Land Programs  Director, Debbie King‐ Grounds Supervisor  from PWD‐Grounds, and Roxana Lucero‐ SMD Land Stewardship Manager.  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 22 of 394 7  2022 IPM Annual Report  Attendance, Training, and Member Engagement  IPM Advisory Committee Attendance 2022 1/20 3/17 5/19 7/21 9/15 11/17 Total Absences Public Member #1 P P P P 2 Public Member #2 P P P P P 1 Public Member #3 P P P P P 1 Public Member Alternate P P P 3 Environmental Org. Representative P P P 3 Sustainability Comm. Representative P P P P P 1 Fish & Wildlife Comm. Representative P P P P P P 0 Stormwater Program Representative P P P P P 1 Health Services Representative P P P P P 1 Ag Commissioner Designee P P P P 2 PWD-Facilities Designee P P P P P 1 PWD Deputy Director Designee P P P P P 1 County Pest Mgmt. Contractor P P P P 2 Total Present 9 12 10 8 10 10 Voting Members Present 6 8 6 8 6 6 P=Present All public members of the Committee are current on Brown Act and Better Government Ordinance Training. There have been no unexpected vacancies occur within the reporting period. In addition to the six meetings of the full Committee, many members also attended subcommittee meetings throughout the year.  The Decision‐Making Subcommittee met four times and the Ad Hoc Bylaws Subcommittee also had four meetings. No Committee meetings were canceled this year due to lack of quorum. A quorum of voting members was present for all meetings with the exception of half of the November meeting. Regarding current public members, two reside in Board District 1, three in District 2, one in District 4, and one in District 5. No public member currently lives in Districts 3 or the eastern portion of District 5. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 23 of 394 1.Minimize risks to the general public, staff and the environment as a result of pest control activities conducted by County staff and contractors. a.Implement an IPM training program that complies with County policy and other relevant mandates. b.Identify IPM-related impacts of climate change and assist County operations create a better built environment. 2.Create, implement and periodically review written IPM plans in the Agriculture, Health, and Public Works Departments specific to their operational needs and consistent with the UC definition and this policy. a.Review revised IPM plans for County departments and divisions during the year and advise departmental/divisional IPM coordinators on what elements to highlight in their annual report. 3.Promote availability, public awareness and public input into written county pest management plans and records. a.Investigate the feasibility of standardizing pest management recordkeeping across County Departments and centralizing reporting protocols. 4.Create public awareness of IPM through education. a.Coordinate meeting agendas around specific themes that promote engagement on IPM topics of mutual interest to residents and adjacent public agencies. 2023 Work Plan of the IPM Advisory Committee 8  2022 IPM Annual Report  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 24 of 394 Appendix A: Revised Departmental/Divisional IPM Plan Template 9  2022 IPM Annual Report  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 25 of 394 Revised: On November 12, 2002, the County Board of Supervisors adopted the Integrated Pest Management definition provided by the University of California Statewide IPM Project, which states: "Integrated Pest Management is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates that they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organisms. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, to beneficial and non-target organisms, and to the environment." The Agriculture and Public Works Departments will use the IPM principles set forth in this Administrative Bulletin whenever providing pest management services. Each department will establish an IPM program. As a part of the respective IPM programs, each department will develop and maintain a written IPM Plan, or its equivalent, specific to the operational needs of the department and consistent with the IPM definition above. Each Department will designate a Departmental IPM Coordinator responsible for implementation. (excerpt from Administrative Bulletin 542) Section 1: Overview of the pest management function in the department/division Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Program Departmental/Divisional IPM Plan for Guidance: Include a general description of the department or division and the role of pest management in the context of its broader delivery of services. Characterize and quantify site types and list pests typical to each property. Where applicable, highlight regulatory mandates, customer service expectations, or industry standards that impact how pest management decisions are made. This section may also include organizational values that support the implementation of integrated pest management. IPM Advisory Committee members recommend the inclusion of quantifiable data (miles of roadside, acres, square feet, etc.) to describe sites and also include the budgeted amount used on pest management-related efforts. (Name of department or division) (Date of Revision) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 26 of 394 Section 2: Description of available staff and contractor resources Name and title of departmental/divisional IPM Coordinator: Classification titles of staff who perform pest management tasks and number of positions allocated: Description of IPM training currently available to staff: Names of private companies contracted to perform pest management tasks and scope of service rendered: (not to be confused with the Countywide IPM Coordinator) Guidance: This should include titles of all positions making pest management decisions and those performing field tasks. Guidance: Detail which IPM-focused training is currently provided to staff and how it complies with the IPM Policy and provisions in the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). The Countywide IPM Policy states “Training programs will be developed under the direction of the County IPM Coordinator with the concurrence of the IPM Advisory Committee to ensure that County employees understand IPM techniques and County Policy.” The MRP requires “that all municipal employees who, within the scope of their duties, apply or use pesticides are trained in IPM practices and the Permittee’s IPM policy and/or ordinance and standard operating procedures.” (The current version of the MRP is available at this link: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2022/R2- 2022-0018.pdf Guidance: List current service providers under contract that have any pest control component. This includes services such as landscape maintenance, grazing, trapping, disking, etc. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 27 of 394 Section 3: Operational considerations Description of how sites are monitored for pests and the process for selecting pest management tactics: Description of non-chemical pest management tactics most commonly used: Pesticide selection process: Guidance: Indicate who generally monitors each property for pests and the frequency of these visits. What methods are used? Also include the process for responding to service requests from citizens, customers, or regulatory bodies. Articulate what pest tolerance levels are in place and describe how they differ from one property type to another. If pest tolerance levels are not uniform throughout the property portfolio, describe how certain sites or segments of sites are prioritized. Guidance: List all non-chemical methods currently in use and include operational advantages and limitations of the different techniques. Project the long-term viability of each practice and indicate what barriers currently prevent broader application of each method. Guidance: Detail how pesticides are selected to minimize risks to human health, to beneficial and non-target organisms, and to the environment. List all pesticides currently being used as well as alternative products being considered. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 28 of 394 Section 4: Long-Term Planning Environmental Stewardship: Innovation: Annual Goals: Guidance: Provide a statement that addresses the department/division’s ability to incorporate other potential co-benefits of ecosystem-based pest prevention activities. These may include elements such as wildlife habitat preservation, carbon sequestration, wildfire resilience, and others. Guidance: Record priorities for potential pest management pilot projects and research endeavors. List upcoming capital projects or other initiatives that may be able to incorporate proactive principles of integrated pest management. Guidance: List measurable pest management goals that the department or division is pursuing this year. Progress on these goals should be included in departmental submissions that are included in the Annual IPM report. Where applicable, tie goals to those listed in the IPM Policy, any relevant decision documentation, or previous recommendations from the IPM Advisory Committee. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 29 of 394 Section 5: Transparency Guidance: Describe how the department/division will fulfil the IPM policy goal to promote availability, public awareness and public input into written county pest management plans and records. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 30 of 394 Contra Costa County DECISION DOCUMENTATION for VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AT COUNTY AIRPORTS Date: 9/15/2022 Department: Public Works Airports Division (PWD-Airports) Introduction: This document is intended to transparently depict current vegetation management considerations & practices and to identify areas for refinement. In 2019, the Countywide IPM Coordinator conducted an assessment of glyphosate use by County departments. That review revealed the airports as two of the most glyphosate-dependent properties in the County. In fiscal year 2020-21, herbicide applications by PWD-Airports accounted for two-thirds of the total pesticide used in County operations. This revision has been made for those reasons and in response to substantive organizational changes since the 2014 version of the document. This version is divided as follows: Section 1: Byron Airport Overview Section 2: Buchanan Field Airport Overview Section 3: Management Considerations Section 4: Tactics Considered Section 5: Recommendations 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 31 of 394 Section 1: Byron Airport, 550 Eagle Court, Byron Property overview: This airport sits on 1,427 acres of County-owned property. Approximately 65% of the property, or 934 acres, is under a conservation easement. That segment of land is known as the Byron Airport Habitat Management Lands (HML). This property is primarily surrounded by agricultural lands, rangelands, and residential development. Legend Armstrong Rd Armstrong RdByron Hot Springs Rd.By r o n Hwy .Falcon WayEagle Ct.Runways Taxiways Fire Breaks Property Line Mowed Areas Habitat Mgmt. Lands 0 1200 ft.600 ft. Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 32 of 394 Byron Airport Site Sensitivity Considerations Is the property considered highly sensitive site? The Public Works Routine Maintenance Agreement with the California Fish and Wildlife Department deems Brushy Creek and its tributaries near the Byron property as a highly sensitive site.i Yes Are any sites under management part of any of the court-ordered injunctions? Interim use limitations remain in effect for listed pesticides subject to protective measures for the San Juaquin Kit Fox and California Tiger Salamander. Yes Are any of the sites known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species? Federally Endangered: San Joaquin Kit Fox Federally Threatened: California Red-Legged Frog, California Tiger Salamander, Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp, Steelhead ii Yes Are any of the sites on or near an area where people walk or children play? No Are any of the sites near a drinking water reservoir? The southeast property line abuts a 1,200 foot section of the California Aqueduct. That easternmost property line is approximately 3,500 feet from the nearest edge of Clifton Court Forebay. Yes Are any of the sites near a creek or flood control channel? A seasonal waterway known as Brushy Creek flows through a portion of the property. Yes Are any of the sites near crops? A variety of crops are grown on properties immediately adjacent to the property. Yes Are any of the sites near desirable trees or landscaping? No Are any of the sites on soil that is highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly? No At any of the sites, is the ground water near the surface? No Is there a well head near the site? It is outside the immediate fence line of the airport, about ¼ mile away. Restrictions are 100 ft around well heads. Yes Section 1: Byron Airport Overview (cont.) Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 33 of 394 Section 2: Buchanan Field Airport, 550 Sally Ride Drive, Concord Property overview: This airport sits on 519 acres of County-owned property. Private tenants lease over 80 acres of the property and an additional 50 acres is targeted for future aviation and non-aviation development. The site is adjacent to Walnut Creek and the Clayton Valley Drain and is primarily surrounded by suburban residential and commercial uses. Legend CA HWY 4 I- 6 8 0 Runways Taxiways Area maintained by Airport staff Areas leased to private tenants 0 1200 ft.600 ft. Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 34 of 394 Buchanan Field Airport Site Sensitivity Considerations Is the property considered a highly sensitive site? No Are any sites under management part of any of the court-ordered injunctions? However, the northernmost property line is just over two miles away from an area that is included in protection for the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. No Are any of the sites known or potential habitat for any endangered or threatened species? Federally Threatened: Steelhead iii Yes Are any of the sites on or near an area where people walk or children play? There is a small airplane viewing area/playground at the north end of John Glenn Drive. Yes Are any of the sites near a drinking water reservoir? The nearest drinking water reservoir is over 5 miles away. No Are any of the sites near a creek or flood control channel? The entire east property line abuts 1.3 miles of Walnut Creek. Yes Are any of the sites near crops? CoCo San Sustainable Farm is less than 1/4 mile north of the property Yes Are any of the sites near desirable trees or landscaping? There is a golf course on the property in addition to hundreds of residential ornamental gardens surrounding the site. Yes Are any of the sites on soil that is highly permeable, sandy, or gravelly? No At any of the sites, is the ground water near the surface? No Is there a well head near the site? It is approximately ½ mile from the property. Yes Section 3: Management Considerations What vegetation management mandates or standards apply to the sites? Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) FAA Engineering Brief #91iv “details how airport owners and operators collect, submit, and manage the data describing vegetation, on or near the airport, that affects or has the potential to affect the safe and efficient use of the airport.” Section 9.2.b of FAA's Wildlife Hazardous Management at Airports v describes habitat modification and exclusion practices Fire Protection Ordinance: Both airport sites are subject to the regulations of the Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ConFire). Minimum weed abatement standards can be found at: http://www.cccfpd.org/pdfs/WA-2-minimum-standards-17.pdf Excerpts from 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 Section 2: Buchanan Field (cont.)/Section 3: Mgmt. Considerations Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 35 of 394 (mandates/standards continued) 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.” Contra Costa County Administrative Bulletin #542 “The County will provide pest management in and on County maintained properties and facilities using integrated pest management (IPM). The purpose of this policy is to promote the combined use of physical, cultural, biological, and chemical control methods to effectively manage pests with minimal risk to humans and the environment.” “When executing a lease for real property with a term of more than three months, the County shall use reasonable efforts to negotiate the use of IPM practices as a part of that lease. The County shall encourage the use of IPM practices by lessors whenever practical.” What are the management goals for the sites? The management goals are to maintain the definition of the runways and to maintain security, safety and visibility at the airports thought the following objectives: 1. Keep weeds out of pavement cracks and seams on runways (where planes land and take off) and taxiways (other pavement that planes use to move around the airport) 2. Maintain bare ground 15 to 25 ft on either side of runways (if a plane needs to leave the runway, it must be able to do so unimpeded) 3. Maintain bare ground approximately 15 ft on either side of taxiways (if a plane needs to leave the taxiway, it must be able to do so unimpeded) 4. Keep weeds out of parking areas for planes 5. Maintain bare ground around signs, runway lights, windsocks, and instrumentation for safety and guidance. 6. Treat infields (non-paved areas between pavement) for broadleaf weeds to prevent any tall plants from growing above 2 to 3 ft; the airports regularly mow the infields to reduce wildlife habitat (wildlife can be a hazard to planes landing and taking off) 7. Maintain bare ground around perimeter fence lines for security (in order to be able to easily see the fence) 8. Leave grass in the infields tall enough to impede the germination and growth of broadleaf weeds and decrease the attractiveness to wildlife 9. Preserve the Byron Airport Habitat Management Lands (HML) in a manner consistent with the Habitat Management Plan. With these management goals in mind, the most appropriate management tactics are chosen based on cost, efficacy, impacts to the environment, public health, employee safety, and other impacts to the public. How often is the site monitored? Airport Safety Officers monitor weed conditions daily. They conduct all vegetation management functions along with other duties that include security, fire suppression, equipment maintenance, and regulatory compliance. Weeds have been identified as the following: All forbs and grasses that surpass certain heights or become established within designated bare- earth areas. Are populations high enough to require control? Explain Any vegetation in areas where safety is concerned must be eliminated. Vegetation can reach 2 to 3 feet in the infields as long as it is of uniform height. Section 3: Mgmt. Considerations (cont.) Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 36 of 394 Which cultural controls were considered? Mulching: The application of chipped wood, crushed rock, or similar material at certain thicknesses to prevent or slow the growth of unwanted vegetation. Paving: The installation of concrete or asphalt to create a physical barrier that limits sufficient soil for vegetation to become established. Crack Sealing: This is done to maintain the structure of the pavement, but budget and the issue of having to close runways prohibits doing this for weed abatement. Completive Planting: The deliberate selection of plant species whose properties are likely to promote a higher rate of establishment than vegetal pests. Prescribed Burning: The use of controlled fire in designated areas to reduce fuel loading and control undesirable plant communities. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale mulching is not practical at the airports because weeds would still grow in the soil that will inevitably collect on top of the material, and the mulch particles could compromise safety by migrating onto pavement. Considerable portions of the properties are paved, but it is not cost effective to pave additional areas for the sole purpose of weed prevention. Crack sealing is often practiced to preserve the structure of the pavement. Airport staff are interested in reviewing possible seed blends that may help out-compete problematic vegetation in certain areas. Prescribed burning is not currently done at either property, but should be considered on portions of the Byron HML’s. Which mechanical controls were considered? Mowing: Cutting vegetation at predesignated heights with various machinery and attachments. The residual live vegetation and thatch can slow or impede excessive growth. Cultivation: The use of tractor-mounted implements that harrow the soil through discing, plowing, or tillage. The practice interrupts the growth cycle of dominant vegetation by turning vegetation at or below the soil surface. String Trimming: The use of hand-held equipment for cutting vegetation in areas not accessible to larger mowing equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Mowing is used extensively. Various tractor-mounted flail and rotary mowing implements are available to airport personnel. Disking is used to maintain firebreaks. String trimmers are also utilized particularly along fence lines and similar locations. Which biological controls were considered? Managed Livestock Grazing: The use of herbivores such as cattle, sheep and goats to consume or trample vegetation to accomplish specified objectives of the property and herds. Classical Biological Control: This refers to the use of host-specific insects, mites or pathogens vi to decrease numbers of certain weed species. CONCLUSIONS: Large portions of the Byron HML property are leased to cattle ranchers. Targeted grazing using sheep and goats may not be appropriate at either location since most problematic vegetation occurs near runways and taxiways. Additional analysis is needed to determine whether site vegetation includes plant species that have suitable control agents available. (Adjacent properties owned by other public agencies should be surveyed to determine if these practices are being used in their respective vegetation management programs). Section 4: Tactics Considered Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 37 of 394 Which chemical controls were considered? For additional information about the graphics used to illustrate risks associated with each product, see the Pesticide Risk Footprint Tool. The following diagrams and corresponding tables represent herbicides currently being used at airport properties as interpreted by the Pesticide Risk Footprint Tool developed by the IPM Advisory Committee. This tool is intended to assist in the evaluation of risks associated with pesticide products. It is not a comprehensive analysis of all risks. Each of the twelve triangular panels forming a dodecagon represent a certain type of risk. The placement of a star on the inner portion of the panel indicates that the product being reviewed does not meet criteria to be considered high risk as specified on the following page. Star placement on the outside edge constitutes elevated risk as determined by the proposed standards. The stars are then connected to form a footprint. The increased area of the footprint’s spiked portions visually depicts heightened risk and helps to prioritize mitigation measures. The use of dashed lines in some footprint spikes represent a risk that can be mitigated. If mitigation measures are not possible or are otherwise unavailable, the associated spike will utilize solid lines. It is important to consider that in many cases, when a pesticide product does not meet the established criteria to be marked as an elevated risk on panels within this tool, there are likely still hazards present associated with potential pesticide exposures. Source justification an rational for designation is available on page two of the Pesticide Risk Footprint Tool. RoundUp Pro Concentrate (glyphosate) Signal Word:Caution Product Label / SDS Risk Factors Mitigation Measures (if available) 2. Listed as causing cancer on 7/7/2017 7.Toxic to honey bee brood Do not apply or allow to drift to flowering plants including weeds. Do not apply to water 10. Multiple cases involving litigation Section 4: Tactics Considered (cont.) Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 38 of 394 (Chemical controls continued) Capstone (aminopyralid & triclopyr) Signal Word:Caution (label) / Warning (SDS) Product Label / SDS Risk Factors Mitigation Measures (if available) 3. Listed as moderately hazardous by the World Health Organization 5.Moderately toxic to aquatic organisms according to SDS Do not apply directly to water. Minimize overspray when applying to terrestrial plants where surface water is present. Other risk factors not captured on above tool: Possible groundwater contaminant “This chemical has properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in groundwater. The use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in groundwater contamination” -Product Section 4: Tactics Considered (cont.) Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 39 of 394 (Chemical controls continued) Milestone (aminopyralid) Signal Word:Caution Product Label / SDS Risk Factors Mitigation Measures (if available) 5.Highly toxic to aquatic organisms according to SDS Do not apply directly to water. Minimize overspray when applying to terrestrial plants where surface water is present. 9.Cost of is approximately six times higher than the same concentrated quantity of the Roundup and Capstone products used Make adequate funding available if alternatives insufficiently achieve organizational values and control targets. Other risk factors not captured on above tool: Possible groundwater contaminant “This chemical has properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in groundwater. The use of this chemical in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow, may result in groundwater contamination. Application around a cistern or well may result in contamination of drinking water or groundwater” -Product label Section 4: Tactics Considered (cont.) Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 40 of 394 (Chemical controls continued) Esplanade 200 SC (indaziflam) Signal Word: Caution (label) / Warning (SDS) Product Label / SDS Risk Factors Mitigation Measures (if available) 3.SDS has signal word of Warning. 5.Toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plants. Do not apply directly to water. Maintain vegetated buffer strip between areas treated and surface waters. 9. Cost of is approximately 24 times higher than the same concentrated quantity of the Roundup and Capstone products used. Make adequate funding available if alternatives insufficiently achieve organizational values and control targets. Other risk factors not captured on above tool: Possible groundwater and surface water contaminant. “This chemical has properties and characteristics associated with chemicals detected in groundwater. This chemical may leach into ground water if used in areas where soils are permeable, particularly where the water table is shallow. This pesticide may impact water quality due to runoff of rainwater. This is especially true for poorly draining soils and soils with shallow ground water. This product is classified as having a high potential for reaching surface water via runoff for several months or more after application” -Product label Other herbicides currently used by other publicly-managed airports in the region include: •Promenade SC (Flumioxazin)—Used at Reid-Hillview County Airport in San Jose •Oust XP (Sulfometuron methyl)—Used at SFO •Habitat (isopropylamine salt of imazapyr)—Used on SFO’s West-of-Bayshore wetlands. Section 4: Tactics Considered (cont.) Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 41 of 394 (Chemical controls continued) CONCLUSIONS: The application of herbicides are a critical part of airport operations. Safety, cost, and effectiveness are the main considerations for work at these properties. Operations staff currently do not report monthly pesticide use reports to the state through the Agriculture Department based on the rationale that pesticide use at airports is considered “non-agricultural” which would make it exempt from many reporting regulations. However, it has been standard practice for all County departments who use pesticides (not including sanitizers and disinfectants) to report usage to the public through the IPM Coordinator. Mandatory annual training consistent with state regulationsvii and County policy viii is still required. Any pesticide applications made in portions of the properties that include roadsides, waterways, wetlands, and rangelands/pasture would be considered “non-production agricultural” or “production agricultural.” Those designations have increased licensing and reporting implications. Section 5: Recommendations Recommendations from the IPM Advisory Committee 1)The PWD Airports Division is encouraged to build a stronger relationship with the IPM Program if they intend to continue managing vegetation internally. Recommended initiatives may include: a.Coordination with the PWD-Grounds Division to utilize the position of Grounds Maintenance Specialist-Pest Control and adjust vegetation management practices to designate that position as the only staff member authorized to perform herbicide applications at both sites, or; b.Consider having a staff member regularly participate in meetings of the IPM Advisory Committee, and; c.Complete the Departmental/Divisional IPM Plan template and provide regular reports of pesticide usage, staff training, and other vegetation management activities to the Committee through the IPM Coordinator. 2)During the development of this document, the Decision-Making Subcommittee learned about large commercial lessees operating on Airport property. The IPM Advisory Committee is concerned that the unknown nature of pesticide applications on County-owned properties leased to private entities defies the spirit of the County’s IPM Policy. The Committee recommends: a.Including language in new lease agreements that require the adoption of integrated pest management principles consistent with the County IPM Policy, and; b.Consulting with Risk Management and County Counsel to limit liabilities of potential pesticide exposures on County-owned properties leased to private entities. Section 4: Tactics Considered (cont.)/Section 5: Recommendations 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 42 of 394 i Retrieved from EPA's Map Tool to Identify Interim Pesticide Use Limitations ii From database inquiry on the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Regulation's Endangered Species Custom Realtime Internet Bulletin Engine (PRESCRIBE) Data Source iii From database inquiry on the Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Regulation's Endangered Species Custom Realtime Internet Bulletin Engine (PRESCRIBE) Data Source iv https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/engineering_briefs/media/eb-91.pdf v https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/resources/media/2005_FAA_Manual_complete.pdf vi As cited on page 183 in the California Invasive Plant Council’s Best Management Practices for Non-chemical Weed Control , available for free download at https://www.cal-ipc.org/resources/library/publications/non-chem/. vii The Department of Pesticide Regulation has a hazard communication leaflet that details training requirements for pesticide handlers in non-agricultural settings available at https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/pdf/hs1749.pdf. viii County IPM Policy located at https://cchealth.org/ipm/committee/pdf/ipm_policy.pdf. The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) mandates that “all municipal employees who, within the scope of their duties, apply or use pesticides are trained in IPM practices and the Permittee’s IPM policy.” Even though the airports are subject to an industrial stormwater permit, Airport personnel are still considered municipal staff and must receive the specified training. Citations Vegetation Management at County Airports Decision Document, revised 9/15/2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 43 of 394 Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee 2018-2021 Recommendations Tracking Table Date of IPM Advisory Committee Approval/Rec. #Recommendation Responsible Department or Staff Property or Program Specific?Status Additional Information 2021.11.18a The Probation Department is encouraged to have a dialog with the IPM Coordinator and representatives from Public Works Facilities Services to identify possible areas for refinement as it pertains to vegetation management at Juvenile Hall. That dialog should prioritize how to utilize the land to promote enhanced landscape stewardship as described in Decision Documentation for Vegetation Management at Juvenile Hall . Discussions should identify and include collaboration with mission-aligned partners. PWD, Probation, IPM Coordinator This pertains to the Juvenile Hall property in Martinez. Not Started Public Works Facilities Services and Probation staff indicated an interest in this conversation during the proceedings of the IPM Decision Making Subcommittee. 2021.11.18b The Public Works Grounds Division is encouraged to initiate a year-long pilot at Juvenile Hall that suspends the use of products containing glyphosate and alternatively incorporates a trial use of other formulations being used by other public agencies in the region. PWD Juvenile Hall Not Started The PWD Facilites Services team is interested in moving forward with the pilot trial. Since the most effective glyphosate alternatives have a signal word of "Warning", the Division would like wait to commence the pilot until their vacant Grounds Maintenance Specialist-Pest Control position is filled. Currently, applicators are training on "Caution" labeled products only. 2021.11.18c Public Works Facilities Services is encouraged to assess pavement conditions throughout the Juvenile Hall property and initiate repairs to cracks where nuisance vegetation is currently growing or is likely to grow. PWD Juvenile Hall In progress The PWD Facilites Services team is currently evaluating pavement conditions and has committed to coordinate repairs in the near future. 1 Revised 3/17/202212-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 44 of 394 Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee 2018-2021 Recommendations Tracking Table Date of IPM Advisory Committee Approval/Rec. #Recommendation Responsible Department or Staff Property or Program Specific?Status Additional Information 2020.11.19a Redefine vegetation management practices that promote proactive strategies and clarify accountability as it pertains to each site’s natural resources. Efforts should include: • Adjusting how funds pertaining to grounds maintenance are allocated. Proactive and regenerative maintenance practices should be prioritized over corrective maintenance requests. Personnel from the Office of the Sheriff and the Public Works Department should engage in a dialog with the IPM Coordinator to determine what alterations could be immediately implemented that would refine the business relationship as it pertains to vegetation management. • Incorporating a vegetation monitoring protocol that documents periodic status updates from onsite personnel to the Grounds Division. This may include sharing still photographs and/or video from the security system on a routine basis that keeps applicable County staff aware of current vegetation conditions. • Provision of supplemental training modules for all personnel, inmates, or volunteers who may be involved with vegetation management decisions that cover the County Integrated Pest Management Policy, these recommendations, and general safety guidelines. PWD, Sheriff, IPM Coordinator This pertains to the properties that contain the West County Detention Facility (WCDF) and Marsh Creek Range and Detention Facility (MCDF) Initiated Public Works Facilities Services leadership and command staff at each location have indicated an interest in continuing this conversation. The IPM Coordinator will continue to make efforts to follow up with all parties in order to prioritize which endeavors best support the IPM Policy. The Grounds Supervisor has incorporated additional site visits to proactively monitor vegetation at WCDF. 2020.11.19b Initiate a dialog with adjacent property owners such as East Bay Regional Parks regarding both properties and Save Mount Diablo at the Marsh Creek property to explore formal partnerships that strengthen the mission of each agency. Also consider contracting for vegetation management services in a manner consistent with the County IPM Policy. PWD, Sheriff, IPM Coordinator MCDF In Progress The IPM Coordinator recently met onsite with the Grounds Supervisor and Save Mount Diablo (SMD) representatives to preliminarily discuss potential collaborations. Some near term opportunities include coordinating targeted grazing efforts, technical guidance on preserving habitat, and wildfire prevention efforts. 2020.11.19c Where chemical controls are required to maintain bare-earth objectives, prioritize applications to reduce glyphosate dependence and continue to explore the feasibility of implementing alternative tactics such as steam weeding, mulching, and competitive planting. PWD, Sheriff, IPM Coordinator WCDF & MCDF Initiated This will be included in the ongoing discussions referenced in 2020.11.19a as well as other recommendations as guided by TWIC. Revised 3/17/2022212-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 45 of 394 Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee 2018-2021 Recommendations Tracking Table Date of IPM Advisory Committee Approval/Rec. #Recommendation Responsible Department or Staff Property or Program Specific?Status Additional Information 2020.11.19d Foster mutually beneficial community partnerships that: •Allow County personnel to provide a higher level of service by focusing on core tasks, and •Maximize balanced cooperation between organized labor, community-based organizations, and employment training enterprises, and •Build on regional models that are financially sustainable and ecologically regenerative. •Facilitate collaborative landscape programming that allows every County- owned acre to be a shining example of a restorative community asset. BOS/CAO Countywide Not Started The County owns hundreds of acres of underutilized property. The programming that occurs on portions of these parcels will likely require the perpetual interest of County operations. The segments of each property that are not central to the principle function of respective programs tend to be neglected from a stewardship standpoint. By reimagining how these peripheral lands are managed, strategies that promote enhanced landscape stewardship may be revealed. There are multiple development opportunities that concurrently support the IPM Policy, the recent Declaration of a Climate Emergency in Contra Costa County, as well as other related social & racial justice initiatives. The IPM Coordinator is happy to assist as directed by TWIC. 2020.11.19e The IPM Coordinator is encouraged to play an active role continuing this dialog with other stakeholders in the County. These findings and additional site stewardship revelations at similar rehabilitation properties in the County should be presented to the appropriate body or program for further consideration. That may include the Office of Reentry and Justice, The Public Protection Committee, The Community Corrections Partnership and its associated committees, the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, or other relevant programs. IPM Coordinator, BOS, ORJ, PWD, Sheriff, Probation WCDF, MCDF, Juvenile Hall, Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF), Underutilized County Properties, CBO Programs Not Started The IPM Coordinator welcomes TWIC guidance on which strategic efforts are encouraged for further pursuit. 2020.11.19f At the Marsh Creek Property, consider establishing a site stewardship fund that receives a portion of fees charged to agencies for range usage or consider supporting the development of a partner foundation to solicit supplemental vegetation management funding and to coordinate volunteer efforts. Sheriff, IPM Coordinator MCDF Not Started Pending TWIC direction 2020.11.19g The Marsh Creek facility is encouraged to work with the IPM Coordinator to set up product demonstrations of steam weeding systems, remote control slope mowers, and other related machinery to prioritize which equipment procurements would be appropriate to incorporate into the existing operation. Sheriff, IPM Coordinator MCDF Initiated The IPM Coordinator has offered services to site leadership and will continue to follow up. 2020.09.17a Improve the IPM Website so that it provides as much information as possible. That may include a link to the Prop 65 list or other databases that contain information on chronic hazards of certain pesticides. IPM Coordinator IPM Website In Progress This is a top priority of the IPM Coordinator in 2021. Additionally, a group of regional IPM Coordinators from multiple jurisdictions are collectively pursuing clarity on how to best classify the risks of both chemical and non-chemical pest management tactics. 2019.11.21a Encourage County operations to continue to evaluate new and existing weed and ground squirrel management tactics, considering site requirements, efficacy, cost, impacts to the environment, and impacts to the community. PWD, Ag. Dept.Countywide In Progress Public Works and Agriculture Department staff attendance at IPM meetings has been commendable over the last few years. That interaction has helped depict a clearer picture of operational constraints. The Committee formed the Grants & Pilots Subcommittee in 2021 to review innovative opportunities, and the IPM Coordinator continues to meet with departmental staff to discuss how to best advance these types of initiatives. Revised 3/17/2022312-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 46 of 394 Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee 2018-2021 Recommendations Tracking Table Date of IPM Advisory Committee Approval/Rec. #Recommendation Responsible Department or Staff Property or Program Specific?Status Additional Information 2019.11.21b Direct departments to annually propose and prioritize potential research projects associated with emerging and innovative strategies and tactics that will improve the County’s IPM program. BOS/PWD, Ag. Dept.Countywide Complete Departmental staff have been supportive of initial efforts to incorporate research elements into IPM programs and to seek external funding. This and the following two recommendations were codified in Resolution 2020/326, adopted on December 8, 2020. The IPM Coordinator continues to survey potential resources that may be applicable. The Departmental IPM Plan template document currently being developed by the Committee may also include a section that encourages departments to identify this types of projects and funding sources. 2019.11.21c Encourage County departments to seek outside funding sources for these IPM research projects.BOS Countywide Complete See additional information regarding 2019.11.21b above. 2019.11.21d Consider establishing funding to internally support such research projects.PWD/Ag. Dept.Countywide Complete See additional information regarding 2019.11.21b above. 2019.11.21e Allocate additional funding or establish alternative procedures whereby they may procure a contractor to provide carbon monoxide fumigation services for ground squirrels along levees, irrigation canals, and flood-control channels during the spring. PWD Maintenance Division Flood Control properties In Progress Subcommittee efforts have effectively engaged various subject matter experts on the topic over the last few years and the Maintenance Division has recently commenced a pilot trial of carbon monoxide fumigation on levees in Richmond. 2019.11.21f Conduct detailed evaluations of the vegetation management programs along County rights-of-way during the period October 2018 to present, given that no herbicides were applied. Have they met the control mandates set forth? Have they saved funds that may be used to evaluate and implement alternatives to herbicide applications along roadsides and flood control channels? PWD Maintenance Division Flood Control properties, roadsides, Complete The Maintenance Division summarized the impact in the 2020 Annual Report. During the period in question, the increased amount of mowing to meet mandates has diverted resources away from other important efforts such as sign clearance, tree trimming, pothole repair, illegal dumping mitigation, encampment cleanups, and responding to citizen requests. Costs have increased while the total acreage treated has decreased. The Department has indicated that the requested level of detailed evaluations is not feasible under current staffing constraints. The Division resumed herbicide applications in February, 2021. 2018.11.15a 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 PWD, Ag. Dept.Countywide In Progress The IPM Committee decided to form a training-focused work group in January, 2022. This group will survey existing IPM training in applicable departments and report back to the full Committee later this year. Incorporation of the flow chart, decision documents, and the IPM policy will be a focus of any proposed training programs. 2018.11.15b Allocate funding to the departmental IPM programs to enable pilot testing and evaluation of emerging and innovative pest management strategies and tactics.PWD, Ag. Dept.Countywide In Progress See note for 2019.11.21e above. Revised 3/17/2022412-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 47 of 394 Contra Costa County Integrated Pest Management Advisory Committee 2018-2021 Recommendations Tracking Table Date of IPM Advisory Committee Approval/Rec. #Recommendation Responsible Department or Staff Property or Program Specific?Status Additional Information 2018.11.15c Revise the County’s Pesticide Use Posting and Notification Policy and signage PWD All land and facilities owned by—and under the control of—the County Nearly Complete The Posting Task Force of the IPM Advisory Committee reconvened in 2020 to incorporate TWIC and PWD feedback in addition to other relevant revisions. The IPM Committee unanimously approved the revised policy and signage and forwarded them to the Public Works Director for final revision and adoption. Public Works has not formerly incorporated the finalized policy, but all applications of the Grounds Division are compliant with the revised policy. 2018.11.15d 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 PWD Flood Control access roads not intended for public use Complete TWIC clearly articulated in the November 2019 meeting that these sites are not intended or maintained for public access and it would be inappropriate to send mixed messages by posting pesticide applications. That sentiment was captured in the revised policy. The Department confirmed that they would continue to post application signs on trails designated for public use and would also explore mapping solutions that help educate the community in identifying designated trails. The IPM Advisory Committee is interested in forming a technical advisory committee to expand geographic information systems (GIS) capacity as it pertains to Countywide pest management (See Objective 3.2 & Strategic Activity 3.2 on page 20 of the Annual Report). 2018.11.15e Investigate the feasibility of erecting permanent signs and determine the most useful placement for those signs PWD County-maintained trails Complete TWIC expressed a preference for temporary signage on County right-of-way. That sentiment was included in the proposed Policy revision. 2018.11.15f Investigate a way for people to make a complaint online about pesticide use PWD Countywide Complete Since the November 2019 TWIC meeting, Public Works has rolled out Mobile Citizen, a mobile application that allows citizens to report non-emergency conditions. Additionally, the IPM Coordinator aims to incorporate a tool on the IPM website as an alternative way for citizens to report pest management-related concerns to be forwarded to the appropriate department or jurisdiction. 2018.11.15g Investigate a way for pesticide treatment notifications to be sent to people who sign up for email notices PWD Countywide Complete Public Works personnel reviewed this recommendation and determined that their current system seems to be working. They continue to evaluate methods that promote access to pesticide application for all citizens. A GIS Technical Advisory Committee will convene in 2022 and will review possible ways of making all pesticide treatments more transparent and accessible. Revised 3/17/2022112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 48 of 394 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 6. Meeting Date:12/12/2022   Subject:RECEIVE update on the Marsh Creek Corridor Trail Feasibility Study. Submitted For: TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE,  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 12   Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the County Complete Streets Policy.  Presenter: Jamar Stamps, DCD Contact: Jamar Stamps, (925) 655-2817, jamar.stamps@dcd.cccounty.us Referral History: 12/5/2017: APPROVE submission of grant application(s), each in the amount of $300,000, for the “Marsh Creek Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study" to the following agencies and grant programs, Caltrans Senate Bill 1 (2017) Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, Coastal Conservancy Proposition 1 (2014) Grant, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Priority Conservation Area Grant. Staff provided an update on the proposed Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Study and requested authorization to develop and release a Request for Proposals to procure consultant services to perform the study’s technical analysis.  Referral Update: Project Description The Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study was initiated to assess the opportunity to develop a new multi-purpose recreational facility along the Marsh Creek and Marsh Creek Road corridor. As ultimately envisioned, the trail would create a new major non-motorized thoroughfare for expanded commuting and recreational opportunities. The purpose of the trail is to provide a safe, useful, and enjoyable transportation corridor that supports multiple forms of non-motorized travel, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. Background January 2019, County staff and Fehr & Peers (consultant) initiated the study. A summary of tasks staff and the consultant have been engaged in include: Receiving public input via web-based mapping tool. Data collection and base mapping. Public outreach events along the corridor and virtually.  Define study goals and develop improvement concepts. Convened Technical Advisory Committee* (“TAC”) meetings. *TAC consists of staff representatives from Clayton, Concord, Brentwood, East Bay Regional Park District, Save Mt. Diablo, State Parks as well as various County staff.  Public Outreach The study benefited from public input through a series of public outreach strategies that included the formation of a technical advisory committee, pop-ups events at public locations for community members to provide feedback, direct outreach to property owners, field visits, public workshops, and online engagement tools. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 49 of 394 Generally, feedback provided through these channels was used to develop initial trail alignments, revise these alignments to reduce impacts to property owners, and ultimately arrive at a set of recommendations for trail design, phasing, and implementation considerations for Marsh Creek Trail. September 2019, initial public outreach efforts included attendance at two Farmer’s Markets; one held in Brentwood and one in Clayton. At both events, consultants and County staff occupied an informational booth with handouts, flyers and other visuals to help promote the study. December 2019, County staff and the consultant team held a project update meeting at the Clayton Library where attendees were provided the project background, status update, and next steps followed by a questions and answer session.  November 2020 and November 2021, County staff and the consultant team held well-attended (average 30+ participants) virtual public workshops. Most attendees were Marsh Creek Corridor property owners but representatives from other agencies were also in attendance (County staff, Save Mt. Diablo, State Parks, CalFire, bicycle advocacy groups). These meetings with property owners were critical as they provided firsthand insight and various concerns with the introduction of a potential public trail, a brief summary of which includes: increased risk of wildfire/arson, crime, property damage, negative impact to cattle ranching activities, and general concerns about lack of enforcement of hours of operation and trespassing. Property owners were also concerned about eminent domain. Staff does not recommend eminent domain be invoked for any potential phases of the Marsh Creek Corridor public-use trail.  An online public engagement webmap tool was created to help inform the general public of the study’s purpose, progress and resources, and gave an opportunity to provide feedback. An online web-map was used to gather specific feedback from the public regarding potential trail alignments. The tool was useful in gathering information regarding any potential constraints or concerns seen by the corridor’s users and residents, and the information received helped inform the next iteration of trail alignment alternatives. Draft Study The draft study was published for public review on October 24, 2022. The draft study summarizes the data collected in the technical memos and defines the study vision and goals based on feedback from the public engagement process and TAC. The goals of the study include: Evaluate the potential for a multi-modal trail providing connectivity from the trail system in the City of Clayton to the Round Valley Regional Preserve Conduct extensive public engagement to understand the needs and concerns of groups including residents, advocacy groups, and rural and disadvantaged communities Develop a trail alignment that minimizes impacts to private property and retains privacy for residents Identify restoration opportunities along Marsh Creek to occur in conjunction with trail development opportunities Assess environmental constraints and impacts that may constrain trail development Identify a phased approach for implementation The public review period ended on Friday, November 18, 2022. The draft study will be revised based on comments received over the public review period and a final study will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for consideration in early 2023. Conceptual Trail Alignments The development of potential trail alignments for the purposes of identifying opportunities and constraints was shaped by a multitude of factors, which included: A public lands first approach, beginning with identifying opportunities to link sections of land currently under public control, or in conservation through Save Mount Diablo A strong desire from the public to minimize encroachment upon private property, except where necessary to link parcels of publicly dedicated land An alignment that roughly follows the curvature of the creek and Marsh Creek Road Minimize the number of roadway crossings to reduce user exposure to vehicular traffic Consideration of an on-road option in some locations to accommodate road cyclists and to avoid areas where significant disruption to private lands or environmental settings would otherwise occur 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 50 of 394 Use of existing fire roads, access roads, and trail segments where possible to minimize impacts to undisturbed land Implementation of an approximately 15-mile trail would likely need to occur over a long period of time, as funding and land for the trail become available. However, it is also anticipated additional public outreach and subsequent refinements to the trail alignments will be necessary (based on nuanced topographical, environmental, and construction considerations) before any portion of the trail concept can be moved to an implementable project. Phasing & Cost Estimates The approximately 13-mile study corridor was divided into three sections with each section presenting various considerations for implementation. Further, a phased approach will make implementation more manageable if an implementable project were eventually developed. A map depicting this conceptual phasing is provided in Figure 6-1 of the draft study. Cost estimates were based on the Caltrans six-page cost estimate format for each of the three trail segments (see feasibility study Appendix D). These are high-level planning cost estimates where several assumptions were made, like the item quantities for construction materials which would fluctuate over time and as trail concepts are refined. Cost estimates also do not include right of way acquisition or cost escalation factors. These cost estimates merely serve as a beginning frame of reference for what a facility like this may cost, which is a necessary step in any feasibility study exercise. Phase 1: Clayton City Limits to Clayton Ranch (5.7-miles, estimated cost $19.1 million) The section of trail proposed for initial implementation would connect to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the Clayton city limits and stretch approximately 5.7 miles to the east. The trail is recommended to connect to lands held by the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), which begin approximately 2.3 miles from the Clayton City limits. The property, known locally as Clayton Ranch, is planned for future recreational amenities including public access and hiking trails. Phase 1 would allow for a more immediately usable section of trail that links public lands to existing bike and pedestrian facilities. Connecting to planned projects at Clayton Ranch would reduce the overall cost and effort for implementation, while also creating new access to recreational amenities. This section of the overall project also has the highest amount of land held publicly or by Save Mount Diablo, reducing the need for right-of-way acquisition. It is anticipated that the portion of the trail within Clayton Ranch would be developed by EBRPD. Phase 2: Clayton Palms to Round Valley Regional Preserve (4.7-miles, estimated cost $7.1 million) Similar to Phase 1, the second phase of the project would leverage existing recreational amenities at Round Valley Regional Preserve. With a length of approximately 4.7 miles, this section of trail would extend from Round Valley on the southern side of the roadway, cross at Deer Valley Road, and end just west of the Clayton Palms community, increasing recreational opportunities for residents of that community. The trail would also provide better access to Round Valley by bicyclists using the existing bike lanes on Deer Valley Road, which is a popular cycling route that connects to Brentwood. Implementing this section of trail will require sensitivity to private land ownership given that most of the proposed alignment, while following Marsh Creek, crosses through multiple privately owned properties. As such, two alignments are proposed, with one focused on on-road improvements along Marsh Creek Road to use public right-of-way and minimize environmental impacts, particularly in the area just east of Deer Valley Road. A second proposed alignment would veer away from the roadway to maintain the preferred off-road nature of the facility, but should be considered a long-term option as land in that area becomes available for a trail easement by willing sellers. This section of trail also requires the least amount of physical disruption to the environment, as the terrain begins to flatten and fewer retaining walls will be required. Phase 3: Dark Canyon (4.7-miles, estimated cost $16.5 million) The third phase of the project will link both prior segments of trail to create a continuous facility from Clayton to Round Valley Regional Preserve. Running approximately 4.7 miles through the “Dark Canyon” area of the corridor, this section of trail features the greatest number of physical constraints on the alignment due to steep terrain and will require the trail to run in close proximity to the creek on the south side of Marsh Creek Road, with a crossing back to the north side at either end of the section. Ownership is mixed within the section. Several small parcels are held by Save Mount Diablo, and as such the trail alignment seeks to connect between those areas to minimize impacts on private land. A high number of retaining walls will likely be required to provide a usable trail at even a minimum trail width. Given the need to run the trail adjacent or near to Marsh Creek, this can also provide an opportunity for trail implementation and creek rehabilitation efforts to occur simultaneously. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 51 of 394 Operation and Maintenance If a project were to move forward an important point of discussion will be how to operate and maintain a new trail facility. Section 6 of the draft study discusses potential management and revenue options. Establishing this management and funding structure will require a coordinated effort among the Marsh Creek Corridor stakeholders and would be necessary before deciding to implement trail concept alternatives.  Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE update on the Marsh Creek Corridor Trail Feasibility Study, CONSIDER the report, provide COMMENT and DIRECT staff as appropriate including 1) bringing the Marsh Creek Corridor Trail Feasibility Study to the full Board of Supervisors for consideration, and 2) coordinate with corridor stakeholders to pursue funding opportunities for implementation, as directed by the Committee. Fiscal Impact (if any): No impact to the County's General Fund. Staff time and proposed County funding is included in existing work plans and budgets. The project is funded by Livable Communities Trust (LCT) Fund ($250,000), East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Restoration Planning Funds ($25,000), and Road Fund – Advance Planning (gas tax) ($25,000). Attachments Draft Marsh Creek Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study  Marsh Creek Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study Presentation  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 52 of 394 Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study Prepared for: Contra Costa County November 2022 WC18-3536 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 53 of 394 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ i Public Engagement ...................................................................................................................................................................... i Environmental Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................... i Development of Alignments .................................................................................................................................................... ii Implementation and Phasing .................................................................................................................................................. ii 1. Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Existing Plans and Data .................................................................................................................................... 2 CCTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ................................................................................................................................. 2 East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan ............................................................................................................ 3 Contra Costa County General Plan ............................................................................................................................... 4 CCTA Countywide Transportation Plan (2017) ......................................................................................................... 4 Contra Costa Vision Zero Action Plan and Systemic Safety Analysis Report ............................................... 5 Contra Costa Active Transportation Plan ................................................................................................................... 6 Natural Resources Inventory ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Base Map Development ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Demand Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Public Engagement ................................................................................................................... 8 3. Development of Trail Alignments ......................................................................................... 12 4. Trail Design Principles ............................................................................................................ 13 Trail Design Standards and Guidelines ..............................................................................................................................13 Contra Costa County Trail Guidelines ........................................................................................................................13 Caltrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Standards and Guidelines ..............................................................................13 Federal ADA Trail Guidelines .........................................................................................................................................13 AASHTO Guidelines ..........................................................................................................................................................15 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Addition (2012). .........................................................16 Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) ........................................16 Trail User Types and Trail Design Preferences ................................................................................................................16 Multi-Use Trail Design Principles for Natural Settings ................................................................................................19 Trail Design Considerations for Steep Slopes .................................................................................................................22 Trail Width ............................................................................................................................................................................22 Trail Gradient .......................................................................................................................................................................22 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 54 of 394 Trail Surfacing......................................................................................................................................................................24 Switchbacks and Climbing Turns .................................................................................................................................27 Retaining Walls ...................................................................................................................................................................28 Creek Setback Requirements.................................................................................................................................................30 Staging Area Design .................................................................................................................................................................33 Trail Amenities ....................................................................................................................................................................35 Staging Area Amenities ...................................................................................................................................................36 Trailhead Amenities ..........................................................................................................................................................37 On-Trail Amenities ............................................................................................................................................................38 5. Potential Trail Typologies for Marsh Creek Corridor .......................................................... 39 Steep Slope - Retaining Wall/Switchback Location .....................................................................................................39 Road Crossings ...........................................................................................................................................................................42 On Roadway .................................................................................................................................................................................43 On Driveway or Fire Road .......................................................................................................................................................45 Flat Land + Trail ..........................................................................................................................................................................46 Detached from Road, Adjacent to Creek ..........................................................................................................................48 Detached from Road and Creek ...........................................................................................................................................50 6. Implementation Considerations ............................................................................................ 52 Phasing ...........................................................................................................................................................................................52 Phase 1: Clayton City Limits to Clayton Ranch .......................................................................................................52 Phase 2: Clayton Palms to Round Valley Regional Preserve ............................................................................52 Phase 3: Dark Canyon ......................................................................................................................................................53 Cost Estimates .............................................................................................................................................................................55 Environmental Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................55 Property Acquisition and Access Options ........................................................................................................................56 Outright Acquisition – Fee Title ...................................................................................................................................57 Easements .............................................................................................................................................................................57 Licenses ..................................................................................................................................................................................57 Funding ..........................................................................................................................................................................................57 Local Sources .......................................................................................................................................................................57 Regional Sources ...............................................................................................................................................................58 State Funding Sources .....................................................................................................................................................59 Federal Sources ..................................................................................................................................................................60 Liability, Maintenance and Management .........................................................................................................................61 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 55 of 394 Liability ...................................................................................................................................................................................61 Risk Reduction Strategies ...............................................................................................................................................62 Operation and Maintenance .........................................................................................................................................63 Public Information .............................................................................................................................................................65 Insurance and Waivers .....................................................................................................................................................65 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 56 of 394 Appendices Appendix A: Natural Resources Inventory Appendix B: Demand Analysis Appendix C: Corridor Maps Appendix D: Cost Estimates Appendix E: Environmental Assessment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 57 of 394 Executive Summary The Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail Feasibility Study was initiated to assess the opportunity to develop a new multi-purpose recreational facility along the Marsh Creek and Marsh Creek Road corridor. As ultimately envisioned, the trail would create a new major non-motorized thoroughfare for expanded commuting and recreational opportunities. The purpose of the trail is to provide a safe, useful, and enjoyable transportation corridor that supports multiple forms of non-motorized travel, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. The goals of the study include: • Evaluate the potential for a multi-modal trail providing connectivity from the trail system in the City of Clayton to the Round Valley Regional Preserve • Conduct extensive public engagement to understand the needs and concerns of groups including residents, advocacy groups, and rural and disadvantaged communities • Develop a trail alignment that minimizes impacts to private property and retains privacy for residents • Identify restoration opportunities along Marsh Creek to occur in conjunction with trail development opportunities • Assess environmental constraints and impacts that may constrain trail development • Identify a phased approach for implementation Public Engagement Throughout the plan process, public outreach to the surrounding communities was critical to ensure trail development and feasibility included the needs and considerations of community members and property owners along the corridor. Engagement undertaken as part of the study included the formation of a technical advisory committee, pop-ups events at public locations for community members to provide feedback, direct outreach to property owners, field visits, public workshops, and online engagement tools. Feedback provided through these channels was used to develop initial trail alignments, revise these alignments to reduce impacts to property owners, and ultimately arrive at a set of recommendations for trail design, phasing, and implementation considerations for Marsh Creek Trail. Additional details on public engagement activities can be found in Chapter 2. Environmental Assessment Given the sensitive ecological nature of the Marsh Creek corridor and it’s inclusion in the Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP, particular attention was paid to 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 58 of 394 developing trail alignments that avoided sensitive ecological areas to the extent feasible. A natural resources inventory was completed early in the process to examine the distribution of common and sensitive vegetation communities, aquatic habitat, and special-status species (further details in Chapter 1). Given the constrained topography of the study corridor, there are multiple instances where the trail alignment will fall within the preferred creek setback outlined in the HCP/NCCP. This presents an opportunity to conduct creek restoration activities during trail construction. Subsequent to the development of alignments, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was conducted to identify environmental conditions along the alignments that may represent hazards. No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) were observed relative to hazardous materials, hazardous waste, or chemical use, storage, or disposal. A summary of the Environmental Assessment can be found in Chapter 6, while the full assessment can be found in Appendix E. Development of Alignments The development of potential trail alignments was shaped by the project goals and public feedback received throughout the study. Alignments were developed with consideration for a multitude of factors, which included: • A public lands first approach, beginning with identifying opportunities to link sections of land currently under public control, or in conservation through Save Mount Diablo • A strong desire from the public to minimize encroachment upon private property, except where necessary to link parcels of publicly dedicated land • An alignment that roughly follows the curvature of the creek and Marsh Creek Road • Minimize the number of roadway crossings to reduce user exposure to vehicular traffic • Consideration of an on-road option in some locations to accommodate road cyclists and to avoid areas where significant disruption to private lands or environmental settings would otherwise occur • Use of existing fire roads, access roads, and trail segments where possible to minimize impacts to undisturbed land Implementation and Phasing A phased approach to implementation is recommended to complete the Marsh Creek Corridor Trail. The first phase would stretch from Clayton to just past Morgan Territory Road. This section offers a near-term opportunity to link the existing trail system in Clayton to proposed trails under consideration by the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) on the Clayton Ranch Property. With the least number of topographical constraints, the recommended second phase of the project would link existing trails in Round Valley Regional Preserve to the Clayton Palms Community. Similar to the first 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 59 of 394 phase, this would capitalize on existing non-motorized facilities to provide expanded recreational access for residents and visitors. The third phase of the project would fall in the middle of the Marsh Creek Road corridor, in the area locally referred to as Dark Canyon. As the name suggests, this section of trail is faced with the greatest number of topographical constraints, which may require the trail to be developed with a larger number of retaining walls or in closer proximity to the creek and/or roadway. The completion of the third phase would allow for a complete non-motorized facility connection from Round Valley Preserve to the Clayton City Limits, for a total trail length of approximately 13 miles. Chapter 6 provides additional detail on implementation, including resources for funding, as well as liability, maintenance, and management considerations. Big Bend (Marsh Creek 8) property; photo courtesy of Save Mount Diablo 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 60 of 394 1. Existing Conditions The approximately 12.5-mile Marsh Creek corridor travels through rolling hills between the communities of Clayton on the west and Brentwood on the east. The creek corridor is adjacent to numerous state and regional parks, and currently includes mostly rural residences, ranches and farms, open space, and parks, with two small denser areas of residential parcels. The creekshed is home to multiple habitat types, including agricultural lands, grasslands, various oak woodlands, and a riparian corridor along the creek, The proposed Marsh Creek trail alignment would create a new public connection from the eastern edge of the City of Clayton to the Round Valley Regional Preserve at the eastern end of the corridor. Marsh Creek Corridor Multi-Use Trail – Study Area Marsh Creek Road roughly traces the path of the creek, and is a major east-west thoroughfare connecting Central and East Contra Costa County. In the present state, the roadway is a winding two-lane rural road that passes through scenic ranch lands and open space on the flank of Mount Diablo. The roadway’s cross section varies with the terrain it traverses but is generally a two-lane roadway with limited to no shoulder along much of the corridor. Marsh Creek Road has limited intersections but provides access to private 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 61 of 394 property at driveways along the corridor. There is no roadway lighting along much of the corridor. The posted speed limit ranges from 45 to 50 mph. Sight distance is limited at several locations due to the horizontal curvature of the road and topography that blocks views. Within the city limits of Clayton, Marsh Creek Road has an existing Class II Bicycle Lane, which provides connection to numerous trails and other bicycle and pedestrian facilities. In the eastern portion of the County, a segment of the existing Marsh Creek Trail connects the Big Break Regional Shoreline to the southern limits of Brentwood. A project to extend the trail from the Brentwood city limits to Round Valley Regional Reserve is currently in progress. The Marsh Creek Road corridor serves primarily vehicular traffic but does see some limited use by bicyclists. Most of the land use along the corridor is dedicated to agricultural, open space, and parks and recreation. Several parks and destinations for recreational activities exist along the corridor. Access to Mt. Diablo State Park is provided via multiple staging areas and trailheads along Marsh Creek Road and Morgan Territory Road. Round Valley Regional Preserve is accessed via a staging area and parking lot located at the eastern end of the study corridor. Marsh Creek Road also provides access to Morgan Territory Road and the Morgan Territory Regional Preserve. Diablo View Middle School is located along Marsh Creek Road at the western end of the corridor. Near the corridor’s eastern end, several schools are located within the City of Brentwood’s southern limits. Summary of Existing Plans and Data Available information relating to the Marsh Creek Trail Feasibility Study was reviewed on existing conditions, relevant plans and policies, and emerging best practices. Several sources of information were reviewed, including the 2018 Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP), county policy and design standards, as well as other available baseline data such as as-built drawings, right-of-way drawings, parcel maps, GIS data, and usage/data reports. CCTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The 2018 update to the CBPP includes an extensive review of local and countywide policies as well as best practice design guidelines. Much of the information found within the report may prove useful in helping to inform the trail feasibility study for the Marsh Creek corridor. The 2018 CBPP proposes a network of bicycle facilities that when completed, “will provide facilities to connect Contra Costa’s communities and key destinations, serve all ages and abilities by addressing the barriers created by high-stress arterials and collectors, and create a regional “backbone” that connects and supports more local bikeways.” This Countywide Bikeway Network (CBN) identifies potential corridors to be prioritized for the planning of bicycle facilities, as well as existing facilities that will help make connections throughout the network. The CBN will consist of only “regionally significant” facilities that operate at low Levels of Traffic Stress (LTS), LTS 1 or 2. The Marsh Creek Trail is included in the CBN’s roughly 513 miles of proposed bicycle facilities. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 62 of 394 Information on the CBPP can be found at https://ccta.net/projects/countywide-bicycle-and-pedestrian- plan/. Level of Traffic Stress The 2018 update to the CBPP introduced a new metric used to evaluate the level of comfortability bicyclists experience along a roadway. Levels of Traffic Stress are assigned to a roadway based on several stress-inducing factors, including vehicle speed, number of vehicles, number of lanes, and the presence and width of bicycle facilities. LTS rankings range from 1 (low stress) to 4 (high stress). The category of “Interested but Concerned” cyclists comprise a majority of potential bicyclists, and are most likely to make use of bicycle facilities that operate at LTS 1 or 2. It is for this reason the CBPP designates all routes within the CBN to be LTS 1 or 2. A more detailed description of these Levels of Traffic Stress are provided below: LTS 1: Physically separated from traffic or low-volume, mixed-flow traffic at 25 mph or less. Bike lanes are six-feet-wide or more. Intersections are easy to approach and cross. The facility is comfortable for children. LTS 2: Bike lanes are 5.5-feet-wide or less, next to 30 mph vehicular traffic. Unsignalized crossings of up to 5 lanes at 30 mph exist. The facility is comfortable for most adults. This ranking is typical of bicycle facilities in the Netherlands. LTS 3: Bike lanes are next to 35 mph auto traffic or mixed-flow traffic at 30 mph or less. The facility is comfortable for most current U.S. riders. This ranking is typical of bicycle facilities in the United States. LTS 4: No dedicated bicycle facilities are present. Traffic travels at speeds of 40 mph or greater. The facility is comfortable only for the “strong and fearless” riders, also known as “vehicular cyclists”. Marsh Creek Road has an existing LTS ranking of 4. The CCTA CBPP identifies Marsh Creek Road as part of the CBN with a ranking of LTS 2, but does not identify a specific facility type for the corridor. Generally, the higher the speed and volume of a road, the more protective the recommended bikeway should be to achieve the desired LTS. Given the high speed of traffic along Marsh Creek Road, an on-road separated facility (such as a Class IV separated bikeway) would likely be the recommended treatment to achieve LTS 2, while a fully separated facility (such as a trail or Class I Path) would likely achieve LTS 1. East Bay Regional Parks District Master Plan Most recently updated in 2013, the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD) Master Plan provides guidance, policies, and descriptions of the programs undertaken by EBRPD to guide the stewardship and development of parks within the district. Covering all of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the district is the primary provider of regional park facilities and activities for the area. Two EBRPD properties, the Round Valley Regional Preserve and Clayton Ranch, abut the Marsh Creek Corridor study area. Round 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 63 of 394 4 Valley is open to the public for hiking, horseback riding, and bicycling (with some restrictions), while Clayton Ranch is identified as a future regional preserve and is not currently accessible to the public. The master plan can be viewed at https://www.ebparks.org/master-plan. Contra Costa County General Plan Contra Costa County is currently in the process of updating their general plan. The General Plan outlines the County’s goals for physical growth, conservation, and community life in the unincorporated area, and contains the policies and actions necessary to achieve those goals. County staff members use the general Plan to guide decisions about zoning, permitted development, provision of public services, and transportation improvements. The County’s current General Plan was adopted in 1991 and updated twice; once for 1990 – 2005 and again for 2005 – 2020. The updated General Plan, titled “Envision Contra Costa 2040”, will respond to current concerns about sustainability, environmental justice, and affordable housing, while carrying forward enduring County values like balancing growth and conservation. More information on the General Plan update can be found at https://envisioncontracosta2040.org/. CCTA Countywide Transportation Plan (2017) The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) provides the overall direction for achieving and maintaining a balanced and functional transportation system within Contra Costa County while strengthening links between land use decisions and transportation. Adopted by CCTA in 2017, Volume 1 of the CTP provides the county’s vision, goals, and strategies surrounding the countywide transportation network, a review of issues facing the transportation system, and an overview of the cooperative planning process. Volume 2 contains a summary of the CTP Action Plans, along with a performance and equity evaluation of major projects; those costing more than $25 million. Relevant projects identified in the CTP include the Marsh Creek Road Curve Realignment project, which would realign certain curves on segments between Aspara Drive and Deer Valley Road to improve safety and operations. East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance (2017) Tiering off of the CTP, the Regional Transportation Planning Committees generated updated Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance. The Action Plans identify a series of Regional Routes that provide the main connections throughout and between Contra Costa’s Communities. In the East County Action Plan, completion of unbuilt segments of regional multipurpose trails (including the Marsh Creek Trail) is noted as an implementing action under the goal of improving multimodal mobility and decreasing single- occupant vehicle travel. The CTP and associated Action Plan can be found at https://ccta.net/planning/2017-countywide- transportation-plan/. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 64 of 394 5 Contra Costa Vision Zero Action Plan and Systemic Safety Analysis Report The purpose of Contra Costa County’s Vision Zero Action Plan (adopted in 2022) is to identify opportunities to enhance safety for all modes through implementation of a Safe System approach. The report builds upon the engineering-focused Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) to provide a comprehensive, multidisciplinary and holistic approach to safety. The goal of the Action Plan is to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries through existing efforts and programs, along with implementation of additional recommendations. Based on collision data from 2014 through 2018 (the latest available years at the time of the study), the SSAR identified a High-Injury Network to spotlight roadways with a high concentration of severe injuries and fatalities, laying the framework for the development of targeted collision profiles and priority project locations. Marsh Creek Road was identified as part of the HIN, with 8 collisions where a victim was killed or severely injured in the timeframe analyzed. Ten priority projects focused on infrastructure improvements were recommended, with the Action Plan also providing further non-infrastructure recommendations to cover a range of Safe System elements, such as safe roads, safe road users, safe speeds, and post-crash care. Safety improvements on Marsh Creek Road from west of Deer Valley Road to Clayton city limits were one of the ten priority “Tier One” projects identified in the Action Plan. The collision history includes seven vehicle-involved KSIs (two DUI hit object, one speeding and overturned, two improper turning hit object, two wrong-way driving), and one bicycle-involved vehicle improper passing KSI. Recommended improvements include curve-warning signs, rumble strips, speed feedbacks signs, and other roadway improvements that would benefit both motorists and bicyclists. Trimming vegetation and installing lighting to provide more visibility is also recommended, with intersection lighting at Morgan Territory Road specifically identified as a potential improvement. The recommended improvements also include installation of paved pullout areas for traffic enforcement, including locations near Morgan Territory Road, Sycamore Springs Road, and Deer Valley Road. Improvements on Marsh Creek Road from Deer Valley Road to Camino Diablo are identified as one of the twenty Tier Two projects, representing a priority or important location for which future funding and prioritization will be considered following the implementation of Tier One projects. Additionally, rural roadway contexts such as Marsh Creek Road are one of the focal points of the collision profiles of emphasis within the Plan, which identified safety issues including roadway departure collisions, vehicles crossing into opposing lanes, and bicycles and pedestrians being struck due to the lack of dedicated bike facilities or sidewalks. The recommended improvements identified in the SSAR and Vision Zero Action Plan are consistent with the goal of this study to improve safety for all users. The full Vision Zero Action Plan and preceding Systemic Safety Analysis Report can be found at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/8532/Vision-Zero. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 65 of 394 6 Contra Costa Active Transportation Plan Contra Costa County's Active Transportation Plan (ATP) focuses on developing safe, comfortable, and feasible walking and biking projects throughout unincorporated Contra Costa County. Adopted in April of 2022, the ATP provides a set of comprehensive, grant-ready projects that the County can put directly into action. Within the plan and in keeping with this study, Marsh Creek Road is identified as a potential location for both Class II bicycle lanes and a Class I bicycle and pedestrian multi-use facility. The adopted ATP can be found at https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/8533/Active-Transportation. Natural Resources Inventory A natural resources inventory was conducted along the project corridor to examine the distribution of common and sensitive vegetation communities, aquatic habitat (creeks, ponds, and seasonal wetlands) and special-status species. This inventory consisted of a two-step approach including a desktop review and field assessment of sensitive biological resources within the approximately 12-mile trail study corridor. Full results from this inventory can be found in Appendix A. Staff stopped at numerous locations along the corridor during a field assessment of the Marsh Creek Road corridor, including a 300-foot buffer zone around the roadway. The field assessment verified habitat classification, creek and drainage locations, water presence, identified seasonal ponds and wetlands, mapped invasive plant species, and determined potential suitable habitat for special-status species. Data from this inventory was used to inform the selection of trail alignment concepts as well as the initial environmental assessment presented in later sections of this report. Base Map Development To establish a blueprint of the physical environment, an extensive dataset was developed and used to create a series of maps for the trail corridor. Components evaluated during the base map effort included: • Utilities: mapping of existing utilities to identify conflicts with potential trail alignments and associated cost implications. This included the locations of water, wastewater, electrical, and phone utilities • Topography and Planimetric Features: a topographic model of contours and elevations, including features such as buildings, roads, fences, vegetation, and trees that were relevant to the study area • Intersections and Access Points: a GIS map series was developed to address existing intersections, access points, and future opportunities for vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and wildlife crossings, and equestrian access to and through the corridor • Right of Way Assessment: public and private land ownership was mapped throughout the corridor, as well as existing transportation facilities • Physical and Natural Resources: including potential protected species habitats, drainage and erosion control conditions and issues, and soils information 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 66 of 394 7 The basemapping effort and compilation of several data sources resulted in a set of maps that best represents the current conditions and potential constraints with which to plan a new trail alignment along the corridor. The maps were used to identify opportunities, barriers, and concerns for trail alignments in subsequent tasks. Demand Analysis The proposed trail corridor is in a predominantly rural landscape, and would connect a small suburban community to a mid-sized suburban community, with many agricultural land uses and parklands in between. A demand analysis was conducted to assess whether there is demand for a trail along this corridor, and if so, the potential usage when and if it is completed. Data was collected on the location, number, and type of origins and destinations along the trail; the current use by pedestrians and bicyclists of the corridor and adjacent areas; and the number and type of users along trails with similar characteristics. This information was used to understand the number, type (recreational vs. commuting), and activity (hiking, walking, bicycling, horseback riding, etc.) of trail users that should be expected along the trail. Currently, there are low levels of walking and bicycling along the existing roadway due to the lack of designated facilities for these uses. The demand analysis found that due to the scenic nature of the corridor, the number of regional parks, existing travel patterns in the area, and the size of adjacent communities, there is significant demand for a trail along Marsh Creek. However, each user type and activity have specific design and connectivity- related demands, which must be accommodated during the future phases of trail design for significant trail use to be actualized. These needs have informed the recommendations found in the Corridor Design Considerations section of this report, and include the need for trailside amenities, separation from the roadways and shade for user comfort, connections to parks and recreational centers, and the need for a parallel natural surface to facilitate equestrian use. It is anticipated that the proposed Marsh Creek Trail would be a well-used and appreciated trail if designed to safely and attractively accommodate all users. The full demand analysis, including case studies of other trails, can be found in Appendix B. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 67 of 394 8 2. Public Engagement Throughout the plan process, public outreach to the surrounding communities was used to ensure trail development and feasibility included the needs and considerations of community members and property owners along the corridor. This Chapter provides an overview of this outreach. Technical Advisory Committee A project steering committee was established and consulted at key points throughout the project. Consisting of agency, community, and technical stakeholders, the group provided valuable insights early in the project. In addition to departmental staff from Contra Costa County, participants included representatives from a mix of public and non-profit entities, including: • East Bay Regional Park District ◦ The East Bay Regional Park District is a special district operating in Alameda County and Contra Costa County. It maintains and operates a system of regional parks which is the largest urban regional park district in the United States, including over 125,186 acres and 73 regional parks, recreation areas, wilderness, shorelines, preserves and land bank areas. • Save Mount Diablo ◦ Save Mount Diablo is a nationally accredited land trust and conservation organization founded in 1971, with a mission to forever preserve the remaining natural lands on and around Mount Diablo, and to connect Mount Diablo to its sustaining Diablo Range. • Bike East Bay ◦ Bike East Bay is a Californian non-profit organization that has worked since 1972 toward "promoting bicycling as an everyday means of transportation and recreation" in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in California's East Bay. • Greenbelt Alliance ◦ Greenbelt Alliance is a San Francisco Bay Area nonprofit organization founded to help the region handle growth in a way that protects precious open spaces while focusing equitable, climate-smart growth within existing urban areas. • California Department of Parks and Recreation ◦ More commonly known as California State Parks, the system manages the California state parks system with a goal of preserving biological diversity, protecting natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation. • Contra Costa Resource Conservation District 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 68 of 394 9 ◦ Formed in 1941, CCRCD is a non-regulatory special district of the state whose mission is to facilitate conservation and stewardship of natural resources in Contra Costa County. Project Website A project page, housed on the County’s website, was created to help inform the general public of the Project’s purpose, progress and resources and gave an opportunity to provide feedback. An online web-map was used to gather specific feedback from the public regarding potential trail alignments. The tool was useful in gathering information regarding any potential constraints or concerns seen by the corridor’s users and residents, and the information received helped inform the final trail alignment alternative. The project page can be viewed at http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/MCT_Study. Pop-Up Events Part of the project team’s public outreach efforts included attendance at two Farmer’s Markets; one held in Brentwood and one in Clayton. At both events, consultants and County staff occupied an informational booth with handouts, flyers and other visuals to help promote the Marsh Creek Corridor Feasibility Study. In addition to learning about the project and its envisioned alignment, members of the public had opportunities to provide feedback and suggestions via written comment cards and conversations with the project team. The project received positive feedback from community members who supported the idea of better bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the area, and the opportunity for greater connectivity between local and regional recreational facilities (for example, from Clayton to the Marsh Creek corridor). The outreach events also provided a valuable opportunity to hear the concerns of property owners throughout the corridor who may be potentially affected by the trail’s alignment. Property owners expressed concerns about liability implications, fire safety, impacts to cattle ranching operations, and personal safety. Property owners also provided valuable feedback on constraints and existing conditions in the corridor. Comments and feedback provided at the pop-up events were reflected in the approach to and development of preliminary trail alignments. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 69 of 394 10 Trail Alignment and Property Owner’s Workshop Following the development of draft trail alignments, a workshop was held with property owners along the Marsh Creek corridor, as well as the general public. The goal of the workshop was to provide an overall update on the project, solicit feedback on the draft trail alignment maps, and inform property owners about the status of the study and results of early deliverables, such as environmental considerations. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the workshop was hosted via Zoom. Attendees were invited to submit comments on the draft alignments. An online web-commenting tool was developed to allow for location specific comments on specific alignment segments. Comments received focused mainly around concerns on the impacts to specific property; for example, where the trail was seen to pass too closely to a residence, or where there was local knowledge to indicate a concern with the surrounding topography. This feedback directly informed updates and modifications to the draft trail alignments. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 70 of 394 11 Field Visit In conjunction with the property owner’s workshop, the project team was invited to do a field review and meeting with a handful of property owners in the eastern section of the project area. Participants shared their concerns about the impacts to local ranching operations, fire-safety and personal liability concerns, and knowledge about the seasonal variations in water heights and banks that regularly occur in the creek shed. The field visit supported the modifications made to the alignments following the previously discussed workshop, which emphasized moving the trail away from private residences. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 71 of 394 12 3. Development of Trail Alignments This section provides an overview of the process used to identify potential trail alignments. The development of potential trail alignments for the purposes of identifying opportunities and constraints was shaped by a multitude of factors, which included: • A public lands first approach, beginning with identifying opportunities to link sections of land currently under public control, or in conservation through Save Mount Diablo • A strong desire from the public to minimize encroachment upon private property, except where necessary to link parcels of publicly dedicated land • An alignment that roughly follows the curvature of the creek and Marsh Creek Road • Minimize the number of roadway crossings to reduce user exposure to vehicular traffic • Consideration of an on-road option in some locations to accommodate road cyclists and to avoid areas where significant disruption to private lands or environmental settings would otherwise occur • Use of existing fire roads, access roads, and trail segments where possible to minimize impacts to undisturbed land The alignments are shown in Appendix C, and went through multiple iterations. The development included a project team design charrette to identify initial alignments that would link public lands. These alignments were further modified to minimize impacts following review from Save Mount Diablo, public feedback through a workshop and online map as detailed in the previous chapter, and a review of potential environmental and natural resource impacts. It is anticipated that additional refinements to the trail alignments will be necessary to capture specific, nuanced topographical, environmental, and construction considerations as sections move forward into implementation. The trail may also be adjusted if additional parcels of land become publicly held or move into conservation. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 72 of 394 13 4. Trail Design Principles Many segments of the Marsh Creek Trail study corridor feature rugged terrain with grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and chapparal. This calls for a trail design (width, slope, turn radii) that accommodates the widest range of users balanced with potential environmental effects including ground disturbance, removal of trees and related habitat, and trail construction and maintenance costs. Design considerations and their relative trade-offs are described in this chapter. Trail Design Standards and Guidelines Contra Costa County Trail Guidelines The Contra Costa County Trail Design Resource Handbook (2001) is focused on paved bicycle trails and the configuration of roadway crossings for these trails, including signage. It does not address trails in challenging topographic or environmental settings. Caltrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Standards and Guidelines Providing ADA-accessible bicycle and pedestrian connections is typically a Caltrans requirement. This usually means meeting standards for a Class I Bike Route/shared use path as defined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual: Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (2015). Chapter 1000 requires a paved surface, a maximum 5% gradient, or 8.33% gradient on ramps with regular level resting intervals, and typically a minimum 10-foot clear width. However, segments of Marsh Creek Trail, such as the northern steep slope trail connection, will be an unpaved recreational trail unconnected to ADA-accessible trails, parking, or other facilities. This portion cannot be expected to comply with full ADA access or “Class I” shared use path standards, though the design should strive to meet trail guidelines described below. Caltrans design guidelines recognize several federal ADA guidelines specific to trails. In the Caltrans Design Information Bulletin concerning ADA access, Section 4.3.18 on Trails refers to and adopts as design standards trail guidance provided within Sections 1016 through 1018 of the federal “Outdoor Developed Areas” guidelines. Federal ADA Trail Guidelines The federal Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines; Outdoor Developed Areas (AGODA), are a set of standards adopted by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and are included in the 2015 ABA Standards. These standards apply to trails built by federal agencies or on federal lands. While non-federal agencies may choose to adopt these guidelines, they are example guidelines for trail construction by non-federal agencies. Under AGODA, recreational trails have an established set of criteria that allows for deviance from the ABA trail standards that apply to the “path of travel” between developed facilities. These recreational trail guidelines respond to natural conditions and constraints. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 73 of 394 14 Similarly, access routes between developed facilities, such as picnic areas and overlooks, permit higher trail gradients in a prescribed manner at specific situations; however, the intent should be to align these features as much as feasible with the ABA standards. Section 1017.1 of these guidelines for trails lists two types of exceptions based on whether it is “impracticable” for a portion of the trail or the entire trail to comply: 1017 Trails 1017.1 General. Trails shall comply with 1017. EXCEPTIONS: 1. When an entity determines that a condition in 1019 [see below] does not permit full compliance with a specific provision in 1017 on a portion of a trail, the portion of the trail shall comply with the provision to the extent practicable. 2. After applying Exception 1, when an entity determines that it is impracticable for the entire trail to comply with 1017, the trail shall not be required to comply with 1017. The Outdoor Developed Area standards for trails contained in 1017 include the following key features: 1017.2 Surface – Firm and stable. 1017.3 Clear Tread Width – 36 inches minimum. 1017.4 Passing Spaces – 60 x 60 inches at intervals of 1,000 feet maximum. 1017.5 Tread Obstacles – Not to exceed 1/2 inch 1017.6 Openings – Does not allow the passage of a sphere more than 1/2 inch in diameter. 1017.7 Slopes – Not more than 30 percent of the total length of a trail shall have a running slope steeper than 1:12 (8.33%). The running slope of any segment of a trail shall not be steeper than 1:8 (12%). Where the running slope of a segment of a trail is steeper than 1:20 (5%), the maximum length of the segment shall be in accordance with Table 1017.7.1, and a resting interval complying with 1017.8 shall be provided at the top and bottom of each segment. Table 1017.7.1 Maximum Running Slope and Segment Length Running Slope of Trail Segment Maximum Length of Segment Steeper than But not Steeper than 1:20 (5%) 1:12 (8.33%) 200 feet 1:12 (8.33%) 1:10 (10%) 30 feet 1:10 (10%) 1:8 (12%) 10 feet 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 74 of 394 15 1017.8 Resting Intervals – 60 inches long minimum; at least as wide as the widest segment of the trail tread leading to the resting interval; slopes not steeper than 1:48 in any direction. The guidelines make it clear that trail project managers should consider Exception 1 first if only a portion of the trail is impracticable to make standard, or make a case for Exception 2 if it is indeed “impracticable” for the entire trail to comply with Section 1017, based on conditions described in Section 1019, below: 1019 Conditions for Exceptions 1019.1 General. Exceptions to specific provisions in 1011, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, and 1018 shall be permitted when an entity determines that any of the following conditions does not permit full compliance with the provision: 1. Compliance is not practicable due to terrain. 2. Compliance cannot be accomplished with prevailing construction practices. 3. Compliance would fundamentally alter the function or purpose of the facility or the setting. 4. Compliance is limited or precluded by any of the following laws, or by decisions or opinions issued or agreements executed pursuant to any of the following laws: • Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq.); • National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.); • National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 470 et seq.); • Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1131 et seq.); or • Other federal, state, or local law the purpose of which is to preserve threatened or endangered species; the environment; or archaeological, cultural, historical, or other significant natural features. ABA Section 1019, Conditions for Exception, provides exceptions to compliance with the technical standards identified in 1017 Trails. For the northern steep slope trail segment, compliance with the running slope requirements of 1017.7.1 is not feasible due to terrain and would likely be precluded by the National Environmental Policy Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and other state or local laws with the purpose of preserving threatened or endangered species, the environment, and significant natural features. Along the Marsh Creek Corridor, terrain is a limiting factor as land ownership constraints require the trail to be aligned at a particularly steep location. AASHTO Guidelines The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2012) and Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004), contain further recommendation for the design of these facilities. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 75 of 394 16 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Addition (2012). This is the authoritative national standard for designing on-street bicycle facilities and shared-use paths (trails). It includes chapters on bicycle planning, bicycle operations and safety, the design of on-road and shared use paths, bicycle parking, maintenance and operations. It provides design specifications for shared used paths including widths, clearances, design speeds, grades, stopping sight distances, bridges and underpasses, drainage, lighting, turn radii, intersection design (path to path and path to street), pavement markings, signs, and signals. (An updated 2019 version is under development.) The Guide recommends that shared-use paths be 12 feet or wider in areas with high use and a mix of pedestrians and bicyclists. A minimum of ten feet is acceptable in low-use areas and eight feet is acceptable for short distances where there are physical constraints (the Shared Use Path Level of Service Calculator is recommended to determine path width). Additional width is recommended along steep slopes and through curves. To accommodate all users, a maximum running slope of 5% is recommended. Path curvature should safely accommodate the fastest design speeds — typically bicyclists. These range from a 30 mph design speed (on hills) with a recommended minimum radius of 166 feet to a 12 mph design speed on flat natural surface path with a recommended minimum radius of 27 feet. Trails should be crowned or designed with a 1% minimum cross slope in the direction of the existing terrain. Where considerable run-off or freezing temperatures exist, a ditch should be placed on the uphill side. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (2004) This Guide provides nationally recognized recommendations on the planning, design and operation of pedestrian facilities with a focus on identifying effective measures for accommodating pedestrians on public rights-of-way. The Guide includes chapters on design regulations and guidelines, pedestrian characteristics and planning strategies, school and development design, traffic calming, designing roadways for safe pedestrian use, sidewalk design, intersection design, mid-block and grade-separated crossings, pedestrian-related signals and signage, sidewalk maintenance, and pedestrian accommodation in work zones. The Guide notes that two people walking side-by-side or passing one another require about five feet of space. For Shared Use Paths, the Guide notes that the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities should be used, and that those guidelines also serve the needs of pedestrians. The Guide highlights the need for paths to be accessible and recommends consulting with the Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas (AGODA), which note that it may not be feasible to design all paths to accessibility standards (due to terrain, etc.), but it is desirable to remove as many barriers as possible and to post signage noting steep grades, narrow widths, or uneven surface conditions. Trail User Types and Trail Design Preferences There is a wide variety of types of trails, in which some types have specific standards such as:,Caltrans Class I bike routes that are defined as multi-use paths, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) federal 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 76 of 394 17 standards and guidelines for access routes between developed facilities, and for trails that are destinations in their own right. The Marsh Creek Trail should be designed to adapt to its setting. In less constrained areas, where there is ample right-of-way and level ground, a Class I paved multi-use path up to 14 feet wide (at least eight feet wide to meet minimum standards) is appropriate, meeting ADA standards for accessibility. Such trails accommodate both wheelchairs and road bikes as well as pedestrians – the widest range of potential users. Ideally, an unpaved sidepath would be provided for equestrians and mountain bikes. In other settings it may be a narrow, rugged hiking/equestrian/mountain biking trail. In some cases, both trail types exist in parallel. An important objective of the current trail study and public engagement is to assess the demand for different user types and the public’s desire to accommodate them. Additional details on this are provided in Appendix B, Demand Analysis. There is a diversity of trail users, and people can’t necessarily be “pigeon-holed,” but there are some general categories of users: Wheelchair users and others with mobility constraints – ADA standards are intended to accommodate wheelchairs, but there are wheelchair athletes who tackle rough trails, and others who may be challenged to negotiate an ADA-compliant ramp. Some users have powered wheelchairs or other devices. This category includes seniors and others who may use walkers, crutches, canes, and other assistive devices. Casual walkers/hikers – people who prefer an easier, more developed trail, often because they are with family members or others who have a range of abilities, such as babies in strollers, young children, or seniors. They tend to walk side-by-side. These users tend to prefer not to be close to bikes moving at higher speeds. For these users wider, smoother, and gentler tends to be better. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 77 of 394 18 Serious hikers and trail runners – tend to prefer a narrower, steeper, more challenging trail and the associated more natural setting. Road bicyclists – skinny tires typically require pavement, wider turns, and gentler grades than recreational trails. Serious road bicyclists tend to avoid multi-use trails, so they don’t have to contend with slower users. Marsh Creek Road experiences some touring cyclists, who may choose to ride on roadway shoulders and share the lane with motor vehicles where there is no shoulder. Casual road bicyclists, including those with young children, tend to travel at a slower pace and prefer dedicated bicycle facilities with a greater degree of separation from motor vehicles, especially on high-speed roadways. Mountain bicyclists – experienced riders tend to prefer technical single-track (narrower) trails; beginners may prefer wider, gentler unpaved roads, but those tend to contribute to speed, which creates more conflict with other users. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 78 of 394 19 Equestrians – may be able to handle narrow, steep, challenging trails, but most riders prefer gentler, wider trails. Horses need to avoid surprises and need other users such as hikers and bicyclists to go to one side of the trail to allow them to pass. Many equestrians would prefer wider, gentler trails with more room for passing. Also, pavement isn’t good for horses – they require an unpaved surface or sidepath. Multi-Use Trail Design Principles for Natural Settings Laying out and designing trails in natural settings is both a science and an art. It takes a team experienced in trail planning, design, and construction to create a trail that is environmentally compatible and sustainable, and enjoyable by users. Basic principles are outlined in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. In combination, they help to meet key objectives: • Manage soil impacts – compaction, displacement and erosion • Keep water off the trail • Take people where they want to go with an enjoyable trail experience • Provide a gradual but varied route • Adapt to the existing slopes and drainage patterns • Protect natural resources • Mange bike speed by avoiding long straight steep sections For multi-use trails mixing hikers, bicyclists and potentially equestrians, it is important to maintain sight distance ahead to avoid surprise encounters, and to provide regular passing spaces at least six feet wide if the trail is narrower than this. Emergency access should be factored into design and is easier on a Class 1 path. Amenities and support features, such as wayfinding signage, map boards, and benches, are also important features for use and enjoyability. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 79 of 394 20 Follow Natural Contours: Trails that follow natural contours shed water easily and are more functional for a broad range of users. Follow the “Half Rule:” A trail's slope should not be any greater than half the grade of the hillside it contours along. For example, if the slope of the hill the trail runs along is 16%, then the grade of the trail should be no more than 8%. This will allow water to flow across the trail, off the trail and continue down the slope. This is especially important along gentle slopes. Use a full bench trail on steep slopes: If feasible, use full bench (not partial bench) trail construction on steep side slopes. The outside tread is much less likely to fail or be worn away. Partial bench trails are typically feasible only on slopes of 20% or less. Outslope the Tread: The trail tread should be outsloped (sloped away from the hillside) at 3 to 4%. This will allow water that comes on to the trail to flow off downhill and not be channeled down the trail. Close and Reclaim Unsustainable Trails: Where existing trails cannot be improved, the entire route should be obliterated, and a suitable replacement route provided. Figure 4-1: Trail layout and design principles 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 80 of 394 21 10% Average Grade, Maximum: An average trail grade of 10% or less will be most sustainable, on most soils and for most users. For ADA compliance, and for accommodating the maximum range of users in a public setting where the terrain allows it, a maximum gradient of 5% is desirable, though ADA standards for trails allow steeper sections for compliant trails. Tread Watersheds and Grade Reversals: To avoid concentrating water on the trail, reverse grade often with a series of dips and crests. Dividing the trail tread into smaller watersheds minimizes erosion caused by water flowing along the tread. Small scale erosion will remain a problem within each watershed, but the problems will be more manageable. Depending on soil type and annual rainfall, a low point should occur every 20 to 50 linear feet. Use Drainage “Knicks” and “Rolling Dips:” Drainage “knicks” and “rolling dips” help drain water from the tread surface where rolling grades are not feasible. “Knicks” are used on gently sloped trails. “Rolling dips” are used on steeper slopes. Design with a Rolling Grade: Rolling grade trails climb slopes using a series of climbs and subtle drops. The change in grade allows water to drain off the trail tread. The series of curves and dips makes the trail more interesting for users, and provide short periods of downhill during long climbs. The curves also provide visual separation between groups of trail users. Avoid Switchbacks: Use climbing turns where feasible. If switchbacks are required, space them far enough apart to reduce visual impact and shortcutting. Crown switchbacks to improve drainage. Figure 4-1: Trail layout and design principles, continued 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 81 of 394 22 Trail Design Considerations for Steep Slopes Where a trail must traverse or climb up or down a steep slope there are important considerations and trade-offs for design of the trail to accommodate the widest range of users while preserving the most natural resources, and limiting cost and maintenance to a practical level. Trail Width A wider trail will accommodate a wider variety and volume of users. However, construction and maintenance costs, site disturbance, and tree removal tend to increase exponentially along with trail width. A consistent trail bench (relatively flat graded surface) width of six feet tends to yield a net trail width of four feet due to raveling of the cut and fill edges and encroachment of vegetation and tree litter. A wider trail bench would require an exponential increase in grading and expansion of ground disturbance, as illustrated in Figure 1-3. In many locations, particularly at climbing turns, high retaining walls would be required to maintain a stable trail and avoid more tree removal and graded area. Trail Gradient As the grade (or steepness) of the trail increases, the variety of people who are able to use the trail decreases. For example, people in wheelchairs and many people on bicycles would find it hard to use a trail where the grade is greater than eight percent. However, as the grade of the trail changes, the length of the trail alignment increases exponentially, as shown in Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5. Figure 4-3. Example of different trail widths on steep slope and the exponential increase in soil removal 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 82 of 394 23 To meet accessibility requirements stated in the California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines, which take into consideration both federal and state regulations, whenever a route of travel exceeds a slope of 5%, a ramp must be provided. Should a ramp be required, it cannot exceed 8.3% in gradient and must have landings for every 30” of vertical gain, which equates to every 35’ of trail. The landings must be level (no more than 2% gradient), and no less than 60” wide in all directions. The guidelines are intended to allow all users to comfortably climb elevation and have adequate space to rest. California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines state that if a trail segment has a slope greater than 5% but not steeper than 8.33%, it cannot exceed 200’ in length and must have landings on either side of the segment. If the slope is greater than 8.33% but no steeper than 10%, the segment must be no longer than 30’ between landings. If the slope is between 10%-12% the maximum length of the trail between landings is 10’. No trail can exceed a 12% gradient if it is to be designated as accessible. Figure 4-4. Illustration of trail length at various slope t Figure 4-5. Change in length of trail needed to rise 10 feet at gradients of 7%, 10% Figure 1-6: Trail gradient requirements from California State Parks Accessibility Guidelines (2015) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 83 of 394 24 Trail Surfacing The trail surface can be composed of a variety of materials including material found on-site. Types of surface materials can include compacted base rock, quarry fines, or decomposed granite (DG) with a polymer binder such as the proprietary Park Tread surface used on trails in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. This accommodates a wider range of users but increases construction and maintenance costs. An asphaltic concrete (AC) trail would require further trail bed and hillside stabilization and have additional environmental impacts. If Park Tread were used it would likely require periodic maintenance to recondition the surface where any erosion of the surface or settlement of the subgrade had occurred. An asphaltic concrete (AC) trail would have a brittle surface that would require further trail bed grading, compaction, and hillside stabilization if asphalt cracking and settlement were to be avoided, and such work would have further environmental impacts during construction. Figure 4-8. Example of an asphaltic concrete (AC) trail Figure 4-7. Example of Park Tread surface near Golden Gate Bridge 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 84 of 394 25 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has had success on their access roads using a special base rock mixture, with smaller sized rock than the standard road base mixture, and treated with lime to help it bind and compact (see Figure 4-11 and 4-12). This could be installed with much less subgrade preparation than pavement. It would be much less expensive at the outset (on the order of a fourth to a third the cost of asphalt pavement) but it would require more annual maintenance. Figure 4-12 shows an Open Space District Road after a few years of wear, including use by cattle (similar to horse impacts). This surface would not be as smooth and stable as asphalt and would be more challenging/uncomfortable for some users (i.e., people using strollers or wheeled walkers) but given the steep slopes, unstable soils, and Figure 4-9. Example of base rock surfaced multi-use trail in Marin County Figure 4-10. Example of new natural (dirt) surfaced trail in Marin County 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 85 of 394 26 remote locations of portions of the trail the benefits of paving for access are reduced. This lime-treated base rock mixture is a reasonable compromise given the significant cost savings compared to asphalt. Figure 4-11. Lime-treated base rock surface Figure 4-12. Lime-treated base rock surface after use and weathering 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 86 of 394 27 Switchbacks and Climbing Turns Climbing up a steep hillside within a narrow piece of property requires multiple switchbacks, which has an environmental impact. Reducing the trail gradient (or steepness) to provide access for the disabled and people on bicycles also increases the number of switchbacks. Accommodating bicyclists, by designing “climbing turns” with a minimum 12-foot centerline radius, as shown in Figure 4-13, further impacts the hillside. Design note: Climbing Turns have a steeper gradient on the inside radius of a switchback and a lesser gradient along the outer edge. If turns can be sited on less steep slopes, they will require less grading. Conversely, on steeper slopes they will require more significant cuts on the uphill side, and taller retaining walls on the downhill side, as shown in Figure 1-14. Figure 4-14. Example of tie-back structures recommended for trail turns along steep slopes where the natural terrain is too steep to place structural fill in a stable manner Figure 4-13. Example of area required for 6-foot-wide trail to make 12-foot wide turn 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 87 of 394 28 Retaining Walls Retaining walls are often needed when a trail is built within a steep slope. A wider trail on a steeper slope will require higher retaining walls. If taller and/or more robust retaining walls were required, they would likely need to be cast in place concrete with deep footings or concrete pier foundations, driving up construction cost and access impacts. Figure 4- 15 shows the type of wall that might be necessary. An alternative to concrete walls in more remote trail settings where wooden retaining walls are more practical would be engineered “sutter” type walls, with vertical steel beams retaining timber segment walls (see Figure 4-16). These are typically four to six feet high or higher. They often feature “tie-back” anchors drilled into the slope. In some areas along the trail corridor, for shorter walls (less than four feet high) stacked rock walls (see Figure 4-17) could be used to retain cuts, and potentially fills, at climbing turns. This would blend into the natural environment and be simpler to engineer and construct. Finally, there is the option of concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, as illustrated in Figure 4-18. These are typically more practical to build in an urban, accessible setting. They may be a good alternative to stacked rock walls supporting the downhill side of a switchback or climbing turn, where they can be hidden by burying in soil. Figure 4-15. Concrete retaining wall 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 88 of 394 29 Figure 4-16. Sutter-type retaining wall for trail on a steep slope Figure 4-18. Concrete masonry unit retaining wall (could be covered with soil and planted on Figure 4-17. Stacked rock retaining wall 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 89 of 394 30 Creek Setback Requirements Contra Costa County zoning codes require a 30-foot setback for roads or paved trails from the top of a creek bank, but the Marsh Creek corridor is subject to the requirements of the adopted Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). The HCP/NCCP is intended to provide regional conservation and development guidelines to protect natural resources, while improving and streamlining the permit process for endangered species and wetland regulations. Environmental Science Associates (ESA), who is responsible for researching environmental constraints for this study, documented the pertinent standards for this report. Stream setback requirements are described in Chapter 6 Conditions: Conservation Measure 1.7 of the HCP/NCCP: “Project proponents are encouraged to site trails and access roads outside the required setback to reduce disturbance to wildlife that use adjacent streams and riparian habitats. When roads and trails cannot be sited outside the required setback, they must be sited as far from the stream channel as practicable, must adhere to limitations on exceptions to stream setback requirements described in Table 6-2, and must mitigate additional impacts as described below. Project proponents are encouraged to use permeable or semi-permeable surfaces on roads and trails within stream setbacks as long as they are consistent with safety and zoning limits. If such surfaces are used, the project may be eligible for fee reductions.” Table 6-2 from the HCP/NCCP is replicated below (the last row applies to Marsh Creek): for the mainstem of Marsh Creek within the HCP area, there is a dedicated 75-foot setback, not the County’s 30-foot setback. There is a 300 linear-foot limit on exceptions to the setback requirements that “may” be granted. This exemption covers bridges and outfalls; the paragraph above implies it could cover roads and trails, but these are not explicitly included in Table 6-2. The document also states that, “All covered activities must also meet County and city setback requirements, where applicable.” Based on this, it appears that if the project wants to use the HCP/NCCP to cover special-species impacts, it will need to demonstrate compliance with local setback requirements and the HCP setback requirements where feasible, and potentially be subject to additional mitigation fees. Due to the natural topography of the study area, it is likely that the trail will frequently fall within the proposed setback area. To minimize impacts to the creek in these instances, it is recommended that the trail be constructed in keeping with the recommended permeable and semi-permeable surfaces as described above, and that opportunities for creek and habitat restoration be conducted as part of trail construction. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 90 of 394 31 Table 6-2: Stream Setback Requirements for Streams within the Urban Development Area Stream Reach Type and Location Buffer Objective/ Function (from Figure 5-11) Example Sites in Inventory Area Required Setback (from top of bank measured in aerial perspective) Limitations on Exceptions to Setback Requirements That May Be Granted by Local Agencies Comments Maximum allowable Linear Impact to Streams (per project) Activities Eligible for Streams Impact Exemption Maximum Allowable Area of Impact within Setback (per project) 1st and 2nd order5 ephemeral reaches in urban and agricultural areas N/A Multiple unnamed tributaries to intermittent and perennial reaches Avoidance and minimization measures for drainages must be documented but no setback is required No limitations3 Any activities No limitations4 These reaches are located in dense urban and intensive agricultural areas, and provide low habitat function for covered species. Avoidance and implementation of Conservation Measure 1.10 will minimize impacts to water quality and hydrologic functions. Concrete-lined channels Enhance water quality; retain restoration potential Reaches of Kirker Creek 20 ft No limitations3 Any activities No limitations4 These reaches are located in dense urban areas and provide low habitat function for covered species. A minimal buffer width will reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from surface flows, retain some potential for stream restoration, and provide for recreational opportunities. 1st and 2nd order5 ephemeral reaches in natural areas Erosion and nutrient control; Multiple unnamed tributaries to intermittent and perennial reaches 25 ft No limitations3 Any activities No limitations4 Although ephemeral streams play a limited role in providing habitat to covered species, these systems represent the first point of entry for sediment and other contaminants into downstream reaches. Thus, unlike the stream types below, the primary objective of the setback for ephemeral streams is to filter out sediment and contaminants before they degrade downstream habitat. Perennial, intermittent, or 3rd or higher order5 ephemeral streams in urban areas except Marsh Creek mainstem Enhance water quality; retain restoration potential Lower Willow Creek, Lower Kirker Creek 50 ft 300 feet3 Necessary bridges and outfalls Up to 15% of setback area4 These reaches are located mostly in dense urban areas and provide low habitat function for covered species. However, potential may exist for restoration of riparian vegetation and minimal floodplain areas. In addition, a minimal buffer width will reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from surface flows and provide for recreational opportunities. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 91 of 394 32 Stream Reach Type and Location Buffer Objective/ Function (from Figure 5-11) Example Sites in Inventory Area Required Setback (from top of bank measured in aerial perspective) Limitations on Exceptions to Setback Requirements That May Be Granted by Local Agencies Comments Maximum allowable Linear Impact to Streams (per project) Activities Eligible for Streams Impact Exemption Maximum Allowable Area of Impact within Setback (per project) Perennial, intermittent, or 3rd or higher order5 ephemeral streams in agricultural or natural areas and Marsh Creek mainstem Enhance water quality; retain restoration potential See examples below6 75 ft 300 feet3 Necessary bridges and outfalls Up to 15% of setback area4 These reaches retain the greatest habitat value and potential for restoration within the Urban Development Area. The buffer will filter sediment and other contaminants, maintain habitat for covered species, allow for restoration of riparian vegetation and some small floodplain areas, as well as providing recreation opportunities. Source: Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), https://www.cocohcp.org/221/Final-HCP-NCCP Notes: 1 Location parameters (e.g., “agricultural areas”, “natural areas”, etc.) describe the setting of the stream at the time of completing this HCP/NCCP and refer to the fee zones and urban landcover shown in Figure 9-1. 2 Where native woody riparian vegetation is present, minimum setbacks must extend to the outer dripline of the riparian vegetation or the specified number of feet measured from top of bank, whichever is greatest. Riparian vegetation is defined broadly to include oaks and other woody species that function as riparian corridors. Setbacks must also meet minimum setback requirements of the applicable local land use agency. Contra Costa County has an ordinance regulating impacts near unimproved earthen channels. This Ordinance requires a “structure setback line” that varies between approximately 30 feet and 50 feet from top of bank depending on the height of top of bank above the channel invert (County Code Title 9, Division 914-14.012). 3 Mitigation is required for all impacts to streams, as described in Chapter 5. Restoration requirements are summarized in Tables 5-16, 5-17, and 9-5. Preservation requirements are summarized in Tables 5-5a and 5-5b and may be accomplished through payment of the development fee described in Section 9.3.1 or through provision of land in lieu of fees. 4 Restrictions will be measured as a percentage of the setback area excluding the area the of the stream channel. Impacts within setbacks must be mitigated through: a) payment of the development fee described in Section 9.3.1 over the entire property including the setback and the stream channel; and b) through payment of the riparian impact fee (see Table 9-5) for every acre of impact within the setback or through direct performance of riparian restoration at a 0.5 to 1 ratio on-site or offsite. 5 Stream order refers to the numeric identification of the links within a stream network. This document follows the stream ordering system of Strahler (1964). In this system, a first order stream is a stream with an identifiable bed and bank, without any tributary streams. A second order stream is formed by the confluence of two first order streams. A third order stream is formed by the confluence of two second order streams, and so on. Addition of a lesser order stream does not change the stream order of the trunk stream. 6 Perennial streams in agricultural or natural areas within the Inventory Area consist of the following: • Mount Diablo Creek, Russelman Creek, Peacock Creek upstream of the Oakhurst Country Club property, and tributaries to Mount Diablo Creek within Mount Diablo State Park; • Kellogg Creek in the Foothills/Upper Valley and Delta geomorphic zones; • Brushy Creek in the Delta and Lower Valley/Plain geomorphic zones; • Indian, Rock, Sand Mound, Dutch, Piper, and Taylor Sloughs, and False River (does not include reaches in concrete channels); and • Sand Creek and Oil Canyon Creek in the Montane geomorphic zone. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 92 of 394 33 Staging Area Design Trail staging areas, or parking areas, provide access to the trail and can be simple turnouts along the road accommodating a few vehicles, small parking areas accommodating 8 to 10 vehicles, or very large lots accommodating dozens of vehicles with additional amenities, such as the staging area for the Round Valley Regional Park near Brentwood. Staging areas need to have safe ingress and egress for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, which requires a straight stretch of road with sufficient sight distance in either direction and should be situated on relatively level terrain with sufficient drainage. Most rural staging areas are surfaced with base rock/gravel, although ADA parking spaces must be paved to meet current standards. The layout may be perpendicular parking with the same lane for entering and departing, or angled parking with loop access drives. Such loop access is particularly important for accommodating horse trailers, for which there may be demand along the Marsh Creek Trail. Round Valley Regional Park Staging Area Small staging area at Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve Stewarts Point Coastal Trail Staging Area Plan 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 93 of 394 34 Example of staging area plan with horse trailer parking (Jacobs Ranch, Sonoma Mountain) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 94 of 394 35 Trail Amenities Trail amenities are elements that support user access and improve the user experience. They are often invisible to the user, except in their absence. Some amenities, such as trash receptacles, help maintain a positive experience for users. Other amenities, such as benches, make trails more usable and comfortable by providing resting places. Trail amenities can fall into two categories: amenities found at the trailhead/staging area, and amenities found along the trail. Within the trailhead amenities category, there are those that are appropriate at larger trailheads, or staging areas, and those that are appropriate at the smaller and more typical trail access points. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 95 of 394 36 Staging Area Amenities Staging areas are the major access points to the trail system, and therefore should have the most comprehensive set of amenities. Each staging area should have: • Vehicle parking • Bicycle parking • Trail rules and information • Trailhead information kiosks • Maps • Trail signposts • Restrooms • Drinking water • Trash and recycling receptacles • Dog waste stations (if dogs are permitted) • Picnic tables • Benches In many cases, it is appropriate for a staging area to also have: • Interpretive information • Picnic shelters • Self-guided tour information Briones Preserve Newt Hollow Picnic Area Recommended Amenities at Staging Areas 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 96 of 394 37 Trailhead Amenities Trailheads include all the access points to a given trail. In many cases, these are simply locations where the trail meets a roadway. In all cases, there are minimum elements that should be present at each access point: • Trail rules and information • Trail signposts and/or other identification In some cases, the trailhead is larger than a minor access point, but not large enough to warrant an entire staging area set up. At such mid-sized trailheads, it would be appropriate to have additional facilities, such as: • Bicycle parking • Trailhead information kiosks • Trash and recycling receptacles • Dog waste stations (if dogs are permitted) • Drinking water • Benches Recommended Amenities at Minor Trailheads Recommended Amenities at Mid-Size Trailheads 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 97 of 394 38 On-Trail Amenities The need for specific amenities along the trail varies greatly depending on the type and location of the trail. The only elements required for most types of trails are: • Trail signposts • Benches at key overlooks and rest spots In all cases, trail signposts should be provided at every trail junction. In many cases it is beneficial to include mile markers along the trail. Other elements that should be considered along very heavily used trails include: • Restrooms • Drinking water • Trash and recycling receptacles • Picnic shelters • Picnic tables Also beneficial are: • Interpretive panels • Dog waste stations • Benches • Self-guided tour Recommended Amenities On-Trail 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 98 of 394 39 5. Potential Trail Typologies for Marsh Creek Corridor The following locations illustrate different settings where the trail would require special design considerations. While specific cross sections may vary depending on the ultimate alignment of the trail, these locations illustrate typical conditions found throughout the project corridor. Steep Slope - Retaining Wall/Switchback Location Multiple locations will involve creating a trail across a steep slope. The example below shows a 2:1 slope with an existing narrow road (about 6’ wide) overlaid by a 14’ wide paved trail with a 6’ to 8’ high retaining wall. The envisioned route uses an existing paved access road that leads to Contra Costa Water District water tanks, with switchbacks/climbing turns before the tanks to continue the trail below them. This hillside shows evidence of prior slope failures. Figure 5-1 shows a simulation of an alternative trail configuration. Figure 5-2 shows two alternative configurations for this steep slope trail: A separate unpaved trail at a lower elevation for mountain bikes, horses, and potentially trail runners and dog walkers, and a 14-foot- wide bench requiring a taller retaining wall that would allow the unpaved path. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 99 of 394 40 Figure 5-1. Trail simulation on steep hillside 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 100 of 394 41 Figure 5-2. Alternative steep slope trail configurations 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 101 of 394 42 Road Crossings There are several potential crossing locations of Marsh Creek Road identified in the study; the location shown in Figure 5-3 at Morgan Territory Road is a typical example. With a 45-mph speed limit (and often vehicles are traveling faster) it is important to implement a high visibility crosswalk and warning devices to alert motorists of people crossing. At this location and many others there are embankments on the side of the road that would need to have accessible ramps to facilitate access. Figure 5-3 illustrates these improvements. Sight distance to the crosswalk and visibility of warning beacons would also need to be evaluated during the design phase. Figure 5-3. Illustrative trail road crossing near Morgan Territory Road 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 102 of 394 43 On Roadway This is a typical segment where the trail would be adjacent to the road in the right-of-way. There is a steep hillside adjacent, and to create space for a multi-use trail would require significant concrete retaining walls and a barrier between the trail and the roadway. Drainage along the base of the slope would have to be accommodated. Use of this shoulder would eliminate the opportunity for motorists to pull over on this segment, and any such change to the shoulder should be coordinated with the California Highway Patrol. Figure 5-4. Trail in the ROW along base of steep hill 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 103 of 394 44 Figure 5-5 shows an example of a route in the right-of-way in a more level setting, such as near the Clayton Palms Mobile Home Community. There is adequate space for a multi-use trail if a barrier between the road and the trail is provided. There is a series of utility poles and signs in the middle of the trail corridor. They would either have to be relocated or the trails would have to split around them, as illustrated in Figure 5-5. Typically, there is a ditch or swale in the right-of-way that would have to be accommodated. Figure 5-5. Trail in the ROW in a flat area 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 104 of 394 45 On Driveway or Fire Road Where possible, the trail alignment aims to follow existing roadways to minimize impacts to undisturbed land. In this illustrative example, the proposed route alignment shows the trail following this private driveway and fire road to reach a parallel former ranch road that would bypass narrow portions of Marsh Creek Road, assuming permission/acceptance from the adjacent property owner. As a private road, recreational trail use is currently prohibited. Given the low levels of traffic, signing and pavement marking would suffice to guide trail users. Figure 5-6. Route up a driveway/fire road 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 105 of 394 46 Flat Land + Trail Figure 5-7 is an example of an unconstrained segment, where the full width of paved trail plus an unpaved side path could easily be accommodated. Figure 5-8 illustrates a potential configuration for a trail in a wide-open flat space. Ideally it would have a separate unpaved trail for horses, mountain bikes, and potentially trail runners and dog walkers. Figure 5-7. Trail in an unconstrained area 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 106 of 394 47 Figure 5-8. Design for a trail in unconstrained area 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 107 of 394 48 Detached from Road, Adjacent to Creek The trail location shown in Figure 5-9 includes a very steep slope which may potentially exhibit slope failures. A narrower trail across the steep slope will require a robust retaining wall, which still could potentially fail given the apparent unstable soils in the area. An alternative would be a narrower trail on the shoulder of the road. Some portions of the roadway have turnouts that would accommodate even a wide trail (Figure 5-10), but some portions have no paved shoulder and berms on the outside (Figure 5- 11). These would have to be removed, potentially a retaining wall and railing constructed on the slope to provide additional width, and a barrier placed between the road and the trail. The best alternative would be to secure permission to locate the trail on the other side of the creek, where the land is relatively flat. Figure 5-9. Trail at the base of a steep slope 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 108 of 394 49 Figure 5-10. Wide unpaved shoulder with turnout Figure 5-11. Portion with no shoulder 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 109 of 394 50 Detached from Road and Creek In select locations, the trail is unconstrained and could easily accommodate a Class I trail with a separate unpaved sidepath for horses and mountain bikes. In this example within Round Valley Regional Preserve, the former ranch road trails that this segment connects to are unpaved and do not meet ADA gradients. A new route near the dead vineyard to the right in Figure 5-13 would allow an ADA-compliant connection. Figure 5-12. Unconstrained area detached from creek 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 110 of 394 51 Figure 5-13. Potential connecting trail in Round Valley Regional Preserve Figure 5-14. View on same trail toward staging area 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 111 of 394 52 6. Implementation Considerations Implementation of the Marsh Creek Trail is expected to occur over a long period of time, as funding and land for the trail become available. This section provides recommendations for a phased implementation approach by segment, cost estimates, and an overview of the environmental assessment. Phasing Each section of the trail has varied considerations for implementation. As such, a phased approach is recommended that prioritizes the development of one trail section at a time, starting on either end of the trail and ultimately meeting in the middle in the Dark Canyon area. An overview of the phasing is showing in Figure 6-1, with proposed alignments shown in the Corridor Maps in Appendix C. It is recommended that outreach and collaboration with occur with residents, property owners, and potential users continue to occur as each phase moves through more detailed design and into implementation and construction. Phase 1: Clayton City Limits to Clayton Ranch The section of trail proposed for initial implementation would connect to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities at the Clayton city limits and stretch approximately 5.7 miles to the east. The trail is recommended to connect to lands held by the East Bay Regional Parks District (EBRPD), which begin approximately 2.3 miles from the Clayton City limits. The property, known locally as Clayton Ranch, is planned for future recreational amenities including public access and hiking trails. Phase 1 would allow for a more immediately usable section of trail that links public lands to existing bike and pedestrian facilities. Connecting to planned projects at Clayton Ranch would reduce the overall cost and effort for implementation, while also creating new access to recreational amenities. This section of the overall project also has the highest amount of land held publicly or by Save Mount Diablo, reducing the need for right-of-way acquisition. It is anticipated that the portion of the trail within Clayton Ranch would be developed by EBRPD. Phase 2: Clayton Palms to Round Valley Regional Preserve Similar to Phase 1, the second phase of the project would leverage existing recreational amenities at Round Valley Regional Preserve. With a length of approximately 4.7 miles, this section of trail would extend from Round Valley on the southern side of the roadway, cross at Deer Valley Road, and end just west of the Clayton Palms community, increasing recreational opportunities for residents of that community. The trail would also provide better access to Round Valley by bicyclists using the existing bike lanes on Deer Valley Road, which is a popular cycling route that connects to Brentwood. Implementing this section of trail will require sensitivity to private land ownership given that most of the proposed alignment, while following Marsh Creek, crosses through multiple privately owned properties. As such, two alignments are proposed, with one focused on on-road improvements along Marsh Creek 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 112 of 394 53 Road to use public right-of-way and minimize environmental impacts, particularly in the area just east of Deer Valley Road. A second proposed alignment would veer away from the roadway to maintain the preferred off-road nature of the facility, but should be considered a long-term option as land in that area becomes available for a trail easement by willing sellers. This section of trail also requires the least amount of physical disruption to the environment, as the terrain begins to flatten and fewer retaining walls will be required. Phase 3: Dark Canyon The third phase of the project will link both prior segments of trail to create a continuous facility from Clayton to Round Valley Regional Preserve. Running approximately 4.7 miles through the “Dark Canyon” area of the corridor, this section of trail features the greatest number of physical constraints on the alignment due to steep terrain and will require the trail to run in close proximity to the creek on the south side of Marsh Creek Road, with a crossing back to the north side at either end of the section. Ownership is mixed within the section. Several small parcels are held by Save Mount Diablo, and as such the trail alignment seeks to connect between those areas to minimize impacts on private land. A high number of retaining walls will likely be required to provide a usable trail at even a minimum trail width. Given the need to run the trail adjacent or near to Marsh Creek, this can also provide an opportunity for trail implementation and creek rehabilitation efforts to occur simultaneously. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 113 of 394 54 Figure 6-1: Proposed Implementation Phasing 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 114 of 394 55 Cost Estimates The cost estimate for Marsh Creek Trail was based on the Caltrans six-page cost estimate format for each of the three trail segments. The full estimates can be found in Appendix D. The first step was to identify all relevant bid items in the following five categories: earthwork, structural section, drainage, specialty items, and traffic items. Within each category, individual items were identified and unit costs were assigned to each item based on recent bid results as of 2020 and the online Caltrans unit cost database for those same items within the same district (District 4). Next, additional cost percentages were added to the previously determined items to account for varying market prices and additional construction costs. These additional cost percentages included a percentage for minor items, roadway mobilization, roadway additions, and contingencies. Several project assumptions were made regarding the item quantities included in the cost estimate. The trail length assumes the predetermined path alignment will be followed, however, unforeseen constructability constraints may cause the trail length to change and thus trail material quantities could fluctuate. Another major assumption made is in respect to trail segments that require a retaining wall to construct the path. While it is likely that the height of the wall will fluctuate along the trail, a conservative assumption was made that the average height of the retaining wall required along any part of the segment will be closer to the maximum height. Costs estimates do not include right of way acquisition or escalation over time. Given that there is no current timeframe for implementation, costs will need to be adjusted to current year values at the time of design and construction. Estimated Costs by Phase Trail Section Estimated Cost Phase 1: Clayton (west end) $19.1 million Phase 2: Round Valley (east end) $7.1 million Phase 3: Dark Canyon (middle) $16.5 million Note: Cost estimates are based on 2020 values. Environmental Assessment A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions (HRECs), or Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) on the parcels. The full Phase I document can be found in Appendix E. The following conditions were identified: • The Marsh Creek Corridor is occupied by rural residences, ranches and farms, open space and state and regional parks. Small, denser areas of suburban residences are present at the far western end of the corridor south of Marsh Road, and along the north side of Marsh Creek Road 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 115 of 394 56 about 3½ miles from the eastern end of the corridor. Two subsurface crude oil pipelines are present along the north side of Marsh Creek Road along the western half of the corridor, where the pipelines then cross under Marsh Creek Road and continue to the south. A Contra Costa Water District subsurface water pipeline is present in various locations along both sides of the road. If the trail alignment is proposed to cross the pipelines, the pipeline owners will need to be notified and consulted to acquire their authorization. One set of high-power transmission lines and towers cuts north-northwest to south-southeast across the western portion of the corridor. No industrial facilities or sites are present. There were no observations of discolored soil, water, or stressed vegetation due to chemical spills, above or underground storage tanks, pits, ponds, or lagoons. Minor debris and occasional trash were observed but are considered a de minimus condition because the materials can be recycled or disposed of at any Class III non-hazardous waste landfill as non-hazardous waste. • Some portions of the corridor are on public property (e.g., Mt. Diablo State Park) and were entered at various locations for direct inspection. Some portions of the corridor are on private properties, which were not entered. The private properties were observed from the property lines, which provided sufficient information to identify RECs, with one exception. The property at 8990 Marsh Creek Road across the road from the southeast corner of Rodie’s Feed & Pet Supply was observed to have landscaping equipment and supplies, assumed to include fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fuels, and lubricating oils. The property appeared to have poor housekeeping as materials were on the bare ground and not secured in sheds or within secondary containment. No spills, stained soil, or stressed vegetation were observed from the fence line, but it is unknown whether spills have occurred on this property. Although this property does not rise to the level of a REC (no spills or stressed vegetation were observed), it should be considered a business environmental risk if the proposed trail crosses this property. If the trail alignment is to cross this property, soil should be sampled and analyzed for fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, fuels, and lubricating oils. • The regulatory records search identified several sites that use or previously used hazardous materials. None of the listed sites are active hazardous materials spill sites and therefore are not expected to affect the proposed project. In summary, no RECs, HRECs, or CRECs were observed relative to hazardous materials, hazardous waste, or chemical use, storage, or disposal. One business environmental concern was identified at the 8990 Marsh Creek Road property due to poor housekeeping of landscaping materials and supplies. While the trail is not anticipated to cross the property at this time, should the trail alignment change it is recommended that soil be sampled and analyzed for fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides fuels, and lubricating oils. Property Acquisition and Access Options Acquiring access for a trail across private property is a sensitive subject that must be approached carefully. There is no eminent domain, or forced sale of property for trails; access depends on arrangements with willing sellers. This includes access across public properties. Typically, the objective is to avoid impact on residences, their access roads or agricultural facilities or operations. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 116 of 394 57 Outright Acquisition – Fee Title This is purchase of the entire property from a willing seller. Often land trusts or agencies will buy the property and then lease it out for grazing or sell it at a discount with an easement for the trail and protection against development. The continuation of dwellings and agricultural use helps maintain a revenue stream to support the maintenance and operation of the property and provides some oversight. Easements An easement for trail access can potentially be purchased from a willing seller. This could be a specific corridor across the property, or a broader area that allows more flexible trail layout and relocation. Easements often have conditions that help preserve agricultural operations, including potential closure of the trail during key periods of activity if trail use might interfere or cause risk for the users. Licenses For access across public property, often the agency owner will grant the trail organization a license that specifies the location and conditions for the trail access. A license is typically for a period of time (e.g., 5 to 10 years). A permanent easement could also be granted by the agency owner. Funding The implementation of the Marsh Creek Trail system will likely take many years and will require the use of a variety of funding sources. Funding sources are available from local county, regional, state, and federal agencies, as well as local organizations and non-profits. The following list describes various grant programs and other funding sources that can be resources for developing the Marsh Creek Trail. Local Sources County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Contra Costa County could utilize funds allocated in their capital improvement plan to fund trail development. The capital improvement plan is a short-range plan which identifies capital projects and equipment purchases, provides a planning schedule, and identifies options for financing the plan. Developer Fees and/or Transportation Impact Fees. Local or area-wide transportation impact fees can be required. In this case, a developer would pay into a fund that would be used to plan and build transportation infrastructure, such as trail projects. The nexus is often made that vehicle trip reductions can be supported through multimodal projects. Local organizations, individuals, and non-profits. Occasionally local organizations and non-profits will help fund portions of trail projects. In this case the Save Mount Diablo organization and East Bay Regional Park District are potential project partners. There are other local organizations, private companies, or 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 117 of 394 58 individuals that may wish to provide funding for trail implementation or trail amenities such as benches, bike racks, wayfinding, and more. CCTA Measure J. Measure J was approved by Contra Costa County voters in 2004, which extended the half-percent cent local transportation sales tax first established by Measure C in 1988 for another 25 years. The sales tax has funded multiple major capitol projects and provides funds to cities, towns, and the County to maintain local streets and roads, help fund transportation services for the elderly and persons with disabilities, and provide bus transit services. One and a half percent of revenues from Measure J are for construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including regional trails throughout Contra Costa. Measure WW Local Grant Program. Measure WW was approved by voters in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in November 2008. The measure extended Measure AA, approved in 1988, to enable the East Bay Regional Park District to meet the increasing demand of protecting open space for recreation and wildlife habitat. Measure WW provided $500 million in bonds to expand regional parks and trails, and to preserve and protect open space for recreation and wildlife habitat. It also made funding available directly to cities and special park districts for high priority community park projects. Of the $500 million from Measure WW, $125 million (25%) is allocated on a per-capita basis for grants to 46 cities, communities, local park and recreation districts, county service areas, and the Oakland Zoo to address local park and recreation needs. Regional Sources One Bay Area Grants (OBAG). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) One Bay Area Grant program (OBAG) is a funding approach that aligns the Commission's investments with support for focused growth. Established in 2012, OBAG taps federal funds to maintain MTC's commitments to regional transportation priorities while also advancing the Bay Area's land-use and housing goals. OBAG includes both a regional program and a county program that both targets project investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and rewards cities and counties that approve new housing construction and accept allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process. Cities and counties can use these OBAG funds to invest in local street and road maintenance, streetscape enhancements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, transportation planning, and Safe Routes to School projects. The most recent OBAG funding cycle (OBAG 2) funded approximately $800 million in projects from 2017/2018 through 2021/2022. Regional Active Transportation Program. While the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers statewide Active Transportation Program grants, MTC is allocated a portion of the funds to administer a regional component. MTC provides a regional supplemental application in addition to the statewide application to apply for the competitive program funds. The program allows cities, counties, transit agencies and other public agencies to compete for grants to build bicycle/pedestrian paths, install bike racks, and other projects or programs that make walking or biking easier, safer, and more convenient. Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3. The Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA 3) program provides funding annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects, which could include trails. Two 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 118 of 394 59 percent of TDA funds collected in the County are used for TDA 3. MTC allows each county to determine how to use funds in their county. Some counties competitively select projects while other counties distribute the funds to jurisdictions based on population. Each county coordinates a consolidated annual request for projects to be funded in their counties. State Funding Sources California State Parks. Given the Marsh Creek Trails’ proximity to Mount Diablo State Park it may be feasible to partner with State Parks to build and maintain a trail that would serve the State Park. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). In 1991, the California State Legislature authorized the Air District to impose a $4 surcharge on cars and trucks registered within its jurisdiction to be used to provide grant funding to eligible projects that reduce on-road motor vehicle emissions. The Air District allocates these funds to its Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program, which in turn provides funding to qualifying trip-reduction and alternative-fuel vehicle-based projects, including plug-in electric vehicles. Sixty percent of TFCA funds are awarded by the Air District to eligible programs and projects through a grant program known as the Regional Fund, through various Air District sponsored programs and projects including Spare the Air, and through certain alternative-fuel vehicle-based and bicycle facility programs. The remaining 40 percent of TFCA funds are passed through to the County Program Manager Fund and are awarded by the Congestion Management Agencies of the nine counties to TFCA-eligible projects located within those counties. Qualifying projects include “bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements”, which could include the construction of trails and trail amenities. Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grants. The Active Transportation Program consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Office of State Programs. The purpose of the ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation by increasing the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking, increasing safety of non-motorized users, reduce greenhouse gases, enhance public health, and ensure that under-resourced communities full share in the benefits of the program. Recreational Trails Program (RTP). The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails-related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP). Eligible non-motorized projects include acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property for recreational trails and recreational trail corridors; and, development, or rehabilitation of trails, trailside, and trailhead facilities. The program requires a 12 percent match. FHWA must approve project recommendations before California State Parks can execute grant contracts. Prior to forwarding these projects to FHWA, each must comply with the National Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and be listed on the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 119 of 394 60 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Grant Program. The Environmental Enhancement Mitigation program authorizes the California state legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account. EEM projects must contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities. The EEM Program does not generally fund commute-related trails or similar bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure. However, it does fund recreational and nature trails as part of stormwater management or green infrastructure projects. Federal Sources Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program. This discretionary grant program provides a unique opportunity for the Department of Transportation to invest in road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants, Congress has dedicated nearly $8.9 billion for twelve rounds of National Infrastructure Investments to fund projects that have a significant local or regional impact. The eligibility requirements of RAISE grants allow project sponsors at the State and local levels to obtain funding for multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional DOT programs. FHWA Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). FHWA’s CMAQ program provides a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. FHWA Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The STBG, formerly known as the Transportation Alternatives Program, authorizes funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) helps coordinate the Transportation Alternatives (TA) program in the San Francisco bay area. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF provides matching grants to States and local governments for the acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. Over its first 49 years (1965 - 2014), LWCF has provided more than $16.7 billion to acquire new Federal recreation lands as grants to State and local governments. Projects can include acquisition of open space, development of small city and neighborhood parks, and construction of trails or greenways. FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land. Eligibility criteria for HSIP funds can be found here. Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program. The National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RCTA) program supports community-led natural resource conservation and 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 120 of 394 61 outdoor recreation projects across the nation. The National Park Service helps community groups, nonprofits, tribes, and state and local governments to design trails and parks, conserve and improve access to rivers, protect special places, and create recreation opportunities. Liability, Maintenance and Management There are several important strategies and legal resources to address the concerns of underlying and adjacent property owners regarding trails. Typical concerns include liability, trespassing, privacy, vandalism, personal safety, and fire. Liability One concern for potential trail operators, trail landowners, and nearby landowners is whether they may be legally responsible (liable) for activities on or near the trail. State and case law both clearly indicate that landowners and trail operators are generally protected from liability for recreational trail use, with some specific exceptions, and that there are common-sense ways to reduce risks. There are three types of individuals or organizations that are typically concerned about such liability: the entity that operates the trail; the entity that owns the trail property; and the adjacent landowners. Different laws apply if the entity is a public agency, private individual, or business, but the resulting protection is generally the same. California State Law Liability for injury or other harm on any portion of the proposed Marsh Creek Trail is regulated by several existing California laws. California laws, also called statutes, are organized into 29 codes which cover specific subject areas. A digital copy of all 29 codes is available free to view online. Recreational trail use is addressed in several sections of codes, including (but not limited to): • California Government Code Sections 830.6, 831.2, 831.4, 831.7, 835, 846, 14662.5 and 51238.5 • California Civil Code Sections 813, 846, 846.1, 1006, 1007, 1008, and 1009 • California Public Resources Code Section 5075.4 • California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 128.7 and 1038 California’s Recreational Use Statute (RUS) and the Recreational Trails Act potentially offset some or all of a private landowner’s increased liability associated with a trail. The text of the RUS can be found in Civil Code Section 846. The Recreational Trails Act is codified in Public Resources Code Article 6, Section 5070– 5077.8. Notably, Section 5075.4 of the Recreational Trails Act states that “No adjoining property owner is liable for any actions of any type resulting from, or caused by, trail users trespassing on adjoining property, and no adjoining property owner is liable for any actions of any type started on, or taking place within, the boundaries of the trail arising out of the activities of other parties.” 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 121 of 394 62 Duty of Care Duty of care is a term used to describe how responsible one entity may be for injuries caused to another entity or individual. For trail purposes, this term refers to how much liability (responsibility) the trail operator or landowner has for injuries that occur on or near the trail. A higher duty of care indicates more potential responsibility for injuries incurred. In California, a trail operator or landowner has generally not been found liable except when they willfully or maliciously failed to guard against a dangerous condition, the injured person paid to use the trail, or there was a specific invitation for use. These exceptions are covered in detail in the Recreational Use Statute (RUS), and in California Government Code Section 835, which pertains to agency awareness of a hazardous condition and failure to act to protect against it. Indemnification Indemnification is a term for a guarantee against potential liability or monetary loss experienced by another individual or entity. In trail development, indemnification refers to the situation in which one entity (typically a government agency or non-profit) assumes the responsibility for injury or harm that occurs on a trail managed and/or owned by another individual or entity. In California an agency or non- profit organization may agree to take responsibility for injuries or loss occurring on trails on or near private property (see Government Code Section 14662.5 and 51238.5, and California Attorney General Opinion No. 95-305). The intention of these codes and the opinion is to encourage and support public trail development while reducing potential liability for private landowners. This is typically accomplished through a memorandum of understanding (MOU), easement agreement, or license agreement between the landowner and the agency. Risk Reduction Strategies There are some simple, common-sense strategies that can reduce risks to trail operators and landowners. These include proper planning, design, operation, and maintenance. Successful risk reduction also requires public awareness through published rules, guidelines, and signage. Personal Safety and Fire Property owners have expressed concerns about personal safety and fire due to the public having new access on or near their property. Compared to travelers on the road, who may throw trash or cigarettes from their windows, trail users are typically thoughtful and polite, but there may be exceptions. Clear rules, information, and enforcement, including monitoring and rapid response, are key to mitigating potential user impacts. This includes designation and adequate representation of those responsible for enforcement (such as Contra Costa County Sheriff Department or East Bay Regional Parks Police Department) and support by parks/preserve staff and a volunteer trail patrol, as detailed under Operations and Maintenance. Homeowners should be provided with clear information about who to contact for a given issue or concern. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 122 of 394 63 Planning and Design Following design and planning best practices when planning and designing the trail will go a long way toward reducing the potential for injury to trail users and potential associated liability for those injuries. General design standards and/or guidelines related to on-road bikeways, sidewalks, or paved trails are developed by national organizations, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). State standards and/or guidelines include those issued by Caltrans, including the California version of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD). Local agencies, such as cities and counties, typically adopt the Caltrans guidelines and standards as-is, or with slight modifications. Recreational trails, especially unpaved trails, have fewer clear standards, but the U.S. Forest Service publishes planning and design standards and details for them, as does California State Parks, and many regional park and open space agencies. In all cases the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires certain levels of accessibility for trails, depending on the context. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) has developed detailed guidelines for pedestrian facilities, recreational areas, and more. State and local agencies may also have their own specific accessibility requirements. In addition to following all relevant laws, guidelines, and standards, it is usually worth studying one or more alternative alignments. Specific planning and design decisions may meet all relevant standards and guidelines, but leave room for varying degrees of privacy and security for neighboring properties. By reviewing several options, the community and decision makers can weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each to find the one that best meets the community’s needs. Operation and Maintenance Developing and following a written maintenance plan is another important strategy for reducing potential risks. The plan should include details for trail inspection, record keeping, inventory of potential hazards, and emergency response procedures as well as sources for funding and support. The trail operator would be responsible for developing and implementing the plan, but the property owner (if different than the trail operator) should review the plan and confirm that it is in place and being followed. Entities responsible for trail construction should fund or endow operations and maintenance activities in conjunction with implementation of any specific trail plan. Oversight and Coordination Overseeing trail maintenance and operations and coordinating with volunteers, neighbors, and partner agencies helps to create a fully operational trail system and a safe environment for trail users. Trail operations coordination involves many partners: local government, state or federal government departments, conservation and environmental groups, user groups or potential user groups, education institutions, including local schools or universities, volunteer groups, senior groups, and health agencies. Coordinating with these entities and agencies helps to divide roles and responsibilities between partners. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 123 of 394 64 Sometimes stakeholders enter into management agreements that clearly define their roles and responsibilities. The operating agency also needs to coordinate with adjacent property owners if issues arise. Trail Operations Responsibilities • Coordination with partner agencies and adjacent property owners • Provide information and guidance for trail users • Community engagement and activities (trail outings and maintenance) • Volunteer trail docent program • Volunteer trail projects and ongoing assistance (see Trail Ambassador Programs) • Volunteer trail patrol (see Trail Ambassador Programs) Volunteer Roles in Trail Maintenance and Operations Volunteers make invaluable contributions to maintaining trail systems. Their time and dedication to trail maintenance are critical to the growth of outdoor recreation and active transportation. Trail Ambassador Programs Through a Trail Ambassador Program or volunteer trail patrol, local volunteers help to monitor trail systems, encourage proper use, and provide weekly reports on trail conditions and issues. The volunteers, or Trail Ambassadors, report to a coordinator or Trail Steward. The Trail Ambassadors’ presence on the trails provides additional security. Trail Ambassadors wear a uniform or emblem so the public can easily identify them. When on the trail they carry notebooks, pencils, trash bags, and cellphones/cameras. This helps them to document trail conditions and issues. Some routine maintenance activities Trail Ambassadors could perform are noting dangerous conditions, removing fallen branches, and monitoring culverts for wash-outs or blockages. Establishing a Trail Ambassador Program engages the community in trail maintenance and trail security to encourage trail use, keep trails safe, and strengthen community engagement in trail systems. The responsibilities of a Trail Ambassador include: • Walking or bicycling and monitoring the condition of a trail segment at least once a week • Observing trail conditions and potential hazards • Reporting trail conditions • Performing some routine, minor trail maintenance • Meeting and greeting people on the trail • Reminding users of trail rules and guidelines 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 124 of 394 65 Trail Docent Programs Many agencies with significant trail systems also have docents who interpret and educate the public about nature and local history – especially for school children. Trail docent programs typically include advertised special events, interpretive signs and installations, and outdoor classroom areas. Public Information Clear and consistent published rules, guidelines, and signage can also reduce potential risks. Using a combination of words and graphics to convey only the most important information is key — signage fatigue, visual clutter, and language barriers can reduce the effectiveness of the signs. Key information includes permitted and prohibited uses; trail use behavior guidelines; potential hazards; permanent and temporary closures; and emergency contact information. Signs should be posted at the trail entry and at the location of the hazard (along with physical barriers), where appropriate. Insurance and Waivers Insurance and waiver forms are also typical components of risk reduction strategies, although they do not reduce the future risk of injuries, only the risk of financial losses due to injuries. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 125 of 394 Draft Plan December 12, 2022 TWIC 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 126 of 394 •Text •Text •Text Overview •Provide an overview of the study findings •Share feedback heard on the draft plan •Answer questions and receive feedback from the TWIC to incorporate into the final plan 212-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 127 of 394 •Text •Text •Text Background & Objectives “The purpose of the path would be to provide a safe, useful and enjoyable transportation corridor for various forms of non‐motorized travel, including pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle users.” 312-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 128 of 394 •Text •Text •Text What this Plan is (and isn’t) •Goal of the project is to assess the feasibility of a possible trail and multi‐modal facility in the Marsh Creek corridor •This is not a plan to engineer, build, or construct a trail •Costs, topography, environmental constraints, safety considerations, and demand all factor into feasibility •Study does not commit the county to move forward with the design of the trail, or decide if/when the trail will be built •No eminent domain or forced sale of property for this trail 412-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 129 of 394 •Text •Text •Text Existing Conditions •Relationship to other plans and policies •County Vision Zero Plan (2021) •County Active Transportation Plan (2022) •Natural Resources Inventory •Basemap Development •Demand Analysis Report Overview 512-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 130 of 394 Public Engagement Report Overview •Technical Advisory Committee •Project website •Pop ‐up events •Design workshop •Property Owner workshop •Field review •Draft Plan public workshop 612-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 131 of 394 Approach to Trail Alignment Report Overview •Public lands first approach •Create access to existing public spaces •Minimize impacts to property owners •Refinements to the alignment will be necessary in future phases if the project advances 712-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 132 of 394 Trail Design Principles & Typologies Report Overview •Overview of design considerations and best practices •Creek setback requirements and opportunities for rehabilitation •Details on supportive amenities including staging area and trailhead recommendations •Considerations for special design considerations given the topography and constraints 812-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 133 of 394 Implementation & Phasing Report Overview Corridor split into 3 segments: •Phase 1: Clayton City Limits to Clayton Ranch •Phase 2: Clayton Palms to Round Valley •Phase 3: Dark Canyon Phasing is based on the constraints, opportunity to connect existing facilities, and public feedback. 912-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 134 of 394 1012-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 135 of 394 Implementation & Phasing Report Overview •Phase 1: Clayton City Limits to Clayton Ranch ‐$19.1m •Phase 2: Clayton Palms to Round Valley ‐$7.1m •Phase 3: Dark Canyon ‐$16.5m Cost estimates are high level and will need to be adjusted over time. Multiple funding sources will be required. 1112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 136 of 394 Implementation & Phasing Report Overview •There is no eminent domain or forced sale of property for this trail •Access will depend on arrangements with willing sellers •This could include the purchase of an easement that would preserve agricultural operations •Can include the potential for trail closures during key periods of land activity if trail use might interfere with operations or safety 1212-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 137 of 394 Draft Plan Feedback •Concerns about risks to adjacent property owners, including fire risk, liability, personal safety, privacy, and impacts to ranch and livestock operations •Draft provides a high‐level overview of how these details would be addressed in a management plan for the trail •Best practices for safety, maintenance, and mitigation of liability/risk •At this time, no owner/operator has been identified 1312-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 138 of 394 Draft Plan Feedback •Support for on‐road improvements and desire for better bike connections between East and Central CCC •Adopted Vision Zero and Active Transportation Plans both speak to these items •Support for coordination with existing recreational resources and agencies such as EBRPD and State Parks 1412-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 139 of 394 •Text •Text •Text Next Steps •Review and incorporate feedback from TWIC •Final plan to the Board of Supervisors in early 2023 1512-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 140 of 394 Questions? Jamar Stamps, AICP e: Jamar.Stamps@dcd.cccounty.usp: 925‐655‐2917 http://www.contracosta.ca.gov/MCT_Study 1612-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 141 of 394 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 7. Meeting Date:12/12/2022 Subject:RECEIVE update on the Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study. Submitted For: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department  Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: 12 Referral Name: Monitor the implementation of the County Complete Streets Policy.  Presenter: Robert Sarmiento, DCD Contact: Robert Sarmiento, (925) 655-2918 Referral History: At its May 14, 2019 meeting, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved the submission of a grant application to the California State Coastal Conservancy for the Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail (CSSLT) Gap Closure Study (“Study”). At its July 9, 2019 meeting, the BOS adopted a resolution (Exhibit A) to accept $133,387 from the California State Coastal Conservancy to conduct the Study. Referral Update: Evaluation of Gap Segments in the CSSLT A Draft Final version of the Study (“Draft Final Study”) (Exhibit B) evaluates fatal flaws in the trail alignments proposed in the CSSLT Vision Summary[1] and potential alternative trail alignments to close three gap segments in the CSSLT within Contra Costa County:  Segment #4 – Mococo Road, in the City of Martinez, between the Benicia Bridge bicycle/pedestrian path touchdown, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing, and the intersection of Mococo Road and Marina Vista Avenue, Segment #5 – within Martinez, between (from east to west) the Marina Vista Avenue/Escobar Street split, Downtown Martinez, and the eastern trailhead of the George Miller Trail via Carquinez Scenic Drive within the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, and Segment #6 – Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline between (from east to west) the western trailhead of the George Miller Trail, Port Costa, and Crockett, specifically the Caltrans park-and-ride lot located beneath Interstate 80/Carquinez Bridge. (The numbering for the segments gaps are sourced from the CSSLT Vision Summary, which assigned numbers to existing gap segments along the CSSLT in both Solano and Contra Costa Counties.[2])  Gap Closure Improvements The Draft Final Study identifies improvements and the optimum alignment to close the CSSLT gap in each of the three segments. Segment #4 – Improvements to this trail segment could consist of one or a combination of the following potential improvements:  realigning the intersection of the Benicia Bridge bicycle/pedestrian path connection with Mococo Road, closing/relocating existing street/intersection approaches on Mococco Road, constructing a sidewalk or shared-use trail along either the west and north sides or the east and south sides of Mococo Road, and striping bicycle lanes on Mococco Road. [1] https://ridgetrail.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CSSLT-Vision-Plan.pdf [2] Please see page 6 of the CSSLT Vision Summary for the full map of all CSSLT gap segments. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 142 of 394 Segment #5 – The optimum alignment would consist of the following improvements:  new and existing bikeways along Marina Vista Avenue (westbound) and Escobar Street (eastbound) through Downtown Martinez, new bikeway on Ferry Street between Escobar Street and the UPRR crossing, an existing paved shared-use trail between the Ferry Street UPRR crossing and the Grangers Wharf Parking Area and a new path along Berrellessa Street between the Grangers Wharf Parking Area and the UPRR crossing, a new East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) trail adjacent to the south side of the UPRR tracks between Berrellesa Street and the Nejedly Staging Area, and a new trail along Carquinez Scenic Drive, which would be closed to regular vehicle traffic, between the Nejedly Staging Area the eastern terminus of the George Miller Trail. Segment #6 – The optimum alignment would consist of the following improvements:  a new trail between the western terminus of the George Miller Trailhead/Port Costa Staging Area and the existing Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail/Fire Road, a combination of new and existing trails between the Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail/Fire Road and the eastern terminus of Prospect Avenue in Port Costa, a combination of new and existing trails/fire roads between Prospect Avenue in Port Costa and Winslow Street in Crockett, through the Eckley Pier Park/Picnic Area, two alignment options between Winslow Street and the intersection of Pomona Street and Rolph Avenue within eastern Crockett:  a shoreline route that can accommodate pedestrians and a Class III bicycle route only, generally along Winslow Street north and west, then Loring Avenue to Rolph Avenue, then south on Rolph Avenue, and an alignment tailored for bicyclists, using new bike lanes along Winslow Street south to Pomona Street, then new bike lanes on Pomona Street to Rolph Avenue, and new and existing bike lanes and sidewalk on Pomona Street between Rolph Avenue and 6th Avenue and a new Class III bikeway along 6th Avenue from Pomona Street north to the Caltrans park-and-ride lot beneath Interstate 80/Carquinez Bridge. Future Steps Segments of the CSSLT within the County’s jurisdiction will be added to the County’s Capital Road Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP). Staff will search for funding opportunities to complete next steps in implementing these segments, including additional trail alignment analysis, environmental work, design, permitting, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. When appropriate, staff will coordinate with partner agencies and initiate community outreach and engagement. Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE update on the Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study, provide COMMENT, and DIRECT staff as appropriate, including forwarding the Study to the Board of Supervisors for acceptance or other action. Fiscal Impact (if any): None. Attachments Attachment A - Resolution 2019-486 Attachment B - DRAFT Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study CSSLT TWIC PowerPoint Presentation 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 143 of 394 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 144 of 394 CARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENIC LOOP TRAIL GAP CLOSURE STUDY Prepared for: Prepared by: Questa Engineering Corporation 2M Associates ACME Consulting Michelle DeRobertis October 17, 2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 145 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Prepared by: Questa Engineering Corporation 1220 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 206 Point Richmond, California 94807 (510) 236-6114 In Association with: 2M Associates ACME Consulting Michelle DeRobertis October 17, 2022 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 146 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 1 Contents 1.INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Study Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Goals and Design Guidelines ....................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Countywide Bicycle Plan “Low Stress Network” ......................................................................... 12 1.4 General Process .......................................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Fatal Flaw: Optimum Route/Alignment ...................................................................................... 15 1.6 Vision Summary Gap Overview ................................................................................................... 17 1.7 Vision Summary and Alternative Segments to be Evaluated...................................................... 23 1.8 Countywide Bicycle Plan Proposed Facilities within the Study Area .......................................... 33 1.9 Regional Trail Connections .......................................................................................................... 35 2.SEGMENT 4 – MOCOCO ROAD ............................................................................................................ 36 2.1 Vision Summary .......................................................................................................................... 36 2.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 37 2.3 Alignment Options ...................................................................................................................... 40 2.4 Alternatives Summary ................................................................................................................. 45 2.5 Feasibility of a Low Stress Bikeway in Segment 4 ....................................................................... 48 2.6 Fatal Flaws ................................................................................................................................... 48 2.7 Other Alignments Considered ..................................................................................................... 49 2.8 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 50 3.SEGMENT 5 – MARTINEZ .................................................................................................................... 51 3.1 Vision Summary .......................................................................................................................... 51 3.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 52 3.3 Alignment Options ...................................................................................................................... 56 3.4 Feasibility of a Low Stress Bikeway in Segment 5 ....................................................................... 64 3.5 Fatal Flaws ................................................................................................................................... 65 3.6 Other Alignments Considered ..................................................................................................... 66 3.7 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 66 4. SEGMENT 6 – CARQUINEZ SHORELINE ................................................................................................ 68 4.1 Vision Summary .......................................................................................................................... 69 4.2 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................... 70 4.3 Alignment Options ...................................................................................................................... 75 4.4 Feasibility of a Low Stress Bikeway in Segment 6 ....................................................................... 84 4.5 Fatal Flaws ................................................................................................................................... 86 4.6 Other Alignments Considered ..................................................................................................... 87 4.7 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 88 5. TRAIL SCREENING AND RANKING ........................................................................................................ 89 5.1 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 89 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 147 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 2 5.2 Screening Factors ........................................................................................................................ 89 5.2 Segment Ranking ........................................................................................................................ 90 6. NEXT STEPS ......................................................................................................................................... 97 6.1 Recommended Optimum CSSLT Alignment ................................................................................ 97 6.2 Implementation Priorities ........................................................................................................ 100 6.3 Community Outreach ............................................................................................................... 105 6.4 Trail Log ..................................................................................................................................... 106 7. CONCEPT DESIGN – SEGMENT 6-2 .................................................................................................... 108 8. COST AND FUNDING STRATEGIES ...................................................................................................... 111 8.1 Factors Influencing Trail Implementation Cost ......................................................................... 112 8.2 Preliminary Trail Costs for Segment 6-2 ................................................................................... 112 8.3 Funding Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 112 9. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 123 Maps A1 - A11 Study Segments Figures 1-1 CSSLT Vision Summary Regional Trail Connections 1-2 CSSLT Vision Summary, Segment 4 - Mococo Road 1-3 CSSLT Vision Summary, Segment 5 - Martinez 1-4 CSSLT Vision Summary, Segment 6 - Carquinez Shoreline 1-5 Countywide Bicycle Plan Proposed Low Stress Bikeway Network 1-6 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Proposed Local Bicycle Networks 2-1 Segment 4: Mococo Road Overview 2-2 Mococo Road Study Segments 2-3 Mococo Alternative 4-1A 2-4 Mococo Alternatives 4-1B and 4-1C 2-5 Mococo Alternative 4-1D 2-6 Mococo Alternative 4-1E 2-7 Mococo Option 1 2-8 Mococo Option 2 2-9 Mococo Option 3 2-10 Martinez Bay Trail Alignment Along the Shoreline 3-1 Segment 5: Martinez Overview 3-2 Martinez Traffic Collisions, 2017-2020 3-3 Martinez Alternatives 5-3A, 5-3B and 5-3C 4-1 Trail Segment 6: Carquinez Shoreline Overview 4-2 Crockett Motor Vehicle Collisions 4-3 Port Costa Alternative Alignment via Prospect Avenue 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 148 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 3 6-1 Recommended Optimum Alignment Tables 1-1 Vision Summary Plan Segments 1-2 Vision Summary Gap Analysis 1-3 Alternatives Being Evaluated 1-4 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in the Study Area 3-1 Motor Vehicle Collisions Downtown Martinez 3-2 Martinez Comparison of Three On Street Alignments 3-3 CBPP Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in Martinez 4-1 Reported Motor Vehicle Collisions In Crockett Study Area (2017 -2020) 4-2 Pomona Street Alignment Issues 5-1 Trail Screening and Ranking 6-1 Recommended Alignment Options 6-2 Recommended Segment Priorities 6-3 CSSLT Partner/Community/Stakeholder List 7-1 Segment 6-2 Design Options Appendix A Trail Log Appendix B Segment 6-2 Concept Design Appendix C Funding Sources 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 149 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 4 1. INTRODUCTION The Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail (CSSLT) is a unique 50-mile loop trail around the Carquinez Strait that combines segments of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail), the Bay Area Ridge Trail (Ridge Trail) and the Great California Delta Trail (Delta Trail). In addition to these regional multi- county trails, the trail connects to the California State Riding and Hiking Trail and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail with future connections to other regional trail systems, including the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail and the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail (Figure 1-1). Implementation of the CSSLT is a collaborative effort of numerous agencies, including ABAG/MTC’s San Francisco Bay Trail Project, Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, Delta Protection Commission, Bay Area Water Trail, Contra Costa County, with input from the Cities of Martinez, Vallejo and Benicia. CSSLT partners include: • California Coastal Conservancy • California State Parks • Caltrans • East Bay Regional Park District • Greater Vallejo Recreation District • John Muir Land Trust • John Swett Unified School District • Solano Transportation Authority • West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee • National Park Service A Vision Summary for the Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail (Vision Summary) was completed in May 2020, documenting gaps in the trail and identifying next steps for trail implementation. The Vision Summary states: 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 150 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 5 Figure 1-1 CSSLT Vision Summary Regional Trail Connections 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 151 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 6 “The Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail brings together five regionally significant trails, including the San Francisco Bay Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail, the Great California Delta Trail, San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail, and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. It provides opportunities for safe, continuous hiking, biking and human-powered boating around and within the Carquinez Strait by linking a magnificent mosaic of public lands that embrace the historic Carquinez Strait communities of Martinez, Benicia, Vallejo, Port Costa, and Crockett.” 1.1 STUDY PURPOSE The Vision Summary identified ten gaps throughout the CSSLT. This study focuses on the three CSSLT gaps within Contra Costa County (Segments 4, 5, and 6), all of which are also Bay Trail segments, and some of which are also part of the Ridge Trail and/or Bay Area Water Trail network. The study segments identified in the Vision Summary and characterized in this memorandum. These include: • Segment 4: Mococo Road. This 0.14-mile-long segment is a gap between the I-680 Benicia Bridge Class I trail and the Bay Trail at the southwest corner of Marina Vista Avenue. This route is constrained by heavy truck traffic, a street crossing that lacks striping, signage and safety features to protect trail users as well as a major Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing. Some previous minor bike/pedestrian improvements that were completed as part of the Benicia Bridge project are in disrepair. • Segment 5: Martinez. This 3.7-mile segment is a combination of a city/urban street route through Downtown Martinez and a rural/shoreline route along the Martinez shoreline and Carquinez Scenic Drive. As the County seat, Martinez is busy with traffic and parking. Connections to the shoreline are limited to existing at-grade rail crossings at Ferry Street and Berrellesa Street. North of the UPRR railroad tracks, there is a network of trails within EBRPD’s Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline Park, including a paved trail connection from Ferry Street to Berrellesa Street. West of Downtown Martinez, Carquinez Scenic Drive is a low-volume rural road that connects to EBRPD’s Nejedly Staging Area and the eastern trailhead of the George Miller Trail. • Segment 6: Carquinez Shoreline. This 5.0-mile segment will connect the western trailhead of the George Miller Trail (Port Costa Staging Area, also called the Brickyard), west to the Caltrans Park and Ride facility, CSSLT/Bay Trail staging area and existing CSSLT trail at I-80 and the Carquinez Bridge. This area includes lands within EBRPD’s Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, the communities of Port Costa and Crockett, lands owned by Port Costa Conservation Society and private lands. Carquinez Scenic Drive is the single public road that connects these areas. It is a narrow two-lane rural road in poor condition with limited shoulders and slope issues. Within Port Costa and Crockett, discontinuous sidewalks, shoreline industrial infrastructure and topography are challenges to trail implementation. Although originally not part of the Study scope, consideration of trail design (as it 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 152 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 7 relates to the location and suitability for emergency access) is critical in light of a recent wildland fire at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline and emergency access for the Port Costa community. Mococo Road: Existing Bay Trail/CSSLT at Benicia Bridge Downtown Martinez Carquinez Shoreline at Carquinez Overlook Trail Vision Summary Segments Figures 1-2 through 1-4 illustrate, from east to west, the alignments for the CSSLT gaps contained in the Vision Summary. These segments are organized as shown in Table 1-1. The segment numbers coincide with gap numbers identified in the Vision Summary. Table 1-1: Vision Summary Plan Segments Segment # From To 4: Mococo Road / intersection Benicia-Martinez Bridge Trail Mococo Road / Marina Vista Avenue intersection 4: Marina Vista Avenue (Existing Alignment) Mococo Road / Marina Vista Avenue intersection Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue intersection 5: Combination of various local streets and/or shared-use trails Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue intersection Nejedly Staging Area 5: Carquinez Scenic Drive Nejedly Staging Area Carquinez Scenic Drive at George Miller Trail 6: George Miller Trail (Existing Alignment) Carquinez Scenic Drive at George Miller Trail Carquinez Regional Shoreline Port Costa Staging Area 6: Carquinez Scenic Drive Carquinez Regional Shoreline Port Costa Staging Area Winslow Street (Crockett) 6: Crockett Local Streets Winslow Avenue (Crockett) Carquinez Bridge Staging Area 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 153 of 394 I- 68 0 Mococo Rd Laguna StFairmontRdShell AveMar in a V i s ta Ave Br idgehead Rd!!!!!!!!!!!!Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study CSSLT Constrained Street Alignment (limited ROW) !!!!!!!!Physical Gap (no access) 0 300Feet ¯ Figure 1-2 CSSLT Vision Summary Segment 4 - Mococo Road 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 154 of 394 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Nejedly Staging Area FERR Y S T T A L B A R T S T MARIN A VISTA A V E MARINA VISTA AVE ESCO B A R ST CAR Q U I N E Z SCE N I C D R CA R Q U I N E Z S C E N I C D R !!!!!!!!!!!!Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study CSSLT Constrained Street Alignment (limited ROW) !!!!!!!!Physical Gap (no access) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500Feet ¯ Figure 1-3 CSSLT Vision Summary Segment 5 - Martinez CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE GEORGE MILLER TRAIL B E R R E L L E S A S T 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 155 of 394 Port Costa Staging Area Eckley Pier Bull Valley Staging Area Park and Ride GEORGE MILLER TRAILVallejoSt4thSt Loring Ave West StBay StBaldwin AveCrockettBlvdWinslow St Wanda St Ceres St Duperu DrRolph AveClark St Alhambra St Edwards St Pomona Ave Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study CSSLT Constrained Street Alignment (limited ROW) !!!!!!!!Physical Gap (no access) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000Feet ¯ Figure 1-4 CSSLT Vision Summary Segment 6 Port Costa to Crockett12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 156 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 11 1.2 GOALS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES The purpose of fatal flaw analysis is to provide a high-level evaluation of the trail route gaps that will meet Bay Trail, Ridge Trail, and Contra Costa County design goals. Of these, two key reference documents are: •San Francisco Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Toolkit, 2016 (Toolkit) https://baytrail.org/plans- publications/ outlines the guiding principles of designing and developing the Bay Trail to achieve its vision as a regional shoreline trail for bicyclists and walkers. It includes examples of design solutions for common trail design issues. •Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP), Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), 2018 https://ccta.net/projects/countywide-bicycle-and-pedestrian-plan/ identifies Pedestrian Priority Areas where more people are expected to walk and where safety issues are most acute, redefines the Countywide Bikeway Network as a low stress and connected system of facilities designed to serve all ages and abilities, and includes best practices for developing pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Therefore, identifying how an individual segment meets the goals of the CSSLT project is the first step in the fatal flaw analysis. For the purposes of this study, the aim is to first accommodate the general goals of the Bay Trail, which include: •In rural and urban parkland settings, providing a shared-use trail (paved or natural surfaced) that may be used for a variety of purposes. In light of recent wildland fire risk, design of trail segments to accommodate emergency vehicle access and escape routes for trail users, parkgoers, and residents should be considered. •In urban settings where a shared-use trail is not possible because of physical space limitations, providing sidewalks and a separated bikeway (also referred to as a “Class IV” separated bikeway or “cycle track”) that mimics the experience of a bike path, but in a street environment. A cycle track is physically separated from motor traffic and distinct from a sidewalk used by pedestrians. In some cases, a Class II bikeway (sidewalks and bicycle Lanes) could be considered if a Class IV separated bikeway is not feasible. Class III bikeways generally do not meet Bay Trail guidelines. •Accommodating all standards of the U.S. Access Board ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities, Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines, and 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The CBPP, as well as the Resource Handbook, would be used in conjunction with Chapter 1000 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and best practice resources that are referenced by Contra Costa County. The Resource Handbook supplements the HDM by providing guidance on when and how to exceed the HDM minimum standards for Class I Bikeways (e.g., shared-use trails). The Resource Handbook incorporates by reference the East Bay Regional Park District's Trail Manual for the Maintenance and 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 157 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Operation of Trails on District Lands, and the CBPP elaborates on best practices to improve multi-modal corridors for bikeways (Appendix C, Page C-1 under Best Practices). Other sources include: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition. AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance. CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic 2017. Federal High Administration (FHWA) Separated Bicycle Lane Planning and Design Guide FHWA Small and Rural Multi-modal Networks Guide. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Recommended Practices on Accommodating Pedestrian and Bicyclists at Interchanges. Massachusetts Department of Transportation Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism. NACTO Curb Appeal: Curbside Management Strategies for Improving Transit Reliability. NACTO Transit Street Design Guide. NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd Edition. NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide. U.S. Access Board Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way (PROWAG) Contra Costa County Trail Design Resource Handbook, 2001 (Resource Handbook) https://ca- contracostacounty2.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/1153 , although outdated, is a potential resource manual for the design and construction of bicycle trails throughout Contra Costa County. 1.3 COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN “LOW STRESS NETWORK” The 2018 CBPP proposes creating a “Regional Backbone Bikeway Network” based on the concept of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), or perceived user safety and physical conditions (see inset). The CBPP recommends implementation of a network that consists of LTS 1 and LTS 2 routes. The CBPP states: “Recent bicycle transportation planning and research has focused on bicycle comfort to help understand bicycle facilities’ potential for bicycle ridership and mode shift. The Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) methodology analyzes the comfort level (a measure of the quality of service) experienced by the typical cyclist on a Page 1212-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 158 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 13 given roadway by evaluating roadway and bikeway characteristics that cause stress, such as number of travel lanes, vehicle speeds and the percent of trucks in the vehicle mix…LTS is also closely related to the Four Types of Cyclists theory. This theory identifies four types of bicyclists — from “strong and fearless” to “no way, no how” — based on their willingness to bicycle. LTS measures the quality of a person’s experience while bicycling. By reducing the LTS on roadways, and especially at intersections, low stress bicycle networks can broaden the appeal of bicycling, especially for “Enthused and Confident” and “Interested but Concerned Cyclists,” who represent the largest share of the population in most areas. Today, LTS evaluation is helping jurisdictions plan networks of on-street and off-street bikeways where people of all ages and all abilities can feel comfortable riding, including young bicyclists and those who may be new to bicycling. One strategy for expanding low stress bikeways is to develop a “Backbone Network.” Backbone networks —interconnected bicycle facilities with low-stress ratings (LTS 1 or LTS 2) — overcome the barriers created by high-stress arterial and collector roadways. Ensuring that intersection treatments are low-stress and comfortable is critical to creating a low stress backbone network…At a countywide scale, a backbone network could focus on a series of low stress routes that connect to major destinations and across major barriers. The Authority would then give priority for funding to projects on this network” In the CBPP, there are three existing low stress bikeways within the Study Area: the George Miller Trail and the existing facilities on the Benicia and Carquinez Bridges. The CBPP designates future Low Stress Bikeway Network facilities through the Study area (Figure 1-5). These include the Downtown Martinez streets, Carquinez Scenic Drive and the shoreline streets, as well as Pomona Avenue in Crockett. The issues associated with implementing a low stress bikeway for these streets are discussed in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this Study. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 159 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 14 Figure 1-5 Countywide Bicycle Plan Proposed Low Stress Bikeway Network (Source: Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 160 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 15 1.4 GENERAL PROCESS The general Fatal Flaw Analysis involves a three-step process. It begins with an assessment of whether or not it is feasible to fill in the CCSLT gaps using the routes identified in the Vision Summary itself. Where the Vision Summary plan routes are not feasible, alternatives are identified for pedestrian and bicycle users. Ideally, these alternatives are along a shared-use path or common street system, but separate routes for pedestrians and bicycles may be required. The last step is to thoroughly analyze each alternative to identify an optimum alignment. 1.5 FATAL FLAW: OPTIMUM ROUTE/ALIGNMENT The nature of a fatal flaw in relation to the CSSLT gap analysis would be to determine if a single and/or multiple attributes would make a trail segment infeasible to implement. In trail planning and design, quite often either the alignment or the physical design of a trail must be modified to connect Point A with Point B in order to avoid the identified potential flaws. If a CSSLT trail segment does not meet all the goals of the Bay Trail and its Design Guidelines, the segment would not technically be feasible. In such a case, an “optimum” alternative needs to be identified to close 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 161 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 16 the gap. As an example, in the urbanized areas (Martinez or Crockett), if a Class IV bikeway (as called out in the Bay Trail Design Guidelines) cannot be developed for any number of reasons, then a Class II bikeway (striped lanes and sidewalks) would be the “optimum” alternative. Further, if a Class II bikeway is not physically or politically possible, then a Class III bikeway (signed route) becomes the default “optimum”, although this does not meet Bay Trail Design Guidelines . Another example is where a shared-use trail segment might require a “Condition for Exception” from accessibility standards, and an alternative would need to be identified. For the CSSLT, these would generally include: •Compliance is not practicable due to terrain. The phrase “not practicable” means not reasonably doable. For example, the existing street or trail exceeds ADA slope standards. •Compliance is limited or precluded by any law, or by decisions or opinions issued or agreements executed pursuant to the Endangered Species Act or National Historic Preservation Act. For example, trail construction would involve a taking of a listed species that is fully protected under either federal or state law, which would be in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Segment 6, for example. is perhaps the most challenging alignment identified in the Vision Summary. The existing Carquinez Scenic Drive alignment provides needed vehicular access to: •The residents and businesses in Port Costa. •Private properties south of Carquinez Strait Drive. •Access to the EBRPD Brickyard area, which has been identified for its use as a potential campground and San Francisco Bay Water Trail camp. Although some bicyclists will continue to use Carquinez Scenic Drive as it is a public street, it is not realistically feasible to redevelop it as a component of the CCSLT and Bay Trail with Class II bikeway lanes. However, an alignment through the Carquinez Regional Shoreline would provide, while not perfect, an optimum alternative. Equally challenging in Segment 6 is the Vision Summary’s recommended route through Downtown Crockett. The gradients and street widths (and in two instances, one-way streets) require either an alternative alignment or an alternative that routes pedestrians on one route and bicycles on a different route. By allowing flexibility to identify an “optimum” route, no critical flaws in the CSSLT have been identified that cannot be addressed. Carquinez Scenic Drive 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 162 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 17 1.6 VISION SUMMARY GAP OVERVIEW Table 1-2 lists the Vision Summary gaps and identifies the major issues associated with each gap. A conclusion is identified if the gap is: •Feasible: Trail segment could be developed consistent with Bay Trail goals and design guidelines and other County guidelines •Potentially Feasible: Trail segment could be developed consistent with Bay Trail goals and design guidelines and other County guidelines pending further analysis. If shown to not be feasible, an alternative optimum segment design should be considered. •Not Feasible - Alternative Required: Trail segment could not be developed consistent with Bay Trail goals and design guidelines and other County guidelines and alternatives should be explored to determine an optimum route. •Existing Route – Existing road, street or trail that could be improved with signage and/ or physical elements to facilitate connectivity and be consistent with Bay Trail goals and design guidelines and other County guidelines. Where a trail segment has been identified as infeasible, Table 1-2 also identifies and characterizes alternatives. Alternative alignments are identified with the segment key label “ALT”. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 163 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 18 Table 1-2: Vision Summary Gap Analysis Seg. From To General Issues Vision Summary Alignment Options / Conclusion 4 Benicia-Martinez Bridge Trail Mococo Road / Marina Vista Avenue intersection •Convergence of rail and vehicle traffic •Convergence of trail and truck and vehicle traffic •Existing north-south pedestrian crossing leads to east side of railroad crossing •Intersection design and traffic safety CONCLUSION: Potentially Feasible •Optimum Alternative: Potentially feasible as a Class IV bikeway or multi-use trail Alternative: Feasible as a Class II bikeway and sidewalk 4 Mococo Road Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue (at lane merge east of 1312 Escobar Street) •Existing signed route as Class II bikeway and sidewalks •Missing sidewalk curb ramps and intersection striping for both pedestrians and bicycles •Missing bike lane signs and faded bike lane striping on Escobar Street CONCLUSION: Existing Route •Existing Class II bikeway and sidewalks is the optimum alternative •Retrofitting existing sidewalks and adding striping to accommodate Bay Trail Guidelines is feasible. 5 Escobar Street / Court Street and Marina Vista Avenue / Pine Avenue intersection Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline eastern parking area via Ferry Street •Loss of parking along Escobar Street and Ferry Street for either a Class IV or Class II bikeway •Escobar Street between Street Ferry and Court Street would require changing to one-way. •Lack of sidewalks along eastern section of Marina Vista Avenue CONCLUSION: Potentially Feasible •Class IV or II Bikeway would require significant change in traffic patterns and on on-street parking Alternative: Feasible if streets designated as Class III bikeway, with sidewalk improvements as needed 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 164 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 19 Table 1-2: Vision Summary Gap Analysis Seg. From To General Issues Vision Summary Alignment Options / Conclusion 5 Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline @ eastern parking area Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline @ Grangers Wharf Staging Area •Access through Grangers Wharf parking area requires modification •Railroad crossing (long term pedestrian/bicycle crossing is listed in Countywide Bicycle Plan, see Section 1.8) CONCLUSION: Feasible Existing Class I path with improvements at the Grangers Wharf parking area 5 Marina Vista Avenue / Ferry Street Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline @ Grangers Wharf Staging Area •Natural surface / low-lying poorly drained areas in winter •Arch bridge within Regional Shoreline is not ADA compliant due to grade and approach transition differential CONCLUSION: Not Feasible Alternative: Route existing trail loop via Grangers Wharf and Berrellesa Trails 5 Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline @ Grangers Wharf Staging Area Nejedly Staging Area via Berrellesa Street and shared-use trail •ROW width along Berrellesa Street •Potential loss of parking •Railroad crossing improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians CONCLUSION: Potentially Feasible •Bike lanes on one block of Berrellesa Street feasible between Buckley Street and Foster Street; currently designated no parking. •Class IV or II Bikeway would require modifications of existing road and sidewalk designs Alternative: Feasible if Berrellesa Street designated as Class III bikeway, with sidewalk improvements as needed 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 165 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 20 Table 1-2: Vision Summary Gap Analysis Seg. From To General Issues Vision Summary Alignment Options / Conclusion 5 Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue at Ferry Street Nejedly Staging Area via Berrellesa Street, Talbart Street, and Carquinez Scenic Drive •ROW width •Cultural resources (cemetery) •Potential loss of parking on all streets •Extremely steep grades in select locations with ADA issues •Widening Carquinez Scenic Drive problematic •Lack of sidewalks along Carquinez Scenic Drive CONCLUSION: Not Feasible - Alternative Required Alternative: Feasible for bicycles if streets designated as Class III bikeway Alternative: Alignment along UPRR to Nejedly Staging Area; combination of existing trail in John Sparacino Park to Buckley Street, and/or Richardson Street, Foster Street, and Talbart Street to Carquinez Scenic Drive 5 Nejedly Staging Area George Miller Trail •Potential minor ADA issues in terms of maximum slopes and need for rest areas. CONCLUSION: Feasible Close the road to general vehicular traffic and use existing roadway with minor improvements 6 Carquinez Regional Shoreline Port Costa Staging Area / George Miller Trail Winslow Street •Uses existing Carquinez Scenic Drive alignment •Vehicular access required to Port Costa, related private properties south of the Drive, and to the EBRPD Brickyard Area identified as a potential vehicular campground and Bay Water Trail camp CONCLUSION: Not Feasible - Alternative Required 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 166 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 21 Table 1-2: Vision Summary Gap Analysis Seg. From To General Issues Vision Summary Alignment Options / Conclusion 6 ALT Carquinez Regional Shoreline Port Costa Staging Area / George Miller Trail Bull Valley Trail @ Prospect Avenue •New shared-use trail section required from Staging Area to existing trail system •ADA gradient on west end near Reservoir Street •Because of gradient, bicycle speed and safety if paved •Use and management agreement for use of Port Costa School grounds •Narrow (3’) and overgrown sidewalks along Canyon Lake Drive; parking over sidewalks •Sidewalks needed on Prospect Avenue •ROW along Canyon Lake Drive and Prospect Avenue •Potential Neighborhood resistance Alternative: Natural surfaced shared-use trail connection from staging area to Canyon Lake Drive but not meeting ADA standards; Natural surfaced (or paved) shared-use trail via Port Costa School grounds to Canyon Lake Drive; Class III bikeway along Canyon Lake Drive and Prospect Avenue with pedestrian sidewalks 6 ALT Bull Valley Trail @ Prospect Avenue (Crockett) Eckley Pier Day Use Area •New shared-use trail section required from Prospect Avenue to existing trail system •ADA gradient on west end near Eckley Pier Day use Area •Because of gradient, bicycle speed and safety if paved Alternative: Natural surfaced shared-use trail but not meeting ADA standards 6 ALT Eckley Pier Day Use Area Winslow Street via existing Bull Valley Trail alignment •Steep gradients •Tight switchbacks on east end near Day Use Area •Drainage crossings Alternative: Paved shared-use trail along new alignment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 167 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 22 Table 1-2: Vision Summary Gap Analysis Seg. From To General Issues Vision Summary Alignment Options / Conclusion 6 Carquinez Scenic Drive @ Winslow Street Carquinez Bridge Staging Area (via Winslow St., Vallejo St., Loring Ave., Wanda St., Port St., and Ceres St.) •Narrow street ROW for Class IV or Class II bikeway •Loss of parking •Sections without sidewalks •Sidewalk improvements required with some significant retaining walls •Wanda Avenue is one way for two blocks •Ceres Street is one way for one block CONCLUSION: Not Feasible – Alternative Required 6 ALT Winslow Street @ Bull Valley Trail Rolph Avenue via Vallejo Street and Loring Avenue •Narrow street ROW for Class IV or Class II bikeway •Loss of parking •Sidewalk improvements required with some significant retaining walls Alternative: Sidewalk pedestrian route developed as Crockett Promenade and Class III bikeway 6 ALT Rolph Avenue via Vallejo Street and Loring Avenue Carquinez Bridge Staging Area via Rolph Avenue, Pomona, and 6th Avenue •Intersection design at Pomona Street / Rolph Avenue •Potential loss of parking on Rolph Avenue and portions of Pomona Street •ROW on Pomona St. between 6th and 2nd Aves. because of retaining wall on south side of street Alternative: Sidewalk pedestrian route with either Class II or Class IV bikeway along Rolph Avenue and Pomona Street to 2nd Avenue; Class II or III bikeway along Pomona Street from 2nd Avenue to 6th Avenue and Staging Area 6 ALT Winslow Street @ Bull Valley Trail Rolph Avenue (via Winslow Street to Carquinez Scenic Drive) •Reconstruction of Winslow to Carquinez Scenic Drive intersection required •Gradient Alternative: Class II or Class IV bikeway along both Pomona Street and Winslow 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 168 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 23 1.7 VISION SUMMARY AND ALTERNATIVE SEGMENTS TO BE EVALUATED Maps A-1 through A-11 illustrate both the Vision Summary trail segments and alternative trail segments that could potentially serve in some combination to complete the CSSLT. A combination of trail segments would be needed to provide a complete trail route. Table 1-3 lists the segments and keys to Maps A-1 through A-11. Table 1-3 also identifies for each segment the type of alternative to be considered in the next phase of the evaluation. These include paved or natural-surfaced shared-use trail, pedestrian sidewalk, or a Class II, III, or IV bikeway. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 169 of 394 ELagunaStShellAveI- 6 8 0 Mococo R d Marina V ista A v e B r i d g e h e a d R d M a r i n a Vi s ta A v e Legend - Trail Segments kj%,ECreek Culvert At Grade Rail Crossing 0 300Feet 4-2 4-1 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Map A-1Segment 4: Alternatives Being Evaluated N Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Potential Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route Date: 10/27/21 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 170 of 394 EE4X Lincoln S t siVaniraM ta A v e Opcen Rd Amorc o dRrekoCShell Dock Mococo R d Scenic W a y Grand V w LangSt Marina V is ta RaymondStMillerAveShellAveChemical Way GirardSt Bleacher House Rd I- 6 8 0 DubbsRdBasin R d L d u D r Escobar S t Front S t PondDivide DrevAllehSRerunDr E L e v e e R d FairmontRdFairview LoopPondDive Rd Di n e e n S t Thirty Hill Rd Br i d g e h e a d R d BridgeLoop Legend - Trail Segments kj Creek %,Culvert At Grade Rail Crossing 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500Feet 4-2 Map A-2 Segment 4: Alternatives Being Evaluated Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study N Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Potential Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route Date: 10/27/21 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 171 of 394 "S "S kj kj kj B e r r e l l e s s a S t Pin e S t SusanaStFoster St Di n e e n S t Wil l ow S t Mer r i t h e w S t Ward St Marina Vis R i c h a r d s o n S t Joe Di M a g gi o Dr C o u r t S t Will o w S tBerrellessa StFerry StMiller AveGreenStCarquin e z S c e n i c D r Mellus St BayviewDr HenriettaSt C o u r t S t T a l b a r t S t Me r r i th ew D r Highland Ave Grandv iew Ave Susana St Marina Vista Ave HenriettaStMain St A l h am b r a A v e Escobar StBunkerAveFront St F e r r y S t F o s t e r S t Co u r t S t Susana StGreen St T a l b a r t S t Lang St C a s t r o S t E s t u d i l l o S tBuckley StC o u r t S t Marina Vista AveEscobar StL a s J u n t a s S t P i n e S t Masonic StFoster StThom ps o n StEs t u d i l l o S t T a l b a r t S t Mellus St Me r r i t h e w S t Hu n t i n g t o n C t Henrietta StLa f a y e t t e S t Escobar StGlen DrFoster StEmbar c a d e r o S t N Cou r t S t Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study 0 300 600 900Feet ¯ 5-8 5-2 5-6 5-4 5-3 5-10 5-9B 5-7 Segment 5: Alternatives Being Evaluated Map A-3Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Alternative Routes kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing 5-1 5-5 4-2 Date: 10/27/21 Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk Route 5-9A 5-11 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 172 of 394 "S "S kj kj kj Nejedly Staging Area E s t u d i l l o S t R i c h a r d s o n S t Escobar St Foster St C a s t r o S t Cal Ridin g & Hi ki n g Joe Di M a g gi o D r Escobar StBerrellessa StFerry StMellusStPine S t GreenStCar q u i n e z S c e n i c D r A l h am b r a A v e HenriettaSt Marina Vista Ave B e r r e l l e s s a S t Main St Ward StBunkerAve Ba y v i ew D r F e r r y S t F o s t e r S t Co u r t S t Green St T a l b a r t S t Mellus StBuckley StC o u r t S t T a l b a r t S t Marina Vista AveEscobar StL a s J u n t a s S t P i n e S t Masonic StFoster StThom ps o n StEs t u d i l l o S t T a l b a r t S t Mellus St Glen Dr N Cou r t S t Foster StE m b a r c a d e r o S t Marina Vi s Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study 0 300 600 900Feet ¯ 5-10 5-9B 5-9A 5-35-3A 5-11 5-4 5-3B 5-3C Segment 5: Alternatives Being Evaluated Map A-4Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Alternative Routes kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing 5-7 5-2 5-1 5-5 Date: 10/27/21 Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk Route 5-6 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 173 of 394 Nejedly Staging Area B e r r e l l e s s a S t Fe r r yS t Foster S t JoeDi Maggio D r CalRiding&H i k i n g Trail Escobar StBerrellessaStR i c h a r d s o n S t WardSt C a r q u i n e z S c e n i c D r Green StBayviewDr T a l b a r t S tBunkerAve A l h am b r a A v e F o s t e r S t T a l b a r t S t Ma evAatsiVanir BuckleyStMarinaVistaAve Escobar StEscobar St Main St C a s t r o S tFoster StEs t u d i l l o S t T a l b a r t S t Glen D rFoster St EmbarcaderoSt 4 Legend - Trail Segments kj Creek %,Culvert EAt Grade Rail Crossing 0 300 600 900 1,200Feet MARTINEZ REGIONAL SHORELINE 5-12 5-11 5-3 5-4 5-8 5-10 5-9B 5-9A Map A-5Segment 5: Alternatives Being Evaluated Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study N Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Potential Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route Date: 10/27/21 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 174 of 394 , ,, , %, %, , ,, , Nejedly Staging Area 5F Legend - Trail Segments kj Creek %,Culvert EAt Grade Rail Crossing 0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500 1,800Feet GE O R G E M I L L E R TR A I L CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE evi r D c i n e c S z e n i u q r a C 5-12 5-11 5-10 5-12 5-12 5-13 Map A-6Segment 5: Alternatives Being Evaluated Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study N Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Potential Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route Date: 10/27/21 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 175 of 394 %,%, %,%, %, %,%, %, Port Costa Staging Area CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE Carquinez Scenic Dr CarquinezScnMc Ewen Rd Carquinez Scenic DrCA RQ U I N E Z S C E N I C D R Legend - Trail Segments Creek Culvert At Grade Rail Crossing 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000Feet ¯ 5-12 5-13 6-1 6-2 GEORGE MILLER TRAIL N Map A-7Segment 5: George Miller Trail Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Potential Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route Date: 10/27/21 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 176 of 394 !( %, %, %, %,%,%, %, %, %, Port Costa Staging Area E r s k i n e S t Carqu inez Scen ic D rProspect AveCarquinezScnCanyon Lake Dr Reservoir StSa n P a b l o A v e Carquinez S c e n i c D r Mc Ewen RdCarquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet ¯ 6-2 5-13 6-3 6-5B 6-1 6-3 6-1 Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing Segments 5 & 6: Alternatives Being Evaluated Map A-8 6-10 Date: 10/27/21 Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk Potential Staging Area 6-5A 6-5C 6-4 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-4A GEORGE MILLER TRAIL CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE Route12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 177 of 394 %, %,Er s k i n e S t South AveProspe ct A v e C a r q u i n e z S c e n i c D r Canyon Lak e D r Re s e r vo i r S t Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study ¯ 6-5C 6-4 6-1 6-7 Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing Segment 6: Alternatives Being Evaluated Map A-9 6-10 Date: 10/27/21 Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk 6-9 CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE 6-6 6-86-8 6-1 %, 6-4A 0 300 600150Feet CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE 6-10 Route12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 178 of 394 %, %, %, %, %, Bull Valley Staging Area Eckley Pier Clark St Alhambra St BishopRdPomona Ave Edwards St Baldwin AveWinslow StAlexander St Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet ¯ 6-8 6-10 6-1 6-11A 6-11B 6-12 6-14 6-1 6-16A 6-15 Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing Segment 6: Alternatives Being Evaluated Map A-10 6-13 6-16B 6-11C Date: 10/27/21 Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk Route12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 179 of 394 !( %, %, %, %,%, %, %, %, %, %,%,kj%, %, %,%,%,%,%,%,4th StVallejo StJackson StStarr St Port StDo w r e l i o D r Loring Ave 1st AveBishop R dWest StBay StBaldwin Ave2nd Ave3rd AveCrockett BlvdWinslow St Ceres St Wanda St Duperu DrRolph AveAlexander St Clark St Alhambra St Edwards St Pomona Ave Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet ¯ 6-15 6-13 6-1 6-16A 6-17 6-19 Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing Segment 6: Alternatives Being Evaluated Map A-11 6-18 Date: 10/27/21 Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk Route 6-16B6-16B 6-15 Potential Staging Area Park and Ride 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 180 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 24 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway 4-1 Benicia-Martinez Bridge Trail Marina Vista Avenue and Mococo Road City of Martinez Caltrans Union Pacific Railroad Private City of Martinez Caltrans X X X X X 4-2 Existing Marina Vista Avenue and Mococo Road Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue City of Martinez City of Martinez X X 5-1 Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue Marina Vista Ave. / Ferry Street / Court Street (traveling east) City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-2 Marina Vista Avenue / Ferry Street Marina Vista / Castro Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-3 Marina Vista Avenue / Castro Street Marina Vista Avenue / Talbart Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 181 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 25 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway 5-3A Buckley Street / Berrellesa Street Buckley Street / Talbart Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-3B Richardson Street / Buckley Street Richardson Street / Foster Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-3C Foster Street / Richardson Street Foster Street / Talbart Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-4 Escobar Street / Talbart Street Escobar Street / Ferry Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-5 Escobar Street / Ferry Street (traveling west) Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue intersection City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-6 Ferry Street / Marina Vista Avenue Ferry Street / Escobar Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X X X X 5-7 Ferry Street / Marina Vista Avenue Grangers Wharf parking area City of Martinez EBRPD City of Martinez EBRPD X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 182 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 26 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway 5-8 Grangers Wharf parking area Berrellesa Street / south side of railroad tracks City of Martinez EBRPD City of Martinez EBRPD X X X X 5-9A John Sparacino Park / Marina Vista Avenue John Sparacino Park / Buckley Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X 5-9B John Sparacino Park / Buckley Street John Sparacino Park / Berrellesa Street City of Martinez City of Martinez X 5-10 Berrellesa Street / south side of railroad tracks Nejedly Staging Area City of Martinez EBRPD City of Martinez EBRPD X 5-11 Talbart Street / Escobar Street Nejedly Staging Area via Carquinez Scenic Drive City of Martinez Contra Costa County City of Martinez Contra Costa County X X X X 5-12 Nejedly Staging Area George Miller Trail Contra Costa County Contra Costa X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 183 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 27 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway EBRPD County EBRPD 5-13 Existing George Miller Trail Port Costa Staging Area EBRPD EBRPD X 6-1 Carquinez Scenic Drive / Port Costa Staging Area Carquinez Scenic Drive / Winslow Street Contra Costa County Contra Costa County X 6-2 New Trail Carquinez Scenic Drive / Port Costa Staging Area Existing Trail Segment 6-3 EBRPD Port Costa Conservation Society Private EBRPD X 6-3 Port Costa overlook (end of trail) Existing Corral (Potential Staging Area) EBRPD Port Costa Conservation Society EBRPD X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 184 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 28 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway Private 6-4 Existing Corral (Potential Staging Area) Reservoir Street EBRPD Port Costa Conservation Society EBRPD X 6-4A New Trail Trail Segment 6-4 Prospect Avenue at Canyon Lake Drive EBRPD Port Costa Conservation Society Contra Costa County EBRPD X X X 6-5A New Trail Trail Segment 6-3 Intersection of Trail Segment 6-5B and Trail Segment 6-5C EBRPD Port Costa Conservation Society Private EBRPD X 6-5B Corral (Informal Staging Area) Trail Segment 6-5C EBRPD EBRPD X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 185 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 29 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway Port Costa Conservation Society 6-5C New Trail Trail Segment 6-5B Trail Segment 6-4 EBRPD Port Costa Conservation Society EBRPD X 6-6 New Trail Reservoir Street / Trail Segment 6-4 Canyon Lake Drive via Port Costa Conservation Society property Port Costa Conservation Society Contra Costa County Contra Costa County X 6-7 Canyon Lake Drive and Prospect Avenue Bull Valley Trail via Prospect Avenue Contra Costa County Contra Costa County X X 6-8 Existing Bull Valley Trail from Prospect Avenue Intersection with new Trail Segment 6-11A EBRPD EBRPD X 6-9 Canyon Lake Drive Bull Valley Trail / fire road Private Private X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 186 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 30 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway 6-10 New Trail Reservoir Street / Trail Segment 6-4 Bull Valley Trail via school property Port Costa Conservation Society Contra Costa County EBRPD Contra Costa County EBRPD X 6-11A New Trail Bull Valley Trail / Fire road Bull Valley Trail via Carquinez Overlook Loop trail EBRPD EBRPD X 6-11B Bull Valley Trail / Carquinez Overlook Existing Trail Eckley Pier EBRPD EBRPD X 6-11C Carquinez Overlook Existing Trail Eckley Pier via Eckley Pier Drive EBRPD EBRPD X 6-12 Eckley Pier Drive / Bull Valley Trail Eckley Pier Day Use Area / Bull Valley Trail EBRPD EBRPD X 6-13 Eckley Pier Day Use Area / Bull Valley Winslow Street EBRPD EBRPD X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 187 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 31 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway Trail 6-14 New Trail Eckley Pier Day Use Area / Bull Valley Trail Winslow Street EBRPD EBRPD X 6-15 Winslow Street at Bull Valley Trailhead Rolph Avenue via Winslow Street, Vallejo Street, Loring Avenue Contra Costa County Contra Costa County X X 6-16A Winslow Street at Bull Valley Trailhead Winslow Street at CSD Contra Costa County EBRPD Contra Costa County EBRPD X X X X 6-16B Pomona Street at Winslow Street Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue Contra Costa County Contra Costa County X X X X 6-17 Rolph Avenue at Loring Avenue Rolph Avenue at Pomona Street Contra Costa County Contra Costa County X X X X 6-18 Loring Avenue at Rolph Avenue Carquinez Bridge Staging Area via 4th Street, Wanda Contra Costa County Contra Costa X X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 188 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 32 Table 1-3: Alternatives Being Evaluated (See Also Maps A-1 Through A-11) Seg. # From To Landowner Potential Agency to Implement and/or Manage Potential Facilities Paved Share-Use Trail Natural Surface Shared-Use Trail Pedestrian Sidewalk Class IV Bikeway Class II Bikeway Class III Bikeway Street, Port Street, Ceres Street (alternate Starr Street, 2nd Avenue) County 6-19 Pomona Street and Rolph Avenue Carquinez Bridge Staging Area via Pomona Street, 6th Avenue Contra Costa County Caltrans Contra Costa County Caltrans X X X X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 189 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 33 1.8 COUNTYWIDE BICYCLE PLAN PROPOSED FACILITIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA1 The 2018 CBPP identifies routes within the Study area as a network of Class I, II, III, and IV bikeways (Figure 1-6). As shown in CBPP Appendix D, this network includes existing Class I facilities on both bridges, trails along the Martinez Waterfront, George Miller Trail, and loop trails within EBRPD Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. Figure 1-6 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Proposed Local Bicycle Networks Source: Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Proposed Class I facilities include the proposed Bay Trail segment between Berrellesa Street and Carquinez Scenic Drive (Study Segment 5-10) and the portion of Carquinez Scenic Drive and Talbart St. between Berrellesa St. and the Nejedly Staging Area (Study Segment 5-11) in Martinez. In the Port Costa Area, Class I facilities are proposed on Carquinez Scenic Drive between the Port Costa Staging Area and Reservoir Street (portion of Study Segment 6-1), as well as an undefined spur trail along the Port Costa shoreline (either on or adjacent to UPRR right of way). No Class I facilities are proposed in the Crockett study area. Notably, the portion of Carquinez Scenic Drive between the Nejedly Staging area and the existing George Miller Trail 1 Source for maps and definitions in this section: Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, July 2018, Contra Costa Transportation Authority/Fehr and Peers 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 190 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 34 (Study Segment 5-12) is not included in the CBPP, and this omission would preclude implementation of a continuous trail network along the Carquinez shoreline. Existing Class II bikeways within the Study Area are shown as Marina Vista and Escobar Streets from Mococo Road to Court Street in Downtown Martinez (Study Segments 4-2, 5-1 and 5-5), and the portion of Pomona Street in Crockett that is between Rolph Avenue and Third Avenue (portion of Study Segment 6-19). No new Class II bikeways are proposed in the Study Area, although the Bay Trail is intended to be a combination of Class I and II bikeways. Existing Class III bikeways in the Study Area include Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street in Downtown Martinez between Court Street and Berrellesa Street (Study Segments 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, and 5-6 ) and the remainder of Pomona Avenue in Crockett (Study Segments 6-16B and a portion of 6-19). Proposed Class III bikeways include Carquinez Scenic Drive between Reservoir Street in Port Costa and Winslow Street in Crockett (Study Segment 6-1), Canyon Lake Drive in Port Costa (Study Segment 6-7) and the ”shoreline” streets in Crockett (Study Segments 6-15 and 6-18). Again, designation of these segments as Class III bikeways and the lack of Class I and Class II bikeway connections between Port Costa Staging Area and the Carquinez Bridge in Crockett would be inconsistent with Bay Trail objectives. Appendix D of the CBPP lists proposed projects to be prioritized for implementation. Within the Study Area, the following projects are proposed: Table 1-4 Countywide Bicycle And Pedestrian Plan Projects in Study Area Portion of Segment 6-19 Segment 4 (exact description not provided in CBPP) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 191 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 35 Portion of Segment 6-19 A portion of Segment 6-19 was constructed n 2008 Segment 5-10 Segment 5-7 and Vicinity Segment 5-7 and Vicinity 1.9 REGIONAL TRAIL CONNECTIONS The CSSLT will be a part of, or connect to, other regional trail systems, including the Bay Area Ridge Trail, EBRPD trails and others. As shown in Figure 1-1 (from the Vision Summary), primary CSSLT/Bay Trail connections to other networks in the Study Area include: •Bay Area Ridge Trail, Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail and the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, Nejedly Staging Area •Bay Area Water Trail at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, Port Costa Staging Area •Bay Area Ridge Trail connection at Pomona Avenue in Crockett to Crockett Hills Regional Park 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 192 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 36 2.SEGMENT 4 – MOCOCO ROAD The Mococo Road bicycle facilities (Overview, Figure 2-1) are considered part of the existing Low Stress Bikeway Network in the CBPP. In this area, an existing route was constructed associated with improvements to the Benicia-Martinez (HWY 680) Bridge. These existing facilities consist of a mid-block crossing of Mococo Road just west of a blind curve under the bridge, as well as striped bicycle lanes and railroad crossing improvements along the north-south leg of Mococo Road and pedestrian signal phasing and pushbuttons at the signalized intersection of Mococo Road and Marina Vista Ave. Plastic reboundable delineator posts were also installed that have since broken off or have been removed. The goal of pedestrian and bicycle improvements is to improve safety by minimize or eliminating conflict points between motor vehicles (particularly trucks) and trail users while maximizing separation of the trail users from the roadway and their safety. Due to the high volume of truck traffic in this area, it is essential to include either greater separation between the trail and the northbound traffic lane or a barrier more robust than the existing plastic delineators that separates trail users from the northbound-to eastbound trucks to prevent the trucks from riding over the trail facility. In addition, moving the trail crossing point on Mococo Road towards the west may improve visibility of trail users to motor vehicle drivers and improve safety as a result. Segments include: •4-1 Mococo Road from Benicia-Martinez Bridge Bay Trail to Marina Vista Avenue •4-2 Marina Vista Avenue to the merge of Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue, extending to Court Street (existing Class II bikeways) 2.1 VISION SUMMARY The Vision Summary states: “This segment is a gap for Bay Trail, Ridge Trail, and Delta Trail. Construction of this trail segment was left out of the Benicia-Martinez Bridge Project. Caltrans made some interim improvements using painted lines and plastic bollards to delineate the trail through this gap. The interim improvements are not safe for trail users and the bollards have been knocked down by the heavy truck traffic in the area. This segment requires a re-design that addresses multiple user-safety issues: heavy truck traffic, multiple curb cuts, a pipeline, and a railroad crossing. OPPORTUNITIES To construct a permanent facility that provides a safe connection between the City of Martinez and the Benicia-Martinez Bridge. Closure of this gap would connect to 2.4 miles of existing trail north across the Benicia-Martinez Bridge and 6.2 miles of existing trail west through the City of Martinez. CONSTRAINTS 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 193 of 394 "S "S MARINA V I S T A A V E Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Legend - Trail Segments kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing Existing Trail Route New Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Potential Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route 0 400 800 1,200 1,600200Feet Segment 4: Mococo Road Overview Figure 2-1 ¯ 4-2 4-1 5-1 5-5 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 194 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 37 Lack of funding for the project and design challenges with railroad crossing, existing pipeline, curb cut crossings.” 2.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Mococo Road segment extends from the existing Bay Trail coming off the Benicia Bridge to Marina Vista Avenue. North of the UPRR tracks, Mococo Road is sited on a permanent access easement. The west leg of the Mococo Road intersection leads to employee parking for the adjacent industrial (Shell) facility. The north leg of the intersection is a Shell facility access driveway. The south leg of the intersection of Mococo Road to Marina Vista Avenue appears to be in the UPRR right of way beginning at Marina Vista Avenue for which there is a permanent access easement. Bridgehead Road intersects Mococo Road approximately 50 feet east of the Shell access driveway and is a private road with permanent access easements. Any improvements outside the existing easements would necessitate negotiations with the private owners and/or acquisition of additional right of way. The existing trailhead for the multiuse path coming from the Benicia Bridge intersects Mococo Road 100 feet to the east of Bridgehead Road. There is a stop sign for westbound traffic on Mococo Road at Bridgehead Road, for southbound traffic on both Bridgehead Road and the Shell access driveway and for eastbound traffic on Mococo Road on the west leg of the intersection. The signalized intersection of Marina Vista Avenue and Mococo Road was modified to have crosswalks and pedestrian signal phases on the north and west legs. Other facilities constructed as part of the Benicia Bridge bike path include: •Pavement widening and bike lane markings at the UPRR at-grade crossing; •A mid-block north-south crossing of Mococo Road at the trailhead; •Pavement markings to delineate bike lanes along Mococo Road; and •Painted crosswalks across the west leg of the intersection, across the Shell access driveway and across Bridgehead Road. No sidewalks were constructed; pedestrian trail users use the bike lanes at two locations: the westbound bike lane between the trailhead and Bridgehead Road and the southbound bike lane between the Mococo Road west leg and Marina Vista Avenue. Flexible plastic bollards were installed to delineate the bike lanes adjacent to roadway, but subsequently, many have been destroyed, presumably as a result of vehicle, primarily truck, turning movements. From visual evidence on the ground, the painted bike lane markings have also been used and faded from truck traffic turning while crosswalk markings have not been maintained. There have been no reported traffic Mococo Road /Marina Vista Intersection 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 195 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 38 collisions involving motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians in the study area in the past four years (2017- 2020), except for one collision involving only motor vehicles at the intersection of Marina Vista and Mococo Road in 2017. Bay Trail - Mococo Road to Marina Vista Way Looking east on south side of Mococo Road at location of potential crosswalk from existing Bay Trail. Looking east on south side of Mococo Road and existing bicycle lane; potential new pedestrian sidewalk or shared-use trail. Looking west, north side Mococo Road, between existing Bay Trail and Bridgehead Road. Potential route for new shared-use trail or pedestrian sidewalk with Class IV bikeway. Looking east, north side of Mococo Road between Bridgehead and Trailhead. Existing bike lanes used by pedestrians as Bay Trail route. Potential route for new shared-use trail or pedestrian sidewalk with Class IV bikeway. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 196 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 39 Looking north, potential new shared use trail alignment parallel to or in place of Bridgehead Road. Looking east, potential location for potential new shared-use trail or pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to Mococo Road between Bridgehead Road and access driveway. Looking south at potential crosswalk location near Bridgehead Road. Looking south at potential crosswalk location near Bridgehead Road. Looking south along east side of Mococo Road at existing bike lane and potential location of shared-use trail. Looking south along west side of Mococo Road at existing bike lane and potential location of shared-use trail. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 197 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 40 2.3 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS There are many challenges to improving the pedestrian and bicycle connection between the existing Bay Trail path on the Benicia Bridge and the existing signalized intersection at Marina Vista Avenue, including: •Private rights-of-way •Significant tractor/trailer traffic •Alignment crossing private streets and driveways •Current marked crosswalk is west of a blind vehicle curve under the Benicia bridge •Pipelines and above and underground utilities throughout area •Ownership/coordination with UPRR •Ownership/coordination with other ROW owners •Lack of trail staging and bike/pedestrian queuing areas The goal of an optimum alignment is to minimize safety hazards for bicyclists and pedestrians and to provide the best possible trail user experience. To determine an optimum alignment, several alignments were developed to improve the bicycle and pedestrian route. These alternatives were first evaluated for fatal flaws and those that survived were further analyzed using a variety of criteria. All alternatives involve additional land that is not currently paved. Thus, all alternatives would involve right of way or easement acquisition. To facilitate the description and analysis of the options, this area was divided into two segments as follows (Figure 2-2): •Segment from Point 1 (converging with the existing Bay Trail leading from the Benicia Bridge) to Point 2 (the north side of Mococo Road at Bridgehead Road) (Alternatives 4-1A, 4-1B and 4-1C) •Segment from Point 2 (the north side of Mococo Road at Bridgehead Road) to Point 3 (the northwest corner of the intersection of Marina Vista Avenue / Mococo Road) (Alternatives 4-1D, 4- 1E and 4-1F). Looking east at existing pedestrian crossing of Mococo Road at Marina Vista Way. Existing pedestrian signal button at crosswalk of Marina Vista Way. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 198 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 41 2.3.1 Alignment Options - Existing Martinez-Benicia Bridge Bay Trail to Bridgehead Road Three options were considered to connect the existing Bay Trail leading from the existing Benicia Bridge Bay trail (Point 1) to Bridgehead Road (Point 2). Alternative 4-1A: Close Lower Bridgehead Road / Consolidate Bridgehead Rd. and Shell Driveway (Figure 2- 3). This alignment would consolidate the access from Bridgehead Road and the Shell access driveway to Mococo Road. The lower section of Bridgehead Road could be converted to be a shared-use trail. Relocating the Bay Trail intersection at Mococo Road to the east and away from the blind curve would be a benefit. Both Bridgehead Road and the shared-use trail alignment would converge with their existing alignments roughly 200 feet up from their existing termini at Mococo Road. Segment Alternative 4-1B: Construct a shared-use trail parallel to existing Bridgehead Road (Figure 2-4). A benefit would be the relocation of the trailhead intersection at Mococo Road away from the blind curve on Mococo Road. The new multi-use path would converge with the existing Bay Trail approximately 150-200 feet from the existing terminus; (exact location to be determined depending on topography and need for Figure 2-2: Mococo Road Study Segments 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 199 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 42 retaining wall to protect existing above ground pipe infrastructure). This new trail would cross underground pipes currently marked with warning signs. Segment Alternative 4-1C: Construct a new shared-use trail parallel to Mococo Road between the existing Bay Trail and Bridgehead Road (see Figure 2-4): The new trail would cross underground pipes currently marked with warning signs. The need for a retaining wall is to be determined. The last 20 feet of trail would be possibly realigned to eliminate/soften the otherwise 135-degree left turn, which would essentially require cyclists to dismount in order to negotiate. Figure 2-3 Alternative 4-1A 2.3.2 Alignment Options - Bridgehead Road to Marina Vista Avenue Several options were considered to improve bike and pedestrian connections from the north side of Mococo Rd. at Bridgehead Road (Point 2) to the northwest corner of the intersection of Marina Vista Avenue/Mococo Rd) ( Point 3). All alternatives should retain existing 5-6 ft bike lanes as they also effectively serve as a roadway shoulder. Bicyclists would have the option to use the bike lanes or the shared-use trail. Shared-use trail New Roadway 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 200 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 43 Figure 2-4: Alternatives 4-1B and 4-1C Alternative 4-1D: Westside Alignment (Figure 2-5). In this alternative, trail users would continue from Bridgehead Road to the northwest corner of Marina Vista Avenue at Mococo Road traveling along the north and west sides of Mococo Road. Bicyclists and pedestrians would follow the same path. Trail users, both bicyclists and pedestrians, would use two crosswalks: one across the Shell Access Driveway and one across the west leg of the intersection. An option within this alternative that would improve trail user experience is to redesign Mococo Road/Shell Access Driveway intersection as a 3-leg intersection by closing the west leg. This would allow construction of a continuous shared-use trail on the west side of Mococo Road from Bridgehead Road to Marina Vista Avenue. Whether the route from west leg of Mococo Road to the corner of Marina Vista Avenue would be a shared-use path or a Class IV bikeway plus a sidewalk should both be considered. Spatially, the latter would require more width. Issues would include the location of existing obstacles such as railroad crossing poles, above and below ground pipelines, cost of retaining walls and/or guard rails. Physical barriers to provide safety enhancements may be needed since the bicyclists/pedestrians would be traveling parallel to a narrow road with frequent truck traffic. Alternative 4-1E: East Side Alignment (Figure 2-6). In this alternative, a shared-use trail would be constructed along the east side of Mococo Road from Bridgehead Road to the northeast corner of Marina Vista Avenue at Mococo Road. Bicyclists and pedestrians would follow the same path. There is an existing stop sign at Bridgehead Road for westbound traffic only. Shared-use trail 1 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 201 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 44 Figure 2-6: Mococo Alternative 4-1E Figure 2-5: Mococo Alternatives 4-1D 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 202 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 45 This alternative would relocate the existing crosswalk on Mococo Road at the existing Bay Trail to be at Bridgehead Road. From the northeast corner of Mococo Road at Marina Vista Avenue, all trail users would use the crosswalk at the signalized intersection to cross Mococo Road. (There are existing pedestrian pushbuttons and pedestrian signal heads). Whether the route from the corner of Marina Vista to the new (relocated) crosswalk would be a shared-use path or a Class IV bikeway plus a sidewalk should both be considered. Existing obstacles such as railroad crossing poles, pipelines, and cost of retaining walls and/or guard rails will be a factor. Alternative 4-1F: Modified Existing. This alternative provides different facilities for bicyclists versus pedestrians, and is similar to existing conditions. It utilizes the existing bike lanes but provides a dedicated a 5-foot pedestrian sidewalk as opposed to current conditions that has pedestrians using the bike lane. From the existing Bay Trail, pedestrians would use a newly constructed sidewalk on the private property extending across Bridgehead Road then on private property to the Shell access driveway. A new sidewalk would then be constructed on the either the west or east side of Mococo Road, adjacent to the existing bike lanes. Pedestrians would either use the newly relocated crosswalk across Mococo Road (if sidewalk is on the east side) or continue to use the existing (repainted) crosswalks across the access driveway (if sidewalk is on the west side) and the west leg and across the railroad tracks. The optimum location for the sidewalk would be determined during preliminary design. Eastbound bicyclists (but not westbound) would need to cross Mococo Road as they currently do, but a crosswalk would be relocated to Bridgehead Road, which is a more visible location and has a stop sign for traffic. 2.4 ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY Mixing and matching the alternatives described above means that there are essentially nine alternative alignments for a shared-use trail from the existing Carquinez Bridge Bay Trail to Class II bikeway along Marina Vista Avenue. Three of these are conceptually illustrated in Figures 2-7 through 2-9. All the alternatives that use a relocated crosswalk away from the blind curve appear to have the most safety benefits. The volume of vehicular traffic and movement patterns through the intersection complex is unknown. As a precursor to selecting an optimum alternative, a traffic study that determines existing and future hourly volumes, including truck classification counts at all driveways, for weekdays as well as weekends, should be conducted by the City of Martinez. In addition, discussions with property owners, lease holders, and UPRR will help inform decision-making regarding a precise alignment. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 203 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 46 Figure 2-7: Mococo Road Concept Option #1 – Eastern Alignment from Existing Bay Trail 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 204 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 47 Figure 2-8: Mococo Road Concept Option #2 - Western Alignment from Existing Bay Trail 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 205 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 48 Figure 2-9: Mococo Road Concept Option #3 – Alternative Eastern Alignment 2.5 FEASIBILITY OF A LOW STRESS BIKEWAY IN SEGMENT 4 Although the CBPP illustrates this area of Mococo Road and Marina Vista Avenue as part of the existing Low Stress Bikeway Network, without significant engineered improvements, this area cannot reasonably be considered to provide facilities “where people of all ages and all abilities can feel comfortable riding.” 2.6 FATAL FLAWS Principal fatal flaws for any alignment alternative are considered to be: •Land acquisition requirements. •Willingness of multiple property owners and lease holders involved to accommodate a trail. •Trail user safety and the spatial requirements of vehicular traffic, particularly when turning. •Lack of physical space between fixed obstacles (e.g., buildings, railroad tracks, above-ground pipe infrastructure). 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 206 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 49 •Need to relocate fixed obstacle e.g. above-ground pipes and other infrastructure (potentially cost prohibitive). All alignments are considered worthy of a detailed review and refinement at this point, recognizing: •Additional right-or-way is likely needed on private property, and/or, •Additional work is required with the UPRR right-or-way at the existing at-grade crossing to bring it up to current standards. 2.7 OTHER ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED Another alignment considered was along the Carquinez Strait shoreline between the Benicia Bridge and the Martinez Waterfront Park through shoreline lands owned by Martinez Refining Co. LLC, Tesoro Logistics Operations, State of California, EBRPD, and City of Martinez (Figure 2-10). This alignment would allow the Bay Trail to actually be near the bay/strait, would avoid Mococo Road and Marina Vista Ave altogether and would also avoid much of downtown Martinez. From Mococo Road north, trail users would need to use a modified Bridgehead Road or a structure with stairs/ ramps that could be provided to directly connect to the path on the Benicia Bridge. Heading west from the end of Bridgehead Road, a new trail alignment would be needed using a boardwalk or other surface to continue to the Martinez Waterfront Park. They would then use existing and/ or improved trails through this park to access Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline Park. Trail users would use the existing Berrellesa Street at-grade rail crossing to cross the railroad tracks and (See discussion in Section 3-Martinez). This alignment would provide a significantly enhanced and more enjoyable user experience that is consistent with the Bay Trail vision. Other advantages are that it maximizes public access to the bay, and eliminates vehicle /truck traffic and trail user conflicts in downtown Martinez, on Marina Vista Avenue and on Mococo Road. However, this alignment also has significant issues to be resolved that are different from the issues presented by the on-street alignment and even different from the alignment through the hills and open space. The issues to be resolved that may be critical flaws include: •Sea level rise impacts. •Acquisition or leasing of private property. •Unknown future refinery use to be reconsidered if use changes. •Potential impacts on endangered species. •A new UPRR crossing or a structure to connect the new trail alignment to the path on the Benicia Bridge. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 207 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 50 Figure 2-10 Martinez Bay Trail Alignment Along the Shoreline 2.8 NEXT STEPS In order to proceed with implementing the options discussed in this section, the following issues should be resolved: •Identify appropriate City of Martinez staff and conduct internal engagement to determine level of City commitment to projects •Determine ownership and any agreements needed related to roadway improvements •Initiate discussions with UPRR if any modifications to existing crossing are needed •Conduct traffic count analysis to determine optimal location for bicycle/pedestrian improvements •Evaluate and acquire right of way (some options) •Initiate public outreach •Update Vision Summary Conceptual Alignment New Structure to Bridge or Modify Bridgehead Road 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 208 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 51 3.SEGMENT 5 – MARTINEZ The Martinez segment (Figure 3-1) includes Downtown Martinez as well as Carquinez Scenic Drive and the surrounding area, where it connects with the George Miller Trail. Segments include: •5-1 Marina Vista Avenue existing Class II bikeway from the Marina Vista Avenue/Escobar Street merge west to Court Street •5-2 Marina Vista Avenue existing Class II bikeway from Court Street John Sparacino Park •5-3 Marina Vista Avenue from John Sparacino Park to Carquinez Scenic Drive •5-3A Alternative via Buckley Street •5-3B Alternative via Richardson Street and Foster Street •5-3C Alternative via Foster Street and Talbart Street •5-4 Escobar Street to Talbart Street •5-5 Escobar Street existing Class II bikeway from the Marina Vista Avenue/Escobar Street merge west to Pine Street •5-6 Ferry Street from Escobar Street to Marina Vista Avenue •5-7 Ferry Street north of Marina Vista Avenue and facilities in Radke Martinez Regional Shoreline Park •5-8 Grangers Wharf parking area and Berrellesa Street to UPRR •5-9A Existing path within John Sparacino Park between Buckley Street and Marina Vista Avenue •5-9B Existing path between Buckley Street and Berrellesa Street •5-10 Bay Trail segment from UPRR southwest to the Nejedly Staging Area •5-11 Talbart Street from Escobar Street to the Nejedly Staging Area via Carquinez Scenic Drive •5-12 Carquinez Scenic Drive from the Nejedly Staging Area to the George Miller Trail •5-13 Existing George Miller Trail 3.1 VISION SUMMARY The Vision Summary states: This is a Bay Trail, Anza Trail, and Delta Trail gap. The Ridge Trail is dedicated through this segment. Martinez has installed Class II bike lanes on parts of Marina Vista Ave and Escobar Street but not through the entire length. Contra Costa County has expressed interest in turning over the Carquinez Scenic Drive alignment to a trail or park organization to manage as a trail. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 209 of 394 "S"S%, %,%, %, %,%,%,%, %, %,%, %, kj kj kj Nejedly Staging Area Port Costa Staging Area CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE MARINA VISTA AVE T A L B A R T S T MARIN A VISTA AVE ESCO B A R ST CAR Q U I N E Z SCE N I C D R CA R Q U I N E Z S C E N I C D R Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Legend - Trail Segments kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Feet Segment 5: Martinez Overview Figure 3-1 ¯ 5-5 5-6 5-1 5-2 5-7 5-85-10 5-9B 5-9A 5-3 5-4 5-12 5-13 4-2 5-11 Existing Trail Route New Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Potential Bikeway Route w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 210 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 52 Existing roadways have limited widths to extend bike lanes without losing parking in the downtown Martinez area. Alternative routes need to be considered. OPPORTUNITIES Contra Costa County is interested in turning over Carquinez Scenic Drive Between EBRPD’s Nejedly Staging Area and the existing George Miller Trail to a trail or park organization to operate as a trail connection to the west. Closure of this gap would connect to existing and planned trails to the east through the City of Martinez, as well as a planned Water Trail access point at Martinez Marina. The noted gap between Martinez Regional Shoreline Park and Nejedly Staging Area adjacent to the Union Pacific tracks is 90% designed and East Bay Regional Park District will lead in the construction phase. CONSTRAINTS Lack of funding for the project. Carquinez Scenic Drive needs to be improved. Businesses in downtown Martinez do not want to lose parking.” Berrellesa Street at UPRR tracks in Martinez Escobar Street Faded Bike Lane 3.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Martinez segment is from the existing one-way pair (couplet 2 ) on Marina Vista Ave. and Escobar Street to Nejedly Staging Area. On the existing segment, pedestrians use the sidewalk on Escobar Street while bicyclists use the bike lanes on the one-way couplet. The Martinez Circulation Element identifies bike lanes on Escobar Street (Court Street to Marina Vista Avenue) and Marina Vista Avenue (I-680 to Escobar Street). 2 In the context of roads, a one-way pair, or couplet, consists of two one-way streets whose flows combine on one or both ends into a single two-way street. The one-way streets may be separated by just a single block, such as in a grid network, or may be spaced further apart with intermediate parallel roads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_pair. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 211 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 53 It should be noted that no bike lane signs were observed on either street. The bike lane line on Escobar Street east of Pine Street was extremely faded and was essentially absent. Nevertheless, this is considered the existing completed Bay Trail and is illustrated in the Vision Summary. The existing bike lanes on Marina Vista Ave. continue further west than shown on the Vision Summary, terminating at the Amtrak station driveway just east of Castro Street. (Segment 5-2). This section evaluates on-street alignments to connect the existing Class II bikeways (Bay Trail) with the Nejedly staging area. This includes: •For westbound bicyclists: at Marina Vista Avenue and Pine Street (Segment 5-1) •For pedestrians: at Escobar Street and Court Street (Segment 5-5) •For eastbound bicyclists: at Escobar Street and Court Street (Segment 5-5) Marina Vista Avenue west of Pine Street. Marina Vista Avenue is a one-way westbound street with on- street metered parking on both sides. It is a designated principal arterial 3. There are signed and striped bike lanes for westbound cyclists. At Castro Street and continuing to the west, Marina Vista Avenue is a two-way street with no bike lanes. There are continuous sidewalks and there is on-street parking on both sides of the street. At Alhambra Avenue, the General Plan land use designation for parcels in this area changes from commercial to residential R-12. Escobar Street east of Downtown Berrellesa Street Escobar Street west of Pine Street. Escobar Street becomes a two-way street with on-street parking on both sides. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street but no bike lanes. As stated in the Martinez General Plan, it is designated as a principal arterial east of Berrellesa Street and as a minor arterial street west of 3 Source: Martinez General Plan Ciculation Element, 6-11 and 6-12, Revised Draft November 2021 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 212 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 54 Berrellesa Street to Talbart Street. On the north side of Alhambra Avenue and on the south side of Berrellesa Street, the land-use designation in the General Plan changes from commercial to residential. Berrellesa Street and Ferry Street are two-way, two-lane streets, and both have an existing at-grade railroad crossing. If the trail is routed through the Martinez Regional Shoreline Park, it would need to use one of these streets to connect and conform to the existing bike lanes on the Marina Vista Avenue / Escobar Street couplet. The Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan identifies a proposed railroad crossing grade separation at Court Street. If this new crossing project is pursued, then the options below could be modified. 0233c — Bay Trail in Martinez: close gap, Phase 3 Construct new bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the UPRR tracks at North Court Street from the existing trail in the Martinez Regional Shoreline Park to the Escobar-Court Street intersection in downtown Martinez Most of the other streets in the downtown are similar to Escobar Street- two-way streets with sidewalks and on-street parking on both sides of the street and no bike lanes. The adjacent land uses are predominantly commercial east of Alhambra Avenue and residential R-12 to the west. The only other bike lanes in the downtown area are on the one-way couplet on Berrellesa Street (southbound) and Alhambra Avenue (northbound) south of Marina Vista Avenue. Most intersections are four-way stop sign controlled. The collision history in the study area as reported to SWITRS was investigated using Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) developed by SAFETREC at UC Berkeley (Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2). There were 18 reported injury collisions in the four-year period 2017-2020 in downtown Martinez in an area bounded by Ward Street on the south, Court Street on the east, the railroad tracks to the north and Talbart Street to the west. None of the 18 collisions were fatalities. Seven involved pedestrians and two involved bicyclists. Of the 7 pedestrian collisions, five were at intersections, and three pedestrians were crossing in a crosswalk. Two pedestrians were in the roadway or a shoulder, which typically occurs when there is no sidewalk. (These were both on Ferry Street.) Of all collisions, five occurred on Ferry St., five occurred on Berrellesa St., three occurred on Marina Vista Ave. and three occurred on Escobar St. Of the nine pedestrian or bike collisions, five occurred on Ferry St. (four pedestrian and one bicycle). 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 213 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 55 Table 3-1: Motor Vehicle Collisions Downtown Martinez (2017 -2020) Primary Street Secondary Street Offset Distance from Secondary Street Type of Collision Motor Vehicle Involved With Pedestrian Action (If Any) Main St Ferry St 0 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection Ferry St Ferry St 709 0 Sideswipe Pedestrian In Road, Including Shoulder Escobar St Pine St 404 Rear End Parked Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Berrellesa St Main St 0 Other Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Berrellesa St Escobar St 0 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Not Stated in TIMS report Berrellesa St Ward St 50 Sideswipe Fixed Object No Pedestrian Involved Ward St Court St 0 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian B - Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection Ferry St Ferry St 400 0 Sideswipe Pedestrian In Road, Including Shoulder Berrellesa St Escobar St 0 Broadside Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Main St Estudillo St 0 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Crossing Not In Crosswalk Court St Ward St 0 Broadside Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Marina Vista Castro St 22 Head-On Fixed Object No Pedestrian Involved Ferry St Ward St 0 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection Berrellesa St Buckley St 0 Other Bicycle No Pedestrian Involved Marina Vista 1312 Marina Vista Ave. 0 Head-On Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Ferry St Marina Vista Ave. 0 NS Bicycle No Pedestrian Involved Alhambra Av Escobar St. 0 Broadside Animal No Pedestrian Involved Marina Vista Av Miller Ave. 0 Hit Object Fixed Object No Pedestrian Involved NS-Not stated Source: SWITRS 2017 2020; accessed through TIMS (https://tims.berkeley.edu), SafeTREC, UC Berkeley 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 214 of 394 FIGURE 3-2 MARTINEZ TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 2017-2020 DATE: 4/28/2021 PROJECT: Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study PROJECT NO.: 2000077 DRAWN: TH APPROVED: JP Note: Collisions south of Ward Street not included in analysis 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 215 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 56 3.3 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS The Bay Trail alignment in Downtown Martinez was intended to accommodate users heading westbound on Marina Vista Avenue to the George Miller Trail and users heading eastbound on Escobar Street to the Martinez-Benicia Bridge, although this doesn’t have to be the case. There may be an opportunity to reexamine the alignment connecting to the proposed Bay Trail that is being developed by EBRPD at the Martinez Regional Shoreline Park to the Nejedly Staging Area at Carquinez Scenic Drive. The one-way couplet of bike lanes on Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street is not continuous through the downtown; the Class II bikeway along Marina Vista Avenue ends just east of Castro Street where it becomes a two-way street. Escobar Street has eastbound bike lanes that begin 200 feet east of Court Street, and it becomes a one-way street east of Pine Street. To implement bike lanes on Escobar Street west of this point, either a parking lane would need to be removed, or the one-way cross-section would need to be extended. Loss of parking spaces to accommodate a Class II bikeway on Escobar Street could be an issue for local businesses. Escobar Street (Two-Way Section) Carquinez Scenic Drive On Carquinez Scenic Drive between the Nejedly Staging Area and the George Miller Trail, the only users requiring vehicular access along this segment of Carquinez Scenic Drive are EBRPD staff accessing its facilities at the Ozol Pier and contractors monitoring remediation work at the former US Navy Fuel depot. Converting this segment into trail-only use could be accomplished with access gates and limited vehicle use (minimal improvements), with longer-term roadway improvements to improve accessibility and repair roadway failures. Due to limited road width, termination at a trail, and minimal vehicular traffic, redesigning this segment for vehicular access with a separate Class I path is not a feasible option. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 216 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 57 3.3.1 On-Street Alignments Various on-street alignments and options were evaluated for fatal flaws in the implementation of either on- street Class II or Class IV bikeways for the bicycle route and for complete sidewalks for pedestrians. This on- street alignment has been divided into three segments, based on existing conditions: •Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street- Pine Street/Court Street to Castro Street (Segments 5-2 and 5-5) •Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street - Castro Street to Talbart Street/Foster Street/Carquinez Scenic Drive (Segments 5- 3 and 5-4) •Carquinez Scenic Drive - Talbart Street/Foster Street/to Nejedly Staging Area (Segment 5-11) Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street- Pine/Court Street to Castro Street Alignment. Marina Vista Ave. in this area has existing westbound bike lanes and existing sidewalks (Segment 5-2). Escobar Street also has existing sidewalks. The challenge for this segment is to provide a dedicated bikeway for eastbound bicyclists (Segment 5-4). In built environments, such as downtown areas with constricted rights of way, bike lanes can be provided either by removing on-street parking or removing a travel lane. Given that Escobar Street is a two-way street with one lane in each direction and on-street parking on both sides of the street, the two options are: •Removing a travel lane and creating a one-way street on Escobar Street for 6 to 8 blocks. Given that Marina Vista Avenue at this point is a one-way street westbound, and that Escobar Street east of Pine Street is a one-way street eastbound, it is logical to continue the existing one-way couplet and make Escobar Street one-way street eastbound for a few more blocks. The new eastbound bike lane on Escobar Street could connect with either the existing southbound bike lane on Berrellesa Street or a new southbound bike lane on Castro Street. For the one block of Castro Street that is already one way between Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street, the options are to remove the lane of parallel parking on the west side or convert the angled parking on the east side to parallel parking. •Removing parking on one side of Escobar Street and providing an eastbound bike lane. The most user-friendly would be to remove parking on the southside (eastbound) side of the street so that cyclists would not have to bike adjacent to the parked cars. Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street- Castro Street to Talbart Street/Foster Street/Carquinez Scenic Drive. This alignment would connect the existing westbound bike lane on Marina Vista Avenue, where it terminates just east of Castro Street, to the intersection of Carquinez Scenic Drive/Foster Street/Talbart Street. Continuing west on Marina Vista Ave. directly to Talbart Street is not recommended since Marina Vista Ave. is very steep between Berrellesa Street and Richardson Street. Escobar St. west of Richardson Street also has a slight grade; the topography is much less steep for both bikes and pedestrians on either Buckley Street and/or Foster Street. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 217 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 58 Escobar Street John Sparacino Park John Sparacino Park has existing pathways that connect Marina Vista Avenue with the intersection of Buckley Street at Alhambra Avenue. An alternative alignment is to use the path within John Sparacino Park from Marina Vista Avenue to Buckley Street (shown as Segment 5-9A), which would reduce the on-street route by two blocks. However, the path from Buckley Street heading north to Berrellesa Street (Segment 5- 9B) is narrow and would be suitable only for pedestrian use. From the intersection of Buckley Street at Alhambra Avenue, there are existing sidewalks that connect to Talbart Street/Foster Street on Buckley Street, Richardson Street, Berrellesa Street, and Talbart Street, so any combination of streets could work for pedestrians (or the off-street alignment discussed below). The challenge is providing a dedicated Class II or Class IV bikeway in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The on-street alignment would ultimately extend westward to connect with the intersection of Carquinez Scenic Drive/Foster Street/Talbart Street. There are three variations using combinations of Buckley Street, Richardson Street, Berrellesa Street, Foster Street, and Talbart Street (Figure 3-3). All have adjacent land uses designated as R12, but in reality, some land uses are more commercial-oriented rather than residential-oriented. Most have on-street parking, but there are two blocks with no parking, one of which could accommodate bike lanes. Removing parking in front of single-family homes is physically feasible but not politically feasible due to the controversy it would generate. However, all are low-volume streets at the northwest edge of town so there is little or no through traffic. These streets are likely below the threshold (2,000 to 4,000 vehicles per day) typically cited (e.g. Class II facilities) able over, but the bike lanes could be upgraded to meet Bay Trail Guidelines. Thus, they all are candidates to be Neighborhood Bikeways (as described in the CBPP, Appendix C) and are considered feasible Bay Trail alignments. •Alt 5-3A: Continue west on Buckley Street for three blocks until Talbart Street, then use Talbart Street for one block to Carquinez Scenic Drive. Sidewalks are present but not bike lanes. Designate as Class III neighborhood bikeway. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 218 of 394 "S "S kj kj kj Escobar St P i n e S t E s t u d i l l o S t Foster St Ward St Green StBerrellessa StFerry StT a l b a r t S t Carquinez Scenic Dr Marina Vis A l h am b r a A v e Marina Vista Ave Main St F e r r y S tBunkerAve B e r r e l l e s s a S t F o s t e r S t Co u r t S t R i c h a r d s o n S tBuckley StC o u r t S t L a s J u n t a s S t Marina Vista AveEscobar StC a s t r o S t N Court StFoster StEs t u d i l l o S t T a l b a r t S t Joe Di M a g gi o D r Embarca d e r o S t Foster StCarquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study 0 300 600 900Feet 5-10 5-9B 5-9A 5-35-3A 5-11 5-4 5-3B 5-3C Figure 3-3 Alternatives 5-3A, 5-3B, and 5-3C Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route New Trail Route Existing Bikeway Route w/SidewalkPotential Bikeway w/Sidewalk Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian Route Alternative Routes kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing 5-7 5-2 5-1 ¯ 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 219 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 59 •Alt 5-3B: Continue west on Buckley Street for two blocks until Richardson Street, then use Richardson Street for one block to Foster Street. Designate as Class III neighborhood bikeway. The last block would use Foster Street, which is currently an unimproved dead-end street about 80 feet in length. A trail would be needed to connect the remaining unimproved segment to the intersection of Carquinez Scenic/Foster Street/Talbart Street. Given the grade differential, a switchback would likely be needed. •Alt 5-3C: Continue on Buckley Street for one block (designated as Class III neighborhood bikeway) then use Berrellesa Street for one block until Foster Street. Use Foster Street for one block to Richardson Street and then jog on Richardson Street for 30 feet to connect again to Foster Street– the dead-end street as described above. Berrellesa Street is approximately 36 feet wide and is currently designated no parking and thus can easily be striped with bike lanes without impacting the one dedicated loading zone on this block. Foster Street between Berrellesa Street and Richardson Street is currently a narrow two-way two-lane street with commercial frontage without parking. Class II bike lanes are not physically possible even if it were made a one-way street. However, the lack of parking and low traffic few driveways would make it a relatively attractive bike route. An alternative that was considered but rejected was for the trail alignment to continue on Foster Street west of Richardson Street until Talbart Street and then use Talbart Street for one block south to the Carquinez Scenic/Foster/Talbart intersection. Talbart Street is an unimproved narrow one-lane road. However, this section of Foster Street is now private property and no longer has a public street connection to Talbart Street. The feasibility of acquiring this property was not investigated. Foster Street Looking West Foster Street Looking East Table 3-2 compares the alternatives on a block-by-block basis. If the on-street alignment is to be pursued, potential future criteria for choosing the optimum alignment include: •Adjacent residential vs. commercial uses; 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 220 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 60 •Right of way ownership/easement (for sections where the status is unknown); •Potential for creation of bike lanes; •Potential for creating a Dutch-style woonerf 4, or living street; •Total number of blocks that might remain as Class III bicycle routes due to inability to provide bike lanes; and •Number of blocks without on-street parking. Table 3-2 Martinez Comparison of Three On-Street Alignments 5 Street Block Sidewalks Bike lane issues Parking Public ROW Adjacent Land Uses Buckley Street: Alhambra Avenue to Berrellesa Street Yes, both sides Would require parking removal or one-way conversion Yes, both sides Yes Commercial, no driveways or building entrances on south side Alt 5-3A: Buckley Street to Talbart Street Buckley Street: Berrellesa Street to Richardson Street Yes, both sides Would require parking removal or one-way conversion Yes, both sides Yes Single Family and Multifamily Residential Buckley Street: Richardson Street to Talbart Street Yes, both sides Would require parking removal or one-way conversion Yes, both sides Yes Single Family Residential Talbart Street: Buckley Street to Foster Street Yes, both sides Would require parking removal or one-way conversion Yes, both sides Yes Single Family Residential Alt 5-3B Buckley Street / Richardson Street /Foster Street 4 Woonerf: a road that is designed with special features to reduce the amount of traffic using it or to make the traffic go slower: Woonerf is Dutch for "living street," and refers to a new way of designing streets to be people-friendly open spaces. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/woonerf 5 Common to all Alternatives: pathway in park, existing path, potential need for widening to become Bay Trail, public ROW 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 221 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 61 Table 3-2 Martinez Comparison of Three On-Street Alignments 5 Street Block Sidewalks Bike lane issues Parking Public ROW Adjacent Land Uses Buckley Street: Berrellesa Street to Richardson Street Yes, both sides Would require parking removal or one-way conversion Yes, both sides Yes Single Family and Multifamily Residential Richardson Street: Buckley Street to Foster Street Yes, both sides Would require parking removal or one-way conversion Yes, both sides Yes Single Family Residential Foster Street: Richardson Street to Talbart Street Vacant lot not improved; possible construction of multi- use path, depending on ownership and access easements. Verify public ROW status Single Family Residential Alt 5-3C: Berrellesa Street /Foster Street /Talbart Street Berrellesa Street: Buckley Street to Foster Street Yes, both sides Berrellesa Street current red curb; bike lane possible No Yes Commercial Foster Street: Berrellesa Street to Richardson Street Yes, south side only Foster Street currently ~15 feet wide No Yes Commercial/ Residential Foster Street: Richardson Street to Talbart Street (Same as 5-3B) Vacant lot-not improved; possible construction of multi-use path, depending on ownership and access easements Verify public ROW status Single Family Residential Carquinez Scenic Drive to Nejedly Staging Area. This alignment would continue to Nejedly Staging Area. There is only one possible on-street alignment for this segment, along Carquinez Scenic Drive (Segment 5- 11). This section has two distinct cross-sections. The first 500 feet of the street, until the cemetery property line, has single-family homes on the south side, with on-street parking and sidewalks on both sides. The street width is 38 feet. Providing bike lanes would either require roadway widening to the north or the removal of one parking lane. Widening is problematic due to the slopes, and it would be more costly than other locations given that the north side has already been improved with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Parking removal would be controversial and would probably be opposed by the residents, given the lack of other nearby streets on which to park. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 222 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 62 West of this point through the cemetery, the road narrows considerably to approximately 24 feet. Providing four-foot bike lanes appears feasible. However, given the topography, widening to provide both bike lanes and a sidewalk or providing a parallel multiuse trail is not physically practical. Pedestrians would have to use the bike lane or another route, such as the off-street alignment (Segment 5-10). Carquinez Scenic Drive between Nejedly Staging Area and George Miller Trail, east end (Segment 5-12). This segment currently has low-volume vehicle traffic primarily serving an informal parking area at the trailhead, as well as vehicles that conduct periodic monitoring of the former military lands east of the George Miller Trail. The roadway varies from approximately 18 to 24 ft. wide, which is not sufficient for two- way vehicle traffic as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There is a 200-foot long failed roadway section approximately one-half mile east of the George Miller Trail entrance. In this section, traffic is reduced to one lane with signage and barricades. The topography and slope stability in this area are challenging and geotechnical repairs are likely to be prohibitively expensive. This segment of Carquinez Scenic Drive is not suitable for widening to accommodate both vehicles and pedestrian/bicycle facilities, but would be suitable for closure to vehicles and converted to Class I facilities if current military/agency use is managed. This could be accomplished with gates west of Nejedly Staging Area to accommodate periodic maintenance and monitoring access. Full closure of the roadway to vehicle traffic and reconstruction as a Class I facility could also be considered if and when military/agency vehichular access is no longer needed. Carquinez Scenic Drive at Cemetery Nejedly Staging Area 3.3.2 Off-Street Alignments Martinez Regional Shoreline (Segment 5-7). The existing paved shared-use trail between Ferry Street and the Alhambra Creek bridge at Grangers Wharf Parking Area would be used. Grangers Wharf Parking Area / Berrellesa Street (Segment 5-8). For trail continuity and safety, access through and/or around the Grangers Wharf Parking Area needs to be accommodated. This could be done by either constructing an entirely new shared-use trail that may require a redesign of the entire area, including 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 223 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 63 the restroom location, or by constructing a separate pedestrian path to allow bicycles to use the parking area as a Class III bikeway. A widened sidewalk and railroad crossing already exists along the east side of Berrellesa Street. The sidewalk is not sufficiently wide nor does it meet standards to be considered a Class I bikeway. It does not appear that there is sufficient right of way to reconstruct Berrellesa Street to include a Class II or Class IV bikeway. If Berrellesa Street were to be designated as a Class III bikeway, no additional improvements would be needed, although this short segment would not be consistent with Bay Trail Guidelines. John Sparacino Park Path (Segments 5-9A and 5-9B). As previously discussed, an alternative for linking Marina Vista Avenue to Berrellesa Street exists by using the Sparacino Park Path that parallels Alhambra Creek. However, between Buckley Street and Berrellesa Street (Segment 5-9B), the path narrows and would be suitable only for pedestrian use. Bay Trail: Berrellesa Street to Nejedly Staging Area (Segment 5-10). EBRPD has assumed management of the Nejedly-Berrellesa Street Bay Trail project, which is adjacent to the UPRR/Berrellesa Street track in Martinez and would head west to the Nejedly Staging Area 6. EBRPD intends to pave the section from the UPRR crossing to Carquinez Scenic Drive, across from the Nejedly Staging Area. This route has a grade of up to 9%, and will not, therefore, meet ADA standards without adding "refuges" similar to those on the George Miller Trail. The proposed connector would be located primarily on EBRPD land, but would need to cross Berrellesa Street UPRR right of way. In order to finalize the easement for this Bay Trail segment, EBRPD is currently in negotiations with UPRR to determine the improvements needed to be completed by EBRPD. A Field Diagnostic site visit with UPRR staff was completed in June 2020. UPRR has concerns regarding the at-grade signalized crossing at Berrellesa Street, including queuing and cars getting stuck on the tracks. UPRR may require improvements, such as the addition of pedestrian crossing gates, which would add cost and complexity to the project. Along the rest of the route, there are also some jurisdictional wetlands within the trail corridor that may require mitigation, as well as some locations where the trail may need to be narrowed slightly due to the topography. The original CEQA evaluation and regulatory permits (A CEQA document and JARPA permit were completed between 2003 and 2005.) will need to be updated. EBRPD also needs to secure the funding for construction. They have some funding for the design changes and permitting, but construction funding has not been secured. EBRPD submitted an ATP grant proposal for the project, but it scored poorly. If funding is secured, construction could occur as early as 2023. There are three projects in the CBPP that intersect with CSSLT trail implementation (Table 3-3), including the Bay Trail: Berellesa Street to Nejedly Staging Area Project (Segment 5-10) and grade separation and bicycle lanes on Court Street that would connect the Downtown area with the Martinez Regional Shoreline. 6 Personal communication with Sean Dougan, EBRPD, April 2021 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 224 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 64 Table 3-3: CBPP Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects in Martinez Martinez 0233a — San Francisco Bay Trail in Martinez: Close gaps, Phase 1. Close gaps on the San Francisco Bay Trail in the City of Martinez: construct trail from existing staging area east along the south edge of the Martinez Regional Shoreline to existing Shoreline Trail near Ferry Street. Relocate and repave parking lot. $460,000 $50,000 from local contributions $325,000 from Coastal Conservancy Martinez 0233c — San Francisco Bay Trail in Martinez: Close gap, Phase 3. Construct new bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the UPRR tracks at North Court Street from the existing trail in the Martinez Regional Shoreline Park to the Escobar- Court Street intersection in Downtown Martinez $3,000,000 Unfunded Martinez 0591 — North Court Street Bicycle Lanes North Court Street bicycle lanes: connect the Martinez Intermodal Facility to the Martinez Shoreline Park and future ferry terminal $195,000 Unfunded 3.4 FEASIBILITY OF A LOW- STRESS BIKEWAY IN SEGMENT 5 As discussed above, creating a low-stress bikeway on Downtown Martinez would require implementation of continuous sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and/or physical barriers to separate vehicles from bicycle and pedestrian users. The existing facilities within EBRPD and City of Martinez parks serve as low-stress bikeways. West of Downtown Martinez, Carquinez Scenic Drive (Segment 5-11) provides access for both single-family and multifamily residential uses as well as two cemeteries. Although the roadway in the vicinity of the residential uses is sufficient to create bike lanes, the design of some residential units with a continuous access driveway is a potential safety hazard. A separated path could be created on the north side of the road if parking is eliminated, but would not be ADA compliant. This segment is an alternative to Segment 5-10 (Nejedly Connector), which is currently in design and offers a continuous low stress option. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 225 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 65 Segment 5-11 Carquinez Scenic Drive at Multifamily Residences Carquinez Scenic Drive at Cemeteries In Segment 5-12, between the Nejedly Staging Area and the entrance to the George Miller Trail, the roadway is owned by Contra Costa County, and adjacent lands are primarily owned and/or managed by EBRPD and the federal government. This segment could potentially be utilized as a paved, shared-use trail, with occasional closure or shared use of the existing road for ongoing land management. Ownership and maintenance of the roadway/trail by a managing entity could also be explored in the future if ongoing military/agency use is discontinued. 3.5 FATAL FLAWS Although technically feasible, further investigation could reveal that some options are cost-prohibitive. At this point in the analysis, the following were not considered infeasible: •Conversion of a two-way street to a one-way street. •On-street parking removal. •Widening existing paths in existing city parks 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 226 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 66 •Land acquisition (vacant) to widen roadway or to provide multi-use trail on vacant property Input from the Bay Trail indicates that either Class II or Class IV bikeways would be acceptable within Downtown Martinez as a way to connect trail users on Marina Vista with EBRPD trail facilities further west. However, the City of Martinez has indicated that Class IV or II facilities are not feasible in Downtown Martinez, as they would necessitate a change in traffic patterns and/or on-street parking. In addition, the City of Martinez is not in favor of alignments on Marina Vista or Main Street, due to existing right of way constraints. Therefore, although bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Downtown Martinez may be technically feasible, the lack of political support from the City could be considered a fatal flaw. 3.6 OTHER ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED Shoreline Route between Nejedly Staging Area and Crockett. Outboard of the UPRR tracks between Martinez and Eckley Pier, there are a few parcels of public land. However, the tracks along the Strait already become inundated during high tide/storm events, so anticipated sea level rise will be an ongoing maintenance issue. EBRPD has no easement rights in this rail segment. Although it may be technically feasible to create a 20-ft wide bench with periodic bridges parallel to and south of the UPRR ROW along the shoreline, this alignment would be prohibitively expensive and problematic due to geotechnical and other environmental challenges. The shoreline alignment between Martinez Waterfront Park and the Benicia Bridge, discussed in Section 2, has a trail alignment connecting to the Martinez waterfront that would avoid downtown streets and eliminate the need to extend the existing east-west bike lanes on Escobar Street and Marina Vista Avenue. Bike lanes on north–south streets such as Ferry Street, Court Street and Berrellesa Street would facilitate connections to this trail segment. To complete the Bay Trail traveling west, one would enter Waterfront Park and connect to the Nejedly Staging Area from Berrellesa Street (Segment 5-10). Overcrossing Relocation. The proposed overcrossing of the railroad tracks at Court Street, identified in the CBPP, could conceivably be shifted eastward to the vicinity of the Marina Vista-Escobar Street merge. Crossing at that location would utilize city-owned lands north and south of UPRR right of way, take advantage of the elevated portion of Marina Vista Avenue (above the tracks) needed for the rail crossing, and would cross to the north side on city-owned land within Martinez Waterfront Park at Joe DiMaggio Drive. Such a crossing would avoid Downtown Martinez, but would likely not meet implementation goals to attract funding from both recreation and transportation sources. 3.7 NEXT STEPS In order to proceed with implementing the options discussed in this section, the following issues should be resolved: •Defer improvements within the City of Martinez until specific planning and community engagement is completed to address bicycle and pedestrian circulation within the Downtown area. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 227 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 67 •Identify appropriate City of Martinez staff and conduct internal engagement to determine level of City commitment on proposed projects identified in the study that are within City right of way •Reevaluate City/County long-term plan and location for an overcrossing at Court Street, and identify design options •Determine ownership and any required agreements related to roadway improvements •Initiate discussions with EBRPD and Contra Costa County for management and improvements to Carquinez Scenic Drive between the Nejedly Staging Area and the existing eastern terminus of the George Miller Trail. •Consider improvements to the Nejedly Staging Area if Carquinez Scenic Drive is closed to public vehicle traffic •Fund and construct the off-street connector from Berrellesa Street to the Nejedly Staging Area •Resolve with UPRR issues regarding modifications to the existing at-grade railroad crossing at Berrellesa Street •Update CSSLT Vision Summary 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 228 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 68 4.SEGMENT 6 – CARQUINEZ SHORELINE Figure 4-1 provides an overview of the existing and potential CSSLT segments within the Carquinez Shoreline Study Area. These segments include: 6-1 Carquinez Scenic Drive between the Port Costa Staging Area and Winslow Street in Crockett 6-2 New trail from the Port Costa Staging Area to the Port Costa/Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail and fire road 6-3 Existing trail spur from the Carquinez ridgeline to the corral/informal staging area on Carquinez Scenic Drive 6-4 Existing trail from the corral/informal staging area to Reservoir Street, Port Costa 6-5A New ridgeline trail connection to the Port Costa/Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail 6-5B Existing trail connection from the corral/informal staging area on Carquinez Scenic Drive to the Carquinez ridgeline 6-5C Extension of Segment 6-5A (ridgeline trail) to existing trail Segment 6-4 6-6 New trail along Reservoir Street 6-7 New facilities on Canyon Lake Drive and Prospect Avenue in Port Costa 6-8 Improvements to the existing Bull Valley fire road 6-9 New trail on private land from Canyon Lake Drive to Segment 6-8 (Bull Valley Fire Road) 6-10 new trail from Reservoir Street to Carquinez Scenic Drive through Port Costa School site 6-11A new trail from Segment 6-8 (Bull Valley Fire Road) to Segment 6-11B (Carquinez Overlook Trail) 6-11B Existing Carquinez Overlook Trail to Eckley Pier 6-11C Existing Carquinez Overlook Trail to Eckley Pier via Eckley Pier Drive 6-12 Eckley Pier to existing Bull Valley Trail 6-13 Eckley Pier/Bull Valley Trail to Winslow Street, Crockett 6-14 New ADA trail from Eckley Pier to Winslow Street 6-15 New facilities from Winslow Street at Bull Valley Trailhead to Rolph Street via Winslow Street, Vallejo Street, and Loring Avenue 6-16A Winslow Street from Bull Valley trail to Carquinez Scenic Drive 6-16B Pomona Street between Winslow Street and Rolph Avenue 6-17 Rolph Avenue 6-4A New trail from Segment 6-4 to Segment 6-8 via Prospect Avenue 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 229 of 394 !( !( %, %, %,%,%,%, %, %, %, %, %,%, %,%,%,%,%,%, %,%,kj%,%,%,%,%,%,%,%, Port Costa Staging Area Bull Valley Staging Area Park and Ride Eckley PierVallejoStLoring Ave West StBay StBaldwin AveCrockettBlvdWinslow St Ceres St Wanda St Duperu DrRolph AveClark St Alhambra St Edwards St Pomona Ave Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing !(Potential Staging Area Trail Segment 6: Carquinez Shoreline Overview 0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800600Feet ¯ Figure 4-1 6-2 6-36-1 6-5A 6-36-5B 6-5C 6-46-10 6-1 6-86-9 6-6 6-7 6-14 6-12 6-13 6-15 6-16B 6-176-18 6-19 5-13 6-11A 6-11B6-16A Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk Route 6-4A 6-11C 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 230 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 69 6-18 “Shoreline Streets” from Loring Avenue to the Carquinez Bridge Staging Area via 4th Street, Wanda Street, Port Street, and Ceres Street (alternate Starr Street, 2nd Avenue) 6-19 Pomona Street from Rolph Avenue to the Carquinez Bridge Staging Area 4.1 VISION SUMMARY The Vision Summary states: This is a Bay Trail, Anza Trail, and Delta Trail gap. The Ridge Trail has dedicated their portion of the segment along Pomona Ave from Crockett Blvd to the Carquinez Bridge. Contra Costa County is interested in turning the segment of Carquinez Scenic Drive between the George Miller Trail and Port Costa over to a trail or park organization to manage as a trail. The entire length of this section of trail is proposed along County roadways. The stretch along Carquinez Scenic Drive west of Port Costa is challenging since it is a primary access point to Port Costa with limited right of way and several geographical challenges. OPPORTUNITIES Contra Costa County is interested in turning Carquinez Scenic Drive between Port Costa and George Miller Trail over to a trail or park organization to manage as a trail.7 Closure of this gap would connect to existing trail to the north across the Carquinez Bridge, as well as a planned Water Trail access point along the shoreline at Eckley Pier. CONSTRAINTS Lack of funding for the project. Lack of clear alignment west of Port Costa that will safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians on a trail. Trail alignment is located on streets with limited right of way. The stretch on Carquinez Scenic Drive west of Port Costa is needed for access by Port Costa and is constrained with limited right of way and slopes on both edges. 6Private property owners use CSD to access properties south of the road between Port Costa and the Brickyard, and needs to be maintained as a roadway to provide access to future improvements at the Brickyard property. EBRPD has not expressed interest in acquiring this section. Carquinez Scenic Drive east of Port Costa 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 231 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 70 4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Carquinez Shoreline segment can be divided into three geographic units as well as the only continuous road within this segment, Carquinez Scenic Drive: Carquinez Scenic Drive, an approximately 5 mile rural road that connects the Port Costa Staging Area and community with Crockett. Port Costa Staging Area (George Miller Trail – west end) to Port Costa. This area consists of open space and park lands managed by EBRPD as part of the 1,568 acre Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. Port Costa to Crockett Community at Winslow Avenue includes the community of Port Costa and Eckley Pier, as well as EBRPD open space lands that are also part of CarquinezStrait Regional Shoreline.Crockett Community., an unicorporated census-designated place with a population of approximately 3,500, governed as part of Contra Costa County. The Scenic Fire on June 23, 2022 burned approximately 120 acres west of Port Costa within Carquinz Strait Regional Shoreline at the Bull Valley Staging Area. Evacuations were considered for Port Costa residents begfore the fire was contained. 4.2.1 Carquinez Scenic Drive Port Costa Staging Area to Crockett Community at Winslow Avenue. Carquinez Scenic Drive (CSD) provides the lone continuous vehicular access linking the EBRPD Port Costa Staging Area at the west end of the George Miller Trail with Port Costa, the Bull Valley Staging Area, and the eastern edge of Crockett (Segment 6-1 on Maps A-8, A-9 , A-10 and A-11). This is a narrow windy road, with pavement widths ranging from less than 20 feet to approximately 30 feet. The road traverses steep topography, with frequent steep side slopes on both sides. It is in poor condition with apparent drainage and earth movement issues at a number of locations between the Port Costa Staging Area and Crockett. Private property owners use the CSD to access properties south of the road between Port Costa Staging Area and Crockett. The CSD also is the sole vehicular route to provide access for potential future improvements by the EBRPD at the former brickyard site owned by EBRPD (Brickyard). In 2014, the EBRPD updated their overall camping program, and the Brickyard was identified as a potential family camp with an ecological theme that might include tent camping, Reservoir Road /EBRPD Trail Entrance 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 232 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 71 convenience camping, and possibly small RV camping. CSD was noted as a constraint on vehicular access to the Brickyard for any large RVs. The potential for a San Francisco Bay Water Trail camp was also identified. EBRPD has not expressed interest in acquiring this section of roadway. Because of the critical flaw associated with modifying CSD as a trail, the adjacent lands present the most viable opportunity for routing the CSSLT. These land uses are described below. 4.2.2 Port Costa Staging Area to Port Costa Port Costa Staging Area (George Miller Trail - west end) to Port Costa. The existing George Miller Trail terminates at the Port Costa Staging Area, where it overlooks the Brickyard. The open space ranchlands north of the CSD between the Brickyard, Reservoir Street, or Prospect Avenue in Port Costa are owned by both the EBRPD and Port Costa Conservation Society. EBRPD has a management agreement with the Port Costa Conservation Society to manage the trails on this property. The principal access points for this trail system are located at Reservoir Street in Port Costa or a corral area used as an informal staging area off the CSD located along the ridgeline between the Port Costa Staging Area and Reservoir Street. There is currently no direct trail connection between the Port Costa Staging Area and these trails. Within Port Costa, Reservoir Street has no sidewalks and is not sufficiently wide to be developed as a Class II bikeway. Canyon Lake Drive has 3-foot wide sidewalks between Reservoir Street and Prospect Avenue and a road width not sufficiently wide enough to be developed as a Class II bikeway. Prospect Avenue has no sidewalks and is not sufficiently wide enough to be developed as a Class II bikeway. Port Costa Streets - Canyon Lake Drive and Prospect Avenue 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 233 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 72 North of the CSD, lands between Port Costa and Crockett are primarily owned by EBRPD and managed as part of Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline. The Bull Valley Trail extends from Prospect Avenue in Port Costa to Crockett. It is a natural surface path with widely varying widths and slopes. The Bull Valley Trail includes 15+% grade sections as it approaches the Eckley Pier from the Bull Valley Staging Area. There is no opportunity to reasonably modify this alignment. Just west of the Eckley Pier, the Bull Valley Trail is a single track that includes sharp steep switchbacks that are not conducive to bicycle use. The Bull Valley Trail segment from Eckley Pier to Crockett (Winslow Ave.) is a well-used foot trail that provides the primary shoreline access to Eckley Pier for residents in the Crockett area. The Carquinez Overlook Trail from the Bull Valley Trail near the Bull Valley Staging Area is a wide ranch road that provided panoramic views over the Carquinez Straits. There are a number of other unnamed trails that branch off from the Carquinez Overlook Trail. 4.2.4 Crockett The Crockett Downtown Upgrade Project to upgrade the pedestrian facilities along Pomona Street between 2nd Avenue and 1st Avenue in the downtown Crockett Area (listed in the CBPP) has been completed. Shoreline Streets. The Vision Summary identifies that the entire length of this trail section is proposed along County roadways. Traveling west, the route follows Winslow Street, Vallejo Street, Loring Avenue, 4th Avenue, Wanda Street, Port Street, and Ceres Street to the Carquinez Bridge Trail Staging Area (Segments 6- 15 and 6-18 of Figure A-11). These two-lane, two-way streets are relatively narrow with on- street parking. Adjacent land uses along Loring Avenue are predominantly commercial west of Bay Street, then changes to predominantly residential. For much of Loring Avenue west of Vallejo Street, there are sidewalks on one or both sides of the street. However many of the sidewalks on Loring Avenue include stairs (See photo.), which would not be consistent with the goal of an ADA-accessible pedestrian route, but would be allowable as an existing condition adjacent to road right of way. Bike lanes are not present and would be difficult to implement Loring Street Sidewalk Bull Valley Trail Fire Road at Prospect Avenue 4.2.3 Port Costa to Crockett 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 234 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 73 given the single-family home land uses. However, there appears to be fairly low-volume traffic volumes along this route, so it could be retained in the study as an alternative to Pomona Street as a Class III neighborhood bikeway, recognizing that this does not meet the basic goal of either a Class I, II, or IV bikeway option. It should be noted that there are a few locations along Winslow Street with outstanding views to the Carquinez Strait. In general, shoreline access and views to the waters of the Carquinez Strait within Crockett east of Rolph Avenue are severely limited due to steep topography, rail lines, and industrial uses. Truck traffic to Crockett, the C&H Sugar Mill, and the cogeneration power plant are directed from the Carquinez Bridge to use Wanda Street. Combined, these factors present critical flaws that render the Vision Summary alternative as simply not feasible from a physical perspective as a pedestrian sidewalk and Class II bikeway route for the CSSLT. Pomona Street. Pomona Street is a two-way two-lane street that runs from Winslow Street to the east and becomes San Pablo Ave west of I-80. West of Crockett Boulevard, Pomona Street/San Pablo Avenue is designated as an arterial in the Transportation and Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan. It provides the only access to I-80 in the Crockett community. Crockett Blvd. is the only other arterial in Crockett. Pomona Street east of Crockett Blvd. is designated as a collector street. The first block of Ceres Street is extremely steep as it leaves the Caltrans Park and Ride Facility and existing Bay Trail access point. Using 6th Avenue to Pomona Street offers a nearly level trail option which appears to be the best alignment for bicyclists. Collision History. The collision history in this area, as reported to SWITRS, was investigated using Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) that was developed by SAFETREC at UC Berkeley. There were 12 reported injury collisions in the four-year period (2017-2020) in downtown Crockett in the area bounded by Pomona St. on the south, Winslow St., the railroad tracks to the north and 6th Avenue on the west. None of them were fatalities. Six were on Pomona Street and three were on Rolph Ave. Three of the 12 collisions involved pedestrians, while none involved bicyclists. Of the three pedestrian collisions, one was at an intersection crossing in a crosswalk, one was “Crossing Not in Crosswalk” and one pedestrian was in the roadway or a shoulder (which typically occurs when there is no sidewalk). See Table 4-1 and Figure 4-2. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 235 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 74 Table 4-1 Reported Motor Vehicle Collisions In Crockett Study Area (2017 -2020) Primary Street Secondary Street Offset Distance from Secondary Street Type of Collision Motor Vehicle Involved With Pedestrian Action (If Any) Pomona Street 1st Avenue 50 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian In Road, Including Shoulder Bishop Road Baldwin Avenue 2640 Rear End Parked Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Pomona Street Second Avenue 44 Broadside Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Alexander Avenue Edwards Street 8 Hit Object Fixed Object No Pedestrian Involved Pomona Street Port Street 0 Broadside Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Rolph Avenue Winslow Street 40 Hit Object Fixed Object No Pedestrian Involved Pomona Street Crockett Boulevard 0 Broadside Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Rolph Avenue Pomona Street 330 Hit Object Fixed Object No Pedestrian Involved Edwards Street Alexander Street 300 Sideswipe Other Motor Vehicle No Pedestrian Involved Pomona Avenue, 400 Block Atherton Avenue 14 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Crossing Not in Crosswalk Pomona Street Rolph Avenue 0 Vehicle/Pedestrian Pedestrian Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection Vallejo Street Loring Avenue 20 Hit Object Fixed Object No Pedestrian Involved Source: SWITRS 2017 2020; accessed through TIMS (https://tims.berkeley.edu), SafeTREC, UC Berkeley 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 236 of 394 FIGURE 4-2 CROCKETT TRAFFIC COLLISIONS 2017-2020 DATE: 4/28/2021 PROJECT: Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study PROJECT NO.: 2000077 DRAWN: TH APPROVED: JP Note: Collisions on I-80 not included in analysis 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 237 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 75 4.3 ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 4.3.1 Port Costa Staging Area (George Miller Trail) to Port Costa Developing a trail connection (Segment 6-2) up the hill from the Port Costa Staging Area to the Port Costa/ Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail and fire road near the ridge line is challenging. Precise evaluation of trail options will be needed to develop reasonable grades and cross a major drainage. This segment was selected for further evaluation and is discussed in Section 7. From the junction with Segment 6-2, the existing trail (Segments 6-3 and 6-4) winds northwest to the existing EBRPD gate next to the house at 11 Reservoir Street. An informal staging area along Carquinez Scenic Drive could be improved or relocated to the Port Costa area at Reservoir Road. The southern portion of Segment 6-3 terminates at a vista point with panoramic views over the Carquinez Strait. There are numerous options for developing new trails that would generally follow the ridgeline and provide better views of the Carquinez Strait and link to the corral / informal staging area (Segments 6-5A, 6-5B, and 6-5C). From the corral / informal staging area there are two options to connect with Prospect Avenue. One option is via the existing EBRPD access gate at Reservoir Street (Segment 6-4). The other option is to develop a new trail directly to Prospect Avenue (Segment 6-4A). From the EBRPD gate at Reservoir Street, there is an opportunity to use a portion of the former Port Costa School site to direct trail users off the road for most of the way to Prospect Ave. (Segment 6-6). An enhanced pedestrian crossing and striping may be needed at this location (a steep curve) to cross Reservoir Street and continue the trail on County ROW and/or Port Costa school site lands on the west side of the road (Segment 6-6), or to cross over to Carquinez Scenic Drive (Segment 6-10). Canyon Lake Drive and Prospect Avenue (Segment 6-7) are narrow and would accommodate only a Class III bikeway. There are existing sidewalks on each side of Canyon Lake Drive that connects the former school with Prospect Avenue. They are only 3’ wide, somewhat hidden, overgrown with vegetation in some locations, and/or blocked by parked cars. A vacant lot (Segment 6-9) across from the school site on Canyon Lake Drive could be developed as a trail connection to the Bull Valley Trail (Segment 6-8), but the access is very steep. From Prospect Avenue, the Bull Valley Trail could be realigned to connect trail users with the Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail and provide expansive views of the Carquinez Strait. Due to topographic challenges, some portions of the trail will not likely meet ADA guidelines. Another option would be to cross Reservoir Street at the EBRPD trailhead gate and cross to the west side of the Port Costa School, continue parallel to Carquinez Strait Drive, then join the Bull Valley Trail northwest of Canyon Lake Drive (Segment 6-10). There appears to be sufficient County right of way to locate a trail in this area. Port Costa Conservation Society representatives have indicated they are not supportive of a trail within the school site. To minimize use of local Port Costa streets for a trail connection between the trail networks within EBRPD Carquinez Regional Shoreline, a new trail segment (Segment 6-4A) could be constructed to connect Segment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 238 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 76 6-4 to Segment 6-8 via Prospect Avenue, bypassing central Port Costa. This would be an alternative to Segments 6-6, 6-7 and 6-9. Based on preliminary evaluation, this alternative may have a slope of approximately 8% (Figure 4-3), and would be further evaluated if selected as a priority route. 4.3.2 Port Costa to Crockett All off-street trail options between Port Costa and Crockett are within the Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline, which is managed by the EBRPD. Port Costa to Bull Valley Trail Staging Area. The Bull Valley Trail between Prospect Avenue and the Bull Valley Trail Staging area does not provide views of the Carquinez Strait. A new link (Segment 6-11A) would connect to the existing Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail (Segment 6-11B) that would run to the Eckley Pier. The Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail then would connect with the Bull Valley Trail near the Bull Valley Staging Area. This segment is in need of maintenance, but could be widened and cleaned up to provide multi-use access. This trail may best be a natural surface trail that to the extent possible provides reasonable grades. It would be a unique "open space" experience. There will be a few sections, particularly near the Eckley Pier, that do not meet ADA grade requirements. Figure 4-3: Port Costa Alternative Alignment via Prospect Avenue Segment 6-4A Segment 6-4 Segment 6-8 Prospect Avenue 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 239 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 77 The option exists to separate bicycles and pedestrians between the Bull Valley Staging Area and Eckley Pier by directing bicyclists onto the existing Eckley Pier Drive as a class II bikeway (Segment 6-11C). Existing Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail (Segment 6-11B) Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail looking west Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail looking east Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail looking West 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 240 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 78 Bull Valley Trail Staging Area to Eckley Pier. The connection of the Bull Valley Trail through the Eckley Pier Drive and parking areas (Segment 6-12) includes following and crossing a two-way entry drive, a one-way roundabout, and on-street parking. This would require a new sidewalk or path for pedestrians and a combination of Class II bikeway lanes or Class III bikeway signage on Eckley Pier Drive. Due to existing topography and future sidewalk/path alignments, this segment may not meet ADA slope guidelines. Eckley Pier to Crockett at Winslow Avenue. The existing Bull Valley Trail (Segment 6-13) is single track and not suitable for reconstruction as a shared use trail given the grades involved. A new trail (Segment 6-14) could be constructed as a paved multi-use trail. Links to the community of Crockett from Eckley Pier should be considered. Existing Bull Valley Trail (Segments 6-12, 6-13, 6-14) Bull Valley Trail at Eckley Pier Bull Valley Trail at Parking Area Bull Valley Trail Bull Valley Trail Switchback 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 241 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 79 View East from Bull Valley Trail View West from Bull Valley Trail 4.3.3 Crockett There are two alignment options for the Crockett area: •Using the same alignment for pedestrians and bicyclists, recognizing that only a Class III bikeway is possible, or •Identifying separate alignments for the bicycle route and the pedestrian route. Wayfinding and accessibility signage would be needed as part of a separated network. Crockett Pedestrian Route. A pedestrian route could be designated along the Crockett shoreline and downtown area, although there are existing sidewalk gaps, stairs and/or other issues that would not be fully accessible: •Winslow Street, Vallejo Street, Loring Avenue to Rolph Street (Segment 6-15) could be redesigned to create a “promenade” on the Bay side of the street. However, there are engineering challenges, such as an existing retaining wall between Vallejo Street and Loring Avenue where the sidewalk disappears, and the north side of Loring Avenue, which for the next couple of hundred feet appears to be atop a retaining wall next to the railroad tracks. The future promenade might involve a partial cantilever sidewalk and railing slightly overhanging the wall. Options to reduce engineering/ construction costs could include evaluation of making these streets one-way. This would allow both construction of a wider sidewalk and/or potentially inclusion of a Class II or Class IV bikeway. •Rolph Avenue (Segment 6-17) has existing unimpeded sidewalks from Loring Avenue to Pomona Street. Rolph Avenue is also is sufficiently wide to be restriped to include a Class II bikeway, if either parking is eliminated on one side of the street or the sidewalks are reconfigured. •Pomona Street and 6th Avenue (Segment 6-19) have existing unimpeded sidewalks that would involve minimal redesign, signage, and roadway striping. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 242 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 80 Any alignment other than along the Rolph Avenue or Pomona Street and 6th Avenue involves problematic sidewalks with steps and steep grades, and in some cases, no sidewalk option available. The optimum alternative is following Rolph Avenue to Pomona Street to 6th Avenue, where sidewalks already exist. Crockett Bicycle Route. There are two options for the bicycle route to connect the Bull Valley Trail with Caltrans park-and-ride facility: •Shoreline Route (Segments 6-15, 6-17, and 6-19). This alternative is the same route as the pedestrian alignment described above. A disadvantage for bicyclists is this alignment has narrow roadways along Segment 6-15 that would require a Class III bikeway designation, unless the streets were designated one-way and redesigned to accommodate a Class II bikeway. •Winslow Street / CSD / Pomona Street / 6th Avenue (Segments 6-16 and 6-19). This alternative would involve a continuous Class II bikeway, some of which already exists along Pomona Street. The following sections elaborate on this alternative. Crockett Pedestrian Route Winslow Ave. near Bull Valley Trail Winslow Ave. looking east Winslow Ave. east of Vallejo Street Loring Ave. at Vallejo Street 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 243 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 81 Loring Ave. east of Jackson Street Loring Ave. south side 4.3.4 Pomona Street Bicycle Route Winslow Street to CSD to Pomona Street at Baldwin Street. Bicyclists would need to traverse the three- legged intersection at Winslow Street / Carquinez Scenic Drive / Pomona Street that has a steep grade and a sharp turn to and from the Winslow Street approach. Neither the slope nor the turning angle is capable of being mitigated. Winslow Street is about 22-24 feet at its narrowest point with steep slopes on either side; moderate widening to provide a 4-foot shoulder and 10- or 11-foot travel lanes may be possible with only minor grading and retaining walls for most of this segment, but anymore than that would be infeasible. At a minimum, it appears that at least a bike lane in the uphill direction is feasible. Reconfiguring a portion of Winslow Street for one-way traffic, and creating a staging area could also be considered. The topography changes considerably between Winslow Street and Baldwin Street, and consequently, Pomona Street narrows to about 24 feet. There are no parking spaces and sidewalks. There is a steep upslope to the south and a steep downslope on the north side. Widening to provide minimum 4-foot bike lanes and 10 to 11-foot travel lanes may be feasible with a moderate retaining wall, but providing more than that would involve extensive grading and retaining structures. There is an undeveloped lot between Winslow Street and Pomona Street that could be considered for a new trail connection, but use by neighboring lots, topography, and ownership are challenges. As the designated CSSLT route, Pomona Street would require a redesign from Winslow Street to Baldwin Street, including the intersection with Winslow Street and the CSD. Winslow Street south of the Bull Valley Trail could also be reconstructed to accommodate a Class II bikeway as well as a potential parking / staging area that would service the Bull Valley Trail. Pomona Street East of Rolph- North Side 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 244 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 82 Pomona Street between Baldwin Avenue and Duperu Drive. Beginning at Baldwin Avenue, the adjacent land uses changes to predominantly residential. There are single-family homes fronting the south side. The north side involves the backside of the lots that front onto Clark Street; there is only one driveway present. There is a significant upslope elevation difference on the north side. Between Bishop Road and Duperu Drive there is only a sidewalk on the south side of Pomona Street. Between Bishop Road and Baldwin Avenue, there is also a sidewalk on the north side fronting the Veterans of Foreign Wars park and one house. Currently, parking is permitted on both sides of the street but is predominantly used only on the south side in front of the houses. The pavement width is about 38 feet. Removing parking on the north side to stripe bike lanes in both directions appears feasible. Winslow Street Pomona Street between Duperu Drive and Rolph Avenue. Beginning at Duperu Drive, the land use changes to mostly city park or open space and a few institutional uses, such as the St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, located 575 feet east of Rolph Park Driveway, where there is a marked crosswalk, another historic church, and a post office, located at the corner of Duperu Drive. While parking is permitted, it was not very well utilized on the day of the field visit, possibly because there are so few fronting land uses. It is unknown whether the two churches rely on street parking during their events. The Post Office has its own parking lot. Pomona Street between Rolph Avenue and 6th Avenue. Between Rolph Avenue and 3rd Avenue, the road is essentially a viaduct with no driveways or storefronts and no on-street parking. The land use fronting this segment are a high school to the north and a middle school to the south. There are existing Class II bikeway lanes between Rolph Avenue and 2nd Avenue, which can be extended another approximately 200 feet further to the west - until just east of 1st Avenue - without loss of parking. Between 3rd Avenue and 6th Avenue, Pomona Street has a mix of adjacent commercial and residential uses, parking on both sides of the street, and continuous sidewalks on the north side only. The issues associated with this alignment are listed in Table 4-2. The most problematic section of Pomona Street is the 350-feet segment between 150 feet east of 6th Avenue and just east of 1st Avenue, where there is a tall retaining wall on the south side. The pavement width is about 36 feet. Thus, the street appears to be wide enough for Class II bikeway lanes if parking is 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 245 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 83 eliminated on the south side of the street adjacent to the wall. Since there are no adjacent homes or businesses, it may not be controversial. Table 4-2: Pomona Street Alignment Issues Street From: To: Land use Bike lane feasibility Comment 6th Avenue Parking lot to Pomona Street Residential and Caltrans parking lot Parking removal or one-way conversion, if the latter egress from parking lot would need to use Ceres. Given low volumes Class 3 recommended Parking heavily utilized even though only a few dwelling units on this block Pomona Street 6th Avenue to east of 1st Avenue Commercial / Institutional. For the block between 6th and Port, there are 2 houses but only one driveway Prohibit parking on south side adjacent to retaining wall to install bike lanes. Confirm that this is compatible with the funded project cited in the Countywide Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan to “upgrade pedestrian facilities” along Pomona St. from 2nd Ave. to 1st Ave. Pomona Street East of 1st Avenue to 2nd Ave. Commercial Stripe bike lanes with existing conditions 47 ft. curb-to-curb (31 feet between the two bulb-outs) Pomona Street 2nd Avenue and Rolph Avenue Commercial Existing bike lanes Pomona Street Rolph Avenue to Duperu Drive Mix of open space, institutional Prohibit parking on one side of Pomona Street to install bike lanes. Appropriate side to be determined. Consult churches as to on-street parking needs Pomona Street Duperu Drive to Baldwin Avenue Single family on south side only Prohibit parking on north side to install bike lanes. Alternatively, widen roadway into slope and retain parking, but would require considerable retaining wall No houses front on north side and no parking were observed on north side. Pomona Street Baldwin Avenue to Winslow Street No frontage; open space and steep slopes Moderate widening and lane narrowing to install bike lanes may be possible Additional analysis needed Winslow Street Pomona Street to Bull Valley Trailhead Open space and steep slopes with two single-family homes near trailhead Moderate widening and lane narrowing may be possible for much of this section to provide 4-foot uphill bike lane. Closer to trailhead parking was observed on the shoulder, near the existing houses. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 246 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 84 4.4 FEASIBILITY OF A LOW-STRESS BIKEWAY IN SEGMENT 6 Carquinez Scenic Drive (Segment 6-1) West of the George Miller Trail, Carquinez Scenic Drive serves the community of Port Costa and provides a connection between Port Costa and Crockett. Private landowners own and access lands on both sides of the road. This road provides the only vehicular access for this area, and it is not feasible to close the road to create a trail. The typical paved road width for the entire segment is 25 feet or less, and the roadway is constrained by steep up-and-down slopes, poor sight lines, geologic instability, guardrails, drainages, and topography. In some sections of the road, the paved width is less than 20 feet. Converting the paved width to one way traffic would be insufficient for community access and does not provide enough width for Class I facilities. Carquinez Scenic Drive Carquinez Scenic Drive 300 feet west of Port Costa Staging Area (George Miller Trailhead) (looking west) Carquinez Scenic Drive 330 feet east of Reservoir Street, Port Costa (looking west) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 247 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 85 Carquinez Scenic Drive west of Port Costa School (looking north) Carquinez Scenic Drive 383 feet west of Bull Valley Trailhead Carquinez Scenic Drive 400’ east of Winslow (looking west) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 248 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 86 Wider Segment of Carquinez Scenic Drive (600 feet west of Canyon Lake Drive) Crockett Although the CBPP calls for a Low-Stress Bikeway in Crockett, the CBPP designates most of the routes in the area as Class III bikeways. To meet both Bay Trail/CSSLT objectives as well as function as a low-stress network, these streets would need to be designed with low-stress features, including continuous sidewalks, designated bicycle lanes, physical barriers, and other design elements to reduce level of traffic stress. In Crockett, this could be achieved by implementing continuous Class II facilities on Pomona Avenue and/or creating a promenade along the shoreline streets by converting two-way streets to one-way streets and implementing Class II and Class IV bikeways. 4.5 FATAL FLAWS Carquinez Scenic Drive The option of creating continuous Class I, II, or Class IV facilities on Carquinez Scenic Drive is not a feasible option. Creating a continuous bicycle and pedestrian route with sidewalks and bicycle lanes or a separate Class I path would require extensive grading and retaining walls, and infrastructure along the road would need to be relocated or redesigned. The slopes above and below Carquinez Scenic Drive and drainages are maintenance challenges and would require extensive improvement. Slopes above and below the road are also subject to geologic instability. Closing the road to vehicular traffic is infeasible, as it provides access to the community of Port Costa as well as private parcels on the south side of the road. Crockett The Vision Summary route alternative along shoreline streets in Crockett is not feasible from a physical perspective as a pedestrian sidewalk and Class II bikeway route for the CSSLT. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 249 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 87 4.6 OTHER ALIGNMENTS CONSIDERED Carquinez Scenic Drive Regardless if a new Bay Trail route is officially designated, many cyclists will continue to use Carquinez Scenic Drive. To improve conditions for these cyclists and for vehicles along Carquinez Scenic Drive, consideration could be given to widening the shoulders at spot locations where feasible, giving additional width in the uphill direction where bicyclists naturally travel at slower speeds and improving existing pullouts and wider areas to provide an occasional refuge for cyclists. Carquinez Shoreline at Port Costa Carquinez Shoreline at Eckley Pier Shoreline Route between Port Costa and Crockett. In addition to right of way acquisition adjacent to the railroad tracks and along the Crockett shoreline, it would require very extensive grading and retaining walls, and infrastructure along the rail corridor would need to be relocated. The slopes above and below the rail line/industrial use and drainages would require extensive improvement. Slopes above the rail corridor are subject to geologic instability, and the railroad track itself is vulnerable to sea level rise. Outboard of the UPRR tracks between Port Costa and Eckley Pier, there are a few parcels of public land. However, the tracks along the Carquinez Strait get wet during high tide/storm events, so it is anticipated that the impact from sea level rise will be an ongoing maintenance issue. EBRPD has no easement rights in this rail segment. Although it may be technically feasible to create a 20-ft wide bench with periodic bridges parallel to and south of the UPRR ROW between Eckley and Port Costa, this alignment would be prohibitively expensive and problematic due to geotechnical and other environmental challenges. Long-term planning for climate resilience along this portion of the rail corridor may be evaluated in the future, since this is a critical rail corridor and part of the nationwide rail network. Future planning for this corridor should address feasibility of incorporating Bay Trail components parallel to the rail route, especially if significant infrastructure improvements are anticipated to address climate challenges. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 250 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 88 4.7 NEXT STEPS In order to proceed with implementing the options discussed in this section, the following issues should be resolved: •Select most viable alignments that provide connectivity and facilitate a continuous trail •Identify appropriate County staff and conduct internal engagement to determine level of County commitment on proposed projects identified in the study. •Work with Bay Trail and EBRPD to determine which trail segments are appropriate to be designed and maintained as paved trails to support road bicycle use. •Potentially coordinate with the appropriate committees, such as CCTA CBPAC, the County CBAC, Crockett Municipal Advisory Committee (MAC) and any groups focused on the Port Costa community. •Engage wildfire response agencies (EBRPD, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, CalFire) to determine access needs, design strategies, and implementation options to address emergency access and escape. •Determine ownership of right of way that may be needed for trail improvements and secure any required agreements related to roadway improvements •Initiate discussions with UPRR to see if any modifications to existing railroad crossings are needed •Conduct traffic count analysis for bicycle/pedestrian improvements •Evaluate and acquire right of way for the options selected for further study •Initiate public outreach •Update Vision Summary 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 251 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 89 5.TRAIL SCREENING AND RANKING One of the Study objectives is to screen and rank potential trail alignments in order to determine trail segment feasibility and establish priorities for implementation. The Study team developed a screening and ranking matrix that provides a basis for decision-making, which will allow the stakeholder group, project partners, and the community to set priorities, manage resources, and implement improvements efficiently and systematically. 5.1 METHODOLOGY Trail segments were evaluated based on fourteen screening factors, including a range of planning considerations, environmental resources, and engineering feasibility (Section 5.2). In addition, other factors such as development opportunity, financial conditions, political leverage, and environmental conditions may influence project implementation, as some projects may be quicker and easier to implement than others as opportunities arise. 5.2 SCREENING FACTORS The following considerations regarding trail implementation include: Planning Considerations Community and Stakeholder Support: What is the level of interest expressed by the local community (trail users, businesses, neighbors) for the trail? At this time, public outreach to determine the level of community support has not been completed. This category was therefore not assessed. However, projects listed in the 2018 CBPP (Segment 4, 5-7, 5-10 and 6-19) may be considered segments that reflect community and stakeholder support as they were identified as part of a public review process. Potential Development Nexus: Can the implementation of the trail segment be linked to new or redevelopment projects? Funding Opportunity: What are the potential candidate funding sources for the particular trail segment? Consistency with San Francisco Bay Trail Design Guidelines: Does the trail segment offer a Bay experience and meet some or all of the Bay Trail Design Guidelines? Consistency with Local and Regional Plans: Does the trail segment implement existing local land use, parks and transportation plans or require an amendment to those plans? Permitting Requirements: What agency permits would likely be required to implement the trail segment? 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 252 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 90 Environmental Resources Aesthetics: Would trail implementation affect scenic resources or require infrastructure that might disrupt scenic views? Typical elements that may affect scenic resources are extensive grading or earthwork, tree removal, retaining walls, bridges, boardwalks or other structures, or other constructed elements that affect views. Biological Resources: Are there known critical habitat considerations that must be addressed or mitigated in order to implement the segment? Soils / Geology: Are there existing geologic considerations that would affect the design of the trail segment? Hydrology/Flooding/Sea Level Rise: Will the trail segment be within a known floodplain or subject to flooding because of sea level rise without additional design measures? Cultural Resources: Will the trail segment impact known cultural resources? Traffic: How does existing and proposed vehicular traffic potentially affect trail safety? Engineering Feasibility Ownership / Right of way Availability: Can the trail be constructed within an existing public right of way, or will additional lands and/or easements need to be secured to build the trail segment? Topography: How does existing topography affect the level of engineering associated with the trail? ADA Accessibility: Are there impediments to accommodating the Americans with Disabilities Act that constitute an “exception” under the law? Utility/Infrastructure: Is there any existing infrastructure in place that would require redesign or relocation to accommodate the trail segment, or is significant infrastructure needed in order to complete the trail? Overall Design / Permitting Complexity: When the above characteristics are combined, do they affect the design and construction of the trail segment such that it is either (1) extremely complex, (2) typical, or (3) simple in terms of implementation and the period needed to open the segment to public use? Relative Cost: Is the overall cost to develop the trail segment anticipated to be (1) extraordinary, (2) relatively normal, or (3) efficient compared to current trail development costs? 5.2 SEGMENT RANKING Based on this assessment and field reconnaissance, the trail segments were assigned the following ranking priorities: Priority 1: Potentially Feasible / Optimum Route. These trail segments are consistent with Bay Trail/CSSLT objectives. They are recommended as a priority for further evaluation, including concept design and cost estimates with stakeholder involvement. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 253 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 91 Priority 2: Potentially Feasible. These trail segments may be consistent with Bay Trail/CSSLT objectives. Stakeholder involvement is needed to determine potential feasibility and prioritize implementation options. Priority 3: Potentially Feasible. Although these trail segments could be considered (with stakeholder involvement), there may be significant implementation challenges. Alternative options (Priority 1 trail segments) are identified that form a superior connection to other segments. Priority 4: Not Feasible / Not Recommended. As discussed in this Study, there are significant challenges that may preclude implementation of a trail segment that is consistent with Bay Trail/CSSLT objectives. Further evaluation is not recommended. No priority was assigned to trail segments that (1) duplicate another alignment, (2) are existing and do not need any improvements, (3) were determined to be infeasible, or (4) do not comply with Bay Trail/CSSLT goals and objectives. Table 5-1 summarizes the opportunities and challenges for implementing each proposed segment of the CSSLT and a ranking of each. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 254 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 92 Table 5-1: Trail Screening and Ranking Recommendations Segment 4: Mococo Road Segment Description Aesthetics Consistency with Bay Trail Guidelines Consistency with local plans and standards Topography and slope stability Right of way for trail Utility or infrastructure conflicts Design Complexity Complexity of Structures Permitting Challenges Biological Resources Geology/Hazards Hydrology Cultural Resources Traffic Priority 4-1 Mococo Road 1 4-2 Marina Vista Avenue existing sidewalk and Class II bikeway path to split with Escobar Street. Existing Key: Opportunities and Challenges Existing Facility Opportunity Minor/Moderate Constraint Major Constraint Key: Priority Ranking 1 Potentially feasible / Optimum Route Consider further evaluation including concept design and cost estimates with stakeholder involvement 2 Potentially feasible Stakeholder involvement required to determine potential feasibility 3 Potentially Feasible / Not Recommended 4 Not Feasible / Not Recommended 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 255 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 93 Segment 5: Martinez Segment Description Aesthetics Consistency with Bay Trail Guidelines Consistency with local plans and standards Topography and slope stability Right of way for trail Utility or infrastructure conflicts Design Complexity Complexity of Structures Permitting Challenges Biological Resources Geology/Hazards Hydrology Cultural Resources Traffic Priority 5-1 Marina Vista Avenue/Escobar Street intersection to Court Street (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) Existing 5-2 Marina Vista Avenue existing, Court Street to Sparacino Park (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) Existing 5-3 Marina Vista Avenue/Sparacino Park to Talbart Street (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) 2 5-4 Escobar Street, Court Street to Talbart Street (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) 2 5-5 Escobar Street, from Marina Vista Avenue to Pine Street (existing bike lanes) Existing 5-6 Ferry Street between Marina Vista Avenue and Escobar Street (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) 2 5-7 Existing path, Martinez Regional Shoreline (paved shared-use trail) Existing 5-8 Berrellesa Street to Grangers Wharf parking area (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) 1 5-9A Sparacino Park, Marina Vista Avenue to Buckley Street (paved shared-use trail) Existing 5-9B Sparacino Park, Buckley Street to Berrellesa Street (pedestrian sidewalk) Existing 5-10 Berrellesa Street to Nejedly Staging Area (paved shared-use trail) 1 5-11 Talbart Street/Carquinez Scenic Drive, Escobar Street to Nejedly Staging Area (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) 3 5-12 Nejedly Staging Area to George Miller Trail (Carquinez Scenic Drive) 1 5-13 George Miller Trail to Port Costa Staging Area (existing paved shared-use trail) Existing 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 256 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 94 Segment 6: Carquinez Shoreline Segment Description Aesthetics Consistency with Bay Trail Guidelines Consistency with local plans and standards Topography and slope stability Right of way Utility or infrastructure conflicts Design Complexity Complexity of Design/Structures Permitting Challenges Biological Resources Geology/Hazards Hydrology Cultural Resources Traffic Priority 6-1 Carquinez Scenic Drive (CSD), Port Costa Staging Area to Winslow Street 4 6-2 Port Costa Staging Area to the Port Costa/Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail and fire road 1 6-3 Port Costa Staging Area to CSD corral staging area Existing 6-4 CSD corral staging area corral to Reservoir Street (existing natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-4A New trail from Segment 6-4 to Prospect Avenue (natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-5A Port Costa Overlook Trail (natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-5B CSD corral staging area Port Costa Overlook Trail (natural surface shared-use trail) 1 (improvements to existing segment) 6-5C New trail along Carquinez Strait ridgeline (natural surface shared-use trail) 1 Key: Opportunities and Challenges Existing Facility Opportunity Minor/Moderate Constraint Major Constraint Key: Priority Ranking 1 Potentially feasible / Optimum Route Consider further evaluation including concept design and cost estimates with stakeholder involvement 2 Potentially feasible Stakeholder involvement required to determine potential feasibility 3 Potentially Feasible / Not Recommended 4 Not Feasible / Not Recommended 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 257 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 95 Segment 6: Carquinez Shoreline Segment Description Aesthetics Consistency with Bay Trail Guidelines Consistency with local plans and standards Topography and slope stability Right of way Utility or infrastructure conflicts Design Complexity Complexity of Design/Structures Permitting Challenges Biological Resources Geology/Hazards Hydrology Cultural Resources Traffic Priority 6-6 Reservoir Street to Canyon Lake Drive through school site (natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-7 Canyon Lake Drive to Bull Valley Trail via Prospect Avenue (pedestrian sidewalk and Class III bikeway) 1 6-8 Bull Valley Trail from Prospect Avenue to Intersection with Trail Segment 6-11A (natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-9 Canyon Lake Drive to Bull Valley Trail through private property (new natural surface shared-use trail) 3 6-10 Reservoir Street to Bull Valley Trail (new natural surface shared-use trail) 3 6-11A Bull Valley Trail Connector: New trail connection from Bull Valley Trail Fire Road (Segment 6-8) to existing Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail (new natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-11B Carquinez Overlook Loop Trail improvements to existing trail from Segment 6-11A to Eckley Pier Drive (natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-11C Bull Valley Staging Area to Eckley Pier (Class II bikeway) 3 6-12 New trail, Eckley Pier Drive to Day Use Area (existing natural surface shared-use trail) 1 6-13 Eckley Use Picnic Area to Winslow Street (existing trail; redevelop as paved shared-use trail) 4 6-14 Eckley Pier Picnic Area to Winslow Street (new paved-shared use trail) 1 6-15 Bull Valley Trailhead to Rolph Avenue via Winslow Street, Vallejo Street, Loring Avenue (pedestrian sidewalk / promenade) 1 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 258 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 96 Segment 6: Carquinez Shoreline Segment Description Aesthetics Consistency with Bay Trail Guidelines Consistency with local plans and standards Topography and slope stability Right of way Utility or infrastructure conflicts Design Complexity Complexity of Design/Structures Permitting Challenges Biological Resources Geology/Hazards Hydrology Cultural Resources Traffic Priority 6-15 (Bicycle Option) Bull Valley Trailhead to Rolph Avenue via Winslow Street, Vallejo Street, Loring Avenue (one-way street with sidewalks or promenade and Class II bikeway) 3 6-16A Bull Valley Trailhead to Winslow Street / CSD intersection (Class II bikeway) 1 6-16B Pomona Street: Winslow Street / CSD intersection to Rolph Avenue (Class II bikeway) 1 6-17 Rolph Avenue: Loring Avenue to Pomona Street (pedestrian sidewalk) 1 6-18 Downtown Crockett Streets 3 6-19 Pomona Street: Rolph Avenue to Carquinez Bridge Staging Area via 6th Street (pedestrian sidewalk; Class II bikeway) 1 Key: Opportunities and Challenges Existing Facility Opportunity Minor/Moderate Constraint Major Constraint Key: Priority Ranking 1 Potentially feasible / Optimum Route Consider further evaluation including concept design and cost estimates with stakeholder involvement 2 Potentially feasible Stakeholder involvement required to determine potential feasibility 3 Potentially Feasible / Not Recommended 4 Not Feasible / Not Recommended 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 259 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 97 6.NEXT STEPS 6.1 RECOMMENDED OPTIMUM CSSLT ALIGNMENT Route segments recommended for the optimum CSSLT alignment are listed in Table 6-1 and shown in Figure 6-1. All segments identified are consistent with the existing plans and policies of the managing agency involved. Table 6-1: Recommended Optimum CSSLT Alignment Segment # Description Trail Type Ownership Lead Agency From To 4-1 Mococo Road Benicia-Martinez Bridge Bay Trail Marina Vista Avenue Paved, shared-use trail City of Martinez Caltrans Union Pacific Railroad Private City of Martinez 4-2: Existing Marina Vista Avenue Marina Vista Avenue and Mococo Road Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue Pedestrian sidewalk Class II bikeway City of Martinez City of Martinez 5-1 / 5-5 Existing streets (traveling east) Escobar Street, intersection of Marina Vista Avenue Court Street / Pine Street Pedestrian sidewalk Class II bikeway City of Martinez City of Martinez 5-6: Downtown Martinez Court Street / Pine Street Ferry Street / Joe DiMaggio Drive (Carquinez Regional Shoreline) Pedestrian sidewalk Class II or Class IV bikeway City of Martinez City of Martinez 5-7: Existing Ferry Street Path Ferry Street / Joe DiMaggio Drive (Carquinez Regional Shoreline) Grangers Wharf parking area Paved, shared-use trail City of Martinez City of Martinez 5-8: Berrellesa Grangers Wharf parking Berrellesa Street / south Pedestrian sidewalk City of Martinez EBRPD 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 260 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 98 Table 6-1: Recommended Optimum CSSLT Alignment Segment # Description Trail Type Ownership Lead Agency From To Street area side of railroad tracks Class II or Class IV bikeway Union Pacific Railroad City of Martinez 5-9A John Sparacino Park / Marina Vista Avenue John Sparacino Park / Buckley Street Paved, shared-use trail City of Martinez City of Martinez 5-9B John Sparacino Park / Buckley Street Berrellesa Street / south side of railroad tracks Pedestrian sidewalk City of Martinez City of Martinez 5-10: Bay Trail –Berrellesa St. to Nejedly Connector Trail (In design) Berrellesa Street / south side of railroad tracks Nejedly Staging Area Paved, shared-use trail EBRPD City of Martinez Union Pacific Railroad EBRPD 5-12: Carquinez Scenic Drive Carquinez Scenic Drive from Nejedly Staging Area to George Miller Trail George Miller Trail Paved, shared-use trail Contra Costa County EBRPD 5-13: Existing George Miller Trail George Miller Trail Port Costa Staging Area Paved, shared-use trail EBRPD EBRPD 6-2: Port Costa Staging Area Connector Trail Port Costa Staging Area Trail Segment 6-3 (Port Costa/Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail and fire road) Natural-surface shared- use trail EBRPD Port Costa Conservation Society EBRPD 6-5A / 6-5B / 6-5C / 6-4 / 6-4A Carquinez Existing Trail Segment 6-3 Prospect Avenue Natural-surface shared- use trail EBRPD; Port Costa Conservation Society EBRPD 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 261 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 99 Table 6-1: Recommended Optimum CSSLT Alignment Segment # Description Trail Type Ownership Lead Agency From To Overlook Trails 6-6 / 6-7: Reservoir Street/Prospect Avenue Segment 6-4 Segment 6-8 Pedestrian sidewalk Class II or Class IV bikeway Contra Costa County Contra Costa County 6-8: Existing Bull Valley Fire Road Prospect Avenue Segment 6-11A Natural-surface shared- use trail EBRPD EBRPD 6-11A: Bull Valley Trail Connector Segment 6-8 Segment 6-11B Natural-surface shared- use trail EBRPD EBRPD 6-11B: Existing Bull Valley Trail Segment 6-11A Eckley Pier Drive Natural-surface shared- use trail EBRPD EBRPD 6-12: Existing Bull Valley Trail Eckley Pier Drive Eckley Pier Day Use Area Pedestrian sidewalk Class II or Class IV bikeway EBRPD EBRPD 6-14: Accessible Eckley Pier Trail Eckley Pier Day Use Area Winslow Street Paved, shared-use trail EBRPD EBRPD 6-15 / 6-17 Crockett Shoreline Streets Winslow Street Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue Pedestrian sidewalk Contra Costa County Contra Costa County 6-16 A / B: Winslow St. / Pomona St. Winslow Street at Rolph Avenue Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue Class II or Class IV bikeway Contra Costa County Contra Costa County 6-19: Pomona Street Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue Carquinez Bridge Staging Area Pedestrian sidewalk Class II or Class IV bikeway Contra Costa County Contra Costa County 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 262 of 394 !( !( Port Costa Staging Area Bull Valley Staging Area CARQUINEZ STRAIT REGIONAL SHORELINE Eckley Pier Nejedly Staging Area MOCOCO RD Benicia-Martinez Bay Trail Segment ESCOBA R ST MARIN A VI S T A A V E Loring Ave T A L B A R T S TBaldwinAveCrockettBlvdWinslow St Ceres St RolphAveAl e x and e rSt Alhambra StEdwards St Pomona Ave CA R Q U I N E Z S C E N I C D R Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Legend - Trail Segments Existing Trail Route Potential Trail Route Existing Bikeway Potential Bikeway Existing Park Trail Potential Pedestrian kj Creek %,Culvert "S At Grade Rail Crossing Recommended Optimum Alignment 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,0001,000 Feet ¯ Figure 6-1 Route w/Sidewalk Route w/Sidewalk Route Potential Staging Area 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 263 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 100 6.2 IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES Identifying implementation priorities for CSSLT segments listed in Table 6-2 is critical to: •Identify those segments that could be advanced in the short term to move the completion of the entire CSSLT one step forward. •Focus lead agency planning and design programs, including community / partner outreach and involvement. •Help secure (in the future) dedicated funds and/or grant funding. Table 6-2 lists the optimum CSSLT segments and characterizes them through a number of factors to help differentiate and prioritize the segments for implementation. These factors include: •Acquisition: Private lands must be acquired or easements negotiated (such as with the UPRR) to implement the trail segment. •Trail Connectivity: Completion of a trail segment would connect two existing trails to form a continuous alignment and provide greater use opportunities. To a lesser extent, this may involve improvement to existing access facilities. •Community Linkage: The trail segment will significantly improve safe community linkage and neighborhood connections to the CSSLT and the open space lands through which the CSSLT travels. Outreach: Considerable community, inter-agency, or property owner outreach is needed as part of the planning and design process. A caveat to the priorities identified in Table 6-2 is that for any segment, there may be an as-yet identified management, planning, or funding program that presents an opportunity to move a particular segment to a more immediate, high priority. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 264 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 101 Table 6-2: Recommended CSSLT Segment Priorities (Existing segments are shaded) Segment # Description Evaluation Criteria Implementation Priority From To Acquisition Trail Connectivity Community Linkage Outreach 1 2 3 4-1: Mococo Road Benicia-Martinez Bridge Bay Trail Marina Vista Avenue Yes: multiple Moderate: uses existing street/sidewalks Low Significant X 4-2: Marina Vista Ave. Marina Vista Avenue and Mococo Road Escobar Street / Marina Vista Avenue N/A 5-1 / 5-5 Downtown Streets Escobar Street, intersection of Marina Vista Avenue Court Street / Pine Street N/A 5-6: Ferry Street Court Street / Pine Street Ferry Street / Joe DiMaggio Drive (Carquinez Regional Shoreline) No Moderate: uses existing street/sidewalks Moderate Significant X 5-7: Existing Path Ferry Street / Joe DiMaggio Drive (Carquinez Regional Shoreline) Grangers Wharf parking area N/A 5-8 : Berrellesa Street Grangers Wharf parking area Berrellesa Street / south side of railroad tracks Yes: UPRR Moderate: uses existing street/sidewalks Moderate Significant X 5-9A John Sparacino Park / Marina Vista Avenue John Sparacino Park / Buckley Street N/A 5-9B John Sparacino Park / Buckley Street John Sparacino Park / Berrellesa Street N/A 5-10: Berrellesa Street / Nejedly Staging Area Yes: UPRR High Significant In process X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 265 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 102 Table 6-2: Recommended CSSLT Segment Priorities (Existing segments are shaded) Segment # Description Evaluation Criteria Implementation Priority From To Acquisition Trail Connectivity Community Linkage Outreach 1 2 3 Nejedly Connector south side of railroad tracks 5-12: Carquinez Scenic Drive Nejedly Staging Area to George Miller Trail (Carquinez Scenic Drive) George Miller Trail Yes: County, EBRPD High Significant Minor X 5-13: George Miller Trail George Miller Trail east terminus Port Costa Staging Area N/A 6-2: Port Costa Staging Area Connector Port Costa Staging Area Existing Trail Segment 6-3 (Port Costa/Carquinez Shoreline Overlook Trail and fire road) No Significant Minor Minor X 6-5A / 6-5B / 6-5C / 6-4 / 6-4A Carquinez Overloook Trails Existing Trail Segment 6-3 Prospect Avenue No Existing from another location Moderate Significant X 6-6/6-7: Reservoir Street/Pros pect Avenue Segment 6-4 Segment 6-8 No Minor: Existing community access point off Canyon Lake Drive Minor: Existing share the road access available for Port Costa Significant X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 266 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 103 Table 6-2: Recommended CSSLT Segment Priorities (Existing segments are shaded) Segment # Description Evaluation Criteria Implementation Priority From To Acquisition Trail Connectivity Community Linkage Outreach 1 2 3 residents 6-8: Existing Bull Valley Fire Road Prospect Avenue Segment 6-11A N/A 6-11A: Bull Valley Trail Connector Segment 6-8 Segment 6-11B No Significant Moderate Minor X 6-11B: Existing Bull Valley Trail Segment 6-11A Eckley Pier Drive N/A 6-12: Existing Bull Valley Trail Eckley Pier Drive Eckley Pier Day Use Area No Minor Minor Minor X 6-14: Accessible Eckley Pier Trail Eckley Pier Day Use Area Winslow Street No Moderate Significant Minor X 6-15 / 6-17 Crockett Shoreline Streets Winslow Street Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue No Little Minor: Sidewalks exist Moderate to Significant X 6-16 A / B: Winslow St./ Pomona St. Winslow Street at Rolph Avenue Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue No High Moderate: partially complete Moderate to Significant X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 267 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 104 Table 6-2: Recommended CSSLT Segment Priorities (Existing segments are shaded) Segment # Description Evaluation Criteria Implementation Priority From To Acquisition Trail Connectivity Community Linkage Outreach 1 2 3 6-19: Pomona Street Pomona Street at Rolph Avenue Carquinez Bridge Staging Area No High: Link to Ridge Trail Significant Moderate to Significant X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 268 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 105 6.3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH To move forward, each managing agency must conceptually accept the optimum alignment within its jurisdiction to move forward for further refinement. Update Vision Summary Plan and Web Information: The first step in creating community interest and involvement in the CSSLT and furthering discussion about the trail would be to update the Vision Summary Plan and web pages that address it. This would involve eliminating those segments that now are indicated in the plan that have been shown to have a critical flaw and not be feasible and to more clearly depict the optimum alignment. Conduct Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Most of the CSSLT segments identified as priorities #2 and #3 in Table 6-2 will likely require community involvement, sometimes significant, to adopt the final alignment and establish a more detailed design portrayal that could be used as the project description suitable for environmental review. Table 6-3 lists the variety of target audiences and stakeholders involved in implementing the CSSLT. The timing for addressing each CSSLT segment, the proposed outreach methods and tools, and level of involvement is up to the designated lead agencies. Table 6-3: CSSLT Partner / Community / Stakeholder List Contra Costa County •Board of Supervisors •Public Works Department •Conservation and Development Department Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) •CCTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) •Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee •CCTA Staff •CCTA Board •CCTA Planning Committee East Bay Regional Park District •Board of Directors: Ward 1 member •Park Advisory Committee •Board Operations Committee •Board of Directors •Liaison Committee •Trail Staff •Operations Staff: Carquinez Shoreline Unit Supervisor City of Martinez – Mococo Road Area •Union Pacific Railroad •CA Department of Transportation •Mococo Road Property Owners •Companies with utility easements City of Martinez – Downtown Area •City Council •Planning Commission •Planning Division •Engineering Division •Citizen Advisory Committee •Business Community Crockett •Community Services District San Francisco Bay Trail •Staff •Bay Trail Steering Committee •Bay Trail Board of Directors CSSLT Steering Committee Bay Area Water Trail Bay Area Ridge Trail 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 269 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 106 Outreach Message: The message to be conveyed to the general public and stakeholders must emphasize the overall vision in that the CSSLT: •Provides opportunities for safe, continuous hiking, biking and human-powered boating around and within the Carquinez Strait by linking a magnificent mosaic of public lands that embrace the historic Carquinez Strait communities of Martinez, Benicia, Vallejo, Port Costa, and Crockett.. Brings together five regionally significant trails including the San Francisco Bay Trail, the Bay Area Ridge Trail, the Great California Delta Trail, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail, and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. Additional messages to be conveyed include: •Individual trail segments have not been finalized. However, when combined the recommended segments do represent the optimum overall alignment for pedestrians and bicycles from many alternatives that have been considered. The CSSLT will vary in character based on its surrounding land uses, from urban downtown areas with pedestrian sidewalks and either Class II or Class IV bikeways, to paved shared-use trails, to natural-surfaced shared-use trails in rural open spaces with continuity of movement and user safety being prime objectives. Implementation Timeline: There is no specific timeline for implementing the remaining sections of the CSSLT. To a great extent, addressing any one section will be opportunistic based on political leadership and funding opportunities at the time. In all cases, the designated lead agencies are ultimately responsible for moving the CSSLT forward. 6.4 TRAIL LOG Appendix A contains the Study Trail Log. The Trail Log is an integral component of the GIS database. The Trail Log is intended to be a living tool that may be updated with new information or changing circumstances as appropriate. The log documents existing characteristics for each segment that affect the potential for trail implementation. These include: •Trail Segment begin/end point and description •Caltrans Bikeway Classification Class (including potential class) •Street characteristics (one-way or two-way street) •Length (total length of segment, additional (nonexistent) trail needed, and existing trail) •Slope (average and maximum) •Number of street crossings •Known utility crossings •Rail crossings •Creek or drainage crossings (culverts and creeks) •Land-use designation (public or private lands) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 270 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 107 •Traffic collisions •Potential environmental impacts and additional studies needed (CEQA topics that would likely need to be considered prior to project approval, such as biological resources, hydrology, geotechnical assessment, traffic study, etc.) •CEQA Action (likely CEQA document, such as Categorical Exemption (if within existing road), Mitigated Negative Declaration (minor environmental impacts) or Environmental Impact Report (potentially significant impacts and/or public controversy)). 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 271 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 108 7.CONCEPT DESIGN – SEGMENT 6-2 Based on input from the CSSLT stakeholder group, Segment 6-2 was selected for preliminary concept design. Segment 6-2 begins at the Port Costa Staging Area, which is also the western terminus of the George Miller Trail. Completion of this segment is a priority because it will close the gap between the existing George Miller Trail and the Port Costa community – essentially providing a continuous four-mile trail segment between Martinez and Port Costa. The site is on EBRPD lands and could be implemented under their jurisdiction. Three options for completion of this segment are shown below; preliminary design is contained in Appendix B: •Segment 6-2A is an 1,850-foot long trail segment with one swtchback and extensive retaining walls, joining the existing fire road directly above the existing service building at the staging area. The trail would need retaining walls that would be highly visible from the staging area. •Segment 6-2B is a 1,600-foot trail section that would traverse the south facing slope just above the Carquinez Scenic Drive drainage area. The trail would be slightly less visible as it parallels the existing drainage. •Segment 6-2C is a 2,100-foot long trail that would cross the entire slope face but would connect with the existing fire road/trail closest to the shoreline. Extensive retaining walls would be needed as well as a crossing of a steep drainage. Some of the retaining walls would be located parallel to the shoreline, where access is limited and views would be more distant. SEGMENT 6-2 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 272 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 109 Based on stakeholder input, the trail would be 12 feet wide and paved to accommodate all trail user types. Depending on the precise alignment, this trail width may necessitate extensive grading and retaining walls to construct a trail across the existing slope face, but may further goals to accommodate the broadest possible user groups, including emergency access. Table 7-1 provides a description and comparison of the three segment options. Trail Segment 6-2 at Port Costa Staging Area 6-2B 6-2A 6-2C To George Miller Trail 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 273 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 110 Table 7-1: Segment 6-2 Design Options Segment Description Aesthetics Consistency with Bay Trail Guidelines Trail Surface Elevation Rise (feet) Length (feet) Average Grade Maximum Grade Geology/Hazards Retaining Walls Infrastructure needs 6-2A 8,9 This trail segment begins at the service access road at the Port Costa Staging Area and terminates at the fire road/existing trail directly above the staging area service yard. The trail has one switchback and crosses the upper slope face. The precise alignment may be shifted further west to create a wider turn area where there is a flat area to accommodate the switchback, with less walls needed. Visible from staging area and may have extensive walls along upper slope face, with potential visual impacts Yes Paved surface requested to serve all user types; connect to unpaved fire road. 100 1,850 5.4% 8% Crosses upper slope face 1,220 linear feet Type 1 (one wall); 290 linear feet Type 2 (double wall upslope and downslope) 6-2B This trail segment begins at the service access road at the Port Costa Staging Area and terminates at the fire road/existing trail west of the staging area service yard. The trail traverses the slope above the Carquinez Scenic Drive drainage and would be least visible from the staging area, but furthest from shoreline. Alternative B may require more improvements to the existing fire road to provide point access to the shoreline, but is the shortest link for those trail users travelling through from Martine to Port Costa. Least visible from staging area Yes, furthest from shoreline Paved surface requested to serve all user types; connect to unpaved fire road. 95 1,600 5.9% 9.8% Located above existing drainage 1,450 linear feet Type 1 (one wall) 6-2C This trail segment begins at the service access road at the Port Costa Staging Area and terminates at the fire road/existing trail north of the staging area service yard. The trail would cross the lower slope face with extensive retaining walls on the north side facing Carquinez Strait. There would be distant views of the wall structures. This alternative traverses closest to the shoreline, but is the most circuitous for those trail users travelling through from Martinez to Port Costa. This alternative is complex since it crosses a large cut slope and steep terrain, which would require drainage crossings, pending geotechnical assessment. Most visible trail slope across lower face of hill and Carquinez Strait Yes, closest to shoreline Paved surface requested to serve all user types; connect to unpaved fire road. 100 2,100 4.8% 8% Crosses lower slope face, crosses drainage, and upper slope along shoreline 1,435 linear feet Type 1 (one wall); 410 linear feet Type 2 (double wall upslope and downslope) 8 Depending on design, fall protection barrier/edge control may be needed along the trail, since the edge of the trails are open to a 2.5:1 or steeper slope. This was not included in costs. 9 The trail width is estimated at 12-foot width per stakeholder input, but may be challenging in areas such as this, since earthwork and retaining walls are a large component of the cost. The existing George Miller Trail and adjacent fire roads are generally wide and suitable for vehicular travel. Bay Trail standards are typically for a 12 foot min. trail. Reducing trail width to 8 ft. or 10 ft. would incrementally reduce infrastructure, but may not be suitable for ongoing maintenance needs. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 274 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 111 8.COST AND FUNDING STRATEGIES For implementation of the trail gaps analyzed in this Study, the cost to implement will vary widely depending on location, jurisdiction, and type of improvements needed. This generally consists of four types: 1.A completely new, separated trail would need to be constructed (such as on EBRPD lands). Trail components may include: o Earthwork o Trail grading and paving o Retaining walls o Bridge or boardwalk o Fence o Habitat restoration o Signs, interpretive displays, benches o Paved ramps or access points 2.Where a trail is adjacent to an existing street, roadway, or pathway in a mostly urban corridor but shoulder widening and/or a new closely adjacent and parallel path needs to be created to accommodate the Bay Trail, with minor shoulder widening, drainage and paving. This may include additional features such as: o Positive physical barrier such as a guardrail or wall between road and trail o Bridge or boardwalk o Retaining wall o Fence o Adjacent road/lane modification, such as shoulder widening o Landscaping o Signs or interpretive displays o Intersection improvements, such as pedestrian curb ramps, signal modifications, sidewalks or other safety features. Drainage-way or utility modifications, such as undergrounding may be needed. 3.Where the trail is within or adjacent to an existing street or sidewalk, and minor improvement work such as pavement repair, fencing, signage and striping may be needed. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 275 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 112 4.Where the trail is located on an existing fire road, and may need earthwork, widening, surfacing and/or other improvements to improve accessibility. 8.1 FACTORS INFLUENCING TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION COST Utility relocation, right of way (ROW) and property acquisition costs, traffic control, access and the availability of mobilization and staging areas, sources of fill, and excess cut soil disposal and environmental mitigation needs can all be significant parts of total construction costs. Trail costs are further influenced by topography, biological resources, and infrastructure, with a range of complexity, such as: •Trail construction would occur on generally flat to gently sloping terrain (<5%), where there are no expected significant conflicts with drainage, habitat, or utilities/infrastructure. •Trail construction would occur where there are gentle cross slopes (5-15%) and minor drainage, habitat or utilities/infrastructure conflicts, and soil erosion and slope instability would be minor problems. •Trail construction would occur on moderate slopes (15-30%) with increasingly challenging erosion control and slope grading problems, but no active landslides are present. Moderate conflicts with trees, habitat, utilities/infrastructure, and other challenges may exist. Trail construction may require some slope stabilization, erosion control, and minor lengths of short retaining walls. •Trail construction would be increasingly challenging, with anticipated significant issues associated with steep side slopes (>30%), high erosion hazards and/or slope instability due to potential landslide hazards. Some areas of hard bedrock may also be encountered. Trail drainage, extensive retaining walls or other methods of slope treatment and stabilization and erosion control may be required, and slope reconstruction and stabilization in areas of erosive soils, landslide hazards, or hard bedrock areas may be a part of trail construction. Conflicts with native trees, habitat, utilities/infrastructure, and other challenges may also exist. 8.2 PRELIMINARY TRAIL COSTS FOR SEGMENT 6-2 Preliminary trail construction costs for a 12 foot wide trail are shown in Appendix B. In addition to construction costs, there are “soft” costs associated with trail implementation, including environmental review and permitting, precise design, and construction administration, which can add up to 30%. Preliminary construction-only costs (2022 dollars) are as follows: •Segment 2A: $2.16 million ($2.80M when including soft costs) •Segment 2B: $1.89 million ($2.45M when including soft costs) •Segment 2C: $2.43 million ($3.16M when including soft costs) 8.3 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES This section contains a summary of current funding opportunities related to trails. Individual trail projects (segments) will be matched to potential funding programs and specific program criteria. In some cases, 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 276 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 113 projects may be selected or organized to meet grant program funding criteria, or projects may be jointly implemented by project partners such as Contra Costa County, EBRPD, City of Martinez, or others. Understanding Transportation Funding Approximately every six years, the U.S. Congress adopts a surface transportation act — Congress’s authorization to spend tax dollars on highways, streets, roads, transit, and other transportation related projects throughout the U.S. Funding is allocated to states based on federal formulas and allocate a portion of each state’s funds to specific surface transportation programs such as transit, congestion mitigation, and highways; while other portions of these funds are allocated to the states for use in discretionary programs. In California, these funds are generally administered by Caltrans or the California Resources Agency, although most programs are then distributed through metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) such as the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority (CCTA). The regional government agencies, which vary by location within the State, administer the funding of local projects. The majority of the funding programs established in the legislation are for transportation purposes, as opposed to recreation-only, with an emphasis on reducing auto trips and traffic congestion, improving traffic safety, developing intermodal transportation systems, and reducing pollutants and emissions produced by transportation. Bicycle, pedestrian, trail (recreational trails), and school safety improvement projects may be funded by a variety of federal, state, regional, and/or local funding programs. Federal and state programs have continued to acknowledge the importance of these improvements with increased flexibility in the major funding programs, along with the development of dedicated programs for “active” or “non-motorized” transportation projects. Project funding may also be obtained through bond measures, special tax districts, private entities, and/or directly by a local agency’s general fund. Funding Local Transportation Projects To be eligible for funding, projects must meet a variety of criteria. Typically, projects must be listed in a Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTP). Listing in an RTP is generally achieved through local actions such as listing in a local agency’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the completion and adoption of a bicycle master plan, pedestrian master plan, specific plan, project study report, feasibility study, and/or other special studies. These planning efforts serve to evaluate potential projects and demonstrate their value through the public process. The result is typically a quantification of the costs and benefits of a project (such as saved vehicle trips, safety index ratings, and/or reduced emissions), proof of public involvement and support, environmental review at the state or federal level, evaluation of project alternatives, and the identification and elimination of potential fatal flaws, or development of overriding considerations. The allocation of funds typically requires a commitment of local resources, as a project might not receive full funding. There may be a preference to leverage other moneys and demonstrate a cooperative funding approach. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 277 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 114 The following section presents a general description of funding programs that can be used to implement trail segments contained in this study. Federal and State Programs Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was signed into law in November 2021. The Act extended and reauthorized funding funding for surface transportation programs through 2026. In addition to surface transportation improvements, funding is allocated for climate change, including resilience of the existing surface transportation system and rail programs; establishes procurement requirements; and implements new safety requirements across all transportation modes. Web link: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/ The US Department of Transportation Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program, part of the IIJA, established a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary program that will provide $5-6 billion in grants over the next 5 years. Funding supports regional, local, and Tribal initiatives through grants to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. National Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds for recreational trails and trails-related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Non-motorized projects are administered by the Department’s Office of Grants and Local Services (OGLS). Motorized projects are administered by the Department’s Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other non-motorized uses, as well as motorized uses, such as off-road vehicle (ORV) trails. RTP funds may be used for: •Maintenance and restoration of existing trails; •Development and rehabilitation of trailside and trailhead facilities and trail linkages; •Purchase and lease of trail construction and maintenance equipment; •Construction of new trails (with restrictions for new trails on federal lands); •Acquisition of easements or property for trails; •State administrative costs related to this program (limited to seven percent of a State's funds); and •Operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails (limited to five percent of a State’s funds). 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 278 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 115 Eligible applicants include cities and counties, parks districts, state agencies, Federal agencies, and non- profit organizations with management responsibilities of public lands. There is no maximum or minimum limit on grant request amounts. The maximum amount of RTP funds allowed for each project is 88% of the total project cost. The applicant is responsible for obtaining a match amount that is at least 12% of the total project cost. Eligible match sources include State funds, including State Grant funds; Local funds, including general funds and bond funds; Private funds; Donated materials and services; Value of donated land (for Acquisition projects only); and other federal funds. Web Link: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324 Highway Safety Improvement Program The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which is administered by Caltrans, remains as one of the core federal-aid programs. HSIP funds are intended to help achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. The Federal Program requires states to develop and implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that identifies improvement strategies to address traffic safety. Funds can be used for safety improvement projects on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail. A safety improvement project corrects or improves a hazardous roadway condition, or proactively addresses highway safety problems that may include: intersection improvements; installation of rumble strips and other warning devices; elimination of roadside obstacles; railway-highway grade crossing safety; pedestrian or bicycle safety; traffic calming; improving highway signage and pavement marking; installing traffic control devices at high crash locations or priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections, safety conscious planning and improving crash data collection and analysis, etc. Caltrans sets aside funds for construction and operational improvements on high-risk rural roads and may use the remainder of funds for bicycle and pedestrian pathways or trails and education and enforcement. Caltrans’ call for projects and application deadlines vary from year to year. HSIP funds could potentially be used to improve key intersections. It should be noted that some HSIP funds are incorporated into the State ATP Program. Web Link: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety- improvement-program Land and Water Conservation Fund The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program provides grants for planning and acquiring outdoor recreation areas and facilities, including trails. LWCF is administered by the National Parks Service and the California Department of Parks and Recreation and has been reauthorized. Cities, counties, tribes, and 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 279 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 116 districts authorized to acquire, develop, operate and maintain park and recreation facilities are eligible to apply. Applicants must fund the entire project and will be reimbursed for fifty percent of costs. $2,000,000.00 is the maximum request amount for any individual project. Eligible project must meet two specific criteria. The first is that projects acquired or developed under the program must be primarily for recreational use and not transportation purposes, and the second is that the lead agency must guarantee to maintain the facility in perpetuity for public recreation. Applications are considered using criteria such as priority status within the State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The State Department of Park and Recreation will select which projects to submit to the National Park Service (NPS) for approval. Final approval is based on the amount of funds available that year, which is determined by a population-based formula, with a 40/60 split for northern and southern California respectively. Web Link: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21360 Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program The National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program supports community- led natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects across the nation. This program provides technical assistance via direct staff involvement to establish and restore greenways, rivers, trails, watersheds, and open space areas. The RTCA program provides planning assistance only. Projects are prioritized for assistance based upon criteria that include conserving significant community resources, fostering cooperation between agencies, serving a large number of users, encouraging public involvement in planning and implementation and focusing on lasting accomplishments. Federal agencies may be the lead partner only in collaboration with a non-federal partner. Web Link: http://www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm Senate Bill 1: The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 SB1, adopted in July 2017, is a funding program to provide funding for transportation infrastructure, expand existing programs, and created new transportation funding programs for implementation that is funded by a gas tax. Active Transportation Program In September 2013, the California legislature created the Active Transportation Program (ATP) to be administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP is administered by the Division 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 280 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 117 of Local Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special Programs. The purpose of ATP is to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation by achieving the following goals: •Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by biking and walking, •Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users, •Advance the active transportation efforts of regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals, •Enhance public health, •Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in the benefits of the program, and •Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many types of active transportation users. In the Study Area, EBRPD recently applied for funding for the Martinez Intermodal Station-Crockett Bay Trail Gap Closure Project, and Contra Costa County applied for funding for the Carquinez Middle School Trail Connection (ATP Cycle 6, June 15, 2022). Web Link: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/active- transportation-program https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/active-transportation- program/cycle6 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program The Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a list of major transportation projects to be funded across the state over the next five years. The STIP is updated biennially by the CTC. The Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP), which includes improvements to long-distance highway and rail corridors, is a subset. While STIP refers to a document, it also is commonly used to refer to a funding source (also known as Regional Improvement Program funding) mostly devoted to major highway capacity expansion projects. To the extent that future STIP funds are available, they could be used to fund trail improvement projects. Future improvements to the rail corridor along the Carquinez Straits shoreline to address sea level rise could conceivably incorporate shoreline trail facilities as part of a long-term strategy to address infrastructure needs associated with climate change. State Highway Operations Protection Program The State Highway Operations Protection Program (SHOPP) is a multi-year program of capital projects whose purpose is to preserve and protect the State Highway System. Funding is comprised of state and federal gas taxes. SHOPP funds capital improvements relative to maintenance, safety, and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges that do not add a new traffic lane to the system. Just over $1 billion is allocated 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 281 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 118 to SHOPP annually. Funding is based on need, so there are no set distributions by county or Caltrans district. There are no matching requirements for this program. Projects include rehabilitation, landscaping, traffic management systems, rest areas, auxiliary lanes, and safety. Caltrans Projects are “applied” for by each Caltrans District. Each project must have a completed Project Study Report (PSR) to be considered for funding. Projects are developed in fall every odd numbered year. Caltrans emphasizes that consideration should be given for each SHOPP project to also accomplish associated bicycle-pedestrian facilities. Within the Study Area, improvements to the Mococo Road/SR680 Bay Trail facilities might be considered. Web Link: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/shopp.htm Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants are intended to encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals, especially those in alignment with best practices identified in the California Transportation Commission’s Regional Transportation Plan. A second category, Strategic Partnership Grants, are awarded to identify and address statewide, interregional, or regional transportation deficiencies on the State highway system in partnership with Caltrans. A sub-category funds transit-focused planning projects that address multimodal transportation deficiencies. Web Link: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/regional-planning/sustainable- transportation-planning-grants Office of Traffic Safety The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) has the mission to obtain and effectively administer traffic safety grant funds to reduce deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from traffic related collisions in California. OTS distributes federal funding apportioned to California under the National Highway Safety Act and MAP-21. Grants are used to mitigate traffic safety program deficiencies, expand ongoing activity, or develop a new program. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. OTS grants address several traffic safety priority areas including Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. Eligible activities include programs to increase safety awareness and skills among pedestrians and bicyclists. Concepts may encompass activities such as safety programs, education, enforcement, traffic safety and bicycle rodeos, safety helmet distribution, and court diversion programs for safety helmet violators. Web Link: http://www.ots.ca.gov/ California State Coastal Conservancy The California State Coastal Conservancy manages several programs that provide grant funds for trails, access, and habitat restoration projects. The funding cycle for these programs is open and on-going 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 282 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 119 throughout the year. Funds are available to local government as well as non-profits. The Conservancy may be a funding source for bicycle facilities that improve access to Sonoma County’s beaches, rivers, and creeks. Web Link: http://scc.ca.gov/category/grants/ Wildlife Conservation Board Funding The Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) was created by statute in 1947 to conserve California’s wildlife resources and provide for suitable public recreation. WCB funds acquisition, restoration, and public access projects throughout the State. WCB allocates funds on a continuous basis from a variety of funding sources, and projects can include land acquisition that preserves wildlife habitat or provides or improves public access. Among others, eligible projects include projects to improve open-space corridors and trail linkages. Web Link: https://www.wcb.ca.gov/FundingSources.aspx California Natural Resources Agency The California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) funds a variety of projects associated with environmental protection and enhancement. Programs include: •The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program is an annual program that offers grants to local, state and federal governmental agencies and to nonprofit organizations for projects to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by new or modified public transportation facilities. •The Urban Greening Program awards funding that is focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through acquisition, creation, enhancement, or expansion of community parks and green spaces, especially to improve access to disadvantaged and underserved communities. •Other resource-related funding opportunities are administered by the CNRA, https://resources.ca.gov/grants. California Strategic Growth Council The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) administers programs that fund development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits. The Transformative Communities Program provides funding in California’s most disadvantaged communities. The Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects that make it easier for Californians to drive less by making sure housing, jobs, and key destinations are accessible by walking, biking, and transit. Web link: https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 283 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 120 Regional Funding Programs Transprtation Development Act Article 3 Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds are generated from State gasoline sales taxes and are returned to the source counties from which they originate to fund transportation projects. Article 3 funds provide a 2 percent set aside of the County TDA funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Eligible projects include right-of-way acquisition; planning, design and engineering; support programs; and construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including retrofitting to meet ADA requirements, and related facilities. Each year the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors approves a Program of Projects for the County and requests allocation from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Web Link: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/ One Bay Area Grant Program The OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program is a funding approach administered by MTC that integrates the region’s federal transportation program with California’s climate law. Funding is targeted toward achieving local land-use and housing policies by: •Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process. •Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) •Initiating a pilot program that will support open space preservation in Priority Conservation Areas (PCA). •The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in transportation categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas. Web link: https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highway-administration-grants/one- bay-area-grant-obag-3 East Bay Regional Park District Measure WW Measure WW is a voter-approved parcel tax that funds park and trail projects throughout Contra Costa and Alameda counties (except Livermore). Measure WW projects in the Study Area include: •Bay Trail from Fremont to Martinez: $12.3 million to connect urban communities to shoreline access and wildlife viewing opportunities by completing the 86 mile Bay Trail along the East Bay shoreline. •Carquinez Strait Improve Public Access and Expand Park: $4.1 million to complete the shoreline scenic corridor between Martinez and Crockett. Expand outdoor recreation opportunities, 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 284 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 121 preserve shoreline areas, and connect park trails for all users from historic Port Costa to the San Francisco Bay and Ridge Trails. Local Funding Programs CCTA’s Measure J In 2004 this half-cent sales tax was extended for years 2009 until 2034 to fund local transportation projects. Measure J supports the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) and Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities (PBTF) programs discussed in Section 1, both of which can fund bicycle/pedestrian improvements. In particular, a sizable amount of PBTF funds go to EBRPD for to build and maintain regional trails. The West County subregion receives additional TLC and PBTF funding. Web link: https://ccta.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/5297b121d5964.pdf Direct Local Jurisdiction Funding Local jurisdictions can fund bicycle and pedestrian projects using a variety of sources. City or County general funds are often earmarked for non-motorized transportation projects, especially sidewalk and accessibility improvements. Impact Fees and Development Implementation Where nexus exists, private or public development projects should plan, design, and construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities to integrate with the existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian network. This would also be appropriate for any projects that generate tourism or trip generation that could be served by complementary bicycle and pedestrian facilities, including winery events, hotels, restaurants, residential projects and others. This Study can serve as a guide for the provision of facilities, and individual projects should integrate these facilities into project development documents. Another potential local source of funding is developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation rates and traffic impacts produced by a proposed project. A developer may reduce the number of trips (and hence impacts and cost) by paying for on- and off-site pedestrian and bikeway improvements, which will encourage residents to walk and bicycle rather than drive. In-lieu parking fees may be used to help construct new or improved bicycle parking. A clear connection between the impact fee and the mitigation project must be established. Special Taxing Districts Special taxing districts, such as redevelopment districts, can be utilized to finance new infrastructure – including shared use trails and sidewalks – within specified areas. New facilities are funded by assessments placed on those that are directly benefited by the improvements rather than the general public. This money can then be utilized for capital improvements within the district. TIFs are especially beneficial in downtown 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 285 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 122 redevelopment districts. These districts are established by a petition from landowners to a local government. The districts can operate independently from the local government and some are established for single purposes, such as roadway construction. Other Local sales taxes, fees, and permits may be implemented, requiring a local election. Parking meter revenues may be used according to local ordinance. Volunteer programs may substantially reduce the cost of implementing some of the proposed pathways. Use of groups such as the California Conservation Corps, which offers low-cost assistance will be effective at reducing project costs, and is encouraged in the State ATP guidelines. Further information regarding some of the current funding sources available in California is listed in Appendix C. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 286 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 123 9.REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 4th Edition AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000 Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance City of Martinez. General Plan Circulation Element, 2016 and Revised Draft, November 2021 Contra Costa County. Drainage Plan, Carquinez Scenic Drive Contra Costa County. Carquinez Scenic Drive Slide Repair, 1996 Contra Costa County. Trail Design Resource Handbook, 2001. Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 2018 CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic 2017https://crowplatform.com/product/design-manual-for-bicycle- traffic/ Federal High Administration (FHWA) Separated Bicycle Lane Planning and Design Guide FHWA Small and Rural Multi-modal Networks Guide Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Recommended Practices on Accommodating Pedestrian and Bicyclists at Interchanges Massachusetts Department of Transportation Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Blueprint for Autonomous Urbanism NACTO Curb Appeal: Curbside Management Strategies for Improving Transit Reliability NACTO Transit Street Design Guide NACTO Urban Bikeway Guide, 2nd Edition NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide San Francisco Bay Trail. San Francisco Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Toolkit, 2016 U.S. Access Board Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way (PROWAG) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 287 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study Page 124 APPENDIX A: TRAIL LOG B: SEGMENT 6-2 CONCEPT DESIGN C: SELECT FUNDING SOURCES •California Transportation Commission Active Transportation Program Funding Programs that may include Active Transportation Elements •California Natural Resources Agency Current Funding Opportunities 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 288 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study APPENDIX A: TRAIL LOG 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 289 of 394 A. PROJECT ELEMENTS STS - SIGNAGE AND STRIPING SMO - SIGNAL/MODIFICATION SWM - SHOULDER WIDENING, INTERMITTENT OR MINOR SWC - SHOULDER WIDENING, CONTINUOUS OFX - OFF STREET TRAIL ON EXISTING ROAD OFT - OFF STREET TRAIL BBT - BRIDGE, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC WITH BICYCLE FACILITIES BBO - BRIDGE OR BOARDWALK, PEDESTRIAN OR BICYCLE ONLY RTW - RETAINING WALL OVER 3 FT. O/U - OVERPASS/UNDERPASS LR - LANE REMOVAL PR - PARKING REMOVAL B. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AES - AESTHETICS BIO - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TRT - TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC AGF - AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY CUL - CULTURAL RESOURCES HAZ - HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS GEO - GEOLOGY/SOILS HYD - HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY NOI - NOISE REC - RECREATION ESC - ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES COMPLETED FSN - FURTHER STUDY NEEDED N/A - NO IDENTIFIED POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS C. ADDITIONAL STUDIES NEEDED TRS - TRAFFIC STUDY WAR - WARRANTS FOR CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS REC - 4f PARKS, RECREATION, WILDLIFE STUDY BIO - BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FSN - FURTHER STUDY NEEDED GEO - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION D. CEQA ACTION CE - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT ND - NEGATIVE DECLARATION MND - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION EIR - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EDC - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION COMPLETED FSN - FURTHER STUDY NEEDED E. NEPA ACTION CEX - CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION EA/F - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT EDC - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION COMPLETED FSN - FURTHER STUDY NEEDED LEGEND 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 290 of 394 4-1A Bay Trail Bay Trail Bay Trail and Mococo Rd 2 0.05 ~0 ~0 4 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4-1B Mococo Rd Bay Trail and Mococo Rd Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave 2 0.09 ~0 ~0 3 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4-1C Mococo Rd Bay Trail and Mococo Rd Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave 2 0.09 ~0 ~0 3 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4-1D Mococo Rd Bay Trail and Mococo Rd Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave 2 0.09 ~0 ~0 3 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4-1E Mococo Rd Bay Trail and Mococo Rd Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave 2 0.09 ~0 ~0 3 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4-1F Mococo Rd Bay Trail and Mococo Rd Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave 2 0.09 ~0 ~0 3 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4-1G Mococo Rd Bay Trail and Mococo Rd Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave 2 0.09 ~0 ~0 3 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4 TOTAL Mococo Rd Bay Trail and Mococo Rd Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave 2 0.09 ~0 ~0 3 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE 4-2 Marina Vista Ave Mococo Rd and Marina Vista Ave Split of Escobar from Marina Vista Ave 2 0.97 9.60%1.20%5 1 0 INDUSTRIAL TRT TRS, WAR CE MOCOCO ROAD TRAIL SEGMENT 4 Trail Segment Begin End Class Length (mi) Name Street Crossings Rail Crossings Creek/Drainage Crossing Max Slope (%) Average Slope (%) Potential Environmental Impacts Additional Studies Needed CEQA ActionLand Use Designation 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 291 of 394 5-1 Marina Vista Ave existing bike lanes Split of Escobar from Marina Vista Ave Marina Vista at Court St 2 0.31 21 6 1 0 0 R12. G. C,RET TRT TRS, WAR ISMND 5-2 Marina Vista Ave existing bike lanes Ferry Street Sparacino Park 2 0.22 13 3 5 0 1 R12. G. C,RET TRT TRS, WAR ISMND 5-3 Marina Vista limited facilities Sparacino Park Talbart 2 0.18 26 6 3 0 0 COM,RET,SER TRT TRS, WAR ISMND 5-3A Alternative Route A - Buckley Street Alhambra Avenue Talbart Street 2 0.14 5 2 2 0 0 COM,RET,SER TRT TRS, WAR CE 5-3B Alternative Route B - Richardson St and Foster St Buckley Street Talbart Street 2 0.09 5 2 1 0 0 COM,RET,SER TRT TRS, WAR CE 5-3C Alternative Route C - Berrellesa St and Foster St Buckley Street Foster Street 2 0.09 5 2 0 0 0 COM,RET,SER TRT TRS, WAR CE 5-4 Escobar limited facilities Pine Street Talbart Street 2 0.4 14 2 8 0 1 COM,RET,SER TRT TRS, WAR ISMND 5-5 Escobar existing bike lanes Split of Escobar from Marina Vista Ave Pine Street 2 0.29 9 4 1 0 0 COM,RET,SER BIO N/A CE 5-6 Ferry Street UPRR Escobar 2 0.06 0 0 2 1 0 COM,RET,SER TRT TRS, WAR ISMND 5-7 Ferry Street Berrellessa UPRR 1 0.31 10 1.5 3 1 1 COM,RET,SER TRT TRS, WAR ISMND 5-8 Berrellessa Street Bridge UPRR 3 0.12 15 2 1 1 0 SPECIAL STUDY TRT TRS, WAR ISMND 5-9A Sparacino Park UPRR Buckley Street 1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 DS HYD HYD ISMND/CE 5-9B Sparacino Park Buckley Street Marina Vista 1 0.07 0 0 0 0 0 CC HYD HYD ISMND/CE 5-10 Nejedly Connector UPRR Nejedly Staging Area 1 0.51 26 4 0 0 0 OS,ESL BIO, HYD BIO, HYD COMPLETE 5-11 Carquinez Scenic Drive Escobar Nejedly Staging Area 3 0.43 20 6.5 3 0 0 R12, OS TRT, CUL TRS, WAR, CUL ISMND 5-12 Carquinez Scenic Drive Nejedly Staging Area George Miller Trail 3 1.71 29 4 1 0 12 CCC BIO. HYD BIO, HYD CE 5-13 George Miler Trail Carquinez Scenic Drive Brickyard/Port Costa Staging Area 1 1.88 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A MARTINEZ TRAIL SEGMENT 5 Trail Segment Begin End Class Length (mi) Name CEQA ActionMax Slope (%) Average Slope (%) Street Crossings Additional Studies Needed Rail Crossings Creek/Drainage Crossing Land Use Designation Potential Environmental 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 292 of 394 6-1 Carquinez Scenic Dr Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Port Costa Staging Area (Brickyard)Winslow St 2 3.16 17 4 1 0 8 PR, AL,OS TRT, GEO, HYD, BIO TRA,GEO, HYD, BIO ISMND, EIR 6-2 Brickyard Connector Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Port Costa Staging Area (Brickyard)Carquinez overlook Trail 2 0.41 15 7.5 0 0 0 PR, AL,OS TRT, GEO, HYD, BIO TRA, GEO, HYD, BIO ISMND, EIR 6-3 Port Costa Trail/Fire Road CSD Staging Area ridge (spur)1 0.66 15 4.5 0 0 0 PR, AL GEO GEO CE, ISMND 6-4 Existing CSD-Reservoir Trail CSD Staging Area Existing Trail Reservoir Street 1 0.40 23 9 1 0 0 PR GEO GEO CE 6-4A Potential CSD Ride to Street Trail Existing CSD - Reservoir Trail Prospect Ave 1 0.12 10 6 1 0 0 PR GEO GEO CE, ISMND 6-5A Overlook Ridge Trail Port Costa Fire Road/Trail Existing Trail 6-5B 1 0.45 38 10 0 0 0 PR GEO GEO CE 6-5B Existing trail to ridge CSD Staging Area Top of Ridge 1 0.14 16 6 0 0 0 PR, SH BIO, GEO BIO, GEO ISMND, CE 6-5C Overllok Trail connection Top of Ridge Existing Trail 6-4 1 0.12 40 26 0 0 0 PR. SH BIO, GEO BIO, GEO ISMND, CE 6-6 Port Costa School/Reservoir Road Trail Reservoir Street Canyon Lake Drive 2 0.11 9 1 0 0 0 SH TRT TRA CE 6-7 Canyon Lake Drive sidewalk Canyon Lake Drive Sidewalk Prospect Ave 1 0.11 0 0 1 0 0 SH, CO TRT TRA CE 6-8 Bull Valley Trail Fire Road Prospect Ave along Fire road Fire road 1 0.35 23 6.5 0 0 0 PR BIO, GEO BIO, GEO ISMND, CE 6-9 CaNyon Lake Dr Trail Connector Canyon Lake Drive through private land Fire road 1 0.05 0 0 1 0 0 SH, CO TRT TRA CE 6-10 Port Costa School Trail Reservoir Street Fire road 1 0.38 40 9 0 0 0 SH, CO TRT TRA CE 6-11A Overlook Connector Trail New trail, fire road to overlook trail Existing Overlook Trail 1 0.22 28 10 0 0 0 PR BIO, GEO BIO, GEO ISMND, CE 6-11B Overlook Trail Existing Overlook Trail Eckley Pier 1 1.12 20 5 0 0 0 PR BIO, GEO BIO, GEO ISMND, CE 6-11C Valley Trail Existing Overlook Trail Existing Overlook Trail 1 0.33 8 5 0 0 0 PR N/A N/A CE 6-12 Eckley Pier Area Eckley Pier Eckley Pier Day Use Area 1 0.06 0 0 1 0 0 PR BIO, GEO BIO, GEO ISMND, CE 6-13 Existing Bul Valley Trail Existing Trail, Eckley Day Use area Winslow Street 1 0.56 35 14 0 0 0 PR BIO, GEO BIO, GEO ISMND, CE 6-14 New Bull Valley Trail New Trail, Eckley Day use area Winslow St 1 0.37 45 14.5 0 0 0 PR BIO, TRT BIO ISMND, CE 6-15 Crockett Shoreline Route Winslow St at Bull Valley trail Rolph Avenue via shoreline Ped 0.71 20 4 4 0 0 SH, HI, ML, CO TRT TRA CE 6-16A Winslow Street Winslow Street at Bull Valley Trail Carquinez Scenic Drive 1/2 0.19 15 4.5 1 0 0 PS,CO TRT TRA CE 6-16B Pomona Street Pomona at Winslow Street/Carquinez Scenic Drive Rolph Ave via Pomona 2 0.70 17 4.5 7 0 0 PS,CO TRT TRA CE 6-17 Rolph Ave Rolph and Loring Ave Rolph Ave and Pomona St 2 0.24 23 3 0 0 0 PS,CO TRT TRA CE 6-18 Loring St, 4th Ave, Starr St, 2nd Ave, Wanda St, Port St Pomona at Rolph Avenue Ceres and Port St Ped 0.44 19 7 8 0 0 SH, HI, ML, CO TRT TRA CE 6-19 Pomona Street Pomona at Rolph Ave Park and Ride 2 0.43 25 6 6 0 0 PS,CO TRT TRA CE CARQUINEZ SHORELINE TRAIL SEGMENT 6 Trail Segment Begin End Class Length (mi) Name CEQA ActionMax Slope Average Slope Street Crossings Additional Studies Rail Crossings Creek/Drainage Crossing Land Use Designation Potential Environmental 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 293 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study APPENDIX B: SEGMENT 6-2 CONCEPT DESIGN 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 294 of 394 Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: TRAIL OVERVIEWCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 100'5/9/202291RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONGAP SEGMENT 6-2 FOCUS AREAPORT COSTA STAGING AREA12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 295 of 394 Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: TRAIL ALTERNATIVESCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 100'5/9/202292RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAPOINT CARQUINEZEXISTING TRAILSEGMENT 6-3ALTERNATIVE BSEE SHEET 4EXISTING ROADPORT COSTA STAGING AREAALTERNATIVE ASEE SHEET 3ALTERNATIVE CSEE SHEET 5(E) RETAINING WALLCARQUINEZ SCENIC DRIVETRAIL CONNECTIONTO STAGING AREA -ALL ALTERNATIVES15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONFeet320160012-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 296 of 394 -5 . 0 %-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.4%-6.6%-6.2%-8.0%-5.0%-4.7%-6.7%-5.1%Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: ALTERNATIVE ACONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 50'5/9/202293RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAPROPOSED ALTERNATIVE A:LENGTH: 1850'ELEVATION RISE: 100'MAX SLOPE: 8%AVERAGE SLOPE: 5.4%SEE SHEET 9 FOR TRAILPAVING DETAILSEXISTING TRAILSEGMENT 6-3ALTERNATIVE AEXISTING ROADCARQUINEZ SCENIC DRIVETRAIL CONNECTIONTO STAGING AREA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBEGIN (N) A1 TYPE I WALL660 LF5'-7' HEIGHTBEGIN (N) A3 TYPE I WALL560 LF5'-7' HEIGHT BEGIN (N) A2 TYPE II WALL290 LF5'-7' HEIGHTABOVE AND BELOWEND A1END A2END A3Feet160800PROPOSED TRAIL IS 10' WIDE. INCREASINGWIDTH TO 12' WILL INCREASE THE COSTOF ROUGH GRADING, SURFACING, ANDRETAINING WALL HEIGHTS RESULTING INA PRICE INCREASE FROM $1,897,100.00 TO$2,152,740.00. THIS IS A 13.5% INCREASE.12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 297 of 394 -9.8%-5.0%-5.0%-8.1%-8.0%-8.0%-1.4%-8.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-8.0%Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: ALTERNATIVE BCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 50'5/9/202294RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAEXISTING TRAILSEGMENT 6-3ALTERNATIVE BFeet160800PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE B: LENGTH: 1600'ELEVATION RISE: 95'MAX SLOPE: 9.8%AVERAGE SLOPE: 5.9%SEE SHEET 9 FOR TRAIL PAVING DETAILSCARQUINEZ SCENIC DRIVE TRAIL CONNECTIONTO STAGING AREA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONBEGIN (N) B1 TYPE I WALL1010 LF5'-7' HEIGHTBEGIN (N) B2 TYPE I WALL440 LF4'-5' HEIGHTEND B1END B2PROPOSED TRAIL IS 10' WIDE. INCREASINGWIDTH TO 12' WILL INCREASE THE COSTOF ROUGH GRADING, SURFACING, ANDRETAINING WALL HEIGHTS RESULTING INA PRICE INCREASE FROM $1,652,250.00 TO$1,888,620.00. THIS IS A 14.3% INCREASE.12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 298 of 394 -20.7%2.5%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-5.0 % -5.0% -5 . 0 %-5.0%-5.0%- 5 . 0% -5.0%-5.0%-5.0%-7.7%-18.8%-8.0%Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: ALTERNATIVE CCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 40'5/9/202295RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAEXISTING TRAILSEGMENT 6-3EXISTING ROADALTERNATIVE CPROPOSED ALTERNATIVE C:LENGTH: 2100'ELEVATION RISE: 100'MAX SLOPE: 8%AVERAGE SLOPE: 4.8%SEE SHEET 9 FOR TRAILPAVING DETAILS(E) RETAINING WALLTRAIL CONNECTIONTO STAGING AREA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTRAIL BRIDGE/CULVERTTRAIL BRIDGE/CULVERTBEGIN (N) C1 TYPE I WALL50 LF5'-7' HEIGHTBEGIN (N) C2 TYPE I WALL480 LF5'-7' HEIGHTBEGIN (N) C3 TYPE I WALL185 LF5'-7' HEIGHTBEGIN (N) C4 TYPE I WALL600 LF4'-5' HEIGHTBEGIN (N) C5 TYPE I WALL120 LF5'-7' HEIGHTBEGIN (N) C6 TYPE II WALL410 LF5'-7' HEIGHTEND C1END C2END C3END C4END C5END C6Feet160800PROPOSED TRAIL IS 10' WIDE. INCREASINGWIDTH TO 12' WILL INCREASE THE COSTOF ROUGH GRADING, SURFACING, ANDRETAINING WALL HEIGHTS RESULTING INA PRICE INCREASE FROM $2,104,300.00 TO$2,428,920.00. THIS IS A 15.4% INCREASE.12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 299 of 394 Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: SLOPE FIELD ACONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 50'5/9/202296RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAEXISTING TRAILSEGMENT 6-3ALTERNATIVE AFeet160800TRAIL CONNECTIONTO STAGING AREA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 300 of 394 Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: RETAINING WALLS BCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 50'5/9/202297RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAEXISTING TRAILSEGMENT 6-3ALTERNATIVE BFeet160800TRAIL CONNECTIONTO STAGING AREA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 301 of 394 Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: RETAINING WALLS CCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 40'5/9/202298RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CAEXISTING TRAILSEGMENT 6-3Feet160800ALTERNATIVE CTRAIL CONNECTIONTO STAGING AREA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 302 of 394 809010011012013014015016017018019020080901001101201301401501601701801902000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00809010011012013014015016017018019020080901001101201301401501601701801902000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00809010011012013014015016017018019020080901001101201301401501601701801902000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+000+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 21+00 22+00 23+00Rev:Sht:Date: By:Drawn:Design:Appr'd:Checked:Description:App'd:Scale:Sheet:Date:OFSizeDProjectP.O. Box 70356 1220 Brickyard Cove Road Point Richmond, CA 94807UESTAENGINEERING CORP.Environmental& Water ResourcesCivil(510) 236-6114FAX (510) 236-2423questa@questaec.comPORT COSTA TRAILGAP SEGMENT 6-2: DETAILS AND PROFILESCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA20000771" = 100'5/9/202299RPRPJPJPCARQUINEZ STRAIT SCENICLOOP TRAIL CLOSURE STUDYCONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA15% CONCEPT PLAN - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION10'1'4" ASPHALT OR STABILIZED QUARRY FINES TRAIL(PAVED SURFACE PREFERRED TO ACCOMMODATE ALL USER TYPES)1'CLASS II ABEXISTING GRADE2:1 SLOPE1.0%4" STABILIZED QUARRY FINES SHOULDER, TYP.1TRAIL TYPICAL SECTIONScale = NTSEXISTING GRADE10'1'1'EXISTING GRADE1.0%RETAININGWALL HEIGHTVARIESRETAININGWALL HEIGHTVARIESCUTFILL10'1'1'EXISTING GRADE1.0%4" ASPHALT OR STABILIZED QUARRY FINES TRAIL(PAVED SURFACE PREFERRED TO ACCOMMODATE ALL USER TYPES)4" STABILIZED QUARRY FINES SHOULDER, TYP.RETAININGWALL HEIGHTVARIESCUTSTATION (FT)ELEVATION (FT)ELEVATION (FT)ELEVATION (FT)STATION (FT)STATION (FT)ALTERNATIVE A PROFILEALTERNATIVE B PROFILEALTERNATIVE C PROFILEEXTRA 50' REQUIREDFOR PROPERSWITCHBACK SLOPEEXTRA 100' REQUIREDFOR EXISTING TRAILCONNECTION3 TRAIL WITH TYPE II (DOUBLE WALL) SECTIONScale = NTS2 TRAIL WITH TYPE 1 (SINGLE WALL)TYPICAL SECTION Scale = NTS4" ASPHALT OR STABILIZED QUARRY FINES TRAIL(PAVED SURFACE PREFERRED TO ACCOMMODATE ALL USER TYPES)4" STABILIZED QUARRY FINES SHOULDER, TYP.12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 303 of 394 Item #Description Unit Est. Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization (10%)LS 1 $146,000.00 146,000.00$ 2 Demolition & Clearing LS 1 $20,000.00 20,000.00$ 3 ESA & Site Protection LS 1 $40,000.00 40,000.00$ 4 SWPPP & Erosion Control Seeding LS 1 $50,000.00 50,000.00$ 5 Rough Grading Trail CY 1,455 $40.00 58,200.00$ 6 Rough Grade Swtichback CY 1 $12,000.00 12,000.00$ 7 Fine Grading LF 1,850 $10.00 18,500.00$ 8 12' TRAIL SURFACING (AC and QF shoulder)LF 1,850 $120.00 222,000.00$ 4-5' Retaining Wall LF 0 $450.00 -$ 9 5-7' Retaining Wall LF 1,550 $630.00 976,500.00$ 10 Trail Drainage LF 1,850 $20.00 37,000.00$ Bridge Crossings EA 0 $20,000.00 -$ 5' Field Fencing LF 0 $16.00 -$ 11 Signage LS 1 $7,500.00 7,500.00$ 12 Trail Connections LS 1 $10,000.00 10,000.00$ 13 Trail Head Parking LS 1 $7,500.00 7,500.00$ 291,900.00$ 1,897,100.00$ TOTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%) Engineers Preliminary Cost Estimate CONSTRUCTION ONLY Carquinez Trail: Gap Segment 6-2 Improvement Project Alternative A 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 304 of 394 Item #Description Unit Est. Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization (10%)LS 1 $127,100.00 127,100.00$ 2 Demolition & Clearing LS 1 $20,000.00 20,000.00$ 3 ESA & Site Protection LS 1 $40,000.00 40,000.00$ 4 SWPPP & Erosion Control Seeding LS 1 $50,000.00 50,000.00$ 5 Rough Grading Trail CY 1,350 $40.00 54,000.00$ Rough Grade Swtichback CY 0 $12,000.00 -$ 7 Fine Grading LF 1,600 $10.00 16,000.00$ 12' TRAIL SURFACING (AC and QF shoulder)LF 1,600 $120.00 192,000.00$ 8 4-5' Retaining Wall LF 450 $450.00 202,500.00$ 9 5-7' Retaining Wall LF 1,015 $630.00 639,450.00$ 10 Trail Drainage LF 1,600 $20.00 32,000.00$ Bridge Crossings EA 0 $20,000.00 -$ 5' Field Fencing LF 0 $16.00 -$ 11 Signage LS 1 $7,500.00 7,500.00$ 12 Trail Connections LS 1 $10,000.00 10,000.00$ 13 Trail Head Parking LS 1 $7,500.00 7,500.00$ 254,200.00$ 1,652,250.00$ Engineers Preliminary Cost Estimate CONSTRUCTION ONLY Carquinez Trail: Gap Segment 6-2 Improvement Project Alternative B CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%) TOTAL 6 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 305 of 394 Item #Description Unit Est. Unit Price Total 1 Mobilization (10%)LS 1 $161,900.00 161,900.00$ 2 Demolition & Clearing LS 1 $20,000.00 20,000.00$ 3 ESA & Site Protection LS 1 $40,000.00 40,000.00$ 4 SWPPP & Erosion Control Seeding LS 1 $50,000.00 50,000.00$ 5 Rough Grading Trail CY 1,620 $40.00 64,800.00$ 6 Rough Grade Swtichback CY 0 $12,000.00 -$ 7 Fine Grading LF 2,100 $10.00 21,000.00$ 12' TRAIL SURFACING (AC and QF shoulder)LF 2,100 $120.00 252,000.00$ 8 4-5' Retaining Wall LF 600 $450.00 270,000.00$ 9 5-7' Retaining Wall LF 1,260 $630.00 793,800.00$ 10 Trail Drainage LF 2,100 $20.00 42,000.00$ Bridge Crossings EA 2 $20,000.00 40,000.00$ 11 5' Field Fencing LF 0 $16.00 -$ 12 Signage LS 1 $7,500.00 7,500.00$ 13 Trail Connections and Conformants LS 1 $10,000.00 10,000.00$ 14 Trail Head Parking Connection/Signage LS 1 $7,500.00 7,500.00$ 323,800.00$ 2,104,300.00$ Engineers Preliminary Cost Estimate CONSTRUCTION ONLY Carquinez Trail: Gap Segment 6-2 Improvement Project Alternative C CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY (20%) TOTAL 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 306 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study APPENDIX C: SELECT FUNDING SOURCES • California Transportation Commission Active Transportation Program Funding Programs that may include Active Transportation Elements • California Natural Resources Agency Current Funding Opportunities 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 307 of 394 FUNDING PROGRAMS THAT MAY INCLUDE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS 1 PROGRAM Sustainable Communities Planning Grants Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (AHSC) Urban Greening Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program ADMINISTERING AGENCY Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning Strategic Growth Council and Department of Housing and Community Development California Natural Resources Agency Strategic Growth Council and Department of Conservation Office of Traffic Safety PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION The program includes $29.5 million to encourage local and regional planning that furthers state goals, including, but not limited to, the goals and best practices cited in the Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines adopted by the California Transportation Commission. The Program funds land-use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Program included $550M in its latest round. (California Climate Investments) The Program supports the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions and provide multiple benefits. Must include at least one of the following: ● Sequester and store carbon by planting trees ● Reduce building energy use by strategically planting trees to shade buildings ● Reduce commute vehicle miles traveled by constructing bicycle paths, bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities that provide safe routes for travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools. (California Climate Investments) The Program funds community-led development and infrastructure projects that achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California’s most disadvantaged communities. (California Climate Investments) The Program provides annual funds to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes so OVERLAP WITH ATP Eligible Types: ● Active Transportation Plan ● Bike Plan ● Pedestrian Plan ● Safe Routes to School Plan Eligible Types: ● Bike and pedestrian facilities ● NI Programs -Education (Must connect with affordable housing component of the grant) Eligible Types: ● Bicycle and pedestrian facilities Eligible Types: ● Bicycle and pedestrian facilities ● Bike share programs (However must be part of a larger place- based strategy) Eligible Types: ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Inf. NI Plan X X X X X X PROJECT EXAMPLES • Safe Routes to School Plan • Active Transportation Plan • Bike/ped Trail/Path Feasibility Study • Complete Streets Plan • Sustainable Communities Plan • Transit-Oriented Development Plan • First/Last Mile Connectivity Plan • Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes • Active transportation projects to encourage connectivity to transit networks • Bikeways and sidewalks to affordable housing and transit center • Install dedicated bicycle facilities • Pedestrian facilities such as bulb-outs • Non-motorized urban trails that provide safe routes for both recreation and travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools • Projects that expand or improve the usability of existing active transportation routes (e.g., walking or bicycle paths) or create new active transportation routes that are publicly accessible by walking • Complete Green Streets • Bike share program • Creating and considering active transportation corridors for better non-motorized connections • Multi-use paths • Urban greening for pedestrian facilities • Safety education and encouragement • Campaigns to promote safety • SRTS safety programs WEBSITE https://dot.ca.gov/programs/tran sportation-planning/regional- planning/sustainable- transportation-planning-grants https://hcd.ca.gov/grants- funding/active- funding/ahsc.shtml https://resources.ca.gov/grants/u rban-greening http://www.sgc.ca.gov/programs /tcc/ https://www.ots.ca.gov/Grants/ 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 308 of 394 2 PROGRAM Clean Mobility Options Sustainable Transportation Equity Project (STEP) Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Local Partnership Program (LPP) ADMINISTERING AGENCY Air Resources Board Air Resources Board CalSTA and Caltrans Division of Rail and Mass Transportation California Transportation Commission PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION that all roadway users arrive at their destination safely. Funds can be used for bicycle and pedestrian safety The Program makes $20 million available for zero- emissions shared mobility projects (such as car sharing, bike sharing, and on-demand sharing) in disadvantaged and low-income communities, including some tribal and affordable housing communities (California Climate Investments) The Program makes $2 million available for planning and capacity building grants. Funding is intended to help low- income and disadvantaged communities identify residents’ transportation needs and prepare to implement clean transportation and land use projects. The Program makes $20 million available for one to three implementation block grants to fund clean transportation and land use projects in disadvantaged communities. Funded projects will work together to increase community residents’ access to key destinations so they can get where they need to go without the use of a personal vehicle (California Climate Investments) The TIRCP provides grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to fund transformative capital improvements that will modernize California’s intercity, commuter, and urban rail systems, and bus and ferry transit systems, to significantly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, vehicle miles traveled, and congestion. The primary objective of this program is to provide funding to counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies in which voters have approved fees or taxes dedicated solely to transportation improvements or that have imposed fees, including uniform developer fees, dedicated solely to transportation improvements. Funding includes $200M/year to improve aging Infrastructure, Road Conditions, Active Transportation, Transit and rail, OVERLAP WITH ATP ● NI Programs – education, campaigns Eligible Types: • Bike Share • Infrastructure improvement projects Eligible Types: ● Bike or pedestrian facilities ● Active Transportation Plan ● Bike Plan ● Pedestrian Plan ● Safe Routes to School Plan ● Capacity Building (NI Programs– education, engagement, demo projects, campaigns) Eligible Types: ● First/Last Mile ● NI Education and Outreach ● Bicycle and pedestrian facilities at Transit sites Eligible Types: ● Bicycle and pedestrian facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Inf. NI Plan X X X X X X X X PROJECT EXAMPLES • Bikeshare programs • “Quick build” right-of-way safety improvements for bicycles and scooters • New bike routes (Class I, Class II, or Class IV) and supporting infrastructure • Publicly-accessible bike parking, storage, and repair infrastructure (e.g., bike racks, bike lockers, bike repair kiosks) • New walkways that improve mobility/access/safety of pedestrians (non- motorized users) • Street crossing enhancements, including accessible pedestrian signals • Plans • Pedestrian and bike trail • First/last mile connections via bike lanes and separated paths • Bike share programs • Bike parking facilities • Plans • Close sidewalk gap, install class II bike lanes and cycle track, curb extensions, pedestrian enhancements, improvements to lighting and signage • Construct 4 single-lane and 1 multi-lane roundabouts, and improvements to street, pedestrian and bicycle facilities • Expressway pedestrian overcrossing WEBSITE http://www.cleanmobilityoptions .org/ https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/l ct/opportunitiesgov/step.htm https://calsta.ca.gov/subject- areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital- prog https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail- and-mass-transportation/transit- and-intercity-rail-capital-program https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1 /local-partnership-program Health and Safety Benefits 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 309 of 394 ) 3 PROGRAM Local Streets and Roads (LSR) Program Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCCP) Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) ADMINISTERING AGENCY California Transportation Commission California Transportation Commission Caltrans Local Assistance/ FHWA Caltrans Office of SHOPP Management California Transportation Commission PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION The purpose of the program is to provide approximately $1.5 billion per year to cities and counties for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system. The purpose of the program is to provide funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state. This statewide, competitive program makes $250 million available annually for projects that implement specific transportation performance improvements and are part of a comprehensive corridor plan by providing more transportation choices while preserving the character of local communities and creating opportunities for neighborhood enhancement. The Program funds work on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or on tribal lands for general use of tribal members, that improves the safety for its users. Project maximum funding- $10M. Solicitation varies from annually to semi-annually. The Office of SHOPP Management is responsible for planning, developing, managing and reporting the four- year SHOPP portfolio of projects. The Program is the State Highway System’s “fix it first” program that funds repairs and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements on the State Highway System. The STIP is the biennial five-year plan adopted by the Commission for future allocations of certain state transportation funds for state highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements. Local agencies should work through their Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), County Transportation Commission, or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), as appropriate, to nominate projects for inclusion in the STIP. OVERLAP WITH ATP Eligible Types: ● Complete Streets Components ● Safety Projects ● Bike Lanes Eligible Types: ● Bike Lanes ● Ped Improvements Eligible Types: ● Safety projects on Bike facilities ● Safety projects on Ped facilities Eligible Types: • Bike & Pedestrian elements (In the context of facility type, right of way, project scope, and quality of nearby alternative facilities) Eligible Types: ● Bicycle & Pedestrian projects (Must be eligible for State Highway Account or Federal funds) ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Inf. NI Plan X X X X X X PROJECT EXAMPLES • Implement enhanced crosswalk signing and striping • Create safety separation between motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians • Design and construction of school access and safety improvements to six schools (SRTS) • Construct Class I and Class II bikeways • Pedestrian improvements and plaza at a transit station • Intersection improvements • Install hybrid pedestrian signals • Improve pedestrian and bicycle safety at locations with uncontrolled crossings • Plans • Upgrade sidewalks to ADA compliance • Reconstruct damaged pavement • Add bike lanes to updated corridors • Upgrade pedestrian push buttons, refresh striping, and improve pedestrian and bicycle access • Bike/ped Overcrossing and Access Improvements and bicycle and pedestrian bridge • Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes • Multi-Use paths • Complete Streets improvements WEBSITE https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1 /local-streets-roads-program https://catc.ca.gov/programs/sb1 /solutions-for-congested- corridors-program https://dot.ca.gov/programs/loca l-assistance/fed-and-state- programs/highway-safety- improvement-program https://dot.ca.gov/programs/tran sportation-programming/state- highway-operation-protection- program-shopp-minor-program- shopp https://dot.ca.gov/programs/loca l-assistance/fed-and-state- programs/state-transportation- improvement-program 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 310 of 394 4 PROGRAM Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program ADMINISTERING AGENCY FHWA PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION The purpose of the CMAQ program is to provide a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The program supports surface transportation projects and other related efforts that contribute air quality improvement and provide congestion relief. OVERLAP WITH ATP Eligible Types: ● Bicycle facilities ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION Inf. NI Plan X PROJECT EXAMPLES • Travel Demand Management to promote clean commutes • Public Education and Outreach • Bicycle amenities; Class I, II, III, & IV bike lanes WEBSITE https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/envir onment/air_quality/cmaq/ 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 311 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsBaldwin Hills ConservancyBaldwin Hills Conservancy Proposition 1 ProgramThe purpose of the BHC Proposition 1 grant program is to provide local assistance to address water quality, water supply and watershed protection and restoration.  Funds are available for multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects, pursuant to Water Code Section 79731(a).  Resource Protection‐‐Advance the optimal management of resources in the watershed in order to achieve conservation benefits, improve ecosystem health, and increase climate resiliency.    Habitat Restoration‐‐Restore native habitat to improve ecosystem function and provide multi‐benefit wildlife corridors, species biodiversity and other ecosystem benefits.Urban Greening‐‐Build urban greening projects that increase groundwater recharge, reduce runoff, improve water quality and improve urban watershed health while creating public green‐space and expanding urban forests.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance for DAC or SDACMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, eligible nonprofit organizations, JPAs, special districts, public utilities, and mutual water companies.Geographic Scope: Baldwin Hills & Ballona Creek TerritoryRevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,400,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 0.5Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $2 millionPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: August 31, 2021                October 31, 2021             December 31, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: http://bhc.ca.gov/grants/Program Contact: Gail Krippner:323‐290‐5273                                                    Email: gail.krippner@bhc.ca.govOther: info@bhc.ca.govBaldwin Hills ConservancyBaldwin Hills Conservancy Proposition 68 ProgramThe purpose of the BHC Proposition 68 grant program is to provide local assistance for watershed protection, habitat restoration, acquisition, community access and park improvements in the Ballona Creek/Baldwin Hills Watershed Territory.  Funds are available for multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 80110 (b) (1).3.1. Resource Protection and Restoration Projects. 3.2. Vegetation Management and Fire Safety Projects. 3.3 Visitor Serving Development and Improvement Projects.3.4. Community Access, Education and Interpretation Projects (maximum grant award is $100,000, if funding is available, the Conservancy will award these grants every year)Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance for DAC or SDACMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, JPA's, nonprofit organizations or any public entity or non‐profit organization established pursuant to the laws of the State of California.Geographic Scope: Baldwin Hills & Ballona Creek TerritoryRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $2,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $1 millionPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: August 31, 2021                October 31, 2021             December 31, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: http://bhc.ca.gov/grants/Program Contact: Gail Krippner:323‐290‐5273                                                    Email: gail.krippner@bhc.ca.govOther: info@bhc.ca.govBaldwin Hills ConservancyBaldwin Hills Conservancy Proposition 40 The purpose of the BHC Proposition 40 grant program is to provide local assistance for planning, acquisition and capital improvement projects that benefit the Ballona Creek Watershed and Baldwin Hills Conservancy territory, consistent with the Conservancy strategic plan and related work programs prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code section 32568 and pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 1 of Chapter 752, Statutes of 1999.Proposals consistent with the P40 bond act will achieve at least one the following: 1) acquisition of open space; 2) development of park land; 3) rehabilitation of park facilities: 4) restoration of habitat; or 5) protection of land and water resources. Proposals consistent with the.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 25% non‐state fundsEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, JPA's, nonprofit organizations or any public entity or non‐profit organization established pursuant to the laws of the State of California.Geographic Scope: Baldwin Hills & Ballona Creek TerritoryRevenue Source: Propositions 40Total Estimated Available Funding: $4,725,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Prop 40: no maximum Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 0.5Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Proposition 40: no maximumPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContiniousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: http://bhc.ca.gov/grants/Program Contact: Gail Krippner:323‐290‐5273                                                    Email: gail.krippner@bhc.ca.govOther: info@bhc.ca.govCalifornia Coastal CommissionWHALE TAIL® Competitive Grants ProgramWHALE TAIL® Grants help people connect to the California coast and its watersheds through experiential education, stewardship, and outdoor experiences. With a goal of increasing understanding of and caring for the coast, marine life, and waterways that connect to the coast, the grants focus on reaching communities that have historically received fewer marine education and stewardship opportunities.   WHALE TAIL® Grants fund projects addressing the California coast and its watersheds that may support experiential education, stewardship, and outdoor experiences for children and the general public. Education and stewardship projects relating to climate change as it impacts the coast and ocean are eligible and encouraged. Adopt‐A‐Beach® programs, as well as other beach maintenance and coastal habitat restoration projects that have an educational component, are also eligible for the grants. WHALE TAIL® Grants focus on reaching communities that are poorly served in terms of marine and coastal education, and strive for a broad geographic distribution throughout California. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Applicants may be either a non‐profit organization, a project of a non‐profit fiscal sponsor, a school or school district, or a government entity. Geographic Scope: Projects funded by WHALE TAIL® grants must serve audiences in California.Revenue Source: California Beach and Coastal Enhancement Account, which receives funds through the sale of the WHALE TAIL® license plate, and the Protect Our Coast and Ocean Tax Contribution Fund.Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1,500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 40Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $50,000.00 Period of Performance: Within approx. 2 yearsApplication Deadline: Nov. 5, 2021 (est.)Expected Award Announcement Date: February 2022 (est.)Program Website: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/publiced/plate/plgrant.htmlProgram Contact: Chris ParryEmail: Chris.Parry@coastal.ca.govOther: In response to AB 2252 (Limon), the California State Library launched the California Grants Portal in July 2020 to provide, “one destination to find all grants and loans offered on a competitive or first‐come basis by California State agencies”. Please visit grants.ca.gov for more details or to find other State‐funded grant or loan opportunities. Current Funding Opportunities: Grant and Loan Programs within the California Natural Resources Agency, and its Departments, Conservancies, Boards, Commissions and CouncilsUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 312 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Coastal CommissionLocal Coastal Program The purpose of the Local Coastal Program Local Assistance Grant Program is to assist local government with developing new or updating their Local Coastal Programs.  Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) are basic planning tools used by local governments to guide development in the coastal zone, in partnership with the Coastal Commission. The Local Coastal Program Local Assistance Grant Program provides funds to support local governments in completing or updating Local Coastal Programs (LCP) consistent with the California Coastal Act, with special emphasis on planning for sea‐level rise and climate change.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities and counties in the California coastal zone.Geographic Scope: Coastal zoneRevenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $30,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $6,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Annually or every other yearApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcp/grants/Program Contact: Madeline CavalieriEmail: Madeline.Cavalieri@coastal.ca.govOther: LCPGrantProgram@coastal.ca.govCalifornia Coastal Conservancy Explore the Coast Grants Increase opportunities for people to get to, learn about, and enjoy coastal areasThis program seeks to enable and encourage California residents to visit the coast through projects that increase opportunities for people to get to, learn about, and enjoy coastal areas.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / AdvanceMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, eligible nonprofit organizations, JPAs, special districts, tribesGeographic Scope: None, projects must include visiting the coast or San Francisco BayRevenue Source: ELPF and Coastal Access AccountTotal Estimated Available Funding: $14,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2,800,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 45Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $50,000.00 Period of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: April 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: September 2021Program Website: https://scc.ca.gov/grants/Program Contact: Mary SmallEmail: mary.small@scc.ca.govOther: grants@scc.ca.govCalifornia Coastal Conservancy Explore the Coast Overnight Grants Planning and implementation of facilities that provide coastal lower‐cost overnight accommodations.This program seeks to increase the number and variety of lower‐cost overnight accommodations on the California coast to serve lower‐income and middle‐income people.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, eligible nonprofit organizations, JPAs, special districts, tribesGeographic Scope: Coastal counties with priority given to locations close to the coastRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $25,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $4,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 13Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 4 yearsApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://scc.ca.gov/projects/etco/Program Contact: Amy HutzelEmail: amy.hutzel@scc.ca.govOther: grants@scc.ca.govCalifornia Coastal Conservancy Climate Ready Grants ‐ SF Bay ConservancyPlanning and implementation of on‐the‐ground actions that lessen the impacts of climate change on communities and natural resources in the San Francisco Bay AreaThe State Coastal Conservancy's Climate Ready Program seeks to encourage action to prepare for a changing climate by advancing planning and implementation of on‐the‐ground actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the impacts of climate change on communities and natural resources.  The Conservancy seeks to support multi‐benefit projects that use natural systems to enhance climate resilience. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies and nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: nine bay area countiesRevenue Source: Propositions 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ongoing grant roundEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 9Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 4 yearsApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://scc.ca.gov/grants/Program Contact: Moira McEnespyEmail: moira.mcenespy@scc.ca.govOther: grants@scc.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 313 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Coastal Conservancy Coastal Resource and Public Access ProgramGrants are available for projects that improve public access and outdoor recreation as well as resource protection and enhancement.The State Coastal Conservancy awards grants for projects that meet the statutory authorities contained in Division 21 of the Public Resources Code and that meet objectives of the Conservancy's Strategic Plan. Grants are available for projects that improve public access and outdoor recreation as well as resource protection and enhancement.Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, eligible nonprofit organizations, JPAs, special districts, tribes. Some funds have geographic limitations.Geographic Scope: Coastal counties, SF Bay Area and Santa Ana River WatershedRevenue Source: Propositions 68, 84, and Habitat Conservation FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $50,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $10,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/AMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 4 yearsApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://scc.ca.gov/grants/Program Contact: Mary SmallEmail: mary.small@scc.ca.govOther: grants@scc.ca.govCalifornia Coastal Conservancy Sea Otter Recovery Grants research, science, protection projects or programs to benefit Sea Otters The State Coastal Conservancy grants funds from the voluntary tax check‐off box for sea otter recovery every year that money is made available.  Public agencies and nonprofit organizations are eligible to apply for the grants (see application instructions for details). Eligible projects include research, science, protection projects or programs related to the Federal Sea Otter Recovery Plan or improving the nearshore ocean ecosystem, including, but not limited to, program activities to reduce sea otter mortality.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies and nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: None, projects must benefit Sea OttersRevenue Source: Sea Otter Tax Check‐OffTotal Estimated Available Funding: $250,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $250,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: September 1, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: September 2021Program Website: https://scc.ca.gov/grants/Program Contact: Hilary WaleckaEmail: hilary.walecka@scc.ca.govOther: grants@scc.ca.govCalifornia Department of Conservation2019 Forest Health Watershed Coordinator GrantsThe purpose of the Forest Health Watershed Coordinator Grants is to fund watershed coordinators that support collaborative watershed improvement efforts to restore forest health and resilience. The principal goal of the Watershed Coordinator Program is to improve watershed health by providing support for local, collaborative watershed improvement efforts. The Forest Health Watershed Coordinator Grant Program aims to restore health and resilience to forests at the watershed scale for multiple benefits, including water qualityOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are local entities as follows: (1) special districts; (2) nonprofit groups (tax exempt 501(c)(3); (3) local governments; and (4) tribal governments, located within one of the two watershed coordinator zones. The program is not open to federal or state agencies. The applicant’s proposal must be located within one of the watershed coordinator zones and must demonstrate collaboration with relevant federal, state, and local agencies, as well as other stakeholder groups (e.g., California Native American tribes, non‐governmental organizations, and community members). However, the proposal must designate a single, eligible entity as the primary applicant.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: California Environmental License Plate FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $1,890,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Awarded $1.89mEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 8Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $235,000.00 Period of Performance: 2 yearsApplication Deadline: February 2019Expected Award Announcement Date: May 2019Program Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/watershedProgram Contact: Brian Newman‐LindsayEmail: brian.newman‐lindsay@conservation.ca.govOther: California Department of ConservationRegional Forest and Fire Capacity ProgramRegional Forest and Fire Capacity grants provide funding to eight block grantees who will work within their regions to increase capacity, develop Regional Priority Plans, prioritize and plan projects, and implementation demonstration projects. The goal of the Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Grant Program is to  increase regional capacity to prioritize, develop and implement projects that improve forest health and fire resilience.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / AdvanceMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: non‐competitive grants to State Agencies, non‐profit organizations, and local governmentsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $20,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 8Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Applications were awarded in April 2019.Application Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/Pages/Regional‐Forest‐and‐Fire‐Capacity‐Program.aspxProgram Contact: Brian Newman‐LindsayEmail: brian.newman‐lindsay@conservation.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 314 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of ConservationSustainable Agriculture Land Conservation Program (Agricultural Conservation Acquisition Grants)The purpose of the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program is to protect agricultural lands to support infill and compact development, and to further the purposes of AB 32 by avoiding increases in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses.The Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program (SALC) supports the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals by making strategic investments to protect agricultural lands. Agricultural Conservation Acquisitions —Provide funding to leverage the protection of strategically located, highly productive, and critically threatened agricultural land, via the purchase of permanent agricultural conservation easements.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (Easement Acquisition Costs)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, resource conservation districts, regional park or open‐space districts, regional park or open‐space authorities, California Native American tribes, and nonprofit (501(c)3) organizations that have among their stated purposes the conservation of agriculture, rangeland, or farmland.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Funding varies each year depending on GGRF auction proceedsPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $44,440.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 20Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 2 years Application Deadline: Sept 10, 2021 Expected Award Announcement Date: 44531Program Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/SALCPProgram Contact: Virginia JamesonEmail: virginia.jameson@conservation.ca.govOther: salcp@conservation.ca.govCalifornia Department of ConservationSustainable Agriculture Lands Conservation Program (Sustainable Agricultural Lands Planning Grants)The purpose of the Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program is to protect agricultural lands to support infill and compact development, and to further the purposes of AB 32 by avoiding increases in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses.The Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program  supports the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission goals by making strategic investments to protect agricultural lands.Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Planning Grants support the development and implementation of plans for the protection of agricultural land at risk of conversion to non‐agricultural uses, maintaining the economic viability of the region’s agricultural lands, and developing the economic viability of regional food systems and infrastructure to support the production, aggregation, processing and distribution of agricultural products. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Counties, cities, Local Agency Formation Commissions, councils of government, municipal planning organizations, regional transportation planning agencies, and special districts as the lead applicant(s) in collaboration with other partners. Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Funding varies each year depending on GGRF auction proceedsPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $44,440.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 6Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount:  $250,000 or $500,000 depending on project scopePeriod of Performance: 2 yearsApplication Deadline: Sept 10, 2021 Expected Award Announcement Date: 44531Program Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/SALCPProgram Contact: Virginia JamesonEmail: virginia.jameson@conservation.ca.govOther: salcp@conservation.ca.govCalifornia Department of ConservationTransformative Climate Communities Program (Implementation Grants)TCC aims to empower communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution in pursuit of data‐driven milestones and measurable outcomes. The Program funds development and infrastructure projects at the neighborhood level to achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California's most disadvantaged communities.The TCC is a California Climate Investment (CCI) program administered by the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) in partnership with the Department of Conservation (DOC) and other partnering State agencies. TCC empowers communities most impacted by pollution to choose their own goals, strategies, and projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution in pursuit of data‐driven milestones and measurable outcomes. The Program funds development and infrastructure projects at the neighborhood level to achieve major environmental, health, and economic benefits in California's most disadvantaged communities.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Stakeholders must form a Collaborative Stakeholder Structure. Eligible Lead Applicants:  community‐based organizations, local governments, nonprofit organizations, philanthropic organizations and foundations, faith‐based organizations, coalitions or associations of nonprofits, community development finance institutions, community development corporations, joint powers authorities, tribal governments.Geographic Scope: Project Area must be no larger than 5 square miles; at least 51% of the project area must overlap with Census Tracts within the top 10% of disadvantaged communities, per CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Project Area may not overlap with Project Areas from previous TCC Implementation Grant awards. [LIKELY PENDING UPDATES FOR FY2122]Revenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund [LIKELY PENDING UPDATES FOR FY2122]Total Estimated Available Funding: $420000000 [Pending Budget Approval]Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $28.2 million [LIKELY PENDING UPDATES FOR FY2122]Period of Performance: 7 yearsApplication Deadline: PendingExpected Award Announcement Date: PendingProgram Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/Pages/Transformative‐Climate‐Communities‐Program.aspxProgram Contact: Brian Newman‐LindsayEmail: brian.newman‐lindsay@conservation.ca.govOther: tcc@sgc.ca.govCalifornia Department of ConservationWorking Lands and Riparian Corridors Program Watershed Restoration GrantsWatershed Restoration grants fund the restoration and enhancement of natural resources on agricultural lands and aim to improve climate adaptation and resilience by improving soil health, carbon sequestration, and habitat. Watershed Restoration grants fund the restoration and enhancement of natural resources on agricultural lands and aim to improve climate adaptation and resilience by improving soil health, carbon sequestration, and habitat. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (for SDAC‐25%)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Resource Conservation DistrictsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $8,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Up to $8.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Dependent on number of submissions received, application processMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Dependent on activities being performed; expected that grants will be completed in 2 to 5 years from award. Application Deadline: September 30, 2021 Expected Award Announcement Date: 44531Program Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/Pages/Working‐Lands‐and‐Riparian‐Corridors‐Program.aspxProgram Contact: Virginia JamesonEmail: virginia.jameson@conservation.ca.govOther: wlrc@conservation.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 315 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of ConservationCalifornia Farmland Conservancy Program The California Farmland Conservancy Program seeks to encourage the long‐term, private stewardship of agricultural lands through planning and the voluntary use of agricultural conservation easements. The CFCP provides grant funding for easement and planning projects that support agricultural land conservation statewide.The California Farmland Conservancy Program seeks to encourage the long‐term, private stewardship of agricultural lands through planning,  the voluntary use of agricultural conservation easements and improvements on the property that make agricultural more valuable. The CFCP provides grant funding for easement,  planning and improvement projects that support agricultural land conservation statewide.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (Easement Acquisition Costs)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: City, county, nonprofit organization, resource conservation district, or a regional park or open‐space district or regional or open‐space authority that has the conservation of farmland among its stated purposes or as express in the entity's locally adopted policies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Props 68, 40, and 12Total Estimated Available Funding: $7 million Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: YesEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 6Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 2 yearsApplication Deadline: Mandatory Preproposal May 2021; final September 30,2021Expected Award Announcement Date: December, 2021Program Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/cfcpProgram Contact: Virginia JamesonEmail: virginia.jameson@conservation.ca.govOther: cfcp@conservation.ca.govCalifornia Department of ConservationRCD Financial Assistance Program The program will provide capacity building grants to Resource Conservation Districts.Financial Assistance Program  funding will help RCDs become more relevant, excellent, and visible by building capacity. Capacity building is an investment in the effectiveness and future sustainability of an organization. While this funding is an initial investment in RCD capacity, the growth, effectiveness and sustainability of an RCD is ultimately the responsibility of the organization. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Resource Conservation Districts that are able to comply with CA Public Resources Code Section 9084 requirements. Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: State General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $135,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $135,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 6Minimum Award Amount: $15,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $25,000.00 Period of Performance: Grants will be completed by March 2022. Application Deadline: June 25, 2020Expected Award Announcement Date: July 2020Program Website: www.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/RCDProgram Contact: Brian Newman‐LindsayEmail: brian.newman‐lindsay@conservation.ca.govOther: rcd@conservation.ca.govCalifornia Department of Conservation2020 Sustainable Groundwater Management Watershed Coordinator GrantsThe purpose of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Watershed Coordinator Grant Program is to fund watershed coordinators to support implementation of groundwater sustainability plans consistent with Proposition 50 water bond funding.  The 2020 Sustainable Groundwater Management Watershed Coordinator Grant Program will facilitate the development and implementation of watershed improvement plans consistent with Proposition 50 water bond funding requirements and support implementation of related groundwater sustainability plans developed pursuant to the State's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are local entities  as follows: (1) special districts; (2) nonprofit groups (with tax exempt 501(c)(3) status); (3) local governments; (4) federally recognized California Native American tribes, (5) non‐federally recognized California Native American tribes; and (5) Groundwater Sustainability Agencies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 50)Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,540,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Up to $1.54 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: unknownMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: Solicitation released June 15, 2020Application Deadline: September 15, 2020Expected Award Announcement Date: January 2021Program Website: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/grant‐programs/watershedProgram Contact: Brian Newman‐LindsayEmail: brian.newman‐lindsay@conservation.ca.govOther: California Department of Fish and WildlifeNative Wildlife Rehabilitation Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund Grant ProgramTo fund selected projects that support and advance the recovery and rehabilitation of injured, sick or orphaned wildlife, and conservation education. Funds may be used for projects, including but not limited to: support of ongoing facility needs, innovation in animal care (e.g., refining wildlife rehabilitation techniques); post‐release monitoring, surveillance, data analysis; conservation education.The CDFW shall maintain the Native California Wildlife Rehabilitation Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund established pursuant to Section 18749.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. Funds deposited in the Native California Wildlife Rehabilitation Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund are for the support of a competitive grant program established for the purposes of the recovery and rehabilitation of injured, sick, or orphaned wildlife, and conservation education. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Nonprofit organizations. Must operate a wildlife rehabilitation facility permitted pursuant to Section 679 of Title 14 (California Code of Regulations), or as an authorized sub‐permittee; shall be in compliance with all conditions of its Wildlife Rehabilitation Memorandum of Understanding; and maintain active participation in the wildlife rehabilitation medical database.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Assembly Bill 1031: Native California Wildlife Rehabilitation Voluntary Tax Contribution Fund                                                            Fish and Game Code, Section 1773 Revenue and Taxation Code. Section 18749.1  Total Estimated Available Funding: Varies  year to year. Fiscal year 2020/21 had $820,000 available funding by 10/2020Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: 2020/21 grant cycle allocation is $549000Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 45‐50Minimum Award Amount: $3,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $19,000.00 Period of Performance: January 1 ‐ December 31, each yearApplication Deadline: Estimated September 30Expected Award Announcement Date: Estimated October 15Program Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Laboratories/Wildlife‐Health/RehabProgram Contact: Victoria MonroeEmail: victoria.monroe@wildlife.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 316 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeCannabis Restoration Grant ProgramSupport the clean‐up, remediation, and/or restoration of habitat in watersheds impacted by cannabis cultivation or related activities and that comply with program criteria. Through the CRGP, CDFW will support the cleanup and remediation of environmental damage in watersheds affected by cannabis cultivation on qualified government lands, or proposals that support the enhancement of watersheds or communities where cannabis cultivation occurs.Cleanup and remediation proposals should focus on the severe impacts of illicit cannabis operations such as: unlawful water diversions for irrigation, conversion of lands, poaching, and use of prohibited herbicides, rodenticides, and other environmental contaminants that are severely impacting California's fish and wildlife. Proposals to enhance watersheds and/or communities should solicit funds for, but not limited to: road decommissioning, road crossing upgrades, erosion and sediment delivery prevention actions, culvert upgrades, or enhancing biodiversity and wildlife habitat at and around cannabis cultivation sites, among other projects of similar nature.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible entities include: federal state, and local public agencies within California(including public universities); nonprofit organizations qualified to do business inCalifornia and qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code; and California Native American tribes as defined in the Public Resources Code section21073.Geographic Scope: Projects are limited to watersheds impacted by cannabis cultivation or related activities statewideRevenue Source: Cannabis Tax Fund, and Environmental Restoration and Protection Account pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 34019(f)(2).Total Estimated Available Funding: $2,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1,557,057.63 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 6Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $2,000,000.00 Period of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: May 14, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Late Summer 2021Program Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Cannabis‐Restoration‐GrantProgram Contact: Maggie MassieEmail: Margaret.massie@wildlife.ca.govOther: canngrantprogram@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeEndangered Species Conservation and Recovery Grant Program (Traditional Section 6)Promote the conservation and recovery of species listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, or recently recovered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Through this program the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, in cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, directs funds to implement conservation projects for wildlife species listed as threatened, endangered, candidate, or recently recovered species under the federal endangered species act (ESA) on non‐federal lands. Funded activities include habitat restoration, species status surveys, public education and outreach, captive propagation and reintroduction, nesting surveys, genetic studies, and development of management plans. There is a 25% match funding requirement. Applicants must provide a minimum of 25% of the grant award value in matching non‐federal funds or in‐kind services.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: State and local government agencies; institutions of higher education, including public, private, state colleges and universities; 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations; Native American tribal organizations.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF)Total Estimated Available Funding: Varies by year depending on federal allocation. In recent years $1.5 to $2.8 million has been available.  Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: 2020 allocation was $1.9 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 11Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Dependent on USFWS Notice of Funding Opportunity each year for Section 6 funds, generally in November/December.CDFW solicits applications each fall when funding available. Application Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Endangered‐Species Program Contact: Erin ChappellEmail: Erin.Chappell@wildlife.ca.govOther: California Department of Fish and WildlifeEndangered Species Conservation and Recovery Habitat Conservation Land Acquisition Grant Program (Nontraditional Section 6)The Endangered Species Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition (HCPLA) Grant Program provides funding to States and Territories for the acquisition of threatened and endangered species habitat in support of approved HCPs. Grants do not fund any mitigation required of an HCP permittee, but are instead intended to support land purchases that complement actions associated with HCP.The Endangered Species Habitat Conservation Plan Land Acquisition (HCPLA) Grant Program provides funding to States and Territories for the acquisition of threatened and endangered species habitat in support of approved HCPs. Grants do not fund any mitigation required of an HCP permittee, but are instead intended to support land purchases that complement actions associated with HCP.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Minimum 25%Eligible Applicants: State and local government agencies; institutions of higher education, including public, private, state colleges and universities; 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations; Native American tribal organizations.Geographic Scope: Projects must involve voluntary conservation efforts within the United States.Revenue Source: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF)Total Estimated Available Funding: TBDPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 11Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Varies Period of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/GrantsProgram Contact: Sara KernEmail: Sara.Kern@wildlife.ca.govOther: NCCP@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeCalifornia State Duck Stamp Project Grant ProgramTo fund projects beneficial to California's waterfowl species.The State Duck Stamp Account is administered by the Department of fish and Wildlife's Waterfowl Program. The purpose of the funds are to fund projects that protect, preserve, restore, enhance and develop migratory waterfowl breeding and wintering habitat, and conduct waterfowl resource assessments and other waterfowl related research, per Fish and Game Code 3702.  Opportunity Type: Grant/ContractDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Duck Stamp Account (FGC Section 3702)Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 6Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Fall 2022 ‐ April 2025Application Deadline: January 22, 2022Expected Award Announcement Date: Late June 2022Program Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Duck‐StampProgram Contact: Melanie WeaverEmail: melanie.weaver@wildlife.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 317 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeEndangered Species Conservation and Recovery Land Acquisition Grant Program (Nontraditional Section 6)Conserve and restore habitat to promote recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Recovery Land Acquisition (RLA) grant program is coordinated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to fund projects that preserve threatened and endangered species habitat in areas identified in approved or draft species recovery plans. There is a 25% match funding requirement. Applicants must provide a minimum of 25% of the grant award value in matching non‐federal funds or in‐kind services.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: There is a 25% match funding requirement. Applicants must provide a minimum of 25% of the grant award value in matching non‐federal funds or in‐kind services.Eligible Applicants: State and local government agencies; institutions of higher education, including public, private, state colleges and universities; 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations; Native American tribal organizations.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Federal Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF) (Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act).  Administered by USFWS.Total Estimated Available Funding: Varies by year depending on federal allocation. Projects compete nationally for funds. Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Annual award for previous solicitation expected late summer/early Fall.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: TBDCDFW solicits applications annually when funding available, generally in Fall/WinterExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDTypically in SeptemberProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Land‐Acquisition Program Contact: Dan ApplebeeEmail: Daniel.Applebee@wildlife.ca.govOther: wildlifemgt@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeFisheries Restoration Grants ProgramTo fund ecological restoration projects that restore degraded ecosystems to benefit salmon and steelhead recovery. The  Program supports grants restoring anadromous salmon and steelhead habitat in coastal streams and watersheds from San Diego to Del Norte counties. Grants target projects that will directly contribute to the restoration and recovery of salmon and steelhead trout. The program supports a wide array of project types, including riparian and stream restoration, sediment reduction, fish passage improvement, technical and public education, water conservation and organizational support. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Matching funds are not required, however, proposals without matching funds will lose point in the review process.  Eligible Applicants: Public agencies, Native American tribes, and nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: California coastal watersheds and the Central Valley watersheds to the limits of salmon and steelhead trout anadromous migration.Revenue Source: Federal grant funds (Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund) Total Estimated Available Funding: $14,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: NoneAnnual award, about December.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 35Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Starts in March and ends in April or MayApplication Deadline: April 13, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: December 2021Program Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/FRGPProgram Contact: Tim ChoreyEmail: timothy.chorey@wildlife.ca.govOther: FRGP@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeBig Game Management Account (BGMA) Grant ProgramTo fund projects beneficial to big‐game species in California.To promote programs and projects beneficial to big‐game species in California.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Fish and Game Preservation Fund, Big Game Management Account (FGC Section 3953)Total Estimated Available Funding: TBDPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 5Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Call for Proposals in February; final recommendations to Big Game Management Account Committee & Executive team in April; final awards announced by May 1.Application Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Big‐GameProgram Contact: David Casady/Brad BurkholderEmail: david.casady@wildlife.ca.gov ; brad.burkholder@wildlife.ca.govOther: wildlifemgt@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeCalifornia Winter Rice Habitat Improvement ProgramTo enhance agricultural lands for wintering waterbirdsIncentive payments for winter flooding of harvested rice fields as prescribed in a management plan for each property. Opportunity Type: ContractsDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Private landowners who have grown rice on 40 acres or more of their properties, are able to flood during the fall and winter, and not located within an active military or international airport airstrip. Geographic Scope: Sacramento and San Joaquin ValleysRevenue Source: General Fund ‐ AB 2348 California Winter Rice Habitat Incentive Program (Section 3469, Fish and Game Code),Total Estimated Available Funding: $3,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 35Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Up to 24 monthsApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/CWHP/Private‐Lands‐Programs Program Contact: Brian OlsonEmail: Brian.Olson@wildlife.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 318 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeEndangered Species Conservation and Recovery Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance Grant Program (Nontraditional Section 6)The Endangered Species Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance (HCPA) Grant Program provides funding to states and territories for tasks necessary in the planning phase of an HCP, such as baseline surveys and inventories, preparation of planning and environmental documents, and outreach. New this year, the Service will consider Proposals supporting efforts to amend and renew existing HCPs or HCP/NCCPs. The Endangered Species Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance (HCPA) Grant Program provides funding to states and territories for tasks necessary in the planning phase of an HCP, such as baseline surveys and inventories, preparation of planning and environmental documents, and outreach. New this year, the Service will consider Proposals supporting efforts to amend and renew existing HCPs or HCP/NCCPs. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Minimum 25%Eligible Applicants: State and local government agencies; institutions of higher education, including public, private, state colleges and universities; 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations; Native American tribal organizations.Geographic Scope:  Projects must involve voluntary conservation efforts within the United States.Revenue Source: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF)Total Estimated Available Funding: TBDPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Varies Period of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/GrantsProgram Contact: Sara KernEmail: Sara.Kern@wildlife.ca.govOther: NCCP@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeGeorge H.W. Bush Vamos A Pescar™ Education FundThe George H. W. Bush Vamos A Pescar™ Educational Fund and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)has established a competitive grant program to fund selected projects that supports state and local efforts to educate and engage California’s Hispanic communities in metrocentric settings through bilingual, multigenerational, and multigendered programs, classes and fishing and boating activitiesVamos A Pescar grant is funds may be used for projects, including but not limited to experiential or hands‐onfishing education, community activities promoting good fishery stewardship, technical fishing skills development, fishing‐related workshops and classes, apprentice‐levelfishing trips with hands‐on instruction, and other such events that promote recreational fishing in CaliforniaOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 50/50 matching funds provided by George H. W. Bush Vamos A Pescar™ Educational Fund via Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation.Eligible Applicants: Nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: The Federal funds are distributed through the Sport Fishing Restoration Act – Aquatic Education Federal Grant Program as authorized by Fish and Game Code Section 1501.5(b). Total Estimated Available Funding: Varies  year to year. On average $120,000/year.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $90,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 4 ‐ 7 Minimum Award Amount: $5,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $20,000.00 Period of Performance: March 1  ‐ November 1, each yearApplication Deadline: First Friday in DecemberExpected Award Announcement Date: Mid February, each yearProgram Website: https://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2020/11/19/cdfw‐offers‐vamos‐a‐pescar‐grants‐to‐promote‐equitable‐access‐to‐fishing/Program Contact: Jen BenedetTevis Pieper Email: jennifer.benedet@wildlife.ca.gov tevis.pieper@wildlife.ca.govOther: R3statewideprogram@wildlife.ca.gov California Department of Fish and WildlifeNCCP Local Assistance Grant (LAG) ProgramThe NCCP Local Assistance Grant (LAG) Program provides state funds for urgent tasks associated with the implementation of approved NCCPs or NCCPs anticipated to be approved within 12 months of grant application.The NCCP Local Assistance Grant (LAG) Program provides state funds for urgent tasks associated with the implementation of approved NCCPs or NCCPs anticipated to be approved within 12 months of grant application.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: NCCP‐implementing entities, public agencies, tribes, and non‐profitorganizationsGeographic Scope: Proposals must address the highest priority tasks associated with the implementation of approved NCCPs or NCCPs that are likely to be approved within 12 months.Revenue Source: California Department of Fish & WildlifeTotal Estimated Available Funding: $576,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $576,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 7Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Varies (total available is $576,000)Period of Performance: 2‐3 yearsApplication Deadline: Spring 2022 Expected Award Announcement Date: Summer 2022Program Website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/GrantsProgram Contact: Sara KernEmail: Sara.Kern@wildlife.ca.govOther: NCCP@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeWetlands Restoration for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant ProgramFunds restoration or enhancement of wetlands and watershed to reduce greenhouse emissions and provide co‐benefits.This program supports projects that provide greenhouse gas benefits while providing co‐benefits such as enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, protecting and improving water quality and quantity, and helping California adapt to climate change. The program is focused on GHG emission reduction through restoration or enhancement of Delta and coastal wetlands and mountain meadow habitat. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, recognized Native American tribes, and  nonprofit organizations.Geographic Scope: Projects are limited to:(1) Coastal wetlands(2) Inland seasonal wetlands(3) Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta wetlands(4) Mountain meadowsRevenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: No awards in next 6 monthsEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 0Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Greenhouse‐Gas‐ReductionProgram Contact: Basil IbewiroEmail: basil.ibewiro@wildlife.ca.govOther: WatershedGrants@wildlife.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 319 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeResponse Equipment Grant Program (REGP)The mission of the Local Oil Spill Response Equipment Grant Program is to provide funding to Native American tribal governments, counties, cities, and special districts in order to pre‐position response equipment to protect their economic resources in the event of an oil spill. OSPR is currently accepting grant applications from jurisdictions throughout California.The Response Equipment Grant Program (REGP) is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response. The objective of this grant program is to award grants to any local government, tribes, cities, counties, fire departments and port districts, within or immediately adjacent to waters of the state, to pre‐position (pre‐stage) oil spill response equipment to protect their local communities and economic resources.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local public agencies or tribes in the State of California, including cities, counties, tribal nations, fire departments, port districts, public utility districts, and emergency management departments.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Oil Response Trust  Fund, which receives funding per Section 8670.34 of the Government Code.Total Estimated Available Funding: $350,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Awarded in next 6 months: $350,000. Future grants are based on available funding.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 7 ‐ 8 per fiscal year Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $35,000.00 Period of Performance: OngoingApplication Deadline: OngoingExpected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR/Local‐Government‐OutreachProgram Contact: Cindy MurphyEmail: Cindy.Murphy@wildlife.ca.govOther: N/ACalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeCalifornia Oil Spill Study and Evaluation Program (COSSEP)Purpose is mandated legislatively.  Please see program summary in next section.The California Oil Spill Study and Evaluation Program (COSSEP) provides a mechanism for investigating, evaluating, and improving applied Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) programs, best achievable technologies, and our knowledge of the adverse effects of oil spills in the marine environment. The goals of COSSEP are authorized in the Government Code § 8670.12. The program also supports scientific and technical studies that will enhance oiled wildlife rehabilitation and the department’s natural resource damage assessments.Opportunity Type: ContractsDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Any person or entity that qualifies to contract with the State of California may be awarded funding to perform work for COSSEPGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fund (Fund 0320)Total Estimated Available Funding: ($0.00)Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3Minimum Award Amount: $23KMaximum Award Amount: Estimated to be up to $100,000 or $200,000 Period of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/OSPR/Science/SSEP Program Contact: Cristina PerezEmail: cristina.perez@wildlife.ca.govOther: N/ACalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeProposition 1 Delta Water Quality and Ecosystem Restoration Grant ProgramTo fund multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects that benefit the Delta.The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) provides funding to implement the three broad objectives of the California Water Action Plan: more reliable water supplies, the restoration of important species and habitat, and a more resilient, sustainably managed water resources system (e.g., water supply, water quality, flood protection, environment) that can better withstand inevitable and unforeseen pressures in the coming decades. The Delta Water Quality and Ecosystem Restoration Grant Program funds projects that benefit the Delta.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: California public agencies (including public California universities), nonprofit organizations registered in California, public utilities, federally recognized Indiantribes, State Indian tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s California Tribal Consultation List, and mutual water companies (California Water Code §79712[a])Geographic Scope: Projects must benefit the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta including Suisun MarshRevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $35,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 11Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Restoration‐GrantsProgram Contact: Randi AdairEmail: randi.adair@wildlife.ca.govOther: WatershedGrants@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeProposition 1 Watershed Restoration Grant ProgramTo fund multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects.The Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1) provides funding to implement the three broad objectives of the California Water Action Plan: more reliable water supplies, the restoration of important species and habitat, and a more resilient, sustainably managed water resources system (e.g., water supply, water quality, flood protection, environment) that can better withstand inevitable and unforeseen pressures in the coming decades. The Watershed Restoration Grant Program funds water quality, river, and watershed protection and restoration projects of statewide importance outside of the Delta. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: California public agencies (including public California universities), nonprofit organizations registered in California, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, State Indian tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission’s CaliforniaTribal Consultation List, and mutual water companies (California Water Code §79712[a])Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $96,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $15,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 21Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: TBD ‐ Fall 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: January 2022Program Website: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Restoration‐GrantsProgram Contact: Randi AdairEmail: randi.adair@wildlife.ca.govOther: WatershedGrants@wildlife.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 320 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeProposition 68 Habitat Restoration and ProtectionTo restore rivers and streams in support of fisheries and wildlife.  At least 1/5th of the funding is designated for the Klamath‐Trinity watershed for the benefit of salmon and steelhead.The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68) provides funding to restore rivers and streams in support of fisheries and wildlife, including, but not limited to, reconnection of rivers with their flood plains, riparian and side‐channel habitat restoration and restoration and protection of upper watershed forests and meadow systems that are important for fish and wildlife resources. At least $5 million shall be available for restoration projects in the Klamath‐Trinity watershed for the benefit of salmon and steelhead. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, recognized Native American tribes, and  nonprofit organizations.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $21,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: No awards in next 6 monthsEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 0Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Prop‐68Program Contact: Randi AdairEmail: randi.adair@wildlife.ca.govOther: WatershedGrants@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeProposition 68 Improve Conditions for Fish and WildlifeTo improve conditions for fish and wildlife in streams, rivers, wildlife refuges, wetland habitat areas, and estuaries.The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68) provides funding for projects that improve conditions for fish and wildlife in streams, rivers, wildlife refuges, wetland habitat areas, and estuaries. Eligible projects include acquisition of water and land that includes water rights or contractual rights to water, short‐ or long‐term water transfers or leases, provision of water for fish and wildlife, or improvement of aquatic or riparian habitat conditions. In implementing this section, the Department of Fish and Wildlife may also provide grants under the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program with priority given to coastal waters.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, recognized Native American tribes, and  nonprofit organizations.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $25,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: No awards in next 6 monthsEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 0Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Prop‐68Program Contact: Randi AdairEmail: randi.adair@wildlife.ca.govOther: WatershedGrants@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeProposition 68 Southern California Steelhead HabitatPrioritizes projects that remove significant barriers to steelhead migration and include other habitat restoration and associated infrastructure improvements.The California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68) provides funding for projects that restore Southern California Steelhead habitat consistent with the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan and the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan. Projects that remove significant barriers to steelhead migration and include other habitat restoration and associated infrastructure improvements shall be the highest priority.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, recognized Native American tribes, and  nonprofit organizations.Geographic Scope: Southern CaliforniaRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $21,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: No awards in next 6 monthsEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 0Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Watersheds/Prop‐68Program Contact: Randi AdairEmail: randi.adair@wildlife.ca.govOther: WatershedGrants@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeState Wildlife Grants (SWG) Promote the conservation and recovery of fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need in California. The State Wildlife Grant Program provides federal grant funds to states for the development and implementation of programs for the benefit of wildlife and their habitat, including species that are not hunted or fished.  The program funds conservation actions for the wildlife species of greatest conservation need identified in California's State Wildlife Action Plan.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: There is a 35% match funding requirement. Applicants must provide a minimum of 25% of the grant award value in matching non‐federal funds or in‐kind services.Eligible Applicants: State and local government agencies; institutions of higher education, including public, private, state colleges and universities; 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations; Native American tribal organizations.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Fund. Administered by USFWS.Total Estimated Available Funding: Varies by year depending on federal allocation. In recent years $2.0 to $2.7 million has been available. Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Annual award for previous solicitation expected in July 2021Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: 3 yearsApplication Deadline: TBDCDFW solicits applications when funding available (usually in the Fall)Expected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/State‐Wildlife‐Grants Program Contact: Erin ChappellEmail: Erin.Chappell@wildlife.ca.govOther: wildlifemgt@wildlife.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 321 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeEnvironmental Enhancement Fund (EEF)Award grants to support environmental enhancement projects located within or immediately adjacent to waters of the state.The Environmental Enhancement Fund (EEF) grant program is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Office of Spill Prevention and Response. The objective of this grant program is to award grants to nonprofit organizations, cities, counties, cities and counties, districts, state agencies, and departments; and, to the extent permitted by federal law, to federal agencies to support environmental enhancement projects located within or immediately adjacent to waters of the state. An enhancement project is a project that acquires habitat for preservation, or improves habitat quality and ecosystem function above baseline conditions, and that meets all of the following requirements: Is located within or immediately adjacent to waters of the state, as defined in California Government Code (Section 8670.3); Has measurable outcomes within a predetermined timeframe; Is designed to acquire, restore, or improve habitat or restore ecosystem function, or both, to benefit fish and wildlife.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Nonprofit organizations, cities, counties, cities and counties, districts, state agencies, and departments; and, to the extent permitted by federal law, federal agenciesGeographic Scope: Located within or immediately adjacent to waters of the state, as defined in California Government Code (of Section 8670.3)Revenue Source: The Environmental Enhancement Fund, which receives penalty funds per Section 8670.70 of the Government Code. Total Estimated Available Funding: $2,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $847,457.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $847,457.00 Period of Performance: Applications are not currently being accepted. The next solicitation for Proposals will be announced.Application Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/ospr/science/environmental‐enhancement‐fund/aboutProgram Contact: Daniel OrrEmail: daniel.orr@wildlife.ca.govOther: TBACalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeUpland Game Bird (UGB) Account Grant ProgramTo fund projects beneficial to upland species in California.To promote programs and projects beneficial to upland game bird species in California.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: The Upland Bird Account established within the Fish and Game Preservation Fund (FGC Section 3684)Total Estimated Available Funding: TBDPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Call for Proposals in February; final recommendations to Big Game Management Committee & Executive team in April; final awards announced by May 1.Application Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Grants/Upland‐Game‐BirdProgram Contact: Dan Skalos/Brad BurkholderEmail: dan.skalos@wildlife.ca.gov ; brad.burkholder@wildlife.ca.govOther: wildlifemgt@wildlife.ca.govCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionRural Fire Capacity Program (RFC) The RFC grant program provides federal financial assistance to volunteer fire departments to organize, train and equip local forces in rural areas and communities to prevent, control and suppress fires threatening life, resources and other improvement.  Propositioned projects should be compatible with existing projection of state, county, and local areas.  Projects funded include wildland firefighter safety clothing and equipment towards NFPA 1977 compliance, training of local fire forces in both wildfire and structural fire techniques, and communications for alarm systems and dispatch capabilities.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 50% non‐Federal FundsEligible Applicants: A single or area fire department, a single county or town, or a single community serving a rural area.Geographic Scope: Communities with a population under 10,000 however groups of smaller communities (at least one being 10,000 people or less) may join together in a combined effort to service more than 10,000 people.Revenue Source: FederalTotal Estimated Available Funding: Historically, has been approximately $1 million.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Amount is subject to annual federal grant funds received.  Historically has been approximately $1 million.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 130 ‐ 200Minimum Award Amount: $500.00 Maximum Award Amount: $20,000.00 Period of Performance: July 1, 2021 ‐ December 31, 2022Application Deadline: 44320Expected Award Announcement Date: August 2021Program Website: https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/fire‐protection/cooperative‐efforts/Program Contact: Megan EsfandiaryEmail: Megan.Esfandiary@fire.ca.govOther: CALFIRE.Grants@fire.ca.govCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionFire Prevention ‐‐ California Climate InvestmentsThe purpose of the California Climate Investments (CCI) Fire Prevention Grant Program, CAL FIRE aims to reduce the risk of wildland fires to habitable structures and communities, while maximizing carbon sequestration in healthy wildland habitat and minimizing the uncontrolled release of emissions emitted by wildfires.Qualifying projects and activities include those related to hazardous fuel reduction and removal of dead, dying, or diseased trees; fire prevention planning; and fire prevention education.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advances (CAL FIRE discretion)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Fire districts, community services districts, water districts, special districts, and Local government near or adjacent to SRA, certified local conservation corps, fire safe councils, or other 501c3 nonprofit organizations.Geographic Scope: Projects that provide benefits to habitable structures in the State Responsibility Area (SRA).  Non‐SRA lands may be included within project boundaries, but project activities must provide a benefit to SRA.Revenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $123 Million for the FY 2020‐21Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: An additional $80 Million is anticipated for the FY 2021‐22.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 56 awarded in 2019‐2020Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: FY 2020‐21 Cycle is expected to close on June 30, 2025.Application Deadline: May 21, 2020Expected Award Announcement Date: September 2021Program Website: https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/fire‐prevention‐grants/Program Contact: Natalie Burke Email: Natalie.Burke@fire.ca.govOther: FPGrants@fire.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 322 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionForest Health ‐‐ California Climate InvestmentsCAL FIRE's Forest Health Grant Program awards Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds allocated by the legislature for California Climate Investments (CCI) to implement landscape‐scale land management projects that seek to:• Proactively restore forest health and conserve working forests.• Protect upper watersheds where the state's water supply originates.• Promote the long‐term storage of carbon in forest trees and soils.• Minimize the loss of forest carbon from large, intense wildfires.• Further the goals of the California Forest Carbon Plan, California’s Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan, and California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB32).Through grants to regionally‐based partners and collaboratives, CAL FIRE seeks to significantly increase fuels management, fire reintroduction, treatment of degraded areas, conservation of working forests, reforestation, and the utilization of biomass in wood products and energy. Such activities must be applied across large landscapes to achieve the intended effect of statewide forest resiliency.  All Forest Health projects must have calculated climate benefits that account for greenhouse gas emissions.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advances (CAL FIRE discretion)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local, state, and federal agencies including federal and state land management agencies, Native American tribes, private forest landowners, resource conservation districts, fire safe councils, land trusts, landowner organizations, conservation groups, and 501(c) non‐profit organizations.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: TBDPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: $750,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $5,000,000.00 Period of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/forest‐health‐grants/Program Contact: Julie HowardEmail: Julie.Howard@fire.ca.govOther: ForestHealth@fire.ca.govCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionForest Health Research ‐‐ California Climate InvestmentsThe CAL FIRE CCI Forest Health Research Program was established as part of CAL FIRE’s plan for implementing the California Forest Carbon Plan. It is one of several CAL FIRE programs funded through the California Climate Investments (CCI) program, Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The mission of the Research Program is 1) to identify and prioritize research topics in forest health and fire science critical to the State of California, 2) to fund sound scientific studies that support forest landowners, resource agencies, and fire management organizations within the state, 3) to ensure scientific information generated from the program is made available to support decision making and policy, and 4) to further the goals of the California Forest Carbon Plan, the California Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan, CCI, and AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act.The Forest Health Research Program funds projects focused on topics identified as priorities for study in the grant guidelines and subject to change annually.  Research should be focused on and relevant to California ecosystems and their management.  Past priority topics have included: implementation, effectiveness and impacts of significantly increased pace and scale of fuel reduction, prescribed fire and other forest health treatments; utilization of forest residues and forest products related to fuel reduction and forest health treatments; wildfire mechanics, spread and associated impacts in wildland‐urban interface landscapes; wildfire impacts, recovery and resilience in an altered future climate; and natural, historical and contemporary range of variation in fire regimes and wildfire‐related greenhouse gas emissions. Projects are awarded in four categories: General, State Forests, Graduate Student, and Synthesis/Tool Development.  Funding allocations to these categories is subject to annual revision.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advances (at CAL FIRE discretion, subject to statutory constraints)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Academic institutions, including faculty, staff, and graduate students; Local, state, and federal agencies including federal, state and local land management agencies; Native American tribes; private forest landowners; resource conservation districts; fire safe councils; land trusts; landowner organizations; conservation groups; and non‐profit organizations.Geographic Scope: Research projects must be focused on and relevant to California forests and other ecosystems and their management. A significant portion of the geographic area Proposed for study must be contained within California. Study areas may include land in adjacent US states, but should be contiguous with and representative of study areas within California. If additional proposed study areas are outside of California and discontinuous with areas within California, ample justification must be provided as to why these areas should be included, and how they support project research questions and hypotheses relevant to California ecosystems. Study areas may not be located outside the United States.Revenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $3,800,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3,800,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10 awarded in FY 2018‐19, 14 awarded in FY 2019‐20Minimum Award Amount:  N/A Maximum Award Amount:  $50,000 to $500,000 depending on Research Project Type Period of Performance: 2020‐21 & 2021‐22 Joint year solicitation ran from 3/10/2021 to 6/7/2021Application Deadline: June 7, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: 20‐21 & 21‐22: Announcements are expected Fall 2021Program Website: https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/forest‐health‐grants/Program Contact: Tadashi MoodyEmail: Tadashi.Moody@fire.ca.govOther: FHResearch@fire.ca.govCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionUrban and Community Forestry Through the California Climate Investments (CCI) Urban & Community Forestry Grant Program, CAL FIRE works to optimize the benefits of trees and related vegetation through multiple‐objective projects as specified in the California Urban Forestry Act of 1978 (Public Resources Code 4799.06‐4799.12). These projects further the goals of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), result in a net greenhouse gas benefit, and provide environmental services and cost‐effective solutions to the needs of urban communities and local agencies. Co‐benefits of the projects include increased water supply, clean air and water, reduced energy use, flood and storm water management, recreation, urban revitalization, improved public health, and producing useful products such as bio‐fuel, clean energy, and high quality wood. The mission of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Urban Forestry Program is to lead the effort to advance the development of sustainable urban and community forests in California. Trees provide energy conservation, reduction of storm‐water runoff, extend the life of surface streets, improve local air, soil and water quality, reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, improve public health, provide wildlife habitat and increase property values.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advances (CAL FIRE discretion)Matched Funding: 25%, can be waived for projects serving disadvantaged communities as defined in grant guidelines.Eligible Applicants: Census‐defined urban areas, cities, counties, districts, 501(c)(3) nonprofits.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $10 million, with additional funding possible.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $10 million, plus any additional funding received via budget process.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 8‐12, with more possible as funding allows.  Minimum Award Amount: $150,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $1,500,000.00 Period of Performance: 4‐5 yearsApplication Deadline: Concept Proposal deadline is July 14, 2021 by 3:00 PM PDT.Expected Award Announcement Date: Mid November 2021Program Website: https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/urban‐and‐community‐forestry‐grant‐programs/Program Contact: Walter Passmore, State Urban ForesterEmail: walter.passmore@fire.ca.govOther: CALFIRE.Grants@fire.ca.gov Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 323 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionCalifornia Forest Improvement Program (CFIP) California Forest Improvement Program (CFIP) program encourages private and public investment in, and improved management of, California forest lands and resources. This focus of CFIP is to ensure adequate high quality timber supplies, related employment and other economic benefits, and the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of a productive and stable forest resource system for the benefit of present and future generations. Cost‐shared activities include management planning, site preparation, tree purchase and planting, timber stand improvement, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and land conservation practices.Opportunity Type: Grant (cost share)Disbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advances (CAL FIRE discretion)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Private and public ownerships containing 20 to 5,000 acres of forest land. Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: High Speed Rail Authority (HSR), Federal Funds, California Climate Investments (CCI) ‐ Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds (GGRF), Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $0 HSR, Grants expired (closed); $0 Federal Funds Grants; $0 GGRF, Grants expired (closed); $0 CCI, all available funding has been encumbered into active Grants; Prop 68, currently $60,000 available for new Grants (fluctuates as Grants completed)Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Prop 68: $60,000, this number fluctuates as Grants are completed and the remaining funds are encumbered into new Grants.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/AMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: CCI: Febuary 28, 2022.  Prop 68: February 28, 2024.  Application Deadline: CCI: June 30, 2020 (last day funds can be encumbered into a new Grant).  Prop 68: June 30, 2022 (last day funds can be encumbered into a new Grant) Expected Award Announcement Date: No longer applicable.  Program Website: https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/california‐forest‐improvement‐program‐cfip/Program Contact: Dale MeeseEmail: Dale.Meese@fire.ca.govOther: California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionWildfire Resilience Block Grant The Wildfire Resilience Block Grant provides a prospective grantee the ability to provide a program of finanacial and technical forestry assistance to nonindustrial forest landowners, where the grantee, as supervising entity, receives the grant from CAL FIRE and provides outreach and technical/financial assistance to landowners in order to conduct forest restoration or management activities on their property.  Cost‐shared projects seek to make funding available through agreements with landowners to pay for specific, non‐comercial ecological forest improvement and wildfire resilience practices. Projects also seek to promote information sharing and education on the fulll range of effective forest management practices, opportunities and forest management education and management planning. Past Prop 68 funding sought to serve Disadvantaged and Severly Disadvantaged Communities. $2.2 million was awarded in FY20. Opportunity Type: Grant (cost share)Disbursement Method: Reimbursement/Advance are CAL FIRE discretionMatched Funding: Matching funds are not required, however, proposals without matching funds will lose points in the review process.  Eligible Applicants: Applicants limited to counties, RCDs, and non‐profit organization that have the capacity to deliver a forestry based technical and financial assisitance program.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Past‐Prop 68Future‐State General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: TBDPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: TBDMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: TBDProgram Contact: Lori TarvinEmail: Lori.Tarvin@fire.ca.govOther: California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionBusiness and Workforce DevelopmentCAL FIRE's new Business and Workforce Development Grant Program will award General Funds to support treatment goals.Grants to address the need for strategically place investments in business and workforce development, which are contraints on reaching the 1 million acres per year of treatments by 2025.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advances (CAL FIRE discretion)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local, state, and federal agencies including federal and state land management agencies, Native American tribes, private entities, resource conservation districts, fire safe councils, land trusts, landowner organizations, conservation groups, and 501(c) non‐profit organizations.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: TBDPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $6,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: TBDMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: TBDProgram Contact: Justin BrittonEmail: Justin.Britton@fire.ca.govOther: California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionForest Legacy Program (FLP) The purpose of the Forest Legacy Program is to protect environmentally important forest land threatened with conversion to non‐forest uses. Protection of California’s forests through this program ensures they continue to provide such benefits as sustainable timber production, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, watershed protection and open space. Intact forests also contribute significantly to the storage and sequestration of carbon.Program funds conservation easements and/or land acquisition.  Protection of forest through this program ensures California’s forests continue to provide such benefits as sustainable timber production, wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, watershed protection and open space. Intact forests also contribute significantly to the storage of carbon, and protection helps to avoid conversion to non‐forest uses that would result in greenhouse gas emissions.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement/ Direct Payment. Matched Funding: Matching funds are not required, however, proposals without matching funds will lose points in the review process.  Eligible Applicants: Landowners of working forest and rangelands, where the property is managed for the production of forest products and traditional forest uses are maintained.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: State program: California Climate Investments (CCI) ‐ Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundsFederal program: Land and Water Conservation FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $14,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $14,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Included in Forest Health‐13 FLP applications currently in considerationMinimum Award Amount: TBDMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: 20‐21: Solicitation occurred Spring 2021.Federal program: Applications are due date by 4:00 PM on July 30 of each year.Application Deadline: May 19, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: 44378Program Website: https://www.fire.ca.gov/grants/forest‐legacy/Program Contact: Al KlemEmail: Al.Klem@fire.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 324 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationRecreational Infrastructure Revenue Enhancement ProgramFunds will be awarded proportionally based on populations served, to local agencies that have obtained voter approval between November 1, 2012, through November 30, 2018, inclusive, for revenue enhancement measures aimed at improving and enhancing local or regional park infrastructure. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible local agenciesGeographic Scope: Revenue Source: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68).  Total Estimated Available Funding: $37,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $37 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Minimum Award Amount: ($0.00)Maximum Award Amount: Minimum award is $250,000Period of Performance: July 2019‐2024Application Deadline: December 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: Program Contact: Jana ClarkeEmail: jana.clarke@parks.ca.govOther: California Department of Parks and RecreationRegional Park ProgramCreate, expand, or imoprove regional parks and facilities. The program will fund projects that create, expand, or renovate parks and park facilities, including, but not limited to, trails, regional trail networks, regional sports complexes, low‐cost accommodations in park facilities, and visitor, outdoor, and interpretive facilities. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Regional park districts, counties, and regional open‐space districts, open‐space authorities formed pursuant to Division 26 (commencing with Section 35100), joint powers authorities, and eligible nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68).  Total Estimated Available Funding: $23,125,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Minimum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $3,000,000.00 Period of Performance: Projects complete and payments processed by June 30 2025 Application Deadline: November 5 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022 Program Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29940Program Contact: Natalie BeeEmail: natalie.bee@parks.ca.govOther: SCORP@parks.ca.gov California Department of Parks and RecreationRural Recreation, Tourism and Economic Enrichment Investment ProgramCreate new recreational opportunities in rural communities designed to support the health of residents and attract out of town visitors. The program will fund projects that provide new recreational opportunities in rural communities that have demonstrated deficiencies and lack of outdoor infrastructure in support of economic and health‐related goals.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties and districts in nonurbanized areas.Geographic Scope: Statewide rural areasRevenue Source: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68).  Total Estimated Available Funding: $23,125,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Minimum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $3,000,000.00 Period of Performance: June 30 2025 end date ‐ complete projects and final payments before June 30 2025Application Deadline: November 5, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022 Program Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28439Program Contact: Richard RendonEmail: richard.rendon@parks.ca.govOther: SCORP@parks.ca.gov California Department of Parks and RecreationStatewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) SPP will fund acquisition and development construction projects to create new parks and new recreation opportunities in underserved communities across California.SPP will fund acquisition and development construction projects to create new parks and new recreation opportunities in underserved communities across California.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / advance Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, Counties, Districts as defined, Joint Powers Authorities, Non Profit Organizations Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68).  Total Estimated Available Funding: $395,333,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $395 million by early fall 2021Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $8,500,000.00 Period of Performance: Projects complete/final payments before June 30, 2025 Application Deadline: March 12, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Fall 2021Program Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29939Program Contact: Viktor PatinoEmail: viktor.patino@parks.ca.govOther: SCORP@parks.ca.gov Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 325 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationRecreational Trails Program (RTP)The RTP is a state‐administered local assistance program of the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). California splits the Non‐Motorized RTP apportionment for administration between  the California Department of Parks and Recreation's Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS), and by CALTRANS through the Active Transportation Program (ATP). For CALTRANS ATP updates, visit: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/            Motorized Projects are administered by the Off‐Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR). The RTP provides funds to the States to develop and maintain recreational trails and trails‐related facilities for motorized and non motorized recreational trail uses.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, districts, state agencies, federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations with management responsibilities over public landsGeographic Scope: Revenue Source: Fast ActTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual ProgramPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $3.4 million for the entire program.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Typically 3 to  5 year grants depending on project schedule and FHWA approval .Application Deadline: Spring 2022 Expected Award Announcement Date: Fall 2022 Program Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24324Program Contact: Richard RendonEmail: richard.rendon@parks.ca.govOther: SCORP@parks.ca.gov California Department of Parks and RecreationLand and Water Conservation Fund ProgramAcquisition or development to create new outdoor recreation opportunities The LWCF is a state‐administered local assistance program of the National Park Service.  Under the provisions of the California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan Act of 1967, the expenditure of funds allocated to California is administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation. Within the Department, LWCF is administered by the Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS).  Projects under this program may include acquisition or development of outdoor recreation areas and facilities.  Property acquired or developed under the program must be retained in perpetuity for public outdoor recreation use.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement Matched Funding: Grant may fund up to 50% of total project cost. Match must be at least (no less than) 50% of total project cost.  Eligible Applicants: Counties, cities, recreation and park districts, state agencies, special districts with authority to acquire, develop, operate, and maintain public park and recreation areas.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: National Park Service (Federal) ‐ Federal Trust FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Approximately $20 million annually Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBD Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $6 million +Period of Performance: 3 year performance period per grant Application Deadline: Spring 2022 Expected Award Announcement Date: Fall 2022Program Website: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21360Program Contact: Natalie BeeEmail: natalie.bee@parks.ca.govOther: SCORP@parks.ca.gov California Department of Parks and RecreationOutdoor Equity ProgramOpportunity Type: Disbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Eligible Applicants: Geographic Scope: Revenue Source: Total Estimated Available Funding: ($0.00)Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Minimum Award Amount: ($0.00)Maximum Award Amount: ($0.00)Period of Performance: 4 yearsApplication Deadline: October 8, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022Program Website: https://www.parksforcalifornia.org/outdoorequity/?overlays=parksProgram Contact: Richard RendonEmail: Richard.Rendon@parks.ca.govOther: SCORP@parks.ca.gov California Department of Parks and RecreationAquatic Center Boating Safety Education GrantsTo provide boating safety education to the general public.These grants are available to organizations that offer on‐the‐water boating safety education courses.  Courses offered should be designed to enhance boater knowledge of boating laws, practical handling of vessels on the water, weather and water conditions, rules of the road, and equipment requirements.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and colleges and universities operating within California.Geographic Scope: Waterways within CaliforniaRevenue Source: US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety ProgramTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on federal appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $1.6 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 40Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: $40,000 for combined total of equipment, scholarships, and instructor training.  An additional $2,000 can be awarded for boating safety event funding.Period of Performance: up to 10 yearsApplication Deadline: Fall Expected Award Announcement Date: WinterProgram Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28817Program Contact: Amy RigbyEmail: Amy.Rigby@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 326 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance Boat Launching Facility Grant ProgramProvide resources to local agencies for developing or improving public boat launching facility, primarily for motorized vessels.In accordance with Section 72.5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, Boat Launching Facility (BLF) grants are provided to local government agencies for the construction or improvement of boat launching ramps, restrooms, boarding floats, shore protection, parking for vehicles and boat trailers, and ancillary items.  Also included in the grant are monies to pay for engineering, construction inspection, permits from regulatory agencies, special studies, construction contingency, and other project related costs. The primary purpose of the grant is to provide and improve access to California’s waterways by the recreational boating public using trailerable watercraft.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Grantee oversight, project management, operation and maintenanceEligible Applicants: Local government agencies including cities and counties; federal government; and special districts.Geographic Scope: Waterways within CaliforniaRevenue Source: Harbors and Watercraft Revolving FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $3,500,000.00Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 4Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: VariesPeriod of Performance: Three yearsApplication Deadline: Applications accepted on a continuous basis. Application deadline for FY 2022/23 is Feb 1, 2022Expected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28818Program Contact: Joe DuxEmail: Joe.Dux@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance Floating Restroom Grant ProgramProvide resources for keeping boater sewage from lakes and reservoirsThe Floating Restroom Grant Program provides floating restroom units to lakes and reservoirs across California. The Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW) procures, delivers, and grants the DBW‐designed and developed  floating restroom to the recipient. The grant recipient then places the floating restrooms at on‐water locations convenient to boaters and maintains the units for a minimum of 10 years. The Clean Vessel Act grant program also offers maintenance and rehabilitation funds for the floating restrooms beyond the 10 year grant period. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: N/AMatched Funding: Operation and MaintenanceEligible Applicants: Local, State, and Federal governmental entities that operate  inland lakes or reservoirs.Geographic Scope: Inland Lakes and ReservoirsRevenue Source: Combination of Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund and Federal Clean Vessel Act fundsTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on Federal and State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Funding for FY 2021/22 is approximately $1,106,000.00 ($1,088,000.00 for restrooms and $18,000.00 for Operation and Maintenance)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 7Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: Average Cost for an ADA compliant floating restroom is approximately $142,000.00, grants are zero dollar awards.Period of Performance: 10 yearsApplication Deadline: Fall Expected Award Announcement Date: WinterProgram Website: https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29934Program Contact: Deborah HolmesEmail: deborah.holmes@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance Pumpout/Dump Station Grant ProgramProvide resources for keeping boater sewage from California waterwaysThe Pumpout Facility Grant Program funds the installation, replacement,  or operation and maintenance of recreational vessel pumpout and dump stations on California's waterways.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 25% in kind or cash matchEligible Applicants: Public and private marina owners /operatorsGeographic Scope: California waterwaysRevenue Source: Federal Clean Vessel Act fundsTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on Federal and State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Funding for FY 2021/22 is approximately $558,750 ($540,750 for installation and $18,000 for operation and maintainence)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 21Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: Average grant for a pumpout/dump station is $40,000Period of Performance: 12 monthsApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28820Program Contact: Deborah HolmesEmail: deborah.holmes@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance Quagga and Zebra Mussel Infestation Prevention Grant ProgramProvides funding for prevention plans and implementation activities that help protect California’s reservoirs from a quagga and zebra (dreissenid) mussel infestation. DBW's Quagga and Zebra Mussel Infestation Prevention Grant Program (QZ Grant Program) provides funding for two tiers/two types of projects:  1)  Planning and Assessment projects; and 2) Implementation projects.  Examples of projects include: developing Prevention Plans, purchasing pressure washers/decontamination units, inspection programs including staffing, materials and supplies.  DBW coordinates and collaborates with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on many aspects of this program.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Matching funds not required.Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants own or manage reservoirs, or manage some aspect of the water in the reservoir, that: 1) permit recreational activities; 2) are open to the public; and 3) are currently un‐infested with the quagga or zebra (dreissenid) mussel.Geographic Scope: Lakes and Reservoirs statewide that meet the definition of a reservoir (Water Code Section 6004.5)Revenue Source: Funding originates from a fee which is a supplemental cost to the biennial boater registration collected through the DMV.  Guiding statutes and regulations: Harbors & Navigation Code  Sec. 675‐677; Fish & Game Code Sec. 2302; Vehicle Code Sec. 9853, 9860, & 9863; & California Code of Regulations title 14, Sec. 5200‐5307.Total Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program ‐ Approximately $3 million is available for the next grant cycle, kicking off in March 2022.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3 million is available for 2021 QZ Grants.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 13Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Grants for Tier 1:  Planning and Assessment projects, maximum amount is $200,000; Tier 2:  Implementation projects, maximum amount: $400,000Period of Performance: Two yearsApplication Deadline: TBD, likley April 2022.  DBW's QZ Program website will be updated with dates and other information:  www.dbw.ca.gov/QZGrant or https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28822Expected Award Announcement Date: Fall of each yearProgram Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/QZGrant or https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28822Program Contact: Cara RoderickEmail: cara.roderick@parks.ca.govOther: QZGrant@parks.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 327 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance Sewage Education and Outreach GrantsProvide education and awareness about the proper disposal of boater sewageProvides education to promotes public awareness about boater sewage, its proper disposal, as well as tracking and monitoring use of existing pumpout's, dump stations, and floating restrooms along California’s waterways. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 0.33Eligible Applicants: Public or non‐profit agenciesGeographic Scope: One grant award is available for northern California coast, another for southern California coastRevenue Source: Federal Clean Vessel Act fundsTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on Federal grant award.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $740,000 for two awardsEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: typical award is $370,000Period of Performance: One yearApplication Deadline: approximately May through June each yearExpected Award Announcement Date: Each AugustProgram Website: https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=29109Program Contact: Vivian MatukEmail: Vivian.Matuk@coastal.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance, Statewide Non‐Motorized Boat Launching Facility Grant ProgramProvide resources to local agencies for developing or improving public non‐motorized boating access.The Statewide Non‐Motorized Boat Launching Facility Grant Program provides funding to create or improve public non‐motorized boating access. Typical grant‐funded items include the construction of small, hand‐launched boat ramps, small parking lots, and restrooms.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Grant oversight, administration, project management, operation and maintenanceEligible Applicants: Local government agencies including cities and counties; federal government; and special districts.Geographic Scope: Waterways within CaliforniaRevenue Source: Harbors and Watercraft Revolving FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: FY 2020/21 funding was $2 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: VariesPeriod of Performance: Three yearsApplication Deadline: Applications accepted on a continuous basis. Application deadline for FY 2022/23 is Feb 1, 2022Expected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28820Program Contact: Joe DuxEmail: Joe.Dux@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance, Statewide Ramp Repair and Modification Grant ProgramProvide resources to local agencies for repairing or renovating public boating access facilities or extending them for boating access during draught conditions.The Statewide Ramp Repair and Modification Grant Program provides grant funding to public agencies to  quickly restore safe and convenient public boating access by correcting public health and safety issues caused by unexpected damage due to flood, accidents, wildfires or by extending existing boat ramps as needed due to drought conditions at DBW‐funded boat launching facilities. Typical grant‐funded items include repairing or replacing boat ramps, boarding floats, restroom and parking facilities for vehicles with boat trailers.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Grant oversight, administration, project management, operation and maintenanceEligible Applicants: Public boat launching facilities that are owned/operated/maintained by local government agencies and previously funded by the Division of Boating and Waterways (DBW).Geographic Scope: Waterways within CaliforniaRevenue Source: Harbors and Watercraft Revolving FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: FY 2020/21 funding was $1.5 million.  Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: VariesPeriod of Performance: Three yearsApplication Deadline: Applications accepted on a continuous basis. Application deadline for FY 2022/23 is Feb 1, 2022Expected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28818Program Contact: Joe DuxEmail: Joe.Dux@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Local Assistance, Statewide Sign Grant ProgramProvide resources for replacing or installing recreational boating access related signs.The Statewide Sign Grant Program installs and replaces signs for previously funded Boating and Waterways projects that are either obsolete, display incorrect information, are badly worn and unattractive, are missing or damaged, are needed for safety, or are required as a condition of receiving federal funds.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Grant oversight, administration, project management, operation and maintenanceEligible Applicants: Local government agencies including cities and counties; federal government; and special districts.Geographic Scope: DBW funded facility in CaliforniaRevenue Source: Harbors and Watercraft Revolving FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: FY 2020/21 funding was $150,000Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: Typical grants are from $1,000 ‐ $10,000 depending on the projectPeriod of Performance: 10 yearsApplication Deadline: Applications accepted on a continuous basisExpected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28818Program Contact: Joe DuxEmail: Joe.Dux@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 328 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Private Small Craft Harbor Loan ProgramTo help private marina owners/operators fund development or improvement of marina facilities that serve the public.In accordance with Article 5 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, the Private Small Craft Harbor Loan Program provides loans to private marina owners to develop or improve privately owned boating facilities that are open to the public. Project features that can be funded include boat berthing, breakwater construction, construction dredging, harbormaster buildings, fuel docks, boat sewage pump‐out facilities, restrooms and utilities.Opportunity Type: LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Project oversight, administration, project management, operation and maintenanceEligible Applicants: Private Businesses.Geographic Scope: Waterways within CaliforniaRevenue Source: Harbors and Watercraft Revolving FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: N/A  ‐ Future funding is dependent on State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: N/A ‐ funding was not appropriated by the legislature in FY2021/22Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/A ‐ funding was not appropriated by the legislature in FY2021/22Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/A ‐ funding was not appropriated by the legislature in FY2021/22Period of Performance: 20 year Repayment PeriodApplication Deadline: February 1, 2022Expected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: https://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28818Program Contact: Keren DillEmail: keren.dill@parks.ca.gov Other: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Shoreline Erosion Control and Public Beach Restoration Programs To help public agencies cost‐effectively plan and implement protective projects along the State's ocean and bay shoreline that will reduce erosion‐related risks to public health and safety, low‐cost recreational access, and the coastal environment.Sections 65 through 67.4 of the Harbors and Navigation Code authorize the Division to study erosion problems; act as shore protection advisor to all agencies of government; and plan, design and construct protective works when funds are provided by the Legislature. Generally speaking, the Shoreline Erosion Control program funds projects that provide a hard structure solution (seawalls, revetment, etc.) to resisting erosive wave forces to protect vital public infrastructure, public health, etc.. Sections 69.5 to 69.9 of the Harbors and Navigation Code establish the Public Beach Restoration Program, through which DBW funds beach nourishment projects to restore or widen beaches that will reduce wave energy and run‐up, thereby reducing the erosive power of ocean waves.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement (typical) / Advance (only if federal sponsor requires pre‐payment and DBW approves)Matched Funding: PBR: 15% of non‐federal share for non‐state beaches, either in cash or in‐kind services. SEC: 50% of non‐federal share.Eligible Applicants: Local, regional, state, and federal government agencies.Geographic Scope: Projects must be on the ocean coastline or within the San Francisco Bay. Of the moneys in the Public Beach Restoration Fund, 60 percent shall be available to projects south of the county line between the County of San Luis Obispo and the County of Monterey. 40 percent shall be available for projects north of that line.Revenue Source: Any available state funding source. PBR projects are funded via transfers to the  Public Beach Restoration Fund.Total Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program  ‐ Future funding is dependent on State appropriations.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: FY 2019/20 budget appropriation was $981,000Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Encumbrance year plus three years to complete project. Post‐construction maintenance obligations vary depending on expected useful life of project.Application Deadline: February 1 each year, for funding in the fiscal year beginning ~18 months later.Expected Award Announcement Date: After Governor's approval of the annual Budget Act. Projects receive individual funding authorizations through the State's budget process.Program Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/Erosion‐RestorationGrantsProgram Contact: Casey CaldwellEmail: casey.caldwell@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationDBW Surrendered and Abandoned Vessel Exchange (SAVE)To prevent recreational vessels from being abandoned and remove abandoned vessels from navigable waterways.This programs provides funding for abatement, removal, storage and disposal of abandoned or surrendered vessels and navigational hazards.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 10% Cash or In‐Kind matchEligible Applicants: Local government agencies (counties, cities, and/or port districts that have jurisdiction over the area.)Geographic Scope: California navigable waterwaysRevenue Source: Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund and Abandoned Watercraft FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Annual Program ‐ Future funding is dependent on State appropriation. Typically $1‐2 million annually.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2.5 million for FY 2021/22Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 25Minimum Award Amount: No minimumMaximum Award Amount: No Maximum.  Grants are typically between $50,000 and $150,000Period of Performance: 2 yearsApplication Deadline: April 30Expected Award Announcement Date: August/SeptemberProgram Website: http://dbw.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28816Program Contact: Ron KentEmail: ron.kent@parks.ca.govOther: pubinfo@parks.ca.govCalifornia Department of Parks and RecreationGrants and Cooperative Agreements Program The Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program (Grants Program) provides for well managed off‐highway vehicle recreation in the State of California by providing financial assistance to cities, counties, districts, federal agencies, state agencies, educational institutions, federally or state recognized Native American Tribes, Certified Community Conservation Corps and nonprofit entities. The Grants Program supports the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, administration, operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities associated with the use of off‐highway motor vehicles, and programs involving off‐highway motor vehicle safety or education.The Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program (Grants Program) provides for well managed off‐highway vehicle recreation in the State of California by providing financial assistance to cities, counties, districts, federal agencies, state agencies, educational institutions, federally or state recognized Native American Tribes, Certified Community Conservation Corps and nonprofit entities. The Grants Program supports the planning, acquisition, development, maintenance, administration, operation, enforcement, restoration, and conservation of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities associated with the use of off‐highway motor vehicles, and programs involving off‐highway motor vehicle safety or education.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / AdvanceMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, districts, federal agencies, state agencies, educational institutions, federally or state recognized Native American Tribes, Certified Community Conservation Corps and nonprofit entities.Geographic Scope: Within the State of California Revenue Source: OHV Trust FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $30,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: 30 Million Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 195Minimum Award Amount: $10,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: Restoration has no Max and the remaining Project Types vary from $200,000 to $1 Million Period of Performance: Workshops start January 6th and final awards are posted on September 2nd.Application Deadline: Preliminary Applications were due March 1, 2021 and Final Applications were due on June 7, 2021.Expected Award Announcement Date: 44410Program Website: http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1164Program Contact: Sixto J. Fernandez Email: Sixto.Fernandez@parks.ca.govOther: ohv.grants@parks.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 329 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesFlood Maintenance Assistance Program (FMAP)Provide funding for LMA to supplement their maintenance budgets and to promote preparation of LOI/SWIF for PL 84‐99 eligibility.  This program promotes biodiversity through the support of environmentally permitted maintenance activities that protect and enhance the riparian ecosystem of the SPFC.The Flood Maintenance Assistance Program (FMAP) provides State funds for eligible maintenance activities to Local Maintaining Agencies (LMAs) and Maintenance Areas (MAs). This program will help ensure that State Plan of Flood Control facilities are properly maintained and have sufficient resources, including funding, to meet applicable federal regulations and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) manual requirements.  It also provides funding for LMAs to prepare and submit federal LOI/SWIF  for PL 84‐99 eligibility, and funding for Section 218 assessment support.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / AdvanceMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Any Local Maintaining Agency (LMA) with levees or other appurtenant facilities within the State Plan of Flood Control.Geographic Scope: SPFCRevenue Source: General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $10,800,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $10.8 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 50‐51Minimum Award Amount: $40,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: Awards do not typically exceed $500,000Period of Performance: Ongoing since December 2018Application Deadline: January 1, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: April 2021Program Website: PendingProgram Contact: Jeff H. Van GilderEmail: jeff.vangilder@water.ca.govOther: n/aCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesCentral Valley Tributaries Program The program will fund multi‐benefit flood risk reduction projects that (1) address flood risk for urban communities, small communities and/or rural areas; and (2) enhance ecosystems by improving fish and wildlife habitat and water quality downstream.To help fund flood management projects  that enhance water quality and ecosystems of rivers and streams tributary to the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta.See Guidelines for eligibility criteria.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 0% ‐ 50%Eligible Applicants: Local agencies, others. See Guidelines for eligibility criteria.Geographic Scope: Projects must be in the Central Valley, in the Sacrament and San Joaquin River watersheds, including the Tulare Lake Basin. Projects in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) are excluded.Revenue Source: Proposition 1 (Water Code Section 79780)Total Estimated Available Funding: $25,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $25,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: UnknownMinimum Award Amount: N/A No minimum award amount. Subject to available funding.Maximum Award Amount: Proposition 1 bond funding allocation, no cost ceiling, awards determined on a case‐by‐case basis.Period of Performance: Final Guidelines released Dec 2018 and Proposals solicited. PSP Round 1 closed February 2019 and funds awarded.Application Deadline: NAExpected Award Announcement Date: NAProgram Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Central‐Valley‐Tributaries‐ProgramProgram Contact: Robert CraneEmail: Robert.Crane@water.ca.govOther: CVT@water.ca.govCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesDelta Levees Maintenance SubventionsThe Subventions Programs authorized by California Water Code Sections 12980 through 12995. The Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program is a cost share program that provides financial assistance to local levee maintaining agencies in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta for the maintenance and rehabilitation of non‐project and eligible project levees.The Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions Program is a cost share program that provides financial assistance to local levee maintaining agencies in the Sacramento ‐ San Joaquin Delta for the maintenance and rehabilitation of non‐project and eligible project levees. The Subventions Program is authorized by California Water Code Sections 12980 through 12995.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / AdvanceMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local levee maintaining agencies and Reclamation DistrictsGeographic Scope: Legal California Sacramento‐San Joaquin DeltaRevenue Source: Propositions 84, 1E and 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $10,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $9 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 70Minimum Award Amount: VariesMaximum Award Amount: VariesPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: NovemberExpected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Delta‐Levees‐Maintenance‐SubventionsProgram Contact: Andrea LobatoEmail: Alobato@water.ca.govOther: https://water.ca.gov/ContactCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesDelta Levees Special Flood Control ProjectsThe Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects Program is authorized by the California Water Code, Sections 12300‐12314. The Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects Program provides financial assistance to local levee maintaining agencies for flood control and levee rehabilitation projects in the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta.The Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects provides financial assistance to local levee maintaining agencies for flood control and levee rehabilitation projects in the Delta as authorized in the California Water Code, Sections 12300‐‐12314.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / AdvanceMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local levee maintaining agencies and Reclamation DistrictsGeographic Scope: Legal California Sacramento‐San Joaquin DeltaRevenue Source: Propositions 84 and 1ETotal Estimated Available Funding: $40,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $20 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: VariesMinimum Award Amount: VariesMaximum Award Amount: VariesPeriod of Performance: Fall 2021Application Deadline: VariesExpected Award Announcement Date: VariesProgram Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Delta‐Levees‐Special‐Flood‐Control‐ProjectsProgram Contact: Andrea LobatoEmail: Alobato@water.ca.govOther: https://water.ca.gov/ContactUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 330 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesFlood Emergency Response Grants Program: Forecast‐Coordinated Operations GrantThe F‐CO seeks to improve management of the flood control pools to reduce peak flood flows downstream through the use of improved watershed and river forecasting and coordination of  releases from these reservoirs during flood operations.           The objective of the Flood Emergency Response Grant is to improve local flood emergency response in California and contribute to increased public safety. Examples of eligible projects for this specific grant include:• Enhance real‐time data collection with new stream and weather measurement stations• Improve data sharing, management systems, and associated IT infrastructure      • Develop reservoir simulation models and decision support tools • Conduct annual exercises and training to improve operational response• Develop procedures to share information and coordinate operationsOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Reservoir operators that participate in the Forecast‐Coordinated Operations ProgramGeographic Scope: Central Valley and Sierra NevadaRevenue Source: Proposition 84 ($4.5 million) and Proposition 1E  ($4.5 million)Total Estimated Available Funding: $180,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $100,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: UnknownMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Ongoing (for directed funding only)Application Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: OngoingProgram Website: NoneProgram Contact: Cale NascaEmail: Cale.Nasca@water.ca.govOther: N/ACalifornia Department of Water ResourcesProposition 68 Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Implementation Grant ProgramTo help fund the construction of projects that will assist the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in implementation of their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). Round 1 will be open for only those eligible basins that are critically over drafted. Round 2 will be open for eligible medium and high priority basins.Competitive grants to support implementation of local and regional groundwater projects required to support sustainable groundwater management.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement: DWR’s standard method of payment is reimbursement in arrears. Funds are dispersed after DWRapproves the submittal of the DWR invoice form and required back‐up documentation by the Grantee. Matched Funding: 25% as outlined in the 2019 Guidelines and 2020 Implementation Proposal Solicitation Package.Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are GSAs or member agencies of the GSAs for the basin for which the application is submitted. Or entities that have an approved Alternative to a GSP. Other entities, such as nonprofit, water districts, resource conservation districts, etc. can apply on behalf of a GSA or entity with an approved Alternative to a GSP so long as they have letter(s) of support from those they represent. Only one application will be accepted per basin.Geographic Scope: The project must be located within a medium or high priority groundwater basin that is not adjudicated, in the process or adjudication, or in probationary status by the State Water Resources Control Board. Projects must also be listed within the GSP or approved Alternative to a GSP.Revenue Source: Proposition 68 (Chapter 11.6, Section 80146(a))Total Estimated Available Funding: $88,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Round 1 awarded 6 grants for $26 million in April 2021. Round 2 is for approxiamtely $70 million and will be open sometime late 2022.Minimum Award Amount: $2 millionMaximum Award Amount: $5 millionPeriod of Performance: Guidelines were approved summer 2019. Final PSP was posted October 2020. Round 1 final awards April 2021 with grant terms Summer 2021 through June 2024. Round 2 is expected to be awarded Fall 2022. Application Deadline: Round 1: January 8, 2021; Round 2: Fall 2022Expected Award Announcement Date: Round 1: May 2021; Round 2: Winter 2022Program Website: www.water.ca.gov/sgmgrantsProgram Contact: Kelley ListEmail: Kelley.List@water.ca.govOther: sgwp@water.ca.govCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesRegional Flood Management PlanningThe California Department of Water Resources (DWR) launched the Regional Flood Management Planning Phase 1 effort through the 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) to assist local agencies in developing long‐term regional flood management plans that address local needs, articulate local and regional flood management priorities, and establish the common vision of regional partners. DWR provided funding and resource support to help develop regional plans consistent with the 2012 CVFPP.The Regional Flood Management Planning (RFMP) effort seeks to work with local entities to engage with local stakeholders to collect existing information and data to better define site‐specific needs and develop their regional vision for flood management over the next 30 years. The RFMP effort is intended to provide meaningful engagement by the Regional Partners in the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) and maintain working relationships to develop a common understanding of regional flood issues and priorities. The RFMP goals are to formulate and assess flood management solutions and strategies that reflect the vision, feasibility projects, assess the performance of the projects, and to develop a plan that reflects the vision of local entities in reducing flood risks in their region.  DWR has provided guidance as well as technical and financial assistance to local agencies to prepare regional flood management plans that formulate and prioritize the proposed projects and strategies in each region. DWR continues to provide funding to engage Regional Partners in the CVFPP planning process. Opportunity Type: Direct FundingDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: A California local public agency with responsibility for flood management in the region that is a part of the area protected by the facilities of the SPFC that is willing to participate in, coordinate, and collaborate with other interested parties in the region that are participating in the development of their RFMP.Geographic Scope: Areas within the Central Valley protected by CA State Plan of Flood Control facilitiesRevenue Source: Proposition 1ETotal Estimated Available Funding: $4,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Up to $3.8 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: SixMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Up to $4 millionPeriod of Performance: Ongoing since October 2012Application Deadline: NAExpected Award Announcement Date: 2022Program Website: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Flood‐Management/Flood‐Planning‐and‐Studies/Central‐Valley‐Flood‐Protection‐PlanProgram Contact: Aaron WuEmail: Aaron.Wu@water.ca.govOther: NAUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 331 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesSafe Drinking Water ‐ Contaminant Removal Technologies ‐ Pilot and Demonstration ProjectsProposition 50 Chapter 6b to provide grant funds to test new technologies in California for the removal of specific categories of contaminants.Contaminant treatment or removal technology pilot and demonstration studies.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are public water systems under the regulatory jurisdiction of SWRCB.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 50 (Chapter 6 Section 79545(b)) Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TwoMinimum Award Amount: Minimum grant is $50,000.Maximum Award Amount: Up to $5 million per grantPeriod of Performance: Ongoing Application Deadline: OpenExpected Award Announcement Date: OpenProgram Website: Under construction.Program Contact: Jeremy CallihanEmail: Jeremy.Callihan@water.ca.govOther: noneCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesSafe Drinking Water ‐ Contaminant Removal Technologies ‐ Ultraviolet and Ozone TreatmentProposition 50 Chapter 6c to provide grant funds for projects using UV or ozone disinfection technologies.Drinking water disinfecting projects using UV technology and ozone treatment.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are public water systems under the regulatory jurisdiction of SWRCB.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 50 (Chapter 6 Section 79545(c)) Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TwoMinimum Award Amount: Minimum grant is $50,000.Maximum Award Amount: Up to $5 million per grantPeriod of Performance: Ongoing Application Deadline: OpenExpected Award Announcement Date: OpenProgram Website: Under construction.Program Contact: Jeremy CallihanEmail: Jeremy.Callihan@water.ca.govOther: noneCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesProposition 1 Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Implementation Grant ProgramIntegrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative effort to manage all aspects of water resources in a region. IRWM crosses jurisdictional, watershed, and political boundaries; involves multiple agencies, stakeholders, individuals, and groups; and attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. Our IRWM grant programs fund planning and implementation projects to support local agencies and Underrepresented Communities including Tribal and disadvantaged community to address current and future drought impacts.The IRWM Proposition 1 grant program provides funds for development and revisions of IRWM Plans, and implementation of projects in IRWM Plans.  Goals of the program include:(a) help water infrastructure systems adapt to climate change, including, but not limited to, sea level rise, (b) provide incentives for water agencies throughout each watershed to collaborate in managing the region's water resources and setting regional priorities for water infrastructure, and (c) improve regional water self‐reliance consistent with Section 85021.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement: DWR’s standard method of payment is reimbursement in arrears. Funds are dispersed after DWR approves the submittal of the DWR invoice form and required back‐up documentation by the Grantee.                                                  Advanced Payment: Water Code §10551 authorizes advanced payment by DWR for certain grant‐funded projects included in an IRWM Plan. Appendix G of the 2019 IRWM Program Guidelines provides more detail information regarding advanced funding. Matched Funding: Minimum 50% local cost share requirement with reduction or waiver option if the project meets the disadvantaged communities description.Eligible Applicants: Public agencies, non‐profit organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian tribes listed on the Native American Heritage Commission's Tribal Consultation list, and mutual water companies.Geographic Scope: Only one application is accepted per IRWM Region. Funding is awarded by "Funding Area" as defined in Proposition 1. Revenue Source: Proposition 1 (Chapter 7, Section 79740)Total Estimated Available Funding: Approximately $192 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: NoneEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 40Minimum Award Amount: VariesMaximum Award Amount: VariesPeriod of Performance: Summer 2020 ‐ Summer 2026Application Deadline: Round 2: Tentatively Spring 2022Expected Award Announcement Date: Round 2: Tentatively Summer 2022Program Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/IRWM‐Grant‐ProgramsProgram Contact: Ashley GilreathEmail: Ashley.Gilreath@water.ca.govOther: DWR_IRWM@DWRCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesCoastal Watershed Flood Risk Reduction ProgramThe Coastal Watershed Flood Risk Reduction Grant Program will fund projects in coastal areas that focus on multi‐benefit flood risk reduction. These projects will: address flood risk and public safety; enhance coastal ecosystems, including fish and wildlife habitat enhancement; and promote natural resources stewardship and public access corridors.The Coastal Watershed Flood Risk Reduction Grant Program will fund projects in coastal areas that focus on multi‐benefit flood risk reduction. These projects will: •Address flood risk and public safety•Enhance coastal ecosystems, including fish and wildlife habitat enhancement•Promote natural resources stewardship and public access corridorsOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 0% ‐ 50%Eligible Applicants: Local agencies, others. See Guidelines for eligibility criteria.Geographic Scope: Eligible projects must be in watersheds that drain to the California Coast or San Francisco Bay. Projects in the Sacramento ‐San Joaquin River Delta are excluded.Revenue Source: Proposition 1 (Water Code Section 79780)Total Estimated Available Funding: $24,300,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $24,300,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 5Minimum Award Amount: N/A No minimum award amount. Subject to available funding.Maximum Award Amount: Proposition 1 bond funding allocation, no cost ceiling, awards determined on a case‐by‐case basis.Period of Performance: Round 1 completed and draft awards announced June 2021.  After final award, projects will typically be given 2‐3 years to complete work.Application Deadline: November 20, 2020Expected Award Announcement Date: Summer 2021Program Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Coastal‐Watershed‐Flood‐Risk‐ReductionProgram Contact: Robert CraneEmail: Robert.Crane@water.ca.govOther: coastal@water.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 332 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesWater Desalination Grant Program The objective of the program is to use grant funds to facilitate the use of desalinated water to meet the water resources needs of the State.The Program's purpose is to help increase water supplies by providing funding to local agencies for the planning, design, and construction of municipal water facilities requiring the removal of salt to render brackish or ocean quality water sources safe to drink. It also provides matching funds for desalination design or research pilot projects. The program requires at least 50 percent local funding match for all project types with exception for disadvantaged communities.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: The program requires at least 50 percent local funding match for all project types with exception for disadvantaged communities.Eligible Applicants: Public agencies including local and State government agencies, public utilities, mutual water companies, federally recognized Indian Tribes, State Indian Tribes on the Native American Heritage Commission’s consultation list, and non‐profit organizations. Universities and colleges incorporated as public institutions or non‐profit organizations may also apply.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 1,Chapter 9, Section 79765.Proposition 50, Chapter 6, Section 79545(a)Total Estimated Available Funding: ($0.00)Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1. Round 4 ‐ 9 grants awarded         2. Continuous Application Process ‐ 10 grants awardedMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Up to $10 million per grant, depending on project type.Period of Performance: Application process is currently closed. Application process will be reopened when the reappropriated fund becomes available.Application Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Desalination‐Grant‐ProgramProgram Contact: Sean SouEmail: sean.sou@water.ca.govOther: desalpsp@water.ca.govCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesWater Use Efficiency CalConserve Revolving Fund Loan ProgramAB 92 (Statutes of 2015) authorized the transfer of $10 million from Proposition 1 (Water Code Section 79746) to the CalConserve Water Use Efficiency Revolving Fund to establish a loan program to local agencies for specific types of water conservation and water use efficiency projects and programs to achieve urban water use targets.  The CalConserve Water Use Efficiency Revolving Fund provides loans to local agencies to provide low interest loans to customers for water use efficiency upgrades and for onsite improvements to repair or replace leaking pipes.  Loan recipient agencies would offer customer low‐interest or no interest on‐bill financing.  On‐bill financing would remove first cost barriers to efficiency upgrades.Opportunity Type: LoanDisbursement Method: AdvanceMatched Funding: 0.5Eligible Applicants: Local Agencies: any city, county, city and county, municipal utility district, community services district, sanitary district, sanitation district, water district as defined in Section 20200, public water system as defined in Section 116275 of the Health and Safety Code, or private water company under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: ($0.00)Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Loan awards on a continuous first‐come, first‐served basis as long as funds are available.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $5 million total for water use efficiency upgrades ($2 million left). $5 million total for leak detection and repairs ($5 million left). A loan cap of $3 million per agency.Period of Performance: After an initial $3 million loan award in December 2016, the solicitation was reopened on a first‐come, first‐served basis. Applications will be accepted on a continuous basis as long as funds are available.Application Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/CalConserve‐Water‐Use‐Efficiency‐Loan‐ProgramProgram Contact: Daya MuralidharanEmail: Daya.Muralidharan@water.ca.govOther: wuegrants@water.ca.govCalifornia Department of Water ResourcesFlood Control Subventions Program (FCSP)To provide financial assistance to local agencies cooperating in the construction of federally authorized flood control projects on State Plan of Flood Control facilities.Implementation of federally‐authorized, locally‐partnered, flood control projects and Watershed Protection Flood Prevention Projects.Opportunity Type: Funds (Claims Reimbursement)Disbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 30% ‐ 50% non‐federal cost shareEligible Applicants: Local public agencies with federal projects that are not part of the State Plan of Flood Control. Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 84 (Water Code Section 75034) and Proposition 1E (Public Resources Code Section 5096.824)Total Estimated Available Funding: $19,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Commitments are restricted to Legislatively approved projects.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/A Projects authorized as Congressional authorizations are made.Minimum Award Amount: N/A Based on total project costs.Maximum Award Amount: Projects receive reimbursement of State cost‐share as approved by the Legislature for the specific project.Period of Performance: Projects are typically approved by the State Legislature and specifically cited in the Water Code. Claim submittals accepted on a continuous basis and are paid generally first come, first served, based on available State funding. The federal agency involved sets the project schedule.Application Deadline: N/A ‐ Awards made based on Legislative approvalsExpected Award Announcement Date: Ongoing based on Legislative approvalsProgram Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Flood‐Control‐Subventions‐ProgramProgram Contact: Robert CraneEmail: Robert.Crane@water.ca.govOther: N/ACalifornia Department of Water ResourcesFlood Emergency Response Grants Program:Delta Flood ER GrantThe Delta Flood Emergency Response Grant Program objective is to improve local flood emergency response in California and increase public safety.The objective of the Delta Flood Emergency Response Grant Program is to improve local flood emergency response in California and increase public safety. Funding is available to improve local flood emergency response through Proposition 1E and 1.  The Program funds three types of work:1) Planning and Coordination (emergency response plans, maps, decision support tools, gauges, etc.)2) Training and Exercises (SEMS/NIMS/ICS training, full scale, tabletop, and/or functional exercises, etc.)3) Material and Facilities (procurement of flood fight materials and equipment, facility improvement updates, etc.)Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: California Public Agencies within the legal Delta including primary and secondary zones with primary responsibility for flood emergency response and coordination.Geographic Scope: Legal DeltaRevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: VariesMinimum Award Amount: VariesMaximum Award Amount: VariesPeriod of Performance: VariesFunds available continuously for Directed FundingApplication Deadline: OngoingExpected Award Announcement Date: February 2022Program Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐US/Grants‐And‐Loans/Flood‐Emergency‐Response‐Projects‐GrantsProgram Contact: William WongEmail: William.Wong@water.ca.govOther: N/AUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 333 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Department of Water Resources Floodplain Management, Protection, and Risk Awareness ProgramThe Floodplain Management, Protection, and Risk Awareness Grant Program will fund projects that reduce flood risks associated with flash flooding, mudslides, and stormwater flooding. This is a statewide grant program. However, Delta conveyance facility projects are excluded.  The Floodplain Management, Protection, and Risk Awareness Grant Program will provide local assistance for flood risk reduction projects. These projects must reduce flood risks associated with flash flooding, mudslides, or stormwater flooding. Funding will be available for Planning and Monitoring as well as implementation. Projects that benefit a DAC or incorporate  multi‐benefit features will be given a priority. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local agencies, others. See Guidelines for eligibility criteria.Geographic Scope: Statewide. Delta conveyance facility projects are excluded.  Revenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $50,400,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $0 will be awarded in the next six months. The release of the final guidelines/PSP and opening of the solicitation is scheduled  for August 2021. Anticipate draft funding awards to be announced in the late spring of 2022. Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Dependent on number of submissions received, application processMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Proposition 68 bond funding allocation, no cost ceiling, awards determined on a case‐by‐case basis.Period of Performance: Anticipate making draft funding award notifications in the late spring of 2022. The award project are expected to be completed within 3‐5 years. Application Deadline: Anticipate that full proposals will be due December 2021. Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022Program Website: https://water.ca.gov/Work‐With‐Us/Grants‐And‐Loans/Flood‐Management‐Protection‐Risk‐Awareness‐ProgramProgram Contact: Mehdi Mizani Email: Mehdi.Mizani@water.ca.govOther: FMPRA@water.ca.govCalifornia Energy CommissionElectric Program Investment Charge (EPIC)The EPIC program provides ratepayer funding for clean energy research. The funding is a catalyst for innovation in the categories of applied research and development, technology development demonstration and deployment, and market facilitation.  Research investments are selected to advance the next generation of clean energy technologies, systems, tools, and strategies so that electricity ratepayer and societal benefits promote greater reliability, lower costs, and increased safety.The Energy Commission is one of four administrators of energy innovation funded by the Electric Program Investment Charge. The other administrators are the state’s three largest investor‐owned utilities: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company. The Electric Program Investment Charge was created to fund public interest investments in clean energy technologies and approaches for the benefit of electricity ratepayers of California’s three largest electric investor‐owned utilities.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (Payments for National Laboratories)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Private and public entities, educational facilities, research organizations, national laboratories. Geographic Scope: Only program limitation is technology, demonstration and  deployment projects must be in a California IOU service territory.Some solicitations target disadvantaged communities and low‐income communities.Varies based on solicitation requirements.Revenue Source: The California Public Utilities Commission established the purposes and governance for the Electric Program Investment Charge in Decision 12‐05‐037 for Rulemaking 11‐10‐003 on May 24, 2012. Total Estimated Available Funding: $132,460,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $66 million from Jul‐Dec 2021.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Average of 40 awards per year.Varies each year depending on solicitation requirements.Minimum Award Amount: Minimum of $600,000 award.Varies each year per solicitation requirements.Maximum Award Amount: Maximum of $5 million award.Varies each year per solicitation requirements.Period of Performance: A solicitation schedule has been posted on the Energy Commission Research page, and solicitations are continuously released throughout the year. Application Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.energy.ca.govProgram Contact: Laurie tenHopeEmail: Laurie.tenHope@energy.ca.govOther: California Energy CommissionGreenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) Food Production Investment Program (FPIP)The purpose of the FPIP program is to fund drop‐in, market‐ready and advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies at California food processing facilities, to reduce energy use and costs and associated greenhouse gas emissions.The program focuses on accelerating the adoption of advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies at California food processing plants, demonstrate their reliability and effectiveness and help California food processors achieve a low‐carbon future. The grants provide partial funding for: Tier I: commercially available, energy efficient equipment that are drop‐in replacements or additions to current  systems that result in greater GHG emission reductions than standard equipment , and Tier II: cutting edge technologies that are emerging and not widely used in California but have been proven elsewhere to reduce GHG emissions. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: California food processing facilities defined by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes 311 or 3121Geographic Scope: None: Open to all food processing facilities located in California that are defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 311 (Food Manufacturing) and 3121 (Beverage Manufacturing).Revenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $2,300,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $2.3 million from Jul‐Dec 2021.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Estimated 1 award.Varies each year depending on solicitation requirements.Minimum Award Amount: Minimum of $381,000 award.Varies each year per solicitation requirements:  Tier I: $100,000  Tier II: $2 millionMaximum Award Amount: Maximum of $5.5 million.Varies each year per solicitation requirements:  Tier I: $6 million  Tier II: $8 millionPeriod of Performance: A solicitation schedule has been posted on the Energy Commission Research page, and solicitations are continuously released throughout the year. Application Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.energy.ca.govProgram Contact: Virginia LewEmail: virginia.lew@energy.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 334 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Energy CommissionPublic Interest Energy Research (PIER) ‐ Natural Gas FundingThe Natural Gas Research and Development program provides ratepayer funding for clean energy research. The program supports energy‐related research, development, and demonstration not adequately provided by competitive and regulated markets. These natural gas research investments spur innovation in energy efficiency, renewable energy and advanced clean generation, energy‐related environmental protection, energy transmission and distribution and transportation. The funds are collected from natural gas ratepayers of California Investor Owned Utilities. These funds are administered by the California Energy Commission to provide public interest natural gas research programs. The Energy Commission's PIER program supports energy related research, development and demonstration for research not adequately provided by competitive and regulated markets and that will advance science and technology and will help meet California's energy policy goals.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (Payments for National Laboratories)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Private and public entities, educational facilities, research organizations, national laboratories. Geographic Scope: Some solicitations target disadvantaged communities and low‐income communities.Some solicitations require demonstration projects must be in a California IOU service territory.Varies based on solicitation requirements.Revenue Source: SB 1250 (Perata) Chapter 512, Statutes of 2006.  Annual funding approved by CPUC, and funds are transferred from CPUC Gas Consumption Surcharge FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $21,600,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $11 million from Jul‐Dec 2021Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Average of 15 awards per year.Varies each year depending on solicitation requirements.Minimum Award Amount: Minimum of $1 million award.Varies each year per solicitation requirements.Maximum Award Amount: Maximum of $5 million award.Varies each year per solicitation requirements.Period of Performance: A solicitation schedule has been posted on the Energy Commission Research page, and solicitations are continuously released throughout the year. Application Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.energy.ca.govProgram Contact: Laurie tenHopeEmail: Laurie.tenHope@energy.ca.govOther: California Energy CommissionClean Transportation Program (CTP)The Clean Transportation Program (formerly known as Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program) invests up to $100 million annually in a broad portfolio of transportation and fuel transportation projects throughout the state. The Energy Commission leverages public and private investments to support adoption of cleaner transportation powered by alternative and renewable fuels. The program plays an important role in achieving California’s ambitious goals on climate change, petroleum reduction, and adoption of zero‐emission vehicles, as well as efforts to reach air quality standards. The program also supports the state’s sustainable, long‐term economic development.Various grant opportunities available for a variety of projects including:Electric Vehicle Charging InfrastructureHydrogen Refueling InfrastructureMedium‐ and Heavy‐Duty Zero Emission Refueling InfrastructureRenewable Hydrogen ProductionBiofuel ProductionZero‐Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure ManufacturingZero‐Emission Vehicle and Infrastructure Workforce DevelopmentOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: See individual solicitations for eligibility requirements.Eligible Applicants: See individual solicitations for eligibility requirements.Geographic Scope: See individual solicitations for eligibility requirements.Revenue Source: State Funds: Clean Transportation ProgramTotal Estimated Available Funding: $192,800,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $47,700,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Varies by solicitation.Minimum Award Amount: Varies by solicitation.Maximum Award Amount: Varies by solicitation.Period of Performance: Varies by solicitation.Application Deadline: Varies by solicitationExpected Award Announcement Date: Varies by solicitationProgram Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/funding‐opportunities/solicitationsProgram Contact: Hannon RasoolEmail: hannon.rasool@energy.ca.govOther: California Energy CommissionFiscal Year 2021‐22 General Fund Appropriation to the Clean Transportation Program ($785 million)**Contingent upon approval of the FY 2021‐22 Budget Act.Zero emission infrastructure and manufacturing funding to help meet California's 2025 infrastructure goals contained in Executive Order B‐48‐18.Various grant opportunities expected to become available for a variety of zero‐emission infrastructure and manufacturing projects, including:Light‐Duty Vehicle Charging InfrastructureLight‐Duty Vehicle Hydrogen Refueling InfrastructureMedium‐ and Heavy‐Duty Zero Emission Refueling InfrastructureZero‐Emission Infrastructure ManufacturingOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: See individual solicitations for eligibility requirements.Eligible Applicants: Varies per solicitationGeographic Scope: Varies per solicitationRevenue Source: State Funds: General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $785,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: None.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Varies by solicitation.Minimum Award Amount: Varies by solicitation.Maximum Award Amount: Varies by solicitation.Period of Performance: Varies by solicitation.Application Deadline: Varies by solicitationExpected Award Announcement Date: Varies by solicitationProgram Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/funding‐opportunities/solicitationsProgram Contact: Hannon RasoolEmail: hannon.rasool@energy.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 335 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Energy CommissionCalifornia Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP)The California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) addresses regional needs for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure throughout California, while supporting state goals to improve air quality, combat climate change and reduce petroleum use.Funded by the California Energy Commission and implemented by the Center for Sustainable Energy, CALeVIP provides incentives for EV charger installations and works with local partners to develop and implement projects that meet current and future regional EV needs for Level 2 and DC fast charging. The statewide efforts aim to provide a streamlined process for getting chargers installed to fill the significant gaps in charging availability.CALeVIP provides incentives through rebates or vouchers to deploy light‐duty electric vehicle charging infrastructure throughout California.  Increased availability of electric vehicle chargers provides drivers of plug‐in EVs with convenient access to chargers and strives to encourage more Californians to consider purchasing EVs.Opportunity Type: Rebate Incentive or VoucherDisbursement Method: Applicants apply for an incentive ahead of the project. If approved, the maximum incentive is reserved to their portal. Once the installation is complete, the applicant submits their receipts and the final incentive amount is calculated and paid to the applicant.Matched Funding: Incentives cover up to 75% of the total project cost for each installation application. The applicant must cover the additional 25% cost either themselves or via another funding program.Eligible Applicants: Property owners or their authorized representatives are eligible to apply for incentives through CALeVIP. Authorized representatives can include property managers, EV charger manufacturers, EV service providers, contractors or other installation partners. Note: If the property owner is not applying, their authorized representative must provide documentation confirming that the applicant has authorization from the property owner to install at the proposed site.Geographic Scope: Varies by individual incentive project.Revenue Source: State Funds: Clean Transportation ProgramLocal Funds: Various local project partners have contributed to CALeVIP including air districts, community choice aggregators, publicly owned utilities, and regional planning agencies.Total Estimated Available Funding: Varies by incentive project. See CALeVIP.org for details.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Varies by incentive project. See CALeVIP.org for details.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Varies by incentive project. See CALeVIP.org for details.Minimum Award Amount: Varies by incentive project. See CALeVIP.org for details.Maximum Award Amount: Varies by incentive project. See CALeVIP.org for details.Period of Performance: 9 months for Level 2 applications.15 months for direct current fast charger or combination applications.Application Deadline: Varies by incentive project. See CALeVIP.org for details.Expected Award Announcement Date: Varies by incentive project. See CALeVIP.org for details.Program Website: https://calevip.org/Program Contact: Center for Sustainable EnergyEmail:  calevip@energycenter.orgOther: California Energy CommissionEnergy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero Emission Commercial Vehicles (EnergIIZE)The California Energy Commission (CEC) is launching Energy Infrastructure Incentives for Zero‐Emission Commercial Vehicles (EnergIIZE), the nation's first commercial vehicle fleet infrastructure incentive project. Funded by the CEC’s Clean Transportation Program and implemented by CALSTART, EnergIIZEhelps commercial fleets keep pace with industry demands as they transition to zero‐emission vehicles (ZEV). The project offers a streamlined process breaking down infrastructure deployment barriers with targeted incentives and specialized assistanceEnergIIZE will provide incentives through rebates or vouchers to deploy zero‐emission infrastructure (Electric Charging and Hydrogen Refueling equipment) to support the deployment of zero‐emission medium‐ and heavy‐duty vehicles within California.  Advancing zero‐emission transportation technology is critical to meeting California’s air quality, climate, and economic goals. The adoption of commercial zero‐emission medium‐and heavy‐duty vehicles, like trucks, buses and equipment are crucial to promoting clean and healthy communities. EnergIIZE is designed with scalability and flexibility in mind making it ideal to serve smaller fleets and underserved communities.Opportunity Type: Rebate Incentive or VoucherDisbursement Method: Incentive payment once infrastructure is installed and operational.Matched Funding: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements are currently under developmentEligible Applicants: Medium‐and heavy‐duty ZEV purchasers.Geographic Scope: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements are currently under developmentRevenue Source: State Funds: Clean Transportation Program and General FundsTotal Estimated Available Funding: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements are currently under developmentPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: None.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements currently under development.Minimum Award Amount: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements currently under development.Maximum Award Amount: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements currently under development.Period of Performance: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements currently under development.Application Deadline: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements currently under development. First project tentatively scheduled to open in Fall 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: TBD ‐‐ Project requirements currently under development.Program Website: Project website under development.Program Contact: CALSTART (administering on behalf of the California Energy Commission)Email: infrastructure@calstart.orgOther: California Energy CommissionCalifornia Schools Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency Program (CalSHAPE)Grant funding to local educational agencies to assess, maintain and repair HVAC systems and to replace aging and ineffficient plumbing fixtures and appliances. The California Schools Healthy Air, Plumbing, and Efficiency Program (CalSHAPE) will provide funding to upgrade heating, air conditioning, and ventilation (HVAC) systems in public schools and also to replace noncompliant plumbing fixtures and appliances that fail to meet water efficiency standards.CalSHAPE is comprised of two programs, CalSHAPE Ventilation and CalSHAPE Plumbing. Initial phase of awards is limited to schools in underserved communities. CalSHAPE program is a competitive process, grants will be awarded in the order they are received. Applicants will apply electronically through an online application and reporting system. Total funding for 2021 is approximately$266M. Program is funded for three years and ends December 2026. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: 50% grant funds advance/ 50% funds reimbursementMatched Funding: NoEligible Applicants: Local Educational AgenciesGeographic Scope: Statewide  Revenue Source: Large electric and gas utilities energy efficiency rolling portfolios. Total Estimated Available Funding: $500,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $266,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: Varies by grantMaximum Award Amount: Varies by grantPeriod of Performance: 24 monthsApplication Deadline: VariesExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs‐andtopics/programs/california‐schools‐healthy‐air‐plumbing‐and‐efficiency‐programProgram Contact: Jonathan FongEmail: jonathan.fong@energy.ca.govOther: calshape@energy.ca.govCalifornia Natural Resources AgencyEnvironmental Enhancement & Mitigation Contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities through urban forestry projects that sequester carbon and resource land projects which restore and conserve land and enhance the biodiversity of the State. Annual funding for projects that contribute to negative environmental impacts of   transportation facilities as follows: 1) urban forestry projects designed to offset vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide; 2) resource lands projects that provide for the acquisition or enhancement of resource lands to mitigate the loss of, or the detriment to, resource lands lying within or near the right‐of‐way acquired for transportation improvements; and 3) mitigation projects beyond the scope of the lead Agency responsible for assessing the environmental impact of the proposed transportation improvement.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Primarily reimbursement. Advances allowed for acquisition project. Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Any state, local, federal, or 501c(3) non‐profit entity. The agency or entity is not required to be a transportation or highway related organization, but must be able to demonstrate adequate charter or enabling authority to carry out the type of project proposed. Two or more entities may participate in a project with one designated as the lead agency.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: California Streets and Highways Code Section 164.56Total Estimated Available Funding: $13,400,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $13,400,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: DependentMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $1 million for acquisitions and generally $500,000 for development projectsPeriod of Performance: Expenditure deadline March 2025Application Deadline: Solicitation closed.Expected Award Announcement Date: January 2022Program Website: http://resources.ca.gov/grants/environmental‐enhancement‐and‐mitigation‐eem/Program Contact: Larelle Burkham‐GreydanusEmail: larelle.burkham‐greydanus@resources.ca.govOther: eemcoordinator@resources.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 336 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Natural Resources AgencyCalifornia Museum Grant Program Funding to support program or capital projects, or a combination of program and capital projects that assist and enhance museums that are deeply rooted in, and reflective of, previously underserved communities.Funding to support exhibits, educational programs, outreach programs, public programs, curriculum, marketing, collections care and small capital projects or a combination thereof, in museums.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Primarily reimbursement. Advances allowed up to 25%, based upon need.  Matched Funding: 5% match required for public agencies.Eligible Applicants: Public agencies and nonprofit organizations, including museums.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proceeds from the sale of specialized license plate featuring the image of dancing Snoopy Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: DependentMinimum Award Amount: $20,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $40,000.00 Period of Performance: Expenditure deadline March 2025Application Deadline: Solicitation closed.Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2021Program Website: https://resources.ca.gov/grants/california‐museumProgram Contact: Diane SousaEmail: diane.sousa@resources.ca.govOther: bondsandgrants@resources.ca.govCalifornia Natural Resources AgencyYouth Community Access Funding to support projects to increase youth access to natural and cultural resources. Funding to support projects to increase youth access to natural and cultural resources. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Primarily reimbursement. Advances allowed up to 25% for projects meeting disadvantaged and low‐income requirements, based upon need. Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible applicants include local, state and federal agencies; nonprofit organizations; federally‐recognized Native American tribes; or non‐federally‐recognized California Native American tribes listed on the California Tribal Consultation List maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 64Total Estimated Available Funding: $13,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: DependentMinimum Award Amount: $25,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $300,000.00 Period of Performance: Expenditure deadline July 2024Application Deadline: Solicitation closed. Anticipate next solicitation late 2021.Expected Award Announcement Date: Fall 2021Program Website: http://resources.ca.gov/grants/youth/Program Contact: Jocelyn RaphaelEmail: jocelyn.raphael@resources.ca.govOther: bondsandgrants@resources.ca.govCalifornia Tahoe ConservancyProp 1 Grant ProgramThe principal goal of the Conservancy's Prop 1 grant program is to support California's efforts in the California Water Action Plan by focusing support to eligible participants within the Lake Tahoe Basin.The California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) leads California's efforts to restore and enhance the extraordinary natural and recreational resources of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Prop 1 allocates $15 million directly to the Conservancy for multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects consistent with the California Water Action Plan and other State priorities. The California Water Action Plan emphasizes, among other priorities, multi‐benefit projects, restoration of mountain meadow habitat areas, implementation of Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, the State's land use planning guidelines, and assistance to disadvantaged communities. The Action Plan also highlights the importance of continuing restoration efforts in the Lake Tahoe Basin, including implementation of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Plan.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local public agencies including cities, counties, special districts, and joint powers authorities; state agencies; federally recognized Indian tribes; and nonprofit organizations registered to do business in California and identified in section 66905.9 of the Government Code.Geographic Scope: Lake Tahoe BasinRevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $650,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $650,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: OngoingApplication Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://tahoe.ca.gov/grant‐guidelines/Program Contact: Forest Schafer, Director of Natural ResourcesEmail: Forest.Schafer@tahoe.ca.govOther: fiscal@tahoe.ca.govCalifornia Tahoe ConservancyProposition 68 Grant Program The principal goal of the Conservancy's Proposition 68 grant program is to support purposes set forth in the Conservancy's governing statutes and strategic plan, including stewarding Conservancy lands and protecting Basin communities from wildfire; restoring the resilience of Basin forests and watersheds; providing public access and outdoor recreation for all communities; and fostering Basin wide climate adaptation and sustainable communities. The California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) leads California's efforts to restore and enhance the extraordinary natural and recreational resources of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Proposition 68 allocates $27 million directly to the Conservancy for the purposes set forth in its governing statutes and strategic plan, including stewarding Conservancy lands and protecting Basin communities from wildfire; restoring the resilience of Basin forests and watersheds; providing public access and outdoor recreation for all communities; and fostering Basin wide climate adaptation and sustainable communities. This includes advancing the Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program. In particular, Proposition 68 encourages the  acquisition of open space and creation of urban greenway corridors, and, to the extent possible, increasing the diversity and inclusion of communities that benefit from the bond funding. The Conservancy allocated $5 million to local assistance grants.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local public agencies including cities, counties, special districts, and joint powers authorities; state agencies; federal agencies; and the Tahoe Transportation District. Federally‐recognized Native American tribes. Nonprofit organizations registered to do business in California and identified in section 66905.9 of the Government Code.Geographic Scope: Lake Tahoe BasinRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $2,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $750,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/A (ongoing solicitation, no set cycles)Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Ongoing.Application Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://tahoe.ca.gov/grant‐guidelines/Program Contact: Forest Schafer, Director of Natural ResourcesEmail: Forest.Schafer@tahoe.ca.govOther: fiscal@tahoe.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 337 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsCalifornia Tahoe ConservancyScience and Lake Improvement Account ProgramThe principal goal of the Conservancy's Science and Lake Improvement Account program is to support near‐shore environmental improvement program activities and projects, particularly projects that manage aquatic invasive species or improve public access to sovereign land in Lake Tahoe.The California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy) leads California's efforts to restore and enhance the extraordinary natural and recreational resources of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The principal goal of the Conservancy's Science and Lake Improvement Account program (SB 630, 2013) is to support near‐shore environmental improvement program activities and projects, particularly projects that manage aquatic invasive species or improve public access to sovereign land in Lake Tahoe. More specifically, such projects manage aquatic invasive species, or improve public access to sovereign land in Lake Tahoe, including planning and site improvement or reconstruction projects on public land, and land acquisitions from willing sellers. SB 630 (2013) allocates the Conservancy approximately $350,000 annually.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local public agencies including cities, counties, special districts, and joint powers authorities; state agencies; federal agencies; and the Tahoe Transportation District. Federally‐recognized Native American tribes. Nonprofit organizations registered to do business in California and identified in section 66905.9 of the Government Code.Geographic Scope: Lake Tahoe BasinRevenue Source: SB 630 (2013)Total Estimated Available Funding: $350,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $350,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Ongoing.Application Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://tahoe.ca.gov/grant‐guidelines/Program Contact: Forest Schafer, Director of Natural ResourcesEmail: Forest.Schafer@tahoe.ca.govOther: fiscal@tahoe.ca.govCoachella Valley Mountains Conservancy  Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy Proposition 1 Grant ProgramImplement the California Water Action Plan in the Coachella Valley and its watershedsCompetitive grants for any project that fulfills one or more of the statutory objectives of Proposition 1 and complies with the General Obligation Bond Law.  The Conservancy is specifically encouraging three types of projects: (a) acquisition projects involving the purchase of land for conservation that implements the key objectives of the California Water Action Plan, (b) watershed restoration projects associated with the enhancement of watershed‐related natural features, such as washes, channels, streams or riverbeds, and (c) infrastructure projects related to the improvement of water management structures to complement surrounding habitat values.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Payment to Acquisition EscrowMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, public utilities, mutual water companies, and eligible nonprofit and tribal organizationsGeographic Scope: Within the Conservancy's territorial jurisdiction.  Revenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,600,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $500,000‐$1millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1‐3 Per Funding CycleMinimum Award Amount: $5,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Biannual. Currently have an open Notice of Funding Availability with an application deadline in August 2021.Application Deadline: Applications are due August 10, 2021.Expected Award Announcement Date: September 2021.Program Website: www.cvmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Diana RosasEmail: drosas@cvmc.ca.gtovOther: Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy  Coachella Valley Proposition 68 Parks, Conservation Land  Access and Climate Change Response Grant ProgramExpand recreational and educational use of conservation lands and improve sustainability in the Coachella ValleyGrants for projects containing park facilities, recreational improvements that expand public access to conservation land or reduce environmental impacts that cause climate change.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Payment to Acquisition EscrowMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, tribes or nonprofit organizations.Geographic Scope: Within the Conservancy's territorial jurisdiction.  Revenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,400,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1,500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 14 grants funded to dateMinimum Award Amount: $2,500.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: www.cvmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Jim KarpiakEmail: Jkarpiak@cvmc.ca.govOther: Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy  Coachella Valley Open Space Acquisition ProgramAcquire open space to protect wildlife resources and enhance recreational and educational use of that land.Local assistance grants to acquire mountainous or natural community conservation lands in the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy's territory in the Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Payment to Acquisition EscrowMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, resourceconservation districts, nonprofit organizations, JPAs, tribesGeographic Scope: Within the territory of, or benefiting implementation of, the  Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Revenue Source: Propositions 84, 40, 12Total Estimated Available Funding: $7,900,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10‐20 per year.Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: www.cvmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Kerrie GodfreyEmail: kgodfrey@cvmc.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 338 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsOcean Protection CouncilEnvironmental License Plate Fund Build coastal and marine ecosystem and human community resilience to the impacts of climate change.Grants for research, planning and implementation projects that build climate change resilience for ecosystems and coastal communities.  Can address cross‐cutting issues, such as the intersection of climate change and fisheries.Opportunity Type: Grant/ContractDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants:  Public agencies, nonprofits, universities, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian tribes on the NAHC CA Tribal Consultation ListGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: ELPFTotal Estimated Available Funding: $9,400,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $5,500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/AMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Ongoing Application Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: www.opc.ca.govProgram Contact: Jenn EckerleEmail: jenn.eckerle@resources.ca.govOther: Ocean Protection CouncilGeneral Fund ‐ Reducing the Risk of Whale and Sea Turtle Entanglement in Fishing GearTo reduce the risk of whale and sea turtle entanglement in fishing gear.Grants for projects that advance the four priorities in OPC's Strategy for Protecting Whales and Sea Turtles & Ensuring Thriving Fisheries: Reducing the Risk of Entanglement in California Fishing Gear including collaborative partnerships, best available science, gear innovation, and response and outreach.Opportunity Type: Grant/ContractDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants:  Public agencies, nonprofits, universities, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian tribes on the NAHC CA Tribal Consultation ListGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $2,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/AMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Application Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: www.opc.ca.govProgram Contact: Lindsay BonitoEmail: lindsay.bonito@resources.ca.govOther: Ocean Protection CouncilOnce‐through Cooling Interim Mitigation FundsOffset the harmful impacts of once‐through cooling technology on marine life associated with California's marine protected areas.Grants for projects that advance restoration, outreach/education, enforcement/compliance and research/monitoring to increase marine life associated with California's marine protected areas.Opportunity Type: Grant/ContractDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants:  Public agencies, nonprofits, universities, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian tribes on the NAHC CA Tribal Consultation ListGeographic Scope: From the Big Sur coast (near Lucia) to San Diego and state waters around the Channel Islands.Revenue Source: Once‐Through Cooling Mitigation FundsTotal Estimated Available Funding: $10,800,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: TBDMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: OngoingApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: www.opc.ca.govProgram Contact: Tova HandlemanEmail: tova.handleman@resources.ca.govOther: Ocean Protection CouncilProposition 68 Improve coastal and marine ecosystem health (discretionary or competitive) and build ecosystem and coastal community resilience to climate change.Grants for research, planning and implementation projects to improve marine ecosystem health (discretionary or competitive) and grants for research, planning and implementation projects to build ecosystem and coastal community resilience to climate change (competitive only).Opportunity Type: Grant/ContractDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofits, universities, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian tribes on the NAHC CA Tribal Consultation List, mutual water companies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $29,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/AMinimum Award Amount: TBDMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: TBDApplication Deadline: TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: www.opc.ca.govProgram Contact: Holly WyerEmail: holly.wyer@resources.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 339 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsSacramento‐San Joaquin Delta ConservancyProposition 1 Ecosystem Restoration and Water Quality Grant ProgramMulti‐benefit projects that restore important species and habitats, improve water quality, and support sustainable agriculture in alignment with state priorities.Planning and implementation grants are available for ecosystem protection, restoration and enhancement; water quality; and water‐related agricultural sustainability projects.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursed quarterly.Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: California public agencies, qualifying nonprofit organizations, public utilities, mutual water companies, and eligible tribal organizationsGeographic Scope: Legal Delta and Suisun Marsh; outside those boundaries if meeting specific criteriaRevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $3,050,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Dependent on number of submissions received, application processMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Final solicitation scheduled to open July 2021Application Deadline: Concept Proposal deadline is scheduled for September 2021, Full Proposal deadline is scheduled for December 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022Program Website: http://deltaconservancy.ca.gov/Proposition‐1/Program Contact: Aaron N.K. HaimanEmail: aaron.haiman@deltaconservancy.ca.govOther: prop1grants@deltaconservancy.ca.govSacramento‐San Joaquin Delta ConservancyProposition 68 Community and Economic Enhancement  ProgramIncreasing public access to the Delta through recreation and tourism opportunities, historic and cultural preservation, and environmental education in order to promote a robust Delta economy.Planning and implementation grants are available for recreation and tourism; historic and cultural preservation; and environmental education projects.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursed quarterly.Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: California public agencies and qualifying nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: Legal Delta and Suisun Marsh; outside those boundaries if meeting specific criteriaRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $8,700,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Dependent on number of submissions received, application processMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: OngoingApplication Deadline: NoneExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: http://deltaconservancy.ca.gov/Proposition‐68/Program Contact: Robyn KrockEmail: robyn.krock@deltaconservancy.ca.govOther: Prop68grants@deltaconservancy.ca.govSan Diego River ConservancySan Diego River Conservancy Proposition 1 Grant ProgramThe program will award funds to projects that demonstrate benefits to water quality, water supply, flood conveyance and/or ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration within the Conservancy's jurisdiction.Proposition 1 Competitive Grant Program guidelines adopted specific to the San Diego River watershed in accordance to the purposes of Water Code Division 26.7, Chapter 6 section 79731(e) and consistent with the   San Diego River Conservancy's mission, statute and Strategic Plan update 2018‐2023.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, qualifying nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, JPAs, mutual water companies and  federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian tribes on the NAHC CA Tribal Consultation ListGeographic Scope: San Diego River WatershedRevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $2,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: NoneEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2‐4Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Round 6 ‐  Concept Proposal due TBD; Full application due TBD; Board approval TBDApplication Deadline: Round 6:  TBDExpected Award Announcement Date: TBDProgram Website: http://sdrc.ca.gov/Proposition‐1/Program Contact: Dustin HarrisonEmail: dustin.harrison@sdrc.ca.govOther: San Diego River ConservancySan Diego River Conservancy Proposition 68 grant programThe program will award funds for projects that provide recreation, outdoor infrastructure and  amenities, trails, community access, educational opportunities, water quality improvements; and to protect resources and restore native habitat to support wildlife corridors within the Conservancy's jurisdiction.  Priority will be given to projects that serve a severely disadvantaged community.Proposition 68 Competitive Grant Program guidelines adopted specific to the San Diego River watershed in accordance to the purposes of Chapter 8, PRC 80110(b)(5) and the San Diego River Conservancy's, mission, statute and Strategic Plan update 2018‐2023.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, qualifying nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, JPAs, mutual water companies and  federally recognized Indian tribes, state Indian tribes on the NAHC CA Tribal Consultation ListGeographic Scope: San Diego River WatershedRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $9,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 4‐6Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Round 3 ‐ Concept Proposals due February 24, 2023, Full application due May 23, 2023; Board approval July, September 2023Application Deadline: Round 3:  5/23/2023Expected Award Announcement Date: Summer 2023Program Website: http://sdrc.ca.gov/Proposition68/Program Contact: Dustin HarrisonEmail: dustin.harrison@sdrc.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 340 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsSan Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains ConservancyProposition 1 Lower Los Angeles River Grant ProgramImplement the three objectives of the California Water Action Plan which are more reliable water supplies, the restoration of important species and habitat and a more resilient and sustainably managed water infrastructure within the Urban Rivers regionProposition 1 Competitive Grant Program Guidelines (“Guidelines”) specifically pertain to competitive grants for multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects pursuant to Water Code Section 79735(a) Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (case‐by‐case basis)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and mutual water companiesGeographic Scope: RMC territory; however, merited projects outside of the territory may be reviewed on a case‐by‐case basisRevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $35,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $20 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10+Minimum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Within 36 months of award, ending no later than April 30, 2024Application Deadline: Continuous and ongoingExpected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.rmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Salian GarciaEmail: sgarcia@rmc.ca.gov Other: RMCProp1@rmc.ca.govSan Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains ConservancyProposition 1/68 Small Grants Program1) Developing urban recreation projects and habitat protection or restoration projects, 2) Provide workforce education and training, contractor, and job opportunities for disadvantaged communities,3) Result in public benefit,4) Create new partnerships to expand access to diverse populations.Propositions 1 and 68 Competitive Grant Program Guidelines (“Guidelines”) specifically pertain to competitive grants for multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (case‐by‐case basis)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and mutual water companiesGeographic Scope: RMC territory; however, merited projects outside of the territory may be reviewed on a case‐by‐case basisRevenue Source: Proposition 1 and Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10+Minimum Award Amount: $10,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Period of Performance: Within 36 months of award, ending no later than April 30, 2025Application Deadline: Continuous and on‐goingExpected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.rmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Joseph GonzalezEmail: jgonzalez@rmc.ca.gov Other: info@rmc.ca.govSan Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains ConservancyProp 68 Technical Assistance Program (TAP)1) Developing urban recreation projects and habitat protection or restoration projects, 2) Provide workforce education and training, contractor, and job opportunities for disadvantaged communities,3) Result in public benefit,4) Create new partnerships to expand access to diverse populations.Proposition 68 TAP provides support to local disadvantaged communities with application assistance with the goal of facilitating access to the RMC's funding programsOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (case‐by‐case basis)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and mutual water companiesGeographic Scope: RMC territory; however, merited projects outside of the territory may be reviewed on a case‐by‐case basisRevenue Source: Prop 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,316,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10+Minimum Award Amount: $10,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Within 36 months of award, ending no later than April 30, 2025Application Deadline: Continuous and ongoingExpected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.rmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Joseph GonzalezEmail: jgonzalez@rmc.ca.gov Other: prop68@rmc.ca.govSan Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains ConservancyProposition 68 Lower Los Angeles River Grant Program1) Developing urban recreation projects and habitat protection or restoration projects, 2) Provide workforce education and training, contractor, and job opportunities for disadvantaged communities,3) Result in public benefit,4) Create new partnerships to expand access to diverse populations.Proposition 68 Competitive Grant Program specific to the Protection or Enhancement of the Los Angeles River watershed and its tributaries in accordance to PRC 80100(a)(1)(B)Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (case‐by‐case basis)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and mutual water companiesGeographic Scope: RMC territory; however, merited projects outside of the territory may be reviewed on a case‐by‐case basisRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $13,600,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $10,700,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10+Minimum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Within 36 months of award, ending no later than April 30, 2026Application Deadline: Continuous and ongoingExpected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.rmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Salian GarciaEmail: sgarcia@rmc.ca.govOther: prop68@rmc.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 341 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsSan Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains ConservancyProposition 68 Regionwide Grant Program1) Developing urban recreation projects and habitat protection or restoration projects, 2) Provide workforce education and training, contractor, and job opportunities for disadvantaged communities,3) Result in public benefit,4) Create new partnerships to expand access to diverse populations.Proposition 68 Competitive Grant Program specific to Conservancy Specified Purposes pursuant to governing statute of the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy in accordance to PRC 80110(b)(6)Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (case‐by‐case basis)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and mutual water companiesGeographic Scope: RMC territory; however, merited projects outside of the territory may be reviewed on a case‐by‐case basisRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3,500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10+Minimum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Within 36 months of award, ending no later than April 30, 2026Application Deadline: Round 4 Fall 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022Program Website: www.rmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Salian GarciaEmail: sgarcia@rmc.ca.govOther: prop68@rmc.ca.govSan Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains ConservancyWildfire Prevention Fund Program 1) San Gabriel Mountains and Foothills Fire Prevention Planning and Management: Projects under this category will serve mainly the San Gabriel Mountains and Foothills. Work may include invasive species management and fuel break maintenance in the Angeles National Forest, fuel modification of open spaces in foothill communities, or protection of tribal cultural resources from fire impacts.   2) Urban Wildlands and Hills Fire Prevention Planning and Management: Projects under this category will serve mainly the San Jose, San Rafael, Montebello, Puente, Chino, and Coyote Hills, which are urban wildlife corridors surrounded by urban development. Work may include fire prevention planning, fuel load reduction, invasive species management, and maintenance of defensible space3) Forest Health: Fire Recovery, Response, Restoration, Education and Stewardship: Projects under this category will cover all regions in the Mountains, Hills, and Foothills. Work will improve forest health through a variety of actions with co‐fire prevention benefits including native habitat revegetation, infrastructure improvements, and public stewardship building.Projects should address the risk or potential impact of wildfire to communities and forested landscapes, and consider wildfire resilience benefits including:  ‐ protect and expand native forests/wildlands‐ support communities in increasding their resilience to wildfire and improving fire safety‐ promote sustainable land use‐promote  investment in wildlands management and workforce devleopment‐ proetect cultural resources vulnerable to wildfireOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance (case‐by‐case basis)Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and mutual water companiesGeographic Scope: RMC territory; however, merited projects outside of the territory may be reviewed on a case‐by‐case basisRevenue Source: General Fund [Budget Act of 2020 (Ch. 14, Sec. 14)]Total Estimated Available Funding: $3,462,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3,462,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 5+Minimum Award Amount: $300,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Within 24 months of award, ending no later than 04/30/25Application Deadline: Continuous and ongoingExpected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.rmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Sally GeeEmail: sgee@rmc.ca.govOther: info@rmc.ca.gov San Joaquin River Conservancy  San Joaquin River Conservancy Proposition 1 Grant ProgramTo create or improve existing benefits to water quality and/or supply, to provide ecosystem and watershed protection, and to restore/enhance ecosystem benefits within the Conservancy's jurisdictional planning area (San Joaquin River, Friant Dam to Highway 99). Projects must be consistent with the requirements and purposes of Proposition 1 and the Conservancy's Grant Guidelines.The program will award funds to projects that demonstrate multiple benefits to water quality, water supply, and/or ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration within the Conservancy's jurisdictional planning area (San Joaquin River, Friant Dam to Highway 99). Projects must be consistent with the requirements and purposes of Proposition 1 and the Conservancy's Grant Guidelines.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations, public utilities, federally recognized Indian tribes, and mutual water companiesGeographic Scope:  Conservancy's jurisdictional planning area along the San Joaquin River, from Friant Dam to Highway 99, with a focus on the River Bottom areas.Revenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,600,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $0.00 ‐ Next PSP expected in 9 monthsEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: Min/max will be set at time of PSP releaseMaximum Award Amount: Min/max will be set at time of PSP releasePeriod of Performance: Continuous and on‐goingApplication Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: http://sjrc.ca.gov/grants‐and‐funding/Program Contact: Rebecca RausEmail: rebecca.raus@sjrc.ca.govOther: info@sjrc.ca.gov San Joaquin River Conservancy  San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan; San Joaquin River Habitat Restoration and Public AccessImplementation of the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan including land acquisitions, habitat enhancements, public access and recreation projects, outdoor education facilities, and other capital improvements consistent with the mission of the San Joaquin River Conservancy. The Parkway planning jurisdiction is generally the San Joaquin River floodplain from Friant Dam to Highway 99.Grants are provided to implement the San Joaquin River Parkway Master Plan. The Parkway planning jurisdiction is generally the San Joaquin River floodplain from Friant Dam to Highway 99. Eligible projects include land acquisitions, habitat enhancements, public access and recreation projects, outdoor education facilities, and other capital improvements consistent with the mission of the San Joaquin River Conservancy and the Parkway Master Plan. Project proposals, scopes of work, and budgets must be approved by both the San Joaquin River Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Board.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: State and local agencies, nonprofit organizationsGeographic Scope: The Parkway planning jurisdiction is generally the San Joaquin River floodplain from Friant Dam to Highway 99.Revenue Source: Propositions 84 & 40 (minor balance of Prop. 12)Total Estimated Available Funding: $10,200,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 4 per yearMinimum Award Amount: NoneMaximum Award Amount: NonePeriod of Performance: Continuous and on‐goingApplication Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: http://sjrc.ca.gov/grants‐and‐funding/Program Contact: Rebecca RausEmail: rebecca.raus@sjrc.ca.govOther: info@sjrc.ca.gov Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 342 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsSanta Monica Mountains ConservancyProposition 1‐‐Water Code Section 7931(h)Proposition 1 Competitive Grant Program Guidelines (“Guidelines”) specifically pertain to competitive grants for multi‐benefit ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects pursuant to Water Code Section 79731(h) N/AOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofits, JPAs, special districts  Geographic Scope: Within the SMMC zoneRevenue Source: Proposition 1‐‐Water Code Section 7931(h)Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: QuarterlyApplication Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.smmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Rorie SkeiEmail: skei@smmc.ca.govOther: grants@smmc.ca.govSanta Monica Mountains ConservancyProposition 1‐‐Water Code Section 79735(a)Propostion 1 Competitive Grant Porogram Guidelines ("Guidelines") pertain to competitve grants to protect and enhance an urban creek project pursuant to Water Code Section 79735(a). N/AOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofits, JPAs, special districts  Geographic Scope: Within the SMMC zone along the main stem of the los Angeles riverRevenue Source: Proposition 1‐‐Water Code Section 79735(a)Total Estimated Available Funding: $15,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: QuarterlyApplication Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.smmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Rorie SkeiEmail: skei@smmc.ca.govOther: grants@smmc.ca.govSanta Monica Mountains ConservancyProposition 68 Chapter 7 Proposition 68 Competitive Grant Program Guidelines ("Guidelines") specifically pertain to projects in accordance with the governing statutes of the SMMC pursuant to Chapter 8 of Proposition 68. N/AOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance for non‐state DAC or SDACMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofits, JPAs, special districts  Geographic Scope: Within the SMMC zone along the los Angeles river and tributariesRevenue Source: Proposition 68 Chapter 7Total Estimated Available Funding: $30,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: QuarterlyApplication Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.smmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Rorie SkeiEmail: skei@smmc.ca.govOther: grants@smmc.ca.govSanta Monica Mountains ConservancyProposition 68 Chapter 8 Proposition 68 Competitive Grant Program Guidelines ("Guidelines") specifically pertain to grants to protect and enhance and urban creek pursuant to Chapter 7 of Propostion 68. N/AOpportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement / Advance for non‐state DAC or SDACMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofits, JPAs, special districts  Geographic Scope: Within the SMMC zoneRevenue Source: Proposition 68 Chapter 8Total Estimated Available Funding: $10,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: QuarterlyApplication Deadline: Expected Award Announcement Date: Program Website: www.smmc.ca.govProgram Contact: Rorie SkeiEmail: skei@smmc.ca.govOther: grants@smmc.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 343 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsSierra Nevada ConservancyForest and Watershed Health Grant ProgramThe Forest and Watershed Health Directed Grants Program aims to support projects that create or improve forest conditions that result in a combination of multiple watershed, ecosystem, and community benefits.Per SNC Board approved competitive grant program guidelines, the Forest and Watershed Health Grant Program is currently focused on the areas below. Projects must fall within one of the focus areas to be considered for funding. 1) Implementation of prescribed fire to improve watershed health. Project tasks may include pre‐burning treatment and site preparation but must also implement prescribedfire on the landscape. Projects that include only planning for prescribed fire or conduct pre‐burning site treatments will not be eligible for funding. 2) Large‐landscape planning projects for forest health which demonstrate multiple watershed and ecosystem benefits. 3) Implementation of forest health planning projects for which SNC previously funded the planning phase.4) Projects that connect and serve underserved partners. Strategic partners that have received no more than one SNC grant since the start of the WIP Forest Health Program (in FY 2015‐2016 with funding from Proposition 1) will be eligible for grants to support planning or implementation of multi‐benefit forest and watershed health projects. Examples of such projects include, but are not limited to, fuel treatments to reduce the risk of severe wildfire for community or watershed protection; restoration, reforestation, or stand improvement activities after wildfire; forest management work, including the reduction of ladder fuels and canopy cover that will result in increased forest resilience; and forest treatment projects that prevent and/or address the impacts of severe tree mortality. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement on a monthly basis with a 10% retention until project completion.OREligible grantees may receive 30% advances with a 10% retention until project completion. Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, qualifying nonprofit organizations, and eligible tribal organizations. Geographic Scope: SNC regional jurisdictionRevenue Source:  Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $ 3,000,000 total$ 2,077,039 remaining 06/2021Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: VariableMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: All projects must be complete by Jan 1, 2027Application Deadline: Proposals accepted on a rolling basis, but concepts must be developed with SNC staff. Contact your Area Representative at https://sierranevada.ca.gov/about‐us/contact‐us/#fundingContactExpected Award Announcement Date: First awards expected March 2021, with subsequent awards made on a quarterly basisProgram Website: https://sierranevada.ca.gov/funding/snc‐grants/Program Contact: Shannon CiottiEmail: shannon.ciotti@sierranevada.ca.govOther: grants.snc@sieT149:AB149rranevada.ca.govSierra Nevada ConservancyResilient Sierra Nevada Communities Grant ProgramThe Resilient Sierra Nevada Communities grant program is a multi‐disciplinary technical assistance grant program which will provide resources for capacity building and technical support to enable local agencies, organizations, and tribes to design, manage, and implement projects that will increase community resiliency and stand recovery from natural disasters and ecological and economic challenges.Per SNC Board approved directed grant program guidelines, the Resilient Sierra Nevada Communities Grant Program will focus on projects that directly address the nexus among: 1) Environmental Needs,2) Economic Needs, and 3) Community Needs. The program will support the planning and implementation of projects that are specifically designed to confront issues that impact the environment, economy, and communities. This may include a broad array of projects, such as the protection of public infrastructure from wildfire, workforce development through the implementation of natural resource management activities or the development of community resource facilities, the implementation of climate adaptation initiatives, or wildfire recovery efforts for current and future community resiliency. Consistent with the requirements of Proposition 68, all projects must either plan for or implement capital improvement projects that will provide long‐term benefits California citizens.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement on a monthly basis with a 10% retention until project completion.OREligible grantees may receive 30% advances with a 10% retention until project completion. Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, qualifying nonprofit organizations, and eligible tribal organizations. Geographic Scope: SNC regional jurisdictionRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $ 1,000,000 total$ 800,000 remaining 06/2021Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: VariableMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: All projects must be complete by Jan 1, 2027Application Deadline: Proposals accepted on a rolling basis, but concepts must be developed with SNC staff. Contact your Area Representative at https://sierranevada.ca.gov/about‐us/contact‐us/#fundingContactExpected Award Announcement Date: First awards expected March 2021, with subsequent awards made on a quarterly basisProgram Website: https://sierranevada.ca.gov/funding/snc‐grants/Program Contact: Shannon CiottiEmail: shannon.ciotti@sierranevada.ca.govOther: grants.snc@sierranevada.ca.govSierra Nevada ConservancyVibrant Recreation and Tourism Grant ProgramThis program aims to support innovative, collaborative efforts to enhance, promote, and develop sustainable recreation and tourism opportunities and increased access to public lands in the Sierra Nevada Region. Projects funded through this program should accomplish one or more of the following across a defined geographic region: 1) Assess conditions, existing resources, needs, and opportunities to support or promote recreation and tourism throughout the Region and identify highest priority activities. 2) Identify, create, and participate in partnerships to support the development of vibrant recreation and tourism throughout the Region. 3)Support pilot projects or collaboratives that test innovative governance, finance, and implementation tools that can achieve sustainable recreation and tourism objectives across the Region. Per SNC Board approved directed grant program guidelines, the Vibrant Recreation and Tourism Grant Program will focus on collaboratives organized specifically for the purpose of recreation and tourism. The intent of these program priorities is to support existing recreation and tourism collaboratives and encourage the establishment of new collaboratives by planning for and implementing multi‐benefit recreation and tourism projects developed through a collaborative process. Projects must fall within one of the focus areas to be considered for funding. 1) Collaborative Project Implementation 2) Collaborative Project Planning Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement on a monthly basis with a 10% retention until project completion.OREligible grantees may receive 30% advances with a 10% retention until project completion. Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, qualifying nonprofit organizations, and eligible tribal organizations.Geographic Scope: SNC regional jurisdictionRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $1,000,000 total$779,000 remaining 06/2021Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $500,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: VariableMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: All projects must be complete by Jan 1, 2027Application Deadline: Proposals accepted on a rolling basis, but concepts must be developed with SNC staff. Contact your Area Representative at https://sierranevada.ca.gov/about‐us/contact‐us/#fundingContactExpected Award Announcement Date: First awards expected March 2021, with subsequent awards made on a quarterly basisProgram Website: https://sierranevada.ca.gov/funding/snc‐grants/Program Contact: Shannon CiottiEmail: shannon.ciotti@sierranevada.ca.govOther: grants.snc@sierranevada.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 344 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsSierra Nevada Conservancy2021 Immediate Action Wildfire and Forest Resilience Grant ProgramImplement forest health projects that address wildfire recovery and resilience and result in a combination of multiple watershed, ecosystem, and community benefits. Per SNC Board approved  grant program guidelines, the Immediate Action Wildfire and Forest Resilience Grant Program will fund the implementation of projects that address wildfire recovery and resilience , with an emphasis on shovel‐ready projects which can start implementation in 2021 and be complete by 2025.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: Reimbursement on a monthly basis with a 10% retention until project completion.OREligible grantees may receive 30% advances with a 10% retention until project completion. Matched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, qualifying nonprofit organizations, and eligible tribal organizations.Geographic Scope: SNC regional jurisdictionRevenue Source: 202 Budget Act General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $19,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $19,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 15Minimum Award Amount: $200,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: All projects must be complete by Jan 1, 2025Application Deadline: May 1, 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: 44392Program Website: https://sierranevada.ca.gov/funding/snc‐grants/Program Contact: Shannon CiottiEmail: shannon.ciotti@sierranevada.ca.govOther: grants.snc@sierranevada.ca.govState Board of Forestry and Fire ProtectionEffectiveness Monitoring Program The Effectiveness Monitoring Committee (EMC) is an advisory body to the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) that is intended to fund robust scientific research aimed at testing the efficacy of the California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs) and other natural resource protection statutes, laws, codes, and regulations. The FPRs and the Board’s related policies and regulations address a variety of natural resource issues including, but not limited to, watershed science, wildlife concerns, and wildfire hazard. The Effectiveness Monitoring Committee (EMC) is seeking project proposals that:(1) Address one or more of the critical effectiveness monitoring questions identified in the EMC 2018 Strategic Plan,  and (2) Address natural resource protection issues that are important for California forestlands.The critical monitoring questions referenced in (1) above are organized under 11 themes: 1.Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone (WLPZ) riparian function. 2.Watercourse channel sediment. 3. Road and WLPZ sediment, 4. Mass wasting  sediment, 5.Fish habitat, 6.Wildfire hazard, 7. Wildlife habitat: species and nest sites, 8. Wildlife habitat: seral stages, 9. Wildlife habitat: cumulative impacts, 10. Wildlife habitat: structures. 11. Hardwood valuesProjects that address multiple EMC critical themes and multiple critical questions within a given theme will be ranked higher than those that only address a single theme and critical question, particularly if the projects align with the EMC’s prioritized critical questions in that funding year. Five to six prioritized critical questions are determined by vote amongst the current EMC members at the beginning of each calendar year.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: None requiredEligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are local, state, and federal agencies including federal land management agencies; institutions of higher education; special purpose districts (e.g., public utilities districts, fire districts, conservation districts, and ports); Native American tribes; private landowners; for‐profit entities; and non‐profit 501(c)(3) organizations (e.g., fire safe councils, land trusts). Applicants may work cooperatively with local partners to implement projects and achieve an outcome that is larger than the sum of the individual projects that may have been undertaken by each partnering organization independently. Applicants should take care to clearly indicate what work will be completed with funds from this solicitation if partnerships are noted. Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source:  Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $425,000 per year; Newly awarded projects are subject to funding limits based on previous‐year allocations, and previously allocated funds in upcoming years will be considered during the EMC’s review of new proposals each year. Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $0; Awards estimated to be available under the grant program beginning with the first RFP to be released in July 2022.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1‐3 awards per fiscal year funding cycleMinimum Award Amount: NoneMaximum Award Amount: In fiscal year 2022/2023, up to $425,000 will be awarded to eligible applicants through the EMC’s Effectiveness Monitoring Program. An individual project proponent may be awarded up to $1,275,000, with funding installments of up to $425,000 annually for up to three fiscal years with demonstrated progress towards project completion. Longer‐term projects (greater than three years) may re‐apply for additional funding through the competitive grants process. Applicants requesting more than 425,000 per fiscal year or more than $1,275,000 total will not be considered. The EMC may choose to fund projects that span multiple fiscal years up to the annual funding cap; however, the EMC strives to fund multiple research projects annually. Proposers should be aware of this when developing their project and budget requests.Period of Performance: Solicitation expected July 2022 for FY 2022/23. Work must be completed by March 31, 2025.Application Deadline: For the 2022/23 FY: Initial Concept Proposal estimated due dateSeptember 2022; Full Proposal by Invitation Only, and generally applicants will be notified by end September, will full proposals due by November 2022. Expected Award Announcement Date: December of 2022 for the 2022/23 FYProgram Website: Grant Guidelines are under development and will be posted to 'https://bof.fire.ca.gov/board‐committees/effectiveness‐monitoring‐committee/' when availableProgram Contact: Kristina WolfEmail: kristina.wolf@bof.ca.govOther: State Board of Forestry and Fire ProtectionWood Products Innovation  The Joint Institute for Wood Products Innovation (Institute) is an advisory committee to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection whose mission is to provide California forest product information, research, and analysis to increase economic drivers for healthy forests. Institute work focuses on long‐term ecological and economic sustainability; education and outreach; increased forest resilience, long‐term carbon storage, and local economies; and industry retention and development in the state. The intent of the ‘Wood Products Innovation’ grant is to substantially expand and accelerate California wood products and wood energy markets. The grants and agreements awarded will support highest end uses for state wood and forest biomass resulting from sustainable forest management and restoration.The Institute seeks proposals that stimulate or expand wood products and wood energy markets to support sustainable forest management and restoration in California with the following goals in mind:• Reduce hazardous fuels and improve forest health on forest land in the state.• Reduce the costs of sustainable forest management.• Promote the economic and environmental health of rural communities.The intent of the ‘Wood Products Innovation’ funding opportunity is to stimulate, expand, and support innovative forest wood‐ and biomass‐based products, bioenergy, and biofuel markets in California.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: None requiredEligible Applicants: Grantees may include local, state, and federal agencies; universities; special districts; Native American tribes; private forest landowners; and non‐profit 501(c)(3) organizations. Applicants may work cooperatively with local partners to implement projects and achieve an outcome that is larger than the sum of the individual projects that may have been undertaken by each partnering organization independently. Applicants should take care to clearly indicate what work will be completed with funds from this solicitation if partnerships are noted. Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source:  Timber Regulation and Forest Restoration FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $425,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $425,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1‐3 awards per fiscal year funding cycleMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $425,000.00 Period of Performance: June 30, 2024Application Deadline: Approximately October 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Approximately November 2021Program Website: Grant Guidelines are under development and will be posted to 'https://bof.fire.ca.gov/board‐committees/joint‐institute‐for‐wood‐products‐innovation/' as soon as they are available.Program Contact: Katie HarrellEmail: katie.harrell@bof.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 345 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsState Water Resources Control BoardNonpoint Source (NPS) Grant ProgramThe purpose of this grant program is to improve water quality by reducing nonpoint source pollution to waters of the state.  Most of the funding is awarded to projects that implement on‐the‐ground work to improve impaired waters. However, funding may be awarded to planning proposals if funding is available. In addition, some funding may be awarded to proposals for post‐fire recovery and for protection of high‐quality waters. The proposal instructions and minimum eligibility criteria differ by project type.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Projects must have 25% matching funds; applicants are eligible for a match waiver if they show that the project serves a disadvantaged community.Eligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit organizations, federally recognized tribes, state agency, public college, or federal agency.Geographic Scope: Projects must be within priority watersheds that are selected by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Revenue Source: Clean Water Act section 319Total Estimated Available Funding: $4.5 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $4.5 million. Implementation projects $250,000 to $800,000, total up to $3.0 million; High Quality Waters Implementation projects up to $400,000; Post‐Fire Recovery projects up to $600,000; Planning projects up to $800,000 (can be portion of Implementation projects ‐ see 2022 NPS Guidelines).Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Approximately 10 Minimum Award Amount: $250,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: $800,000.00 Period of Performance: Start date: Typically, request for proposals is announced in September with a closing date of December.End date: Typically, projects selected by April each year.Application Deadline: Mid‐DecemberExpected Award Announcement Date: JuneProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/319grants.html Program Contact: Jeanie MasciaEmail: Jeanie.Mascia@waterboards.ca.govOther: NoneState Water Resources Control BoardProposition 1, Chapter 10, Section 79771(a) ‐ Groundwater SustainabilityTo encourage the use of groundwater as a sustainable local resource. Grants to fund cleanup and prevention of contamination of groundwater that serves or has served as a source of drinking water.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: Minimum match of 50%, potentially reduced for disadvantaged communities.Eligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, state and federally recognized Native American tribes, and mutual water companies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding:  $318.3million Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: ($0.00)Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: VariesMinimum Award Amount: Implementation: $500,000 Maximum Award Amount: Implementation: $50.0 millionPeriod of Performance: Project construction complete by June 2024Application Deadline: Round 3 ‐ Concept Proposal Solicitation Opens 7/6/2021 and Closes 9/7/2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Summer 2022Program Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/proposition1/groundwater_sustainability.htmlProgram Contact: Alex HuangEmail: Alex.Huang@waterboards.ca.govOther: gwquality.funding@waterboards.ca.govState Water Resources Control BoardProposition 68, Chapter 11.1, Section 80141(a) Groundwater Treatment & Remediation To increase the use of groundwater as a sustainable local resource. Two potential opportunities:                                                                                                          1. Operations and Maintenance Funding for Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Drinking Water Facilities that Treat Contaminated Groundwater:State Water Board is working on setting up a program to provide grant funding to eligible entities to run a local or regional program that provides operations and maintenance funding to multiple eligible DAC water systems.  This program is still under development, with more information to come. 2. Operations and Maintenance Funding for Severely Disadvantaged Community (SDAC) Groundwater Cleanup Facilities:  Grants to fund treatment and remediation activities for the reduction or prevention of contamination of groundwater that serves as a source of drinking water.  These funds will are distributed consistent with the Prop 68 Groundwater Treatment and Remediation  Funding Guidelines.  Eligible projects should have enough data to determine the approximate nature and extent of contamination and demonstrate how the existing treatment facilities reduce or prevent the spread of contamination in groundwater within the aquifer.   Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: 50% minimum match requirement may be waived for DACs and SDACs.Eligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, state and federally recognized Native American tribes, and mutual water companies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $74 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $27.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/AMinimum Award Amount: Per Project: $500,000Maximum Award Amount:  Per Project: $5.0 millionPeriod of Performance: Through March 31, 2023Application Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: Proposition 68 Groundwater Grant Program: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/propositions/prop68.htmlProgram Contact: Alex HuangEmail: Alex.Huang@waterboards.ca.govOther: gwquality.funding@waterboards.ca.govState Water Resources Control BoardAdministrator FundingTo provide grants or contracts for administrators to provide administrative, technical, operational, or managerial services to a designated water system to support compliance with current drinking water standards.Funding for grants or contracts for administrators to provide administrative, technical, operational, or managerial services to a designated water system to support compliance with current drinking water standards.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Varied, can include individuals and private entities.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $10.0 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1.0 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: UnknownMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: 2 yearsApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/administrator.htmlProgram Contact: James GarrettEmail: James.Garrett@waterboards.ca.govOther: NoneUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 346 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsState Water Resources Control BoardClean Water State Revolving Fund ProgramUnder federal and state law the primary purpose of the CWSRF Program is to provide financing for eligible projects to restore and maintain water quality in the state.The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act or CWA), as amended in 1987, established the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program. The CWSRF program offers low interest financing agreements for water quality projects such as construction of publicly‐owned facilities and expanded use projects.Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible applicants for particular project types vary under applicable law, generally, Public agencies, tribal governments, designated and approved management agencies under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Clean Water State Revolving FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: The Clean Water State Revolving Fund operates on a cash flow basis and has established a $600 million annual funding target. The actual annual funding varies between 90% and 125% of the established annual funding target.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Projects listed on the 2021/2022 Fundable List are being processed for an executed funding agreement by June 30, 2022. Projects that do not receive an executed financing agreement by June 30, 2022 will roll over to the 2022/2023 fundable list.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Varies based on number of Projects at or above the established priority cut off score so that the number of projects awarded is within the established rules to maintain the yearly $600 million funding target. The 2021/2022 CWSRF Fundable List includes up to 23 new projects.Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/Program Contact: Bob PontureriEmail: Robert.Pontureri@waterboards.ca.govOther: CleanWaterSRF@waterboards.ca.govState Water Resources Control BoardCleanup and Abatement Account  To provide financial assistance for the clean up of waste, or abate the effects of a waste, on waters of the State, or to address an urgent drinking water need. The Program provides funding for projects that clean up waste or abate the effects of waste on waters of the State, or address an urgent drinking water need. “Waters of the State” includes both surface water and groundwater.Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: For cleanup or abatement projects, eligible applicants are: Public agencies, certain not‐for‐profit organizations, and tribal governments with authority to clean up or abate a waste. All applicants must serve a disadvantaged community (DAC).For urgent drinking water needs, eligible applicants are: public agencies, not‐for‐profit organizations, community water systems, and tribal governments. All applicants must serve a DAC.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Cleanup and Abatement Account (Water Code Sections 13340‐13443)Total Estimated Available Funding: $5.0 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBD, fluctuates based on needEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: UnknownMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Up to $500,000 for Division of Financial Assistance Deputy Director approval.Projects more than $500,000 will require approval from the State Water Board.Period of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/caa/Program Contact: Matt PavelchikEmail: Matthew.Pavelchik@waterboards.ca.govOther: DFA‐CAA@waterboards.ca.govState Water Resources Control BoardDrinking Water and Wastewater System Repair ProgramTo provide emergency funding for projects to water and wastewater service providers serving disadvantaged communities.Emergency funding for projects to water and wastewater service providers serving disadvantaged communities for the following purposes: (1) to evaluate, address and repair the failure of critical components of drinking water or waste water systems; and (2) to fund critical operation & maintenance activities that are cost prohibitive considering the population and median household income of the community served by the system. Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Water and Wastewater Providers serving disadvantaged communities.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: General Fund Total Estimated Available Funding: $8.7 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: UnknownMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: NoneProgram Contact: Matt PavelchikEmail: Matthew.Pavelchik@waterboards.ca.govOther: NoneState Water Resources Control BoardDrinking Water for Schools  To provide financial assistance to address water quality problems and improve access to safe drinking water at California public schools.The grant administrators will allocate financial assistance to eligible California public school districts. The funds will be used to improve water quality by making the water cleaner, and to improve access to water by installing new drinking fountains and water outlets.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: California public school districtsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: General FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $5.8 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: TBDEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: TBDMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $100,000 per individual schoolPeriod of Performance: All project work must complete in the first quarter of 2023.Application Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/schools/Program Contact: Matt PavelchikEmail: Matthew.Pavelchik@waterboards.ca.govOther: NoneUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 347 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsState Water Resources Control BoardDrinking Water State Revolving FundThe DWSRF program is to assist Public Water Systems using federal and state funds in financing the cost of drinking water infrastructure projects needed to achieve or maintain compliance with the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements and to further the public health objectives of the SDWA.The SDWA, as amended in 1997, established the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SDWSRF) program. The SDWSRF program offers low interest financing agreements for drinking water quality projects such as treatment and distribution systems, as well as consolidation of water systems.Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Community and nonprofit, non‐community public water systems that are owned by public agencies or private entities.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Drinking Water State Revolving FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Funding is offered continuously based on cash flow. Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: The 2021‐22 fundable list has been established and projects are being processed as they are ready for an executed funding agreement.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 20‐40Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Funding amount limited to an applicant's ability to repay a loan.Max principal forgiveness between $45,000 ‐ $80,000 per connection depending on project type and community type. Caps are  cumulative for a 5‐year period for all types of SWRCB funding (planning, technical assistance, and construction).Period of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/services/funding/SRF.htmlProgram Contact: Uyen Trinh‐Le (non‐DAC & Large PWS DWSRF Loan only)Matthew Freese (Small DAC/Small SDAC)Email: Uyen.Trinh‐Le@waterboards.ca.govMatthew.Freese@waterboards.ca.govOther: DrinkingWaterSRF@waterboards.ca.gov State Water Resources Control BoardOrphan Site Cleanup Fund Provides financial assistance to eligible applicants for the costs of response actions to remediate the harm caused by leaking petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) where there is no financially responsible party, and the applicant is not an eligible claimant to the UST Cleanup Fund.A grant program that is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) Cleanup Fund in the Division of Financial Assistance. The Program provides grant funds to eligible applicants for the costs of response actions to remediate the harm caused by leaking petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) where there is no financially responsible party, and the applicant is not an eligible claimant to the UST Cleanup Fund.  The maximum grant amount for an eligible occurrence is $1 million.  The program provides assessment grants and cleanup grants.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Any individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation, or other entity including a government corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or association.  Also includes a public agency.The substantive grantee requirements for an OSCF grant is that the applicant did not cause or contribute to the petroleum release, the applicant has no affiliation with the person who caused or contributed to the petroleum release, the applicant is not eligible for the UST Cleanup Fund, the principal source of the contamination is from a petroleum UST, and there is no financially responsible party identified to pay for the corrective action.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Contamination Total Estimated Available Funding: $8.3 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 12Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $1.0 millionPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ustcf/oscf.htmlProgram Contact: Michael MoronesEmail: Michael.Morones@waterboards.ca.govOther: ustcleanupfund@waterboards.ca.govState Water Resources Control BoardProposition 68, Chapter 11, Section 80140(a), Safe Drinking WaterPublic water system infrastructure improvements and related actions to meet safe drinking water standards, ensure affordable drinking water, or both.Grants for small disadvantaged community drinking water and wastewater system infrastructure improvements. Funds are administered with the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Policy, Clean Water State Revolving Fund Policy and Intended Use Plans.Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, state and federally recognized Native American tribes, and mutual water companies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $152.6 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $25.1 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: VariesMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Max between $45,000 ‐ $80,000 per connection depending on project type and community type. Caps are cumulative for a 5‐year period for all types of SWRCB funding (planning, technical assistance, and construction).Period of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/sustainable_water_solutions/Program Contact: Matthew FreeseEmail: Matthew.Freese@waterboards.ca.govOther: DFA‐OSWS@waterboards.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 348 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsState Water Resources Control BoardProposition 84, Section 75022 ‐ Drinking Water InfrastructureProvides grants for small community drinking water system infrastructure improvements and related actions to meet safe drinking water standards.Small Community Infrastructure Improvements for Chemical and Nitrate Contaminants.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Permitted, Small Public Water SystemsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 84Total Estimated Available Funding: $6.5 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3.0 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 160 over the life of the programMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: Construction: $5,000,000Feasibility Studies: $500,000Period of Performance: Open application cycle is closed. Applications by invitation only.Application Deadline: N/AExpected Award Announcement Date: N/AProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/services/funding/Prop84.htmlProgram Contact: Noel GordonEmail: Noel.Gordon@waterboards.ca.govOther: DrinkingWaterSRF@waterboards.ca.gov State Water Resources Control BoardReplacing, Removing, or Upgrading Underground Storage Tanks ProgramProvides financial assistance grants and low‐interest loans to remove and/or replace and upgrade USTs. Assists eligible small business UST owners/operators to come into compliance with UST regulatory requirements.Typical eligible costs are for removing and replacing single‐walled USTs and/or piping with double‐walled USTs and/or piping, UST upgrades including installing containment sumps, under‐dispenser containment boxes/pans, and electronic monitoring systems, and conducting enhanced leak detection tests.Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Eligible small business gas station owners or operators of underground storage tanks.  See Health & Safety Code Section 15399.15 for details concerning eligibility.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Financing Account Total Estimated Available Funding: $35.0 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Approximately $8 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: N/AMinimum Award Amount: $10,000.00 Maximum Award Amount: Grant ‐‐ $70,000Loan ‐‐ $750,000Period of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ustcf/rust.html Program Contact: Robert SmithEmail: Robert.Smith@waterboards.ca.govOther: ustcleanupfund@waterboards.ca.govState Water Resources Control BoardSafe and Affordable Drinking Water To provide support or local assistance to fund grants, loans, contracts, or services to help water systems provide safe and affordable drinking water.This Program shall be available for support or local assistance to fund grants, loans, contracts, or services to help water systems provide safe and affordable drinking water. Types of projects that may be funded include: interim water supplies and emergencies, technical assistance, administrator, planning, construction, and direct operation and maintenance support.  Solutions support public water systems, state small water systems, and communities served by domestic wells.  Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Public agencies, nonprofit organizations, public utilities, mutual water companies, California Native American Tribes, administrators, and groundwater sustainability agencies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Greenhouse Gas Reduction FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: $100.3 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $97.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: UnknownMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: TBDPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: NoneProgram Contact: Jeff WetzelEmail: Jeff.Wetzel@waterboards.ca.govOther: NoneState Water Resources Control BoardSeawater Intrusion Control Fund  Provides low‐interest loans to local agencies for the design and construction of publicly owned facilities necessary to protect groundwater quality in basins threatened by seawater intrusion, which are subject to a local groundwater management plan, and where restrictions on groundwater pumping, a physical solution, or both, are necessary to prevent the destruction of, or irreparable injury to, groundwater quality.The Program provides 20‐year, low‐interest loans for projects directly addressing seawater intrusion control, including associated treatment, storage, pumping, distribution, and injection.Opportunity Type: LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Construction with planning and design costs eligible retroactively for public agencies.Geographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 13Total Estimated Available Funding: $12.5 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $12.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3 awards over last 15 yearsMinimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: $2.5 millionPeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/swic.shtmlProgram Contact: Sandeep KalsEmail: Sandeep.Kals@waterboards.ca.govOther: NoneUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 349 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsState Water Resources Control BoardSite Cleanup Subaccount Program The Site Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP) is a funding program established by Senate Bill (SB) 445 (Hill, 2014), allowing the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) to issue grants for projects that remediate the harm or threat of harm to human health, safety, or the environment caused by existing or threatened surface water or groundwater contamination.Provides financial assistance to eligible applicants to cleanup surface and groundwater contamination that poses a risk to human health, safety and the environment where the responsible party has no financial resources. Also provides resources for Regional Board staff to provide oversight of surface or groundwater cleanup projects.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Grants ‐ no restriction of who is eligible to apply.  The type of project determines if the work is eligible.Contract ‐‐ Regional Water BoardsGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Site Cleanup SubaccountTotal Estimated Available Funding: $47.7 million Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $12 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 30Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/scap/  https://faast.waterboards.ca.gov/ Program Contact: Craig SanchezEmail: Craig.Sanchez@waterboards.ca.govOther: gwquality.funding@waterboards.ca.govState Water Resources Control BoardWater Recycling Funding Program The purpose of the WRFP is to promote water recycling by providing technical and financial assistance to local agencies and other stakeholders in support of water recycling projects and research.The Program promotes the beneficial use of treated municipal wastewater (water recycling) in order to augment or offset fresh water supplies in California by providing technical and financial assistance to agencies and other stakeholders in support of water recycling feasibility studies, construction projects, and research.Opportunity Type: Grant / LoanDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Planning: Public AgenciesResearch & Development (R&D): Public Agencies and 501(c)3 non‐profitsConstruction: Public AgenciesGeographic Scope: Planning and Construction projects must be within the State of CA.Revenue Source: Planning: Proposition 13, 68R&D: Proposition 1, 13 & 68Construction: Proposition 1, 13 & 68Total Estimated Available Funding: Prop 1: $72.1 million Prop 13: $22 millionProp 68: $72.2 millionPotential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: Planning: Prop 13 grant: $0.2 million; Prop 68 grant: $0.2 millionR&D: Prop 1 grant: $2.87 millionConstruction: Prop 1  & 13 grant: $3.7 million Prop 68 grant: $17.3 millionProp 1  & 68 loan: $45.7 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: Varies based on number of projects at or above the established priority cut off score. Last year 21 water recycling applications were on the CWSRF Fundable List.Minimum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Planning and R&D: Continuously accepting applications.Construction: Continuously accepting applications. All application documents received by December 31st each year will be used to develop a priority score. Projects which receive a priority score equal to or greater than the yearly fundable list cutoff score will be placed on the fundable list for the upcoming fiscal year.Application Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/water_recycling/Program Contact: Sandeep KalsEmail: Sandeep.Kals@waterboards.ca.govOther: CleanWaterSRF@waterboards.ca.govWildlife Conservation BoardCalifornia Riparian Habitat Conservation ProgramThe purpose of this program is to develop a coordinated approach to the protection of riparian ecosystems by funding grants for the protection, restoration and enhancement of riparian habitat.  Supports biodiversity.This program supports a coalition of state, federal, local and private organizations whose mission is to develop a coordinated approach to the protection of riparian ecosystems. Grants are awarded for the protection, restoration and enhancement of riparian habitat systems.    Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Habitat Conservation FundTotal Estimated Available Funding: Under HCF receive approximately $3 million annually for restoration and acquisitions through 2030.  Currently up to $12 million is available.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 3Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/RiparianProgram Contact: Cara AllenEmail: cara.allen@wildlife.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 350 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsWildlife Conservation BoardInland Wetlands Conservation ProgramThe purpose of this program is to assist the Central Valley Joint Venture in its mission to protect, restore and enhance wetlands and associated habitats in the Central Valley.  Supports biodiversity specific to wetlands.The program was created to assist the Central Valley Joint Venture in its mission to protect, restore and enhance wetlands and associated habitats in the Central Valley.  The public/private partnership works to increase the populations of wintering and breeding waterfowl, shorebirds, water birds, and riparian songbirds.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: Central ValleyRevenue Source: Habitat Conservation Fund, Inland Wetland Conservation Fund Total Estimated Available Funding: Under HCF receive approximately $2 million annually for restoration and acquisitions until the year 2030Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/WetlandsProgram Contact: James CroftEmail: james.croft@wildlife.ca.govOther: Wildlife Conservation BoardCalifornia Streamflow Enhancement ProgramThe purpose of this program is to provide enhanced stream flow, especially in those streams that support anadromous fish; special status, threatened, endangered or at risk species; or provide resilience to climate change.  Supports biodiversity and climate resilience. Funding will be focused on addressing the objective of providing enhanced stream flow, especially in those streams that support anadromous fish; special status, threatened, endangered or at risk species; or provide resilience to climate change.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts, tribes and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 1Total Estimated Available Funding: $40,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: 2021 Solicitation will be out in Fall 2021.Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 15Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Annually in July of each year, dependent on budget approval. Next cycle to open in Fall of 2021.Application Deadline: Fall/Winter 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022Program Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/Stream‐Flow‐EnhancementProgram Contact: Aaron HaimanEmail: aaron.haiman@wildlife.ca.govOther: wcbstreamflow@wildlife.ca.govWildlife Conservation BoardLand Acquisition and Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program ‐ Salton Sea and Colorado RiverThe purpose of this program is to fund acquisition and habitat restoration projects associated with the Salton Sea and Colorado River region of California.  Supports biodiversity in Salton Sea, Colorado River.Funding for acquisition and habitat restoration projects associated with the Salton Sea and Colorado River region of California.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: Salton Sea and Colorado RiverRevenue Source: Proposition 50 Total Estimated Available Funding: $3,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: Program Contact: Don CrockerEmail: Don.Crocker@wildlife.ca.govOther: Wildlife Conservation BoardLand Acquisition and Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program ‐ San Francisco Bay coastal wetlands and watershedsThe purpose of this program is to fund acquisition and habitat restoration projects associated with the San Francisco Bay coastal wetlands and watersheds.  Supports biodiversity in San Francisco Bay.Funding for acquisition and habitat restoration projects associated with the San Francisco Bay region of California.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: San Francisco Bay coastal wetlands and watershedsRevenue Source: Proposition 50 Total Estimated Available Funding: $3,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $1 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: Program Contact: Scott McFarlinEmail: scott.mcfarlin@wildlife.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 351 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsWildlife Conservation BoardLand Acquisition and Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Program ‐ Southern California Coastal Wetlands and WatershedsThe purpose of this program is to fund acquisition and habitat restoration projects associated with Southern California coastal wetlands and watersheds.  Supports biodiversity in Southern California.Funding for acquisition and habitat restoration projects associated with the Southern California coastal region.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: Southern California Coastal Wetlands and WatershedsRevenue Source: Proposition 50 Total Estimated Available Funding: $15,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: Program Contact: Don CrockerEmail: Don.Crocker@wildlife.ca.govOther: Wildlife Conservation BoardLower American River Conservation ProgramThe purpose of this program is to work cooperatively with local agencies and nonprofit organizations to restore, enhance, interpret, protect and improve public access to the American River Parkway.  Supports access for all and biodiversity along Lower American River.Funding to work cooperatively with local agencies, particularly the County of Sacramento in its role as the American River Parkway Manager, and nonprofit organizations to restore, enhance, interpret, protect and improve public access to the American River Parkway’s natural, recreational, educational and cultural resources.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Local agencies and nonprofit organizations.Geographic Scope: Lower American RiverRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $2 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 4Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance:  Solicitation out May/June 2021.   Application Deadline: July 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: September 2021Program Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/Lower‐American‐RiverProgram Contact: Cara AllenEmail: cara.allen@wildlife.ca.govOther: LARCP@wildlife.ca.govWildlife Conservation BoardPacific FlywayThe purpose of this program is to fund the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, restoration, protection, and expansion of wildlife corridors and open space to improve connectivity and reduce barriers between habitat areas and to protect and restore habitat associated with the Pacific Flyway.  Supports biodiversity and corridors.Funding for the acquisition, development, rehabilitation, restoration, protection, and expansion of wildlife corridors and open space to improve connectivity and reduce barriers between habitat areas and to protect and restore habitat associated with the Pacific Flyway. In awarding grants pursuant to this subdivision, priority may be given to projects that protect wildlife corridors.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: Within Pacific FlywayRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $7,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $3,000,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 1Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ClosedApplication Deadline: March 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: May 2021Program Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/GrantsProgram Contact: James CroftEmail: james.croft@wildlife.ca.govOther: wcbflyway@wildlife.ca.govWildlife Conservation BoardRegional Conservation Investment StrategiesThe purpose of this program is to fund development of regional conservation investment strategies.  Supports biodiversity with regional planning of conservation priorities.Funding the development of regional conservation investment strategies that are not otherwise funded pursuant to Section 800 of the Streets and Highways Code or any other law.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $2,500,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $750,000.00 Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 2Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Grants#86212‐additionalProgram Contact: Shannon LucasEmail: shannon.lucas@wildlife.ca.govOther: Updated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 352 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsWildlife Conservation BoardSierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains Upper Watersheds ProgramThe purpose of this grant program is to fund projects that protect, restore, and improve upper watershed lands in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains.  Supports biodiversity and climate resilience in the Sierras and Cascades.Funding for the protection, restoration, and improvement of upper watershed lands in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains, including forest lands, meadows, wetlands, chaparral, and riparian habitat, in order to protect and improve water supply and water quality, improve forest health, reduce wildfire danger, mitigate the effects of wildfires on water quality and supply, increase flood protection, or to protect or restore riparian or aquatic resources.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountainsRevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $22,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $4.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 8Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Solicitation out in August 2021Application Deadline: October 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: Spring 2022Program Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/ForestProgram Contact: Judah GrossmanEmail: judah.grossman@wildlife.ca.govOther: Forests@wildlife.ca.govWildlife Conservation BoardWildlife Corridor and Fish Passage The purpose of this program is to fund construction, repair, modification, or removal of transportation or water resources infrastructure to improve wildlife or fish passage.  Supports biodiversity and corridors.Funding for construction, repair, modification, or removal of transportation or water resources infrastructure to improve wildlife or fish passage.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68Total Estimated Available Funding: $13,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $5.5 million Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 8Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Solicitation out in August 2021Application Deadline: July 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: September 2021Program Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/GrantsProgram Contact: Don CrockerEmail: Don.Crocker@wildlife.ca.govOther: WCBCorridors@wildlife.ca.govWildlife Conservation BoardLand Acquisition Program ‐ Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs)The purpose of this program is to fund acquisition projects to assist with implementation of Natural Community Conservation Plans.  Supports biodiversity and protection of threatened and endangered species .Funding for acquisition projects to assist with implementation of Natural Community Conservation Plans.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Proposition 68 and portions of the approximately $14.5 million annual appropriation under HCF through 2030Total Estimated Available Funding: $40,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 7Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/AcquisitionsProgram Contact: John WalshEmail: john.walsh@wildlife.ca.govOther: Wildlife Conservation BoardForest Conservation Program The purpose of this program is to promote the ecological integrity and economic stability of California’s diverse native forests for all their public benefits through forest conservation, preservation, and restoration of productive managed forest lands, forest reserve areas, redwood forests and other forest types, including the conservation of water resources and natural habitat for native fish and wildlife and plants found on these lands.  Supports biodiversity and climate resilience.The goal of this program is to promote the ecological integrity and economic stability of California's diverse native forests for all their public benefits through forest conservation, preservation and restoration of productive managed forest lands, forest reserve areas, redwood forests and other forest types, including the conservation of water resources and natural habitat for native fish and wildlife and plants found on these lands.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Propositions 68 and 84Total Estimated Available Funding: $20,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $11.5 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 12Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: Proposition 84 ‐ Continuous Proposition 68 ‐ Solicitation out in March 2021Application Deadline: June 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: August 2021Program Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/ForestProgram Contact: Judah GrossmanEmail: judah.grossman@wildlife.ca.govOther: Forests@wildlife.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 353 of 394 Grant Making AgencyGrant TitleGrant SummaryApplication and EligibilityFunding OverviewKey DatesProgram Contact DetailsWildlife Conservation BoardHabitat Enhancement and Restoration Program     The purpose of this program is to provide assistance for the restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources.  Supports biodiversity across all habitats.Consistent with Fish and Game Code section 1301, this program provides assistance for the restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. Eligible projects include: native fisheries restoration; restoration of wetlands; restoration of coastal, tidal, or fresh water habitat; other native habitat restoration projects including coastal scrub oak, grasslands, and threatened and endangered species habitats; in‐stream restoration projects, including removal of fish passage barriers and other obstructions; and other projects that improve the quality of native habitat throughout the State.Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Propositions 68, 84, 50, 40, 12 and Habitat Conservation Fund Total Estimated Available Funding: $40 million under the Propositions. Under HCF receive approximately $1 million annually for wetland restoration outside the Central Valley until the year 2030.Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $7 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 4Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/Habitat‐EnhancementProgram Contact: Judah GrossmanEmail: judah.grossman@wildlife.ca.govOther: Wildlife Conservation BoardLand Acquisition Program  The purpose of this program is to acquire real property or rights in real property on behalf of the Department of Fish and Wildlife and also to award grants to other governmental entities or nonprofit organizations to acquire real property or rights in real property.  Supports protection of biodiversity and natural working lands as well as corridors.Statewide ‐ This program acquires real property or rights in real property on behalf of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and also awards grants to other governmental entities or nonprofit organizations to acquire real property or rights in real property.  All acquisitions are made on a "willing seller" basis pursuant to the appraised  fair market value.  The acquisition activities are carried out in conjunction with CDFW, which generally entails CDFW evaluating the biological values of the property through development of a Land Acquisition Evaluation (LAE, used for a single piece of property) or a Conceptual Area Protection Plan (CAPP, used for multiple properties).   Once these evaluations are completed, they are submitted to CDFW's Regional Operations Committee for review and approval.  If approved, they are sent to WCB with a recommendation to fund.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Propositions 68, 84, 50, 40, 12, and the Habitat Conservation Fund (HCF)Total Estimated Available Funding: $50,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: $10 millionEstimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance: ContinuousApplication Deadline: ContinuousExpected Award Announcement Date: ContinuousProgram Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/AcquisitionsProgram Contact: John WalshEmail: john.walsh@wildlife.ca.govOther: Wildlife Conservation BoardPublic Access ProgramThis purpose of this program is to provide assistance to local agencies for the development of public access facilities designed to facilitate and encourage the public's access to hunting, fishing or other wildlife‐oriented recreation.   Supports access for all.This program is designed to provide assistance to local agencies for the development of public access facilities designed to facilitate and encourage the public's access to hunting, fishing or other wildlife‐oriented recreation.  Financial assistance is available to cities, counties and public districts or corporations for development of facilities such as fishing piers or floats, public access roads, boat launching ramps, trails, boardwalks, interpretive facilities and lake or stream improvements. Support facilities such as restrooms and parking areas are also eligible for funding under this program.  Opportunity Type: GrantDisbursement Method: ReimbursementMatched Funding: N/AEligible Applicants: Cities, counties, nonprofit organizations, special districts and state entitiesGeographic Scope: State of CARevenue Source: Wildlife Restoration Fund, Propositions 68 and 40Total Estimated Available Funding: $5,000,000.00 Potential Funding Awarded in the Next 6 Months: up to $5 million Estimated Number of Awards per Funding Cycle: 10Minimum Award Amount: N/AMaximum Award Amount: N/APeriod of Performance:  Solicitation out May 2021.   Application Deadline: July 2021Expected Award Announcement Date: September 2021Program Website: https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/Public‐AccessProgram Contact: Heather McIntireEmail: Heather.Mcintire@wildlife.ca.govOther: wcbpublicaccess@wildlife.ca.govUpdated July 202112-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 354 of 394 Carquinez Strait Scenic Loop Trail Gap Closure Study December 12, 2022 Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 355 of 394 Prepare a planning document to guide the implementation of gap closures throughout the CSSLT that will meet San Francisco Bay Trail, Ridge Trail, and Contra Costa County design standards. Identify any “fatal flaws” related to closing existing identified gaps with bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Fatal flaws may include substantial issues such as right-of-way, physical constraints, or financial constraints related to potential alignments. The Gap Closure Study is part of a multi-step process: Gap Closure Study / Feasibility Analysis Community Outreach Design/Environmental Analysis/Permitting Funding Construction/Management Study Purpose 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 356 of 394 Study Focus Area Scope 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 357 of 394 Process 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 358 of 394 0.14-mile Mococo Road (Segment 4) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 359 of 394 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 360 of 394 Mococo Road: Trail Option 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 361 of 394 3.7-mile Martinez (Segment 5) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 362 of 394 Recommended Alignment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 363 of 394 Recommended Alignment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 364 of 394 Recommended Alignment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 365 of 394 5.0-mile Carquinez Shoreline (Segment 6) 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 366 of 394 Recommended Alignment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 367 of 394 Recommended Alignment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 368 of 394 Recommended Alignment 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 369 of 394 Crockett (Pomona Avenue) bicycle lanes/sidewalks (Segments 16A, 16B, and 6-19) Crockett (Winslow/Vallejo/Loring) pedestrian promenade (Segment 15) Potential Priority Projects in CC County 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 370 of 394 Future Steps Include trail segments within Contra Costa County’s jurisdiction in the County’s Capital Roadway Improvement and Preservation Program (CRIPP) Seek funding opportunities to complete next steps in implementing the trail segments (e.g. additional trail alignment analysis, environmental work, permitting, design, right-of-way acquisition, construction) Initiate community outreach Coordinate with partner agencies 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 371 of 394 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 8. Meeting Date:12/12/2022 Subject:CONSIDER report: Local, Regional, State, and Federal Transportation 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) 655-2915 Referral History: CONSIDER report on Local, State, Regional, and Federal Transportation Related Legislative Issues and take ACTION as appropriate. (John Cunningham, Department of Conservation and Development) 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 No written report. 2. REGIONAL No written report.  3. STATE No written report. Attached: List of Tracked Legislation 4. FEDERAL No written report. 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 Legislation Report Legislation of Interest: December TWIC 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 372 of 394 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 373 of 394 Smith, Watts & Hartmann, LLC  December 5, 2022  MEMORANDUM  TO:  Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure Committee    c/o John Cunningham, TWIC Staff`  FROM: Mark Watts  The following is a brief update on developments and activities occurring within the opening days  of the 2023‐24 Legislative Session.   LEGISLATURE  The initial step for the Legislature to undertake following the statewide elections is to convene  on the first Monday in December. Once members are sworn in, they adopt Rules and elect their  leadership, before recessing until early January 2023.   Key Actions taken:  ‐ The Assembly re‐elected Speaker Rendon, and also adopted a resolution to establish the  transition process for Assembly Member Robert Rivas to be elected Speaker in June, after state  budget negotiations are wrapped up.   ‐ Speaker Rendon announced the selection of Assembly Member Ward of San Diego to serve as  the Assembly Speaker pro tem.  ‐ In the Senate, President Pro Tem Atkins will continue in her leadership position.   Overview of the Caucuses: Overall, legislative turnover was overwhelming this year as  incumbents retired, resigned, or ran for other offices, often prodded by redistricting. This  opened the door for numerous new members, as follows:  35: The number of new legislators, including Assembly members moving to the Senate (or in the  case of Janet Nguyen, returning), meaning nearly a third of seats feature fresh faces.  62 and 32: The number of Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate, respectively. That puts  Assembly Democrats 8 votes above the two‐thirds threshold and Senate Democratic Caucus 5  members over.  Unfinished Business: At this writing, two races remain undecided. with current totals that have  Democratic Sen. Melissa Hurtado (16th SD) looks to be surviving a challenge from Republican  David Shepard — Hurtado took a 12‐vote lead on Friday — and in the 47th AD, Republican Greg  Wallis appears to be edging Democrat Christy Holstege.  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 374 of 394 Smith, Watts & Hartmann, LLC      GOVERNOR NEWSOM –   Both Houses responded to the call by Governor Newsom for the legislature to convene in a  special session (called Special Session #1) to address oil industry pricing policy. In the afternoon  of December 5, the Governor unveiled his long‐awaited “price‐gouging” prohibition and penalty  measures. The framework of his bill was provided in legislative intent form and not yet in final  form.  The bill will be carried by State Senator Skinner, but the bill does not include key details such as  how much profit oil refiners would be allowed or the size of possible fines. The Governor  indicated that it would take the next month or more to fill in the blanks of the bill, in consultation  with lawmakers.        12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 375 of 394 12/7/22, 10:57 AM State Net https://sn.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=3871&host=10.139.75.7&query_id=7RskhxjzttZh&app=lpfs&mode=display 1/5 California ENACTED Our Forecast ▼Show More ENACTED Our Forecast ▼Show More Status actions entered today are listed in bold. File name: Master Author:Steve Bennett (D-037) Title:California Recreational Trails System Plan Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/03/2022 Enacted:09/25/2022 Disposition:Enacted Effective Date:01/01/2023 [code impact] Location:Chaptered Chapter:2022-522 Summary:Requires the California Recreational Trails System Plan to include recommended priorities for funding to improve and expand, among other things, nonmotorized natural surface trails, as provided. Requires the Director of Parks and Recreation, among other things, on or before January 1, 2024, to prepare and provide to the Legislature a full update of the plan. Status:09/25/2022 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 2022-522 Author:Laura Friedman (D-043) Title:Residential, Commercial, or Other Development Types Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/14/2022 Enacted:09/22/2022 Disposition:Enacted Effective Date:01/01/2023 [code impact] Location:Chaptered Chapter:2022-459 Summary:Prohibits a public agency from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on any residential, commercial, or other development project, as defined, that is located within 1/2 mile of public transit, as defined. Creates an exception from specified provision if the housing development project meets specified requirements, including but not limited to being subject to parking reductions based on any other applicable law. 1.CA AB 1789 ⓘ 2.CA AB 2097 ⓘ ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Concurrence Executive 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Concurrence Executive 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 376 of 394 12/7/22, 10:57 AM State Net https://sn.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=3871&host=10.139.75.7&query_id=7RskhxjzttZh&app=lpfs&mode=display 2/5 ENACTED Our Forecast ▼Show More FAILED ADJOURNED Our Forecast ▼Show More Status:09/22/2022 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 2022-459 Author:Richard Bloom (D-050) Title:Local Educational Agencies: Housing Development Project Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/16/2022 Enacted:09/28/2022 Disposition:Enacted Effective Date:01/01/2023 [code impact] Location:Chaptered Chapter:2022-652 Summary:Deems a housing development project an allowable use on any real property owned by a local educational agency, as defined, if the housing development satisfies certain conditions, including other local objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards, as described. Status:09/28/2022 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 2022-652 Author:Jesse Gabriel (D-045) Title:Outdoor Recreation: Outdoors for All Program Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/16/2022 Last Amend:04/19/2022 Disposition:Failed - Adjourned Location:Assembly Appropriations Committee Summary:Establishes in the Natural Resources Agency the Outdoors for All Program to support access to natural or cultural resources for at- risk youth, outdoor environmental educational experiences for underserved and at-risk populations, and equitable access to parks and outdoor spaces for all Californians. Status:05/19/2022 In ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee. 3.CA AB 2295 ⓘ 4.CA AB 2346 ⓘ 5.CA AB 2419 ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ ✔X X X X 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Concurrence Executive 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Chamber Executive X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 377 of 394 12/7/22, 10:57 AM State Net https://sn.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=3871&host=10.139.75.7&query_id=7RskhxjzttZh&app=lpfs&mode=display 3/5 FAILED ADJOURNED Our Forecast ▼Show More FAILED ADJOURNED Our Forecast ▼Show More VETOED Our Forecast ▼Show More Author:Isaac G. Bryan (D-054) Title:Environmental Justice: Federal Infrastructure Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/17/2022 Last Amend:06/09/2022 Disposition:Failed - Adjourned Location:Senate Appropriations Committee Summary:Requires a minimum of 40% of funds received by the state under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and certain other federal funds to be allocated to projects that provide direct benefits to disadvantaged communities and disadvantaged unincorporated communities and, except as specified, a minimum of an additional 10% be allocated for projects that provide direct benefits to low-income households and low-income communities, as provided. Status:08/11/2022 In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee. Author:James C. Ramos (D-040) Title:Mitigation Fee Act: Fees for Improvements: Timeline Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/17/2022 Disposition:Failed - Adjourned Location:Assembly Local Government Committee Summary:Requires a local agency that requires a qualified applicant to deposit fees for improvements, as described, into an escrow account as a condition for receiving a conditional use permit or equivalent development permit to expend the fees within 5 years of the deposit. The bill would require any fees not expended within this period to be returned to the qualified applicant. Status:03/03/2022 To ASSEMBLY Committees on LOCAL GOVERNMENT and HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. ⓘ 6.CA AB 2428 ⓘ 7.CA AB 2438 ⓘ ✔✔✔✔X X X X X X ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Executive 1st Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Chamber Executive 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Concurrence Executive X X X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 378 of 394 12/7/22, 10:57 AM State Net https://sn.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=3871&host=10.139.75.7&query_id=7RskhxjzttZh&app=lpfs&mode=display 4/5 ENACTED Our Forecast ▼Show More FAILED ADJOURNED Our Forecast ▼Show More Author:Laura Friedman (D-043) Title:Transportation Funding: Guidelines and Plans Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/17/2022 Vetoed:09/29/2022 Disposition:Vetoed Location:Vetoed Summary:Requires, no later than specified date, the guidelines or plans applicable to certain programs to include the strategies established in the Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure adopted by the Transportation Agency. Requires the agency, the California Transportation Commission, and the Department of Transportation, no later than specified date, to each establish guidelines to ensure transparency and accountability for the transportation funding programs. Status:09/29/2022 Vetoed by GOVERNOR. Author:Freddie Rodriguez (D-052) Title:Local Emergency Plans: Integration of Access Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/18/2022 Enacted:09/06/2022 Disposition:Enacted Effective Date:01/01/2023 [code impact] Location:Chaptered Chapter:2022-247 Summary:Relates to local emergency plans. Requires a county to address specific additional plan elements. Requires the plan, with regard to emergency sheltering, to ensure that local community resilience centers, as defined, are prepared to serve as communitywide assets during extreme heat events and other disasters, and to designate available locations that may be necessary to provide respite to individuals during certain environmental emergencies. Status:09/06/2022 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 2022-247 Author:Anthony J. Portantino (D-025) Title:Housing Development Projects: Automobile Parking Fiscal Committee:yes 8.CA AB 2645 ⓘ 9.CA SB 1067 ⓘ ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ ✔✔✔✔X X 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Concurrence Executive 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Executive X 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 379 of 394 12/7/22, 10:57 AM State Net https://sn.lexisnexis.com/secure/pe/appwait_helper.cgi?wait_pid=3871&host=10.139.75.7&query_id=7RskhxjzttZh&app=lpfs&mode=display 5/5 ENACTED Our Forecast ▼Show More Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/15/2022 Last Amend:06/30/2022 Disposition:Failed - Adjourned Location:Assembly Appropriations Committee Summary:Prohibits these provisions from reducing, eliminating, or precluding the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a housing development project that is located within 1/2 mile of public transit to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities. Status:08/11/2022 In ASSEMBLY Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: Held in committee. Author:Lena A. Gonzalez (D-033) Title:Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development Fiscal Committee:yes Urgency Clause:no Introduced:02/17/2022 Enacted:09/16/2022 Disposition:Enacted Effective Date:01/01/2023 [code impact] Location:Chaptered Chapter:2022-372 Summary:Continues the zero-emission vehicle division of the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development in existence within GO-Biz as the Zero-Emission Vehicle Market Development Office. Requires the office to continue to be administered by a deputy director appointed by, and serving at the pleasure of, the Governor. Establishes, until specified date, the Zero-Emission Vehicle Equity Advocate in the office who would also be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the Governor. Status:09/16/2022 Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter No. 2022-372 10.CA SB 1251 ⓘ✔✔✔✔✔✔✔✔ 1st Committee 1st Fiscal Committee 1st Chamber 2nd Committee 2nd Fiscal Committee 2nd Chamber Concurrence Executive 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 380 of 394 TRANSPORTATION, WATER & INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE 9. Meeting Date:12/12/2022 Subject:RECEIVE Communication, News, Miscellaneous Items of Interest to the Committee and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Department:Conservation & Development Referral No.: N/A Referral Name: N/A  Presenter: John Cunningham, DCD Contact: John Cunningham (925)655-2915 Referral History: This is a standing item on the TWIC agenda. Referral Update: Communication Received, News Clippings, Notices, etc.: 11-29-22 East Bay Times Article  Could Contra Could expanded ferry service be a reality at Contra Costa’s Costa’s waterfront cities? Pittsburg latest city to sign on to study possibility of expanding San Francisco Bay Ferry to new parts of Contra Costa 11-25-22 City Lab  Where ‘Vision Zero’ Is Working A dramatic reduction in traffic deaths in US cities is possible, despite huge headwinds. In some places, progress is starting to become visible. 11-18-22 Caltrans  Notice of Intent: Proposed State Route 239 Information also available here: https://sr239project.net/ East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy 2021 Year in Review Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s): RECEIVE information and DIRECT staff as appropriate. Fiscal Impact (if any): N/A Attachments EB Times: CC Ferry Expansion Where Vision Zero is Working: Dramatic Reduction in Traffic Deaths in U.S. Cities is Possible Caltrans: SR239 NOP E. CC Habitat Conservancy: 2021 Year in Review 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 381 of 394 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 382 of 394 By By JUDITH PRIEVEJUDITH PRIEVE | | jprieve@bayareanewsgroup.comjprieve@bayareanewsgroup.com | Bay Area News Group | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: PUBLISHED: November 29, 2022 at 6:55 a.m.November 29, 2022 at 6:55 a.m. | UPDATED: | UPDATED: November 29, 2022 at 8:18 a.m.November 29, 2022 at 8:18 a.m. Pittsburg is the latest city to get on board with a plan to study the feasibility of expanding ferry service to parts of Contra Costa County’sPittsburg is the latest city to get on board with a plan to study the feasibility of expanding ferry service to parts of Contra Costa County’s waterfront.waterfront. The City Council unanimously agreed last week to share in the estimated $200,000 cost to complete the planning work for expandingThe City Council unanimously agreed last week to share in the estimated $200,000 cost to complete the planning work for expanding such service. Pittsburg’s $40,000 share will come from the city’s waterfront fund.such service. Pittsburg’s $40,000 share will come from the city’s waterfront fund. “The potential benefits include affordable and an efficient transit option,” Pittsburg analyst Sara Bellafronte told the council.“The potential benefits include affordable and an efficient transit option,” Pittsburg analyst Sara Bellafronte told the council. Bellafronte said there is regional interest in expanding the existing San Francisco Bay Ferry service to Contra Costa. The newest – andBellafronte said there is regional interest in expanding the existing San Francisco Bay Ferry service to Contra Costa. The newest – and farthest eastern route – was to Richmond, established in 2018.farthest eastern route – was to Richmond, established in 2018. Antioch, Hercules and Martinez, along with Contra Costa County, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority and the Contra CostaAntioch, Hercules and Martinez, along with Contra Costa County, Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority have all previously expressed interest in expanding ferry service in the county, Bellafronte said. The Antioch CityTransportation Authority have all previously expressed interest in expanding ferry service in the county, Bellafronte said. The Antioch City Council on Oct. 25 also approved an agreement to help pay for the new feasibility study.Council on Oct. 25 also approved an agreement to help pay for the new feasibility study. Though some cities like Antioch began considering the option of commuter ferries more than a dozen years ago, it wasn’t until 2015 thatThough some cities like Antioch began considering the option of commuter ferries more than a dozen years ago, it wasn’t until 2015 that the Contra Costa Transit Authority, in cooperation with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, which operates the San Franciscothe Contra Costa Transit Authority, in cooperation with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, which operates the San Francisco Bay Ferry, commissioned an expansion study. That study included direct services to Richmond, San Francisco, Antioch and Martinez, asBay Ferry, commissioned an expansion study. That study included direct services to Richmond, San Francisco, Antioch and Martinez, as well as combined routes among the four locations.well as combined routes among the four locations. That cooperative study showed costs of $2.25 to $11.25 for adults, depending on the route, with discounts for youths and seniors andThat cooperative study showed costs of $2.25 to $11.25 for adults, depending on the route, with discounts for youths and seniors and free tickets for those under 5.free tickets for those under 5. “With short hops, those 10-minute routes would be about 50 cents to $1.25,” she said.“With short hops, those 10-minute routes would be about 50 cents to $1.25,” she said. Commuting by ferry doesn’t take long, Bellafronte added, noting the average trips would be 10 minutes to 60 minutes, with the longest atCommuting by ferry doesn’t take long, Bellafronte added, noting the average trips would be 10 minutes to 60 minutes, with the longest at up to 120 minutes from San Francisco to Antioch. Typical weekday operation hours would be from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., she said.up to 120 minutes from San Francisco to Antioch. Typical weekday operation hours would be from 6:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., she said. “Another benefit is connectivity,” she said. “East Contra Costa would connect to West Contra Costa County, Solano County, Alameda“Another benefit is connectivity,” she said. “East Contra Costa would connect to West Contra Costa County, Solano County, Alameda County and San Francisco.”County and San Francisco.” NEWSNEWSTRANSPORTATIONTRANSPORTATION Could expanded ferry service be a reality at ContraCould expanded ferry service be a reality at Contra Costa’s waterfront cities?Costa’s waterfront cities? Pittsburg latest city to sign on to study possibility of expanding San Francisco Bay Ferry to newPittsburg latest city to sign on to study possibility of expanding San Francisco Bay Ferry to new parts of Contra Costaparts of Contra Costa • • NewsNews 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 383 of 394 Another plus is accessibility and convenience, Bellafronte said, noting the ferries would be ADA-accessible and tickets would be soldAnother plus is accessibility and convenience, Bellafronte said, noting the ferries would be ADA-accessible and tickets would be sold online, on apps or in person.online, on apps or in person. The 2015 study also estimated 411 daily weekday riders would use the expanded East Bay route to San Francisco and more than 1,000The 2015 study also estimated 411 daily weekday riders would use the expanded East Bay route to San Francisco and more than 1,000 would use the Antioch-Martinez-Hercules interconnect system.would use the Antioch-Martinez-Hercules interconnect system. Besides creating jobs for the operation of these extended routes, the 2015 study showed other economic benefits, she said.Besides creating jobs for the operation of these extended routes, the 2015 study showed other economic benefits, she said. “It’s possible that a ferry terminal could have positive economic multiplier effects in creating jobs and bringing visitors, although further“It’s possible that a ferry terminal could have positive economic multiplier effects in creating jobs and bringing visitors, although further study would need to be done to confirm potential economic impacts relative to other potential development opportunities and orstudy would need to be done to confirm potential economic impacts relative to other potential development opportunities and or activities,” Bellafronte said.activities,” Bellafronte said. And, besides being environmentally friendly, the ferries could help provide emergency response when land and air transportation aren’tAnd, besides being environmentally friendly, the ferries could help provide emergency response when land and air transportation aren’t possible, she said.possible, she said. Other current Bay Area ferry routes include Treasure Island ferry service, Golden Gate Ferry, Larkspur, Sausalito, Tiburon, Angel IslandOther current Bay Area ferry routes include Treasure Island ferry service, Golden Gate Ferry, Larkspur, Sausalito, Tiburon, Angel Island and Alcatraz ferry services. Another ferry service, a San Francisco-based private company, Tideline Water Taxi, provides custom serviceand Alcatraz ferry services. Another ferry service, a San Francisco-based private company, Tideline Water Taxi, provides custom service out of several locations in San Francisco, Marin County and the East Bay, including Berkeley and Oakland, designed for small parties.out of several locations in San Francisco, Marin County and the East Bay, including Berkeley and Oakland, designed for small parties. But while ferry service from San Francisco extends northeast to Solano County, the only ferry terminal in Contra Costa County is inBut while ferry service from San Francisco extends northeast to Solano County, the only ferry terminal in Contra Costa County is in Richmond.Richmond. Mayor Holland Barrett White said he supported an agreement to study a possible ferry system in Contra Costa County.Mayor Holland Barrett White said he supported an agreement to study a possible ferry system in Contra Costa County. “I think that when we look at the funding availability at both the federal and state level, there are unprecedented dollars to help us see“I think that when we look at the funding availability at both the federal and state level, there are unprecedented dollars to help us see something like this into fruition for our community,” he said.something like this into fruition for our community,” he said. The mayor added that he thinks Pittsburg is well positioned with its location and infrastructure to become part of such a service.The mayor added that he thinks Pittsburg is well positioned with its location and infrastructure to become part of such a service. “I hope that this doesn’t just stop at a feasibility study, but it actually turns into an opportunity for us to open up new pathways of travel“I hope that this doesn’t just stop at a feasibility study, but it actually turns into an opportunity for us to open up new pathways of travel for the people that live in our community but also what to visit for recreational and other things that that most cities benefit from infor the people that live in our community but also what to visit for recreational and other things that that most cities benefit from in terms of tourism here locally,” he said.terms of tourism here locally,” he said. Councilman Jelani Killings also supported the study, noting the city must do its “due diligence” to see what it would take to make a ferryCouncilman Jelani Killings also supported the study, noting the city must do its “due diligence” to see what it would take to make a ferry system operational.system operational. “I think that this study, obviously, is that first step in understanding (what it would take)…” he said.“I think that this study, obviously, is that first step in understanding (what it would take)…” he said. The planning work for the expanded ferry service is expected to begin in early 2023 and to be completed by the end of that year. InThe planning work for the expanded ferry service is expected to begin in early 2023 and to be completed by the end of that year. In addition to investigating estimated ridership, evaluating fare structure, and assessing operational and maintenance costs, the study willaddition to investigating estimated ridership, evaluating fare structure, and assessing operational and maintenance costs, the study will also assess the feasibility of using no-emission vessels for the service.also assess the feasibility of using no-emission vessels for the service. Report an errorReport an error Policies and StandardsPolicies and Standards Contact UsContact Us 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 384 of 394 Join the ConversationJoin the Conversation We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. WeWe invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous,reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose anydefamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user whoinformation necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.abuses these conditions. More discussion on Eastbaytimes.comMore discussion on Eastbaytimes.com ConversationConversation SIGN OUT ADVERTISEMENT Judith PrieveJudith Prieve | East County journalist| East County journalist Judith Prieve is an East Bay journalist. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, she has worked as a reporter,Judith Prieve is an East Bay journalist. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, she has worked as a reporter, features editor and assistant metro editor at newspapers in Wisconsin and Northern California and has been at what isfeatures editor and assistant metro editor at newspapers in Wisconsin and Northern California and has been at what is now the Bay Area News Group for more than 25 years.now the Bay Area News Group for more than 25 years. jprieve@bayareanewsgroup.comjprieve@bayareanewsgroup.com  Follow Judith Prieve Follow Judith Prieve BrentwoodNewsBrentwoodNews  Follow Judith Prieve Follow Judith Prieve @jprieve@jprieve ADVERTISEMENTADVERTISEMENT Open ad privacy settings FOLLOW Tags: Tags: TransportationTransportation Start the conversation, lawrence.huang 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 385 of 394 CityLab Transportation Where ‘Vision Zero’ Is Working A dramatic reduction in traffic deaths in US cities is possible, despite huge headwinds. In some places, progress is starting to become visible.  A pedestrian crosses Washington Street in Hoboken, New Jersey, one of a handful of US cities where traffic safety has been improving dramatically. Photographer: Jeenah Moon/Bloomberg By Angie Schmitt November 25, 2022 at 10:03 AM PST When I was a reporter at the transportation advocacy publication Streetsblog, we used to do a little data exercise looking at places that had declared themselves “Vision Zero cities.” Vision Zero is an international safety campaign that aims to completely eliminate traffic fatalities and injuries. Like other journalists, we tried to determine if these civic pledges made any detectable difference in the number of roadway deaths. At the time, in 2018 and 2019, it was very hard to tell. The data was noisy, especially at the city level. A lot of cities treated Vision Zero more as a declaration than the kind of radical change in policy it demands. Some traffic safety advocates were skeptical of Vision Zero’s prospects for success. And as US traffic fatalities continued to grow during the Covid-19 pandemic, many have remained so.  But some solid evidence is now emerging that it is working, or can work. A recent chart and report from the International Transport Forum is what gives me hope. In the report, “Monitoring Progress in Urban Road Safety,” the authors compare the decrease in road traffic deaths across 22 major cities that participated in a pledge to reduce traffic deaths. New York City is the only US city included, and one of just four where the city significantly outperformed national-level safety figures.  12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 386 of 394 Chart courtesy of International Transport Forum Between 2010 and 2020, NYC’s traffic deaths fell 19%, while the US death rate rose 8% — an improvement that translates into a significant number of saved lives. And there is reason to believe that the city can do better now that the framework and the constituency for safety reforms is in place. More from BloombergCitylab Texas Bill Would Cut Tax Breaks for Firms That Pay for Abortions Seattle-Area Tribe Tries to Fight Reservation Gentrification India’s Free-Market Oasis Aims to Take On Singapore and Dubai It Takes a Village to Map the Urban Heat Island Effect It’s important to remember that, in the US, Vision Zero cities operate in a national environment of increased traffic deaths — especially for pedestrians, who are overrepresented in urban crashes. Nationally, thanks to a combination of factors — most importantly growth in SUVs and extra-large pickups — deaths of pedestrians have grown 62% nationally since 2009, according to the nonprofit advocacy organization Smart Growth America. Now, New York City is a bit of a special case. With 9 million people, it’s almost like a city-state, and its traffic department is more sophisticated and well- resourced than any other US municipality. Mayor Eric Adams recently committed $3 billion to Vision Zero efforts. Other major cities like Phoenix and Houston — where traffic deaths have been soaring — devote fewer resources to the problem of traffic deaths. New York City also benefits from the fact that it has a relatively walkable and transit-friendly built environment. Only about 50% of city households even own a car, which makes it especially fertile ground for pedestrian safety advocacy groups. Those organizations have fought for lower speed limits and recently won a state-level law change that will allow speed enforcement cameras to operate in many locations throughout the city 24 hours a day. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 387 of 394 Reducing traffic deaths the way New York City did is a labor- intensive process that requires a lot of institutional capacity. And New York City’s comparative success has been tempered. The pandemic years have seen rising roadway death rates, as in so many other US cities. And also like many cities, it must deal with a state department of transportation whose programs are not always well aligned with Vision Zero objectives: Victims of traffic violence have to make regular pilgrimages to Albany to win safety measures like the ability to use speed cameras in school zones or lower speed limits.  Federal policy, too, is often not been well aligned with advocates’ proposals. Even though Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg made a verbal commitment to the Vision Zero framework and announced a national roadway traffic safety stratey in January 2022, most federal transportation money flows to states, with few strings attached. States use that money to build the kind of arterial roads that are responsible for 63% of pedestrian deaths. These same state DOTs may then resist and overrule local efforts to improve safety. So cities that adopt Vision Zero policies are battling not only national headwinds like larger and more dangerous passenger vehicles and cultural issues related to the pandemic that have contributed to reckless driving. They also are trying to create an entirely new framework for addressing a problem oftentimes against the systems in place at the more powerful and better resourced agencies handing down programs and policies. Other success stories are starting to emerge. Hoboken, a small, densely populated city of 60,000 just outside NYC’s borders, has achieved dramatic improvements in pedestrian safety thanks to a potentially widely replicable formula that has relied a lot on inexpensive intersection designs, particularly a practice called “daylighting” that improves visibility. Hoboken hasn’t had a traffic death in four years. Nearby Jersey City has not had a single traffic fatality so far this year on non-state roads, and only five deaths on state roads. Advocacy group Safe Streets JC credits the city’s progress with aggressive action on road diets, bike lanes and smaller scale interventions like curb bump-outs. By comparison, similarly sized Cincinnati has had 30 deaths so far this year.  That being said, I’m not suggesting anyone start taking a victory lap. Vision Zero cities like Washington, DC, Seattle and Portland, Oregon, are still seeing traffic deaths rise. Last year Portland had its highest total since 1990. In cities like Nashville and Columbus, Ohio, which have just started their Vision Zero journeys, the impact remains unclear. Reducing traffic deaths the way New York City did is a labor-intensive process that requires a lot of institutional capacity. Cities need staff that can identify problem areas and then develop and implement cost-effective solutions — often against the background of a fair amount of controversy. There is also whole data management project associated with tracking progress and fine-tuning the approach. The work is not necessarily any more complex, I suppose, than what goes into building a highway. But right now, it’s still the exception rather than the rule; it has not yet been widely formalized into city government in a sustainable way. Still, I think it should come as some comfort and inspiration to city workers, advocates and political leaders struggling to do this very difficult, but worthwhile thing. There is evidence that well-funded sustained investments in reducing traffic deaths can work, not just abroad but in the US. But until state and federal policies and funding align with this goal, city-led efforts to save lives will continue to be held back. — Angie Schmitt is a writer and planning consultant and author of  Right of Way: Race, Class and the Silent Epidemic of Pedestrian Deaths in America . Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Info (California) Trademarks Privacy Policy ©2022 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved Careers Made in NYC Advertise Ad Choices Help Money Distilled: What market moves mean for your moneyMoney Distilled: What market moves mean for your moneyMoney Distilled: What market moves mean for your money Get John Stepek's daily newsletterGet John Stepek's daily newsletterGet John Stepek's daily newsletter By submitting my information, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service and to receive offers and promotions from Bloomberg. Please enter a valid email address Enter your email 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 388 of 394 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 4 P.O. BOX 23660, MS–1A | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 (510) 286-5900 | FAX (510) 286-6301 | TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov November 18, 2022 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is issuing a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed State Route 239 (SR 239) Project. Caltrans is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. Caltrans is also the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and plans on preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA. Caltrans will prepare a joint EIR/EIS and previously issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on December 17, 2021 with a 49-day comment period through February 4, 2022. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is the project sponsor for the SR 239 project. The SR 239 project proposes to provide a new, four-lane highway from State Route 4 near Marsh Creek Road in Contra Costa County to either Interstate 205 (I-205) in San Joaquin County or to Interstate 580 (I-580) in Alameda County. This new route would improve the transportation network for an area that has few north-south roadway connections between eastern Contra Costa County and the western San Joaquin Valley. The project would provide relief from increasing commute traffic through the town of Byron, enhance mobility in eastern Contra Costa County, and improve access to the Byron Airport. Caltrans and CCTA are evaluating the overall SR 239 Project at both a Tier I (program) level and a Tier II (project) level. The Tier I programmatic-level study will evaluate and analyze alternatives that cover the entire SR 239 corridor through a broad and general assessment. The Tier II project-level study will evaluate an initial phase of the SR 239 Project through a detailed, site-specific analysis that will allow for project approval, design, and construction of this initial phase. In addition to a No Build Alternative, two alternatives for Tier I have been identified for further study in the EIS: 1) Alternative A would consist of a four-lane highway with an alignment east of the Byron Airport. South of the airport and west of Mountain House, the alignment would turn southward and then connect to the I-580/I-205 interchange in Alameda County; and 2) Alternative B would consist of a four-lane highway with an alignment east of the Byron Airport. South of the airport, it would be parallel to and west of Byron Highway, before joining Byron Road and connecting to I-205 west of Tracy in San Joaquin County. Tier II, or the initial phase 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 389 of 394 November 18, 2022 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” of SR 239, would consist of a two-lane facility between SR 4 at Marsh Creek Road and the Byron Airport and is common to both Tier I alternatives. Caltrans and CCTA are also considering multimodal options for the SR 239 Project, such as transit and active transportation improvements. Caltrans and CCTA will also consider scoping input in response to the NOI regarding alternatives. Your participation on this project is important to us. Comments and suggestions on the environmental scope of the project and project alternatives are invited from all interested parties for a period of 62 days from November 18, 2022 through January 18, 2023. Caltrans will also be holding an online scoping meeting on Tuesday, December 13, 2022 from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. The link to the online meeting will be posted on the SR 239 Project scoping website in advance of the meeting. To view project material and to find the link to access the online meeting on December 13, 2022, please visit the project website at https://www.SR239project.net/. Written comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on January 18, 2023. Comments can be sent via postal mail to: Caltrans District 4, Division of Environmental Planning ATTN: Lily Mu P.O. Box 23660, MS 8B Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Comments can also be sent via email to info@SR239project.net, by phone at (925) 255-5466, or via an electronic comment submission at https://www.SR239project.net/. For individuals with translation or accessibility needs, please contact the project team at (925) 255-5466 or info@SR239project.net. TTY users may also contact the California Relay Service TTY and/or Voice Line at 1-800-735-2929, or 711. If there are any questions, please contact me at (510) 506-9862 or Wahida Rashid, Senior Environmental Planner, at (510) 504-3139 or wahida.rashid@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, MAXWELL LAMMERT Acting Office Chief Office of Environmental Analysis 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 390 of 394 Juan Antonio Banales | City of Pittsburg Joel Bryant | City of Brentwood Diane Burgis | Contra Costa County Randy Pope | City of Oakley Carl “CW” Wolfe | City of Clayton 2021 Year in Review The Conservancy continued implementation of the HCP/ NCCP. In 2021, streamlined permitting through the Plan provided species coverage for 19 projects. These projects include residential and commercial development, transportation, utility, rural infrastructure, rural operation and maintenance, and habitat restoration projects. The Conservancy, in partnership with the East Bay Regional Park District, acquired one property, adding 80.5 acres of habitat to the HCP/NCCP’s growing Preserve System. The Conservancy continued to implement conservation actions ahead of what is required for permitted impacts, including design and planning on restoration projects. East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Community Conservation Plan The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan (“HCP/NCCP” or “Plan”) gives local jurisdictions control over state and federal endangered species permitting in the region. Through the HCP/NCCP, project proponents pay a mitigation fee or provide their own conservation, conduct limited avoidance measures, and receive species permits from their local land use agency. Mitigation fees and grants fund conservation efforts in the Plan area which includes land acquisitions, management, restoration, and research. The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (“Conservancy”) implements the HCP/NCCP, oversees the permitting program, carries out the Plan’s conservation strategy, and ensures overall compliance with the permits. Photo credits: Conservancy staff, Save Mount Diablo (boƩom picture) Conservancy Governing Board 2021 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 391 of 394 The HCP/NCCP gives local cities and agencies control over state and federal endangered species permitting in their jurisdiction. In 2021, 19 projects received take coverage under the Plan, including 11 urban development projects, 1 rural infrastructure project, 5 rural operations and maintenance projects, and 2 Preserve System activities. These projects total approximately 121.5 acres of permanent impacts and 95.2 acres of temporary impacts on terrestrial land cover types, including 398 linear feet of temporary impacts on streams. The HCP/NCCP was designed to enable permit streamlining to extend beyond endangered species regulations and include regional permitting under state and federal laws for impacts on jurisdictional wetlands and waters. On May 4, 2012, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued Regional General Permit 1 (RGP) aligned with the HCP/NCCP. This Permit was reissued on April 12, 2017 and has a five‐year duration. In 2021, the Conservancy discussed with the Corps the 2022 expiration and began coordination on re‐issuing the RGP. The RGP streamlines wetland permitting in the entire Plan Area by aligning the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures in the Plan with the Corps’ wetland permitting requirements. To date, 23 covered projects and 3 Conservancy restoration projects have benefitted from coordinated permitting under the RGP. Permitting Program Highlights: Residential: The City of Clayton permitted the Diablo meadows project to develop 18 single‐family residential units, each with a home and ancillary services. The City of Oakley permitted the Cypress Preserve Project, a nearly 1,250‐acre regional mixed‐use development. The project includes residential, commercial, public schools, parks, open space, flood control, and roads among other elements, including an on‐site restoration project. Transportation: The Contra Costa County Public Works Department’s Byron Highway/Byer Road Safety Improvements project includes installation of traffic safety improvements along approximately 2,000 feet of Byron Highway in front of Excelsior Middle School in the community of Byron. The project consists of construction of left‐turn lanes and road widening to improve traffic circulation and improve safety near the school. Utility Infrastructure: Contra Costa County provided permit coverage for the Byron Highway Solar Project, the first solar energy facilities project outside the UDA to receive permits through the Plan. The project consists of the development of a small‐scale commercial utility solar and energy storage facility that will generate a total of 5.0 megawatts of solar energy. The Conservancy continues to work closely with the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and Save Mount Diablo on land acquisition opportunities, management of Preserve System lands, and habitat restoration projects. EBRPD has been the Conservancy’s primary partner in Preserve System acquisitions to date. Together, the Conservancy and EBRPD acquired 80.5 acres of newly protected land in 2021. The Conservancy’s other partners include state and federal regulatory and funding agencies, as well as members of the development community, conservation advocates, agricultural representatives, and members of the public. The Conservancy continues to build on these partnerships and expand on collaborative conservation projects and efforts in the Plan Area. Projects Permitted Mitigation Fees In 2021: 19 In 2021: $2,315,560 Cumulative: 219 Cumulative: $21,465,900 Acres Impacted Restoration Projects In 2021: 122 In 2021: 0 Cumulative: 1,270 Cumulative: 11 Acres Conserved Grants & CTR In 2021: 80.5 In 2021: $428,289 Cumulative: 12,632 Cumulative: $71,516,200 ACTIVITIES BY THE NUMBERS Note: The Conservancy periodically reviews our databases and as a result, cumulative totals reflect refinements and corrections. 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 392 of 394 The Plan requires restoration and creation of stream, wetland and pond habitat to compensate for impacts to these land covers and to benefit the recovery of species. The Conservancy has aggressively pursued wetland and pond restoration requirements. To date, 11 restoration projects have been constructed. These restoration projects provide a range of benefits to covered species. Conservancy projects are monitored and managed to ensure that they achieve habitat goals. This monitoring continues for a minimum of five years. Close monitoring of restoration sites has informed management actions including: reseeding areas, adjusting grazing patterns and combating invasive weeds. No new restoration projects were constructed in 2021. Six of the Conservancy’s restoration projects have met success criteria and are no longer monitored annually against their restoration success criteria. In 2021, the Conservancy monitored five wetland and stream restoration projects. However, monitoring efforts in 2021 were hampered at several restoration projects by the severe lack of rainfall which made it impossible to determine whether performance criteria were being met for seasonal wetlands. Two large restoration projects are currently in the planning and design phases. These are: 1) the Roddy Ranch Golf Course, a former golf course that will be restored to provide habitat and support passive recreation and 2) the Knightsen Wetland Restoration Project, former irrigated agriculture that will be restored to provide habitat for special status species. Highlights of achievements: Over 1/3 of the Preserve System has been assembled by year 14 of Plan implementation. Acquisition of the Civic Rancho Meadows property added 80.5 acres to the Preserve System, and fills a portion of what is an inholding within a larger area that has already been conserved.  The Conservancy has conserved 12,600 acres to date and has made significant progress toward land acquisition goals of the Plan during the first fourteen years of Plan implementation. In 2021, another property was acquired, adding 80.5 acres to the Preserve System. All but one acquisition to date have been completed in partnership with EBRPD, where EBRPD owns and manages those Preserve System lands in accordance with the HCP/NCCP. The Viera North Peak property, acquired in 2017 from Save Mount Diablo, is owned by the Conservancy with the anticipation of transferring the property to California State Parks. The Conservancy continues to stay ahead of the average pace necessary to assemble the 30,300‐acre Preserve System estimated to be required by Year 30 of the Plan (2037). Hess Creek Channel RestoraƟon, April 2021. Photo Credit: Nomad Ecology 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 393 of 394 The Conservancy receives revenue from the following primary sources: mitigation and permitting fees (development fees, wetland fees, and temporary impact fees, administrative/staff time fees, and contributions to recovery payments) and grants. These sources fund Preserve System acquisitions, management, monitoring, and restoration projects. Revenue in 2021 Amount Mitigation Fees 1 $2,315,560 Grants and CTR 2 $428,289 Other 3 $103,873 Total $3,799,057 Local Funds 4 $951,335 63% 34% >100% 3%1%4% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Terrestrial Aquatic Stream Progress Toward Conservation Goals and Impact Limits % of Conservation Achieved % of Impacts Incurred For streamlined permitting to continue under the HCP/NCCP, conservation must stay ahead of impacts. The HCP/NCCP specifies detailed metrics that the Conservancy uses to track progress of Plan implementation. The summarized data displayed (left) illustrates all categories of conservation are ahead of the impacts to these habitat types. A more detailed accounting of conservation, restoration, creation, and impacts is provided in the 2021 Annual Report. 1 Development fees, wetland fees, and temporary impact fees. 2 Grants from various state and federal agencies including CDFW, USFWS, and WCB. The amount shown includes grant funds spent (not grants awarded). “CTR” are Contributions to Recovery. 3 Includes staff time/administrative fees, interest, and miscellaneous. 4 Local funding includes contributions by EBRPD and its own funds or grant funds for joint acquisitions and preserve management. AGENCY PARTNERS IMPLEMENTING THE HCP/NCCP City of Brentwood City of Clayton City of Oakley City of Pittsburg Contra Costa County Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District East Bay Regional Park District East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE More information about the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy can be found online at www.cocohcp.org. The HCP/NCCP Overview booklet and the 2021 Annual Report can be both downloaded from the website. To reach the Conservancy, please contact maureen.parkes@dcd.cccounty.us or 925‐655‐2909. April 2022 Agricultural representatives Building Industry Association of the Bay Area California Farmland Trust California Native Plant Society Contra Costa County Farm Bureau Discovery Builders Inc. East Bay Leadership Council Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed Rural/suburban residents Save Mount Diablo 12-12-22 TWI Committee Meeting - Agenda Packet Page 394 of 394