March 17, 2021 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM Join Zoom Meeting

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, March 17, 2021 1:30 PM to 3:30 PM Join Zoom meeting:

https://zoom.us/j/93768682146?pwd=Z1RSQ3pUZTNnNjNSM3V1WW9rZlowQT09

Meeting ID: 937 6868 2146 Password: 352212 One tap mobile: +16699006833,,93768682146#,,1#,352212# US (San Jose)

The Contra Costa Clean Water Program will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities that are planning to participate. Please call at 925-313-2000 at least 48 hours in advance to ensure accommodation. VOTING MEMBERS (authorized members on file) City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister City of Brentwood Meghan Laporta/ Allen Baquilar/ Nouae Vue City of Clayton Laura Hoffmeister/ Scott Alman City of Concord Bruce Davis/ Kevin Marstall/ Frank Kennedy Contra Costa County Michele Mancuso (Chair)/ Tim Jensen/ Allison Knapp CCC Flood Control & Water Conservation District Tim Jensen/ Michele Mancuso/ Allison Knapp Town of Danville Bob Russell/ Steve Jones/ Mark Rusch City of El Cerrito Will Provost/ Stephen Prée/ Maria Sanders/ Yvetteh Ortiz City of Hercules Mike Roberts/ Jeff Brown/ Jose Pacheco/ Nai Saelee City of Lafayette Matt Luttropp/ Donna Feehan City of Martinez Khalil Yowakim/ Scott Alman Town of Moraga Frank- AJ Kennedy/ Shawn Knapp/ Bret Swain/ Mark Summers City of Oakley Billilee Saengcalern/ Frank Kennedy/ Andrew Kennedy City of Orinda Scott Christie/ Jason Chen/ Kevin McCourt City of Pinole Tamara Miller/ Frank Kennedy City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway (Vice-Chair)/ Fritz McKinley City of Pleasant Hill Ananthan Kanagasundaram/ Frank Kennedy City of Richmond Joanne Le/ Ryan Smith City of San Pablo Amanda Booth/ Karineh Samkian/ Jill Mercurio City of San Ramon Robin Bartlett/ Maria Fierner City of Walnut Creek Lucile Paquette/ Neil Mock/ Steve Waymire

PROGRAM STAFF AND CONSULTANTS Courtney Riddle, Program Manager Andrea Bullock, Administrative Analyst Karin Graves, Sr. Watershed Planning Specialist Kristine Corneillie, LWA Dan Cloak, Consultant Mitch Avalon, Consultant Khalil Abusaba, Wood Michael Burger, Clerk

NEXT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 1:30 PM Contra Costa Clean Water Program MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, March 17, 2021

AGENDA

Introductions/Announcements/Changes to the Agenda: 1:30

Public Comments: Any member of the general public may address the Management Committee on a subject within their jurisdiction and not listed on the agenda. Remarks should not exceed three (3) minutes.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Comments/Reports: 1:35

Consent Calendar: 1:40 All matters listed under the CONSENT CALENDAR are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Management Committee or a member of the public prior to the time the Management Committee votes on the motion to adopt.

A. APPROVE Management Committee Meeting Summary (Chair) 1) February 17, 2021 Management Committee Meeting Summary B. ACCEPT the Following Subcommittee Meeting Summaries into the Management Committee Record: (Chair) 1) Administrative Committee • February 2, 2021 2) Monitoring Committee • January 11, 2021 3) Municipal Operations Committee • January 19, 2021 4) Development Committee • January 27, 2021

Presentations: 1:45 A. Submittal of Final UCMR to the Regional Board and Monitoring Data to CEDEN (K. Abusaba) a. See staff report for background information

B. Final Draft FY 21/22 Budget (M. Avalon/A. Bullock) a. See staff report for background information

C. Process to Respond to the MRP 3.0 Administrative Draft (M. Avalon) a. See staff report for background information b. Decide on process to approve comment letter to the Regional Board

Actions: 3:00 A. APPROVE submittal of the Urban Creeks Monitoring Report to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, AUTHORIZE the acting Program Manager to sign the transmittal letter, and AUTHORIZE the acting Program Manager to transmit the monitoring data to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network.

2 B. APPROVE the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Budget for Fiscal Year 2021/2022.

Reports: 3:05 A. Assembly Bill 377 (M. Avalon)

Updates: 3:15 A. Personnel Update (A. Knapp) a. Staffing changes (K. Graves) B. BASMAA Board of Directors meeting (K. Graves) C. Select Committee (M. Avalon) D. GIS update, cleanup, training (K. Corneillie)

Information: 3:25 A. Resolutions setting annual permittee Equivalent Runoff Unit rate. B. Finalized Response to Comments memo and attachment

Old/New Business:

Adjournment: Approximately 3:30 p.m.

Attachments Consent Items 1. Management Committee Meeting Summary February 17, 2021 2. Administrative Committee Meeting Summary February 2, 2021 3. Monitoring Committee Meeting Summary January 11, 2021 4. Municipal Operations Committee Meeting Summary January 19, 2021 5. Development Committee Meeting Summary January 27, 2021

Presentations 6. Staff Report on Urban Creeks Monitoring Report 7. Final Urban Creeks Monitoring Report 8. UCMR Submittal Letter to the Regional Board 9. CEDEN Data Transmittal Letter 10. Staff Report on Final Draft FY 21/22 Budget 11. FY 21/22 Administrative/Personnel budget detail 12. FY 21/22 Final Draft Budget spreadsheet 13. MRP 3.0 Work in FY 21/22 14. Staff Report on MRP 3.0 Administrative Draft 15. Administrative Draft Review Calendar 16. Administrative Draft Review Assignments 17. List of Policy issues

Reports 18. Assembly Bill 377

Information 19. Response to Comments memo (final) 20. Response to Comments memo attachment (final)

UPCOMING CCCWP MEETINGS All meetings will not be held at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553, but will be held virtually April 6, 2021 Administrative and PIP Committee Meeting 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 noon 1st Tuesday April 12, 2021 Monitoring Committee Meeting, 10am – 12 noon 2nd Monday March 24, 2021 Development Committee Meeting, 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. 4th Wednesday April 20, 2021 Municipal Operations Committee Meeting, 10am-12 noon 3rd Tuesday April 21, 2021 Management Committee Meeting, 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m. 3rd Wednesday

BASMAA SUBCOMMITTEE/ MRP 3.0 MEETINGS Times for the BASMAA Subcommittee meetings are subject to change. March 23, 2021 MRP 3.0 Steering Committee Meeting, 2:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.

1st Thursday Development Committee, 1:30 – 4:00 p.m. (even months) 1st Wednesday Monitoring/POCs Committee, 9:30 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (odd months) 4th Wednesday Public Information/Participation Committee, 1:30 – 4:00 p.m. (1st month each quarter) 4th Tuesday Trash Subcommittee, 9:30 a.m.-12 noon (even month)

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES 2-17-2021

Attendance:

MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister City of Brentwood Nouae Vue City of Clayton Laura Hoffmeister City of Concord Bruce Davis Town of Danville Bob Russell City of El Cerrito Stephen Prée City of Hercules Nai Saelee City of Lafayette Matt Luttropp, Tim Clark City of Martinez Khalil Yowakim Town of Moraga Frank Kennedy City of Oakley Frank Kennedy City of Orinda Scott Christie City of Pinole Tamara Miller City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway City of Pleasant Hill Frank Kennedy City of Richmond Joanne Le City of San Pablo Amanda Booth City of San Ramon Robin Bartlett City of Walnut Creek Lucile Paquette Contra Costa County Michele Mancuso (Chair) CCC Flood Control & Water Tim Jensen

Program Staff: Andrea Bullock, Michael Burger

Program Consultants: Mitch Avalon, Kristine Corneillie, Dan Cloak Members of the Public/Others/Guests: Allison Knapp

Introductions/Announcements/Changes to Agenda: Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the meeting was conducted by video-conference call.

Public Comments: No members of the public called in.

Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Comments/Reports: Regional Board staff did not call in.

1. Roll call was taken and the meeting was convened by the Chair at 1:30 pm

2. Changes to the Agenda: The Chair asked for changes to the agenda. Mitch Avalon noted that Allison Knapp would not be available until 2:30 and suggested that discussion on the Request for Comments memo should be addressed later.

Stephen Prée (El Cerrito) noted that he attended a presentation for green infrastructure given by the Green Infrastructure Center. He relayed that he had information available for those interested. He also asked how many permittees had a streambed alteration agreement with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. He requested information regarding the program personnel and whether other permittees maintained their agreements for maintenance purposes. Jolan Longway (Pittsburg) suggested that El Cerrito file for an extension. She relayed information regarding changes to the agreement. Amanda Booth (San Pablo) noted that San Pablo had a similar experience and there were changes to the requirements for the permit. She also noted the potential lead time on receiving a new permit.

3. Consent Calendar:

a. APPROVE Management Committee Meeting Summary (Chair)

b. ACCEPT the Following Subcommittee Meeting Summaries into the Management Committee Record (Chair)

The Chair asked for any changes. Mitch Avalon noted there were some typographical errors. Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) motioned to approve with changes noted, Lucile Paquette (Walnut Creek) seconded. The Chair called for a vote. The vote passed unanimously and the motion carried.

4. Presentations:

a. County Overhead Rates (Mitch Avalon): Mitch Avalon described concerns regarding the County overhead charges. The Program overhead is split into three parts: division, department, and outside overhead. He noted that he had received comments regarding overhead calculations. He described the breakdown of the CCCWP staff overhead and showed examples of two different arrangements of staffing and their total overhead. The 19/20 overhead was $483,513. He further described the current overhead generated by the Program with the total overhead need listed as $200,085 with an effective rate of 41%. This was lower than the budgeted amount. The division overhead was over budget with $76k collected and $87k budgeted (a 16% overage). It was noted that the budget should cover overhead, but shouldn’t be much larger. The Finance Division had been contacted by Mitch Avalon and that there will be changes in the rates

for next year. He suggested there would be finalized costs for the next meeting. He mentioned that the division overhead generated a large amount over the budget. He noted that Finance suggested a flat amount of overhead budgeted for the division overhead, rather than using an overhead rate. Department overhead would remain calculated as an overhead rate because it covers a large number of people.

Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) suggested that the fluctuation may be due to the interest earnings in investment accounts. Mitch Avalon noted that the difference between budget and overhead was too large to be explained by such fluctuations.

Mitch Avalon addressed the overhead costs of consultants when compared to employees. He noted that County overhead is not charged on a consultant. He suggested that the overhead charge would be smaller with more consultants because there would be fewer employees to charge overhead to. With an All Consultant model, there would be no county employees but any overhead costs incurred by the County would have to be paid directly by the Program. It was noted that overhead was charged only for actual time and not for employees on leave.

Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) asked if the benefits were included in the division or department overheads. Mitch Avalon suggested that it was already included, but noted it would likely be in the outside overhead since those types of benefits are paid by Contra Costa County at large. He included that there were questions regarding the breakdown of the department overhead and discussed the list of items that were included in department overhead.

The last question addressed regarded the difference between County overhead (47%) and San Ramon’s overhead (15%). Mitch Avalon suggested that it was difficult to tell why there was a difference without a detailed accounting of what is included in San Ramon’s overhead. There was no plan to explore the difference. He asked if there were any further questions. b. Second Draft of 21/22 Budget (Mitch Avalon): Mitch Avalon noted that there were changes that needed to be addressed by the Management Committee. He addressed questions from the previous meeting regarding leftover funds under the budget cap. He suggested that during a permit year, there would never be overhead under the budget cap. During a gap year, there was a possibility to be under the cap. He gave an example and noted that staff interpretation was for unspent funds plus the amount the approved budget is under the budget cap (currently $3.5M) would be added to reserves. He proposed that this was a policy question that should be defined but noted that there were few situations where this would be relevant. Mitch Avalon offered that policy clarification should be considered to give direction in the future and the Committee agreed.

The assumption for the budget was that the Program would be fully staffed and without staffing augmentation. Mitch Avalon noted that the situation of the Program Manager on leave is still unclear. It was suggested that there be 6 months of staff augmentation to continue to cover the work if the Program Manager is still on leave.

Mitch Avalon suggested that some of the work for MRP 3.0 be done in advance and added to the FY 21/22 budget or that work begins before FY 22/23. It was suggested that this will ease the burden during the first year of the permit in FY 22/23. He also noted the various costs associated with BASMAA and that the County paid for developing the draft Memorandum of Agreement for BASMAA.

The 2nd draft of the budget was displayed and Mitch Avalon explained the highlighted changes. He noted the increase for staff augmentation that would cover the potential for the Program Manager to remain on leave. It was also mentioned that the PIP Committee reviewed and revised their budget and that was now reflected in the current draft. He also noted there was a training that would need to be budgeted for. He explained that there was an increase in the budget to provide for the TMDL Implementation Plan, POC Load reduction report, a report on managing building material PCBs, and the East County RAA. The East County RAA would normally be advance work, but is now required next year. He noted the salary credit for the vacant program manager. The total budget was $3.485M.

Michele Mancuso (Chair) asked for clarification on the Non-Program County Staff. Andrea Bullock suggested this would cover administrative work, additional clerical assistance, or translation services.

c. Annual Report Form (Kristine Corneillie): Kristine Corneillie gave an update regarding the Annual Report Form. She noted that staff had compared the forms to the MRP requirements and made comments to EOA that clarification was required. These comments were addressed and the current form would be ready for the next BASMAA meeting. After Water Board review and comments, the CCCWP will add Contra Costa- specific guidance to the form before distributing it to Permittees for their use. No significant changes to the form were anticipated. Mitch Avalon noted that the progress was being handled more quickly this year. Kristine agreed that forms should be available earlier this year. d. Recommended Organization Structure by the Select Committee (Mitch Avalon): Mitch Avalon explained that the Management Committee asked the Select Committee for recommendation on optimal organization structure. He noted that the Select Committee went through a process to develop options. A number of options were originally created and but several were discarded previously. He explained the evaluation process and options that were under consideration: a historic model (reflecting the historic structure of the program), a flattened model, a model that

reflected the current structure of the Flood Control Division, a model with a mild number of consultants (which swapped out 1 Watershed Planning Specialist for 1 consultant), heavy consultant model (swapping out 2 Watershed Planning Specialists for 2 consultants), and an all consultant model (which would feature no county staff). It was decided that some county staff was necessary for both historic program knowledge and respect from outside organizations. He went on to describe the three key evaluation criteria: work flow, personnel practices, and county overhead.

The final recommended option was a mix of models. It was proposed to fill both Watershed Planning Specialist positions and allow these positions to flex up to Senior level over time. Under this guideline, three potential outcomes were described: fill both vacant Watershed Planning Specialist positions, fill one Watershed Planning Specialist position, or leave the Watershed Planning Specialist positions vacant. Each outcome will determine how the organization will evolve (with 2 filled the result will resemble the flattened model, with 1 the result will reflect the mild consultant model while continuing to advertise for Watershed Planning Specialist positions).

Mitch Avalon further explained the schedule, process, and budget surrounding the organizational structure. He suggested that it would take 18 months to modify planner position to flex. Vacancies could potentially be filled by May or June. Watershed Planning Specialists would not flex up automatically and would need to meet the minimum qualifications. The Management Committee would be required to approve Watershed Planning Specialist flexing up to senior. He noted that a $50k item was already in the budget for staff augmentation to train new Watershed Planning Specialists as well as a $50k item for on-call staff augmentation to fill gaps.

Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) asked if creating a flex position would require a change to the job description and result in having to start over with the hiring process. Allison Knapp explained that the positions could be changed into a flex position while the positions are filled. e. Response to comments memo (Mitch Avalon, Allison Knapp): Mitch Avalon noted that the comments to the survey were taken and put together. Allison Knapp created a response to these comments. Attached to that memo was a process to review and evaluate the program manager. He described the discussion from the Administrative Committee meeting and the comments. Three things were pointed out.

- Probation period: there was a request to extend the probation period from 6 to 12 months. He noted there was a problem with this because the program manager was considered a division manager. Division managers in the county have to maintain the same or similar probation period, which is currently 6 months. He also noted that the county doesn’t change job descriptions while the position is occupied and explained that there could be potential ways to

change the description of the program manager to differentiate it from other division managers. - Closed session: Mitch Avalon noted there was a question regarding who should be responsible for calling a closed session meeting to discuss the program manager. It was suggested that the deputy Public Works director and the management committee chair both have the right to calendar a closed session meeting. - Program goals: Mitch Avalon noted that he received old memos regarding development of Program goals. He noted that the practice has been discontinued but could be reinstated. He suggested that this be done at the beginning of the fiscal year and further suggested that any changes wait until the Program is fully staffed. Allison Knapp noted that program goals could be set with current acting program manager. Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) suggested that the memo be sent to the committee. The committee discussed the potential nature of the goals. There was concern regarding the difference between program goals and program manager goals. Mitch Avalon suggested that an item be added to the Administrative Committee agenda for further discussion. Lucile Paquette (Walnut Creek) asked for clarification on Program Manager Goals. Allison Knapp discussed the legal reasons behind removing the program manager goals.

5. Actions:

a. APPROVE recommendation from the Select Committee on organization structure and REQUEST the county modify the watershed planning specialist to flex staffed: Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) moved to approve the recommendation. Scott Christie (Orinda) seconded. The Chair called for a vote. The Action passed unanimously. The recommendation was approved.

b. APPROVE the Annual Report form and AUTHORIZE the acting program manager to vote approval at the BASMAA February Board of Directors meeting with minor changes. Amanda Booth (San Pablo) moved to approve, Bruce Davis (Concord) seconded. Chair called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously. The motion carried.

6. Reports:

a. Opportunity to develop homeless data with UC Berkeley (Amanda Booth, Mitch Avalon): Amanda Booth (San Pablo) gave an explanation regarding the background of the project. She noted that the student would be collecting and collating data for the program and not generating new data. This data would be used to show how different permittees handle issues regarding homeless encampments. CCCWP created a short scope of work to guide the content of the report. Mitch Avalon noted that the content

is ultimately up to the student based on their goal for the project but any information would be helpful. He suggested that they could reach out to leaders in this area to gather information that could be advantageous. He noted there was no cost to the program for this. Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) noted that there were already groups gathering information on this and it should be suggested for the student to reach out to these groups. Nouae Vue (Brentwood) asked if this was a graduate student and whether this study would be for this semester or multiple semesters. There was concern that there wouldn’t be enough time for the student to gather the information. Mitch Avalon noted that it was for this semester and the project might progress past the end of the semester. Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) suggested that the amount of time to collect and collate data should be small. Nouae Vue (Brentwood) asked if city staff time would be needed to deliver information to the student. Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) noted that the PMA group potentially already had much of the information on hard. She noted the Concord City Manager was the best initial contact for the student.

b. State Mandates Court Case (Mitch Avalon): Mitch Avalon gave a brief background on the current court case. The courts have ruled that local governments are entitled to payment for trash capture devices and is considered a state mandate. The definition stated that the program is new or provides a higher level of service unless the local government can charge a fee. This was viewed to be a win for local governments that have had state costs shifted to them for stormwater capture devices because Stormwater programs are new and provide a higher level of service. He noted that it was unlikely that any CCCWP permittees would be affected by the ruling. Frank Kennedy (Moraga, Oakley, Pleasant Hill) gave a more in-depth background of the court case. Lucile Paquette (Walnut Creek) asked if this ruling would have any effect on how the MRP is written. Mitch Avalon noted that this has very narrow applicability.

7. Updates:

a. Personnel Update: Allison Knapp noted that the County has advertised for the Watershed Planner position. The advertisement period is 2 weeks long. She checked with the personnel manager to determine the number of applicants and if the advertisement needed extension. The expected time for interviews was anticipated to be the end of March. There were no updates on the Program Manager.

b. BASMAA Board of Directors Meeting: Lucile Paquette (Walnut Creek) asked who would be going to the BSMAA Board of Directors meeting. Mitch Avalon noted that he may be going. Michele Mancuso (Chair) asked for an update on the vote to dissolve the corporation. Mitch Avalon noted that the formal vote would be in March.

c. Select Committee/MRP 3.0 Update: Mitch Avalon noted that the committee would be developing positions for the discussion on MRP 3.0. He noted that comments were due

on April 8, but management committee wouldn’t have comments before its next meeting. Mitch noted that he would be giving an update to city and county engineers tomorrow regarding the changes from MRP 2.0 to MRP 3.0 and new provisions. He also noted the PMA subcommittee was also scheduling a meeting. This would include any historic positions and any new positions developed. Nouae Vue (Brentwood) asked when the draft would be done and sent out. Mitch Avalon noted that a staff meeting was scheduled for Monday and information sent out within 2 weeks.

d. Meeting permit requirements delayed by COVID-19: Kristin Corneillie described the update to the regional board regarding permittee compliance. She noted that overall compliance was progressing nicely. She noted that there were only a few items that would not be finished. Laura Hoffmeister (Clayton) noted that Clayton would not be able to complete one of the requirements. The committee discussed COVID-19s impact on in-person outreach. Robin Bartlett (San Ramon) noted that San Ramon would complete all items except C.7 b-g, which would be done in limited scope. Nouae Vue (Brentwood) noted that Brentwood would reach out with information regarding compliance. Mitch Avalon reminded the committee that these compliance items were from FY 19/20. It was suggested that Kristine Corneillie send a clarifying email to permittees requesting updates regarding compliance activities from fiscal year 19/20.

8. Information: Mitch Avalon noted that he sent an email regarding an opening on the CASQA Board of Directors. Four candidates were nominated for the open position. He explained that Andrea Bullock was the CCCWP representative and asked if the committee had suggestions regarding whom she should vote for. Amanda Booth (San Pablo) motioned for Andrea to vote for Rinta Perkins, Stephen Prée (El Cerrito) seconded. The Chair called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously and the motion carried.

9. Old/New Business: Lucile Paquette (Walnut Creek) noted that ArcGIS online has gone through an update and there were requests for each city to clean up data layers. There was a request from CCCWP about what was needed from each permittee. Kristine Corneillie noted that she would be sending out an email to ask for questions and concerns and provide instructions for updating data layers. Stephen Prée (El Cerrito) provided a brief summary about the Green Infrastructure Center.

10. The meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 3:48 pm.

G:\NPDES\01_Management Committee\03_Minutes&Attend\20 21\2021-02\Management Committee Meeting Minutes 2021-02-17 Draft_RMA_KMC_DC.docx

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE SUMMARY Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 2, 2021 10:30 – 12:00

VOTING MEMBERS ATTENDED ABSENT

City of Clayton Scott Alman City of Concord Bruce Davis Contra Costa County Michele Mancuso CCC Flood Control and Water Tim Jensen Conservation District

City of El Cerrito Stephen Prée City of Orinda Kevin McCourt City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway

NON-VOTING MEMBERS

City of Walnut Creek Lucile Paquette

Program Staff: Andrea Bullock, Karin Graves, Michael Burger Consultants: Mitch Avalon Guests: Amanda Booth (City of San Pablo), Allison Knapp

1. Convene meeting and roll call (Chair): The meeting was held via videoconference. The meeting was convened at 10:33

2. Announcements or Changes to the Agenda (All): Mitch Avalon noted that there were three changes to the meeting agenda. Two would be added to the Management Committee agenda item. The third was Karin Graves’ nomination to the CASQA board. Andrea Bullock noted that there was a correction to be made on the draft budget from the agenda packet.

3. Approval of January 5, 2021 Meeting Minutes (Chair): Stehpen Prée noted that he was present during the last meeting and it was not reflected in the meeting minutess. Stephen Prée motioned to approve minutes with the above changes, Jolan Longway seconded. The Chair called for a vote, the motion passed and the minutes were approved.

4. Review Second Draft FY 21/22 Budget (M. Avalon/A. Bullock): Andrea began by noting that line 58 had a $10k cost that was also counted on another line item. This lowered the total budget by $10k. Lucile Paquette asked for clarification if this was for the contingency. Andrea noted that this was correct and it had been counted on both line 47 and 58 in error. Mitch noted that the total is now correct. Andrea Bullock gave a more detailed reason why the error occurred. Mitch asked if there were questions regardinig this change. There were none.

Mitch described the changes since the last draft of the budget. An increase in the line item for staff training was noted to increase by $50k to account for future training of employees for the now vacant program positions. The Hydrograph modification management line item was also changed from $35k to $50k in order to address an increase it time to bring the project current. Three line items discussed as poptential items for MRP 3.0 were also addressed. The line items were removed to prevent confusion. The line item regaring PCBs management during construction will be moved to the Monitoring Committee budget rather than a separate line item. The total cost would be discussed with consultants later today. Development Committee and PIP Committee both approved their budgets. C.6 training for construction controls was not included and would have to be added to the budget, but this would be rolled into the Development Committee budget. These changes would be made before the next Management Committee meeting. The new total for the budget is $3.387M, which is below the funding cap. No draw from the reserves would be needed.

Michele Mancuso had a question regarding the Homeless line item for MRP 3.0 that had been removed and where it would be reflected if a cost for that arose. Mitch suggested that they would either appear under the Municipal Operations Committee budget or a separate committee could be formed to address this new cost center. This would depend on whether the work for these requirements were dependant on the Program or on the permittees. Mitch recommended that care would be taken when evaluating the bottom line total of the MRP 3.0 budget if Homeless and Cost Accounting line items were introduced. Lucile Paquette had a question regarding the fiscal impact of agenda item 6. Mitch was unsure of the answer but suggested that the partnership wouldn’t be conducted on the Program level and subsequently wouldn’t involve much time from the Program. Amanda Booth further clarified that this would be undertaken mostly by students doing an investigation as part of their class so there would be neglible cost for the Program outside of minimal staff time.

5. Evaluation Process for Program Manager Position (M. Avalon): Mitch noted that comments were received When the Select Committee evaluated the Program structure. It was described that the program manager was on a similar level to a division manager. Allison prepared a review and evaluation process for the Program Manager position, as an attachment to the response to comments memo, for the purposes of transparency in the review process. Mitch suggested that there may be some confusion regarding this process from individuals outside the County.

Allison described that the process was standard County practice but that it may be unfamiliar to city agencies. Allison Knapp indicated that the priority for this is to be up front with what is happening in the review process. Lucile Paquette had a comment regarding a 1-year probation and suggested that this was more appropriate for this position. Allison Knapp agreed with the sentiment, but noted that

there had to be consistency with other divison manager level employees in Contra Costa County, which have a 6-month probation. It is believed that if the process is followed accurately, this should be a sufficient length of time to evaluate a new program manager. The importance of consistency where legality is concerned was noted. Lucile noted that the 6-month probation is sufficient for division managers that rise through the County, but that the CCCWP manager is unique in that the needed knowledge and experience required is greater than other division managers and should be reflected in a longer probation period. Allison Knapp suggested that it is more important that the position has leadership qualities congruent with other division managers rather than specific skillsets, the latter of which can be learned through exposure to the program. The importance of consistency was reiterated. Amanda Booth suggested that an extension to the probation be available should any concerns arise. Allison Knapp noted that there cannot be extensions according to County Counsel. The process of probation was described in more detail to clarify. Amanda Booth was concerned that future deputy directors may not have the same oversight and commitment of the current deputy director. Michele Mancuso noted there could be an issue based on the date of the Management Committee meetings falling after the end of the probation. Allison Knapp described the necessity for consistent policies to be in place for future hirings so that the committee has all the relevant information in the event the deputy director changes. Mitch Avalon suggested that language should be added to the process so the closed session Management Committee meeting is held prior to the end of the probation period. It was suggested that there is limited interaction between the Management Committee members and the program manager and there is the potential for problems to go unnoticed. Mitch suggested that a closed session should be called by the deputy director. Allison Knapp noted that this could be an issue if the deputy position is not able or willing to do so. Stephen Prée suggested that there is too much potential for evaluations to fall through the cracks. Mitch asked if it should be made clear who is responsible for calling a closed session and suggested that the chair of the Management Committee would be a good choice. Lucile Paquette noted that there are procedures already in place from HR to conduct an evaluation. It is also suggested that increasing the probation period to 1-year be formed into an official proposal. Mitch reiterated that the reason for this item is that there is a clear, formal way to provide feedback for the evaluation process and that comments on clarity are welcome. Stephen Prée asked if it was possible to incorporate the language that the committee chair schedule the closed session. He made a motion to add that language to the process. Mitch asked Allison Knapp if this was acceptable and she agreed but reiterated the need for all committee members to be active in providing feeback on future new hires. Lucile noted that HR should be on board with the legitimacy of this document. It was suggested that further language should be added to clarify HR’s participation. Allison Knapp suggested it was not appropriate for HR to be involved. Further comments were requested on the process.

6. Opportunity to Develop Homeless Data with UC Berkeley (A. Booth): Amanda Booth gave a quick background on the project. It was noted that there was a specific class or course on Urban Creeks and the professor reached out to Amanada regarding the impact of homelessness on these creeks. They discussed a potential project for the students to undertake and what information should be collected. It was noted that CCCWP could develop a scope of work and a list of questions that should be asked. Since this is a Spring semester course, it was suggested that this should be decided on

before then. Mitch suggested that staff would work with Amanda Booth to coordinate what needs to be done. Mitch noted that approval would be needed to move forward with this.

Scott Alman had a concern regarding the financial resources to undertake this. Amanda Booth suggested that the initial data to be collected should be given based on what is known about MRP 3.0, but could be refined as that deadline approaches. Mitch asked for volunteers to participate with Amanda to determine the scope of the project. Michele Mancuso and Lucile Paquette offered to provide review of documents and assistance. It was suggested that this could save costs for the Program. Amanda Booth noted that this was not a way to solve the homelessness or trash problem but would be a good way to gather information. Stephen Prée requested that the draft document be circulated to the Committee for review. Amanda Booth noted that a draft document would be provided to the Management Committee for review.

7. Updates: Allison Knapp noted that Karin Graves and Michele Mancuso had been working with the HR department and that advertising for the Watershed Planner positions would begin tomorrow. The standard timeframe for advertisement is 2 weeks but could be extended if there were not enough quality applicants. It was suggested that these positions would be filled by April. The next update regarding the CCCWP program manager will be available next week.

Mitch reported that State Mandate claims, regarding whether the state is required to pay local government, have been in dispute for some time. The court found that the State cannot make an argument for not paying claims on the basis that this is not a new program or not a higher level of service. The State has shifted financial responsibility onto local governments. Mitch suggested this be put on the agenda of the Management committee for discussion.

Mitch reported that a member of the board of directors for CASQA was leaving and Karin Graves was nominated to fill that position. Karin Graves noted that the date of this vote was still unknown. It was also unclear if the current CCCWP representative to CASQA would need Management Committee approval to vote. The timeframe regarding the date of the Management Committee as compared to the CASQA vote was discussed. Mitch suggested that a request for approval could be emailed if the Management Committee’s next meeting were to occur after the CASQA vote. Karin noted that it would be good for the CCCWP if she was a part of the CASQA Board.

Approve Feburary 17, 2021 Management Committee Agenda (Committee): Mitch sent an email to the MC with changes to the draft agenda. Mitch noted that a recommendation for organization structure would be made at the next meeting. Mitch described the changes to the Management Committee agenda. Mitch reported that another action item would be added on the annual report form. Under Information, the CASQA nomination for Karin Graves would be added. The UCMR IMR will be reviewed by the Monitoring Committee and will be up for a vote at the Management Committee meeting in March.

The Chair called for approval of the Management Committee meeting agenda with changes. Scott Alman moved to approve the agenda, Stephen Prée seconded. The vote passed and the motion carried.

8. Old/New Business (Committee): There was no old or new business.

9. Adjournment: The chair adjourned the meeting at 12:03pm.

G/NPDES/Administrative Committee/Meetings-Attendance/FY 20-21/2021-02/AC Minutes 2-2-2021_Draft_RMA

Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes January 11, 2020 Voting Members MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED ABSENT City of Walnut Creek Lucile Paquette(Chair) City of Pittsburg Joseph Camaddo (Vice Chair); Jolan Longway City of Pinole Misha Kaur CCC Flood Control District: Michele Mancuso City of Richmond Joanne Le City of San Pablo Amanda Booth City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister

Non-voting Members City of Pinole Andrew Kennedy

Program Staff: Khalil Abusaba (Wood), Augmented Staff; Mitch Avalon (Consultant), Augmented Staff, Karin Graves (Sr. Watershed Management Planning Specialist)

Program Consultants: Lisa Austin, Elai Fresco (Geosyntec)

1. Introductory Remarks and Announcements: The Chair (Lucile) opened the meeting with a quorum.

Announcements: Lucile provided an update on the November Kinder-Morgan pipeline spill in the Walnut Creek area. The surface water cleanup response is focused on visible product; monitoring and product recovery is more focused on groundwater than surface water. Consider adding a bioassessment site in impact area for spring sampling.

All voting members were present as of 10 AM.

2. Approval of Minutes: Monitoring Committee Meeting summary for December 2020 was moved for approval by Pinole (Andrew Kennedy) and seconded by San Pablo (Amanda Booth). The minutes were approved unanimously with no abstentions

3. Urban Creeks Monitoring Report (UCMR) Schedule for Review (K. Abusaba) Outcomes - Receive summary of UCMR due dates and review timeframes for Monitoring Committee review and Management Committee approval: Khalil presented a timeline for UCMR review, culminating in Management Committee Approval in its March 17, 2021 meeting. Exceedances noted and potential responsive actions:

a. Poor bioassessment scores - Consider potential for SSID studies

b. No dry weather pesticide toxicity hits; wet weather QA/QC toxicity sampled in other counties during WY2019-20 c. Two of ten ammonia samples exceeded WQO – potential analytical issue d. Highest pesticide concentration is bifenthrin, consistent with prior years – existing pyrethroids control plan covers this e. Elevated PAH Concentrations – document and track; possible wildfire origins? f. Maximum Weekly Average Temperatures – Consider future Studies of Shaded Canopy effects on Temp g. Low DO in Marsh Creek (but not lethally low) – continue flow augmentation, monitoring; Permittee stakeholders consider development of a Marsh Creek water quality management plan in MRP 3.0 to forefend 303-d listing process triggering a TMDL with load allocations. h. E Coli and Enterococci – await Water Board vision for bacteria monitoring and approach to control measures in admin draft of MRP 3.0

Discussion. Andrew Kennedy would like to know more about Las Trampas, Pinole and Moraga Creek temperature exceedances and location – are they upper or lower watershed. Andrew and Khalil will review offline.

Michelle, with reference to site on Las Trampas Creek near Olympic , was curious if monitoring results at all reflect recent construction activities or reservoir releases related to EBMUD and other parties’. recent unplanned discharges in the area– water main breaks and other substantial water releases. Need to understand timing of removing probes vs. timing of discharges. Lucile noted that for temperature in Las Trampas or other creeks, we generally have not gone up into EBMUD lands because of permitting challenges, which biases our data set by omitting what is most likely the highest quality stream reaches.

For Marsh Creek, Lucile reported that our final SSID study is completed, but has not received a formal approval letter from Water Board stating that SSID study is approved as complete. In terms of program compliance, we are consistently completing and reporting our SSID studies, but not getting final approval letters. According to Water Board staff approval is moot when Permit is re-issued.

4. Draft FY20-21 Monitoring Committee Budget Recommendations (K. Abusaba) Outcomes – Receive draft recommendations for FY2021-22 Monitoring Committee Budget, discuss and provide direction (Attachment 2). The FY 2021-22 estimated Monitoring Committee budget is approximately $500,000, which is lower than the more usual $800,0000 to $1,000,000, because FY2021-22 is a gap year. Mitch and others discussed merits of funding the East County RAA in FY2021-22 vs. 2022-23. The committee reviewed and confirmed the decision to defer updates to fish risk signage for MRP 3.0.

5. GIS Analysis Supporting Enhanced O&M / Treatment in WMAs with Elevated PCBs (L. Austin). Outcomes – Hear summary of findings from task to analyze opportunity areas for interventions v full trash capture and enhanced O&M (Attachment 3). Lisa led this item explaining the refinement of the map of potential opportunities for full trash capture. The refinements deleted areas that are non-jurisdictional (e.g., BNSF rail lands in Richmond), in addition to IGP lands already deleted, and / or lands that drain direct to the Bay. The rail lands deletion is more accurate than the previous version reviewed in December 2020. Consequently, the available WMA acreage for interventions has decreased, and therefore the target acreage for the performance standard will proportionally decrease. Much of the work accomplished has been updating land uses in the

baseline Old Industrial map. Need for Permittees to go through and verify land use layers and determine whether there are any new opportunities for FTC or other interventions in Old Industrial areas, or whether remaining lands are non-jurisdictional or drain direct to Bay. Contra Costa County (Michele Mancuso) noted that their jurisdiction has a diversity of site characteristics, e.g. shoulder vs. no shoulder, undeveloped lands, land area that discharge to wetlands. Pittsburg (Jolan) reviewed opportunity areas they know of or potential future redevelopment projects identified in Pittsburg. Lisa Austin summarized the approach for development of a performance standard for interventions in Old Industrial WMAs. She reminded the group that this exercise is intended to determine whether FTC in 10% of “warm” Old Industrial areas is a viable option for meeting Water Board expectations.

6. Old / New business – CCCWP staff and consultants (Karin, Khalil, Mitch) will be meeting January 12 with the Central Valley Water Board to review MRP Provision C.16.5 in preparation for permit re-issuance. No contentious issues are expected. CCCWP will coordinate with ADH to identify potential bioassessment sites near fuel spill and / or other planned and unplanned discharges in Walnut Creek watershed) including tributaries, e.g., Las Trampas)

7. Next steps Action Items – Permittees are requested to review KMZ layers to identify potential FTC opportunities, and to review the draft UCMR submittals.

Adjournment: The chair adjourned the meeting at 11:55.

Next Scheduled Monitoring Committee Meeting: February 8, 2021, 10:00 AM -12 noon, by teleconference.

KPA:xx G:\NPDES\05_Monitoring Committee\03_Minutes&Attend\20-21\2021-01\01_2020_January_11_MonCom_Minutes_approved.docx

3 Municipal Operations Committee Meeting Minutes January 19, 2021

MUNICIPALITY ATTENDED [via WEB/PHONE] VOTING City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister City of Brentwood Melissa Barcelona City of Concord Contra Costa County Michele Mancuso City of Martinez City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway, Joseph Camaddo City of Richmond Joanne Le City of Walnut Creek Lucile Paquette NON-VOTING City of El Cerrito Town of Danville PROGRAM STAFF and CONSULTANTS CCCWP Karin Graves Staff Augmentation Kristine Corneillie Consultant Mitch Avalon GUESTS Grace Lee (ReThink Disposable) Amanda Booth (City of San Pablo) Francine Kuykendall (City of Lafayette)

1. Introductions/Announcements: Kristine Corneillie (CCCWP) welcomed the group to the Zoom call. There were no changes to the agenda. There were no announcements.

2. Approve Meeting Summary: There were no comments on the previous meeting summary. A motion was made by the City of Pittsburg and seconded by the City of Brentwood to approve the December 15, 2020 meeting summary. The Committee voted to approve.

3. Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget Review: Kristine Corneillie reviewed the draft budget for FY 2021/22. The budget is the same as last year, with the exception of a 3% increase for the Our Water Our World (OWOW) budget. It was noted that Debi Tidd (OWOW) is retiring, and that the contract is up for reissuance. Upon question, past actuals were reviewed and it was noted that OWOW typically spends their entire budget. A question was posed as to what the C.2 Training is, and if this is required annually. Further research indicates there is not an annual training required in C.2, so this line item will be removed. Also, it was requested to note under the Technical Support list to "look at the main budget for more details."

4. Program & MRP 3.0 Update: Kristine Corneillie and Mitch Avalon gave updates on the Clean Water Program Municipal Operations-related activities.

Website Revisions • Please send any comments on the website revisions to Kristine.

AGOL Training • ArcGIS Online Training will be held February 16, 2-4p • The training agenda will include C.3 and C.10 ArcGIS Tools: • Logging in • Story Maps • Desktop Tools • Collector • Reporting • Topics to discuss: • Turning areas covered by full capture device (FCD) to “green”: How to draw polygons? • Onland Visual Trash Assessment (OVTA) colors: What do we change? What is criteria? How many observations? Is it now green forever? • Annual report tables don't match the maps. What do we want to the generated maps to illustrate? • What timeline are we looking at? Each fiscal year? All data leading up to present date? • BASMAA has not yet decided to change the map coloring beyond baseline. • Overlay baseline map with FCD and OVTA results? • Could use hatched lines to see changes in color. • Review how the City of Salinas is turning their map “green” • Need to account for C.3 facilities that are considered FCD.

New Collector App • The new app is easy to use, very similar to the old app. • The new app is easier to navigate, fill in, and edit old entries compared to the old app. • No difference in connectivity / frequency of being kicked out of the app / crashing. • You have to click the link symbol to get to the assessment history for the point and to add a new assessment. • Attachments (e.g. pictures) are now on a separate “page/tab” from the assessment entry. • The app saves recent entries in order by date. • For stakeholders with multiple maps, the new app allows grouping of maps into folders (e.g. PCB folder - 3 maps, Trash folder – 5 maps). The previous app simply displayed all maps on the main screen and you’d have to scroll to find the one you wanted. • The “measure” tool is slightly clunkier than before if you are trying to measure a specified distance (e.g. find 500 feet from your current location). Previously you could enter a distance/line with a start point and end point and simply click and hold on the end point to move it around until the desired distance was reached. Moving the endpoint like this is no longer feasible. • Below is the image of the icon of the new ArcGIS Collector app that should be downloaded and image of the chain link icon for adding an inspection once the device has been selected for the inspection.

Select Committee/PMA Sub-committee • Next meeting will be in a couple weeks to discuss the CCCWP organizational structure. • Recommendations will allow flexibility. • A PMA sub-committee was formed for MRP 3.0 negotiations.

5. Trash Roundtable: This portion of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of Permittee trash concerns and potential solutions. Discussion topic ideas included: • What is the main problem you face in controlling trash in your jurisdiction? • What has been the most rewarding control technique you have used? • How could a program-wide effort help you? • How has ArgGIS Online (AGOL) assisted/inhibited your efforts?

Melissa Barcelona, City of Brentwood. Brentwood is at 86% and doesn't know how to get any more reduction. Would like a better understanding of how AGOL calculations work. Current sites that are yellow on AGOL; can't really do anything else on these properties due to limited stormdrain infrastructure. Can't do hotspot cleanups because they are not hotspots. Potential remaining options: credits/offsets, creek cleanups, on-land cleanups, bans. Perhaps enforce state bag ban since not doing so already, though the credits are going away for this anyway.

Joe Camaddo, City of Pittsburg. Wondering how to enter own assessment points. Note: You can turn points on/off in AGOL - green means "on." The City has found that putting in FCD removes assessment line and can sometimes bring down the percent reduction because assessment credits go down. 2017 vs. 2020 credits - 5% increase in FCD but 10% decrease in OVTA results. Joe will give AGOL presentation next month.

Lucile Paquette, City of Walnut Creek. The City would like to have the ability to look at the data/calculations behind the scenes in AGOL. Would like to know what criteria to use to say an area has changed color (e.g., 2 years of "low" means now "low")? Are there Regionwide programs to explore? What are offset programs that are worth doing? City is using Big Belly solar compactors in downtown area and very happy with them. They are Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant, they compact trash, keep trash in, and have electronic signals to tell operators when full. The City is also using trash cans that go deeper into the ground "in ground trash systems" which hold a lot of trash and have resulted in a 72% operational cost savings. The can has a big bag that needs machinery to lift/remove. The City has scene this as a benefit because staff is not getting injured with heavy lifting and ripped bags. Parks crews seemed to like these and they have been helping with assessment scores. https://www.swrl.com/sybertech_waste_reduction_inground_trash_system.html

Amanda Booth, City of San Pablo. The Regional Water Board says they cannot give credits to programs because of the Statewide Trash Amendments. It is important to leave the door open in MRP 3.0 to allow credits/offsets IF statewide amendments allow it. The City’s Direct Discharge Program (DDP) gets credits for cleaning up AND for preventing encampment in the first place.

• DDP was approved in the middle of COVID so the City hasn’t implemented it yet. The DDP was submitted in January 2020 and approved in September 2020. (attached) • The City tried a Big Belly solar compactor and it broke in one day because someone shoved a carpet in it. • Looking at litter and illegal dumping reductions. Using residential health & safety program to promote adequate sized bins for multi-family units, enforce on overfilled bins. This avenue is much faster than through stormwater ordinance. Breaking city into many districts and using community to police their own areas, through a non-profit. Working with Police to install cameras and post on social media. Posting a lot of videos on Facebook about littering. Waste services are very different throughout the County. A service in San Pablo isn't necessarily available in Richmond or the County. It would be good to create a website indicating what services are available based on where you live. Can share list of services San Pablo offers. Dumpster days every 6 weeks. Dump vouchers, mattress drop-offs, compost drop-offs, household hazardous waste drop-offs, etc. • If the CCCWP wants to work with a group to develop a DDP, one cost-effective way to do this is to hire a student through CivicSpark (https://civicspark.lgc.org/). Call for applications just went out and they are due at the end of February. For example, could get assistance from a full-time college graduate for $20,000-25,000 one year.

Michele Mancuso, Contra Costa County. County is starting to do some inspections for trash. Working with Environmental Health (stormwater inspectors) with a separate task to go into communities and look on private properties to find where there are trash issues and go talk to property owners.

General. How much do you have to clean-up to get a 1% reduction? Perhaps fold business inspections into Countywide plan or homelessness plan. If it is built into service agreements, there may be a way to share waste management services? Could try to use Prop 218 to support as refuse collection is exempt. Develop a Countywide program to oversee waste collection. Local services would provide baseline, other entity would provide enhanced services as needed throughout the County.

6. ReThink Disposable: The Committee received a presentation from Grace Lee, Program Director for ReThink Disposable (https://www.rethinkdisposable.org/), describing their Program and possible ideas for further trash controls (attached). ReThink Disposable is part of the Clean Water Fund / Clean Water Action. They are a grassroots program that promotes public interest in natural resources; emphasis on water quality in 14 states. The Oakland office was opened in 1990 with zero-waste and clean water goals. ReThink Disposable has partnerships between municipalities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They are active in helping support foodware reduction ordinances through outreach, coordination, and implementation. They are working with San Mateo County right now to enforce and promote their foodware reduction ordinance. Work with public on takeout food containers, with large corporations and small businesses. Trash generation is reduced on average by 110 items/business and businesses save money by not having to purchase materials. The Palo Alto School District is saving $25,000/year on disposables. Plastic production is still growing, however there could be an 82% reduction of plastic discharged to the Ocean by 2040 if do it right. In the "Taking out the Trash" project in 2011, 67% of trash collected in Richmond, South San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland was food and beverage packaging. In Alameda, 6,000,000 pieces of disposable foodware per year were eliminated at a cost savings of $140,000 saved per year. Focus on replacing plastic with reusable materials (not compostable). "Dispatched Goods" is a company that provides reusable containers

for takeout and then picks them up from subscribers. When factoring costs, ReThink takes everything into account in cost savings (purchase costs, water, staff, dish washing, etc.), replace disposable cups, salad bowls, and utensils, use bulk dispensers for sweeteners, minimize napkin use. Buying a dishwasher offset needing additional staff to wash reusable materials.

What ReThink can do for Food Service Establishments (FSEs): • Step 1 - Develop target list of businesses. • Step 2 - Make recommendations for cost saving source reduction (offer $300-500 mini grant for setup costs). • Step 3 - Implement changes and provide technical assistance. • Step 4 - Track and quantify packaging reduction impacts through pre- and post- program audits. • Step 5 - Awards, recognition, and green marketing.

Project costs depends on what a municipality needs. ReThink can develop a very flexible workplan/scope. • San Mateo County: 3-year contract - 500 businesses throughout county, includes full marketing, branding, partnership = $700k over 3 years. • OPC grant: 2-year contract: 100 businesses, 2 years - $400k over 2 years. Included pre- and post- litter assessment. • Individual contracts with cities as well. City of Alameda continued - $50K/year for 20 new businesses and pilot reusable takeout containers. • Countywide project - economy of scale. Depends on number of businesses total that we want to engage. • Some grants are available.

What type of potential credits municipalities could collect from this? Can this group go to the Regional Water board to request credit for this type of program? If convert 200 business/year, then get X credit? Look at foodware reduction laws. Instead of an ordinance, do a source reduction program. Would need some results to provide proof. Do an audit (before / after) to show to Regional Water Board. And then agree to follow-up every so often. Grace Lee will put Kristine in touch with San Mateo County regarding if and how they are receiving credit for their program, as well as the City of Alameda who is a good resource. Additionally, studies were done to characterize the litter in street sweepers in Alameda.

7. Old/New Business: None.

8. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 pm

KC G:\NPDES\06_Municipal Operations Committee (MOC)\02_Minutes&Attend\20 21\2021-01\MOC Minutes 1-19-21 (draft).docx

CITY OF SAN PABLO DIRECT DISCHARGE TRASH CONTROL PLAN

January 21, 2020

Updated July, 2020

San Pablo txftd All-America City

CITYo•SAN PABLO City of New Directions 111r2014 Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... i Table of Images ...... i Table of Figures ...... ii Section 1: Purpose, Scope and Regulatory Drivers ...... 1 Section 2: Background ...... 1 2.1 City of San Pablo ...... 1 2.2 San Pablo’s Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan ...... 1 2.3 Direct Discharge Trash Sources ...... 2 2.3.1 Wind Blown Litter ...... 3 2.3.2 Illegal Dumping ...... 3 2.3.3 Homeless Encampments ...... 4 Section 3: Direct Discharge Trash Control Plan ...... 5 3.1 Litter and Illegal Dumping ...... 5 3.1.1 Current Condition and Prevention ...... 5 3.1.2 Litter and Illegal Dumping Task Force Pilot Program ...... 7 3.1.3 Reporting and Evaluation ...... 8 3.2 Encampments ...... 9 3.2.1 Overview of Homelessness in San Pablo ...... 9 3.2.2 Support Programs and Shelters ...... 9 3.2.3 Homeless Encampment Management ...... 11 Section 4: Assessment and Monitoring ...... 12 Section 5: Funding Sources ...... 14 Section 6: Conclusion ...... 14

Table of Images Image 1: EarthTeam students removing litter in San Pablo in 2018 ...... 3 Image 2: Illegally dumped items adjacent to MUDs ...... 4 Image 3: Illegally dumped items adjacent to MUDs ...... 4 Image 4: Large homeless encampment in Oakland, CA...... 4 Image 5: Kids for the Bay Wildcat Creek Cleanup, 2019 ...... 7 Image 6: San Pablo Dumpster Day ...... 7 Image 7: Contra Costa County C.O.R.E. Team...... 11 Image 8: Contra Costa County C.O.R.E. Team...... 11 Table of Figures Figure 1: City of San Pablo receiving waters: Rheem, San Pablo, and Wildcat Creeks ...... 2 Figure 2: City of San Pablo Creeks and Hydrologic Zones according to the Storm Drain Master Plan ...... 2 Figure 3: EarthTeam Litter Map, 2019 ...... 3 Figure 4: Homeless encampment heat map of Contra Costa County. The City of San Pablo is located in the western region of the County...... 5 Figure 5: Approximate tonnage of illegal dumping collected by PW Maintenance, 2015-2019 ...... 5

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

Section 1: Purpose, Scope and Regulatory Drivers

The purpose of this Direct Discharge Trash Control Plan (Direct Discharge Plan) is to document the City of San Pablo’s comprehensive plan to control, to the extent practicable, the discharge of trash to receiving waters from non-storm drain system sources. This plan was developed in accordance with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Provision C.10.e.ii of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)1.

The MRP allows Permittees to offset part of Provision C.10.a trash load percent reduction requirements by implementing a comprehensive plan, approved by the Executive Officer, to control direct discharges of trash to receiving waters from non-storm drain system sources. The Provision sets a maximum of 15% offset credit and requires the plan to be submitted by February 1 of the first year in which offsets are to be reported in the Annual Report (i.e., fiscal year (FY) 2019/20 Annual Report). This Direct Discharge Plan includes the following required elements:

• Description of sources of the directly discharged trash; • Description of control actions that will be implemented to prevent or reduce direct discharge trash loads in a systematic and comprehensive manner; • Map of the affected receiving water area and associated watershed; and • Description of how the effectiveness of controls will be assessed, including documentation of controls, quantification of trash volume controlled and assessment of resulting improvements to receiving water conditions.

Section 2: Background

2.1 City of San Pablo Incorporated in 1948, the City of San Pablo (“the City”) spans an area of 2.6 square miles in Contra Costa County (“the County”) in the San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area) of California. As a State identified disadvantaged community, the population is predominantly low and moderate income, with 20% of the population identified as living at or below the poverty rate2. Of the City’s 31,000 residents, 61% identify as Hispanic or Latino, 15% Asian and 12% Black or African American. The predominate language spoken in the City is Spanish (55%), though languages from Asia and/or Pacific Islands are also common (11%). 2.2 San Pablo’s Long-Term Trash Reduction Plan On January 31, 2014, the City submitted the Long-Term Trash Management Plan (Long-Term Plan) to the RWQCB in compliance with Provision C.10.c of the MRP for Phase I communities in the Bay Area3. The Long-Term Plan acknowledged the City’s understanding that the achievement of clean waterways leads to a healthy city. The goal of the Long-Term Plan was to effectively manage and minimize the potential impacts of trash on receiving waters associated with discharges from the City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), which are regulated by NPDES Permit requirements.

1 Permit No. CAS612008, Order No. R2-2015-0049 2 https://datausa.io/profile/geo/san-pablo-ca 3 Order R2-2009-0074

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

The Long-Term Plan established a framework of short- and long-term actions needed to reduce San Pablo’s trash load and continues to guide the City’s efforts today. Per the Long-Term Plan, the City is pursuing further methods to meet the mandatory trash reduction targets associated with the City’s MS4. 2.3 Direct Discharge Trash Sources San Pablo has approximately five (5) miles of creeks flowing through the City within three (3) watersheds (San Pablo, Wildcat and Rheem). The receiving waters in San Pablo are San Pablo Creek, Wildcat Creek and Rheem Creek. These three creeks lead to the San Francisco Bay. Trash is transported to the creeks through multiple pathways other than the City’s MS4. This Direct Discharge Plan focuses on three (3) main sources of trash to receiving waters including: on-street and park litter blown by wind directly into waterways; trash dumped illegally into or near creeks; and trash and debris left behind or dumped by homeless residents who camp in/near waterways.

Figure 1: City of San Pablo receiving waters: Rheem, San Pablo, and Wildcat Creeks

Figure 2: City of San Pablo Creeks and Hydrologic Zones according to the Storm Drain Master Plan

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

2.3.1 Wind Blown Litter Many areas in San Pablo that are adjacent to transit stops, commercial centers and parks have high rates of litter. The source of this litter is a combination of overflowing trash bins, pedestrians and vehicles with improperly secured loads. To address this on-street litter, the City has been working with a local non- profit organization, EarthTeam, to document and remove litter from specific areas in the City. Since 2015 when this partnership began, EarthTeam has documented, geo-tagged and removed over 34,000 pieces of litter.

Image 1: EarthTeam students removing Figure 3: EarthTeam Litter Map, 2019 litter in San Pablo in 2018

2.3.2 Illegal Dumping San Pablo has a severe, well-documented problem with illegal dumping throughout the City. The San Pablo Public Works Department spends over $68,000 per year on removal of illegal dumping. In FY 2018/19 the City addressed over 527 illegal dumping work orders and removed more than 460 tons of illegally dumped debris and litter from City streets, parks and rights-of-way. City staff have identified two (2) factors that contribute to a large portion of the illegal dumping in the City: • High resident turnover due to low homeownership rate – San Pablo is a renter community, with a homeownership rate of about 38%. High renter turnover, as well as a lack of education and communication between landlords, tenants and the City, has led to major illegal dumping issues, particularly adjacent to multi-unit dwellings (MUDs). • The City’s proximity to the local landfill – The City of San Pablo is located 1.3 miles from the West Contra Costa Landfill/Golden Bear Transfer Station (Landfill). When residents or businesses are unable or unwilling to pay the disposal rates at the Landfill, San Pablo is the adjacent community where some decide to dump their waste as an alternative.

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

Image 3: Illegally dumped items adjacent Image 2: Illegally dumped items adjacent to MUDs to MUDs

2.3.3 Homeless Encampments Homelessness in and around the Bay Area is a growing and substantial regional issue. The Bay Area has the third-largest population of unhoused people in the United States, behind New York City and Los Angeles. The commonality between these regions is high housing costs. A 2018 study by University of California, Los Angeles4 found a direct correlation between the cost of housing and the rate of homelessness. In 2019, Contra Costa County’s homeless population rose 43% from 20175, a trend echoed across the entire Bay Area. Homeless populations contribute trash to waterways as a result of a lack of adequate sanitation and solid waste services at encampments, which pose a threat to water quality and public health. Homelessness is a complex and challenging societal issue that lacks a simple solution, at both regional and jurisdictional levels.

Image 4: Large homeless encampment in Oakland, CA

4 http://www.uclaforecast.com/uploads/forecasts/2018/June/uclaforecast_June2018_embargoed.pdf 5 https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/PIT-report-2019.pdf

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

Figure 4: Homeless encampment heat map of Contra Costa County. The City of San Pablo is located in the western region of the County. Section 3: Direct Discharge Trash Control Plan

3.1 Litter and Illegal Dumping

3.1.1 Current Condition and Prevention Litter and illegal dumping are two (2) pervasive sources of trash that enter the creeks in San Pablo. In FY 2018/19, the Public Works Maintenance Division responded to over 527 instances of illegal dumping. The cost of cleaning illegal dumping in San Pablo is, on average, over $68,000 per year.

Approximate Tonnage of Illegal Dumping Collected by Public Works Maintenance, 2015-2019 120 100 80 60

Tons Tons 40 20 0

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Figure 4:5: Approximate tonnage of illegal dumping collected by PW Maintenance, 2015-20120199

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

To address illegal dumping, San Pablo residents are eligible for the following free waste disposal services, provided in coordination with Republic Services: • $60 of dump vouchers per fiscal year, • waste drop off events (“Dumpster Days”), • two (2) yearly curbside collections of up to 15 bags per collection, • one (1) yearly bulky item curbside collection, • household hazardous waste disposal, and • mattress recycling.

It should be noted that the curbside collections of bags and one (1) bulky item are services only available to single-family and duplex households, not MUDs. In order to enhance free waste disposal options for MUDs in San Pablo, the City has increased the dump voucher value for residents of MUDs from $60 to $90. Additionally, the City received a CalRecycle grant to address illegal dumping and as part of this grant, the City will coordinate with Republic Services to provide dumpsters for one-day clean-up events at MUDs. Additionally, staff will leverage the clean-up days as opportunities to meet with residents and property managers of MUDs to share information about proper waste disposal procedures and free or low-cost disposal options that are available to them.

Staff also plan to conduct audits on MUDs to ensure their trash bins are adequately sized, as it currently seems like many of these housing units do not have bins with sufficient capacity for the number of residents. These audits will be used to educate MUD owners and residents about programs the City offers and responsibilities under the City’s current waste ordinance. Non-compliant sites will be addressed under the City’s Enforcement Response Plan.

There are 37 cameras in San Pablo capable of monitoring for illegal dumping, as well as additional cameras in the Del Camino government housing area and Giant Trade Center that are privately owned but provide full access to the San Pablo Police Department (PD). Currently, this footage is only being monitored retroactively in response to reported illegal dumping.

To help address litter, residential streets are swept two (2) times per month and commercial streets four (4) times per month. Despite these efforts, litter often builds up as some residents do not adhere to the “no parking on street sweeping days” signs and PD currently lacks the capacity for consistent parking enforcement.

To address litter at the source, the City approved a single-use plastic bag ordinance, which became effective on January 1, 2014. The ordinance prohibits the distribution of single-use plastic bags in retail stores (e.g. supermarkets and clothing stores) and requires retailers to charge customers a minimum of 10 cents for other, reusable plastic bags. Restaurants and take-out food establishments are exempt from the ordinance. Additionally, the City approved a plastic foam (polystyrene) ordinance, which became effective on April 1, 2015. The ordinance prohibits restaurants and City facilities/events from providing plastic foam foodware. Furthermore, the ordinance prohibits the sale of plastic foam products in retail stores (e.g. plastic foam plates, coolers). Meat and seafood, as well as pre-packaged foods, are exempt from the plastic foam ban.

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

San Pablo works with EarthTeam to provide paid student internships to Richmond High students for environmental stewardship education, work-based learning opportunities, litter removal and leadership training. Through this program, students perform 30 litter removal events on Rumrill Boulevard, San Pablo Ave, 23rd Street and Brookside Drive per year. The City also works with Kids for the Bay to provide watershed and trash education to Dover, Downer and St. Paul Elementary school students. In addition, every October, the City partners with Kids for the Bay to host a Wildcat Creek Cleanup Event where volunteers from these schools remove trash and debris from the Creek and Davis Park.

Image 6: Kids for the Bay Wildcat Creek Cleanup, 2019 Image 5: San Pablo Dumpster Day

3.1.2 Litter and Illegal Dumping Task Force Pilot Program In July 2019, the City Manager hosted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (S.W.O.T.) staff workshop to gain insight and recommendations on the issue of litter and illegal dumping in San Pablo. From this workshop, the City Manager formed the Litter and Illegal Dumping Task Force (Task Force) with staff from the Public Works, Police and Community Services Departments. The Task Force met bi-monthly to discuss and develop a holistic approach to reducing litter and illegal dumping including: 1) programs and infrastructure, 2) an education and outreach campaign, and 3) maintenance and enforcement around litter and illegal dumping. This program approach aims to teach residents about proper disposal methods, as well as encourage them to take ownership and have pride in their community. The Task Force developed the following recommendations for implementation through a multi-year strategic approach.

Outreach Campaign Develop an outreach and education campaign with the goals of educating residents and businesses about the programs offered in San Pablo and inspiring community pride. The educational component aims to reset social norms on personal responsibility for proper waste disposal, reemphasize the laws and consequences for litter and illegal dumping, and remind residents and businesses of proper disposal options available to them. This program would use bilingual print and social media, as well as community events, to engage the community.

Infrastructure Install additional infrastructure, such as trash bins and fencing, to improve proper disposal in the public rights-of-way. The Public Works Department will install additional trash bins, where needed, to reduce littering. In addition, fencing will be installed in areas adjacent to creeks, to reduce illegal dumping and littering. The City will install fencing at an encampment “hot spot” along San Pablo Creek known as Kenney

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

Plaza with funding from the CalRecycle Illegal Dumping grant. This fence will be 330 linear feet of wrought iron fencing. This site will be a pilot project to assess the efficacy of fencing along creeks to determine if the program should be expanded to additional illegal dumping and encampment hot spot areas that are adjacent to creeks and are a priority for trash management.

Enforcement and Maintenance In order to continue encouraging citizens to properly dispose of their waste, the Code Enforcement Division will identify opportunities to improve enforcement on parking violations, to make street sweeping more effective, and enforce on littering and illegal dumping violations. Additionally, the Task Force recommends that the Maintenance Division identify strategies to service the additional trash bins and maintain the fencing.

New Ordinances Adopt a new ordinance that will require non-franchised haulers to obtain a permit from the County’s Environmental Health Department in order to operate in the City. This permit would require haulers to be inspected and follow County rules about collecting and transporting solid waste. Permitted haulers would be issued decals for their vehicles and would then be permitted to drive on San Pablo roads and offer their services within the City.

City staff will also explore a potential excess litter and illegal dumping fee on the types of facilities that are determined to excessively contribute to the City’s litter and illegal dumping issue. The City will review studies that investigate the correlation between certain business types and amounts of disposable materials that end up as litter or illegal dumping on the street and in the creeks. Initial review of studies demonstrates that the types of businesses likely to be covered include MUDs, fast food restaurants, convenience markets, gasoline station markets and liquor stores. The City would complete a fee study to determine the fee amount and types of businesses that will be subject to the fee. The purpose of this fee would be to help maintain clean streets and sidewalks, as well as provide resources to support outreach, programs, infrastructure improvements and enforcement on litter and illegal dumping.

3.1.3 Reporting and Evaluation In order to evaluate the effectiveness of litter and illegal dumping reduction efforts, the City will collect and compare multiple qualitative and quantitative parameters, including:

 a pre-/post-survey of business, schools and residents on available programs;  data on tonnage of illegal dumping collected (specifically in or adjacent to creeks);  number, types and location of litter collected (Earth Team);  on-land visual trash assessments (OVTAs);  litter hot-spot assessments; and  the number of parking citations issued.

In addition, the City will continue to monitor and document illegal dumping and encampment abatement using the City’s asset management system, Cartegraph.

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

3.2 Encampments

3.2.1 Overview of Homelessness in San Pablo Like much of the Bay Area, Contra Costa County and the City of San Pablo are experiencing rising housing costs and an increase in homeless encampments. The County median household income is $95,339, whereas the City has a median household income of $47,495. There are a number of low-income housing options in San Pablo; however, the 2019 Contra Costa County Point-in-Time (PIT) Homeless Count estimated the San Pablo homeless population at 586. For context, this equates to 23.2 homeless persons per square mile in the City, compared to neighboring Richmond’s 6.3 homeless persons per square mile7. In 2019, the total number of homeless individuals in the County was estimated at 2,295, a 3% increase from 2018. Approximately 71% of these persons were unsheltered, including 974 living in encampment areas.

In 2018, the City piloted a new program called the Partnership to Assist the Transition from Homelessness (PATH) Program. As a part of this program, the City dedicated one (1) full-time Police Officer to identify encampment locations, determine the number of encampment residents and help the residents connect to services. In addition, the City piloted work with the County’s Coordinated Outreach, Referral, Engagement (C.O.R.E.) Team for rapid response for any individual accepting services. The PATH program identified 88 encampments and 165 people experiencing homelessness. This count is greater than the PIT count and likely more accurate. This is because the PATH Program outreach was conducted over a longer period of time and was able to include people who are transient and may not have been in San Pablo on the day of the PIT count.

Despite the high number of persons experiencing homelessness within San Pablo’s small boundaries, the City does not receive any funding from the State or the County for health and human services. There are no homeless shelters located within the City and the City has declared a shelter crisis. The City’s unhoused residents, as well as those at risk of homelessness, must rely almost entirely on County aid and services. 3.2.2 Support Programs and Shelters Ujima Family Recovery Services Ujima Family Recovery Services (UFRS) is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping families recover from alcoholism, drug addiction and behavioral health problems. UFRS has been serving the Richmond area since 1986. UFRS aims toward stopping substance abuse and empowering mothers and fathers to develop life skills to lead healthy, productive lives. Programs include alcohol and drug education, parent education, peer mentoring, clinical and psychiatric support services and therapeutic child care. UFRS collaborates with the County and other agencies for the provision of case management, foster care and family support services. UFRS is located at 12960 San Pablo Avenue, Richmond.

Women, Infants and Children (WIC) San Pablo, via Contra Costa County WIC is a federally-funded supplemental nutrition program that helps pregnant women, postpartum mothers, infants and children (up to age 5) create a healthier lifestyle. WIC provides nutrition

6 https://cchealth.org/h3/coc/pdf/Annual-Report-2018.pdf 7 The 2019 Contra Costa County PIT count estimated Richmond’s homeless population at 333. The City of Richmond encompasses 52.5 square miles.

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

education, breastfeeding support, financial assistance for purchasing nutritious foods and referrals to other resources throughout the County. WIC serves an average of 5,900 participants per month in West Contra Costa County. San Pablo WIC is located at 501 Gateway Avenue, San Pablo.

San Pablo Senior Center The San Pablo Senior Center is a multi-service center that offers multiple social services, such as nutritional programs and transportation, for San Pablo’s senior population. The Senior Center also offers weekly recreational and exercise activities, including bingo, dances, social trips, movie screenings, karaoke and yoga classes. Other services include blood pressure checks, Medicare/medical information sessions, Samuel Merritt University nursing student presentations, insurance information sessions, earthquake preparedness and a scholarship program. There is a yearly membership fee of $10, although membership is not required to attend Senior Center programs. The Senior Center is located at 1943 Church Lane, San Pablo.

San Pablo Economic Development Corporation (EDC) San Pablo EDC aims to develop, diversify and stabilize the local economy. This multi-service program offers workshops, trainings, business/entrepreneurship classes and other professional development services. Their programs include subsidized childcare; resume, cover letter and interview workshops; free professional clothing and subsidized tattoo removal. EDC is located at 1000 Gateway Ave, San Pablo.

Shelters There are no homeless shelters located in San Pablo, but there are four (4) shelters within 2.5 miles of the City, all located in Richmond or Unincorporated Contra Costa County.

1. West County Interim Housing Program - Brookside Shelter  Open 24 hours/day, individuals may stay up to 120 days  Services: meals, laundry, mail, phones, case management, referrals 2. GRIP Family Housing Program - West County Resource Center  Emergency shelter and transitional housing  Services: case management, lunch 365 days/year 3. Bay Area Rescue Mission - Women and Family Shelter  Shelter and transitional housing  Services: private rooms, meals, showers, job skills training, legal and financial advising 4. Bay Area Rescue Mission - Men’s Shelter  Shelter and transitional housing  Services: meals, showers, legal and financial advising, GED prep, budgeting, anger management, individual and group counseling 5. Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP) - West County Warming Center  Warming Center open six (6) days a week (8:00PM to 7:00AM)  Services: warmth, food, mailing services, laundry, case management, family shelter, veteran housing, alcohol and drug services

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

3.2.3 Homeless Encampment Management Despite these efforts, homelessness is still a prolific issue in San Pablo, and litter and illegal dumping associated with homeless encampments is responsible for a large percentage of direct discharges of trash into creeks. Managing and redirecting the homeless population from waterway areas is critical to mitigating the water quality impacts from homeless encampments. The following describes how the City has responded to this challenge.

San Pablo Coordinated Outreach, Referral, Engagement (C.O.R.E.) Team Since early 2019, the City has contracted with Contra Costa Health, Housing and Homeless Services to provide C.O.R.E. Team services to individuals experiencing homelessness within the boundaries of San Pablo. The C.O.R.E. Team consists of two (2) people who aim to engage and stabilize unhoused individuals via consistent outreach. The C.O.R.E. Team provides services in San Pablo between 12:00PM and 8:00PM on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The City has allocated $60,570 per year ($4,943.33 per month, plus a Housing Assistance Fee of $1,250) to funding this program. In order to receive payment, the C.O.R.E. Team is required to deliver a monthly invoice to the City documenting the dates that services were provided and the time spent rendering these services.

Image 8: Contra Costa County C.O.R.E. Team Image 7: Contra Costa County C.O.R.E. Team

Through consistent outreach, the C.O.R.E. team facilitates and delivers health and basic needs services, including providing trash bags, and aids homeless individuals in finding permanent housing. The C.O.R.E. Team initiates contact with homeless individuals, assesses their housing and service needs (standardized intake), then facilitates connections to shelter, benefits, behavioral health and primary healthcare services. The C.O.R.E. Team is required to connect homeless individuals via phone or in-person with these homeless services. The C.O.R.E. Team supervisors and outreach workers are required to participate in monthly meetings with San Pablo’s Police Department to check-in and address any questions or concerns.

The C.O.R.E. Team also assists with counts of homeless individuals and ensures that all individuals contacted are inputted into the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). This web-based platform helps the County’s collaboration of homeless agencies collect data, coordinate care and manage operations. The HMIS can produce an unduplicated count of homeless persons, track patterns of service use and measure the effectiveness of homeless programs in the County.

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

Contra Costa Council on Homelessness Since 2018, a representative from the San Pablo Police Department has served on the Contra Costa Council on Homelessness (the Council) in a public safety seat. The Council provides a forum for the Continuum of Care (CoC) to communicate about the implementation of strategies to prevent and end homelessness. The purpose of the forum is to educate the community on homeless issues and advocate on federal, state, county and city policy issues that affect people who are homeless or at-risk of homelessness. The Contra Costa Council on Homelessness provides advice and input on the operations of homeless services, policy formulation and program development efforts in Contra Costa County. Furthermore, it establishes the local process for applying, reviewing and prioritizing project applications for funding in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Homeless Assistance Grant Competitions, including the CoC Program and the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Program. The City’s involvement has allowed the City to have input on the services and programs available in the County and advocate for those who are unhoused in the City.

Encampment Abatement The City receives regular complaints and concerns regarding encampments on public and private properties. Inadequate water, sanitary facilities and trash receptacles at encampment sites create an unhealthy living environment and are considered a public nuisance. The City’s Code Enforcement Division provides a written notice (“red tag”) no less than 72 hours in advance of an intended clean-up. The red tag includes an attachment describing local services that offer assistance and resources. Prior to the notice being served, Code Enforcement will contact the C.O.R.E. Team to provide additional information regarding services available. On the day of the clean-up, staff photograph the area and collect any garbage and/or debris surrounding the encampment site and on the adjacent City-owned property and waterbodies. Any personal property deemed of value that has not been intentionally abandoned is collected, photographed, recorded and stored on City property for 90 days by the Public Works Department.

In order to prevent the re-establishment of encampments in areas deemed a safety or human health hazard (e.g. in the creek), the City implements deterrence actions, such as vegetation trimming, barriers, fencing, signage and extra patrolling. Additionally, the C.O.R.E. Team is required to connect homeless individuals via phone or in-person to shelters, benefits, behavioral health and primary healthcare services.

Section 4: Assessment and Monitoring

The City monitors and reports on a variety of trash control metrics in its MRP Annual Report. In addition to the information reported in the MRP, the City plans to collect data regarding the trash reduction effectiveness associated with actions described in this Direct Discharge Plan. The City will perform assessments and monitoring of litter, illegal dumping, encampments, enforcement and outreach efforts:

 Litter – Efforts to reduce litter in San Pablo will be tracked by annual On-Land Visual Trash Assessments (OVTAs). OVTAs will be conducted on a regular basis to allow for year-to-year and baseline comparisons. Staff will also analyze the data collected by EarthTeam to identify litter hotspots and recurrent litter types, which can help inform future source bans, enforcement actions, outreach blitzes and policies. This data may also be used in the excess litter and illegal dumping fee study.

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

 Creek Assessments and Clean-ups- Prior to the rainy season, the City performs annual creek assessments and clean-ups to remove litter and debris that may cause flooding or water quality issues. The City will collect information about the tonnage and geospatial location of removed debris to track year-on-year reductions and identify re-occurring problematic sites. Re-occurring problematic sites will be reviewed for potential actions (e.g. cameras, full trash capture, fencing, extra patrols, etc.).  Creek Hot Spot Assessments- In areas in or adjacent to a creek where a specific measure is implemented (i.e. fencing at Kennedy Plaza) the City will perform creek and shoreline assessments to determine the effectiveness of the implemented actions. This data will be used to determine if there has been a reduction in debris in the creek and provide information about any additional steps needed to reduce trash in the specified area.  Illegal Dumping – The Public Works Maintenance Division will continue to track illegal dumping, including the number of work orders, tonnage removed, location and item types. These data will be evaluated to assess program effectiveness and inform next steps. Understanding the type and location of illegal dumping will help the City to determine locations for fencing, cameras, audits or potential outreach blitzes.  Homeless Encampments – Encampments will be tracked through tonnage of debris removed, number and types of services provided by the C.O.R.E. teams, number of encampments and location hotspots. It should be noted that, even with a variety of City and County programs, homelessness is a statewide issue that is influenced by a multitude of outside factors and will be difficult to accurately track. Individuals may move regionally and San Pablo is a small city that is influenced by the larger cities around it. The City will attempt to normalize this data based on per capita of unhoused individuals over a specified time period to better understand if the provided services equate to a reduction of debris in and near encampment sites.  Outreach – In order to assess whether the outreach and education campaign has reached the community, a pre-survey will be given to residents and businesses to assess their base knowledge of available programs with a follow-up survey after the program has been implemented. This yearly follow-up will also ask residents about knowledge of these programs. Staff will review social media metrics and engagement to understand how many users view and interact with targeted advertisements. Staff will also monitor the use of the provided programs. This information will be used to understand the types of media that are most effective in San Pablo and if there are specific neighborhoods or other demographics that the City can target for blitz outreach campaigns.  Enforcement – The Code Enforcement Division will track parking violations, as a proxy for street sweeping effectiveness, and litter/dumping violations. The City aims to prosecute in a case of illegal dumping and will similarly track successful prosecutions.

Additionally, the City will explore the use of a metric that accounts for the prevention of litter and illegal dumping, especially in areas with proximity to waterways. When compared to baseline data, this metric would assist the City in tracking the overall reduction in the amount of trash reaching waterways as a result of preventative efforts, as guided by the City’s Direct Discharge Plan. Based on the evaluations listed above and consideration of loads avoided, the City will track the effectiveness of the actions described in this Direct Discharge Plan and adapt on an ongoing basis.

City of San Pablo Direct Discharge Plan

Section 5: Funding Sources

The recommendations from the Litter and Illegal Dumping Task Force, as described above, are estimated to cost $745,000 in FY 2020/21. Once the City identifies the appropriate approach to pursue, funding sources may use a combination of West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority/Recyclemore (WCCIWMA) funds, the City’s General Fund, grants or other funding sources. The recommendations from the Task Force require ongoing annual costs of approximately $445,000. Any revenue generated from a potential Excess Litter Fee would be reinvested in the litter and illegal dumping reduction efforts. The City is constantly applying for grant funding to continue improving and creating programs; however, this funding is based on availability and applicant success. The City is exploring a State budget earmark in FY 2020/21 to provide supplementary funding.

Section 6: Conclusion

The City is requesting approval from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Executive Officer to claim the maximum 15% trash load reduction offsets through implementation of this comprehensive management plan, as allowed in Section C.10.e.ii of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.

Grace Lee ReThink Disposable Program Director

Contra Costa County January 19, 2021 Stop Waste Before it Starts

2 ReThink Disposable Strategy

POLICIES/MUNICIPALITIES CONSUMER BUSINESSES AND Support and advocate for ENGAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONS regulatory options targeting EDUCATION Voluntary practices single-use Vote with their $$$ for source reduction packaging/Support zero and make personal waste goals and ordinances commitments 4 2011 Taking Out The Trash project

Bay Area cities- Richmond, South San Francisco, 4 San Jose, and Oakland

of all trash collected was food and 67% beverage packaging FSEs and Trash Generation Maps City of Cupertino

What we offer FSEs

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP4 STEP 5 Establish target Make Implement Track and quantify Awards, list of businesses recommendations changes and packaging recognition, and or businesses are for cost saving provide technical reduction impacts green marketing sent to us source reduction assistance through pre and (mostly for dine- post program in) audits

*Businesses receive $300-500 mini- grant to offset setup costs Business Case Study: Caravaggio

Recommendations implemented:

● Reusable tasting spoons, water cups, and gelato bowls ● Napkin and bulk sugar dispensers Caravaggio Results Product Quantity Reduced Percent Reduction Payback period Annual Savings Annual Waste Annually (after payback Prevention (lbs) period)

Gelato Paper Cups 6,083 67% 7.6 months $608 73

Napkins 48,667 40% 2.6 months $183 146 Tasting spoons 68,438 75% 4.1 months $821 137

Sugar Packets 18,250 75% .39 months $365 218

7 oz plastic water 10,139 100% 9.2 months $324 91 cups TOTAL= 151,577 AVE= 71.4% AVE = 4.8 months TOTAL= $2,301 TOTAL= 665 lbs. Institution Case Study: USF

Source Reduction Practices Implemented: ● Replaced disposable cups, salad bowls, and utensils with reusables alternatives ● Implemented bulk dispensers for sweeteners ● Minimized napkin use ● Implemented a charge on disposable take-out packaging

Annual Results: ● Disposable Items Reduced= 2,607,519 pieces ● Cost Savings= $157,883 ● Waste Reduction= 26,926 lbs ● GHG Emissions Reductions= 10.24 Metric Tons Case Studies 05 Honolulu BBQ Creekside Pizza Comfort's Alameda San Anselmo San Anselmo

• Targeted clamshells, deli containers, paper • Targeted kids cups and lids • Targeted water cups, paper plates, utensils, cups, plastic cups, sauce cups, cutlery • $105 investment hot and cold cups • $345 investment • 35,770 pieces of single-use packaging • $0 investment • 109, 408 pieces of single-use packaging • $2,146 annual net cost savings • 288,335 pieces of single-use packaging • $1,272 annual net cost savings • $14,000 annual net cost savings • in sta lle d com m e rcia l dish wa sh e r • no impact on labor

GRACE LEE ReThink Disposable Program Director

WEBSITE www.rethinkdisposable.org

EMAIL [email protected]

CONTACT NUMBER (415) 369- 9160 ext 303

INSTAGRAM @thefutureisreusable

TWITTER RDisposable

FACEBOOK /rethinkdisposable Alameda

Meeting Summary Development Committee January 27, 2021

Voting Members: Municipality Attending Absent City of Antioch Phil Hoffmeister (Chair) City of Brentwood Aman Grewal City of Clayton Scott Alman, Laura Hoffmeister City of Concord Mitra Abkenari Contra Costa County John Steere Town of Danville Bob Russell City of Hercules Jeff Brown City of Lafayette Matt Luttropp, Tim Clark Town of Moraga Frank Kennedy City of Oakley Frank Kennedy City of Pittsburg Jolan Longway City of Pleasant Hill Frank Kennedy City of San Ramon Rod Wui City of Walnut Creek Ryan Cook, Lucile Paquette Program Staff/Consultants Karin Graves Program Staff Mitch Avalon Consultant , Dan Cloak Consultant Guests Amanda Booth City of San Pablo

Introductions, Announcements, and Changes to Agenda The meeting was held via Zoom. Phil Hoffmeister called the meeting to order. There were no changes to the agenda (but see, under the “Open Discussion” item, discussion of an issue raised by Amanda Booth).

Approve Previous Meeting Summary Phil asked for comments or corrections to the draft summary of the December 9, 2020 meeting. On a motion by Frank Kennedy (for Pleasant Hill), with Ryan Cook seconding, the summary was accepted without changes or objection. Phil Hoffmeister abstained.

Municipal Regional Permit 3.0 Mitch Avalon reported on activities involving the Contra Costa Public Managers Association (PMA). He reported that the PMA was seeking more and earlier involvement in MRP negotiations than they had had in previous permit cycles. At a December 14 meeting, the PMA formed a subcommittee comprising David Biggs (Hercules, as lead), Ron Bernal (Antioch), and Joe Calabrigo (Danville; Mr. Calabrigo was closely involved in negotiations of MRP 1.0 and MRP 2.0). This subcommittee subsequently met with Tom Mumley and Keith Lichten of Water Board staff. Frank Kennedy, Kevin Marstall (Concord), and Mitch form a technical group to assist the subcommittee. Mitch brought in Amanda Booth, as she is working on developing a countywide alternative compliance program. At the meeting with Water Board staff, the technical group was tasked with developing alternative proposals to Water Board staff positions on contentious issues. However, while the alternative proposals are being developed, Water Board staff is preparing the MRP 3.0 Administrative Draft. Karin reported that at the BASMAA Board of Directors meeting, Keith Lichten said that the Administrative Draft would be complete in time for distribution ahead of the scheduled February 9 MRP 3.0 Steering Committee meeting. Phil added that in a recent conversation Derek Beauduy and Zach Rokeach had estimated it would be a “couple of months” before the Administrative Draft is ready for distribution. Water Board staff still aims to bring a Tentative Order to their Board during 2021 and it is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2022.

Flood Control District Policy on C.3 Facilities and Flood Control Dan recapped that the C.3/LID and Flood Control workgroup is considering three options: (1) No change to current policy (i.e., no credit for LID toward requirements to control peak flows); (2) Explicit modeling of the response of LID features and facilities to a design storm; (3) A rule-of-thumb credit for LID. Investigation continues on the second option. At a January 11 meeting, Mark Boucher (Flood Control District) found that a spreadsheet-based routing method for analyzing the response of LID features and facilities to runoff flows was difficult to implement on projects currently under review (3 such projects were examined), primarily because applicants employed different facility designs and different methods of hydrologic analysis.

2 Ryan noted that it is one of his objectives to disallow designs that combine LID and flood control functions in ways that are unaesthetic, create hazards, or are difficult to operate and maintain. Dan noted that these designs typically combine the LID and flood control functions by placing a bioretention facility at the bottom of a steep-sided detention basin and that this is an inherently poor design. However, it is still unknown whether properly designed LID facilities, meeting the criteria in the Guidebook, could achieve control of peak flows. One way forward might be for the municipalities to adopt a standard hydrograph for a 10- year storm and also adopt prescriptive criteria for using LID or augmenting LID designs to achieve no increase in peak flows from that hydrograph. This would involve also adopting a specific method of hydrologic analysis (for routing flows through facilities) that applicants would be required to use. At some point in the future it might make sense to incorporate peak flow control as an option in CCCWP’s IMP Sizing Calculator. The workgroup has scheduled a sixth meeting for February 1.

C.3 Outreach and Training Dan reported that after further consideration, he recommended that CCCWP sponsor a 2020- 2021 training session to be held on Zoom. There is clearly demand for such a session; there are various frequently encountered issues with C.3 implementation that it would be useful to discuss with the land development community, and this would also be an opportunity to provide an update on potential changes to requirements coming in MRP 3.0. He said the main constraint on implementing such a meeting would be the need to have technical assistance/technical facilitation as it would not be practical for one person to both manage the technical aspects of presentations, panel discussions, and Q&A while also being responsible for the program content. Meeting participants volunteered that they had seen various conference presentations and discussions run successfully via online platforms and that they had had good experience with technical facilitators. Scott and Lucile offered to pass on contact information for facilitators. Dan noted that $3,000 was typically budgeted for refreshments and logistics needs; this amount might be available to retain a facilitator for an online meeting. As to schedule, Dan noted that the annual training session had often been held in April or May. He will suggest a date at the February meeting. Dan also noted that Karin had requested his assistance with a PI/P project to prepare a 5- minute outreach video on Green Infrastructure.

Development Committee 2021-2022 Budget Dan shared a draft Development Committee budget spreadsheet on-screen. The budget numbers are the same as for the Development Committee 2020-2021 budget with the exception that $15,000 has been added to the item budget for Tony Dubin’s work on Hydromodification Management. Dan said this was potentially needed to cover Dubin’s costs related to keeping the project open while waiting for Water Board staff review of the Technical Report submitted in September 2017, and to restarting the project once any Water Board comments are referred to Dubin.

3 The Development Committee budget will be compiled into a Program-wide budget for review by the Administrative Committee and consideration by the Management Committee.

Open Discussion of C.3 and C.6 Implementation Issues Frank noted he had recently had to deal with a contractor who, having started to construct a pipe run from the top down, encountered a rainstorm and flooded his worksite, and then requested to discharge the accumulated runoff to the City’s storm drain. The accumulated runoff had to be trucked off site. John Steere noted that there is discussion among County staff as to whether a Stormwater Facilities Operation and Maintenance Plan is required for County-sponsored Green Infrastructure facilities. He is wondering if it might be more effective to have a field guide for maintenance crews involved in maintaining County Green Infrastructure facilities. Dan noted that MRP Provision C.3.h. requires that Permittees inspect facilities and ensure they are maintained, but doesn’t specifically require an O&M Plan. Dan noted that maintenance instructions are fairly simple and straightforward and referenced the Guidebook. Maintenance guidance and training should emphasize not using fertilizers or pesticides. Amanda asked for feedback on methods to incorporate consideration of rainfall differences into metrics for alternative compliance. Methods under consideration include a countywide factor (but this would require predicting the locations of alternative compliance projects), or dividing the county into rainfall zones. It was suggested that projects needing alternative compliance and mitigation projects could both adjust their benefit to a common standard by factoring in the difference between Mean Annual Precipitation at their site and a baseline Mean Annual Precipitation (say 20 inches).

Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be on February 24th, the regularly scheduled fourth Wednesday.

Adjournment Phil Hoffmeister adjourned the meeting at 2:55 PM.

NEXT DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 1:30 PM – 3:30 PM Via videoconference

Date: March 17, 2021

To: Management Committee

From: Khalil Abusaba (Wood), Augmented Staff for Monitoring Committee

Subject: Action Item A – APPROVE the Urban Creeks Monitoring Report: Water Years 2019 – 2020 (October 1, 2019 – September 30, 2020) and associated Submittal Letter, and letter documenting electronic data submission and DIRECT the Program Manager (or alternate) to sign and certify the submittals on behalf of each permittee’s duly authorized representative and submit them to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) and to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB).

Recommendations:

The Monitoring Committee recommends each Permittee’s duly authorized representative approve the following report and direct the Program Manager (or alternate) to sign and certify the associated transmittal letters on their behalf:

• Urban Creeks Monitoring Report: Water Year 2019 – 2020 (UCMR) • Urban Creeks Monitoring Report submittal letter • Transmittal letter documenting electronic submittal of creek status monitoring data to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) by March 31, 2020.

The monitoring committee further recommends that the Management Committee direct the Program Manager (or alternate) to submit the UCMR, submittal letter, and electronic data transmittal letter to the SFRWQCB and the CVRWQCB.

Background:

The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) gathers and reports monitoring data to help Permittees comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). The information provides valuable information that can help make water quality management and prioritization decisions. MRP Provision C.8.h requires reporting of monitoring data collected each Water Year (WY, the period October 1 - September 30), including the following elements:

• C.8.g.ii – Electronic reporting • C.8.g.iii – Urban Creeks Monitoring Report

Approving the UCMR, UCMR submittal letter, and electronic data submittal letter and directing the Program Manager or duly authorized representative to direct contractors to electronically transmit monitoring data for upload to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) will comply with the above reporting requirements.

Summary of UCMR Content and Ramifications:

The locations of samples collected in WY 2019-20 for the regional and local/targeted UCMR reports, as well as pollutant of concern samples, are shown in Figure 1 below.

Regional UCMR Findings: Comparable to prior years (2001 – 2018), bioassessment and physical habitat scores are generally lower on urbanized creeks compared to reference creeks. Correlation analysis suggests this is primarily associated with physical alterations, although low BMI scores also are associated with lower water quality metrics (dissolved oxygen, pH, and temperature). Per Water Board direction in the development of MRP 3.0, temperature and other Creek status monitoring may have a lower priority for monitoring and responsive actions compared to pollutants of concern.

Total ammonia at times has exceeded the water quality objective for un-ionized ammonia1; however, the likelihood of exceeding the un-ionized ammonia objective was unlikely for the samples in question. The elevated total ammonia concentrations may be related to a method switch that was implemented effective WY 2016-17. CCCWP is looking into this via split sampling to compare methods, and working with the Water Board and other Bay Area Phase 1 programs to recommend the appropriate ammonia analytical method.

The highest pesticide concentration measured was bifenthrin, a pyrethroid. This finding is also consistent with prior results and the findings of CCCWP’s stressor source identification study for pesticide toxicity conducted during MRP 1.0. CCCWP’s pesticide control program (C.9) addresses this pollutant.

Pyrene, a polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exceeded toxic effect threshold concentrations. This was the first such observation during MRP monitoring in Contra Costa County, 2010 - present. It may be related to wildfires, because both natural and human-caused combustion processes are common sources of PAH to the environment is combustion.

1 Un-ionized ammonia is the ammonia form that causes toxicity. Un-ionized ammonia cannot be measured directly with commercially available technology. Rather, it is calculated based on measurements of total ammonia, pH, and temperature. For convenience, total ammonia is often compared to the un-ionized ammonia objective for screening purposes.

Figure 1: Creek Status, Pollutants of Concern, Pesticides and Toxicity, and Stressor/Source Identification Monitoring Stations – WY 2019-2020

Local / Targeted UCMR Findings:

Consistent with prior observations, maximum weekly average temperatures exceeded the Water Board’s defined 17 degrees C threshold for suitable steelhead salmon habitat. Per Water Board direction in the development of MRP 3.0, temperature and other Creek status monitoring parameters may have a lower priority for monitoring and responsive actions compared to pollutants of concern.

Continuous water quality monitoring in Marsh Creek showed occasionally low dissolved oxygen (DO), but never reaching lethally low levels that would cause a fish kill. No fish kills were observed or reported in Marsh Creek during WY 2020. The continuous monitoring is funded by the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control District) to monitor the benefits of voluntary flow augmentation to Marsh Creek provided by the City of Brentwood Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is the second of three years for this combined action of flow augmentation and monitoring led by Permittees voluntarily in response to the findings of CCCWP’s Marsh Creek Stressor source identification study conducted during MRP 2.0.

Pathogen indicators (E. coli and Enterococcus bacteria) exceeded water quality objectives for water contact recreation. CCCWP anticipates that the SFRWQCB will direct bacteria monitoring to address source identification and control measure effectiveness during MRP 3.0.

Pollutant of Concern Findings:

CCCWP continued searching watersheds for potential PCB source properties. New investigations in Herman Slough and Kirker Creek did not show evidence of elevated PCBs that would trigger upstream source investigations. Grab samples in Richmond at 4th and Cutting Blvd. continued to show elevated (~800 ng/g) PCB particle ratios, likely related to legacy releases from a nearby source property that has been referred to the SFRWQCB. The drainage where this sample was collected discharges into a drainage inlet treated by fill trash capture and maintained on an enhanced schedule.

The San Francisco Estuary Institute pilot tested a new approach to sampling submerged storm drain outfalls at low tide. The approach successfully collected samples from two outfalls discharging to the Richmond Harbor; the outfall drainage includes substantial areas of rail yards. PCB particle ratios in that drainage ranged from 100 ng/g to 200 ng/g, comparable to the threshold for required stormwater treatment contemplated by the SFRWQCB in the administrative draft of MRP 3.0.

Fiscal Impact:

None.

Attachments:

1. Final Draft WY 2019 – 2020 Integrated Monitoring Report a. Agenda Packet: Main Body Report Only b. Groupsite (optional): Entire Final Report with Appendices, available at: https://cccleanwater.groupsite.com/subgroup/monitoring/folders/284830 2. WY 2019 - 2020 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Submittal Letter 3. WY 2019 – 2020 Electronic Data Submittal Letter

Urban Creeks Monitoring Report: Water Year 2020 (October 2019 – September 2020)

Submitted to the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards in Compliance with NPDES Permit Provision C.8.h.iii

NPDES Permit Nos. CAS612008 and CAS083313

March 27, 2021

A Program of Contra Costa County, its Incorporated Cities and Towns, and the Contra Costa Flood Control & Water Conservation District

This page intentionally blank

Contra Costa Clean Water Program

Urban Creeks Monitoring Report: Water Year 2020 (October 2019 – September 2020)

March 27, 2021

Prepared for Contra Costa Clean Water Program 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, California 94553

Contra Costa Clean Water Program Participants • Cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville (Town), El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga (Town), Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek • Unincorporated Contra Costa County • Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

Prepared by ADH Environmental 3065 Porter Street, Suite 101 Soquel, California 95073

In association with Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1100 Oakland, California 94612 and Armand Ruby Consulting P.O. Box 945 Capitola, California 95010

This page intentionally blank Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iii Preface ...... v 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Regional Monitoring Coalition (RMC) Overview ...... 5 1.2 Compliance Options (C.8.a) ...... 6 1.3 Monitoring Protocols and Data Quality (C.8.b) ...... 7 1.3.1 Standard Operating and Data Quality Assurance Procedures ...... 7 1.3.2 Information Management System Development/Adaptation ...... 7 2 San Francisco Estuary Receiving Water Monitoring (C.8.c) ...... 9 2.1 RMP Status and Trends Monitoring Program ...... 10 2.2 RMP Pilot and Special Studies ...... 10 2.3 Participation in Committees, Workgroups and Strategy Teams ...... 10 3 Creek Status Monitoring (C.8.d and C.8.g) ...... 11 3.1 Regional/Probabilistic Monitoring ...... 12 3.2 Local/Targeted Monitoring ...... 13 3.3 Toxicity, Pesticides and Other Pollutants in Sediment – Dry Weather (C.8.g) ...... 13 4 Pollutants of Concern Monitoring (C.8.f) ...... 15 4.1 Source Identification and Contribution to Bay Impairment ...... 15 4.2 Loads, Status and Trends ...... 15 5 References ...... 17

Appendices

Appendix 1: Regional/Probabilistic Creek Status Monitoring Report: Water Year 2020 Appendix 2: Local/Targeted Creek Status Monitoring Report: Water Year 2020 Appendix 3: Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Report: Water Year 2020 Appendix 4: Regional Monitoring Program Pollutants of Concern Reconnaissance Monitoring Progress Report, Water Years 2015-2020 Appendix 5: Regional Stressor Source Identification Study Summary Table

March 27, 2020 i Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

List of Tables Table i. Summary of Water Year 2020 Creek Status and Pesticides/Toxicity Monitoring Stations ...... iv Table 1. Regional Monitoring Coalition Participants ...... 5 Table 2. Creek Status Monitoring Elements per MRP Provisions C.8.d. and C.8.g., Monitored as Either Regional/Probabilistic or Local/Targeted Parameters ...... 12 Table 3. Summary of Water Year 2020 Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Stations ...... 16

List of Figures Figure 1. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Area, County Boundaries and Major Creeks ...... 3 Figure 2. Creek Status and Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Stations in WY 2020 ...... 4

March 27, 2020 ii Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACCWP Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association CCCWP Contra Costa Clean Water Program CEDEN California Environmental Data Exchange Network CSCI California Stream Condition Index CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board FSURMP Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program MRP Municipal Regional NPDES Stormwater Permit NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PHab physical habitat POC pollutants of concern P/S Studies Pilot and Special Studies QAPP quality assurance project plan RMC Regional Monitoring Coalition RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board S&T Program Status & Trends Monitoring Program SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program SPoT Stream Pollution Trends STLS Small Tributaries Loading Strategy SWAMP California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program USGS United Stated Geological Survey WY water year

March 27, 2020 iii Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Table i. Summary of Water Year 2020 Creek Status and Pesticides/Toxicity Monitoring Stations Water Toxicity, and Bioassessment Sediment PHab Toxicity and Chlorine Chemistry Pathogen Nutrients (Dry Continuous Indicator Station ID Creek Name Land Use Latitude Longitude City/Town (Wet Weather) Weather) Temperature Water Quality Bacteria West Branch Alamo 204R02628 Region 2, Urban 37.80674 -121.89896 Blackhawk X Creek 204R03163 Moraga Creek Region 2, Urban 37.83638 -122.13655 Moraga X X 206PNL026 Pinole Creek 1 Region 2, Urban 37.99233 -122.28403 Pinole X 206R01495 Pinole Creek 2 Region 2, Urban 37.97938 -122.26379 Pinole X 206R02560 Refugio Creek Region 2, Urban 38.00750 -122.26671 Hercules X 207ALH015 Alhambra Creek Region 2, Urban 38.01490 -122.13257 Martinez X Walnut 207R01163 San Ramon Creek Region 2, Urban 37.88757 -122.05563 X Creek 207R01547 Grayson Creek Region 2, Urban 37.98657 -122.06986 Pacheco X X 204R02075 San Ramon Creek Region 2, Urban 37.86328 -122.03799 Alamo X Walnut 207R02379 Walnut Creek Region 2, Urban 37.90617 -122.05698 X Creek 207R02615 Walnut Creek Region 2, Urban 37.97990 -122.05176 Concord X 207R02884 Sycamore Creek Region 2, Urban 37.80159 -121.93654 Danville X 37.88686 -122.09305 Lafayette X X 207R02891 Las Trampas Creek Region 2, Urban 37.88656 -122.09382 Lafayette X West Fork Sycamore 207R03087 Region 2, Urban 37.83015 -121.91699 Blackhawk X Creek 207R03191 Galindo Creek Region 2, Urban 37.96182 -122.0058 0 Concord X 207R03435 Donner Creek Region 2, Non -Urban 37.92031 -121.92677 Clayton X 544 MSHM0 Marsh Creek 3 Region 5, Urban 37.99046 -121.69599 Oakley X 544MSHM2 Marsh Creek 4 Region 5, Urban 37.96268 -121.68785 Brentwood X 1 Downstream deployment location 2 Upstream deployment location 3 Monitoring station downstream of Brentwood wastewater treatment plant discharge 4 Monitoring station upstream of Brentwood wastewater treatment plant discharge

March 27, 2020 iv Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Preface

In early 2010, several members of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) joined together to form the Regional Monitoring Coalition (RMC) to coordinate and oversee water quality monitoring required by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). The RMC includes the following stormwater program participants:

 Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program  Contra Costa Clean Water Program  San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program  Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program  Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program  City of Vallejo and Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District

In accordance with the BASMAA RMC multi-year work plan (Work Plan) (BASMAA, 2011) and the creek status and long-term trends monitoring plan (BASMAA, 2012), monitoring data were collected in accordance with the BASMAA RMC quality assurance project plan (QAPP) (BASMAA, 2020) and the BASMAA RMC standard operating procedures (SOPs) (BASMAA, 2016). Where applicable, monitoring data were derived using methods comparable with methods specified by the California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) QAPP 1. Data presented in this report were also submitted in electronic SWAMP-comparable formats to Moss Landing Marine Laboratory for transmittal to the Regional Water Quality Control Board on behalf of the CCCWP permittees and pursuant to the MRP Provision C.8.h.ii requirements for electronic data reporting.

This Urban Creeks Monitoring Report complies with MRP Provision C.8.h.iii for reporting of all data in water year 2020 (October 1, 2019-September 30, 2020). Data were collected pursuant to Provision C.8 of the MRP. Data presented in this report were produced under the direction of the RMC and the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) using regional/probabilistic and local/targeted monitoring designs as described herein.

1 The current SWAMP QAPP is available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/qapp/swamp_qapp_master090108a.pdf

March 27, 2020 v Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

This page intentionally blank

March 27, 2021 vi Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

1 Introduction

This Urban Creeks Monitoring Report (UCMR) was prepared by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) on behalf of its 21 member agencies (19 cities/towns, County of Contra Costa, and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District). CCCWP gathers and reports monitoring data to help its program members comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MRP). This UCMR and its appendices present monitoring data through statistical and graphical analysis and summarizes results to understand creek health in Contra Costa County.

As Contra Costa County lies within both the Region 2 and Region 5 jurisdictions of the State Water Resources Control Board (Figure 1), the countywide stormwater program is subject to permit requirements of each jurisdiction. Municipal stormwater discharges in Contra Costa County are regulated by the requirements of the MRP in Region 2 (Order No. R2-2015-0049) 2 and the East Contra Costa County MRP (Central Valley Permit) in Region 5 (Order No. R5-2010-0102) 3. Prior to the reissuance of MRP Order No. R2-2015-0049, the requirements of the two permits were effectively identical. With the reissued MRP in 2015, some differences between the permits led to an agreement between the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boards, where sites in the Central Valley Region (Region 5) will continue to be sampled as part of the creek status monitoring required by both permits, with monitoring and reporting requirements prevailing under the jurisdiction of the Region 2 MRP (Order No. R2-2019-0004) 4.

This report, including all appendices and attachments, fulfills the requirements of MRP Provision C.8.h.iii for interpreting and reporting monitoring data collected during water year (WY) 2020 (October 1, 2019- September 30, 2020). All monitoring data presented in this report were submitted electronically to the Water Boards by CCCWP. Data collected from receiving waters may be obtained via the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) website. Information on how this data may be obtained is available at http://www.ceden.org/find_data_page.shtml. This site contains information related to data retrieval from the CEDEN Query Tool, the California State Open Data Portal, and the Tableau Public Visualization Tool.

This report is organized by the sub-provisions of MRP Provision C.8, as follows:

1. Compliance Options (MRP Provision C.8.a)

2. Monitoring Protocols and Data Quality (MRP Provision C.8.b)

3. San Francisco Estuary Receiving Water Monitoring (MRP Provision C.8.c)

4. Creek Status Monitoring (MRP Provision C.8.d) and Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring (MRP Provision C.8.g) (Appendices 1 and 2)

2 The SFBRWQCB issued the five-year municipal regional permit for urban stormwater (MRP, Order No. R2-2015-0049) to 76 cities, counties, and flood control districts (i.e., permittees) in the Bay Area on November 19, 2015 (SFBRWQCB, 2015a). The BASMAA programs supporting MRP regional projects include all MRP permittees, as well as the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley, which are not named as permittees under the MRP but have voluntarily elected to participate in MRP-related regional activities. 3 The CVRWQCB issued the East Contra Costa County municipal NPDES permit (Central Valley Permit, Order No. R5-2010-0102) on September 23, 2010 (CVRWQCB, 2010). This permit is now superseded by Order R2-2019-0004, incorporating the eastern portion of Contra Costa County within the requirements of the MRP (Order No. R2-2015-0049). 4 The SFBRWQCB, per agreement with the CVRWQCB, adopted Order No. R2-2019-004 on February 13, 2019.

March 27, 2021 1 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

5. Pollutants of Concern Monitoring (MRP Provision C.8.f) (Appendices 3 and 4)

Figure 2 maps the locations of CCCWP monitoring stations associated with Provision C.8 compliance in WY 2020, including creek status, pesticides and toxicity, and pollutants of concern (POC) monitoring studies.

Monitoring discussed herein was performed in accordance with the requirements of the MRP. Key technical findings, detailed methods and results associated with these reports are summarized and provided in the respective appendices, as referenced within the applicable sections of the main body of this report.

March 27, 2021 2 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Figure 1. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Area, County Boundaries and Major Creeks

March 27, 2021 3 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Figure 2. Creek Status and Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Stations in WY 2020

March 27, 2021 4 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

1.1 Regional Monitoring Coalition (RMC) Overview In early 2010, CCCWP joined with several other members of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) to participate in a regional collaborative effort to coordinate water quality monitoring required by the MRP. BASMAA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization comprised of the municipal stormwater programs in the San Francisco Bay Area. The resulting regional monitoring collaborative is called the BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition (RMC). Details of the of the respective RMC stormwater program participants and their co-permittees are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Regional Monitoring Coalition Participants Stormwater Programs RMC Participants Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, Los Altos Hills, and Los Gatos; Santa Clara Valley Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Water District; and Santa Clara County Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dub lin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City; Alameda County; Alameda (ACCWP) County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; and Zone 7 Water Agency Cities/Towns of Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Contra Costa Clean Water Program Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, Walnut (CCCWP) Creek, Danville, and Moraga; Contra Costa County; and Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Cities and towns of Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Half San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Moon Bay, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) South San Francisco, Atherton, Colma, Hillsborough, Portola Valley, and Woodside; San Mateo County Flood Control District; and San Mateo County Fairfield -Suisun Urban Runoff Management Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City Program (FSURMP) Vallejo Permittees City of Vallejo and Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District

In June 2010, the permittees notified the Water Board in writing of their agreement to participate in the RMC to collaboratively address creek status and related monitoring requirements in MRP Provision C.8. The RMC’s goals are to:

 Assist permittees in complying with the requirements of MRP Provision C.8 (Water Quality Monitoring)

 Develop and implement regionally consistent creek monitoring approaches and designs in the Bay Area through the improved coordination among RMC participants and other agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), that share common goals

 Stabilize the costs of creek monitoring by reducing duplication of effort (e.g., development of quality assurance project plans)

In February 2011, the RMC developed a multi-year work plan (RMC Work Plan; BASMAA, 2011) to provide a framework for implementing regional monitoring and assessment activities required under MRP Provision C.8. The RMC Work Plan summarized RMC-related projects planned for implementation between fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2014-2015. Projects were collectively developed by RMC representatives to the BASMAA Monitoring and Pollutants of Concern Committee and were conceptually agreed to by the BASMAA Board of Directors.

March 27, 2021 5 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Based on the requirements described in Provision C.8 of the original MRP (2009), a total of 27 regional projects were identified in the RMC Work Plan. Regionally implemented activities to provide standardization and coordination for the RMC Work Plan were conducted under the auspices of BASMAA. Scopes, budgets, and contracting implementation mechanisms for BASMAA regional projects follow BASMAA’s Operational Policies and Procedures, approved by the BASMAA Board of Directors. MRP permittees, through their stormwater program representatives on the Board of Directors and its subcommittees, collaboratively authorize and participate in BASMAA regional projects or tasks. Regional project costs are shared by either all BASMAA members or among those Phase I municipal stormwater programs that are subject to the MRP. CCCWP and other RMC participants coordinate their monitoring activities through meetings and communications of the RMC work groups and the BASMAA Monitoring and Pollutants of Concern Committee.

1.2 Compliance Options (C.8.a) Provision C.8.a (Compliance Options) of the MRP allows the Permittees to comply with all monitoring requirements by contributing to their countywide stormwater program, through regional collaboration or by using data collected by a third party. The primary means for regional collaboration on Creek Status Monitoring is the RMC, which coordinates member programs on monitoring needs, including:

 Shared standard operating procedures  Shared quality assurance project plans (QAPPs)  Site selection and number of sites per program  Timing of sampling events  Data quality assurance and quality control procedures  Database management

The main benefit of the RMC to the CCCWP Permittees is assurance that final results meet Water Board expectations for data content and quality. The MRP defines the type, amount and frequency of monitoring; however, many details of execution require operator judgements (e.g., how to screen bioassessment sites or what are acceptable data quality objectives). Discussion at the RMC provides a single point of communication and common documentation to align the details across programs and allow the Water Board to comment on approach. The RMC is likely cost-neutral, in that the staff time and consultant support necessary to collaborate is offset by the cost efficiencies achieved by sharing methods and documents.

CCCWP works with third-party water quality monitoring partners to benefit local, regional, and statewide monitoring efforts. Provision C.8.a.iii allows permittees to work with third-party organizations such as the SFBRWQCB, CVRWQCB, State Water Resources Control Board, or California Department of Pesticide Regulation to fulfill monitoring requirements if data meets water quality objectives described in Provision C.8.b. Monitoring locations in Contra Costa County are sampled in a manner to be comparable to the protocols of the state’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) and assessed for pesticide pollution and toxicity through the Stream Pollution Trends (SPoT) Program (Phillips, B.M., et al, 2016). SPoT monitors status and trends in sediment toxicity and sediment contaminant concentrations in selected large rivers throughout California and relates contaminant concentrations and toxicity test results to watershed land uses.

CCCWP staff and other designated representatives participate with the Small Tributaries Loading Strategy (STLS) program (BASMAA, 2013) of the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San

March 27, 2021 6 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Francisco Bay (RMP) to conduct pollutants of concern monitoring at Contra Costa sites, as further described in Section 4.

In addition, CCCWP supports efforts by local creek groups to monitor San Pablo, Wildcat, Walnut, Grayson, and Marsh Creek Watersheds.

1.3 Monitoring Protocols and Data Quality (C.8.b) Provision C.8.b of the MRP requires water quality data collected by the Permittees to comply with and be of a quality consistent with the State of California’s SWAMP standards, set forth in the SWAMP quality assurance project plan (QAPP) and SOPs. RMC protocols and procedures were developed to assist permittees with meeting SWAMP data quality standards and to develop data management systems which allow for easy access to water quality monitoring data by Permittees.

1.3.1 Standard Operating and Data Quality Assurance Procedures For creek status monitoring, the RMC adapted existing SOPs and the QAPP developed by SWAMP to document the field procedures necessary to produce SWAMP-comparable, high quality data among RMC participants 5. The RMC creek status monitoring program QAPP and SOPs were updated to accommodate MRP 2.0 requirements in January 2020 (Version 4; BASMAA, 2020a) and March 2016 (Version 3; BASMAA, 2016), respectively.

For POC monitoring, a sampling analysis plan (SAP; ADH and AMS, 2020a) and QAPP (ADH and AMS, 2020b) were developed in 2016 and finalized in 2020 to guide the monitoring efforts for each POC task.

1.3.2 Information Management System Development/Adaptation Permittees are required to report annually on water quality data collected in compliance with the MRP. To facilitate data management and transmittal, the RMC participants developed an Information Management System (IMS) to provide SWAMP-compatible storage and import/export of data for all RMC programs, with data formatted in a manner suitable for uploading to CEDEN.

BASMAA subsequently supplemented the IMS to accommodate management of POC data collected by the RMC programs. The expanded IMS provides standardized data storage formats which allow RMC participants to share data among themselves and to submit data electronically to the SFBRWQCB and CVRWQCB.

5 Further details on SWAMP comparability are available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/quality_assurance/comparability.html

March 27, 2021 7 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

This page intentionally blank

March 27, 2021 8 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

2 San Francisco Estuary Receiving Water Monitoring (C.8.c)

CCCWP contributes to the RMP, specifically the Status & Trends Monitoring Program (S&T Program) and the Pilot and Special Studies (P/S Studies). These efforts provide useful tools for CCCWP. Brief descriptions of the S&T Program and P/S Studies are provided below.

As described in MRP Provision C.8.c, Permittees are required to conduct or cause to be conducted receiving water monitoring in the Bay. Permittees comply with this provision by making financial contributions through the CCCWP to the San Francisco Bay RMP. Additionally, Permittees actively participate in RMP committees and work groups through Permittee and/or stormwater program representatives.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) Regional Monitoring Program serves a similar function in fulfilling receiving water monitoring requirements for dischargers located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). Some CCCWP Permittees (the cities of Brentwood, Antioch, and Oakley, and portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County and the Contra Costa County Flood Control District) are located within the CVRWQCB’s jurisdiction; however, by agreement with the SFRWQCB and the CVRWQCB, those Permittees also meet receiving water monitoring requirements through funding the San Francisco Bay RMP. This is consistent with the historic approach of managing the entire countywide program as a single, integrated program.

The RMP is a long-term, discharger-funded monitoring program directed by a steering committee and represented by regulatory agencies and the regulated community. In addition to regulators and the regulated community, the RMP Technical Committee includes participation by a local a non-governmental organization that specializes in water quality in the Bay. The goal of the RMP is to assess water quality in San Francisco Bay. The regulated community includes Permittees, publicly owned treatment works, dredgers, and industrial dischargers.

The RMP is intended to answer the following core management questions:

1. Are chemical concentrations in the estuary potentially at levels of concern and are associated impacts likely?

2. What are the concentrations and masses of contaminants in the estuary and its segments?

3. What are the sources, pathways, loadings, and processes leading to contaminant-related impacts in the estuary?

4. Have the concentrations, masses, and associated impacts of contaminants in the estuary increased or decreased?

5. What are the projected concentrations, masses, and associated impacts of contaminants in the estuary?

The RMP budget is generally broken into two major program elements: status and trends monitoring and Pilot/Special Studies. The RMP publishes reports and study results on their website at www.sfei.org/rmp.

March 27, 2021 9 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

2.1 RMP Status and Trends Monitoring Program The S&T Program is the long-term contaminant monitoring component of the RMP. The S&T Program was initiated as a pilot study in 1989 and was redesigned in 2007 based on a more rigorous statistical design aimed at enabling the detection of trends. The S&T Program is comprised of the following program elements:

 Long-term water, sediment and bivalve monitoring  Episodic toxicity monitoring  Sport fishing monitoring  USGS hydrographic and sediment transport studies  Factors controlling suspended sediment in San Francisco Bay  USGS monthly water quality data  Triennial bird egg monitoring (cormorant and tern)

Additional information on the S&T Program and associated monitoring data are available for download via the RMP website at www.sfei.org/content/status-trends-monitoring.

2.2 RMP Pilot and Special Studies The RMP conducts pilot and special studies on an annual basis through committees, workgroups and strategy teams. Studies usually are designed to investigate and develop new monitoring measures related to anthropogenic contamination or contaminant effects on biota in the estuary. Special studies address specific scientific issues that RMP committees and standing workgroups identify as priority for further study. These studies are developed through an open selection process at the workgroup level and are selected for further funding through RMP committees. Results and summaries of the most pertinent pilot and special studies can be found on the RMP web site (http://www.sfei.org/rmp).

2.3 Participation in Committees, Workgroups and Strategy Teams CCCWP and/or other BASMAA representatives participate in the following RMP committees and workgroups:

 Steering Committee  Technical Review Committee  Sources, Pathways and Loadings Workgroup  Emergent Contaminant Workgroup  Nutrient Technical Workgroup  Strategy teams (e.g., Small Tributaries, PCBs)

Committee and workgroup representation are provided by CCCWP, other stormwater program staff, and/or individuals designated by RMC participants. Representation includes participation in meetings, review of technical reports and work products, co-authoring or review of articles included in the RMP’s annual publication Pulse of the Estuary , and general program direction to RMP staff. Representatives of the RMP also provide timely summaries and updates to and receive input from BASMAA stormwater program representatives (on behalf of the Permittees) during workgroup meetings to ensure the Permittees’ interests are represented.

March 27, 2021 10 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

3 Creek Status Monitoring (C.8.d and C.8.g)

This section presents a summary of Creek Status Monitoring and Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring conducted in compliance with Provision C.8.d and C.8.g of the MRP. After an overview of the monitoring management questions, strategy, and regional collaboration presented below, Section 3.1 describes the approach to regional/probabilistic creek status monitoring, Section 3.2 describes the approach to local/targeted creek status monitoring, and section 3.3 presents the approach to pesticide and toxicity monitoring.

The MRP requires Permittees to conduct creek status and pesticides and toxicity monitoring to assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts of urban runoff on receiving waters, and answer the following management questions:

1. Are water quality objectives, both numeric and narrative, being met in local receiving waters, including creeks, rivers, and tributaries?

2. Are conditions in local receiving waters supportive of or likely supportive of beneficial uses?

Creek Status Monitoring parameters, methods, occurrences, duration, and minimum number of sampling sites for each stormwater program are described in Provision C.8.d of the MRP. Creek Status Monitoring, coordinated through the RMC, began in October 2011 and continues annually. Status and trends monitoring was conducted in non-tidally influenced, flowing water bodies (i.e., creeks, streams, and rivers).

The RMC’s strategy for creek status monitoring is described in the Creek Status and Long-Term Trends Monitoring Plan (BASMAA, 2011). The monitoring methods follow the protocols described in the updated BASMAA RMC QAPP (Version 4; BASMAA, 2020) and SOPs for creek status and pesticides and toxicity monitoring (Version 3; BASMAA, 2016b). The purpose of these SOPs is to provide RMC participants with a common basis for application of consistent monitoring protocols across jurisdictional boundaries. These protocols form part of the RMC’s quality assurance program to help ensure validity of resulting data and comparability with SWAMP protocols.

The creek status monitoring parameters required by MRP Provisions C.8.d and C.8.g are divided into two types: those conducted under a regional/probabilistic design, and those conducted under a local/targeted design. This distinction is shown in Table 2 for the required monitoring parameters. The combination of these monitoring designs allows each RMC-participating program to assess the status of beneficial uses in local creeks within its program (jurisdictional) area, while also contributing data to answer management questions at the regional scale (e.g., differences between aquatic life conditions in urban and non-urban creeks).

The RMC monitoring strategy for complying with MRP 2.0 requirements includes continuing a regional ambient/probabilistic monitoring component, and a component based on local/targeted monitoring, as in the previous permit term. The analysis of results from the two creek status monitoring components conducted in WY 2020 is presented in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2, respectively, and a summary of the monitoring stations is shown in Table i.

Creek status monitoring data for each water year are submitted annually by the CCCWP to the SFBRWQCB and CVRWQCB by March 31 of the following year.

March 27, 2021 11 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Table 2. Creek Status Monitoring Elements per MRP Provisions C.8.d. and C.8.g., Monitored as Either Regional/Probabilistic or Local/Targeted Parameters Monitoring Design Regional Local Biological Response and Stressor Indicators (Probabilistic) (Targeted) Bioassessment, physical habitat assessment, CSCI X X1 Nutrients (and other water chemistry associated with bioassessment) X X1 Chlorine X X2 Water toxicity (wet and dry weather) NA NA Water chemistry (pesticides, wet weather) NA NA Sediment toxicity (dry weather) NA NA Sediment chemistry (dry weather) NA NA Continuous water quality (sondes data: temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance) X Continuous water temperature (data loggers) X Pathogen indicators (bacteria) X CSCI California Stream Condition Index 1 Provision C.8.d.i.(6) allows for up to 20 percent of sample locations to be selected under a targeted monitoring design. This design change was made under MRP Order No. R2-2015-0049. 2 Provision C.8.d.ii.(2) provides options for probabilistic or targeted site selection. In water year 2020, chlorine was measured at probabilistic sites. NA Monitoring parameter not specific to either monitoring design

3.1 Regional/Probabilistic Monitoring The regional/probabilistic creek status monitoring report (Appendix 1) documents the results of monitoring performed by CCCWP during WY 2020 under the regional/probabilistic monitoring design developed by the RMC. During each water year, 10 sites are monitored by CCCWP for bioassessment, physical habitat, and related water chemistry parameters. To date, 90 sites have been sampled since the inception of the program in water year 2012.

RMC probabilistic monitoring sites are drawn from a sample frame consisting of a creek network geographic information system (GIS) data set within the RMC boundary 6 (BASMAA, 2011), including stream segments from all perennial and non-perennial creeks and rivers running through urban and non- urban areas within the portions of the five RMC participating counties within the SFBRWQCB boundary, and the eastern portion of Contra Costa County which drains to the CVRWQCB region. A map of the BASMAA RMC area, equivalent to the area covered by the regional/probabilistic design “sample frame”, is shown in Figure 1. The sites selected from the regional/probabilistic design master sample draw and monitored in WY 2020 are shown graphically in Figure 2.

The probabilistic design required several years to produce sufficient data to develop a statistically robust characterization of regional creek conditions. BASMAA conducted a regional project to analyze bioassessment monitoring data collected during a five-year period (2012-2016), (BASMAA, 2019). That analysis can be used to help inform recommendations for potential changes to the monitoring program. The project has also developed a fact sheet presenting the report findings in a format accessible to a broad audience.

6 Based on discussion during RMC meetings, with SFBRWQCB staff present, the sample frame was extended to include the portion of Eastern Contra Costa County that ultimately drains to San Francisco Bay to address parallel provisions in CCCWP’s Central Valley Region Permit for Eastern Contra Costa County.

March 27, 2021 12 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Per MRP 2.0 Provisions C.8.d. and C.8.g., the creek status monitoring results are subject to potential follow-up actions if they meet certain specified threshold triggers. If monitoring results meet the requirements for follow-up actions, the results are compiled on a list for consideration as potential SSID projects, per MRP Provision C.8.e. The results are compared to other regulatory standards, including the Basin Plan (SFBRWQCB, 2019) water quality objectives where available and applicable.

3.2 Local/Targeted Monitoring The Local/Targeted Creek Status Monitoring Report (Appendix 2) documents the results of targeted monitoring performed by CCCWP during water year 2020. Within Contra Costa County, targeted monitoring is conducted annually at:

 Four continuous water temperature monitoring locations  Two general water quality monitoring locations  Five pathogen indicator bacteria monitoring locations

Site locations are identified using a targeted monitoring design based on the directed principle to address the following management questions:

1. What is the range of general water quality measurements at targeted sites of interest?

2. Do general water quality measurements indicate potential impacts to aquatic life?

3. What are the pathogen indicator concentrations at creek sites where contact recreational water may occur?

Targeted monitoring data are evaluated against MRP threshold triggers, to assess the potential need for follow-up. The results of water year 2020 monitoring are summarized in Appendix 2.

3.3 Toxicity, Pesticides and Other Pollutants in Sediment – Dry Weather (C.8.g) Once per year during the dry season (July 1 through September 30), sediment samples are collected and tested for toxicity to several different aquatic species, as required by MRP 2.0. Sampling is conducted at a site selected from the probabilistic design for bioassessment monitoring, or at a site targeted to address management questions.

Concurrent with the sediment toxicity sampling described above, sediment chemistry samples are collected for analysis of a select list of pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, trace elements, total organic carbon and grain size. All sediment analytical chemistry (pesticides and other pollutants), grain size analysis and toxicity test results are presented in Appendix 1.

March 27, 2021 13 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

This page intentionally blank

March 27, 2021 14 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

4 Pollutants of Concern Monitoring (C.8.f)

POC monitoring is intended to assess inputs of POCs to the Bay from local tributaries and urban runoff, assess progress toward achieving WLAs for TMDLs, and help resolve uncertainties associated with loading estimates for these pollutants.

POC monitoring addresses five priority information management needs:

1. Source Identification – identifying which sources or watershed source areas provide the greatest opportunities for reductions of POCs in urban stormwater runoff.

2. Contributions to Bay Impairment – identifying which watershed source areas contribute most to the impairment of San Francisco Bay beneficial uses (due to source intensity and sensitivity of discharge location).

3. Management Action Effectiveness – providing support for planning future management actions or evaluating the effectiveness or impacts of existing management actions.

4. Loads and Status – providing information on POC loads, concentrations, and presence in local tributaries or urban stormwater discharges.

5. Trends – evaluating trends in POC loading to the Bay and POC concentrations in urban stormwater discharges or local tributaries over time.

Monitoring in WY 2020 continued the effort toward addressing these information needs as discussed below. Table 3 presents a summary of WY 2020 POCs monitoring locations.

4.1 Source Identification and Contribution to Bay Impairment In WY 2020, CCCWP conducted source area assessments to investigate high interest parcels and areas for consideration of property referrals and focused implementation planning for PCBs and mercury load reductions. Street dirt, drop inlet sediments and stormwater runoff were sampled at locations throughout Contra Costa County as shown in Figure 2. These monitoring activities address source identification and contributions to Bay impairment. Additionally, stormwater monitoring was conducted in targeted locations for copper, nutrients, mercury and methylmercury (Figure 2). A summary report of these data is presented in the Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Report: Water Year 2020 (Appendix 3).

4.2 Loads, Status and Trends MRP 2.0 places an increased focus on finding watersheds, source areas, and source properties that are potentially more polluted and upstream from sensitive Bay margin areas (high leverage sites). To support this focus, a stormwater reconnaissance monitoring program was developed and implemented beginning in water year 2015 by the RMP through the STLS workgroup. In WY 2020, two stormwater sampling locations within Contra Costa County were monitored for PCBs and mercury by the RMP. These monitoring results are summarized in the RMP Pollutants of Concern Reconnaissance Monitoring Progress Report, Water Years 2015-2020 (Appendix 4). The content of that report addresses loads and status as well as trends of POC loads.

March 27, 2021 15 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Table 3. Summary of Water Year 2020 Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Stations Methyl Mercury, Receiving Water Street Dirt Copper, and Station ID Body Land Use Latitude Longitude City/Town Sediment Nutrients Stormwater 544MSHM1 Marsh Creek Region 5, Urban 37.9639 0 -121.68375 Brentwood X 544MSHM2 a Marsh Creek Region 5, Urban 37.96265 -121.68803 Brentwood X CC -HrmSlu1 Herman Slough Region 2, Urban 37.9471 0 -122.37199 Richmond X CC -HrmSlu2 Herman Slough Region 2, Urban 37.92998 -122.37949 Richmond X CC -KCrk1 Kirker Creek Region 2, Urban 38.03206 -121.87733 Pittsburg X CC -KCrk2 Kirker Creek Region 2, Urban 38.02149 -121.87229 Pittsburg X Kirker Creek Willow CC-KCrk3 Region 2, Urban 38.02937 -121.89430 Pittsburg X Creek CC -MtzCrk1 Martinez Creek Region 2, Urban 38.01486 -122.11778 Martinez X Santa Fe Santa Fe Channel Region 2, Urban 37.92458 -122.37600 Richmond X Channel 1 b Santa Fe Santa Fe Channel Region 2, Urban 37.92460 -122.37597 Richmond X Channel 2 b SIM -DI Lauritzen Canal Region 2, Urban 37.9251 6 -122.36614 Richmond X a Sampling location is five meters downstream from Creek Status Monitoring Station 544MSHM2 b Sampling conducted by the RMP under the STLS Workgroup’s POCs Reconnaissance Monitoring Program STLS Small Tributaries Loading Strategy

March 27, 2021 16 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

5 References

ADH Environmental (ADH) and Applied Marine Sciences (AMS). 2020a. Contra Costa County Clean Water Program Sampling and Analysis Plan, Pollutants of Concern Monitoring; Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring. ADH Environmental and Applied Marine Sciences. February 14, 2020.

ADH Environmental (ADH) and Applied Marine Sciences (AMS). 2020b. Contra Costa County Clean Water Program Quality Assurance Project Plan, Pollutants of Concern Monitoring; Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring. ADH Environmental and Applied Marine Sciences. February 14, 2020.

ADH Environmental (ADH). Water Year 2018. Urban Creeks Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. March 2019.

ADH Environmental (ADH). Water Years 2014-2019. Integrated Monitoring Report. Prepared for the Contra Costa Clean Water Program. March 2020.

Amec Environment & Infrastructure (Amec). 2013. Contra Costa Clean Water Program Revised Methylmercury Control Study Work Plan. AMEC Project No. 5025133001. Amec Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. December 2013.

Amec Environment & Infrastructure (Amec). 2018. Contra Costa Clean Water Program Methylmercury Control Study. AMEC Project No. 5025133001. Amec Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. August 2018.

Amweg, E.L., Weston, D.P., You, J., Lydy, M.J. 2006. Pyrethroid insecticides and sediment toxicity in urban creeks from California and Tennessee. Environmental Science & Technology . 40:1700– 1706

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). 2011. Regional Monitoring Coalition Final Creek Status and Long-Term Trends Monitoring Plan. Prepared By EOA, Inc. Oakland, California.

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). 2016. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures . Prepared By EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, and Armand Ruby Consulting. Version 3. March.

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). 2019. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Five-Year Bioassessment Report Water Years 2012-2016. Prepared by EOA, Inc. and Applied Marine Sciences. 2019.

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). 2020. BASMAA Regional Monitoring Coalition Creek Status and Pesticides & Toxicity Monitoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan . Prepared By EOA, Inc., Applied Marine Sciences, Armand Ruby Consulting, and ADH Environmental. Version 4. January.

Budd, R. 2016. Urban Monitoring in Southern California Watershed, FY15-16 (http://cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/report_270_budd_fy_15_16.pdf )

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. Memorandum dated October 7, 2016 from Stella McMillin, Senior Environmental Scientist, Wildlife Investigations Laboratory. Re: Fish Kill in

March 27, 2021 17 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report Water Year 2020

Marsh Creek. Lab Number P-3122; Date of loss: July 6, 2016; Necropsy Z16-749; Samples: Fish, crayfish, tadpoles, water; WPCL L-393-16

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2010. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Stormwater NPDES Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2010-0102. NPDES Permit No. CAS083313. September 23.

Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP). 2017. Pollutants of Concern Report: Accomplishments in Water Year 2017 and Allocation of Effort for Water Year 2018. Prepared by ADH Environmental and Amec Foster Wheeler. October 2017.

Ensminger, M., 2016. Ambient Monitoring in Urban Areas in Northern California, FY15-16 (http://cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/report_299_ensminger.pdf ).

Hladik, M.L., and McWayne, M.M. 2012. Methods of analysis – Determination of pesticides in sediment using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 5–C3, 18 p. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm5c3

Phillips, B.M., Anderson, B.S., Siegler, K., Voorhees, J.P., Tadesse, D., Weber, L., Breuer, R. 2016. Spatial and Temporal Trends in Chemical Contamination and Toxicity Relative to Land Use in California Watersheds: Stream Pollution Trends (SPoT) Monitoring Program. Fourth Report – Seven-Year Trends 2008-2014. California State Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, California.

Ruby, A. 2013. Review of Pyrethroid, Fipronil and Toxicity Monitoring Data from California Urban Watersheds. Prepared for the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) by Armand Ruby Consulting.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). 2009. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Waste Discharge Requirements Order R2-2009-0074. NPDES Permit No. CAS612008. October 14. [MRP 1.0]

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). 2015. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. Waste Discharge Requirements Order R2-2015-0049 as amended by Order R2-2019-0004, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 (MRP 2.0). November 19.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB). 2019. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). November 5

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2013. Small Tributaries Loading Strategy Multi-Year Plan. http://www.sfei.org/rmp/stls

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000. Water Quality Standards, Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California. 40 CFR Part 131. Federal Register: Vol. 65, No 97. May 18.

March 27, 2021 18

March 31, 2020

Michael Montgomery, Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612

Patrick Pulupa, Esq., Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

SUBJECT: Submittal of the Urban Creeks Monitoring Report in Accordance with MRP 2.0 Provisions C.8.h.iii and C.16.5.g.iii

Dear Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Pulupa,

Attached please find the Water Year 2019 - 2020 Urban Creek Monitoring Report (UCMR) submitted on behalf of all Contra Costa Permittees per the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for urban stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Order No. R2-2015-049, as amended by Order No. R2-2019-004). We are submitting this report concurrently to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) because Permittees located within the CVRWQCB jurisdiction have voluntarily enrolled in the MRP administered by the SFRWQCB, with concurrence of the CVRWQCB. Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) copies the CVRWQCB on monitoring reports as stipulated in MRP Provision C.16.5.g.iii.

With approval and direction from duly authorized representatives of each Permittee, I am authorized to submit and certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction of supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Regards,

Karin Graves Acting Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program

cc: Zack Rokeach, SFRWQCB Elizabeth Lee, CVRWQCB Contra Costa County Permittees

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553-4825 • Tel: (925) 313-2360 Fax: (925) 313-2301 • Website: www.cccleanwater.org

Program Participants: Antioch, Brentwood, Clayton, Concord, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Martinez, Moraga, Oakley, Orinda, Pinole, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, San Pablo, San Ramon, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County and Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

G:\NPDES\01_Management Committee\02_Agendas\FY 20-21\Agenda Packet\2021-03\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(8) UCMR Cover Letter to Regional Board 2 and 5.docx

March 31, 2021

Michael Montgomery, Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612

Patrick Pulupa, Esq., Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

SUBJECT: Submittal of Electronic Status Monitoring Data Report in Accordance with MRP 2.0 Permit Provision C.8.h.ii and C.8.g.ii

Dear Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Pulupa:

Provision C.8.h.ii of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for urban stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Order No. R2-2015-049, as amended by Order No. R2-2019- 004) requires submittal of an “Electronic Status Monitoring Data Report” (Data Report) providing all monitoring data collected during the forgoing October 1 – September 30 period (Water Year 2020). Enclosed please find a letter of receipt documenting that all monitoring data were uploaded to California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) in a Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program compatible format on behalf of all Contra Costa County Permittees.

Per historic practice, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program has also transmitted electronic monitoring data to CVRWQCB staff (Elizabeth Lee) and Mr. Zach Rokeach (SFRWQCB) electronically by email, share site or other agree upon protocol.

With the approval and direction from each duly authorized representative of each Permittee, I have been authorized to submit and certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibly of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Regards,

Karin Graves Acting Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program

Cc: Zach Rokeach, SFRWQCB Elizabeth Lee, CVRWQCB

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA 94553-4825 • Tel: (925) 313-2360 Fax: (925) 313-2301 • Website: www.cccleanwater.org

G:\NPDES\01_Management Committee\02_Agendas\FY 20-21\Agenda Packet\2021-03\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(9) Submittal Letter of Monitoring Data to CEDEN.docx

2 of 3

Date: March 17, 2021

To: Management Committee

From: Mitch Avalon, Program Consultant

Subject: FY 21/22 Final Draft Budget

Recommendation:

Consider approval of the Final Draft Budget for FY 21/22.

Background:

In the meeting packet is the Final Draft for the FY 21/22 budget, including the Master Budget spreadsheet and Administrative/Personnel worksheet. All Committee budgets have been completed and their budget numbers crosscheck on the Technical Services Worksheet. Please note the following changes from the Second Draft budget that require consideration:

- Overhead Calculation. County overhead has been calculated based upon a specified rate applied to employee work hours. At the end of the year, the total employee billable hours multiplied by the overhead rate generated overhead to cover overhead charges. This approach works well for department overhead and outside overhead, but not so well for division overhead. Outside overhead is based on a countywide cost allocation plan, does not change during the course of the fiscal year, and is very stable. Department overhead is spread over the entire department pool of employees (over 500 positions), does not change during the course of the fiscal year, and is very stable. Division overhead is spread over the number of employees within the division, which is a relatively small pool of employees, so has the potential for being unstable. For example, if the division overhead rate is based on six employees, but during the year two employees leave, then not enough overhead will be generated. On the flipside, if the division overhead rate is based on three employees, but during the year two positions are filled, then too much overhead will be generated. Division overhead is based on actual charges and averages around $50,000 per year. Staff is recommending to budget a flat $60,000 for division overhead rather

than using an overhead rate. The highest division overhead charges in recent memory was $74,000 due to some building problems. If the Committee wanted to be conservative, the flat amount could be budgeted at $75,000. The Administrative Committee recommends budgeting division overhead at $60,000.

- Advanced MRP 3.0 Costs. The Administrative Draft permit was released on February 9, 2021. Staff have been going through the new provisions and noticed some requirements require a submittal with the first annual report on September 30, 2022 (three months into the permit) and other requirements are due by December 31, 2022 (six months into the permit). Staff developed a list of these requirements and determined if work would need to be done during FY 21/22 to meet the required deadlines. Attached is the list along with estimated costs for doing the work in FY 21/22 that totals $45,000. The Administrative Committee felt the Program should not budget for work items in an un- approved permit, and recommends not including these items in the budget.

- Peak Flow Control. The Development Committee has been working since July 2020 on a concept to streamline the permitting process for developers and homeowners to meet peak flow and hydrograph modification management requirements with a simplified calculator. A work group of the Development Committee has met six times with the Flood Control District to work through the issues and has developed a set of policy considerations and next steps to move the project forward. The Development Committee recommends a budget line item to the Management Committee for hiring a consultant to develop the suggested design calculators and development review process. The policy considerations would have to be decided on prior to hiring a consultant, but the Development Committee wanted to get a $50,000 budget line item approved at this time. The Administrative Committee considered this request and agreed it should be included in the budget.

Attachments:

- FY 21/22 Final Draft Budget spreadsheet - FY 21/22 Final Draft Budget personnel detail - MRP 3.0 work in FY 21/22

G:\NPDES\Mgmt Committee\Agendas\FY 20-21\Agenda Packet\2021-03\Staff Report Final Draft Budget FY 21-22.docx

FY 2021/22 CCCWP Administrative Personnel Costs

CCCWP 6 FTE -12 Months Division Overhead Department Monthly # of Benefits @ ($60K flat Overhead @ Outside Rate FY 21/22 Approved Positions + 3% COLA Step Salary Months Annual Salary 74.9% amount) 27% @ 2% Total Stormwater Program Manager 5 $12,139 12 $145,663 $109,101 $10,000 $39,328.90 $2,913.25 $307,006 Senior Watershed Mgt Planning Specialist 5 $9,994 12 $119,929 $89,827 $10,000 $32,380.85 $2,398.58 $254,535 Watershed Management Planning Specialist 5 $7,904 12 $94,851 $71,043 $10,000 $25,609.67 $1,897.01 $203,400 Watershed Management Planning Specialist 5 $7,904 12 $94,851 $71,043 $10,000 $25,609.67 $1,897.01 $203,400 Administrative Services Assistant III 5 $8,280 12 $99,362 $74,422 $10,000 $26,827.75 $1,987.24 $212,599 Clerk-Senior Level 7 $4,800 12 $57,598 $43,141 $10,000 $15,551.35 $1,151.95 $127,442 TOTALS $612,253 $458,577 $60,000 $165,308 $12,245 $1,308,383

*Division overhead is based on actual charges which vary from year to year but averages around $50,000, so the budget is set at a flat amount.

Admin Budget using past methodology:

CCCWP 6 FTE -12 Months

Overhead at Monthly # of Benefits @ 47% of salary FY 21/22 Approved Positions + 3% COLA Step Salary Months Annual Salary 74.9% + Benefits Total Stormwater Program Manager 5 $12,139 12 $145,663 $109,101 $119,739.03 $374,503 Senior Watershed Mgt Planning Specialist 5 $9,994 12 $119,929 $89,827 $98,585.30 $308,341 Watershed Management Planning Specialist 5 $7,904 12 $94,851 $71,043 $77,970.07 $243,864 Watershed Management Planning Specialist 5 $7,904 12 $94,851 $71,043 $77,970.07 $243,864 Administrative Services Assistant III 5 $8,280 12 $99,362 $74,422 $81,678.58 $255,463 Clerk-Senior Level 7 $4,800 12 $57,598 $43,141 $47,346.96 $148,085 TOTALS $612,253 $458,577 $503,290 $1,574,120 Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) Fiscal Year 2021/22 Group Program Budget Final Draft (03/17/2021)

Adjusted FY 2021-22 Adopted Description/Expenditure FY 2020/21 Final Draft FY 2021-22 Notes FY 2020-21 Notes FY 2020/21 Dec 15, 2020 (03/17/2021)

1 Administrative/Personnel (See Admin Worksheet) $2,047,318 $2,337,856 $1,528,583 2 7608 Staff Salaries and Benefits + County Overhead $1,533,362 $1,559,143 $1,308,383 6 FTE + 3% COLA 3 7609 Staff Augmentation (Larry Walker Associates, Inc. for 6 months) $124,552 $249,103 $0 4 7609 Staff Augmentation (Wood E&I Solutions, Inc. for 6 months) $132,005 $264,010 $0 increased by $5,628 5 7609 Staff Augmentation (Watershed Resources Consulting for 6 months if PM is on leave) $101,400 $210,600 $109,200 6 7609 Staff Augmentation (Transition Training) $50,000 $0 $50,000 7 7609 On-Call Staff Augmentation (as needed) $100,000 $49,000 $50,000 8 7608 Staff Training and Conferences $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 9 7612 Non-Program County Staff Labor $0 $0 $5,000 10 General Supplies & Equipment $7,435 $7,435 $7,788 11 7605 Misc. Office Equipment/Supplies not covered by County Overhead $6,600 $6,600 $6,600 12 7605 Groupsite Annual Fee $835 $835 $1,188 New rate for G/S (old rate $810) 13 Association/Memberships/License Fees $81,174 $81,174 $72,720 14 7611 Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) $49,118 $49,118 $40,000 For interim Regional coordination assume 3% 15 7611 ESRI (AGOL Annual License Fee) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 16 7611 Bay Friendly Landscape Coalition (BFLC) $0 $0 $0 17 7611 California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) $22,056 $22,056 $22,720 assume 3% increase assume 3% 18 Legal Services $40,000 $60,000 $70,000 19 7606 County Counsel and Contract Administration $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 20 7610 On-Call Services Legal Services (Richards, Watson & Gershon) $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 $10K for BASMAA MOA (new wo#) MRP 3.0 negotiations 21 7613 Alternative Compliance Legal Review (Richards, Watson & Gershon/County Counsel) $0 $20,000 $20,000 (new wo#) 22 Regional Projects $193,646 $193,646 $178,855 23 7618 BASMAA $20,000 $20,000 $0 see MOU 24 7618 SFEI-RMP $173,646 $173,646 $178,855 assume 3% increase assume 3% 25 Technical Services (See Technical Services Worksheet) $497,100 $497,100 $483,300 26 7616 Project Management, Technical Review, Regulatory Compliance, etc. (LWA/Geosyntec) $122,000 $122,000 $125,000 assume 3% increase 27 7616 Project Management, Technical Review, Regulatory Compliance, etc. (Wood) $20,000 $20,000 $50,000 Added $20K 28 7645 Project Management, Technical Review, Regulatory Compliance, etc. (Dan Cloak) $160,000 $160,000 $160,000 29 7665 GIS/AGOL Maintenance, Minor Upgrades (Psomas) $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $15K for hydromaps moved to Development 30 7617 Youth/Outreach; Media Management (ProPose aka Sagent) $160,100 $160,100 $113,300 3% increase 31 7654 Municipal Operations (C.2) - Training/Workshop (See MOC Worksheet) $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 32 New Development/Redevelopment (C.3) (See Development Worksheet) $113,000 $113,000 $178,000 33 7641 Hydromodification Management Modeling (Dubin) $35,000 $35,000 $50,000 34 7641 Hydromodification Management Maps (Psomas) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 35 7641 Hydromodification Management Calculator (TBD) $40,000 $40,000 $40,000

\\pw-data\grpdata\NPDES\BUDGETS\21 22\_FY 21-22 Analyst Folder\_CCCWP FY 21-22 Budget Workbook - Pending Final Draft 2020-03-02_ABullock 3/10/2021 11:14 AM Page 1 Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) Fiscal Year 2021/22 Group Program Budget Final Draft (03/17/2021)

Adjusted FY 2021-22 Adopted Description/Expenditure FY 2020/21 Final Draft FY 2021-22 Notes FY 2020-21 Notes FY 2020/21 Dec 15, 2020 (03/17/2021)

36 7641 Green Infrastructure Design Guidelines (TBD) $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 37 7641 Peak Flow Control Calculator $0 $0 $50,000 38 7645 Annual C.3 Training/Workshop $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 39 7664 Industrial/Commercial Controls (C.4) - Training/Workshop (See MOC Worksheet) $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 40 7662 Illicit Discharge/Detection and Elimination (C.5) (See MOC Worksheet) $0 $0 $0 41 7628 Construction Controls (C.6) See Development worksheet (LWA) $0 $0 $7,000 42 Public Information/Participation (C.7) (See PIP Worksheet) $64,600 $64,600 $44,000 43 7617 Misc. Outreach (Updating materials for other Permit provisions) $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 44 7617 Watershed Stewardship (Green Business Program) $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 45 7617 Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour (Kathy Kramer-Sponsor) $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 46 7617 Used Oil/Student Outreach /Youth Programs (Matt Bolender) $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 47 7617 Outreach Effectiveness Evaluation (TBD) $20,600 $20,600 $0 due 9/2020 48 7617 Website Maintenance and Hosting (WebSight Design) $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 49 Water Quality Monitoring (C.8) (See Monitoring Worksheet) $502,815 $502,815 $568,674 assume 3% increase C.12 Project Services 50 7618 Creek Status and Pesticides Monitoring $272,950 $272,950 $281,139 51 7618 UCMRs $77,765 $77,765 $80,098 52 7618 POC Monitoring and Reporting $20,600 $20,600 $50,000 53 7618 MeHg Study (Only) $5,150 $5,150 $5,305 54 7618 Monitoring and Reporting Support $20,600 $20,600 $41,218 55 7618 Provide Fish Risk Flyers/Signs $5,150 $5,150 $5,305 56 7618 Distribute Fish Risk Flyers $10,300 $10,300 $10,609 57 7618 Effectiveness Evaluation and Status Report $10,300 $10,300 $5,000 58 7618 Marsh Creek Monitoring $35,000 $35,000 $5,000 added $5,000; Project Services (LWA) 59 7618 TMDL Implementation Plan/RAA $0 $0 $25,000 LWA monitoring 60 7618 POC Load Reduction Report $0 $0 $10,000 LWA monitoring 61 7618 Manage Building Material PCB's $0 $0 $5,000 Geosyntec 62 7618 East County RAA $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 LWA monitoring Project Services (LWA) 63 7618 Montioring Contingency $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 64 Pesticide Toxicity Control (C.9) (See MOC Worksheet) $66,100 $66,100 $67,993 assume 3% increase 65 7636 Our Water Our World (Debi Tidd Consulting) $65,600 $65,600 $67,493 RFQ needed for FY 21-22 assume 3%; up to 36 store count 66 7636 Outreach to Pest Control Professionals $500 $500 $500 67 7620 Trash Reduction (C.10) (See MOC Worksheet) $0 $0 $0 68 7618 Mercury Controls (C.11) $0 $0 $0 69 7618 PCBs Controls (C.12) $0 $0 $0 70 7618 Managing PCBs during Building Demolition - Data Collection $20,000 $20,000 $0 LWA

\\pw-data\grpdata\NPDES\BUDGETS\21 22\_FY 21-22 Analyst Folder\_CCCWP FY 21-22 Budget Workbook - Pending Final Draft 2020-03-02_ABullock 3/10/2021 11:14 AM Page 2 Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) Fiscal Year 2021/22 Group Program Budget Final Draft (03/17/2021)

Adjusted FY 2021-22 Adopted Description/Expenditure FY 2020/21 Final Draft FY 2021-22 Notes FY 2020-21 Notes FY 2020/21 Dec 15, 2020 (03/17/2021)

71 7665 GIS Modification Needs Assessment $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 72 GROUP PROGRAM BUDGET SUBTOTAL $3,689,188 $3,999,726 $3,262,913 73 7698 2% CONTINGENCY $73,784 $79,995 $65,258 74 TOTAL GROUP ACTIVITIES BUDGET $3,762,972 $4,079,720 $3,328,172 75 CONTINGENCY EXPENSE $0 $0 $0 76 SALARY CREDIT (6 Months) ($46,686) ($93,372) ($63,666) 34% salary credit 25% savings credit for 6 months 77 SALARY SAVINGS (Other) $0 $0 $0 78 SALARY SAVINGS (WMPS) ($243,189) ($486,378) $0 6 month savings for two vacant positions 79 SUBTOTAL ($289,875) ($579,750) ($63,666) 80 NET SUBTOTAL GROUP PROGRAM BUDGET $3,473,097 $3,499,970 $3,264,506 82 SUA FUNDING CAP $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 83 NET TOTAL GROUP PROGRAM BUDGET $3,473,097 $3,499,970 $3,264,506

\\pw-data\grpdata\NPDES\BUDGETS\21 22\_FY 21-22 Analyst Folder\_CCCWP FY 21-22 Budget Workbook - Pending Final Draft 2020-03-02_ABullock 3/10/2021 11:14 AM Page 3 Permit Provisions to be Completed in FY 21/22 Provision Requirement Notes C.11. Mercury Controls

iii. Reporting (1) In each of the 2022 through 2026 Annual Reports, Permittees shall report C.11.b. Program for Source Property progress on the acreage of land areas investigated, including progress See C.12.b Identification and Abatement toward investigation of 100% of the old industrial land use indicated above. The reporting shall indicate what action was taken for the parcels investigated (e.g., abatement, referral, enforcement, etc.). Permittees shall submit all supporting data and information including referral reports.

iii. Reporting C.11.c. Program for Treatment Control (1) In their 2022 Annual Report, Permittees shall submit plans and schedules See C.12.c Measures in Old Industrial Areas for implementing treatment control and diversion measures. This reporting shall include maps of the areas to be treated, the acreage of catchments to be treated, and a description of design and sizing features all treatment devices and stormwater diversion facilities implemented for each treated catchment. C.12. PCBs Controls

iii. Reporting (1) In each of the 2022 through 2026 Annual Reports, Permittees shall report C.12.b. Program for Source Property progress on the acreage of land areas investigated, including progress Identification and Abatement toward investigation of 100% of the old industrial land use indicated above. The reporting shall indicate what action was taken for the parcels investigated (e.g., abatement, referral, enforcement, etc.). Permittees shall submit all supporting data and information including referral reports.

Print Date: 3/11/2021 File Path: H:\Combining\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(13)_MRP_3.0_Work in FY 21-22 iii. Reporting C.12.c. Program for Treatment Control (1) In their 2022 Annual Report, Permittees shall submit plans and schedules $20,000 Measures in Old Industrial Areas for implementing treatment control and diversion measures. This reporting shall include maps of the areas to be treated, the acreage of catchments to be treated, and a description of design and sizing features all treatment devices and stormwater diversion facilities implemented for each treated catchment. ii. Implementation Level – Permittees shall track the development of the Caltrans specification and develop an inventory of bridges in their jurisdictions that C.12.d. Program for Controlling PCBs in includes bridge ownership and a replacement/repair schedule. Finally, Not in AR, but a 2022 Stormwater Infrastructure Permittees shall, by December 31, 2022, implement or cause to be implemented deadline the Caltrans specification during applicable replacement activities that are under the direction of the Permittee.

iii. Reporting (1) In their 2022 Annual Report, Permittees shall include a description of the Caltrans specification for managing PCBs-containing materials in bridge or roadway expansion joints during roadway replacement or repair. (2) In their 2022 Annual Report, Permittees shall submit an inventory of C.12.d. Program for Controlling PCBs in bridges in the program area that includes bridge ownership and the bridge Stormwater Infrastructure roadway replacement schedule. (3) In their 2022 through 2026 Annual Reports, Permittees shall submit documentation confirming the use of the Caltrans specification during all instances of bridge roadway replacement or repair in their jurisdiction during that reporting year and provide an estimate of the volume of material managed and total PCBs mass load reduced resulting from implementation of the specification.

Print Date: 3/11/2021 File Path: H:\Combining\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(13)_MRP_3.0_Work in FY 21-22 $10,000 for reporting assistance

iii. Reporting (1) Permittees shall submit in their 2022 Annual Report the estimated PCBs loads avoided (along with supporting documentation) resulting from the removal of PCBs-containing OFEE through maintenance programs and C.d.e. Program for Controlling PCBs from system upgrades for the period 2002 up through the beginning of this Electrical Utilities permit term (2022). (2) Permittees shall submit in their 2022 Annual Report a description of the improved spill response practices implemented by municipally-owned electrical utilities. (3) Permittees shall submit in every Annual Report, beginning with the 2022 report, a summary of the actions undertaken during that reporting year that remove PCBs-containing OFEE along with the loads avoided and the details of the calculations and assumptions used to estimate the load reduced. C.13. Copper Controls

iii. Reporting C.13.a. Manage Wate Generated from (1) In the 2022 Annual Report, those Permittees that have not previously done Cleaning and Treating of Copper so shall certify that legal authority currently exists to prohibit the Architectural Features, Including Copper discharge of wastewater to storm drains generated from the installation, Roofs, during Construction and Post- cleaning, treating, and washing of copper architectural features, including Construction copper roofs. (2) In the 2022 Annual Report, the Permittees shall report how copper architectural features are addressed through the issuance of building permits.

Print Date: 3/11/2021 File Path: H:\Combining\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(13)_MRP_3.0_Work in FY 21-22 iii. Reporting (1) In the 2022 Annual Report, the Permittees that have not previously done C.13.b. Manage Discharges from Pools, so shall certify that legal authority currently exists to prohibit the Spas, and Fountains that Contain Copper- discharges to storm drains of water containing copper-based chemicals Based Chemicals from pools, spas, and fountains. (2) In the 2022 Annual Report, the Permittees shall report how coppercontaining discharges from pools, spas, and fountains are addressed to accomplish the prohibition of the discharge. C.21. Cost Reporting

C.21.c. Reporting i. The Permittees shall submit the cost reporting framework and methodology, $15,000 acceptable to the Regional Water Board Executive Officer, by December 31, 2022. Estimated Total $45,000

Print Date: 3/11/2021 File Path: H:\Combining\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(13)_MRP_3.0_Work in FY 21-22

Date: March 17, 2021

To: Management Committee

From: Mitch Avalon, Program Consultant

Subject: Process to Respond to the MRP 3.0 Administrative Draft

Recommendation:

Consider report by staff on the process to develop a comment letter and respond to the Administrative Draft, and provide staff input and direction.

Background:

Administrative Draft Review. The MRP 3.0 Administrative Draft was released on February 9, 2021. The Regional Board subsequently, on February 18, 2021, sent out an outline of the permit changes in MRP 3.0. Staff has gone through the Administrative Draft and identified all of the changes from MRP 2.0 in a spreadsheet, including what the implications of those changes are to permittees. Staff sent the spreadsheet out to all permittees on Wednesday, March 3, 2021, requesting input from permittees on the specific permit changes. Program staff will summarize the comments received and identify which changes we can accept as is, should oppose as is, or propose changes with the likelihood of success. In the meantime, staff will be working on preparing preliminary comments by provision and coordinating a review effort. Review will occur through the Select Committee, the various Program committees, and other interested parties (e.g. CCEAC, PMA Subcommittee, etc.). Attached is a calendar showing all of the review steps in the process, along with a list of staff assigned to each provision so Committee members can contact the correct staff person should they have a question about a specific provision.

Two Letter Approach. On March 10, 2021 the Select Committee considered the overall process for preparing and submitting comments to the Regional Board. The Public Managers Association formed a subcommittee to work with Program staff on MRP 3.0 negotiations. In past permit cycles, the PMA got involved towards the end during the hearing process, but this time they want to be involved early on. It made sense to divide up the comments between policy level issues and specific recommended changes. The high level, policy type issues would be

included in a letter from the PMA, and the more detailed, technical comments on permit language would be included in a letter from the Management Committee. Of course the Management Committee comment letter could also include policy issues. The Select Committee recommends this two letter approach. Attached is a draft list of policy issues that could be included in a letter from the PMA. Please review the list and provide any comments and suggestions for examples to Program staff.

Comment Letter Approval. The comment letter to the Regional Board must be approved by the Management Committee before its next meeting, and because it is a submittal to the Regional Board it requires a roll call vote. Approval could be done through email, but that does not allow discussion before the vote. Staff recommends holding a special Management Committee meeting just for discussing the item and conducting the vote. The next Administrative Committee meeting is April 6, 2021, two days before the submittal deadline for the comment letter. Staff recommends adding a special, one item, Management Committee meeting at the same time as the next Administrative Committee meeting.

Cost Estimating. The Select Committee also discussed the need for estimated costs of the most significant requirements. It was acknowledged that at some point we will need cost estimating for most of the new requirements, but the current priority is to complete development of comments for the comment letter. A comprehensive look at costs will come after the comment deadline for the Administrative Draft. However, staff will try and come up with some cost estimates for the really big cost requirements so they can be part of the discussion with the Administrative Draft.

Attachments:

- Administrative Draft Review Calendar - Administrative Draft Review Assignments - List of Policy Issues

G:\NPDES\Mgmt Committee\Agendas\FY 20-21\Agenda Packet\2021-03\Staff Report Admin Draft Permit.docx

MRP 3.0 Admin Draft Review Calendar March 1 – April 8 *Table includes external workgroup meetings with Water Board only. If you want information on the internal meeting please contact the staff person listed.

March 2 MRP 3.0 C.17 Firefighting Discharge Workgroup K. Corneillie March 2 Administrative Committee Meeting M. Avalon March 2 Monitoring Committee Staff Report Due K. Abusaba March 3 C.8 MPC Workgroup K. Abusaba March 3 Select Committee Staff Report Deadline M. Avalon March 4 MRP 3.0 C.3 Green Infrastructure and C.22 Asset Management D. Cloak/ S. Workgroup Matthews March 8 MRP 3.0 C.10 Trash and C.22 Asset Management Workgroup K. Corneillie / S. Matthews March 8 Monitoring Committee Meeting K. Abusaba March 9 Municipal Operations Committee Staff Report Due K. Corneillie March 10 Select Committee Meeting M. Avalon March 10 Management Committee Staff Report Due M. Avalon March 15 MRP 3.0 C.21 Cost Reporting Workgroup S. Matthews March 16 Municipal Operations Committee Meeting K. Corneillie March 16 MRP 3.0 C.11/C.12 Mercury and PCBs Workgroup K. Abusaba March 17 Management Committee Meeting M. Avalon March 17 Development Committee Staff Report Due D. Cloak March 22 MRP 3.0 C.2 Municipal Operations Workgroup K. Corneillie March 22 MRP 3.0 C.4 and C.5 Industrial Site Controls and Illicit Discharges K. Corneillie Workgroup Meeting March 17 Select Committee Meeting Staff Report Due M. Avalon March 23 Select Committee Meeting (3:30-5pm)? M. Avalon March 23 MRP 3.0 Steering Committee Meeting (time TBD) All March 24 Development Committee Meeting D. Cloak March 26 Staff send Admin Draft comments to Mitch All March 30 PIP Committee Staff Report Due K. Corneillie March 30 Administrative Committee Staff Report Due M. Avalon April 1 MRP 3.0 C.3 Green Infrastructure Workgroup D. Cloak April 1 Placeholder to talk to Program Directors K. Graves April 1 Draft Letter to Management Committee M. Avalon April 6 PIP Committee Meeting K. Graves April 6 Ad hoc Management and Administrative Committee Meeting M. Avalon April 8 Comments on Administrative Draft Due M. Avalon April 12 MRP C.8 Workgroup on Trash and Bacteria Monitoring K. Abusaba

Administrative Draft Provision Staff Review Committee C.1 C.2 Kristine MOC C.3 Dan Development C.4 Kristine MOC C.5 Kristine MOC C.6 Dan Development C.7 Kristine PIP C.8 Lisa W.(Khalil tech support) Monitoring C.9 Kristine MOC C.10 Kristine MOC C.11 Lisa W.(Khalil tech support) Monitoring C.12 Lisa W.(Khalil tech support) Monitoring C.13 Kristine Monitoring C.14 Lisa W.(Khalil tech support) Monitoring C.15 Mitch MOC C.17 Kristine MOC C.19 Lisa W.(Khalil tech support) Monitoring C.21 Sandy Administrative C.22 Sandy Administrative

Print Date: 3/11/2021 File Path: H:\Combining\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(16)_Admin Draft Review Assignments Review Assignments Policy Decision By Select Committee

Print Date: 3/11/2021 File Path: H:\Combining\MC_Mtg_03-17-2021_(16)_Admin Draft Review Assignments List of Policies/Overarching issues with Administrative Draft

Reporting. The Administrative Draft has increased reporting requirements, much more than the reporting requirements eliminated. In past discussions, the Regional Board indicated their goal was to reduce, or at least not increase, reporting requirements. (Example)

G.I. Plans. Permittees spent considerable time, effort, and funding to create Green Infrastructure Plans during MRP 2.0. The intent was to allow local government to implement green infrastructure projects and integrate green infrastructure design into other capital projects that best fit the agency's community design, timing, and funding availability. (Add agreeing to G.I. Plan in exchange for road maintenance exemption, special projects, etc.?) The Administrative Draft now requires minimum quantities of Green Infrastructure facilities to be built over 5 years, rendering the Green Infrastructure Plan model somewhat moot.

Process. The process laid out by Regional Board staff two and half years ago was intended to provide a collaborative approach to developing permit requirements. There was recognition that the Regional Board needed to craft a permit to reduce pollutant loads in stormwater while also recognizing the value of permittee experience in how requirements can be effectively implemented. Working together, permit language could be crafted with requirements that were implementable. Permittees embraced the process, faithfully attending meetings, being prepared to discuss the topics at hand, and providing information and alternative solutions as requested. At the end of two and half years we feel the process has not been as collaborative as hoped for, but more one-sided. We do not feel we have always been heard, as a good many of our suggestions have largely been ignored, and tacit agreements (from our perspective) have been broken. Some commitments by Regional Board management have not been carried through by Regional Board staff. (Example) Not all is bad news however, for example monitoring requirements were not included in the Administrative Draft, but we appreciate the continued commitment to contain monitoring costs to that of MRP 2.0.

Housing. Our need for affordable housing was acute before the pandemic, and has only grown since the imposition of COVID-19 mitigation measures. We are working hard to streamline our permit processes, reduce planning and engineering review time, and assist developers in all regulatory compliance requirements to encourage and facilitate housing projects (both affordable and market housing). We request permit requirements that do not discourage housing by increasing development costs, decreasing development yield, and expanding regulation to single-family homes. (Example)

Notices of Violation. Some of the permit requirements are known in advance to be unachievable by many permittees, and this has been communicated to the Regional Board. This sets up a future with the Regional Board issuing a multitude of notices of violation to those permittees, some permittees with multiple violations. Each permittee will then negotiate with the Regional Board a plan of action for compliance. By the end of the permit term, the Bay Area will not be governed by a uniform Municipal Regional Permit, but by a plethora of individually negotiated permits obviating the intent and advantage of a universal regional permit. (Example) The Municipal Regional Permit was developed for regional consistency and it should remain so. Should the permit include requirements that cannot be met by a sizable number of permittees, thereby setting them up for failure? Mission Focus. During these lean times, we all must sharpen our pencils and focus our resources on mission-critical work performed in the most cost-effective way. Local government has certainly had to do that after losing a sizable amount of sales tax revenue due to the pandemic. We would ask the same of the Regional Board. For example, Regional Board staff has expressed interest in monitoring demolition sites to observe the handling of PCB caulk. However, if PCB load reduction is the mission- critical work, then it seems staff time would best be spent working on source property referrals which represent comparatively much larger amounts of PCBs in the environment. We understand the Regional Board desires to push permittees to increasingly improve water quality, and we accept the responsibility to do so. Our request is to do so with requirements that are implementable and cost-effective. We ask Regional Board staff to review each provision and ensure the requirements are written to, first, effectuate a real reduction in pollutant loads and, second, reduce loads in the most effective manner. (Example)

Green Infrastructure. The definition of regulated projects has been expanded to include road maintenance projects. In addition, the permit requires a minimum number of acres treated by green infrastructure in accordance with permittee population (small, medium, large). Regulated projects are required to include green infrastructure components in their design, and as such cannot be used to meet the minimum number of acres treated. There is a limited amount of public property that can be used for implementing green infrastructure projects to meet our minimum acreage requirement. A good number of those opportunities lie within the road right-of-way. By defining road maintenance projects as a regulated project, the number of opportunities is reduced, making it more difficult to meet the number of acres treated. We request the permit be written so that requirements are internally supportive of other requirements, rather than having some requirements making it more difficult to comply with other requirements.

G/NPDES/NPDES Permits/MRP 3.0 Negotiations/PMA Admin Draft comment letter_03-10-2021 california legislature—2021–22 regular session

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 377

Introduced by Assembly Member Robert Rivas (Principal coauthor: Senator Hertzberg)

February 1, 2021

An act to add Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 13150) to Chapter 3 of Division 7 of the Water Code, relating to water quality.

legislative counsel’s digest AB 377, as introduced, Robert Rivas. Water quality: impaired waters. (1) Under existing law, the State Water Resources Control Board and the 9 California regional water quality control boards regulate water quality and prescribe waste discharge requirements in accordance with the federal national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit program established by the federal Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Existing law requires each regional board to formulate and adopt water quality control plans for all areas within the region, as provided. This bill would require all California surface waters to be ®shable, swimmable, and drinkable by January 1, 2050, as prescribed. The bill would prohibit the state board and regional boards from authorizing an NPDES discharge, waste discharge requirement, or waiver of a waste discharge requirement that causes or contributes to an exceedance of a water quality standard, or from authorizing a best management practice permit term to authorize a discharge that causes or contributes to an exceedance of a water quality standard in receiving waters. The bill would prohibit, on or after January 1, 2030, a regional water quality control plan from including a schedule for implementation for achieving a water quality standard that was adopted as of January 1, 2021, and

AB 377 Ð 2 Ð would prohibit a regional water quality control plan from including a schedule for implementation of a water quality standard that is adopted after January 1, 2021, unless speci®ed conditions are met. The bill would prohibit an NPDES permit, waste discharge requirement, or waiver of a waste discharge requirement from being renewed, reissued, or modi®ed to contain ef¯uent limitations or conditions that are less stringent than those in the previous permit, requirement, or waiver. (2) Existing law authorizes the imposition of civil penalties for violations of certain waste discharge requirements and requires that penalties imposed pursuant to these provisions be deposited into the Waste Discharge Permit Fund, to be expended by the state board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for speci®ed purposes related to water quality. For violations of certain other waste discharge requirements, including the violation of a waste discharge requirement ef¯uent limitation, existing law imposes speci®ed civil penalties, the proceeds of which are deposited into the continuously appropriated State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account, which is established in the State Water Quality Control Fund. This bill would require, by January 1, 2030, the state board and regional boards to develop an Impaired Waterways Enforcement Program to enforce all remaining water quality standard violations that are causing or contributing to an exceedance of a water quality standard. To ensure any water segments impaired by ongoing pollutants are brought into attainment with water quality standards, the bill would require the state board and regional boards, by January 1, 2040, to evaluate the state's remaining impaired waters using a speci®ed report. The bill would require, by January 1, 2040, the state board and regional boards to report to the Legislature a plan to bring the ®nal impaired water segments into attainment by January 1, 2050. The bill would create the Waterway Attainment Account in the Waste Discharge Permit Fund and would make moneys in the Waterway Attainment Account available for the state board to expend, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to bring remaining impaired water segments into attainment in accordance with the plan. The bill would create in the Waterway Attainment Account the Waterway Attainment Penalty Subaccount, composed of penalties obtained pursuant to the Impaired Waterways Enforcement Program, and would make moneys in the subaccount available for the state board to expend, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of the program. The bill would require, by January 1, 2040, and subject to a future legislative act, 50% of the annual

Ð 3 Ð AB 377

proceeds of the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account to be annually transferred to the Waterway Attainment Account. The bill would require the state board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to expend 5% of the annual proceeds of the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account to fund a speci®ed state board program. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

line 1 SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature ®nds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (1) Water is a necessity of human life, and every Californian line 4 deserves access to clean and safe water. Yet climate change line 5 jeopardizes the quality and safety of our water. Climate change is line 6 impacting the state's hydrology to create water resource line 7 vulnerabilities that include, but are not limited to, changes to water line 8 supplies, subsidence, increased amounts of water pollution, erosion, line 9 ¯ooding, and related risks to water and wastewater infrastructure line 10 and operations, degradation of watersheds, alteration of aquatic line 11 ecosystems and loss of habitat, multiple impacts in coastal areas, line 12 and ocean acidi®cation. line 13 (2) Many aspects of climate change and associated impacts will line 14 continue for centuries, even if anthropogenic emissions of line 15 greenhouse gases are reduced or stopped. Given the magnitude of line 16 climate change impacts on California's hydrology and water line 17 systems, the state's climate change response should include line 18 attainment of water quality standards to allow the state's line 19 watersheds to resiliently adapt to forthcoming and inevitable line 20 climate change stressors. line 21 (3) The federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) line 22 was enacted on October 18, 1972, to establish the basic structure line 23 for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United line 24 States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The line 25 objective of the federal Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain line 26 the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's line 27 waters. To achieve that objective, Congress declared a national line 28 goal that the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be line 29 eliminated by 1985.

AB 377 Ð 4 Ð

line 1 (4) California has long been a national and international leader line 2 on environmental stewardship efforts, including the areas of air line 3 quality protections, energy ef®ciency requirements, renewable line 4 energy standards, and greenhouse gas emission standards for line 5 passenger vehicles. The program established by this act will line 6 continue this tradition of environmental leadership by placing line 7 California at the forefront of achieving the nation's goal of making line 8 all waterways swimmable, ®shable, and drinkable. line 9 (5) The State Water Resources Control Board, along with the line 10 nine California regional water quality control boards, protect and line 11 enhance the quality of California's water resources through line 12 implementing the federal Clean Water Act, as amended, and line 13 California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division line 14 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code). line 15 (6) The State Water Resources Control Board's mission is to line 16 ªpreserve, enhance, and restore the quality of California's water line 17 resources and drinking water for the protection of the environment, line 18 public health, and all bene®cial uses, and to ensure proper water line 19 resource allocation and ef®cient use, for the bene®t of present and line 20 future generations.º line 21 (7) Under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 line 22 U.S.C. 1313(d)), California is required to review, make changes line 23 as necessary, and submit to the United States Environmental line 24 Protection Agency a list identifying water bodies not meeting water line 25 quality standards (303(d) list). California is required to include a line 26 priority ranking of those waters, taking into account the severity line 27 of the pollution and the uses to be made of those waters, including line 28 waters targeted for the development of total maximum daily loads line 29 (TMDLs). line 30 (8) As of the most recent 2018 303(d) list, nearly 95 percent of line 31 all fresh waters assessed in California, and over 1,400 water bodies, line 32 are listed as impaired, with only 114 TMDLs have been approved line 33 since 2009 in California. Of 164,741 assessed miles of rivers and line 34 streams, 82 percent were impaired. Of 929,318 assessed acres of line 35 lakes, reservoirs, and ponds, 93 percent were impaired. Of 575,000 line 36 assessed acres of bays, harbors, and estuaries, 99 percent were line 37 impaired. Of 2,180 assessed miles of coastal shoreline, 93 percent line 38 were impaired. Of 130,084 assessed acres of wetlands, 99 percent line 39 were impaired.

Ð 5 Ð AB 377

line 1 (b) (1) In honor of the federal Clean Water Act's 50-year line 2 anniversary, it is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act line 3 to recommit California to achieve the national goal to restore and line 4 maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the line 5 state's waters by eliminating the discharge of pollutants into line 6 impaired waterways. line 7 (2) It is further the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act line 8 to require that the State Water Resources Control Board and the line 9 California regional water quality control boards meet the national line 10 goal of achieving swimmable, ®shable, and drinkable waters by line 11 no later than January 1, 2050. line 12 SEC. 2. Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 13150) is added line 13 to Chapter 3 of Division 7 of the Water Code, to read: line 14 line 15 Chapter 3.5. State Waters Impairment line 16 line 17 13150. All California surface waters shall be ®shable, line 18 swimmable, and drinkable by January 1, 2050. To bring all water line 19 segments into attainment with this requirement, the state board line 20 and regional boards shall comply with the requirements of this line 21 chapter. line 22 13151. (a) The state board and regional boards shall not do line 23 either of the following: line 24 (1) Authorize an NPDES discharge that causes or contributes line 25 to an exceedance of a water quality standard. line 26 (2) Authorize an NPDES permit that uses an alternative line 27 compliance determination, safe harbor ªdeemed in complianceº line 28 term, or any other best management practice permit term to line 29 authorize a discharge that causes or contributes to an exceedance line 30 of a water quality standard in receiving waters. line 31 (b) The state board and regional boards shall not do either of line 32 the following: line 33 (1) Authorize a permit that does not include monitoring line 34 suf®cient to demonstrate compliance with water quality standards line 35 and, unless infeasible, that does not include end-of-discharge pipe line 36 monitoring. line 37 (2) Authorize a permit unless it establishes criteria for, and line 38 requires, monitoring to evaluate compliance with water quality line 39 standards.

AB 377 Ð 6 Ð

line 1 (c) The state board and regional boards shall not do either of line 2 the following: line 3 (1) Authorize a waste discharge requirement or waiver of a line 4 waste discharge requirement for a discharge that causes or line 5 contributes to an exceedance of a water quality standard. line 6 (2) Authorize a waste discharge requirement or waiver of a line 7 waste discharge requirement that uses an alternative compliance line 8 determination, safe harbor ªdeemed in complianceº term, or any line 9 other best management practice permit term to authorize a line 10 discharge that causes or contributes to an exceedance of a water line 11 quality standard in receiving waters. line 12 (d) The state board and regional boards shall not issue an line 13 enforcement order pursuant to Chapter 12 (commencing with line 14 Section 1825) of Part 2 of Division 2 or Article 1 (commencing line 15 with Section 13300) of Chapter 5 that includes a compliance line 16 schedule deadline that extends beyond January 1, 2030, to a line 17 discharger for a discharge that is causing or contributing to an line 18 exceedance of a water quality standard. line 19 13152. (a) Notwithstanding Section 13242, on and after line 20 January 1, 2030, a regional water quality control plan, including line 21 the program of implementation, shall not include a schedule for line 22 implementation for achieving a water quality standard that was line 23 adopted in an approved regional water quality control plan as of line 24 January 1, 2021. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this line 25 requirement to ensure that all water quality standards in effect as line 26 of January 1, 2021, are fully implemented and achieved by January line 27 1, 2030. line 28 (b) The state board and regional boards shall only include in a line 29 regional water quality control plan a schedule for implementation line 30 of a water quality standard that is adopted after January 1, 2021, line 31 if all of the following conditions are met: line 32 (1) The schedule for implementation of the water quality line 33 standard is the shortest time necessary, and in no instance exceeds line 34 ®ve years. line 35 (2) The schedule for implementation is necessary for the line 36 permittee to undertake physical construction that is necessary to line 37 achieve compliance with the water quality standard. line 38 (3) The water quality standard is not substantially similar to a line 39 water quality standard that was in effect as of January 1, 2021.

Ð 7 Ð AB 377

line 1 (c) An NPDES permit, waste discharge requirement, or waiver line 2 of a waste discharge requirement shall not be renewed, reissued, line 3 or modi®ed to contain ef¯uent limitations or conditions that are line 4 less stringent than the comparable ef¯uent limitations or conditions line 5 in the previous permit, requirement, or waiver. line 6 (d) The state board and regional boards shall not authorize an line 7 NPDES permit, waste discharge requirement, or waiver of a waste line 8 discharge requirement that does not include a complete line 9 antidegradation analysis as set out in State Water Resources line 10 Control Board Resolution No. 68-16 and Administrative Procedures line 11 Update 90-004. line 12 13153. (a) (1) By January 1, 2030, the state board and regional line 13 boards shall develop an Impaired Waterways Enforcement Program line 14 to enforce all remaining water quality standard violations pursuant line 15 to Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 1825) of Part 2 of line 16 Division 2 and Article 1 (commencing with Section 13300) of line 17 Chapter 5 that are causing or contributing to an exceedance of a line 18 water quality standard. line 19 (2) An enforcement action taken pursuant to the program shall line 20 result in suf®cient penalties, conditions, and orders to ensure the line 21 person subject to the enforcement action is no longer causing or line 22 contributing to an exceedance of a water quality standard. line 23 (3) A discharger shall remain liable for a violation of a water line 24 quality standard until sampling at the point of discharge line 25 demonstrates that the discharge is no longer causing or contributing line 26 to the exceedance. line 27 (4) Penalties obtained pursuant to the program shall be deposited line 28 into the Waterway Attainment Penalty Subaccount, which is hereby line 29 created in the Waterway Attainment Account. Moneys in the line 30 subaccount shall be available for the state board to expend, upon line 31 appropriation by the Legislature, for purposes of the program. line 32 (b) (1) By January 1, 2040, to ensure any water segments line 33 impaired by ongoing legacy pollutants and nonpoint source line 34 pollution are brought into attainment with water quality standards, line 35 the state board and regional boards shall evaluate the state's line 36 remaining impaired waters using the most current integrated report. line 37 (2) The state board and regional boards shall, by January 1, line 38 2040, report to the Legislature in compliance with Section 9795 line 39 of the Government Code a plan to bring the ®nal impaired water line 40 segments into attainment by January 1, 2050.

AB 377 Ð 8 Ð

line 1 (3) The requirement for submitting a report imposed under line 2 paragraph (2) is inoperative on January 1, 2044, pursuant to Section line 3 10231.5 of the Government Code. line 4 (c) (1) The Waterway Attainment Account is hereby created line 5 in the Waste Discharge Permit Fund. Moneys in the Waterway line 6 Attainment Account shall be available for the state board to expend, line 7 upon appropriation by the Legislature, to bring remaining impaired line 8 water segments into attainment in accordance with the plan line 9 submitted pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), subject to line 10 subdivision (d). line 11 (2) (A) By January 1, 2040, subject to a future legislative act, line 12 50 percent of the annual proceeds of the State Water Pollution line 13 Cleanup and Abatement Account shall be annually transferred to line 14 the Waterway Attainment Account. line 15 (B) This paragraph shall become inoperative January 1, 2051, line 16 or when all water segments are in attainment with water quality line 17 standards, whichever comes ®rst. line 18 (d) Moneys in the Waterway Attainment Account shall be line 19 expended by the state board, upon appropriation by the Legislature, line 20 to bring impaired waterways into attainment with water quality line 21 standards to the maximum extent possible. Moneys in the account line 22 shall only be expended on the following: line 23 (1) Restoration projects, including supplemental environmental line 24 projects, that improve water quality. line 25 (2) Best management practice research innovation and incentives line 26 to encourage innovative best management practice implementation. line 27 (3) Source control programs. line 28 (4) Identifying non®lers. line 29 (5) Source identi®cation of unknown sources of impairment. line 30 (6) Enforcement actions that recover at least the amount of line 31 funding originally expended, which shall be deposited into the line 32 Waterway Attainment Account. line 33 (e) The state board shall, upon appropriation by the Legislature, line 34 expend 5 percent of the annual proceeds of the State Water line 35 Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account to fund the state board's line 36 SWAMP - Clean Water Team Citizen Monitoring Program in line 37 order to inform the integrated report. line 38 13154. This chapter does not affect the process by which line 39 voluntary agreements are entered into to assist in the

Ð 9 Ð AB 377

line 1 implementation of new water quality standards lawfully adopted line 2 by the state board. line 3 13155. For purposes of this chapter, the following de®nitions line 4 apply: line 5 (a) ªBest management practiceº means a practice or set of line 6 practices determined by the state board or a regional board for a line 7 designated area to be the most effective feasible means of line 8 preventing or reducing the generation of a speci®c type of nonpoint line 9 source pollution, given technological, institutional, environmental, line 10 and economic constraints. line 11 (b) ªDrinkableº applies to waters subject to a regional water line 12 quality control plan and means that the waters are drinkable to the line 13 extent required by the regional water quality control plan. line 14 (c) ªIntegrated reportº means the state report that includes the line 15 list of impaired waters required pursuant to Section 303(d) of the line 16 federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)) and the water quality line 17 assessment required pursuant to Section 305(b) of the federal Clean line 18 Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1315(b)). line 19 (d) ªNPDESº means the national pollutant discharge elimination line 20 system established in the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. line 21 Sec. 1251 et seq.). line 22 (e) ªRegional boardº means a California regional water quality line 23 control board. line 24 (f) ªRegional water quality control planº means a water quality line 25 control plan developed pursuant to Section 13240. line 26 (g) ªState boardº means the State Water Resources Control line 27 Board. line 28 (h) ªState Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Accountº line 29 means the State Water Pollution Cleanup and Abatement Account line 30 created pursuant to Section 13440. line31 (i) ªSupplemental environmental projectº means an line 32 environmentally bene®cial project that a person subject to an line 33 enforcement action voluntarily agrees to undertake in settlement line 34 of the action and to offset a portion of a civil penalty. line 35 (j) ªWaste Discharge Permit Fundº means the Waste Discharge line 36 Permit Fund created pursuant to Section 13260. line 37 (k) ªWaterway Attainment Accountº means the Waterway line 38 Attainment Account created pursuant to paragraph (1) of line 39 subdivision (c) of Section 13153.

AB 377 Ð 10 Ð line 1 (l) ªWaterway Attainment Penalty Subaccountº means the line 2 Waterway Attainment Penalty Subaccount created pursuant to line 3 paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 13153.

Clean Water Program Manager

(Stormwater Pollution Control Manager)

The performance of each County Public Works employee is reviewed and evaluated once a year. During probation, new or promoted employees are generally reviewed and evaluated 3 months after promotion or hiring, and at the end of their 6 month probation period. The following are the specifics for the review and evaluation of the Program Manager position in the Contra Costa Clean Water Program.

Probation Period: 6 months for a new hire or newly promoted person into this position.

Evaluation: Employee will have an annual evaluation due on their anniversary date. The anniversary date is the first day of the calendar month after the employee successfully completes 6 months service in the position.

Position Steps: There are 5 steps in this position.

Review process for employee on probation:

a. Either the Public Works Deputy Director or the Chair of the Management Committee will schedule a closed session with Management Committee members to formally go over the “probation evaluation” criteria below (1-5) at 3 months. Feedback and documentation with specific examples will be communicated to the employee by the Public Works Deputy Director (Deputy). Examples should include both areas where employee excels at meeting expectations and areas where employee needs improvement. b. Either the Deputy or the Chair of the Management Committee will schedule a closed session with Management Committee members to formally go over the “probation evaluation” criteria below (1-5) at around 6 months, but before the end of the probation period. Feedback and documentation with specific examples will be communicated to the employee by the Deputy. c. If there are any performance concerns at any time during the probationary period, Management Committee or Deputy can call a closed session to discuss the concerns (following the criteria guidelines 1-5). d. Public Works doesn’t have to wait until the 6 month mark to fail an employee on probation. However, to not pass the employee on probation, the process needs to be completed before the 6 month anniversary. Issues or concerns should be addressed/discussed with the employee early on. The Management Committee must provide documentation and back up information describing and defining the issues or concerns to the Deputy for her/his discussion with the employee. Annual review process for employee:

a. Closed session with Management Committee members to formally go over “annual evaluation” criteria below (1-5) at 6 months. Feedback and documentation with specific examples will be communicated to the employee by the Deputy. Examples should include both areas were employee excels at meeting expectations and areas where employee needs improvement. b. Closed session with Management Committee members to formally go over “annual evaluation” criteria below (1-5) at around 12 months. Feedback and documentation with specific examples will be communicated to the employee by the deputy. c. If there are any performance concerns at any time during the year, the Management Committee or Deputy can call a closed session to discuss them (following the criteria guidelines 1-5). The Management Committee must provide documentation and back up information describing and defining the issues or concerns to the Deputy for her/his discussion with the employee. The employee will have a chance to change their behavior and improve to meet expectations.

Evaluation criteria:

1. General Work Procedures:

Ability to work well with others. Ability to plan. Tact and discretion in manner. Knowledge of department functions and policies.

2. Knowledge of Department and Unit:

Understanding of job objectives. Understanding of department objectives. Ability to interpret department policy regarding assignments. Knowledge of Board of Supervisors policies for Public Works. Knowledge/ability in dealing with Board members, other department Personnel, and the public.

3. Work Organization:

Quality of work produced. Attention to details. Effective interviewing skills. Makes constructive criticism and suggestions.

4. Promotability:

Shows initiative. Adaptability and flexibility. Motivated toward further development. Capable of handling a higher level position.

5. Supervisory and Administrative Skills:

Ability to communicate effectively. Ability to make decisions and solve problems quickly and effectively. Effective interviewing skills. Makes constructive criticism and suggestions. G:\Admin\Allison\CLEAN WATER\SW Program Manager Review Process_RMA.Final.MC Approved.02-17-2021.docx