Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control

COUNTYWIDE CLEAN

WATER PROGRAM

FISCAL YEAR

2020/21 ANNUAL MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda REPORT TO THE Albany Berkeley Dublin SAN FRANCISCO Emeryville Fremont BAY REGIONAL Hayward Livermore Newark WATER QUALITY Oakland Piedmont CONTROL BOARD Pleasanton San Leandro Union City

County of Alameda Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District August 25, 2021 Zone 7 Water Agency

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Contents

Preface ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Background ...... 2 Organization of the Report ...... 2 Highlights of Significant FY 2020/21 Accomplishments ...... 4 Provision C.2. Municipal Operations ...... 7 Provision C.3. New Development and Redevelopment ...... 8 Provision C.3.a.i.(4) Provision C.3 Training ...... 8 Provision C.3.b. Regulated Projects ...... 8 Provision C.3.c. Low Impact Development (LID) ...... 8 Provision C.3.e.i.(2) In-Lieu Fee Compliance with Provision C.3.b...... 9 Provision C.3.h. Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Systems ...... 9 Provision C.3.j Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation ...... 9 Provision C.3.j.i.(4) Green Infrastructure Plan Outreach and Education ...... 10 Provision C.3.j.iii. Participate in Processes to Promote Green Infrastructure ...... 10 Provision C.3.j.iv. Tracking and Reporting Progress ...... 11 Additional Activities ...... 11 Provision C.4. Industrial and Commercial Site Controls ...... 12 Provision C.4.d. Inspections ...... 12 Provision C.4.e. Staff Training ...... 12 Additional Activities ...... 12 Provision C.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination ...... 13 Provision C.5.c. Spill, Dumping and Complaint Response Program ...... 13 Provision C.5.e. Control of Mobile Sources ...... 13 Additional Activities ...... 13 Provision C.6. Construction Site Control ...... 14 Provision C.6.e.ii.(1) Wet Season Notification ...... 14 Provision C.7. Public Information and Outreach ...... 15

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.7.b. Outreach Campaigns ...... 15 1. Fred & Izzy’s Pesticide-Free Garden Video for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Education .. 15 2. Multi-lingual Fred & Izzy Videos ...... 15 3. Fred & Izzy PSA Content Creation ...... 15 4. The “Bay Begins at Your Front Door” Brochure and Digital Interactive Game Development ...... 16 5. Litter Hurts and Coastal Cleanup Promotion, September 2020 ...... 16 6. Earth Day at Home Campaign, Spring 2021 ...... 17 7. Fishing Advisory Campaign ...... 17 8. Hire a Certified Eco-Friendly Pest Contractor Ad Campaign ...... 19 9. Our Water Our World Webinar Promotions ...... 19 Provision C.7.c.: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Education ...... 20 1. Website & Website Promotions ...... 21 2. Social Media ...... 22 Provision C.7.e.: Watershed Stewardship Collaborative Efforts ...... 22 Provision C.7.f.: School-Age Children Outreach ...... 23 Provision C.8. Water Quality Monitoring ...... 24 Provision C.8.a. Compliance Options ...... 24 Provision C.8.b. Monitoring Protocols and Data Quality ...... 24 Provision C.8.c. San Francisco Estuary Receiving Water Monitoring ...... 24 Provision C.8.d. Creek Status Monitoring ...... 24 Provision C.8.e. Stressor/Source Identification (SSID) Projects ...... 25 Provision C.8.f. Pollutants of Concern Monitoring ...... 26 Provision C.8.g. Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring ...... 27 Provision C.8.h. Reporting ...... 28 Provision C.9. Pesticide Toxicity Control ...... 29 Provision C.9.d. Interface with County Agricultural Commissioners ...... 29 Provision C.9.e.ii (1) Public Outreach: Point of Purchase ...... 29 Provision C.9.e.ii (2) Pest Control Contracting Outreach ...... 30 Provision C.9.e.ii (3) Outreach to Pest Control Professionals ...... 30 Provision C.9.f. Track and Participate in the Regulatory Processes ...... 30 Provision C.10: Trash Load Reduction ...... 32 Provision C.10.a. Trash Reduction Requirements ...... 32

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.10.b.i. Full Trash Capture Systems ...... 32 Provision C.10.b.ii.b. Visual Assessment of Outcomes ...... 32 Provision C.10.b.iv. Source Control ...... 32 Provision C.10.b.v.b. Receiving Water Monitoring ...... 34 Provision C.10.e.i. Optional Trash Load Reduction Offset Opportunities/Additional Creek and Shoreline Cleanup ...... 34 Additional Activities ...... 34 Provision C.11. Mercury Controls ...... 35 Provision C.11.a. Implement Control Measures to Achieve Mercury Load Reductions ...... 35 Provision C.11.b. Assess Mercury Load Reductions from Stormwater ...... 35 Provision C.11.c. Plan and Implement Green Infrastructure to Reduce Mercury Loads ...... 36 Provision C.11.d. Prepare Implementation Plan and Schedule to Achieve TMDL Wasteload Allocations . 37 Provision C.11.e. Implement a Risk Reduction Program ...... 37 Fishing Advisory Campaign ...... 37 Provision C.12. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Controls ...... 39 Provision C.12.a. Implement Control Measures to Achieve PCBs Load Reductions ...... 39 Provision C.12.b. Assess PCBs Load Reductions from Stormwater ...... 39 Provision C.12.c. Plan and Implement Green Infrastructure to Reduce PCBs loads ...... 40 Provision C.12.d. Prepare Implementation Plan and Schedule to Achieve TMDL Wasteload Allocations . 41 Provision C.12.f. Manage PCBs-Containing Materials and Wastes during Building Demolition Activities . 41 Provision C.12.h. Implement a Risk Reduction Program ...... 44 Fishing Advisory Campaign ...... 44 Provision C.15. Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges ...... 46 Appendices

Appendix A: New Development and Redevelopment

Appendix B: Industrial Commercial and Illicit Discharge Control

Appendix C: Public Information and Outreach

Appendix D: Pesticide Toxicity Contol

Appendix E: Mercury and PCB Controls

iii

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACCWP Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program AGOL ARC GIS Online BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association CWA Clean Water Act GI Green Infrastructure GIS Geographic Information System GSI Green Stormwater Infrastructure IMR Integrated Monitoring Report mg/ac/yr milligram per acre per year mg/kg milligram per kilogram MPC Monitoring and Pollutants of Concern Committee MRP Municipal Regional Permit MRP 1 Municipal Regional Permit adopted in 2009 MRP 2 Municipal Regional Permit reissued in 2015 MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operation and Maintenance PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PMT Project Management Team PMU Priority Margin Unit POC Pollutants of Concern POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works RAA Reasonable Assurance Analysis RMC Regional Monitoring Coalition SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SRP Stormwater Resources Plan TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load UCMR Urban Creeks Monitoring Report WY Water Year

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Preface

Provision C.17. of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Water Board’s) Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) (Order No. R2-2015-0049, NPDES No. CAS612008) requires the Permittees covered by the MRP to submit Annual Reports by September 30 of each year that document the implementation of MRP requirements during the previous fiscal year (July 1 through June 30). The MRP recognizes that the County of Alameda, the 14 cities within the County, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), and the Zone 7 Water Agency (Alameda Permittees) have joined together to form the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP or Program). Each Alameda Permittee is submitting a separate Annual Report using the format entitled “Annual Report Template” approved by the Executive Officer of the Water Board. Those Alameda Permittee reports describe the activities conducted by each of the Permittees during the previous fiscal year. This report describes the activities that were conducted by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), and the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) on behalf of the Alameda Permittees during the previous fiscal year. This report is referenced in the Alameda Permittees’ Annual Reports and is incorporated by reference into the Alameda Permittee Annual Reports.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Introduction Background The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program is a consortium comprising the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City; the County of Alameda; the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District); and, the Zone 7 Water Agency (Member Agencies). The Program was established in 1991 through a Memorandum of Agreement in response to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Water Board’s) issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater discharge permit (Permit) to the Member Agencies. The Program allows the Member Agencies to work together to more efficiently comply with many of the requirements of the Permit. The Program also worked collaboratively with other jurisdictions in the Bay Area through the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), and throughout the State through the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA).

For the first several permit cycles, the Water Board issued permits on a county by county basis. In 2009, the Water Board decided to issue one permit to all of the jurisdictions within the more urbanized counties in the Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara) as well as to the cities of Fairfield and Vallejo. This permit was referred to as the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit or MRP 1. On November 19, 2015, the Water Board reissued the MRP. This reissued permit is referred to as MRP 2.

The effective start date of MRP 2 was January 1, 2016, and the 5-year permit term ended on December 31, 2020. The Program submitted an application for permit reissuance/report of waste discharge on July 1, 2020. The Regional Water Board accepted the application for permit reissuance and administratively extended the permit through the effective date of the reissued permit. The reissued permit is expected to have an effective start date of July 1, 2022. Organization of the Report The report is organized by major MRP provisions:

C.1. Discharge Prohibitions and Receiving Waters Limitations: Nothing to report this reporting period

C.2. Municipal Operations

C.3. New Development and Redevelopment

C.4. Industrial and Commercial Site Controls

C.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination

C.6. Construction Site Control

C.7. Public Information and Outreach

C.8. Water Quality Monitoring

C.9. Pesticide Toxicity Control

C.10. Trash Load Reduction

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

C.11. Mercury Controls

C.12. PCB Controls

C.13. Copper Control: Relevant actions reporting in individual Permittee reports

C.14. Bacteria Control: Nothing reported, only applies to the City of Pacifica and County of San Mateo

C.15. Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges

C.16. Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance: Only applies to San Mateo County

Within each section, the requirements being reported on are provided along with a description of Program, BASMAA, or CASQA activities conducted to comply with the Permit requirement.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Highlights of Significant FY 2020/21 Accomplishments

Fred and Izzy’s Integrated Pest Management Video This year, the Program finished production of a Fred & Izzy Garden/IPM video that was postponed due to COVID-19 in spring of 2020. The video was completed in early July 2021.

The YouTube Channel now has 132 subscribers. All Fred & Izzy videos combined have been viewed on YouTube over 848,000 times. To view the videos, visit the Clean Water YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UCOFw3gvnzyhHCgUMEaYz-tA

In addition to producing the Garden/IPM video, the Program translated each of the three existing spots (litter, car washing, hosing) into Spanish and Cantonese. The videos have been uploaded to YouTube and will be promoted using funds from FY 21- 22. www.youtube.com/channel/UCOFw3gvnzyhHCgUMEaYz-tA

Our Water Our World Four webinars were conducted with a total of at least 299 attendees. Topics covered were IPM for the home and garden, creating healthy soil, waterwise gardening, and gardening for good bugs.

Staff from Plant Harmony also conducted trainings on the use of less-toxic pesticides for 136 associates at 17 of the 28 participating stores in Alameda County. See Appendix C for details.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Outreach to K-12 Students

Due to COVID-19, in-class presentations were not possible. Both Caterpillar Puppets’ Mr. Froggy’s Clean-Up Club and Kids for the Bay’s Storm Drain Ranger Program were able to successfully convert to on-line programs. Mr. Froggy: youtu.be/okhGz5k7mR4

Stressor Source ID (SSID) Studies

• Exploring CSCI Results and the Outcomes of Restoration Activities Along Sausal Creek – This SSID project investigated low California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) scores and the impacts of restoration activities along Sausal Creek, which has a watershed encompassing nearly 2,700 acres in Oakland. The SSID study evaluated whether benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) metrics improved from pre-project conditions in reaches with restoration projects and assessed whether biological conditions associated with previously measured sub-optimal CSCI scores are a function of recovery/maturation stage or are due to previously unidentified stressors. Data collection and sampling began in Spring 2018, and the first SSID annual progress report was issued in the WY 2018 UCMR in March 2019. Data collection and sampling continued in WY 2019 and did not reveal a stressor/source. The Final Report for this SSID project was included in the March, 2020 IMR. • Investigating Contributors to Nutrient / Eutrophication Biological Indicators in the Arroyo Las Positas Watershed – This SSID project is investigating factors contributing to ongoing impairment in the Arroyo Las Positas Watershed, which covers roughly 80 square miles in and around Livermore. This project was triggered by historic sampling results showing high nitrate concentrations, high pH measurements, and both supersaturated and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Additionally, benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) assemblage metrics were well outside the range of scores for minimally disturbed reference sites. BMI and nutrient sampling started in summer 2019 and continued in 2020. Efforts planned for 2020 were largely precluded due to the shelter-in-place restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative tools for assessing eutrophication (including continuous monitoring equipment and alternative laboratory methods) were identified and are being tested in 2021. Results will be combined with data from the Water Board’s TMDL-related monitoring efforts in the watershed to get an enhanced picture of the causes of impairment in the watershed.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Green Stormwater Infrastructure

The New Development Subcommittee conducted its annual training workshop online due to COVID-19 restrictions. The online format was very successful and allowed for greater participation. The training was attended by 92 member agency staff and 41 consultants.

The Subcommittee also developed a self-guided green stormwater infrastructure tour book with photos, locations, and descriptions of example green streets projects from throughout the County.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.2. Municipal Operations Requirement: Provision C.2 requires Permittees to implement BMPs to control and reduce non- stormwater and polluted stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses during operation, inspection, and routine repair and maintenance activities from municipal facilities and infrastructure.

Program Activities:

Municipal Maintenance Subcommittee Meetings. The Program held four Municipal Maintenance Subcommittee meetings during the fiscal year. Steve Aguiar, City of Livermore, was the chair of the Subcommittee. Subcommittee topics included MRP 3.0 revisions, tracking and maintaining trash devices, installing and maintaining public and private green infrastructure devices, sanitation procedures for use in the public right of way and ongoing coordination with the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District (District). The Subcommittee also reviewed the Program website and resources that provide access to outreach material and other information useful to municipal maintenance staff. The Subcommittee continues to provide a forum for member agencies to share information, benefit from other municipal staff field experiences, and receive information on products and trainings related to municipal maintenance activities.

Green Infrastructure Workgroup. A joint workgroup was formed to identify a process for tracking, maintaining, and reporting on the construction and maintenance of public and private Green Infrastructure (GI) facilities. The workgroup is comprised of members from the New Development and Municipal Maintenance subcommittees. Staff from the Cities of Livermore, Oakland, Alameda, and Union City and Program staff participated in the workgroup. The focus of the workgroup is to develop Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and other documents to ensure consistent mapping, inspecting and maintenance of GI facilities. Workgroup topics included identifying how agencies currently track and maintain GI facilities, improving long term maintenance and management of GI facilities and developing an outline for the SOPs. The workgroup will draft the SOPs during Fiscal year 2021/22.

Pesticide Toxicity Control (C.9). The MRP requires municipal employees to follow IPM policies and standard operating procedures in municipal operations and on municipal property. The subcommittee updated the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District contact list and continued to facilitate coordination between the District and municipal maintenance staff. The purpose of the contact list is to coordinate routine drain inlet cleaning with the District to reduce the loss of mosquito control applications.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.3. New Development and Redevelopment Requirement: Provision C.3 requires Permittees to use their planning authorities to include appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. Provision C.3.a.i.(4) Provision C.3 Training Requirement: Provision C.3.a.i.(4) requires Permittees to provide training adequate to implement the requirements of Provision C.3 for staff including interdepartmental training.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program provided a C.3 Getting Back the Basics training workshop on June 8, 2021. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic the workshop was held virtually. The workshop was attended by 92 agency staff and 41 consultants. The workshop focused on providing foundational information on green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) and the MRP C.3 requirements. The training provided a refresher for experienced staff and an introduction for new staff. The presentations included Green Stormwater Infrastructure: What it is and why we do it; MRP C.3 Basics; and Reviewing Projects - Tools for Municipal Project. In addition to the presentations, attendees were provided with supplemental materials including a list of terms and jargon; a list of C.3 and GSI resources, and a Green Stormwater Infrastructure Field Guide that identified GSI projects throughout Alameda County. The Field Guide and a post-workshop report is included in Appendix A. (Note: Green Stormwater Infrastructure is synonymous with Green Infrastructure. Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) is now being used to provide clarity regarding the type of infrastructure being referred to.) Provision C.3.b. Regulated Projects Requirement: Under Provision C.3.b, the Permittees must require all projects fitting the category descriptions provided in Provision C.3.b.ii (i.e. “Regulated Projects”) to implement low impact development (LID) source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, as required in Provisions C.3.c and C.3.d. Provision C.3.b.iv.(2) lists detailed information that must routinely be included in Annual Reports for Regulated Projects that are approved during the reporting period.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in compiling the information on C.3 Regulated Projects that they are required to routinely report in accordance with Provision C.3.b.iv.(2), the Program continued to maintain the Project Tracking and Load Reduction Accounting Tool ArcGIS Online web application (AGOL Tool). This software tool includes a feature to support the reporting of C.3 Regulated Projects by the Program’s member agencies in the annual reports they prepare in compliance with the MRP. The Program is currently updating the AGOL Tool, including improvements to the C.3 App, such as providing a new short-form for data entry, which is anticipated to help member agencies enhance efficiency in entering mandatory and commonly entered data. Provision C.3.c. Low Impact Development (LID) Requirement: Provision C.3.c requires Permittees to implement LID source control, site design, and stormwater treatment requirements in all Regulated Projects.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Program Activities: To further assist member agencies in complying with the requirements in this provision, the Program continued to maintain Program’s C.3 Technical Guidance manual, which provides comprehensive guidance to project applicants and designers of municipal capital projects regarding the implementation of LID source control, site design, stormwater treatment, and HM measures. Version 7.1 of the C.3 Technical Guidance was posted to the Program website in February 2021. This minor update corrected the link to the Bay Area Hydromodification Model. The cover page and table of contents of the C.3 Technical Guidance, Version 7.1 are included in Appendix A. In anticipation of the reissuance of the MRP, the NDS formed a workgroup to plan an update of the C.3 Technical Guidance manual to coincide with the release of MRP 3. Provision C.3.e.i.(2) In-Lieu Fee Compliance with Provision C.3.b Requirement: Under Provision C.3.e.i.(2), Permittees may allow a Regulated Project to treat a portion of the amount of runoff identified in Provision C.3.d for the Regulated Project’s drainage area with LID treatment measures onsite or with LID treatment measures at a joint stormwater treatment facility and pay equivalent in-lieu fees to treat the remaining portion of the Provision C.3.d runoff with LID treatment measures at a Regional Project.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in providing an in-lieu fee option for projects in which such an option would achieve a net environmental benefit, the Program continued to coordinate with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) regarding how other agencies are planning to develop in-lieu fee programs, including an ongoing grant-funded study by City of San Pablo, which will address Contra Costa County and could be a model for Alameda County. This topic along with a case study from Union City were discussed at the July 2020 NDS meeting. Provision C.3.h. Operation and Maintenance of Stormwater Treatment Systems Requirement: Provision C.3.h requires each Permittee to implement an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Verification Program in accordance with the requirements specified in Provision C.3.h.

Program Activities: The Program is currently updating its AGOL Tool, described above under the heading Provision C.3.b: Regulated Projects, to provide various improvements, including a new Esri Field Map App for collecting data during O&M verification inspections required by Provision C.3.h. Program staff gave a presentation on the update of the AGOL Tool at the April 2020 NDS meeting, to describe the proposed features and request input, including specific needs for O&M inspections. . In April 2021, the ACCWP Municipal Maintenance and NDS subcommittees formed a joint workgroup to improve the understanding and handoff of GSI from the construction to the maintenance phases. Provision C.3.j Green Infrastructure Planning and Implementation Requirement: Provision C.3.j of MRP 2 introduced requirements for each Permittee to complete and implement a Green Infrastructure Plan for the inclusion of LID storm drain infrastructure on public and private lands. The Plan is intended to serve as an implementation guide and reporting tool during this and subsequent Permit terms to provide reasonable assurance that urban runoff TMDL waste load allocations (e.g., for the San Francisco Bay mercury and PCBs TMDLs) will be met, and to set goals for reducing, over the long term, the adverse water quality impacts of urbanization and urban runoff on receiving waters.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program conducted various activities, some of which are described here, while others address specific sub-provisions of C.3.j and are described below. The Program addressed topics related to GI at meetings of the NDS, including information sharing on the member agencies’ activities to implement their GI Plans, reviewing examples of GI-related tools and guidance, and sharing information on efforts to obtain grant funding for local GI projects. Provision C.3.j.i.(4) Green Infrastructure Plan Outreach and Education Requirement: Provision C.3.j.i.(4) requires Permittees to conduct outreach and education on the requirements of Provision C.3.j and methods of implementation, including public outreach (both general outreach and targeted outreach to professionals involved in infrastructure planning and design); staff training (including planning, engineering, public works maintenance, finance, fire/life safety, and management staff); and education of appropriate Permittee elected officials (e.g., mayors, city council members, county supervisors, and district board members).

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program developed a field guide of green stormwater infrastructure facilities throughout Alameda County. The field guide featured projects in the Cities of Alameda, Dublin, Berkeley, San Leandro, Union City, Oakland, and the County’s Turner Court demonstration project, located in the City of Hayward. The field tour guide is included in Appendix A. Additionally, the C.3 training sponsored by the Program provided education on GSI to the member agencies and the development community. The field guide and Post-workshop report is included in Appendix A. Provision C.3.j.iii. Participate in Processes to Promote Green Infrastructure Requirement: Provision C.3.j.iii requires Permittees to, individually or collectively, track processes, assemble and submit information, and provide informational materials and presentations as needed to assist relevant regional, State, and federal agencies to plan, design, and fund incorporation of GSI measures into local infrastructure projects, including transportation projects. Issues to be addressed include coordinating the timing of funding from different sources, changes to standard designs and design criteria, ranking and prioritizing projects for funding, and implementation of cooperative in-lieu programs.

Program Activities: To support the member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program participated through BASMAA in sharing information about regional efforts and outreach. BASMAA and the NDS shared information on various workshops and seminars offered on GSI, including the Green Streets for Sustainable Communities seminar series, organized by Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities in October 2020; the Green Infrastructure Engagement and Outreach, organized by the Pacific Water Research Centre in December 2020; and the Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange. The fact that these sessions are being hosted by other entities is an indication of the growing awareness of GSI in Bay Area communities. Additionally, the NDS shared information on Measure AA grant opportunities that could potentially support GSI projects that other eligibility criteria.

Additionally, meetings of the NDS included information sharing regarding alternative compliance in-lieu fee programs, potential future development of criteria for land development and redevelopment projects, and other processes to promote GSI, including the sharing of information provided through BASMAA. Please see BASMAA’s Annual Report for additional information on regional participation in

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report processes to promote GSI, along with a regional plan and schedule for new and ongoing efforts to participate in processes to promote GSI. Provision C.3.j.iv. Tracking and Reporting Progress Requirement: Provision C.3.j.iv requires Permittees to, individually or collectively, develop and implement regionally consistent methods to track and report implementation of GSI measures including treated area and connected and disconnected impervious area on both public and private parcels within their jurisdictions. The methods shall also address tracking needed to provide reasonable assurance that waste load allocations for TMDLs, including the San Francisco Bay PCBs and mercury TMDLs, and trash, are being met.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program continued to support the Alameda Countywide GSI Mechanism (“GSI Mechanism”), for its member agencies to use in prioritizing and mapping areas for planned and potential GSI projects. The mechanism consists of the Alameda Countywide Multi-Benefit Metrics Prioritization Protocol (“prioritization protocol”) interface, in conjunction with the AGOL Tool described above, under the heading Provision C.3.b: Regulated Projects. The member agencies continued to use the AGOL Tool to track and map information on GSI measures implemented on public and private parcels. The Program is also preparing to develop a public interface of the AGOL Tool, which will make information on implemented GSI projects publicly available.

Additional Activities The Program held four meetings of the New Development Subcommittee (NDS), which is currently chaired by Daniel Matlock of the City of Fremont. The NDS provides a valuable venue for member agency staff members to share information, benefit from lessons learned by others, and receive training on permit requirements and products developed by the Program related to Provision C.3, as well as Provision C.6, Construction Site Control, and Provision C.13.a, Manage Waste Generated from Cleaning and Treating of Copper Architectural Features. Additionally, Program staff continued to provide on-call support to member agency requests for assistance regarding Provision C.3 compliance.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.4. Industrial and Commercial Site Controls Provision C.4.d. Inspections Requirement: Provision C.4.d requires Permittees to conduct inspections according to their Business Inspection Plan and Enforcement Response Plan to prevent stormwater pollution.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program produced the following outreach pieces: 1) finalized Tip Sheet for Grocery Store and Supermarket facilities, and 2) developed Tip Sheet for Fleet Service facilities. See Appendix B for the finalized Tip Sheets described above. Provision C.4.e. Staff Training Requirement: Provision C.4.e requires Permittees to provide focused training for industrial and commercial site inspectors and illicit discharge detection and elimination inspectors annually. Trainings may be program-wide, region-wide, or Permittee specific.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Clean Water Program’s Industrial and Illicit Discharge Subcommittee (IIDC) sponsored a virtual business inspectors training workshop on May 18, 2021. The on-line workshop focused on stormwater inspection basics. The workshop included the following presentations. • Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Illegal Dumping Pilot Program • Stormwater Business Inspections: Regulatory Basics and Resources • Enforcement 101 • Cannabis Cultivation Inspections for Stormwater • Case Study: Incorporating Outreach into Illicit Discharge Response • Other Tools for Inspectors: SMARTS and Mobile Business DA Referral Form

Presentation materials from the workshop are available to Clean Water Program Member Agencies for use as in-house training. Evaluation surveys showed that the training met expectations and overall the presentations were informative and useful with an average rating of 3.82 out of 4. See Appendix B for the workshop report that includes the agenda, attendance list, and evaluations. Additional Activities The Program held four Industrial and Illicit Discharge Control (IIDC) Subcommittee meetings during the fiscal year. Jose Soto, Union Sanitary District, was the chair of the Subcommittee. On average 16 people attended the meetings and shared information on MRP compliance and activities. The IIDC provides a valuable venue for member agency staff to share information, benefit from lessons learned by others, and receive information on permit requirements and products developed by the Program related to Provision C.4, as well as Provision C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination, Provision C.13.b. Manage Discharges from Pools, Spas and Fountains that Contain Copper-Based Chemicals, Provision C.13.c Copper Source Control for Industrial Sources, and C.15. Exempt and Conditionally Exempt Discharges.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Provision C.5.c. Spill, Dumping and Complaint Response Program Requirement: Provision C.5.c requires Permittees to implement a program to respond to spills, dumping and complaints.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program maintains a list of member agencies and a point of contact for reporting spills on the Clean Water Program website. The list is periodically updated. Provision C.5.e. Control of Mobile Sources Requirement: Provision C.5.e requires Permittees to implement a program to reduce the discharge of pollutants from mobile businesses. The program must include standard BMPs, an enforcement strategy, inventory, outreach strategy and inspections, as needed.

Program Activities: The categories of mobile businesses currently addressed by the Program include automobile washing, power washing, steam cleaning, carpet cleaners and pet care providers. These mobile business categories have minimum standards and BMPs identified in a series of five Tip Sheets developed by the Program: Fundraising Car Washes, Tips for Carpet Cleaners, Tips for Pet Care Providers, Tips for Power Washers and Tips for Mobile Businesses. All of the Tip Sheets are available on the Clean Water Program website.

Outreach to Mobile Businesses: The Program developed a countywide mobile business inventory from individual agencies, internet searches, the BASMAA surface cleaners list, SCVURPPP inventory and CCCWP inventory in FY16-17. A transmittal letter and the appropriate Tip Sheet was sent to the businesses on the countywide inventory in FY16-17. The countywide inventory is updated periodically with businesses identified by municipal inspectors. The inventory is available on the IIDC Subcommittee’s member only webpage.

Mobile Business Enforcement Strategy: In FY17-18, the IIDC Subcommittee worked with the Alameda County District Attorney’s (DA) office to develop an enforcement strategy for mobile businesses. When City and County IIDC inspectors issue an enforcement action to a mobile business they will also complete a Referral Form for the DA. The DA’s office will keep a list of mobile businesses that receive enforcement actions from all jurisdictions in Alameda County. If an individual business receives more than one enforcement action, even if they are from different jurisdictions, the DA’s office may choose to take action. The DA Referral Form is periodically emailed to the Subcommittee for reference and use. BASMAA maintains a Surface Cleaner Training and Recognition Program that educates mobile surface cleaners about proper BMPs to protect water quality and allows them to market themselves as “recognized” cleaners.

Additional Activities See Section C.4.e. above regarding illicit discharge related training included in the Industrial and Illicit Discharge workshop. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program activities are also discussed at the IIDC Subcommittee meetings. As mentioned in Section 4, there were four meetings held this fiscal year.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.6. Construction Site Control Requirement: Provision C.6.b requires each Permittee to implement a construction site inspection and control program at all construction sites, with follow-up and enforcement consistent with each Permittee’s respective enforcement response plan (ERP), to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into storm drains.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program included discussions of Provision C.6 requirements at meetings of the New Development Subcommittee (NDS), in which member agency staff could share information, learn from the experience of other agencies, and receive guidance and training from the Program. Examples of C.6-related topics addressed at NDS meetings include discussing preparations for the wet season and preliminary discussions of the C.6 training for 2021-2022 permit year. Additionally, Program staff continued to provide on-call support to member agency requests for assistance regarding Provision C.6 compliance. Provision C.6.e.ii.(1) Wet Season Notification Requirement: Provision C.6.e.ii.(1) requires Permittees to, by September 1 of each year, remind all site developers and/or owners disturbing one acre or more of soil, hillside projects, and high priority sites to prepare for the upcoming wet season.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, an email notification was sent to members of the NDS on August 26, 2020, regarding the requirement for member agencies to provide pre-wet season notifications by September 1, 2020, to all site developers or owners of hillside sites, high priority sites, and sites disturbing one acre or more of soil, in order to prepare for the upcoming wet season. Provision C.6.f. Staff Training

Requirement: Provision C.6.f requires Permittees to provide training at least every other year to municipal staff responsible for conducting construction site stormwater inspections.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program provides C.6 training every other year. The 2020-2021 workshop focused on C.3.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.7. Public Information and Outreach

Provision C.7.b. Outreach Campaigns Requirement: Provision C.7.b requires Permittees to participate in or contribute to outreach campaigns, with the goal of significantly increasing overall awareness of stormwater runoff pollution prevention messages and behavior changes in target audiences.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program conducted the following activities.

This year’s public outreach campaign effort focused on content creation, with the goal of using FY 21-22 funds to promote the content and tools. While creating the new content, the Program continued active promotion of existing messaging, using a strategy of smaller, digital promotions on low-cost media such as Facebook, Google and YouTube. We changed our social media strategy to engage more with member agency platforms, which has boosted engagement. We also integrated work with the Our Water Our World (OWOW) team to increase attendance of OWOW webinars, which are a key channel for promoting Clean Water messages related to home and garden practices. Here are summaries of key activities.

1. Fred & Izzy’s Pesticide-Free Garden Video for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Education The Program finished production of a Fred & Izzy Garden/IPM video in July 2021. The video production had been delayedCOVID-19.

2. Multi-lingual Fred & Izzy Videos In addition to producing the Garden/IPM video, the Program translated each of the three existing spots into Spanish and Cantonese. The videos have been uploaded to YouTube and will be promoted using funds from FY 21-22. www.youtube.com/channel/UCOFw3gvnzyhHCgUMEaYz-tA

3. Fred & Izzy PSA Content Creation During filming of the Garden video, the Program filmed 15 short “snippets” of the puppets on a green screen, covering outreach topics such as Coastal Cleanup Month, mercury bulb disposal, litter, pet waste, car washing, home maintenance and general storm drain/stormwater education and pollution prevention tips. Using FY 21-22 funds, these shorts will be edited into complete spots and will be run on social media and streaming video.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

4. The “Bay Begins at Your Front Door” Brochure and Digital Interactive Game Development In 2020, Clean Water Program created an update of the Bay Begins at Your Front Door brochure. Events where the brochures are normally distributed were cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions. The Program began development of an interactive version of the brochure that will be completed in October 2021.

5. Litter Hurts and Coastal Cleanup Promotion, September 2020 The promotion was timed to coincide with Coastal Cleanup Month. As COVID-19 restrictions limited organized events, the state pivoted to do-it-yourself (DIY) events and the use of the CleanSwell an app to track results. Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program aligned local promotion efforts with the state’s DIY Focus. During this month, we also promoted the Litter Hurts video on Facebook.

Date Campaign Promo activities Results

Aug/Sep Coastal Cleanup Day 2020 News release, E-blast: 2020 News Release page: E-blast, 1,122 recipients https://cleanwaterprogram.org/about- Facebook posts, 19.3% open rate us/news/144-september-is-coastal-cleanup- Tweets 22.1% click rate month.html

Event listing page: https://cleanwaterprogram.org/get- involved/volunteer-in-your-community.html

E-blast: https://t.e2ma.net/webview/6tj28c/1669726 40baf249102b1f3045f26a1f6

Sep 1-12 Litter Hurts Video Promotion Facebook Ad Reach: 17,284 Engagements: 4,390 Shares: 6 Clicks: 1,535

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

6. Earth Day at Home Campaign, Spring 2021 Due to continuing COVID-19 restrictions, in-person Earth Day activities were limited in 2021. To provide alternative options for engagement, the program promoted the downloadable activities developed in 2020: https://cleanwaterprogram.org/get-involved/earth-month-2021.html

Dates Campaign Content Promo activities Results Apr-May Earth Day at Home 2021 E-Blast E-blast to 1,141 1,090 unique 2021 Protect our waterways from home— contacts pageviews with avg. activity downloads for adults and kids. 3:27 min on site Facebook Posts, Activities download page: Tweets E-blast: https://cleanwaterprogram.org/get- 1,141 recipients involved/earth-month-2021.html 19.8% open rate 12% click rate

Activity Books and Tools Advertising Facebook Ads Facebook Reach: 23,402 Engagements: 509 Clicks: 396 Shares: 21 Clicks: 1,535

Promotional item Downloads Activity Books 222 Frogtastic Activity Pack 92 IPM Non-Toxic Recipe Card 45 Bee-At-Home 38 OWOW IPM Pocket Guide 2 Fred & Izzy Coloring Page 28 Total 427

7. Fishing Advisory Campaign The program ran a digital campaign in June 2021 to promote awareness of fish consumption health advisories. The ads targeted fishing and outdoor enthusiasts and included Facebook, display ads and search ads. In addition to digital advertising, an ad and paid article in Fish Sniffer Magazine reached 30,000 readers interested in fishing in California. Fish Sniffer also sent an e-blast to its full subscriber list with only our content. Digital ads clicked through to the Clean Water Program’s landing page: www.cleanwaterprogram.org/residents/fishing-and-health.html

The Fish Sniffer ads directed viewers directly to the State of California’s Fishing Advisory page.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Dates Campaign Content Promo activities Results

June 2021 Fishing in the Bay Website: 183 unique pageviews Promote awareness of fish with avg. 1:38 min on site consumption health advisories.

Content landing page: https://www.cleanwaterp rogram.org/residents/fishi ng-and-health.html

Animated GIF ad Google display ads, Display Ad search ads Impressions: 23,801 Search Ad, Text only by Clicks: 125 keywords CTR: 0.53%

Text Ad Impressions: 805 Clicks: 20 CTR: 2.48%

Image Ad Facebook/ Facebook Instagram ad Reach: 7,684 Engagements: 148 Shares: 2 Clicks: 138

Print Ad, Article Fish Sniffer Reach: 30,000 subscribers Magazine Advertising and E- blast

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

8. Hire a Certified Eco-Friendly Pest Contractor Ad Campaign In March 2021, the Program re-ran our ad to promote the services of certified pest control professionals that use less-toxic methods.

Dates Campaign Content Promo activities Results

March Pest Control at Home Web content Website: 306 unique 2021 Promote the hiring of pageviews with avg. 0:58 min certified, less-toxic pest on site professionals.

Content landing page: https://cleanwaterprogram.or g/residents/pest-control-at- home.html

Animated GIF Ad Google display ads, Display Ad Impressions: 12,977 search ads Clicks: 255

CTR: 1.97% Search Ad, Text only by Text Ad keywords Impressions: 5,634 Clicks: 58 CTR: 1.03%

Image Ad Facebook/ Facebook Instagram ad Reach: 5,387 Engagements: 113 Shares: 0 Clicks: 67

9. Our Water Our World Webinar Promotions Clean Water Program’s support of the Our Water Our World regional outreach efforts is an important way to reach people “on the ground” by influencing their choice of home and garden products, and promoting non-toxic ways to maintain yards and gardens. In 2020-21, the Program developed a series of online webinars to replace in- person classes. The C7/Public Outreach team supported this effort with an integrated promotional strategy that more than doubled interest and attendance of these webinars.

The Clean Water Program promoted the webinar with a series of e- blasts as well as Facebook ads, in addition to organic social media content. All clicked through to the webinar registration page.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Date Webinar Title Promotions Results

April Webinar #1: Healthy Gardening from E-blast, Facebook E-blast Reach: 1136 2021 the Ground Up posts, ads & Opens: 223 events Tweets Social Reach: 6,166

Registrations: 139 Attendance: 94 May Webinar #2: Waterwise Gardening E-blast, Facebook E-blast Reach: 1159 2021 101 posts, ads & Opens: 205 events Tweets Social Reach: 6,827

Registrations: 126 Attendance: 84 June Webinar #3: Gardening for the Good E-blast, Facebook E-blast Reach: 1166 2021 Bugs posts, ads & Opens: 223 events Tweets Social Reach: 4,528

Registrations: 144 Attendance: 84 July Webinar #4: Drought-Proof Your E-blast, Facebook E-blast Reach: 1166 2021 Garden posts, ads & Opens: 223 (promo events, Tweets Social Reach: 8,310 ted in June) Registrations: 308 Attendance: 179

Provision C.7.c.: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Education Requirement: Provision C.7.c: Permittees shall continue to maintain a point of contact to provide the public with stormwater pollution prevention information.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program conducted the following activities.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

1. Website & Website Promotions The Program’s website can be found at www.cleanwaterprogram.org. Besides comprehensive content on commercial stormwater pollution prevention issues, compliance guidelines and resources, the website offers sections on the local watersheds and pollutants monitoring, the program’s school outreach, as well as content tailored to residents, promoting everyday practices to help prevent stormwater pollution. Focus areas include toxics reduction and runoff prevention in home and garden, less toxic pest control at home, car care, litter prevention, healthy fish consumption and local volunteer opportunities. Users can connect with the Program through email or phone, listed in the “Contact Us” section.

In FY 2020/21, the website received 15,265 visits ("sessions”). During those visits a total of 34,035 pageviews occurred. That means an average of just over 2 pages (2.23) were viewed during each visit. The graphs below show sessions per week over the reporting period.

Website traffic July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021:

The site receives steady “baseline” traffic to pages tailored to the commercial audience, due to compliance requirements. “Peaks” in traffic are typically due to residential traffic that ebbs and flows with seasonal and topic-specific promotions. Throughout the reporting period, the Program launched several outreach efforts to drive traffic to specific portions (pages) of the residential website content.

Typically, efforts included a press release, one or more e-blasts to the Program’s e-news subscribers and social media posts. The campaigns described in section C.7.b. also used online advertising (YouTube video ads, Google display ads, search ads, text ads and/or Facebook ads), resulting in periods of particularly high website traffic in September 2020, late March 2021, late April 2021 and May 2021. The peaks in the graph above correspond to our targeted campaign efforts.

About the e-blasts: The Program maintains an email database of currently 1,174 active contacts. Residents can opt into receiving e-blasts via a signup form on the website or at outreach/tabling events.

Besides sending e-blasts to the Program’s email list the content was pitched directly to selected local media outlets to promote coverage, as well as to other contacts such as neighborhood and creek

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report groups, local chambers of commerce and member cities that can help increase the Program’s reach by including an announcement like the grants in their own e-blast, newsletter or website listing, share a social media post, etc. In FY 20-21, this resulted in a frontpage article in the Castro Valley Forum about watershed issues.

2. Social Media The Program has a presence on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, with page content managed on a weekly basis. The posting strategy includes promoting Clean Water Program projects, events and issues through original content, sharing member agency posts, monthly paid promotions and posts about local watershed related events. Posts were made weekly from 7/1 – 9/30, 2020 and then again from 2/10 – 6/30, 2021.

Facebook - www.facebook.com/CleanWaterProgram

The Program’s Facebook page currently has 1,286 followers. During the one-year reporting period, the page reached 140,926 users. Paid promotions reached over 132,700 people and received 3,290 link clicks.

Instagram - www.instagram.com/cleanwaterprog/

The Program’s Instagram page currently has 172 followers. In the last 60 days, the page reached 453 accounts with 49 interactions. 66% of reach was from paid promotions.

Twitter – https://twitter.com/CleanWaterProg

The Program’s Twitter page has 83 followers. During FY 2020/21, the Program increased the number of tweets to 44, up from only 22 in the previous year. Tweets received over 29,900 impressions, 44 link clicks, 42 retweets and 49 likes. Provision C.7.e.: Watershed Stewardship Collaborative Efforts Requirement: Provision C.7.e. requires permittees to encourage and support development of grassroots watershed groups or engagement of an existing group, such as a neighborhood association, in watershed stewardship activities.

To fulfill this requirement, the program is planning to host a webinar featuring local stewardship groups to promote responsible outdoor recreation in watersheds in Alameda County. For their participation, the groups will receive $2,500 grant to develop content that weaves messages about pollution prevention into a presentation about recreational activities such as hiking, kayaking and fishing, and to promote the webinar. The webinar will include a segment on a different section of our watersheds (hills, creeks, reservoirs/lakes, and the estuary/Bay.) The recorded webinar will also be available on the Program’s YouTube channel and to the participating groups and promoted in the next fiscal year. The webinar is scheduled for early October 2021.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

The Program sent a solicitation to 28 groups to submit a proposal. Eleven sent responses and five are identified as finalists, based on proposed content and reach in the community. Four will be chosen for the webinar:

1. Latino Outdoors — Boating and fishing 2. Mary Spicer (I Heart Oakland & Alameda Estuary) — Kayaking and other water sports 3. Friends of Sausal Creek – Hiking, dog walking 4. Friends of Joaquin Miller Park – Hiking 5. The East Bay Regional Park Foundation— Hiking, biking

In addition to the Community Stewardship Grants, the Program also continued to promote volunteer opportunities and provided social media support to watershed stewardship groups.

Provision C.7.f.: School-Age Children Outreach Provision C.7.f. requires Permittees to implement outreach activities designed to increase awareness of stormwater and/or watershed message(s) in school-age children (K through 12). During FY 2020/21, school outreach was performed by two of the environmental education organizations contracted by the Program: Caterpillar Puppets and Kids for the Bay.

The in-person school education programs had to be put on hold due to COVID-19 in March 2020, however, two of the three organizations on contract with the Program were able to develop web-based programs and complete their scheduled lessons. Unfortunately, Livermore Area Park and Recreation was not able to convert their Stream Life program to an online format. See Appendix C for 2020/21 reports including details on level of effort, spectrum of children reached, methods used, and evaluation of the effectiveness of these efforts.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.8. Water Quality Monitoring All water quality monitoring activities required by Provision C.8 are coordinated regionally through the Regional Monitoring Coalition (RMC), a collaborative effort of MRP Permittees under the auspices of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Provision C.8.a. Compliance Options Requirement: Provision C.8.a outlines mechanisms that Permittees may choose to meet the monitoring requirements in Provision C.8.

Program Activities: As reported during the previous permit term, all Alameda Permittees notified the Water Board in 2010 that they would participate in the RMC and that monitoring would be coordinated through the Program. This agreement has been confirmed through authorization of the Program’s annual work plans. Program staff and consultants participated in seasonal meetings of the RMC Work Group to coordinate planning and activities. Provision C.8.b. Monitoring Protocols and Data Quality Requirement: Provision C.8.b requires that, where applicable, monitoring data must be Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) comparable.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program continued to ensure that monitoring activities follow the RMC Quality Assurance Project Plan and Standard Operating Procedures, as updated by the RMC in FY 2015/16 to incorporate changes in the MRP requirements and SWAMP standards. The Program conducted quality control review of the monitoring reports prepared by its consultants. Provision C.8.c. San Francisco Estuary Receiving Water Monitoring Requirement: Provision C.8.c requires that Permittees participate in implementing an Estuary receiving water monitoring program, at a minimum equivalent to the San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) by contributing their fair-share financially on an annual basis.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program made its fair-share annual contributions to the RMP during the reporting period. The Program participated in stakeholder oversight of the RMP through BASMAA representation on the Steering and Technical Review Committees; Sources, Pathways and Loadings Workgroup; and additional Strategy Teams for PCBs, Mercury, Small Tributaries, Sport Fish, and Nutrients. BASMAA representatives participated on the following RMP work groups or teams on behalf of the Program:

• Sources, Pathways and Loadings Work Group; • Small Tributaries Loading Strategy Team; and • Emerging Contaminants Work Group. Participation included attending meetings or conference calls, reviewing technical reports and work products, reviewing articles included in the RMP’s annual update, and providing general program direction to RMP staff. Provision C.8.d. Creek Status Monitoring Requirement: Provision C.8.d requires Permittees to conduct Creek Status monitoring to answer the following questions:

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

• Are water quality objectives, both numeric and narrative, being met in local receiving waters, including creeks, rivers, and tributaries? • Are conditions in local receiving waters supportive of or likely to be supportive of beneficial uses? Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program implemented all Creek Status Monitoring for Water Year (WY, the 12-month period ending September 30) 2021 in coordination with other RMC programs and according to the seasonal requirements in the previous and current permits. Results will be reported in the Urban Creeks Monitoring Report (UCMR) to be submitted by March 31, 2022 as required by Provision C.8.h. Provision C.8.e. Stressor/Source Identification (SSID) Projects Requirement: Provision C.8.e requires Permittees to initiate SSID projects as follow up when monitoring results exceed certain values or criteria listed for parameters in C.8.d and C.8.g. This provision describes a process for selecting and conducting SSID projects, oriented toward taking action(s) to alleviate stressors and reduce sources of pollutants to receiving waters. Permittees are required to:

• Review results of monitoring (C.8.d and C.8.g) annually and maintain a list of all results exceeding thresholds described therein. Pollutant of Concern Monitoring (C.8.f) results may be included on the list as appropriate. • Select follow up SSID projects from the list developed in C.8.e.i. based on criteria such as magnitude of threshold exceedance; parameter (or a variety of parameters); likelihood that stormwater management action(s) could address the exceedance; and similar priorities. Permittees who conduct and report SSID projects through a regional collaborative (e.g. the RMC) shall collectively initiate a minimum of eight new SSID projects (minimum of one for toxicity) during the Permit term. • Conduct site specific SSID project(s) (or non-site specific if the problem is widespread) in a stepwise process described in C.8.e.iii. A minimum of half the required number of SSID projects must be started (i.e. at a minimum have a workplan) by the third year of the permit term, with the goal of completing the technical SSID investigation step 2 for at least half of the projects by the end of the permit term. • Submit an SSID status report in each UCMR which summarizes the actions taken in regard to C.8.e.i-iii.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program provided a final report for two SSID projects and a status report for one active SSID project, as described below:

• Castro Valley Creek Sediment Quality - This SSID project was initiated in the previous permit term based on a combination of triggers including a “very poor” IBI score and elevated sediment chemistry concentrations at Site 204R00047. However, the WY 2017 progress report confirmed that the pollutant concentrations in Castro Valley Creek sediments are typical of urbanized areas in California. Additional monitoring was conducted in WY 2018, and the project was closed in October 2018. The Final Report for this SSID project was included in the March, 2020 IMR. • Exploring CSCI Results and the Outcomes of Restoration Activities Along Sausal Creek – This SSID project investigated low California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) scores and the impacts of restoration activities along Sausal Creek, which has a watershed encompassing nearly 2,700 acres in Oakland. The SSID study evaluated whether benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) metrics

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

improved from pre-project conditions in reaches with restoration projects and assessed whether biological conditions associated with previously measured sub-optimal CSCI scores are a function of recovery/maturation stage or are due to previously unidentified stressors. Data collection and sampling began in Spring 2018, and the first SSID annual progress report was issued in the WY 2018 UCMR in March 2019. Data collection and sampling continued in WY 2019 and did not reveal a stressor/source. The Final Report for this SSID project was included in the March, 2020 IMR. • Investigating Contributors to Nutrient / Eutrophication Biological Indicators in the Arroyo Las Positas Watershed – This SSID project is investigating factors contributing to ongoing impairment in the Arroyo Las Positas Watershed, which covers roughly 80 square miles in and around Livermore. This project was triggered by historic sampling results showing high nitrate concentrations, high pH measurements, and both supersaturated and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Additionally, benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage metrics were well outside the range of scores for minimally disturbed reference sites. BMI and nutrient sampling started in summer 2019 and continued in 2020. Efforts planned for 2020 were largely precluded due to the shelter-in-place restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Alternative tools for assessing eutrophication (including continuous monitoring equipment and alternative laboratory methods) were identified and are being tested in 2021. Results will be combined with data from the Water Board’s TMDL-related monitoring efforts in the watershed to get an enhanced picture of the causes of impairment in the watershed.

Additionally, BASMAA completed a regional SSID project on behalf of all RMC members in FY 2019/20, which investigated sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from electrical utility equipment in watersheds draining to the San Francisco Bay Basin. The final SSID project report was provided in the FY 2019/20 Annual Report. Provision C.8.f. Pollutants of Concern Monitoring Requirement: Provision C.8.f requires that Permittees conduct Pollutants of Concern (POC) Monitoring to assess inputs of POCs to the Bay from local tributaries and urban runoff, provide information to support implementation of TMDLs and other pollutant control strategies, assess progress toward achieving waste load allocations for TMDLs and help resolve uncertainties associated with loading estimates and impairments associated with these pollutants. In particular, monitoring required by this provision must be directed toward addressing up to five priority POC management information needs (described in MRP Table 8.1, POC Monitoring Methods) for each of the priority POCs listed in MRP Table 8.2, POC Monitoring Parameters, Effort and Type – which identifies the minimum effort and type of samples to be collected for each POC.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program continued water quality sampling in WY 2021 for copper and nutrients to address information on Monitoring Type #4 (Loads and Presence/Absence) and trends in POC loading to the Bay and POC concentrations in urban stormwater discharges or local tributaries over time (Monitoring Type #5). The Program conducted WY 2021 urban sediment / soil sampling to identify potential sources of PCBs to address Monitoring Types #1 and #2 (Source Identification and Contributions to Bay Impairment) in July 2021. In January 2021, the Program also conducted precipitation-based water quality monitoring to characterize PCB and Hg concentrations in runoff from an old industrial area.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Results for WY 2021 POC monitoring will be reported in the March 2022 Urban Creeks Monitoring Report. As required by Provision C.8.h.iv, WY 2021 POC monitoring accomplishments will be summarized in the next ACCWP POC Monitoring Report, which will also describe allocations of POC monitoring efforts planned for WY 2022 and be submitted by October 15, 2021.

Through the Regional Monitoring Program’s Sources Pathways and Loading Work Group (SPLWG) and Emerging Contaminants Work Group (ECWG), Program staff initiated a project in 2018 to ensure that the RMP’s Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CEC) Strategy addresses the MRP requirement that Permittees conduct or cause to be conducted a special study that addresses relevant management information needs for emerging contaminants1 by the end of the current permit term. Pilot sampling began in 2019 in close coordination with the Small Tributaries Loading Strategy (STLS) work group. Year- two, in 2019, included additional CECs (organophosphate esters (OPEs) and bisphenol A and S). Based on recommendations from the ECWG in April 2020, the RMP approved year three and an additional fourth year of monitoring to supplement the initial monitoring and provide more robust data across a better representation of watersheds. The final reports for this study are anticipated in fall 2022.

The RMP updated the CEC Strategy in 2020 to include an additional secondary factor for the tiered risk- based framework that addresses persistence of CECs in the environment and a strategy for supplementing the tiered risk-based framework with predictive toxicology. In 2021, the ECWG Multi- Year Work Plan was updated to include an overall strategy for prioritizing CECs, conducting ongoing monitoring, and linking monitoring data with modeling to evaluate sources, pathways, loadings and trends of priority CECs. Other planned updates to the overall CECs strategy in 2021 include developing a comprehensive CECs monitoring strategy, focusing on urban stormwater runoff, and piloting wet weather monitoring in fall 2021 for moderate concern contaminants (including ethoxylated surfactants, organophosphate esters (OPEs), and Bisphenol plastic additives) in Bay water to evaluate stormwater influence on Bay concentrations. The ECWG also plans to better align its work and special studies to leverage related work in other RMP workgroups, e.g., the Microplastics Workgroup and the Sources, Pathways and Loadings Workgroup. Lastly, the RMP continues to develop a multi-pollutant modeling effort that will be linked to the CECs stormwater monitoring strategy and will be designed to incorporate stormwater runoff-related impacts to the Bay.

Provision C.8.g. Pesticides and Toxicity Monitoring Requirement: Provision C.8.g requires Permittees to conduct wet weather and dry weather monitoring of pesticides and toxicity in urban creeks. If a statewide coordinated pesticides and pesticides-related toxicity monitoring program begins collecting data on an ongoing basis during the Permit term, Permittees may request the Executive Officer modify, reduce, or eliminate this monitoring requirement.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program conducted dry weather toxicity and pesticide monitoring in water and sediment during June 2021. Results for WY 2020 were reported in the

1 The special study must account for relevant CECs in stormwater and would address at least perfluorooctane sulfonates (PFOS), perfluoroalkyl sulfonates (PFAS), and alternative flame retardants being used to replace polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs). The RMP has completed work on PFAS and PFOA The RMP developed and funded a special study in 2018 to review available data and previously developed conceptual models for PBDEs to support a stormwater-related alternative flame retardants conceptual model.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

March 2021 UCMR as required by Provision C.8.h. In WY 2018, in coordination with other RMC members, the Program conducted wet weather toxicity and pesticide monitoring collaboratively through the RMC. There was no monitoring conducted in WY 2020 for wet season pesticides and toxicity. All MRP 2 monitoring requirements were satisfied through the WY 2018 RMC collaboration. Analyses of results from pesticide and toxicity monitoring conducted by the Program in Water Year 2020, as well as monitoring conducted in Water Years 2014 through 2018, were presented along with other regionally designed Creek Status Monitoring parameters in the March 2020 Integrated Monitoring Report. Provision C.8.h. Reporting Requirement: Provision C.8.h requires Permittees to submit the following by March 31 of each year, concerning data collected during the previous October 1–September 30 period (Water Year):

• Electronic data to the California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN), including results from monitoring conducted pursuant to Provisions C.8.d, C.8.e, C.8.f and C.8.g. Data that CEDEN cannot accept are exempt from this requirement. • A comprehensive Urban Creeks Monitoring Report (UCMR) on these results. • An Integrated Monitoring Report, in lieu of the UCMR and which reports on all of the data collected since the previous Integrated Monitoring Report, in 2020.

By October 15 of each year of the permit (beginning in 2016), the Permittees shall submit a Pollutants of Concern (POC) Monitoring Report describing the allocation of sampling effort for POC monitoring (required by Provision C.8.f) for the forthcoming year (i.e., the water year that began October 1 of that year) and what was accomplished for POC monitoring during the preceding water year.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program submitted its POC Monitoring Report in October 2020, its comprehensive IMR and electronic data in March 2021, and submitted its annual electronic data deliverable and UCMR in March 2021.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.9. Pesticide Toxicity Control Provision C.9.d. Interface with County Agricultural Commissioners Requirement: Provision C.9.d. requires that Permittees maintain communications with county agricultural commissioners to (a) get input and assistance on urban pest management practices and use of pesticides, (b) inform them of water quality issues related to pesticides, and (c) report any observed or citizen-reported violations of pesticide regulations (e.g., illegal handling and applications of pesticides) associated with stormwater management, particularly the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) surface water protection regulations for outdoor, nonagricultural use of pyrethroid pesticides by any person performing pest control for hire.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program contacted the County Agricultural Department to discuss any issues with the implementation of pest control regulations. County Ag provided the following update:

1) In 2020 despite COVID-19 operational restrictions the County Agricultural Department maintained a regulatory enforcement presence in our community as required by law, and conducted numerous inspections and investigations in response to complaints and incidents. During these activities our inspectors document violations and conduct various types of enforcement response. Frequently encountered violations include: unlicensed or unregistered pest control companies; employees not wearing required personal protective equipment; pesticides not applied in accordance with label requirements; and, failure to submit monthly pesticide reports. Public complaints by residents are frequently received with concern about nearby pesticide use by pest control companies, agencies, or nearby residents. 2) Because of the recent concerns with carcinogenicity of glyphosate in recent months/years, many agencies and applicators are moving away from glyphosate and seeking alternatives. 3) In January 2021, AB1788 banned the use of all second generation anticoagulants in California in general pest control and on the consumer market. These materials are specifically; Brodificoum, Bromadiolone, Difenacoum, and Difethialone. There are exceptions to the ban including agricultural uses, and other special district, governmental, and regulatory type applications. The ban should result in a steep decline in the use of these materials this year.

Provision C.9.e.ii (1) Public Outreach: Point of Purchase Requirement: Provision C.9.e.ii(1) requires Permittees to:

• Conduct outreach to consumers at the point of purchase; • Provide targeted information on proper pesticide use and disposal, potential adverse impacts on water quality, and less toxic methods of pest prevention and control; and • Participate in and provide resources for the “Our Water, Our World” (OWOW) program or a functionally-equivalent pesticide use reduction outreach program.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program contracted with Plant Harmony to implement the OWOW program in 26 stores in Alameda County including all nine Home Depot stores. Seventeen training events were conducted and 136 employees received training. The report on the

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

ACCWP FY 2020/21 Our Water Our World (OWOW) activities and its effectiveness are included in Appendix C. The Program also provides targeted information on proper pesticide use and disposal, potential adverse impacts on water quality, and less toxic methods of pest prevention and control through its website.

Provision C.9.e.ii (2) Pest Control Contracting Outreach The Permit requires that the Permittees conduct outreach to residents who use or contract for structural pest control and landscape professionals by (a) explaining the links between pesticide usage and water quality; and (b) providing information about IPM in structural pest management certification programs and landscape professional trainings; and (c) disseminating tips for hiring structural pest control operators and landscape professionals such as the tips prepared by the University of California Extension IPM Program (UC-IPM).

Program Activities: The Program explains the links between pesticide usage and water quality in numerous outreach efforts including a new Fred and Izzy video promoting IPM (See Provision C.7 Public Information and Outreach section for details). To promote pest control companies that use integrated pest management (IPM), the Program re-ran our ad to promote the services of certified pest control professionals that use less-toxic methods. See Section C.7.b.8 for details.

Provision C.9.e.ii (3) Outreach to Pest Control Professionals Permit Requirement: The Permittees shall conduct outreach to pest control operators, urging them to promote IPM services to customers and to become IPM-certified by EcoWise Certified or a functionally-equivalent certification program.

Program Activities: In FY 2017/18 the Program sent a letter to all pest control companies registered in Alameda County that encouraged them to provide and promote IPM services to their customers. In FY 2018/19, the Program created a digital ad promoting EcoWise Certified and other IPM services providers, as having customers reach out to pest control professionals and request IPM services seems like a more productive approach. The Program is continuing to promote EcoWise Certified contractors on its website ( www.ecowisecertified.org ).

Provision C.9.f. Track and Participate in the Regulatory Processes The Permittees shall conduct the following activities, which may be done at a county, regional, or state wide level: (1) The Permittees shall track U.S. EPA pesticide evaluation and registration activities as they relate to surface water quality and, when necessary, encourage U.S. EPA to coordinate implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Clean Water Act (CWA) and to accommodate water quality concerns within its pesticide registration process; (2) The Permittees shall track DPR pesticide evaluation activities as they relate to surface water quality and, when necessary, encourage DPR to coordinate implementation of the California Food and Agriculture Code with the California Water Code and to accommodate water quality concerns within its pesticide evaluation process; (3) The Permittees shall assemble and submit information (such as monitoring data) as needed to assist DPR and county agricultural commissioners in ensuring that pesticide applications comply with WQS; and (4) As appropriate, the Permittees shall submit comment letters on U.S. EPA and DPR re- registration, re-evaluation, and other actions relating to pesticides of concern for water quality.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Program Activities: The Program fulfilled this requirement through participation in and financial support of the CASQA Pesticide Subcommittee activities. See CASQA’s Pesticide Subcommittee Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment in Appendix D.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.10: Trash Load Reduction Provision C.10.a. Trash Reduction Requirements Requirement: Provision C.10.a requires Permittees to reduce their trash load by 70% by July 1, 2017, and 80% by July 1, 2019.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies to comply with this provision, the Program provided technical assistance with the mapping of generation rates, full trash capture devices, full trash capture device treatment areas, private lands drainage areas, and trash management areas. The Program has also established a Trash Subcommittee that met three times in FY 2021. The Subcommittee was chaired by Elisa Wilfong, City of Hayward, throughout the fiscal year. The Subcommittee has provided a forum for disseminating technical information, providing training on ArcGIS Online applications, and sharing information among member agencies. Provision C.10.b.i. Full Trash Capture Systems Requirement: Provision C.10.b.i. Permittees shall maintain, and provide for inspection and review upon request, documentation of the design, operation, and maintenance of each of their full trash capture systems, including the mapped location and drainage area served by each system.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program has developed and continues to enhance an ARC GIS Online tool that allows member agencies to document and track the maintenance of each of their full trash capture devices including the mapped location, drainage area, and maintenance history. Provision C.10.b.ii.b. Visual Assessment of Outcomes Requirement: Provision C.10.b.ii.b. requires Permittees to conduct visual on-land assessment, including photo documentation, or other acceptable assessment method (see C.10.b.ii.b.(iv.)), of each trash generation area within which it is implementing other trash management actions or combination of actions other than full trash capture, to determine or verify the effectiveness of the action or combination of actions.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program has developed an ARC GIS Online tool that allows member agencies to document and track their visual assessment results. Provision C.10.b.iv. Source Control Provision C.10.b.ii.b.iv. allows Permittees to claim a reduction credit of up to 10% of their baseline load for source control actions such as single-use bag bans and polystyrene bans.

Single-Use Bag Ban

An expanded Countywide Single-Use Bag Ban (Ban) was adopted by Alameda County Waste Management Authority (Stopwaste) on October 26, 2016. The original Ban went into effect in January 2013, and required that grocery stores and other stores in Alameda County that sell alcohol or four items, milk, bread, packaged food and soda, no longer provide single-use plastic carryout bags, nor distribute paper bags or reusable bags for free at checkout. The original Ban covered approximately

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

1,300 stores in the County. The expanded ban includes two phases. The first phase went into effect on May 1, 2017 and expands the ban to include all retail stores except retail food establishments. This phase of the Ban expands the number of stores covered from approximately 1,300 to approximately 9,000 stores. This is a nearly seven-fold increase in the number of stores covered. The second phase of the Ban went into effect in November 2017 and expanded the Ban to include all public eating establishments. Approximately 5,000 public eating establishments are now also covered by the Single- Use Bag Ban. The Program funded the expansion of the Bag Ban through an $180,000 contribution to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority.

Assessment: The following methods were used to assess the effectiveness of the original Ban: (1) Inspection and Enforcement; (2) Parking lot survey; (3) Voluntary data reporting; and, (4) Characterization of single-use bags in storm drains. Stopwaste has implemented an inspection and enforcement program. Nearly every store covered by the ban has been inspected. Enforcement actions were initiated against stores that were not fully compliant. These enforcement actions should increase the effectiveness of the ordinance over time. Stopwaste also conducted a pre and post-ordinance survey of bag usage in the parking lots of 17 stores covered by the ordinance. Results of the survey indicated that there was a 95% reduction in the use of plastic bags at those stores following the implementation of the ordinance. Sixty-nine stores covered by the ordinance participated in a voluntary data reporting exercise. Participating stores provided data on the number of single-use plastic bags purchased before and after the start of the ban. Based on these results, Stopwaste estimated that there was an 85% reduction in plastic bags purchased by the stores covered by the ban. This equates to approximately 150 million fewer bags purchased. The Program worked with Stopwaste during FY 2013/14 to conduct a study to assess the reduction in the number of plastic bags found in storm drains after the implementation of the ordinance compared to what was found during the BASMAA baseline loading study conducted during FY 2011/12. The BASMAA study found that 8% of the trash found in storm drains was single-use plastic bags. The Alameda Countywide Storm Drain Trash Monitoring and Characterization Project (Characterization Project) found significantly fewer single-use bags in the storm drain inlets throughout the County as compared to the BASMAA study. Initial results indicated an estimated 44% reduction. Based on the results of these assessment efforts and the previous characterization conducted by BASMAA, Program staff recommended that, in the absence of additional jurisdiction specific information, Permittees should estimate that the single-use bag ban reduced the discharge of single-use bags by 50% which equates to an estimated 4% reduction in trash discharged to their storm drain system. Now that the Ban has been expanded from approximately 1,300 to 14,000 stores, Program staff recommends that Permittees estimate that the trash discharged is reduced by 6%. The temporary restrictions on customers brining reusable bags to grocery stores due to COVID-19 may have caused an increase in single-use bags, but there are not enough data available to quantify any change.

Expanded Polystyrene Food Ware Bans

The following eleven cities within the County have adopted expanded polystyrene (EPS) food ware bans: Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City. The County of Alameda has also adopted a polystyrene ban that applies to the unincorporated area of the County.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Assessment: One of the goals of the Characterization Project was to develop an estimate of the effectiveness of EPS food ware bans at reducing the amount of EPS food ware discharged to the storm drain system. As the City of San Leandro ban went into effect after the completion of the BASMAA baseline study and prior to the implementation of the Project, and twenty-five of the 47 Alameda County sites included in the BASMAA Baseline Study were located in San Leandro, the assessment of the effectiveness of EPS food ware bans focused on San Leandro. Initial results of the Project suggest an estimated 62% reduction in the amount of EPS food ware discharged to the storm drain system following the implementation of the ban. Based on the results of the Project and the previous characterization conducted by BASMAA, Program staff recommend that, in the absence of additional jurisdiction specific information, Permittees should estimate that an EPS food ware ban equates to an estimated 4% reduction in trash discharged to the their storm drain system. Again, COVID-19 restrictions may have had an effect on polystyrene usage, but there are not enough data available to quantify a change. Provision C.10.b.v.b. Receiving Water Monitoring Provision C.10.b.v.b. required Permittees to submit a Final Report on implementation of the Receiving Water Trash Monitoring Program Plan to the Executive Officer of the Water Board by July 1, 2020.

Program Activities: The Final Report was developed as a regional project through BASMAA and submitted to the Water Board on behalf of Permittees. Provision C.10.e.i. Optional Trash Load Reduction Offset Opportunities/Additional Creek and Shoreline Cleanup

Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program has developed an ARC GIS Online tool that allows member agencies to document and track their creek and shoreline cleanup efforts. Additional Activities The Program also conducted anti-litter public outreach efforts. See Provision C.7 reporting for details.

In addition, the Program participates in regional activities on trash-related issues. Starting in January 2020, ACCWP staff member Beth Baldwin began serving as Chair of the BASMAA Trash Committee which meets bimonthly. The Committee is composed of Permittees, Water Board staff, Caltrans representatives, NGOs, and Stormwater Program Managers and staff. It provides a forum for members to discuss compliance-related matters under MRP 2.0, receive updates from Water Board staff and Caltrans, and hear from guest speakers on various trash topics.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.11. Mercury Controls Provisions in C.11 reflect the implementation plan incorporated in the Basin Plan through the TMDL for mercury in San Francisco Bay. The MRP Fact Sheet describes a General Strategy for Sediment-Bound Pollutants that progresses from pilot testing of controls in a few specific locations, through focused implementation in areas where benefits are likely to accrue, to full-scale implementation throughout the region where warranted by understanding the effectiveness of each control measure or activity. As noted in the MRP 2 Fact Sheet, the current permit emphasizes focused implementation and in some cases movement towards full-scale implementation.

Most of the MRP provisions for mercury are similar to provisions in C.12 for controlling PCBs; in this permit term management decisions may be driven predominantly by considerations for reducing PCBs loads but are expected to also result in mercury load reductions that will be accounted for. Permittees may comply with any requirement of this provision through a collaborative effort. Provision C.11.a. Implement Control Measures to Achieve Mercury Load Reductions Requirement: Provision C.11.a requires Permittees to:

• Identify the watersheds or portions of watersheds (management areas) in which mercury control measures are currently being implemented and those in which new control measures will be implemented during the term of MRP 2; • Identify the control measures that are currently being implemented and those that will be implemented in these watersheds or management areas; • Submit a schedule of control measure implementation; and • Implement mercury source and treatment control measures and pollution prevention strategies and quantify mercury load reductions achieved by using the accounting methods established according to provision C.11.b.

Program Activities: To comply with the requirements of this provision, Program staff and consultants have been assisting and coordinating Permittees’ review of potential High Priority areas and source properties for mercury and PCBs load reduction that were identified through a source area screening process initiated with the Integrated Monitoring Report2 in 2014. Pursuant to Provision C.11.a.iii(2), the Program has prepared a report documenting the list of the watersheds or management areas within Alameda County and the specific control measures being implemented or to be implemented during the permit term. See Appendix E for the Mercury and PCBs Watershed/Management Areas, Control Measures, and Load Reduction – Update 2021 report which is submitted on behalf of all ACCWP Permittees to comply with Provision C.11.a.iii (3). The Information in this report has been updated to account for additional control measures implemented during FY 20120/21. Provision C.11.b. Assess Mercury Load Reductions from Stormwater Requirement: Provision C.11.b requires Permittees to develop and implement an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify, in a technically sound manner, mercury loads reduced through implementation of pollution prevention, source control, and treatment control

2 ACCWP Integrated Monitoring Report Part C: PCBs and Mercury Load Reduction Planning. March 14, 2014.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report measures to demonstrate progress toward achieving the interim load reductions required in this permit term.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program participated in a regional project on behalf of all Permittees, conducted through the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). Program staff worked with BASMAA’s contractors and Water Board staff to document, update and refine the load reduction accounting system described in the MRP 2 Fact Sheet. The regional Interim Accounting Methodology for TMDL Loads Reduced report was approved by the Executive Officer in May 2017. The Mercury and PCBs Watershed/Management Areas, Control Measures, and Load Reduction – Update 2021 report (Appendix E) implements the Interim Accounting Methodology to estimate the mercury and PCBs loads reduced by the Permittees to date.

Provisions C.11.b requires the Permittees to submit, in 2018 and subsequent Annual Reports, refinements to the Interim Accounting Methodology to assess load reductions in the next permit term. The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to refine the source control measure load reduction accounting methods for the next permit term. The BASMAA Source Control Load Reduction Accounting for Reasonable Assurance Analysis report was included with the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Annual Report. Comments were received from the Regional Water Board on the BASMAA Source Control Load Reduction Accounting for Reasonable Assurance Analysis report in April 2021. A revised report will be submitted for Executive Officer approval in Fiscal Year 2021/22. Provision C.11.c. Plan and Implement Green Infrastructure to Reduce Mercury Loads Requirement: Provision C.11.c requires Permittees to implement GI projects and demonstrate achievement of load reductions specified in the MRP by using the accounting methods documented and approved under provision C.11.b. Provision C.11.c.iii.(3) required the submittal of the quantitative relationship between GI and mercury load reductions in 2018. Provision C.11.c.iii.(4) requires the Permittees to report an estimate of the amount of mercury load reductions resulting from GI implementation during the current term of the MRP, including a description of all data used and a full description of models and model inputs relied on to generate this estimate. Reporting requirements for 2020 included documentation of interim load reductions, an estimate of land area to be treated through GI implementation and an RAA to demonstrate quantitatively that mercury load reductions of at least 10 kg/year will be realized by 2040 through implementation of GI projects across the region by all MRP Permittees.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program facilitated Work Groups for GI and GIS with activities described above for Provision C.3. The Program completed the Green Infrastructure RAA in FY 2019/20, which was initiated in FY 2017/18. A Quantitative Relationship between Green Infrastructure Implementation and PCBs/Mercury Load Reductions report was prepared by the Program in cooperation with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program in FY 2017/18. This report fulfilled the requirements of MRP Provisions C.11.b.iii.(3), C.11.c.iii.(3), C.12.b.iii.(3), and C.12.c.iii.(1) for submitting the quantitative relationship between GI implementation and mercury and PCBs load reductions that was used for the RAA required by MRP Provisions C.11.c.ii.(2), C.11.d.ii, C.12.c.ii.(2), and C.12.d.ii.

The Green Infrastructure RAA (i.e., an estimate of the land area that will be treated through GI implementation by 2020, 2030, and 2040; the estimated PCBs and mercury loads reduced; and a

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report description of models and model inputs relied on to generate this estimate) was provided in the Alameda County PCBs and Mercury Control Measure Plan and Reasonable Assurance Analysis Report with the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Annual Report. This report fulfilled the requirements of MRP Provisions C.11.c.iii.(2), C.11.c.iii.(3), C.11.d.iii, C.12.c.iii.(2), C.12.b.iii.(2), and C.12.d.iii for providing a mercury and PCBs control measure implementation plan and corresponding RAA. Provision C.11.d. Prepare Implementation Plan and Schedule to Achieve TMDL Wasteload Allocations Requirement: Provision C.11.d requires Permittees to submit with their FY 2019/20 Annual Reports a mercury control measures implementation plan and corresponding reasonable assurance analysis that demonstrates quantitatively that the plan will result in mercury load reductions sufficient to attain the mercury TMDL wasteload allocations by 2028.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program prepared the required Implementation Plan and schedule. The Alameda County PCBs and Mercury Control Measure Plan and Reasonable Assurance Analysis Report was provided with the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Annual Report. Provision C.11.e. Implement a Risk Reduction Program Requirement: Provision C.11.h requires Permittees to conduct an ongoing risk reduction program to address public health impacts of mercury in San Francisco Bay/Delta fish. The fish risk reduction program shall take actions to reduce actual and potential health risks in those people and communities most likely to consume San Francisco Bay-caught fish, such as subsistence fishers and their families. At a minimum, Permittees shall conduct or cause to be conducted an ongoing risk reduction program with the potential to annually reach 3,000 individuals throughout the region who are likely consumers of San Francisco Bay-caught fish. The Permittees shall report on the status of the risk reduction program in each of their Annual Reports and report the findings of the effectiveness evaluation of their risk reduction program in their FY 2019/20 Annual Report.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program works with the Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) Department to maintain fish consumption advisory signs posted at popular fishing locations and boat ramps along the Bay shoreline. Many of these sites are included in the California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS) which estimates total marine recreational fin fish catch and effort for California. While CRFS surveys are designed to aggregate data statewide across multiple types of sites and fishing modes, available results obtained from the Recreational Fisheries Information Network suggest that there were at least 2,000 angler visits to the posted Alameda County sites in 2015. While some individual fishers make repeated visits during the year, there are no data to indicate how many people this represents. A survey by San Francisco Bay Fish Project also found that a significant number of fishers who have seen the signs would share the information with other fishers and consumers.

Fishing Advisory Campaign The program ran a digital campaign in June 2021 to promote awareness of fish consumption health advisories. The ads targeted fishing and outdoor enthusiasts and included Facebook, display ads and search ads. In addition to digital advertising, an ad and paid article in Fish Sniffer Magazine reached 30,000 readers interested in fishing in California. Fish Sniffer also sent an e-blast to its full subscriber list with only our content. Digital ads clicked through to the Clean Water Program’s landing page: https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/residents/fishing-and-health.html

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

The Fish Sniffer ads directed viewers directly to the State of California’s Fishing Advisory page.

See Section C.7 for details on the effort.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.12. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Controls Provisions in C.12 reflect the implementation plan incorporated in the Basin Plan through the Total Maximum Daily Load for PCBs in San Francisco Bay. The MRP 2 Fact Sheet describes a General Strategy for Sediment-Bound Pollutants that progresses from pilot testing of controls in a few specific locations, through focused implementation in areas where benefits are likely to accrue, to full-scale implementation throughout the region where warranted by understanding the effectiveness of each control measure or activity. As noted in the MRP 2 Fact Sheet, the current permit emphasizes focused implementation and in some cases movement towards full-scale implementation. Permittees may comply with any requirement of this provision through a collaborative effort. Provision C.12.a. Implement Control Measures to Achieve PCBs Load Reductions Requirement: Provision C.12.a requires Permittees to:

• Identify the control measures that are currently being implemented and those that will be implemented in these watersheds or management areas;

• Submit a schedule of control measure implementation; and

• Implement sufficient control measures to achieve the permit-area-wide reduction or the county-specific load reduction performance criteria shown in Table 12.1 of the MRP. Beginning with the FY 2016/17 Annual Report, Permittees shall demonstrate achievement of these load reductions as required in provision C.12.b.

Program Activities: To comply with the requirements of this provision, Program staff and consultants have been assisting and coordinating Permittees’ review of potential High Priority areas and source properties for mercury and PCBs load reduction that were identified through a source area screening process initiated with the Integrated Monitoring Report3 in 2014. Pursuant to Provision C.12.a.iii(2), the Program has prepared a report documenting the list of the watersheds or management areas within Alameda County and the specific control measures being implemented or to be implemented during the permit term. See Appendix E for the Mercury and PCBs Watershed/Management Areas, Control Measures, and Load Reduction – Update 2021 report which is submitted on behalf of all ACCWP Permittees to comply with Provision C.12.a.iii(3). The Information in this report has been updated to account for additional control measures implemented during FY 2020/21.

The Program continued water and sediment monitoring and data review to assist in identification of potential source properties as described for Provision C.8.f above. Provision C.12.b. Assess PCBs Load Reductions from Stormwater Requirement: Provision C.12.b requires Permittees to develop, document, and implement an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify, in a technically sound manner, PCBs loads reduced through implementation of pollution prevention, source control, and treatment control

3 ACCWP Integrated Monitoring Report Part C: PCBs and Mercury Load Reduction Planning. March 14, 2014.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report measures, to demonstrate progress toward achieving the interim load reductions required in this permit term.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program participated in a regional project on behalf of all Permittees, conducted through BASMAA. Program staff worked with BASMAA’s contractors and Water Board staff to document, update and refine the load reduction accounting system described in the MRP 2 Fact Sheet. The regional Interim Accounting Methodology for TMDL Loads Reduced report was approved by the Executive Officer in May 2017. The Mercury and PCBs Watershed/Management Areas, Control Measures, and Load Reduction – Update 2021report (Appendix E) implements the Interim Accounting Methodology to estimate the mercury and PCBs loads reduced by the Permittees to date.

Provisions C.12.b requires the Permittees to submit, in 2018 and subsequent Annual Reports, refinements to the Interim Accounting Methodology to assess load reductions in the next permit term. The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to refine the source control measure load reduction accounting methods for the next permit term. The BASMAA Source Control Load Reduction Accounting for Reasonable Assurance Analysis report was provided with the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Annual Report. Comments were received from the Regional Water Board on the BASMAA Source Control Load Reduction Accounting for Reasonable Assurance Analysis report in April 2021. A revised report will be submitted for Executive Officer approval in Fiscal Year 2021/22. Provision C.12.c. Plan and Implement Green Infrastructure to Reduce PCBs loads Requirement: Provision C.12.c requires Permittees to implement GI projects and demonstrate achievement of load reductions specified in the MRP by using the accounting methods documented and approved under provision C.12.b. Provision C.12.c.iii.(3) required the submittal of the quantitative relationship between GI and mercury load reductions in 2018. Provision C.12.c.iii.(4) requires the Permittees to report an estimate of the amount of PCBs load reductions resulting from GI implementation during the current term of the MRP, including a description of all data used and a full description of models and model inputs relied on to generate this estimate. Reporting requirements included documentation of interim load reductions, an estimate of land area to be treated through GI implementation and a reasonable assurance analysis (RAA) to demonstrate quantitatively that PCBs load reductions of at least 3 kg/year will be realized by 2040 through implementation of GI projects across the region by all MRP Permittees.

Program Activities: To assist member agencies in complying with this provision, the Program facilitated Work Groups for GI and GIS with activities described above for Provision C.3. The Program completed the Green Infrastructure RAA in FY 2019/20, which was initiated in FY 2017/18. A Quantitative Relationship between Green Infrastructure Implementation and PCBs/Mercury Load Reductions report was prepared by the Program in cooperation with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program in FY 2017/18. This report fulfilled the requirements of MRP Provisions C.11.b.iii.(3), C.11.c.iii.(3), C.12.b.iii.(3), and C.12.c.iii.(1) for submitting the quantitative relationship between GI implementation and mercury and PCBs load reductions that were used for the RAA required by MRP Provisions C.11.c.ii.(2), C.11.d.ii, C.12.c.ii.(2), and C.12.d.ii.

The Green Infrastructure RAA (i.e., an estimate of the land area that will be treated through GI implementation by 2020, 2030, and 2040; the estimated PCBs and mercury loads reduced; and a description of models and model inputs relied on to generate this estimate) was provided in the

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Alameda County PCBs and Mercury Control Measure Plan and Reasonable Assurance Analysis Report, which was included in the Fiscal Year 2019/20 Annual Report. This report fulfilled the requirements of MRP Provisions C.11.c.iii.(2), C.11.c.iii.(3), C.11.d.iii, C.12.c.iii.(2), C.12.b.iii.(2), and C.12.d.iii for providing a mercury and PCBs control measure implementation plan and corresponding RAA. Provision C.12.d. Prepare Implementation Plan and Schedule to Achieve TMDL Wasteload Allocations Requirement: Provision C.12.d requires Permittees to prepare submit with the 2020 Annual Report a PCBs control measures implementation plan and corresponding reasonable assurance analysis that demonstrates quantitatively that the plan will result in PCBs load reductions sufficient to attain the PCBs TMDL wasteload allocations by 2030.

Requirement: Provision C.12.e requires Permittees to collect samples of caulk and other sealants used in storm drains and between concrete curbs and street pavement and investigate whether PCBs are present in such material and in what concentrations. Permittees shall report on the results of this investigation no later than the 2018 Annual Report.

Program Activities: The Program participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to evaluate PCBs presence in caulks/sealants used in storm drains and roadway infrastructure, and to quantify the potential PCBs load reduction benefits that may result from public infrastructure improvements. The final project report was provided in the FY 2017/18 Annual Report. Provision C.12.f. Manage PCBs-Containing Materials and Wastes during Building Demolition Activities Requirement: MRP Provision C.12.f. requires that Permittees develop and implement or cause to be developed and implemented an effective protocol for managing materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in applicable buildings at the time such buildings undergo demolition, so that PCBs do not enter municipal storm drain systems. Applicable buildings include, at a minimum, non-residential buildings constructed or remodeled between the years 1950 and 1980 with building materials such as masonry and concrete with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. Single-family residential and wood frame buildings are exempt. Also, a Permittee is exempt from this requirement if it provided evidence acceptable to the Executive Officer in its FY 2016/17 Annual Report that the only buildings that existed pre-1980 within its jurisdiction were single-family residential and/or wood-frame buildings.

Permittees were required to develop a protocol by June 30, 2019 that includes each of the following components, at a minimum:

1. The necessary authority to ensure that PCBs do not enter municipal storm drains from PCBs- containing materials in applicable buildings at the time such buildings undergo demolition;

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

2. A method for identifying applicable buildings prior to their demolition; and

3. Method(s) for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to the municipal storm drain from demolition of applicable buildings.

By July 1, 2019 and thereafter, Permittees were required to:

• Implement or cause to be implemented the PCBs management protocol for ensuring PCBs are not discharged to municipal storm drains from demolition of applicable buildings via vehicle track-out, airborne releases, soil erosion, or stormwater runoff.

• Develop an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify in a technically sound manner PCBs loads reduced through implementation of the protocol for controlling PCBs during demolition of applicable buildings.

Program Activities: On behalf of MRP Permittees, BASMAA conducted a multi-year regional project to assist MRP Permittees to address Provision C.12.f. The BASMAA project, which began in FY 2016/17 and was completed in March 2019, assisted Permittees in developing local programs to manage PCBs- containing materials during building demolition. It developed guidance materials, tools and training materials and conducted outreach. Permittees began implementing the program on or before July 1, 2019.

During FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20, MRP Permittees worked together through the BASMAA Monitoring and Pollutants of Concern Committee (MPC) to develop a framework to comply with data collection/evaluation and reporting requirements under Provision C.12.f. As mentioned previously, these requirements include developing an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify PCBs loads reduced through implementation of the new program. The regional process developed includes the following steps:

1. The municipality informs demolition permit applicants that their projects are subject to the MRP Provision C.12.f requirements, necessitating, at a minimum, an initial screening for priority PCBs– containing materials. 2. For every demolition project, applicants complete and submit a version of BASMAA’s model “PCBs Screening Assessment Form” (Screening Form) or equivalent to the municipality. 3. The municipality reviews the Screening Form to make sure it is filled out correctly and is complete and works with the applicant to correct any deficiencies. 4. The municipality then issues the demolition permit or equivalent, according to its procedures.4 5. For Applicable Structures only, the municipality submits completed Screening Forms and any supporting documents (consultant’s report from PCBs building survey, QA/QC checklist, and lab reports) to its countywide program; forms for exempt sites need not be submitted. Forms should be submitted to the countywide programs electronically if feasible, and at a minimum annually, but quarterly is preferred.

4 Municipalities should require that applicants fill out and certify a Screening Form for every demolition. For non-Applicable Structures, applicants simply check the boxes, certify, and submit to municipality. Then the municipality can authorize the demolition (e.g., issue a demolition permit). In general, municipalities should have a completed and certified Screening Form before authorizing a demolition, unless they are a small community that is exempt or has some other arrangement with Regional Water Board staff. Municipalities do not need to track non-Applicable Structures otherwise.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

6. The countywide programs compile the completed Screening Forms and any supporting documents. The countywide program then works with the other MRP countywide programs through BASMAA to manage and evaluate the data, and to assist Permittees with associated MRP reporting requirements.

Appendix E provides a memorandum that documents the number of applicable structures that applied for a demolition permit during the reporting year, and provides a running list of the applicable structures that applied for a demolition permit (since the date the PCBs control protocol was implemented) that had material(s) with PCBs at 50 ppm or greater, with the address, demolition date, and brief description of PCBs control method(s) used for the ACCWP Permittees (PCBS in Building Materials Management Program – Alameda County Data Summary, August 19, 2021).

The Fiscal Year 2019/20 Annual Report included an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify PCBs loads reduced through implementation of the protocol for controlling PCBs during building demolition. Provision C.12.g. Fate and Transport Study of PCBs: Urban Runoff Impact on San Francisco Bay Margins

Requirement: Provision C.12.g requires Permittees to conduct or cause to be conducted studies concerning the fate, transport, and biological uptake of PCBs discharged from urban runoff to San Francisco Bay margin areas. Permittees submitted in their FY 2016/17 Annual Reports a workplan describing how these information needs will be accomplished, including the studies to be performed and a preliminary schedule. Permittees were required to report on status of the studies in their FY 2017/18 Annual Report. The Permittees were required to report the findings and results of the studies completed, planned, or in progress as well as implications of studies on potential control measures to be investigated, piloted or implemented in future permit cycles in the March 15, 2020 Integrated Monitoring Report.

Program Activities: Provision C.12.g is being addressed through a multi-year project by the San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) to develop a series of conceptual models of PCBs in Priority Margin Units (PMUs). The project is:

• Identifying margin units that are high priority for management and monitoring,

• Developing conceptual models and mass budgets for margin units downstream of watersheds where management actions will occur, and

• Conducting monitoring in these units as a performance measure. This work will inform the review and possible revision of the PCBs TMDL and the reissuance of the MRP. During FY 2019/20, BASMAA representatives to the RMP continued to participate in the RMP PCBs Workgroup, which is providing ongoing oversight of the project. A general description and multi-year budget for this project is in the “PCBs” section of the RMP Multi-Year Plan, 2019 Annual Update (dated May 2019).5

5 This report is available at: https://www.sfei.org/documents/2019-bay-rmp-multi-year-plan.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Four urban embayments along the Bay shoreline with management actions to address PCBs planned or ongoing in the upstream watersheds were initially selected as PMU for conceptual modeling:

• Emeryville Crescent (Alameda County),

• San Leandro Bay (Alameda County),

• Steinberger Slough/Redwood Creek (San Mateo County), and

• Richmond Harbor (Contra Costa County). The conceptual models are intended to provide a foundation for future monitoring to track responses to load reductions and may eventually help guide planning of management actions. Three of the selected embayments (all except San Leandro Bay) receive drainage from pilot watersheds that were included in BASMAA’s Clean Watersheds for a Clean Bay project.

During FY 2020/21 and future years, BASMAA representatives to the RMP will continue to participate in the RMP PCBs Workgroup to help provide ongoing oversight of PMU conceptual model development and the related RMP Special Studies. Provision C.12.h. Implement a Risk Reduction Program Requirement: Provision C.12.h requires Permittees to conduct an ongoing risk reduction program to address public health impacts of PCBs in San Francisco Bay/Delta fish. The fish risk reduction program shall take actions to reduce actual and potential health risks in those people and communities most likely to consume San Francisco Bay-caught fish, such as subsistence fishers and their families. At a minimum, Permittees shall conduct or cause to be conducted an ongoing risk reduction program with the potential to annually reach 3,000 individuals throughout the region who are likely consumers of San Francisco Bay-caught fish. The Permittees shall report on the status of the risk reduction program in each of their Annual Reports and report the findings of the effectiveness evaluation of their risk reduction program in their FY 2019/20 Annual Report.

Program Activities: To comply with this provision, the Program works with the Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH) Department to maintain fish consumption advisory signs posted at popular fishing locations and boat ramps along the Bay shoreline. Many of these sites are included in the California Recreational Fisheries Survey (CRFS) which estimates total marine recreational fin fish catch and effort for California. While CRFS surveys are designed to aggregate data statewide across multiple types of sites and fishing modes, available results obtained from the Recreational Fisheries Information Network suggest that there were at least 2000 angler visits to the posted Alameda County sites in 2015. While some individual fishers make repeated visits during the year, there are no data to indicate how many people this represents. A survey by San Francisco Bay Fish Project also found that a significant number of fishers who have seen the signs would share the information with other fishers and consumers.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report with only our content. Digital ads clicked through to the Clean Water Program’s landing page: https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/residents/fishing-and-health.html

The Fish Sniffer ads directed viewers directly to the State of California’s Fishing Advisory page. See Section C.7 for details on the effort.

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2020/21 Annual Report

Provision C.15. Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges

Provision C.15.b.iv. Individual Residential Car Washing Requirement: Provision C.15.b.iv requires the Permittee to discourage through outreach efforts individual residential car washing that discharges into the storm drain system. It also requires Permittees to encourage individuals to direct car wash water to landscape, use as little detergent as necessary or wash cars at commercial car wash facilities. Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program has developed outreach materials and posted information on proper car washing for residents on the Clean Water Program website (http://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/residents/car-care.html). This year the Program developed two videos using the Program’s mascots Fred and Izzy, one video discourages residential car washing, and the other discourages hosing off driveways and other impervious surfaces. To view the videos, visit https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/index.php/residents/care- care.html and https://www.cleanwaterprogram.org/index.php/residents/around-your-home.html

Provision C.15.b.v. Swimming Pool, Hot Tub, Spa, and Fountain Water Discharges Requirement: Provision C.15.b.v requires Permittees to prohibit polluted discharges from pools, hot tubs, spas and fountains, provide public outreach, allow discharges to the storm drain system only if there are no other alternatives and proper BMPs are implemented, require new facilities to have a connection to the sanitary sewer and implement illicit discharge program Enforcement Response Plans to address polluted discharges from these facilities. Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program maintains the Proper Disposal of Wastewater Don’t Drain Pools, Spas and Fountains to Storm Drains Tip Sheet developed in August 2013 on the Clean Water Program website.

Provision C.15.b.vi. Irrigation Water, Landscape Irrigation, and Lawn or Garden Watering Requirement: Provision C.15.b.vi. requires Permittees to promote measures that minimize runoff and pollutant loading from excess irrigation via the following. Program Activities: To assist member agencies comply with this provision, the Program implements several countywide outreach efforts through the New and Re-Development program (C.3), Public Information and Outreach program (C.7) and Pesticide Toxicity Control program (C.9). In addition, illicit discharge outreach for landscape maintenance also includes messages to not over-irrigate or over- water. These efforts are discussed in those sections of the Program Annual Report.

Additional Activities Compliance with the conditionally exempt discharge categories, specifically pumped groundwater, foundation drains, water from crawl space pumps and footing drains, are also discussed at the IIDC Subcommittee meetings. As mentioned in Section C.4, there were four meetings held this fiscal year and the focus of the meetings is to share information on MRP compliance and activities including conditionally exempt discharges stormwater inspectors may encounter. As mentioned above, the PIP Subcommittee developed outreach material for several of the conditionally exempt discharge categories.

Appendix A

New Development and Redevelopment ACCWP Self-Guided GSI Field Trip This guide was developed by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program to supplement the 2021 C.3 Training. This guide provides examples of local projects that incorporated Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI). When visiting the sites, please respect private property and traffic safety.

City of Alameda 1925 Sherman Street, Alameda, CA 94501 (Sherman Street @ Atlantic Avenue) Jean Sweeney Open Space Park (JSOSP), Alameda Recreation and Parks Department Installed 2018 This newly created public park and addition to the City’s bike/trail network was the result of a former railroad right-of-way area transferred to the City and developed into a public open space site with park facilities and bike and walking paths. The newly constructed paved areas of this park drain to bioretention areas or landscaped self- retaining areas.

City of Dublin

Golden Gate Drive between I-580 and Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA Golden Gate Drive Streetscape Enhancement Project Installed 2013 The projected was designed to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access on Golden Gate Drive from Dublin Boulevard to the West Dublin BART Station and make Golden Gate Drive more aesthetically pleasing.

June 7, 2021 ACCWP Self-Guided GSI Field Trip

City of Berkeley Allston Way between Milvia St. and Martin Luther King Wy Allston Way Permeable Paver Demonstration Project Installed 2015 This project, constructed as a demonstration project by the City of Berkley in its downtown area, required careful consideration and planning to protect utilities, mature street trees, and safety considerations due to the proximity of Berkeley High School. The project was named by APWA as the Transportation Project of the Year in 2015.

City of San Leandro Intersection of Marina Boulevard. & Aurora Drive Intersection of Corvallis Street and Farnsworth Street Annual Street Overlay/Rehab 18-20 In Construction 2021 The project will rehabilitate 10.63 lane-miles of roadway and upgrade curb to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act standards. The project features bioretention areas at the two intersections: Marina Blvd. @ Aurora Dr., and Corvallis St. @ Farnsworth St.

June 7, 2021 ACCWP Self-Guided GSI Field Trip

City of Union City C Street between 6th and 9th F Street between 12th and 15th G Street between 12th and 15th H Street between 4th and 12th and 12th and 15th I Street between 12th and 14th, Union City, CA. Decoto District Green Infrastructure Projects Installed 2017 This project was funded by an Urban Greening Grant includes 68 rain gardens, 7,000 sf of pervious pavers, 28 new trees and 6 interpretative signs in a 100 year old neighborhood.

City of Oakland 1299 Lakeside Drive Snow Park Pedestrian Promenade, Oakland CA Installed June 2019 This project features a bioretention area that reclaims and treats stormwater runoff before that runoff enters nearby Lake Merritt. The structure is inviting to the public to explore and enjoy – from the greenery to the artistic additions celebrating local wildlife. The discerning eye can see the path of water traced by concrete lines on the surface aligned with pipes underground. Additional green storm water infrastructure is easily observable

ringing Lake Merritt as part of the Lakeside Green Streets Project.

June 7, 2021 ACCWP Self-Guided GSI Field Trip

City of Oakland 1427 Lakeside Drive Lake Merritt Municipal Boathouse, Oakland CA Installed 2009 Most conspicuous is the green roof over the small utility building. Vegetation on the roof helps filter stormwater and reduce runoff. Being a short building in a highly visited area, it serves as a great educational example of a green roof. Additional nearby green stormwater infrastructure includes a vegetated swale and permeable paving.

City of Oakland 1601 San Pablo Avenue San Pablo Avenue Green Stormwater Spine, Installed 2020 Steps away from Oakland City Hall is a series of bioretention areas along the San Pablo Avenue sidewalk between 17th and 16th Streets. This green stormwater infrastructure treats storm water and adds vegetation to this highly developed area. Interpretive signage is posted explaining the stormwater function in English and Spanish. Part of a larger project involving seven adjacent East Bay cities working with San Francisco Estuary Project and Caltrans to design and install highly visible green infrastructure projects to reduce stormwater pollutants along a green stormwater spine along San Pablo Avenue. Cumulatively the project will treat over 7 acres of impervious surface runoff.

June 7, 2021 ACCWP Self-Guided GSI Field Trip

City of Oakland Lakeside Drive between Jackson Street and Grand Avenue Lakeside Green Streets, Oakland CA Installed 2019 This project features a series of bioretention areas bordering the bike and pedestrian path. These bioretention areas treat stormwater runoff before it enters nearby Lake Merritt.

Alameda County 951 Turner Court, Hayward CA Turner Court GI Demonstration Project Installed 2019 This grant funded project was built by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The project features 14 types of GSI including permeable pavements, tree well filters, and bioretention areas. Informational signs guide visitors through the demonstration site. The project was awarded the CASQA Outstanding BMP Implementation project in 2020. For more details on the GSI at this site see the next page.

June 7, 2021 ACCWP Self-Guided GSI Field Trip

June 7, 2021 Post-Workshop Report: Getting Back to the C.3 Basics Fiscal Year 2020-21

The Clean Water Program’s New Development Subcommittee (NDS) sponsored a MRP Provision C.3 training workshop on June 8, 2021. The workshop was held virtually on the GoTo Training platform. The workshop was attended by 92 agency staff and 41 consultants. The workgroup members responsible for planning the workshop were: Daniel Matlock City of Fremont Dennis Larks City of Oakland Mike Perlmutter City of Oakland Erwin Ching City of Dublin Sharon Gosselin Alameda County Jim Scanlin Clean Water Program Sandy Mathews Larry Walker Associates The workshop focused on providing foundational information on green stormwater infrastructure (GSI)) and the MRP C.3 requirements. The training provided a refresher for experienced staff and an introduction for new staff. The presentations included: • Green Stormwater Infrastructure: What it is and why we do it presented by Jim Scanlin, Clean Water Program • MRP C.3 Basics presented by Mike Perlmutter, City of Oakland • Reviewing Projects - Tools for Municipal Project Reviewers presented by Daniel Matlock, City of Fremont In addition to the presentations, attendees were provided with supplemental training materials including a list of terms and jargon; a list of C.3 and GSI resources, and a “field tour guide” that identified GSI projects throughout the county for staff to visit. Following the training PDFs of the presentations were provided to the attendees. Presentation materials are available to Clean Water Program member agencies for their future use and reference. The virtual training session was recorded and will remain available on the training platform (https://attendee.gototraining.com/r/1940261306070195458) through August 2021, after which the recording will be downloaded as an MP4 file and be available to the ACCWP members. Attendees completed pre- and post-workshop knowledge surveys and an evaluation. The overall completion rate for the evaluation and knowledge surveys was down significantly from in-person workshops. Of those completing the evaluation, 30% expressed interest in continuing on-line workshops, 15% expressed interest in returning to in person surveys, and 55% had no preference.

Effectiveness Assessment Pre- and post-workshop surveys provided insights into the knowledge of the participants before and after the workshop. The pre-workshop survey had an average correct response rating of 81% that improved to 91% in the post-workshop survey (Table 1).

Workshop Evaluation Twenty-seven of the 133 attendees (20%) completed evaluations. The overall average rating of the workshop was 4.33, out of a maximum of 5.0 (Table 2). All of the respondents reported that they knew 1 where to find C.3 resources following the workshop. Attendees generally valued the review of the fundamentals and where to find information. Future training needs identified by attendees included: information on the water efficient landscape ordinance (WELO), long-term maintenance of GSI, the Bay Area Hydrology Model, and in depth information on submittal requirements.

Table 1. Workshop Effectiveness Assessment Summary Pre-Workshop Post-Workshop Question Survey Survey % Answered % Answered Difference Correctly Correctly

What is the primary purpose of Green Stormwater 88% 100% 12% Infrastructure? Which of the following is not an impact of increased impervious surfaces due to development? 82% 100% 18%

How do bioretention areas manage stormwater? 79% 97% 18% In the context of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Provision C.3, what is the 4% method? 80% 87% 7% A redevelopment project proposes to demolish and replace the pavement and buildings on 6 of the 8 acre project site. MRP Provision C.3 requires that the 70% 87% 17% stormwater treatment systems be designed to treat how much of the project area? How do site design planning measures help protect stormwater? 76% 81% 5% For development projects within Alameda County, which of the following guidance documents should be used to 91% 87% -4% design stormwater treatment systems? Totals Average Test Score 81% 91% 11% Total Surveys Completed 66 31 Total attendees 133 % completing surveys 50% 23%

Table 2. Workshop Evaluation Summary Average Rating Evaluation Item (out of 5)1 The presentations were clear and easy to follow. 4.33 The training was useful and informative. 4.52 I will use the skills learned in the workshop today on the job. 4.15 Overall Rating 4.33 1 Rating scale 1-5 with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree

Attachments: Workshop Agenda, Attendance Report

New Development Subcommittee Virtual Training Workshop Agenda Getting Back to the C.3 Basics

June 8, 2021 9:00-10:30 a.m. Platform opens at 8:30 a.m. for logging in.

Topic/Activity Speaker Time Log-in • Troubleshoot your connection. 8:30-9:00 • Complete the pre-workshop survey (if you haven’t done so already). Welcome & Intro to Platform Daniel Matlock, City of Fremont 9:00-9:05

Green Stormwater Infrastructure: Jim Scanlin, Alameda County Clean Water Program 9:05-9:25 What it is and why we do it MRP C.3 Basics Mike Perlmutter, City of Oakland 9:25-9:45 Reviewing Projects - Tools for Daniel Matlock, City of Fremont 9:45-10:05 Municipal Project Reviewers Questions, Discussion, Sandy Mathews, Larry Walker Associates 10:05-10:20 and Wrap Up

Workshop Registration

Please use the link below to register for ACCWP C.3 Training Workshop.

https://attendee.gototraining.com/r/2016858781344842242

You must register in advance. This link is for registration only. After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the training.

Once you are registered, please complete the pre-workshop knowledge survey.

If you have registration questions, please email [email protected].

Protecting Alameda County Creeks, Wetlands & the Bay

Attendee Report: ACCWP C.3 Workshop Report Generated: 6/8/21 4:17 PM # Registered Training I Actual Start Date/TimDuration 158 528-471-1 6/8/21 7:55 AM 2 hours 40 minutes # Attended 133 Attendee Details Attended Last Name First Name Organization Yes Barse Jim Alameda Yes Dong Henry Alameda Yes Hammond Dylan Alameda Yes Kozisek Laurie Alameda Yes McCartney Deirdre Alameda Yes McGuire Brian Alameda Yes Sablan David Alameda Yes Tai Allen Alameda Yes Kinstrey Samantha Berkeley Yes Silkwood Blake BKF Yes BALDWIN BETH Clean Water Program Yes Scanlin James Clean Water Program Yes Tadeja Erick COASTLAND CIVIL Yes Coulson Mary CoulsonEi Associates i Yes Cho Andy County Yes De Leon Rosemarie County Yes Gosselin Sharon County Yes Valderrama Arthur County Yes Ching Erwin Dublin Yes Kloss David Dublin Yes Million Amy Dublin Yes Sung Michelle Dublin Yes Wong Anne Dublin Yes Xu Kan Dublin Yes Young Shannan Dublin Yes Humphrey Nancy Emeryville Yes Cote Kathy Fremont Yes Matlock Daniel Fremont Yes Wier Elliot Fremont Yes Castro Karla Hayward Yes farouqi yama Hayward Yes koo michelle Hayward Yes Leuterio Hector Hayward Yes Nguyen Tay Hayward Yes Rosenberg Jaime Hayward Yes Saebi Saeed Hayward Yes Sarwary Bashir Hayward Yes Sharma Mo Hayward Yes Trinidad Domingo Hayward Yes Wikstrom Scott Hayward Yes Wilfong Elisa Hayward Yes alvarez stephanie Kier & Wright Yes Bernard Peter Kier & Wright Yes carvalho adam Kier & Wright Yes Class Brandon Kier & Wright

Page 1 of 3 Attendee Report: ACCWP C.3 Workshop Report Generated: 6/8/21 4:17 PM # Registered Training I Actual Start Date/TimDuration 158 528-471-1 6/8/21 7:55 AM 2 hours 40 minutes # Attended 133 Attendee Details Attended Last Name First Name Organization Yes Craciunescu Sarah Kier & Wright Yes Cressler Riley Kier & Wright Yes Ebenal Mike Kier & Wright Yes Eiferd Ryan Kier & Wright Yes Espartero Jonnelyn Kier & Wright Yes Flores Kristina Kier & Wright Yes Ghobreal Marianne Kier & Wright Yes Gisi Joshua Kier & Wright Yes Marshall Jake Kier & Wright Yes Nelson Lori Kier & Wright Yes Quilantang Joe Kier & Wright Yes Readler Garrett Kier & Wright Yes Reiff Carter Kier & Wright Yes Rodriguez Kevin Kier & Wright Yes Sum Leo Kier & Wright Yes Valkenhoff Alexie Kier & Wright Yes vemula suresh Kier & Wright Yes Vera Anthony Kier & Wright Yes Wadi Ebianna Kier & Wright Yes Cuomo Juliana Kimley-Horn Yes Falgout Mark Kimley-Horn Yes Liu Joanna Livermore Yes Lung Pamela Livermore Yes Nijhawan Saurabh Livermore Yes Purcell Tom Livermore Yes Ramachandran Mallika Livermore Yes reyes edward Livermore Yes Salgado Debbie Livermore Yes Teczon Rick Livermore Yes Mathews Sandy LWA Yes carmen michael Newark Yes Awayan Frank Oakland Yes brink keary Oakland Yes Diano Christopher Oakland Yes Duenas Rodolfo Oakland Yes Gray Neil Oakland Yes He Annie Oakland Yes Kelly Kara Oakland Yes Kwong Joan Oakland Yes Larks Dennis Oakland Yes Lau Si Oakland Yes Lee Calvin Oakland Yes Liu Johnny Oakland Yes LIVSEY Ben Oakland Yes Perlmutter Mike Oakland

Page 2 of 3 Attendee Report: ACCWP C.3 Workshop Report Generated: 6/8/21 4:17 PM # Registered Training I Actual Start Date/TimDuration 158 528-471-1 6/8/21 7:55 AM 2 hours 40 minutes # Attended 133 Attendee Details Attended Last Name First Name Organization Yes Placido Alain Oakland Yes QWAN GREGORY Oakland Yes Ray Cliff Oakland Yes Reyes Jorge Oakland Yes Rivera Mike Oakland Yes Siu Edmond Oakland Yes Swann Lydia Oakland Yes Tarver Gregory Oakland Yes Velez David Oakland Yes wang jessie Oakland Yes Wong Jennifer J Oakland Yes Xie Tina Oakland Yes Zhang Jay Oakland Yes Dykman Alyssa Piedmont Yes Kent Nancy Piedmont Yes Campbell Megan Pleasanton Yes Cruz-Phillips Sidi Pleasanton Yes Deshmukh Vibha Pleasanton Yes SAKLAEN SM Pleasanton Yes soo jenny Pleasanton Yes Walker Scott Pleasanton Yes Bartalini Will Ruggeri Jensen Azar Yes Krumdieck Jeff Ruggeri Jensen Azar Yes Liongson Kathleen Ruggeri Jensen Azar Yes Shin Ahlong Ruggeri Jensen Azar Yes Magno Robert San Leandro Yes Rodgers Dane San Leandro Yes Chimeh Tiba SNG Associates Yes gottiparthy nanda SNG Associates Yes o'connor mike SNG Associates Yes Shrestha Ritu SNG Associates Yes Steiner Richard SNG Associates Yes Chang Murray Union City Yes Yu Eddie Union City Yes Schaffer Anthony West Coast Consultants Yes Fan Jiacheng Wreco Yes Gu Emily Wreco Yes McCarty Shannon Wreco Yes Briones Eugenio Zone 7 Yes Rank Elke Zone 7 Yes Seto Joe Zone 7 Yes Tang Jeff Zone 7 Yes Traynor Jessica Zone 7 Yes Watson Athena Zone 7

Page 3 of 3

C.3 Stormwater

Technical

Guidance

rd 3 Revision

February 8, 2021

MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda Albany A handbook for Berkeley developers, Dublin Emeryville builders, and Fremont Hayward project Livermore applicants Newark

Oakland Piedmont Version 7.1 Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda

Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Zone 7 Water Agency

C.3 STORMWATER TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

Table of Contents Page

Glossary of Terms ...... vii

Chapter 1 – Introduction / How to Use this Handbook ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of this Handbook ...... 1-1 1.2 What is the Clean Water Program? ...... 1-2 1.3 How to Use this Handbook...... 1-2 1.4 Precedence ...... 1-4

Chapter 2 – Background / Regulatory Requirements ...... 2-1 2.1 Stormwater Problems in Developed Areas ...... 2-1 2.2 Post-Construction Stormwater Controls ...... 2-3 2.3 Municipal Stormwater Permit Requirements ...... 2-5

Chapter 3 – Preparing Permit Application Submittals ...... 3-1 3.1 The Development Review Process ...... 3-1 3.2 How to Prepare Planning Permit Submittals...... 3-3 3.3 Building Permit Submittals ...... 3-15 3.4 Simple Instructions for Small Sites Subject to Stormwater Treatment Requirements ...... 3-17

Chapter 4 – Site Design Measures ...... 4-1 4.1 Self-Treating Areas ...... 4-2 4.2 Self-Retaining Areas ...... 4-4 4.3 Reducing the Size of Impervious Areas ...... 4-6 4.4 Rainwater Harvesting and Use ...... 4-8 4.5 Tree Preservation/Planting and Interceptor Tree Credits ...... 4-8 4.6 Site Design Requirements for Small Projects ...... 4-12

Chapter 5 – General Technical Guidance for Treatment Measures ...... 5-1 5.1 Hydraulic Sizing Criteria ...... 5-1 5.2 Applicability of Non-Low Impact Development (LID) Treatment ...... 5-12 5.3 Using Treatment Trains ...... 5-12 5.4 Infiltration Guidelines...... 5-13

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i ALAMEDACOUNTYWIDECLEANWATERPROGRAM

5.5 Underdrains in Biotreatment Measures ...... 5-14 5.6 Technical Guidance for Low-Flow Systems ...... 5-14 5.7 Plant Selection and Maintenance ...... 5-16 5.8 Mosquito Control ...... 5-18 5.9 Incorporating Hydromodification Management ...... 5-18 5.10 Getting Water into Treatment Measures ...... 5-19

Chapter 6 – Technical Guidance for Specific Treatment Measures ...... 6-1 6.1 Bioretention Area ...... 6-2 6.2 Flow-Through Planter ...... 6-10 6.3 Tree Well Filter ...... 6-16 6.4 Infiltration Trench ...... 6-21 6.5 Extended Detention Basin ...... 6-25 6.6 Pervious Paving ...... 6-29 6.7 Grid Pavements ...... 6-35 6.8 Green Roofs ...... 6-39 6.9 Rainwater Harvesting and Use ...... 6-42 6.10 Media Filter ...... 6-46 6.11 Subsurface Infiltration System ...... 6-50

Chapter 7 – Hydromodification Management Measures ...... 7-1 7.1 Why Require Hydromodification Management? ...... 7-1 7.2 Which Projects Need to Implement HM? ...... 7-3 7.3 Hydromodification Management (HM) Measures ...... 7-4 7.4 Requirements for Hydromodification Management ...... 7-6 7.5 HM Control Submittals for Review ...... 7-9 7.6 Area-Specific HM Provisions ...... 7-10

Chapter 8 – Operation and Maintenance ...... 8-1 8.1 Summary of O&M Requirements ...... 8-1 8.2 Preparing Maintenance-Related Documents ...... 8-4

Chapter 9 – Alternative Compliance ...... 9-1 9.1 What is Alternative Compliance? ...... 9-1 9.2 Categories of Alternative Compliance ...... 9-1 9.3 Offsite or Regional Project Completion Deadlinescompletion deadlines ...... 9-1 9.4 When Does the Alternative Compliance Provision Take Effect? ...... 9-1

Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS C.3 STORMWATER TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

References ...... R-1

Appendix A – Local Requirements

Appendix B – Plant List and Planting Guidance

Appendix C – Example Scenarios and Spreadsheet Tools for Sizing Stormwater Treatment Measures

Appendix D – Mean Annual Precipitation Map

Appendix E – Applicability of Non-Low Impact Development Treatment Measures

Appendix F – Infiltration Guidelines

Appendix G – Mosquito Control Guidelines

Appendix H – Operation & Maintenance Document Templates

Appendix I – HM Susceptibility Map

Appendix J – Special Projects

Appendix K – Soil Specifications

Appendix L – Site Design Requirements for Small Projects

Appendix M – Green Streets

Appendix N – Rainwater Harvesting and Use

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page iii ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

List of Tables Page Table 2-1. Projects Excluded from Provision C.3 Numerically Sized Treatment Requirements ...... 2-7 Table 3-1. Planning Permit Submittal Checklist ...... 3-4 Table 3-2. Example Table of Stormwater Source Controls...... 3-13 Table 3-3. Building Permit Submittal Checklist ...... 3-15 Table 4-1. Stormwater Treatment Credits for Interceptor Trees ...... 4-9 Table 5-1. Flow and Volume Based Treatment Measure Designs ...... 5-3 Table 5-2. Unit Basin Storage Volume (Inches) for 80 Percent Capture with 48- Hour Drawdown Time ...... 5-5 Table 5-3. Flow-based Sizing Criteria Included in MRP Provision C.3.d ...... 5-6 Table 5-4. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surfaces During Small Storms ...... 5-8 Table 7-1. HM Control Plan Checklist ...... 7-10

List of Figures Page Figure 2-1. The Water Cycle ...... 2-1 Figure 2-2. Change in Volume of Stormwater Runoff after Development ...... 2-2 Figure 3-1. Sample Development Review Process for C.3 Regulated Projects ...... 3-2 Figure 4-1. Commercial/Industrial Site Compared to Same Site with Self-Treating Areas ...... 4-3 Figure 4-2. Self-Treating Area Usage ...... 4-3 Figure 4-3. Schematic Drainage Plan for Site with a Self-Treating Area ...... 4-4 Figure 4-4. Comparison of Conventional Design and Self-Retaining Area ...... 4-5 Figure 4-5. Schematic Drainage Plan for Site with a Self-Retaining Area ...... 4-6 Figure 4-6. Schematic Illustration of an Installed Load-bearing Modular Grid Product ...... 4-12 Figure 5-1. Stepped Manhole Design...... 5-15 Figure 5-2. StormGateTM Flow Splitter Structure ...... 5-15 Figure 5-3. Standard Curb Cut: section view ...... 5-21

Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS C.3 STORMWATER TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

Figure 5-4. Standard Curb Cut: plan view ...... 5-21 Figure 5-5. Standard Curb Cut with Side Wings: cut section view ...... 5-22 Figure 5-6. Standard Curb Cut with Side Wings: plan view ...... 5-22 Figure 5-7. Opening between Wheelstop Curbs: section view ...... 5-23 Figure 5-8. Opening between Wheelstop Curbs: plan view ...... 5-23 Figure 5-9. Grated Curb Cut: section view ...... 5-24 Figure 5-10. Grated Curb Cut: plan view ...... 5-24 Figure 6.1-1 Planter on Slope Provides more Storage ...... 6-3 Figure 6.1-2 Bioretention Cells with Check Dams ...... 6-3 Figure 6.1-3 Key Check Dams into Bottom and Side Slopes ...... 6-3 Figure 6.1-4. Cross Section, Bioretention Area: side view ...... 6-7 Figure 6.1-5. Check Dam for Installing a Series of Linear Bioretention Cells in Sloped Area: plan view and profile ...... 6-8 Figure 6.1-6. Cross-section of Bioretention Area Showing Inlet from Pavement ...... 6-8 Figure 6.1-7. Cross-section of Lined Bioretention Area ...... 6-9 Figure 6.1-8. Tree Planting on Soil Pedestal ...... 6-9 Figure 6.2-1. Plan View of Planter with One Inlet ...... 6-13 Figure 6.2-2. Cross-section A-A of Flow Through Planter ...... 6-14 Figure 6.2-3. Cross-section B-B of Flow Through Planter ...... 6-15 Figure 6.3-1. Schematic of a Non-proprietary Tree Well Filter ...... 6-20 Figure 6.4-1. Infiltration Trench Section...... 6-24 Figure 6.5-1. Side View of Riser, Extended Detention Basin ...... 6-27 Figure 6.5-2. Top View of Riser, Extended Detention Basin (square design) ...... 6-28 Figure 6.5-3. Plan View, Typical Extended Detention Basin ...... 6-28 Figure 6.6-1. Parking Lot with Pervious Concrete Pavement, Emeryville ...... 6-29 Figure 6.6-2. Typical Pervious Concrete Pavement ...... 6-33 Figure 6.6-3. Typical Porous Asphalt Pavement ...... 6-33 Figure 6.6-4. Typical Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement ...... 6-34 Figure 6.6-5. Underdrain Installation in Pervious Pavement ...... 6-34 Figure 6.7-1. Plastic Grid Pavement for Occasional Vehicular Use or for Emergency Access Lanes ...... 6-35 Figure 6.7-2. Concrete Grid Pavement for Occasional Vehicular Use or for Emergency Access Lanes ...... 6-36

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page v ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

Figure 6.8-1. Green Roof Cross-section ...... 6-40 Figure 6.10-1. System C Filter Cartridge, Typically Used as Part of Array ...... 6-46 Figure 6.10-2. Plan View Schematic Detail, Typical System C Filter Array...... 6-48 Figure 6.10-3. Cut Away Profile Views, System A Filter (Modified Delaware Sand Filter) ...... 6-49 Figure 6.10-4. Cut Away View, Typical System C Filter Array...... 6-49 Figure 7-1. Stormwater Peak Discharges in Urban (Red) and Less Developed (Yellow) Watersheds ...... 7-1 Figure 7-2. Effects of Urbanization on the Local Hydrologic Cycle ...... 7-2 Figure 7-3. Variation in rainfall contribution to different components of the hydrological cycle for areas with different intensity of urban development...... 7-2 Figure 7-4. Schematic flow duration pond and flow duration curves matched by varying discharge rates according to detained volume...... 7-8

Page vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

Regional Supplement for New Development and Redevelopment

San Francisco Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit

Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Collaborative

September 2021 MRP Regional Supplement for New Development and Redevelopment Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION 2

C.3.j.iii Participation in Processes to Promote Green Infrastructure 2

Activities and Accomplishments during FY 20-21 3

Grant – Urban Greening Bay Area 3 Other Participation and Comments 4

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

C.3.j.iii Participation in Processes to Promote Green Infrastructure

1. Fact Sheet – How to Navigate Federal Eligibility for Sustainable Streets (aka One Bay Area Grant) OBAG Program

2. DRAFT Fact Sheet – How to Build Sustainable Streets with SB 1 Funding

3. Presentation – Funding Solutions for Sustainable Streets: Regional Roundtable and Roadmap – Status Update

September 2021 1 MRP Regional Supplement for New Development and Redevelopment Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

INTRODUCTION

This Regional Supplement has been prepared to report on regionally implemented activities complying with portions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), issued to 79 municipalities and special districts (Permittees) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). The Regional Supplement covers new development and redevelopment activities related to the following MRP provision: • C.3.j.iii. Participate in Processes to Promote Green Infrastructure.

These regionally implemented activities were conducted under the auspices of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization comprised of the municipal stormwater programs in the San Francisco Bay Area. 1 Most of the 2020-21 annual reporting requirements of the specific MRP Provision covered in this Supplement were completely met by BASMAA Regional Project activities, except where otherwise noted herein or by Permittees in their reports. Scopes, budgets and contracting or in-kind project implementation mechanisms for BASMAA Regional Projects followed BASMAA’s Operational Policies and Procedures as approved by the BASMAA Board of Directors. MRP Permittees, through their program representatives on the Board of Directors and its committees, collaboratively authorized and participated in BASMAA Regional Projects or Regional Tasks. Depending on the Regional Project or Task, either all BASMAA members or Phase I programs that were subject to the MRP shared regional costs.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION

C.3.j.iii. Participation in Processes to Promote Green Infrastructure

This provision requires: (1) The Permittees shall, individually or collectively, track processes, assemble and submit information, and provide informational materials and presentations as needed to assist relevant regional, State, and federal agencies to plan, design, and fund incorporation of green infrastructure measures into local infrastructure projects, including transportation projects. Issues to be addressed include coordinating the timing of funding from different sources, changes to standard designs and design criteria, ranking and prioritizing projects for funding, and implementation of cooperative in-lieu programs.

This section describes activities and accomplishments during FY 20-21. The BASMAA activities described in this section provide compliance for MRP Permittees with this provision.

1 In late FY 20-21, BASMAA dissolved as a formal non-profit organization and its members continued to meet as an informal organization under the name Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Coalition (BAMSC). BAMSC members jointly prepared this Regional Supplement for FY 20-21. September 2021 2 MRP Regional Supplement for New Development and Redevelopment Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

Activities and Accomplishments during FY 20-21

Grant – Urban Greening Bay Area

Urban Greening Bay Area was a large-scale, grant-funded effort to re-envision Bay Area urban landscapes to develop stormwater-friendly dense, green urban infrastructure that addresses challenges associated with climate change, infiltrates or captures stormwater and pollutants near their sources, and in turn, promotes improved water quality in San Francisco Bay. Urban Greening Bay Area was funded by an EPA Water Quality Improvement Fund grant awarded to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a joint powers agency acting on behalf of the San Francisco Estuary Partnership (SFEP), a program of ABAG. The term of the Urban Greening Bay Area grant project was July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2018, but the term was extended to December 31, 2020, and additional funding provided to support follow-up implementation.

BASMAA was one of the subrecipients of the grant and took the lead on two of the grant project tasks – a Regional Green Infrastructure Roundtable process and a Design Charrette, both of which were implemented between May 2016 and May 2018.

The Regional Roundtable was a two-year process, with work groups as needed, to identify and develop a list of recommendations for integrating GI and stormwater management funding and investments with future climate change and transportation investments within the region. The Roundtable included convening meetings with local, regional, and state stakeholders, agencies, elected officials, and staff to produce draft and final task reports that identified and recommended possible legislative fixes, agency agreements, consolidated funding mechanisms, and other means and actions as appropriate. The Roundtable used innovative participatory processes that included key experts, regulators, decision-makers, and other stakeholders to share information, solicit and discuss ideas and solutions, and to identify next steps (i.e., develop a “roadmap”). The Final Roadmap of Funding Solutions for Sustainable Streets was completed in April 2018. Following completion of the Roadmap, BASMAA and SFEP formed a Roadmap Committee to guide future implementation of the Roadmap.

The Design Charrette task involved coordinating with the cities of San Mateo and Sunnyvale to conduct a Bay Area design charrette to develop cost-effective and innovative “typical” designs for integrating GI with bicycle and pedestrian improvements at roadway intersections. The overall goal of developing standardized, transferable designs was to make progress in addressing the high cost of design, implementation, operations, and maintenance that inhibits the widespread use of GI and LID features.

Work products of the Urban Greening Bay Area grant are posted on the SFEP website. The “Planning” section includes documents related to the Regional Roundtable and the “Implementation” section includes documents related to the Design Charrette.

September 2021 3 MRP Regional Supplement for New Development and Redevelopment Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

During FY 20-21, BASMAA’s participation in activities to implement the Roadmap of Funding Solutions for Sustainable Streets included:

• Continued coordination with transportation agencies – including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC) – to clarify GI eligibility in regional and state transportation grant programs (Roadmap Specific Actions 1-2 and 1-3).

• On July 29, 2020, BASMAA representatives met with staff from MTC to receive and discuss comments on the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) regional fact sheet, which focuses on the eligibility of GI in projects funded by the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) through the OBAG program administered by MTC. The draft regional fact sheet was subsequently reviewed by the Roadmap Team, revised, and finalized (see Attachment 1).

• The Roadmap Team reviewed, revised, and completed a final draft SB 1 fact sheet – a statewide fact sheet that focuses on the eligibility of GI in projects funded by Senate Bill 1 (see Attachment 2). The Roadmap Team was unable to meet with CTC staff to review and finalize the fact sheet before the grant period expired.

• The Roadmap Team developed an outreach PowerPoint slide deck summarizing the Roundtable process and the final Roadmap of Funding Solutions for Sustainable Streets that can be used by SFEP or stormwater program representatives to educate elected officials or policy makers on the importance of integrating transportation and stormwater investments (Attachment 3).

Other Participation and Comments

In addition to the Urban Greening Bay Area grant efforts described above, Countywide Program representatives participated in the following forums related to GI promotion (in chronological order):

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP) and Jill Bicknell and Vishakha Atre (EOA, representing SCVURPPP) participated in meetings of the organization Transportation Choices for Sustainable Communities (TCSC), a research and policy institute that supports “sustainable transportation as an essential component of livable communities and cities”, and helped plan a "Green Streets for Sustainable Communities" Symposium. The purpose of the symposium was to bring together elected officials, city staff leaders, stormwater experts, complete street/transportation experts, environmental activists, tree and urban ecology experts, and other stakeholders to explore how to better fund, design, build, manage and maintain streets to optimize performance for people and nature. The symposium, originally scheduled for March 2020 but postponed due to COVID-19, was held as three half-day virtual sessions on September 10, September 25, and October 8, 2020. Overall, the symposium attracted approximately 445 unique viewers over the three sessions. Details can be found on the TCSC website.

September 2021 4 MRP Regional Supplement for New Development and Redevelopment Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP), along with a consultant team, presented a two-hour training workshop at the 2020 CASQA conference (September 16, 2020) on “How to Create a Sustainable Streets Master Plan Linking Stormwater Goals with Transportation Planning.”

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP) presented approaches to using GIS to prioritize Sustainable Streets opportunities at the Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange in October 2020 and May 2021, with a focus on the San Mateo Countywide Sustainable Streets Master Plan.

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP) and Jill Bicknell (EOA, representing SCVURPPP) continued to participate in meetings of the TCSC Green Streets Work Group during November 2020 – June 2021. The Work Group continued to meet to conduct follow-up actions to the Symposium, including: 1) developed draft language for Sustainable Streets legislation (building on existing State Complete Streets legislation); 2) met with State Senator Josh Becker and his staff several times to promote sustainable streets and encourage introduction of new legislation; 3) developed a presentation to elected officials on the need for and benefits of sustainable streets; and 4) developed a template comment letter promoting integration of sustainable streets goals and strategies into the MTC/ABAG draft Plan Bay Area 2050.

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP) presented to the EPA Region 9 Stormwater Integration Workgroup on November 19, 2020 on stormwater infrastructure and Sustainable Streets in San Mateo County.

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP), along with a consultant team, met with Kara Oberg of MTC on January 13, 2021 to discuss ways MTC could incorporate Sustainable Street concepts in its upcoming regional Active Transportation Plan. He subsequently presented on the San Mateo Countywide Sustainable Streets Master Plan at MTC’s January 21, 2021 Active Transportation Working Group and March 18, 2021 Local Streets and Roads Project Delivery Workgroup (Joint Partnership Working Group).

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP and BASMAA), presented as part of a panel to the Bay Area Regional Collaborative on January 15, 2021 on reissuance of the Municipal Regional Permit and focus on resilient green infrastructure. The panel included Keith Lichten from the Water Board, Josh Bradt from SFEP, and Robin Grossinger from SFEI.

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP) provided comments regarding the importance of Sustainable Streets and green infrastructure for adapting roadways to the impacts of climate change in C/CAG’s May 19, 2021 letter to the California Transportation Agency on the State’s draft Climate Adaptation Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP), presented on stormwater capture and use at the June 9, 2021 US EPA and Water Environment Federation

September 2021 5 MRP Regional Supplement for New Development and Redevelopment Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

webinar “Achieving Multiple Benefits through Stormwater Capture and Use,” focusing on the regional stormwater capture project under construction at Orange Memorial Park in South San Francisco.

• Matthew Fabry (C/CAG, representing SMCWPPP and Bay Area municipalities) was invited to participate in a Green Infrastructure Funding Academy, co- sponsored by American Rivers, Corona Environmental, and the WaterNow Alliance, during which innovative approaches to funding and financing green infrastructure were presented. He presented on stormwater credit trading marketplace considerations for San Mateo County. C/CAG was subsequently selected to receive additional pro-bono support from American Rivers/Corona Environmental to explore the feasibility of a stormwater credit trading marketplace in San Mateo County and the WaterNow Alliance to look at innovative funding and financing approaches for implementing green infrastructure in San Mateo County. The outcomes of these analyses will be available and potentially relevant for all MRP permittees.

• A comment letter promoting integration of sustainable streets goals and strategies into the MTC/ABAG draft Plan Bay Area 2050 was submitted by Jill Bicknell (EOA/SCVURPPP) to MTC/ABAG on July 20, 2021.

September 2021 6 Attachments

Attachment 1 Fact Sheet

How to Navigate Federal Eligibility for Sustainable Streets (aka One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Program)

How to Navigate Federal Eligibility for Sustainable Streets Learn how federal funding considerations relate to Bay Area complete/green streets projects

What Are Sustainable Streets? Sustainable Streets are projects that integrate safety and mobility improvements of Complete Streets1 with environmental benefits of Green Streets that utilize green stormwater infrastructure to manage runoff.

Why Sustainable Streets Are Important Sustainable Street projects cost-effectively achieve multiple local and regional priorities, including: • Transportation safety – Providing landscaped areas between pedestrians and traffic (Photos 1 and 2) or between bicycle facilities and motor vehicles (Photo 3). Photo 1. Bulb-out with raingarden in Burlingame, CA • Climate change mitigation – Providing bicycle and Photo: San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program pedestrian improvements to help reduce vehicle miles traveled and incorporating landscaping that provides carbon sequestration and reduces urban heat-island effects. • Drainage management – Green street facilities such as rain gardens or stormwater planters absorb stormwater runoff and can address common drainage challenges in bulb-out and curb extension designs (Photos 1 through 3). • Alleviation of localized flooding and drainage issues – Green street facilities, such as stormwater planters or rain gardens, can be designed to help alleviate existing problems with localized flood control and storm drainage (Photo 4). • Regulatory compliance – Most Bay Area municipalities are required to build green stormwater infrastructure into projects under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). • Local planning goals – Many Bay Area municipalities and agencies have adopted Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plans, Complete Streets Plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian and/or Active Transportation Plans, which may prioritize Sustainable Streets projects.

1 Terms in italics are defined in hover text in the electronic file of this fact sheet, available at www.sfestuary.org/urban-greening-bay-area/.

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener Bay Area Sustainable Streets = Complete Streets + Green Streets The illustrations below include examples of both a Complete Street, which aims to ensure safe and convenient transportation options for all users, as well as a Sustainable Street, which integrates water quality and environmental benefits, in addition to safety measures and mobility options.

Example of Complete Street: Common features of Complete Streets include improved access for bicyclists and bus stops, pedestrian safety measures, and streetscape enhancements that help to encourage pedestrian activity such as landscaping, seating areas, and pedestrian- scale streetlights.

Example of Sustainable Street: Additional features commonly included in Sustainable Streets are bioretention features for stormwater infiltration and improved drainage (such as, rain gardens or stormwater planters, pervious medians and pavements) as well as large canopy trees to retain rainfall, and cool the urban landscape.

Images: Bottomley Urban Design

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener Bay Area What Types of Sustainable Street Improvements May Receive Federal Funding through OBAG? One Bay Area Grant Program The Some federal surface transportation funding, such the One Bay Area OBAG program is one of the primary Grant (OBAG) program, can be used by cities and counties for mechanisms by which the Metropolitan Sustainable Streets by including complementary green stormwater Transportation Commission (MTC) infrastructure in eligible transportation projects. Examples of implements the vision laid out in Plan Bay Area 2040, the region’s long-range Sustainable Streets improvements that can be eligible for OBAG transportation and land use plan. A key funding include: component of OBAG is the County • Safe Routes to School projects with bulb-outs that include rain Program, which links transportation gardens or stormwater planters, which can address drainage funding with key regional policy goals challenges, buffer pedestrians from traffic, and shorten such as focusing growth to reduce vehicle pedestrian crossing distances (see Photo 1, below). miles traveled and greenhouse gas • Pedestrian safety improvements to the streetscape can include emissions and incentivizing the landscape enhancements that also provide stormwater production and preservation of management benefits (see Photo 2, below). affordable housing. Working with County Transportation Agencies, MTC invests • Road diet projects that include bicycle lanes and stormwater OBAG County Program funding in local planters or rain gardens beautify streetscapes and may be priorities for bicycle and pedestrian designed to provide a buffer between bicyclists and motor infrastructure, Safe Routes to School, vehicle traffic (see Photo 3, below). Transportation for Livable Communities • Pervious pavement incorporated into a street rehabilitation or projects, road diets, and transit improvement project can address local drainage issues and improvements in support of provide aesthetic enhancements (see Photo 5, below). implementing Plan Bay Area. The current cycle of the OBAG County Program (OBAG 2) provides nearly $400 million in When Can OBAG Funding Be Used for Sustainable Streets? federal transportation funds to local All projects – including projects with green stormwater infrastructure transportation projects over a five- year elements – must be consistent with overall OBAG policies and must be period; the next cycle of funding recommended by the sponsor’s County Transportation Agency after a (OBAG 3) is anticipated in 2023. competitive prioritization process to be awarded funding by MTC. Proposed projects are limited to the requirement of OBAG’s federal funding program sources: Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). Green Street features may be an eligible component of an OBAG project; however, please note the following: • The project’s overall purpose and need must focus on transportation. • Green Street features need to enhance or complement the transportation-based project.

• The Green Street share of the project budget should be Photo 2: Stormwater planter, Latham Square, Oakland appropriate as a project enhancement or complement. Photo: CD+A

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener Bay Area

OBAG Limitations and Other Funding Sources Please note that this fact sheet is provided for informational purposes only. MTC does not endorse any specific project type nor guarantee OBAG funding to any specific project or project type.

Local agencies developing Sustainable Streets projects may consider various types of funding sources, such as the Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Local Streets and Roads Program and the Active Transportation Program. More information about these funding programs is available at the San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s Sustainable Streets webpage, at the link shown Photo 3: Stormwater planter, Harrison Street, Oakland Photo: CD+A below.

Resources for More Information Visit San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s Sustainable Streets webpage: www.sfestuary.org/urban-greening-bay-area/ or contact Josh Bradt, [email protected] for more information, including: • Case Studies. • Information on Sustainable Streets facilities. • Information on funding options for Sustainable Streets.

For questions specific to MTC’s OBAG program, please contact Mallory Atkinson by emailing [email protected]. Photo 4. Rain garden and stormwater planters in curb extensions, Donnelly Avenue, Burlingame Photo: City of Burlingame About Urban Greening Bay Area Urban Greening Bay Area is a collaborative effort, led by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, to re-envision Bay Area urban landscapes with widespread green infrastructure that improves water quality, reduces local flooding, and helps mitigate anticipated climate change impacts. This fact sheet was prepared in partnership with the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association, with funding from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Photo 5. Allston Way pervious pavement, Berkeley Photo: Friends of Five Creeks

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener Bay Area

September 2020 Attachments

Attachment 2 DRAFT Fact Sheet

How to Build Sustainable Streets with SB 1 Funding

DRAFT 4

How to Build Sustainable Streets with SB 1 Funding Learn how to create integrated Complete/Green Streets using Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) Funding

Why Sustainable Streets Are Important Sustainable Street projects cost-effectively achieve multiple local and regional priorities, including: • Transportation safety – Providing landscaped areas between pedestrians and traffic (Photos 1 and 2) or between bicycle facilities and motor vehicles (Photo 3). Photo 1. Bulb-out with raingarden in Burlingame, CA • Climate change mitigation – Providing bicycle and Photo: San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program pedestrian improvements to help reduce vehicle miles traveled and incorporating landscaping that provides carbon sequestration and reduces urban heat-island effects. • Drainage management – Green street facilities such as rain gardens or stormwater planters absorb stormwater runoff and can address common drainage challenges in bulb-out and curb extension designs (Photos 1 through 3). • Alleviation of localized flooding and drainage issues – Green street facilities, such as stormwater planters or rain gardens, can be designed to help alleviate existing problems with localized flood control and storm drainage (Photo 4). • Regulatory compliance – Municipalities throughout the State are required to build green stormwater infrastructure into projects under their municipal stormwater permits. • Local planning goals – Many municipalities and agencies have adopted Stormwater Management Plans, Watershed Plans, Green Infrastructure Plans, Water Quality Improvement Plans, Complete Streets Plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian and/or Active Transportation Plans, which may prioritize Sustainable Streets projects.

1 Terms in italics are defined in hover text in the electronic file of this fact sheet, available at www.sfestuary.org/urban-greening-bay-area/.

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener California

Sustainable Streets = Complete Streets + Green Streets The illustrations below include examples of both a Complete Street, which aims to ensure safe and convenient transportation options for all users, as well as a Sustainable Street, which integrates water quality and environmental benefits, in addition to safety measures and mobility options.

Images: Bottomley Urban Design

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener California

What Types of Sustainable Street Improvements Are Eligible For SB 1? SB 1 Funding Program Highlights Cities and counties may use their formulaic Senate Bill (SB) 1 Local SB 1 provides transportation funding Streets and Roads Program funds for Sustainable Streets projects ranging through various programs, including: from road maintenance and streetscape enhancements, to bicycle and Local Streets and Roads Program – This pedestrian improvements. Examples include: program dedicates approximately $1.5 • Safe Routes to School projects with bulb-outs that include rain billion per year in new formula gardens or stormwater planters, which can address drainage revenues apportioned by the State challenges, buffer pedestrians from traffic, and shorten Controller to cities and counties for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, pedestrian crossing distances (see Photo 1, below). and critical safety projects on the local • Pedestrian safety improvements to the streetscape can include streets and roads system. landscape enhancements that also provide stormwater Active Transportation Program – The management benefits (see Photo 2, below). State Legislature created this program

• Road diet projects that include bicycle lanes and stormwater in 2013 to encourage increased use of planters or rain gardens beautify streetscapes and may be active modes of transportation, such as designed to provide a buffer between bicyclists and motor biking and walking. SB 1 directs $100 vehicle traffic (see Photo 3, below). million annually to this program, to • Pervious pavement incorporated into a street rehabilitation or augment other available funding. improvement project can address local drainage issues and Local Partnership Program – This provide aesthetic enhancements (see Photo 5, below). program benefits local and regional transportation agencies that have Are There Other SB 1 Funding Programs where Sustainable passed sales tax measures, developer Street Projects May be Eligible? fees, or other imposed transportation fees. It provides a continuous Sustainable Street projects may be eligible for the following SB 1 Funding appropriation of $200 million annually Programs, in addition to the Local Streets and Roads Program. to fund road maintenance and • Active Transportation Program rehabilitation, sound walls, and other • Local Partnership Program transportation improvement projects. For more information about these programs, visit the California Transportation Commission’s website: https://catc.ca.gov/.

When Can SB 1 Funding Be Used for Sustainable Streets? All projects – including projects with green stormwater infrastructure elements – must be consistent with the California Transportation Commission’s policies governing the applicable SB 1 Programs. Green Street features may be an eligible component of an SB 1-funded project; however, please note:  The project’s overall purpose and need must focus on

transportation. Photo 2: Stormwater planter, Latham Square, Oakland

 Green Street features need to enhance or complement the Photo: CD+A

transportation-based project.  The Green Street share of the project budget should be appropriate as a project enhancement or complement.

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener California

SB 1 Limitations and Other Funding Sources Please note that this fact sheet is provided for informational purposes only. SB 1 funding is not guaranteed for any specific project or project type. Local agencies developing Sustainable Streets projects may consider various types of funding sources, such as federal funding administered by county transportation agencies under the Federal Highway Administration’s Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STP) and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). More information about funding sources for Sustainable

Streets is available at the San Francisco Estuary Partnership’s Photo 3: Stormwater planter, Harrison Street, Oakland Sustainable Streets webpage, at the link shown below. Photo: CD+A

For questions specific to SB 1 funding programs, please contact [CTC staff name] by emailing [CTC staff email address]. Photo 4. Rain garden and stormwater planters in curb extensions, Donnelly Avenue, Burlingame Photo: City of Burlingame [[==Roadmap Team: We could potentially fill up this blank space by adding another section – which would go above the “Resources for More Information” section, rather than below it. One potential topic could be a summary of the results of the statewide survey. Another possibility would be to increase the amount of information on the three SB 1 programs described in the callout box on page 3. ==]]

Photo 5. Allston Way pervious pavement, Berkeley Photo: Friends of Five Creeks

Re-envisioning urban landscapes for a greener California November 2020 Attachments

Attachment 3 Presentation

Funding Solutions for Sustainable Streets: Regional Roundtable and Roadmap – Status Update

Funding Solutions for Sustainable Streets Regional Roundtable and Roadmap – Status Update

May 27, 2021 Overview ▪ What are Sustainable Streets? ▪ Challenges and opportunities ▪ Roundtable on funding solutions ▪ Roadmap and specific actions ▪ Implementing the Roadmap ▪ Next steps Sustainable Streets = “Complete Streets” Green stormwater ▪ Provides safe access for + infrastructure pedestrians, bicyclists, ▪ Reduces air pollution motorists, and transit ▪ Reduces water pollution riders ▪ Reduces the urban heat island ▪ Enhances public health ▪ Sequesters carbon ▪ Reduces greenhouse gas ▪ emissions Reduces localized flooding Sustainable Street Examples

Cutaway view (Source: San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program) City of San Mateo Humboldt St City of San Mateo Humboldt St City of San Mateo Sustainable Street Examples

Oakland (Photo credit: CD+A) Sustainable Street Examples

Beverly Hills (Photo credit: Kevin Robert Perry) Sustainable Street Examples

Sacramento Challenges ▪ Some funding criteria do not encourage multi-benefit projects, even though these projects can reduce overall costs ▪ Assembling both transportation and resource grants adds challenges and costs ▪ Substantial investment required to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff in urban areas of California Opportunities ▪ Sustainable Streets are designed to cost effectively deliver multiple benefits, including: • Transportation safety • Health benefits of active transportation • Climate change mitigation • Air quality improvement • Water quality improvement • Drainage management and localized flood control • Local planning goals ▪ USEPA grant funding for Roundtable and Roadmap Regional Roundtable ▪ Convened 3 meetings of leaders from federal, state, regional, and local agencies, and NGOs ▪ Topics included: • Presentations on priorities for relevant grants, by agencies such as — Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission — California Strategic Growth Council — California Natural Resources Agency • Case studies of projects encountering funding obstacles • Facilitated discussions on potential solutions and priorities • Review/comment on Draft Roadmap of Funding Solutions Regional Roundtable ▪ More than 40 agencies and NGOs attended, including

Federal Highway Administration State Water Resources Control Board Federal Transit Administration California Strategic Growth Council Federal Emergency Management Agency Metropolitan Transportation Commission US Environmental Protection Agency Association of Bay Area Governments California Transportation Commission Bay Area Air Quality Management District Caltrans Bay Conservation and Development Commission California Department of Water Resources Regional Water Quality Control Board California Natural Resources Agency Trust for Public Land State Coastal Conservancy Natural Resources Defense Council Roadmap of Funding Solutions

▪ Based on information from Roundtable ▪ Identifies 24 Specific Actions, including actions to: • Prioritize Sustainable Streets in funding sources • Improve conditions for projects funded by multiple grants • Improve Sustainable Streets funding with a range of options ▪ Implementation timeframes • Immediate, short-term, long-term ▪ Tasks assigned to applicable Roundtable participants ▪ San Francisco Estuary Partnership leads implementation Progress on Specific Actions

Specific Action Timeframe Status 1-1 Clarify GSI Eligibility in Federal Immediate In progress Transportation Grants 3-1 Provide Guidance on a Range of Funding Immediate Initial guidance provided / ongoing Options 3-2 Improve the Existing Web Presence for the Immediate In progress Roadmap 3-6 Coordinate with Local Agency Staff to Share Short-term Initial Bay Area meetings conducted Information Planning Bay Area, SoCal meetings 3-7 Prepare and Distribute a Roadmap Fact Short-term Finalizing second fact sheet Sheet Distribution in 2021 One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Fact Sheet

▪ Describes how to navigate eligibility of Sustainable Streets projects for OBAG funding ▪ Developed in partnership with Metropolitan Transportation Commission staff ▪ Approved in December 2020 ▪ Target audience: • Local transportation staff, stormwater staff in Bay Area Senate Bill 1 Fact Sheet

▪ Describes how to navigate eligibility of Sustainable Streets projects for funding under SB 1 ▪ Developed in partnership with California Transportation Commission staff ▪ Approval pending ▪ Target audience: • Local transportation staff, stormwater staff – statewide Next Steps

▪ Distribute fact sheets in coordination with partners • California Transportation Commission • Metropolitan Transportation Commission • County Transportation Authorities ▪ Complete Specific Actions in progress ▪ Work with partners to • Offer training on obtaining grants for Sustainable Streets • Develop targeted outreach strategy • Identify funding for further implementation of Roadmap

Appendix B

Industrial and Commercial and Illicit Discharge Controls BEST PRACTICES FOR GROCERY STORES

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR STORMWATER Tips for Supermarkets and Grocery Stores

Supermarket and grocery store owners and operators are responsible for any activities on their property that lead to non-stormwater discharges to the street, gutter or storm drain. The Clean Water Keep wash waters, wastewater, Program’s friendly and knowledgeable staff support business owners and managers like you in preventing water pollution and complying trash, and debris OUT of the with stormwater regulations. The fact that you’re reading this fact sheet storm drains. Keep oils, grease, means you have already decided to take steps to do the right thing and hazardous chemicals OUT when maintaining your property. Thank you for keeping our water safe of storm drains and sanitary and healthy. sewers. General Practices • Know possible pollution sources from your store, such as::  Spills, leaks, or overflowing trash in dumpster areas.  Liquid wastes and hydraulic fluid leaks from trash compactors.  Leaking oil and loose trash in loading dock.  Outdoor hose water (contains chlorine).  Food preparation activities that generate grease, trash, wastewater, and other waste products. • Inspect dumpster areas and loading areas regularly to make sure there are no leaks, spills, loose trash, or other source of stormwater pollution outdoors. • Keep property clean. Never allow hose water, wash waters, or other wastes to enter streets or storm drains. • Have a spill prevention and control plan so that nothing enters Draining wash water from cleaning activities storm drains and pollutes our local waterways. into the street or storm drains damages sensitive habitats and can kill wildlife. Water Training Staff flowing into storm drains travels directly to • Train all staff on Best Management Practices. Any material (liquid local creeks and then to San Francisco Bay. It or solid) that is hosed off into streets or storm drains, or that could does not go to a wastewater treatment plant. be carried to streets or storm drains by rainwater, is an illegal Learn more about preventing water pollution discharge. and the Clean Water Program at • Post signs to notify staff to keep all dumpster and waste container www.cleanwaterprogram.org. lids closed, and outdoor areas clean. • Post signs to notify staff of spill response plans and location of spill control equipment. • Be prepared for spills. Keep a labelled kit on site for cleaning spills with dry methods: absorbents, brooms, shop vacuum. Cleaning Carts, Mats, and Other Equipment Local Stormwater Agencies • Clean equipment in a designated wash area that drains to the sanitary For advice on avoiding disposal to the storm sewer – away from streets, gutters, and storm drains. drain system, contact: • If the designated cleaning area is outdoors, then collect and pump the Alameda...... (510) 747-7930 wash water to the sanitary sewer. Albany...... (510) 528-5770 • Temporary cleaning areas must contain all wash waters. Berkeley...... (510) 981-6400 • If you have cooking operations, be sure to properly service roof Dublin...... (925) 833-6630 exhaust equipment. All wash water must be contained, vacuumed up, Emeryville...... (510) 596-3728 and disposed of to the sanitary sewer. Fremont...... (510) 494-4570 • You are responsible for any activities on your property, including Hayward...... (510) 881-7900 the activities of contractors you hire, that lead to non-stormwater Livermore...... (925) 960-8100 discharges to the street, gutter or storm drain, including wash water. Newark...... (510) 578-4286 • Know how your contractor is cleaning equipment. Share this fact Oakland...... (510) 238-6600 sheet with your contractors as needed. Piedmont...... (510) 420-3050 Pleasanton...... (925) 931-5500 Maintaining Dumpsters, Parking and Outdoor Areas San Leandro...... (510) 577-3401 • Dumpsters, recycling bins, and other containers must always be Unincorp. Alameda County..... (510) 567-6700 closed. Ensure they are not leaking or overfilled. Union City...... (510) 675-5308 • Always cover and contain outdoor materials when not in use. Clean Water Program...... (510) 670-6548 • Dispose of food wastes, recycling, grease, and trash in the appropriate containers. • Keep dumpsters and compactors free of liquid waste. Drain liquids For More Help into the sanitary sewer or into an appropriate container. Strain liquid from solid food wastes with a strainer. Place only empty containers For advice and approval on wastewater into compactors. disposal to the sanitary sewer system, contact: • Keep parking areas free of litter. Cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Cleaning and Emergency Spill Control Emeryville, Oakland or Piedmont • For greasy drips or spills, absorbents like rags or cat litter may be East Bay Municipal used, swept up, and disposed of in a sealed container. Utility District (EBMUD)...... (510) 287-1651 • If wet cleaning methods are used, then protect storm drains, use Castro Valley minimal water, and collect all wash water for proper disposal. Castro Valley Sanitary District...(510) 537-0757 • Collect wash water and dispose of it at an approved location – never City of Dublin into the street, parking lot, or storm drain. Dublin-San Ramon • Consider hiring a Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Services District...... (925) 828-0515 Association Recognized Mobile Cleaner. To learn more visit Cities of Fremont, Newark www.basmaa.org/training. or Union City Union Sanitary District...... (510) 477-7500 KEY DEFINITIONS The Storm Drain System was built to collect and transport rain to City of Hayward prevent flooding in urban areas. Anything that flows or is discharged City of Hayward...... (510) 881-7900 into the storm drain system goes directly City of Livermore into local creeks or San Francisco Bay without any treatment. City of Livermore ...... (925) 960-8100 The Sanitary Sewer System collects and transports sanitary wastes from City of Pleasanton interior building plumbing systems to the wastewater treatment plant City of Pleasanton ...... (925) 931-5500 where the wastewater is treated. Cities of San Lorenzo, unincorporated portions of San Leandro and Hayward CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Oro Loma Sanitary District...... (510) 481-6971 Simple changes to your operations and maintenance can help you comply with local City of San Leandro regulations. The Clean Water Program makes it easy. City of San Leandro...... (510) 577-3401

Learn more about preventing water pollution and the Clean Water Program at www.cleanwaterprogram.org. April 2021 Post Workshop Report: Stormwater Business Inspectors Training Fiscal Year 2020-2021

The Clean Water Program’s Industrial and Illicit Discharge subcommittee (IIDC) sponsored a business inspectors training workshop titled Stormwater Business Inspectors Workshop: Stormwater 101 Back to Basics on May 18, 2021. The Workshop was held virtually via the Zoom Meeting platform. The Training Workgroup responsible for planning the workshop are identified below. Jose Soto Union Sanitary District Jim Scanlin Clean Water Program Beth Baldwin Clean Water Program Kristin Kerr EOA, Inc.

The Agenda for the Workshop is attached. Seventy-three (73) people attended the almost 3 hour workshop. The attendance list for the Workshop, sorted by agency, is attached. Presentation materials from the workshop are available to Clean Water Program member agencies on the Program’s website.

Workshop Evaluation

Completed evaluations: 45 Percent of attendees completing evaluation: 62%

Evaluation Question Response The presentations were clear and easy to follow 3.89 average rating (out of 4)1 Overall, the presentations were informative and useful 3.82 average rating (out of 4)1 I will use the skills learned in the workshop today on the job 3.66 average rating (out of 4)1 The presenter(s) were knowledgeable in the subject matter 3.89 average rating (out of 4)1 Did this training meet your expectations? Yes: 45 No: 0 What type of training would you prefer in the future? In-person: 6 Virual/On-line: 13 Either: 26 Note: 1Strongly Disagree = 1, Strongly Agree = 4

What did you find the most valuable about today's training? • I have new staff who I sent to this training for an introduction into stormwater inspections. This was perfect and exactly what I hoped for. • Great topics and content. Diversity of information. • Illegal Dumping Taskforce • The first presentation on illegal dumping - very interesting! • Potential for overlap with County Illegal Dumping and storm water discharge. • Alyce's illegal dumping talk and Jose's talk on inspections. • Jose Soto's presentation, examples were very helpful • Jose's presentation was so real-world and useful. Everything was good, but his stood out. • loved Jose Soto's inspection slides. Very helpful to see the photos and how he interprets the regulations. Very practical! enjoyed Alyce's talk as well. all the talks were good.

1 • Enforcement 101 • The photo examples are very informative along with the explanation of what happened for enforcement and why • Description of the reason why various industrial materials left outside are a stormwater issue (by Jose Soto) • The visuals provided with the explanations pertaining to citations and enforcement. • The scenarios were helpful • Photos are a GREAT way to get information across and to help me understand more clearly. • The cannabis training had new information. • Issues with Cannabis grow shops and illicit dumping. • Beth Baldwins contact information for the DAs office • Pictures and examples • The photos • The information from the pictures • The photo examples were very valuable to help provide applicability of the content being covered • In the field photos and stories • Sharing resources and case studies • The visual images used by the presenters to highlight the topics they were discussing. • Case Studies • I enjoyed listening to the case studies • Actual case studies and strategies for enforcing using video technology • Examples of storm water inspections and overview of Clean Water Program. • Other forms of Businesses' impact on the environment • I like the case studies, photos, topics, and contact info from the local agencies. • Concise clear presentations • The multiple teams working together. • The clean up and surveillance program • All of it • Learning about new issues and how they are addressed • Clear explanation and resources • Learning more about industrial stormwater inspections and how other cities operate • See how much debries goes into our storm drains. • How other agencies are handling trash problems

Do you have any suggestions for improvements that could be made to the training? • More clarification on what best management practices can be enforced. For example, storing materials outside. It seems from the presentation that it is illegal but are there other alternatives or best management practices that can be sufficient. Or is that an ordinance violation. Same thing with working outside. • More case studies • Nope - worked fantastic • Everything was great, especially the photos. • Post the contacts to the different agencies at the end of the presentations. • More pictures and example scenarios • Get more outside agencies to present

2 • Better time planning/management. • Far too long. You got to keep to your allotted time. • The extra time was needed, so you should have added it to the schedule • 3 hrs tends to be very long, perhaps 2 sessions over 2 days for next training • It would be good to add discussion of the experience the different City representatives have with disgruntled home owners (in cases of spill response) or with angry business owners and the strategies they use in the field when they are met with anger or aggression from these parties, what are some of their de-escalation strategies, what do they do when the City's Contractors (inspecting on behalf of the City) also face this issue and how do they provide support to Contractors working on behalf of the City in these situations? • More of #7! • Information on horse boarding facilities • Maybe add a segment with how to handle a verbally aggressive customer • See how we can do more enforcement. • It was great, variety of speakers and good to keep it to just the morning like you did. • Continue examples from real filed inspections and responses.

What topics would you like to see addressed in future workshops? • More enforcement success stories. • It is always good to see enforcement examples, including examples of less egregious stormwater violations would be good. • Horse Boarding facilities (2) • Repeating elements of this workshop annually (like Jose's presentation) would be helpful for new inspectors when there is turnover. • Recordkeeping - I know it's boring but it's important • More of the same • More emphasis on worker being done to combat pollution from homeless illicit discharges • Addressing RV discharges to storm drains • Restaurant case studies • More illegal dumping strategies • Continue with the examples of observation and enforcement • Regional Board support. Always need a Regional perspective • Follow-up about encampments/ RV discharges. Has there been any success or growth in the program? • C4 inspections for food retail facilities • What to look for when inspecting a storm drain or more about storm drains • Whatever is topical • Innovative approaches and proven, approved technologies used in the field • Same as above, methods for de-escalation or how to work with angry or unhappy home/business owners when they are caught doing something wrong; how can enforcement be achieved in these situations? • Mobile business inspection, more violation/inspection (with examples) presentations, multi- agency coordination inspection/enforcement • How to handle escalation and what to say verbally to de-escalate a situation • Any relevant topics • Anything you can provide that is online and free

3 • Homeless and property management issues. • More storm drain enforcement • Additional information on C3, C4, C5 inspections

General Comments • I prefer in person trainings since it allows people to focus more and less tempted to multi-task, but virtual trainings are also good. • Learned a lot and all the presentations were outstanding. • Thank you for an informative workshop • This training had new information and kept my interest more than many past trainings. • Thanks for organizing! • Great training workshop! • Good overall • Great presentation • Good presentation (2) • Thank you for persisting to educate on storm water even with Coronavirus running amok. • Everything was great, especially the photos. • Really great and clear presentation! I appreciated the perspective from Alyce Sandbach. • Overall, good training. Presenters were prepared and the presentations were laid out in a manner that was clear. • Workshop was well organized and subjects presented were diverse • This was an excellent overview of approaches used in different jurisdictions dealing with different situations. Well done, and thank you! • Better than I thought it would be. • Overall it was a very good training. Photo examples are much more helpful than just text, but added text bullets to photos is appreciated • Useful training, share slides/recording, thanks for the training! • Overall, great training! • All topics were well received. • Good training, thank you. And thanks for doing it online, that was a really good idea to get more attendees. • Enjoyed all presentations. • Great information • Great presenters!

Workshop Poll Questions

How many years of stormwater inspection experience do you have? < 1 year 10 1-2 years 7 2-5 years 12 5-10 years 13 >10 years 16

4 How many times have you attended an ACCWP IIDC Workshop? First time 12 1-2 times 13 3-5 times 8 5-10 times 9 >10 times 11

What types of stormwater inspections do you do? Commercial Business Inspections (C.4) 27 Industrial Inspections (C.4) 24 Illicit Discharges (C.5) 20 Construction (C.6) 10 LID treatment measures during installation (C.3) 4 LID treatment measures O&M verification (C.3.h) 6

What inspection form do you use for facility stormwater inspections? ACCWP Facility Inspection Form (triplicate form) 20 Agency specific electronic field form 16 Agency specific paper form 11

What type of outreach materials do you use during inspections? ACCWP Tip Sheets 31 ACCWP booklets 30 ACCWP Postcards 15 ACCWP Posters 5 Our own agency outreach materials 14 Provide weblinks to materials 11 Rarely provide outreach material 7

5 Stormwater Business Inspectors Workshop: Stormwater 101: Back to the Basics

Tuesday, May 18, 2021 9:00 a.m. to 11:40 a.m.

Topic Speaker Time Welcome Jim Scanlin, Alameda 9:00 am Countywide Clean Water Program 1 Illegal Dumping Pilot Program Alyce Sandbach, CEPD 9:05 am Alameda County District Attorney 2 Stormwater Business Inspections: Regulatory Kristin Kerr, 9:40 am Basics and Resources EOA, Inc. 3 Enforcement 101 Jose Soto, 10:10 am Union Sanitary District BREAK 10:40 am 4 Cannabis Cultivation Inspections for Sheryl Skillern, City of 10:50 am Stormwater Oakland 5 Case Study: Incorporating Outreach into Illicit Jennifer Stern and Mike 11:10 am Discharge Response Perlmutter, City of Oakland 6 Other Tools: SMARTS and Mobile Business Beth Baldwin, 11:25 am DA Referral Form Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Wrap Up Beth Baldwin, ACCWP 11:40 am

Protecting Alameda County Creeks, Wetlands & the Bay ACCWP Stormwater Business Inspector Workshop: Stormwater 101 Back to Basics May 18, 2021 Attendance List

First Name Last Name Municipality/Agency 1 Claudette Altamirano Alameda County 2 Stephanie Hessler Alameda County 3 Nicholas Nobrega Alameda County 4 Steven Plunkett Alameda County 5 Antoinette Stetzenmeyer Alameda County 6 Roseanna Garcia La Grille Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 7 Timothy Hildreth Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 8 Emily Hoe Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 9 Barbara Jakub Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 10 Muhammed Khan Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 11 Aileen Mendoza Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 12 Marisol Novak Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 13 Fatinah Zareef Alameda County Department of Environmental Health 14 Matthew Soby Alameda County Department of Environmental Health CUPA 15 Luke Voropaeff Alameda County Department of Environmental Health CUPA 16 Alyce Sandbach Alameda County Ditrict Attorney 17 Beth Baldwin Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program 18 James Scanlin Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program 19 Jim Barse City of Alameda Public Works 20 Jamie Cooney City of Berkeley 21 Joseph Germono City of berkeley 22 Ernesto Jacobo City of Berkeley 23 Samantha Kinstrey City of Berkeley 24 Meridith Lear City of Berkeley 25 Ronald Torres City of Berkeley 26 Jeffrey Diep City of Berkeley Division of Environmental Health 27 Harvey Johnson City of Berkeley Environmental Health 28 Carrie Estadt City of Berkeley Toxics Management Division 29 Michelle Sung City of Dublin 30 Shannan Young City of Dublin 31 Elizabeth Frantz City of Dublin and City of Newark Support (S2SERM) 32 Miranda Hom City of Dublin and City of Newark Support (S2SERM) 33 Kelsey Laux City of Dublin and City of Newark Support (S2SERM) 34 Parker Smart City of Dublin and City of Newark Support (S2SERM) 35 Christian Altamirano City of Dublin Environmental Services Division 36 Nancy Humphrey City of Emeryville 37 Andrew Wallace City of Emeryville 38 William Freeman City of Hayward 39 Jaime Rosenberg City of Hayward 40 Bashir Sarwary City of Hayward 41 Elisa Wilfong City of Hayward 42 Braden Christensen City of Livermore

Page 1 of 2 ACCWP Stormwater Business Inspector Workshop: Stormwater 101 Back to Basics May 18, 2021 Attendance List

First Name Last Name Municipality/Agency 43 Frank Dittrich City of Livermore 44 Kara Kelly City of Oakland 45 Mike Perlmutter City of Oakland 46 Jennifer Stern City of Oakland 47 Sheryl Skillern City of Oakland Fire Department 48 Miguel Angel Villanueva City of Oakland Fire Department 49 Anette Boulware City of Oakland Fire Department ‐ Prevention Bureau 50 Brittany Omphroy City of Pleasanton 51 Scott Walker City of Pleasanton 52 Tiffany Treece City of San Leandro 53 Dave Denis City of San Leandro / Environmental Services 54 Andrew Savage City of San Leandro Environmental Services 55 Sharon Gosselin County of Alameda 56 Kristin Kerr EOA, Inc. 57 Matthew Byrne EOA, Inc./City of Emeryville 58 Kylie Kammerer EOA, Inc./City of Emeryville 59 Courtney Siu EOA, Inc./City of Emeryville 60 Douglas Dattawalker Union Sanitary District 61 Michael Dunning Union Sanitary District 62 Marian Gonzalez Union Sanitary District 63 Michael Lothian Union Sanitary District 64 Edda Marasigan Union Sanitary District 65 Joe Mendoza Union Sanitary District 66 Alex Paredes Union Sanitary District 67 Aaron Robles Union Sanitary District 68 Jose Soto Union Sanitary District 69 Gene Briones Zone 7 Water Agency 70 Jerry Harris Zone 7 Water Agency 71 Jeff Tang Zone 7 Water Agency 72 Jessica Traynor Zone 7 water agency 73 Athena Watson Zone 7 Water Agency

Page 2 of 2 Stormwater Business Inspector Training May 18, 2021 Workshop ‐ Evaluation Form Responses

Environmental Compliance Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes Illegal Dumping Taskforce More enforcement success stories. Virtual/On‐line Supervisor 4 4 4 4 Yes In‐person

I have new staff who I sent to this It is always good to see enforcement I prefer in person trainings since it allows training for an introduction into examples, including examples of less people to focus more and less tempted to stormwater inspections. This was egregious stormwater violations Either in‐person or multi‐task, but virtual trainings are also ESD Manager 4 4 4 4 Yes perfect and exactly what I hoped for. would be good. on‐line good.

More clarification on what best management practices can be enforced. For example, storing materials outside. It seems from the presentation that it is illegal but are there other alternatives or best Hazardous management practices that can be suficient. Material/Clean Water Examples of storm water inspections Or is that an ordinance violation. Same thing Learned a lot and all the presentations were Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes and overview of Clean Water Program. with working outside. Horse Boarding Virtual/On‐line outstanding. CUPA, Pretreatment, Either in‐person or Storm Water 4 4 3 3 Yes on‐line Repeating elements of this workshop annually (like Jose's Commercial and presentation) would be helpful for Industrial Inspection Jose Soto's presentation, examples new inspectors when there is Program Manager 4 4 4 4 Yes were very helpful turnover. Virtual/On‐line All Jose's presentation was so real‐world environmental/sustaina and useful. Everything was good, but Recordkeeping ‐ I know it's boring Either in‐person or bility 4 4 4 4 Yes his stood out. but it's important on‐line Either in‐person or Rehs 4 3 3 4 Yes on‐line The visual images used by the presenters to highlight the topics they Supervisor of Inspectors 4 4 4 4 Yes were discussing. No N/A Virtual/On‐line Thank you for an informative workshop

Hazardous Materials The cannabis training had new Either in‐person or this training had new information and kept inspection 4 4 4 4 Yes information. on‐line my interest more than many pat traininings. Stormwater program Great topics and content. Diversity of Either in‐person or specialist 4 4 4 4 Yes information. Better time planning/management. More of the same. on‐line More emphasis on worker being Source Control Beth Baldwins contact information for done to combat pollution from Either in‐person or Inspector 4 4 3 4 Yes the DAs office homeless illicit discharges on‐line

loved Jose Soto's inspection slides. Very helpful to see the photos and how he interprets the regulations. Watershed and Very practical! enjoyed Alyce's talk as Either in‐person or Stormwater staff 4 4 4 4 Yes well. all the talks were good. on‐line thanks for organizing! Either in‐person or CUPA and SW Inspector 4 4 4 Yes Pictures and examples No on‐line Program and Project Addressing RV discharges to storm Either in‐person or Manager, Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes Sharing resources and case studies None at this time drains on‐line Great training workshop!

Environmental Either in‐person or Compliance Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes Case Studies on‐line the first presentation on illegal far too long. You got to keep to your allotted Engineer 3 3 3 3 Yes dumping ‐ very interesting! time. Virtual/On‐line Good overall

Inspecting restaurants, including stormwater discharging. 4 4 4 4 Yes I enjoyed listening to the case studies More case studies Restaurant case studies. Virtual/On‐line Great Presentation.

page 1 of 3 Stormwater Business Inspector Training May 18, 2021 Workshop ‐ Evaluation Form Responses

I will use the Overall, the skills learned The presenter(s) The presentations in the were presentations were workshop knowledgeable in Did this What type of were clear and informative today on the the subject training meet Do you have any suggestions for training would you What is your primary easy to follow (4 and useful (4 is job (4 is the matter (4 is the your What did you find the most valuable improvements that could be made to the What topics would you like to see prefer in the job function? is best rating) the best rating) best rating) best rating) expectations about today's training? training? addressed in future workshops? future? General Comments Hazardous Materials Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes The photos No none In‐person Good presentation Alyce's illegal dumping talk and Jose's Either in‐person or Administrator/manager 4 4 4 4 Yes talk on inspections. not at this time. more illegal dumping strategies. on‐line Engineering Technician/Constructio Other forms of Businesses' impact on Either in‐person or n Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes the environment None on‐line Potential for overlap with County Thank you for persisting to educate on Illegal Dumping and storm water Continue with the examples of Either in‐person or storm water even with Coronavirus running HazMat Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes discharge. Nope ‐ worked fantastic observation and enforcement on‐line amok.

Environmental Regional Board support. Always Either in‐person or Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes Enforcement 101 Everything was great, especially the photos. need a Regional perspective. on‐line Everything was great, especially the photos.

Description of the reason why various MRP Compliance/Data industrial materials left outside are a Analysis 4 3 3 4 Yes stormwater issue (by Jose Soto) Virtual/On‐line

I like the case studies, photos, topics, Follow‐up about encampments/ RV Really great and clear presentation! I Hazardous Materials and contact info from the local Post the contacts to the different agencies at discharges. Has there been any Either in‐person or appreciated the perspective from Alyce (CUPA) Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes agencies. the end of the presentations. success or growth in the program? on‐line Sandbach.

Overall, good training. Presenters were C4 inspections for food retail prepared and the presentations were laid Designated Inspector 3 3 1 4 Yes Concise clear presentations More pictures and example scenarios facilities Virtual/On‐line out in a manner that was clear. What to look for when inspecting a storm drain or more about storm Design and CAD 4 4 3 4 Yes The Multiple teams working together. none drains. In‐person Either in‐person or CUPA inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes The clean up and surveillance program none I can think of can't think of any right now. on‐line Good presentation. They extra time was needed, so you should Inspector 4 3 4 4 Yes All of it have added it to the schedule Whatever is topical Virtual/On‐line none Hazardous Materials Learning about new issues and how Either in‐person or Workshop was well organized and subjects Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes they are addressed Get more outside agencies to present on‐line presented were diverse This was an excellent overview of Innovative approaches and proven, approaches used in different jurisdictions Actual case studies and strategies for 3 hrs tends to be very long, perhaps 2 approved technologies used in the Either in‐person or dealing with different situations. Well Manager 4 4 4 4 Yes enforcing using video technology sessions over 2 days for next training field on‐line done, and thank you! Issues with Cannabis grow shops and Either in‐person or CUPA Inspections 4 4 3 4 Yes illicit dumping. on‐line Better than I thought it would be.

It would be good to add discussion of the experience the different City representatives have with disgruntled home owners (in cases of spill response) or with angry business owners and the strategies they use in the field when they are met with anger or aggression from these parties, what are Same as above, Methods for de‐ some of their de‐escalation strategies, what escalation or how to work with do they do when the City's Contractors angry or unhappy home/business Manage staff that the photo examples are very (inspecting on behalf of the City) also face owners when they are caught doing Overall it was a very good training. Photo perform C3 and C4 informative along with the explanation this issue and how do they provide support something wrong; how can examples are much more helpful than just inspections and C5 spill of what happened for enforcement to Contractors working on behalf of the City enforcement be achieved in these text, but added text bullets to photos is response inspections. 4 4 4 4 Yes and why in these situations? situations? Virtual/On‐line appreciated Mobile business inspection, more violation/inspection (with examples) presentations, multi‐agency Breaks, practice to lessen technical issues, coordination Useful training, share slides/recording, Manager 3 3 3 3 Yes Clear explanation and resources better time management inspection/enforcement Virtual/On‐line thanks for the training!

page 2 of 3 Stormwater Business Inspector Training May 18, 2021 Workshop ‐ Evaluation Form Responses

I will use the Overall, the skills learned The presenter(s) The presentations in the were presentations were workshop knowledgeable in Did this What type of were clear and informative today on the the subject training meet Do you have any suggestions for training would you What is your primary easy to follow (4 and useful (4 is job (4 is the matter (4 is the your What did you find the most valuable improvements that could be made to the What topics would you like to see prefer in the job function? is best rating) the best rating) best rating) best rating) expectations about today's training? training? addressed in future workshops? future? General Comments The visuals provided with the explanations pertaining to citations Either in‐person or CUPA inspector. 4 4 4 4 Yes and enforcement. More of #7! N/A on‐line N/A Hazardous Materials Either in‐person or Specialist 4 4 4 4 Yes The scenarios were helpful Information on horse boarding facilities Horse boarding facilities on‐line Photos are a GREAT way to get information across and to help me Enforcement for CUPA 4 4 4 4 Yes understand more clearly. No Not sure Virtual/On‐line Learning more about industrial How to handle escalation and what stormwater inspections and how other Maybe add a segment with how to handle a to say verbally to de‐escalate a Either in‐person or Stormwater Inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes cities operate verbally aggressive customer situation on‐line Overall, great training!

Compliance Inspector 4 3 3 4 Yes In‐person See how much derbies goes into our Either in‐person or Fire Inspector 3 4 3 3 Yes storm drains. See how we can do more enforcement. any relevant topics on‐line All topics were well received. civil engineer/PM for good training, thank you. and thanks for capital projects big and how other agencies are handling trash it was great, variety of speakers and good to anything you can provide that is doing it online, that was a really good idea small 4 4 4 4 Yes problems keep it to just the morning like you did. online and free Virtual/On‐line to get more attendees. Continue examples from real filed homeless and property Either in‐person or inspector 4 4 4 4 Yes The information from the pictures inspections and responses. management issues. on‐line Enjoyed all presentations.

Perform inspections, document, and provide assistance to regulatory CUPA hazardous material/waste and other relevant CUPA Inspection requirements to local The photo examples were very businesses within valuable to help provide applicability Alameda County 4 4 4 4 Yes of the content being covered In‐person Fire code Inspector 4 4 3 Yes More storm drain enforcement In‐person Great information Environmental Additional information on C3, C4, C5 Either in‐person or Consultant 3 3 3 3 Yes In the field photos and stories No inspections on‐line Great presenters!

page 3 of 3 Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

Regional Supplement for Training and Outreach

San Francisco Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit

Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Collaborative

September 2021

MRP Regional Supplement for Training and Outreach Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

Table of Contents Page

INTRODUCTION 2 Training 2 C.5.e. Control of Mobile Sources 2 Public Information and Outreach 3 C.7.c.ii.(1) Stormwater Point of Contact 3 Pesticides Toxicity Control 3 C.9.e.ii.(1) Point of Purchase Outreach 3

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

C.9.e.ii.(1) Point of Purchase Outreach

Home Depot Letter of Support

September 2021 1 MRP Regional Supplement for Training and Outreach Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

INTRODUCTION

This Regional Supplement has been prepared to report on regionally implemented activities complying with portions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), issued to 76 municipalities and special districts (Permittees) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). The Regional Supplement covers training and outreach activities related to the following MRP provisions: • Provision C.5.e., Control of Mobile Sources, • Provision C.7.c.ii.(1), Stormwater Point of Contact, and • Provision C.9.e.ii.(1), Point of Purchase Outreach.

These regionally implemented activities were conducted under the auspices of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization comprised of the municipal stormwater programs in the San Francisco Bay Area.1 Most of the 2020-2021 annual reporting requirements of the specific MRP Provisions covered in this Supplement are completely met by BASMAA Regional Project activities, except where otherwise noted herein or by Permittees in their reports. Scopes, budgets, and contracting or in-kind project implementation mechanisms for BASMAA Regional Projects follow BASMAA’s operational Policies and Procedures as approved by the BASMAA Board of Directors. MRP Permittees, through their program representatives on the Board of Directors and its committees, collaboratively authorize and participate in BASMAA Regional Projects or Regional Tasks. Depending on the Regional Project or Task, either all BASMAA members or Phase I programs that are subject to the MRP share regional costs.

Training

C.5.e. Control of Mobile Sources This provision requires: Each Permittee shall implement a program to reduce the discharge of pollutants from mobile businesses. (1) The program shall include the following: (a) Implementation of minimum standards and BMPs for each of the various types of mobile businesses, such as automobile washing, power washing, steam cleaning, and carpet cleaning. (b) Implementation of an enforcement strategy that specifically addresses the unique characteristics of mobile businesses. (c) Regularly updating mobile business inventories. (d) Implementation of an outreach and education strategy to mobile businesses operating within the Permittee’s jurisdiction. (e) Inspection of mobile businesses, as needed. (2) Permittees may cooperate county-wide and/or region-wide with the implementation of their programs for mobile businesses, including sharing of

September 2021 2 MRP Regional Supplement for Training and Outreach Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

mobile business inventories, BMP requirements, enforcement action information, and education.

BASMAA’s long-standing Surface Cleaner Training and Recognition Program addresses the BMP and training aspects of the provision by focusing on the most common type of outdoor cleaning – cleaning of flat surfaces like sidewalks, plazas, parking areas, and buildings. Individual Permittees address the inspection and enforcement aspects of the provision.

Cleaners that take the web-based training and a self-quiz are designated by BASMAA as Recognized Surface Cleaners. BASMAA also created and provides marketing materials for use by Recognized Surface Cleaners. Cleaners can use the website to get trained and recognized for the first time or renew their training and recognition, as required annually. Recognized cleaners can also download marketing materials from the website. Potential customers, including Permittees can use the site to verify the recognition status of any cleaner, as can municipal inspectors.

Public Information and Outreach

C.7.c.ii.(1) Stormwater Point of Contact This provision requires: Each Permittee shall maintain and publicize one point of contact for information on stormwater issues, watershed characteristics, and stormwater pollution prevention alternatives. This point of contact can be maintained individually or collectively and Permittees may combine this function with the spill and dumping complaint central contact point required in C.5.

BASMAA assists with this provision by using the regional website: BayWise.org to list or link to member programs’ lists of points of contact and contact information for the stormwater agencies in the Bay Area (https://baywise.org/about/).

Pesticides Toxicity Control

C.9.e.ii.(1) Point of Purchase Outreach This provision requires Permittees to: • Conduct outreach to consumers at the point of purchase; • Provide targeted information on proper pesticide use and disposal, potential adverse impacts on water quality, and less toxic methods of pest prevention and control; and • Participate in and provide resources for the “Our Water, Our World” program or a functionally equivalent pesticide use reduction outreach program.

The Annual Reporting provision requires: Outreach conducted at the county or regional level shall be described in Annual Reports prepared at that respective level; reiteration in individual Permittee reports is

September 2021 3 MRP Regional Supplement for Training and Outreach Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

discouraged. Reports shall include a brief description of outreach conducted…, including level of effort, messages and target audience. (The effectiveness of outreach efforts shall be evaluated only once in the Permit term, as required in Provision C.9.f. [Ed. C.9.g]).

Below is a report of activities and accomplishments of the Our Water, Our World program for FY 2020-2021. Store employee trainings and vendor outreach events were not conducted in FY 2020-2021 due to COVID-19 related safety concerns.

• Coordinated program implementation with major chains Home Depot and Ace Hardware National.

o Home Depot Corporate (Atlanta) directed support of the program with their stores (see Attachment). • Coordinated a bulk print of fact sheets, shelf tags, literature rack display signage, 10 Most Wanted brochures, Pest or Pal Activity Guide for Kids, custom-designed product guide dispensers, and two versions of product guides (Home Depot and generic), from which participating agencies could purchase materials. • Conducted monthly seasonal pests meetings with IPM Advocates for the month/season ahead. • Updated less-toxic Product List for Home Depot. • Updated the overall look and navigation of the Our Water, Our World website .

September 2021 4 Attachments

Point of Purchase Outreach

Home Depot Letter of Support

Appendix C

Public Information and Participation

Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Our Water Our World Integrated Pest Management Retail Store Partnership Program Final Report for contract fiscal year 2020-2021 Prepared by Suzanne Bontempo, July 2021

Program Overview

We currently have 26 retailers in the OWOW Store Partnership Program. Suzanne Bontempo was the lead for the OWOW program with the assistance of IPM Advocate Lisa Ratusz and Charlotte Canner.

Here is the current list of retailers in the OWOW partnership:

Encinal Nursery 2057 Encinal Ave Alameda Encinal Hardware 2801 Encinal Ave Alameda Flowerland Nursery 1330 Solano Ave. Albany Ace Hardware 2145 University Ave. Berkeley Berkeley Horticultural Nursery 1310 McGee Ave. Berkeley East Bay Nursery 2332 San Pablo Ave. Berkeley Westbrae Nursery Garden Supply 1272 Gilman Ave. Berkeley Pete's Ace Hardware 2569 Castro Valley Blvd. Castro Valley Home Depot 3838 Hollis St. Emeryville Dale Hardware 37100 Post Fremont Home Depot 43900 Ice House Tr. Fremont Regan Nursery 4268 Decoto Rd. Fremont Home Depot 21787 Hesperian Blvd. Hayward Home Depot 2500 Las Positas Rd. Livermore Alden Lane Nursery 981 Alden Ln. Livermore Grand Lake Ace Garden Center 4001 Grand Ave. Oakland Broadway Terrace Nursery 4340 Clarewood Dr. Oakland Cole Hardware 5533 College Ave. Oakland Home Depot 4000 Alameda Ave. Oakland Laurel Ace Hardware 4024 MacArthur Blvd. Oakland Montclair Village Hardware 5048 Woodminister Ln. Oakland Yarrow 6250 Thornhill Dr. Oakland Home Depot 6000 Johnson Dr. Pleasanton Western Garden Nursery 2756 Vineyard Ave. Pleasanton Evergreen Nursery and Garden Supply 350 San Leandro Blvd. San Leandro Home Depot 1933 Davis St. San Leandro

Retail Store Mentoring and Maintenance Visits:

A total number 152 program store mentoring and maintenance visits were provided for the year.

Retailer Number of visits Encinal Nursery 5 Encinal Hardware 5 Flowerland Nursery 3 1 Berkeley Ace Hardware 4 Berkeley Horticultural 4 Nursery East Bay Nursery 5 Westbrae Nursery 6 Pete's Ace Hardware 7 Home Depot, Emeryville 6 Dale Hardware 7 Home Depot, Fremont 7 Regan Nursery 7 Home Depot, Hayward 7 Home Depot, Livermore 4 Alden Lane Nursery 5 Grand Lake Ace Garden 5 Center Broadway Terrace Nursery 7 Cole Hardware 7 Home Depot, Oakland 8 Laurel Ace Hardware 7 Montclair Village Hardware 5 Yarrow 6 Home Depot, Pleasanton 5 Western Garden Nursery 4 Evergreen Nursery and 7 Garden Supply Home Depot, San Leandro 9

Store mentoring and maintenance activities throughout the year:

• Replenish fact sheets • Update shelf talkers on new products • Ask associates if they are hearing of any new or unusual pest problems from their customers • Focus on the pest of the month calendar • Bring the quarterly UCIPM Retail Newsletter to each retailer • Remind associates about the resource on the OWOW & UCIPM website • Demonstrate how to use the UCIPM website for pest problem assistance • Guide customers to less-toxic solutions in the aisle • Mentor buyer and manager at each retailer about new eco-friendly product on the market • Mentor associates about the current pest problems and IPM strategies for the pests • Mentor associates on how less toxic active ingredients work • Follow up with emails and phone calls on pest questions from associates, as well as customers

Many of the retail partners have witnessed an increase in sales with the eco-friendly alternative pesticides. Even throughout the challenging year of covid restrictions and an early spring season, we see that people are looking for alternative to the toxic pesticides. This is trending up throughout the retail markets. Many of the retailers have increased the number of eco-pesticides as they replace problem pesticides with these alternatives.

2 Throughout the year, we provided each store with support around assorted seasonal pest, such as aphids, earwigs, and cucumber beetle, along with leaf and plant diseases, especially powdery mildew, due to the dry conditions. Yellowjackets, gophers, rats & mice were also highlighted with many customers coming in the stores with these pests. We each provided each retailer with the current publication of the UC IPM Retailer Newsletter, IPM for Cucumber Beetles, 10 Tips for Waterwise Gardening, Protecting Gardens in a Drought, and IPM for Powdery Mildew.

I provided each retailer with additional support with specific pest questions and product sourcing due to supply chain breakdowns. Codling Moth traps and Cucumber Beetle traps were challenging to find for the retailers this year. Through the network of vendors, I was able to find alternatives to hard-to-find products.

Some of the additional educational materials provided to retail associates throughout the year:

OWOW IPM Retailer Trainings

Extra educational materials:

When needed, we provided many of the OWOW retail partners additional educational materials to assist with pest identification, as this is what many were requesting since access to online research during business hours is limited to many associates.

3 Educational materials were: • The UCIPM –ANR Pest Identifier and the Weed Identifier wheels • UCIPM Pests of Landscape Trees and Shrubs • UCIPM Pests of Gardens and Small Farms • UCIPM Wildlife Pest Control around Gardens and Homes

Home Depot Hayward (top left), Owner of Broadway Terrace Nursery (top right), Encinal Nursery (bottom left), and Berkeley Horticulture Nursery (bottom right) 4 OWOW IPM Retailer Trainings

Alameda County Store Trainings:

We conducted 17 training events throughout the year

Date Store Number Instructor Trained 9/17/20 Cole Hardware 3 Suzanne 9/29/20 Pete’s Ace 4 Lisa 10/22/20 Home Depot Fremont 8 Lisa 10/23/20 Home Depot Hayward 5 Lisa 10/27/20 Grand Lake Ace 7 Charlotte 2/22/21 Broadway Terrace Nursery 7 Suzanne 2/25/21 Yarrow 4 Suzanne 3/9/21 Home Depot Hayward 9 Lisa 3/10/21 Westbrae 8 Suzanne 3/11/21 Home Depot Oakland 10 Lisa 3/15/21 Dale Ace 12 Lisa 3/16/21 Alden Lane 17 Suzanne 3/22/21 Home Depot Fremont 9 Lisa 3/24/21 Laurel Ace 9 Lisa 3/30/21 Home Depot San Leandro 11 Lisa 5/19/21 Cole Hardware 4 Suzanne 6/18/21 Yarrow 9 Suzanne Total associates trained: 136

Topics covered in the training:

• An OWOW partnership program overview • Pesticides that are water pollutants of concern • Where to dispose of local HHW • ‘How less-toxic products’ work • How to read a pesticide label • IPM principles & techniques • Beneficial Insect Identification • Water Conservation • Benefits of Compost • Benefits of Mulch • Water-wise plant choices for our area • Pests highlighted: Aphids, ants, powdery mildew, citrus leaf miner, earwigs, fleas, gophers, rats & mice, snails & slugs, spider mites, whitefly, fungal diseases, codling moth, rose care without problem pesticides and how to address the many customer habits, such as how over fertilizing can increase pest populations. Also, the importance of adding compost to the soil and protecting the soil with a layer of mulch. • Invasive pests: Asian Citrus Psyllid • OWOW website, UC Davis IPM website, BIRC website • The UC IPM You Tube informational channel

5 Resources provided to each OWOW training attendee includes:

• The Mac’s Field Guide Good Garden Bugs of California • Monthly Pest Calendar • How to Apply Beneficial Nematode • ‘How Less Toxic Products Work’ handout • Home Depot less toxic product list for the Home Depot Store training • List of websites, books, and catalogs on a resource sheet • Sheet Mulching instructions • The CA DPR’s ‘How to read a pesticide label’ handout • Information on pest problem solving for the following pests: spider mites, lifecycle of grubs, whiteflies, spider mites, citrus leaf miner, codling moth, keeping rodent out of the home and reducing their activity in the garden, Asian Citrus Psyllid, and the UCIPM Quick tips for Mealybugs & Powdery Mildew • ‘10 Most Wanted Bugs for Your Garden’ brochure • OWOW pocket guides • A one sheet informational handout on ‘Protecting Landscapes in a Drought’ and ’10 Tips for Water-wise Gardening’ • A one sheet informational handout on ‘Keeping Rats & Mice out’ • A one sheet informational handout on ‘Rats in the Garden’ • Asian Citrus Psyllid Campaign fliers in the nursery, displayed in the aisle and stocked in the OWOW literature rack • Eco-herbicide recommendations • Retail Nursery & Garden Center IPM News • A one sheet handout that includes services offered by the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District and the Alameda County Vector Control Program

Compilation of Training Feedback 2020-21 contract year

Scheduling associate trainings for the retailer partners was challenging with the ongoing restrictions from Covid-19. When these restrictions started to lessen, a few of the retailers were too busy due to the early spring rush to schedule time for the OWOW training. I’m impressed that we have been able to train as many associates as we have.

The training classes are well received by the associates, as they see the value and appreciate the up-to-date IPM education I provide to them. This year specifically, with the increase of new gardeners, I focused my attention on how to guide their customers, these new gardeners, through the importance of adding compost to the soil, feeding plants organically, protecting the soil with mulch, and how to water to grow healthy plants, because when we grow healthy plants, they are more resilient and less likely to be affected by pest issues.

The more resent interests have been on how to protect gardens in times of drought. Here I share resources and information about how to be very strategic with water, ways to recycle water such as easy to install laundry to landscape greywater systems, and products on the market to protect the plants with anti-transpiriants and water retaining soil polymers.

Summary of Store Training Pre-Training Surveys

A total of 17 trainings were conducted, 136 associates were trained, 127 pre-training surveys were returned. Here are the results of those surveys.

Survey Question Yes No Don’t Know

When water enters a storm drain, 10% 54% 36% does it go to a treatment plant before it reaches a creek?

When water enters a sanitary sewer from a house drain, like 39% 43% 45% your sink or toilet, are pesticides removed at the sewage treatment plant before the treated water reaches a creek or bay?

Is it more effective to treat an ant infestation with a bait station 56% 9% 35% rather than a spray?

Where is your local household 14% knew the location 86% did not know or left it hazardous waste collection blank facility located?

Which sentence best describes Integrated Pest Management (IPM) a. IPM only uses pesticides: 2% b. IPM uses pest identification, trapping, beneficial insects, and pesticides (only when needed): 80% c. IPM does not rely on identifying pests/disease before treating: 2% > Left blank or did not know: 16%

Which of these is the most effective IPM method for managing aphids? a. Apply fast acting fertilizers: 7% b. Spray insecticidal soap and/or prevent ants from vegetation with tanglefoot or bait station: 67% c. Use products with pyrethroids: 10% > Left blank or did not know: 16%

7 Summary of Store Training Post-Training Surveys

A total of 17 trainings were conducted, 136 associates were trained, 127 post-training surveys were returned. Here are the results of those surveys.

Survey Question Yes No Don’t Know

When water enters a storm drain, 100% does it go to a treatment plant before it reaches a creek?

When water enters a sanitary sewer from a house drain, like 1% 99% your sink or toilet, are pesticides removed at the sewage treatment plant before the treated water reaches a creek or bay?

Is it more effective to treat an ant infestation with a bait station 98% 2% rather than a spray?

Where is your local household 100% knew the hazardous waste collection location facility located?

Which sentence best describes Integrated Pest Management (IPM) a. IPM only uses pesticides: b. IPM uses pest identification, trapping, beneficial insects, and pesticides (only when needed): 100% c. IPM does not rely on identifying pests/disease before treating: > Left blank or did not know:

Which of these is the most effective IPM method for managing aphids? a. Apply fast acting fertilizers: b. Spray insecticidal soap and/or prevent ants from vegetation with tanglefoot or bait station: 99% c. Use products with pyrethroids: 1% > Left blank or did not know:

8 Summary of End of Training Evaluation Form

Disagree Neutral Agree .

I learned at least one eco-friendly pest management method today 1% 4% 95%

The training will help me recommend and/or sell eco-friendly products 1% 6% 93%

I can comfortably share what I learned with customers and/or 9% 91% co-workers

I can easily use the Our Water – Our World shelf tags and fact sheets to inform customers about less-toxic pest management 1% 5% 94%

Printed resource materials from this training were… Too much Just Right Not enough 0% 0% 100%

What part of the training was most helpful?

All was helpful: 48% Pest problem solving: 9% Product information: 28% The folders, Fact Sheets, Shelf Talkers and other OWOW resources provided: 6% Learning about the principles of IPM: 9% What part of the training could be improved?

Nothing/everything was good: 85% More time for the training: 14% A chart to illustrate which products are for which pests: 1%

Additional comments:

“Lise did a great job!”, “The training was excellent” - Home Depot San Leandro “Knowledgeable instructor (Lisa)” – Dale Ace “I loved all of the training!” – Home Depot Oakland “Suzanne gave a helpful perspective re. making complex problems easy to understand when speaking to our customers”, “Excellent job!” – Alden Lane “Very Helpful, great examples” – Cole Hardware

Training associates at Cole Hardware (top left), Alden Lane (top right), Home Depot Hayward (bottom left) and Westbrae Nursery (bottom right)

Summary of the OWOW Outreach Events for the 2020-21 contract year

Throughout the year, I provided 4 virtual outreach events, reaching a total of 299 people with the OWOW IPM message.

Date Title of Webinar Number of Attendees 10/22/20 IPM for the Home & Garden 42 4/8/21 Growing Healthy Gardens from the Ground up 97 5/13/21 Waterwise Gardening 101 84 6/3/21 Gardening for the Good Bugs 76

Virtual events for the public:

Throughout the year, I provided 4 outreach events, reaching a total of at least 299 people with the OWOW IPM message. The virtual education for the public proved to reach beyond what I had imagined, by far the most successful of any other county in part to the valuable partnerships Gigantic Idea Studio and their wonderful promotional support. It’s been incredible to have this opportunity to deliver the OWOW message to such a broad reach. Both East Bay Municipal District and Stop Waste reached out to me to share how impressed they are with the content of our web programs. 10

Each registrant received an email from me that included a program outline, and a ‘Helpful Gardening Resource’ page. This was created to help the guest with writing notes and help them pay attention without needing to scramble to note each website references throughout the program. Here is the ‘Helpful Resources’ I created for the webinars in partnership:

I also provided a webinar for the City of Livermore, ‘Growing food the Water-wise Way’, with 72 attendees. Though this was not an OWOW event, I did discuss the principles of IPM and importance of cultural controls as how they relate to growing a water-wise food garden with less pests.

Social media posts: ‘Pest of the Month’ content for a post was provided to post on the Clean Water Program Facebook page, Twitter and Instagram feed. • ‘How to Manage Weeds’ – post for March • ‘How to Manage Aphids’– post for April • ‘How to care for Roses’ – post for May • ’10 tips for a Water wise Garden’ – post for June

Industry Trade Shows:

I attended the virtual L&L Distributor Trade Show in October of 2020. I look forward to attending this trade show in person this next year.

Overall challenge for the year:

I continue to work with the Home Depot corporate to keep them up to date on store activates and events. We discussed additional ways to expand our partnership.

11 The sale of eco-friendly products still remains strong. The Home Depot stores have increased the number of eco-products by roughly 25% and the sales of Orthro’s 3-in-1, pyrethrin and sulfur eco-pesticide was up 17%. This is phenomenal. This is definitely a reflection of consumer demand, that eco-friendly pesticides are more popular than ever. Other key vendors reported that ‘the organic categories were extremely strong due to the millennials’ and that the year was indeed challenging, that ‘we were just in survival mode trying to keep products in stock for our customers’. The supply chain was compromised greatly this past year, mainly because bottles were not available, specifically bottle caps due to the need of these bottles for hand sanitizers and cleansers.

Other challenges due to covid were working with each retailer. The labor force at most of the retailers was limited and stressed, providing OWOW IPM trainings was not easy to schedule or achieve, the early spring season hit suddenly and the demand for educating the consumers, especially the new gardeners, was in demand. Thankfully I was able to provide educational webinars for the public that allowed live Q&A during each program. This was the gift that covid brought the OWOW program. Moving forward, I how we can maintain the audiences and continue to reach more people with the OWOW message.

Closing comments:

Each of the retailers in the partnership have been great to work with. Each of the associates I met at these stores are in full support of the OWOW program. They are seemingly open to learning about the new eco-products their retailer sells, tips for less toxic pest management, and how to better support their customers. Each year the ecofriendly product interest seems to increase, with more awareness for less toxic choices requested by the consumer.

The associates value the OWOW partnership and support to assist them with the new products, how they work, and what product they should bring in as an alternative to the problem pesticides. In addition to mentoring retail associates, each store appreciates the assistance when helping their customers in the aisle. This support of guiding the customers to choose a product that is less-toxic, also includes other IPM tools that the retailer may sell when a pesticide isn’t necessarily the best solution, such as the importance of adding compost and organic fertilizer to your soil to increase plant health, choosing water-wise plants for longer term success, and the importance of mulch for water retention and optimum soil health.

Moving forward I see the value of continuing to provide OWOW education to the public through webinar style classes as well as attending in-person events when possible. I am hoping to bring on the new Ace in Livermore into the OWOW program. I am happy to know that ACCWP will expand to include the Home Depot in Newark and the Home Depot in Union City. This will be wonderful additions to the OWOW partnership.

Thank you so much for allowing me to lead the contract. I appreciate the opportunity to work with the retailers throughout Alameda County.

Suzanne Bontempo

Home Depot Fremont and Regan’s Nursery

13 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FINAL YEAR REPORT

Fiscal Year 2020-2021

Caterpillar Puppets: Educational Outreach Puppet Program

PROJECT INFORMATION

Organization Name: Joe Leon, Caterpillar Puppets

Mailing Address: 2060 Casa Grande Benicia CA 94510

Project Director: Joe Leon

Phone: 707 746-5597 cell: 707 334-1380

E-mail: [email protected]

Name of Person Completing the Report: Ronna Leon

Phone: 707 746-5597 E-mail: [email protected]

Date of Report: June 18, 2021

Reporting Period: From 1/04/2021 to 6/18/2021

A) Project Scope:

Educational outreach puppet show assembly for grades K-3. Maximum 100 Students per assembly program. Due to Covid-19 this year’s program was available to schools only on video though with a follow-up live (Zoom) question and answer sessions that individual teachers could sign up for after students had seen the program. The video, which was professionally done, covered: What is a watershed, What is a storm drain, How to keep our watershed clean, What causes watershed pollution, How can such pollution be lessened or stopped. The puppet show focused on the effects litter has on the animals of the creek, bay, and ocean. It introduced children to the idea of a clean-up club and suggests steps students can take to help keep our waterways clean. The program also engages children in follow-up activities such as reduce, re-use, and recycle methods to stop litter, and remind them to put litter in its place since all trash on the ground can end up in our water.

B) PROJECT UPDATE

1. Sorted by City, list the school programs completed during this reporting period

ALAMEDA Jan 12 Alameda Remote Academy .3X 1 class 28 students Alameda Uniﬁed, Contact: Contact: Anne Bader, Kindergarten

Jan 15 Edison Elementary 1x 3 classes 93 students 2700 Buena Vista Contact: Regina del Rosario 2nd grade teacher

March 29 Edison Elementary 1x 3 classes 90 students 2700 Buena Vista, Contact: Ana Soria-Kevy, kindergarten teacher

March 16 Alameda Remote Academy .3X 1 class 29 students Alameda Uniﬁed, Contact: Nicole Lani Korpell, Kindergarten Teacher

April 22 Alameda Remote Academy .3X 1 class 28 students Alameda Uniﬁed, Contact: Contact: Amanda Brenc, Kindergarten

BERKELEY

Feb 1 Oxford Elem. 2.6X 8 classes 240 students 1130 Oxford St, Berkeley Contact: Beth Rhine, Principal DUBLIN

Jan 11 Murray Elementary .3X 1 class 30 students 8435 Davona Dr., Dublin Contact: Elaine Pﬁster 1st grade teacher

Jan 8 Murray Elementary .3X 1 class 30 students 8435 Davona Dr., Dublin Contact: Ashley Reynolds 1st grade teacher

Jan 11 Frederiksen Elem. .3x 1 class 30 students 7243 Tamarack Dr., Dublin Contact: Kristina Andrade 1st grade

Jan 20 Kolb Elementary .3X 1 class 30 students 3150 Palermo., Dublin Contact: Candace Whites 2nd grade teacher

JAN 21 Kolb Elementary .6X 2 classes 30 students 3150 Palermo., Dublin Contact: Bronwen Boyer 2nd grade teacher

FREMONT

Jan 25 Ardenwood Elem. 4x 15 classes 450 students 33950 Emillia Ln, Fremont, Contact: Maria Uriu, 2nd Grade Teacher

Jan 14 Mission San Jose Elementary .3x 1 class 28 students 43545 Bryant St, Fremont Contact KarieLynn Shefﬁeld, K Teacher

April 19 St Joseph’s Elem. 1.3x 4 classes 80 students 43222 Mission Blvd. Fremont, Contact: Patti Colton, Principal HAYWARD Jan 21 Lorenzo Manor .3x 1 class 30 students 18250 Bengal Ave, Hayward Contact: Cyndi Liang, K teacher

Jan 27 Lorenzo Manor .3x 1 class 30 students 18250 Bengal Ave, Hayward Contact: Jennifer Vechitto, 3rd teacher

March 5 Lorenzo Manor .3x 1 class 28 students 18250 Bengal Ave, Hayward Contact: Tonie Mitchell, 2rd teacher

March 12 Stonebrae Elem. 5.6x 17 Classes 510 students 28761 Hayward Blvd, Hayward Contact: Jackie Wicks

LIVERMORE Jan 29 Leo Croce .3x 1 Class 30 students 5650 Scenic Ave, Livermore Contact: Kari Weber, 2nd grade teacher

Jan 29 Leo Croce .3x 1 Class 30 students 5650 Scenic Ave, Livermore Contact: Lindsey Tabaracci, 2nd teacher

Jan 29 Leo Croce .3x 1 Class 30 students 5650 Scenic Ave, Livermore Contact: Danielle Small, 2nd teacher

Feb 17 Leo Croce 2.6X 5 classes 120 students 5650 Scenic Ave. Livermore Contact: Lynda Helms, Kinder. teacher

Jan 12 Vineyard Elem. 1x 3 classes 90 students 1401 Almond Ave., Livermore Contact: Eileen Weed, teacher

Jan 29 Leo Croce .3x 1 Class 30 students 5650 Scenic Ave, Livermore Contact: Holly Stanley, 2nd teacher April 22 Joe Mitchell School 4x 12 classes 350 students 1001 Elaine Ave., Livermore Contact: Bobbi Byrnes, Teacher

April 2 Joe Mitchell School .3 1 class 28 students 1001 Elaine Ave. Livermore Contact: K Teacher, Stacey Mahoney

April 22 Leo Croce Elem. 2.6 8 classes 240 students 5650 Scenic Ave, Livermore Contact: Kristina Wooten, teacher

NEWARK Jan 25 Snow Elementary 2.6x 8 classes 240 students 6580 Mirabeau Ave, Newark Contact: Datoya Lemus, Ofﬁce Manager

Jan 21 Lincoln Elem. 3x 9 classes 280 Students 36111 Bettencourt St, Newark Contact: Barbara Alcott, K Teacher

Feb 17 Lincoln Elem. .3x 1 class 30 Students 36111 Bettencourt St, Newark Contact: Akela Almeda, 3rd Teacher

March 12 Graham Elem. .3x 1 class 25 students 36270 Cherry St, Newark Contact: Joan Davis, 2nd grade teacher

OAKLAND Jan 27 North Oakland Community Charter School 2x students 1000 42nd St, Oakland Contact: DM Kloker, Headmaster 6 classes Jan 11 Peralta Elementary 3.3x 10 classes 320 students 460 63rd St. Oakland, CA Contact: Shirley Clem, Principal

Jan 4 Park Day School 2.6X 8 Classes 248 Students 360 42nd st. Oakland Contact: Karen Colaric.Lower Campus Director March 4 North Oakland Community Charter School .3x 28 students 1000 42nd St, Oakland Contact: K.Josephson 1st Teacher 1 class

March 15 Brookﬁeld Village Elem. .3x 1 class 30 students 401 Jones Ave. Oakland, Contact Erica Rios, 1st grade Teacher

March 23 Brookﬁeld Village 2.6X 4 classes 120 students 401 Jones Ave. Oakland, Cont.Belinda Sanders, 3rd grade Teacher

PIEDMONT Feb 26 Corpus Christi Elementary 1x 3 classes 92 students 1Estates Dr, Piedmont Contact: Ofﬁce Secretary.

SAN LEANDRO

Jan 22 Corvallis Elementary 3.66x 318 students 11 classes 14790 Corvallis St. San Leandro, Contact: Bryan Dunn-Ruiz.Principal

SAN LORENZO Jan 28 Hillside Elementary .6X 2 Classes 60 students

15980 Marcella St, Contact: Anna DeLillo, Teacher, 3rd grade

Jan 11 Hillside Elementary .3X 1 class 30 students 15980 Marcella St, Contact: Susana Cervantes-Rojas 1st grade teach

Jan 27 Hillside Elementary .3x 1 class 29 students 15980 Marcella St, Contact: Dora Rios, 1st grade teacher

Jan 15 Hillside Elementary .3X 1 class 30 students 15980 Marcella St, Contact: Kristen Russo 1st grade teach March 29 Bay School 4.3X 13 class 330 Students 2001 Bockman Rd. , San Lorenzo Cont: Valerie Leonardo

CASTRO VALLEY, SUNOL Jan 27 Strobridge Elem. .6 2 classes 50 students

2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: Miriam Warren, Teacher1/ 2nd

Jan 28 Strobridge Elem. .3 1 class 30 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: Laura Bautista Teacher 1st

Jan 28 Strobridge Elem. .3 1 class 30 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: Sydney Yamamoto, Teacher 1st

Feb 22 Strobridge Elem. .3 1 class 30 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: Joan Tarle, Teacher K

Feb 8 Strobridge Elem. 1.3x 4 classes 120 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: Michelle Smith, 3rd teacher

March 9 Strobridge Elem. .3x 1 class 30 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: S Yamamoto, Teacher 1st

Jan 27 Strobridge Elem. 1.6x 5 classes 150 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: M Warren, 2nd Teacher

Feb 3 Strobridge Elem..3x 1 classes 32 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: Kristine Taberacci, 3rd teacher

April 15 Strobridge Elem..3x 1 classes 32 students 2140 Bedford Dr, CastroValley Contact: Erica Rice, 2rd teacher March 26 Palomares Elem 1.3x 4 classes 125 students 6395 Palo Verde Rd, Castro Valley Contact: Jennifer Tomita, Prin.

UNION CITY Jan 11 Decoto School X1.6 5 classes 140 students

725 Whipple, Union City Contact: Carmen Kraska, K Teacher

38,275.84 WORK ORDER FUNDS AVAILABLE

2. Estimate percent of programs completed:

68 assemblies of 68 possible given or 100%

204 classes served 3 classes= 1 assembly or about 100 students per assembly per contract.

Work Order # F15W81 billed a@ $562.88 each assembly.

3. How did activities implemented during this reporting period enhance students’ understanding about stormwater pollution prevention and watershed awareness:

The assembly teaches WHAT IS A WATERSHED? WHAT CAUSES STORMWATER POLLUTION? HOW CAN WE STOP WATER POLLUTION? HOW CAN SUCH POLLUTION BE REDUCED OR STOPPED? HOW DOES LITTER GET INTO OUR WATERSHED?

It involves students in thinking about and solving watershed issues. It involves them emotionally as well with characters associated with the creek, bay, and ocean systems (frogs, ducks, raccoons, seals, ﬁsh) and the eﬀect that watershed pollution has on them and their habitats. It engages them in the follow-up activities designed for the k-1 group and the 2nd-3rd grades. Children were encouraged to carefully think about questions that they wished to ask the puppeteer in the Zoom sessions. Some also wrote to him.

C) PROGRAM EVALUATION

Follow up evaluations were electronically collected using Google forms. 37 were returned. Three sets of student letters and several thank you notes/ emails were also received. The follow-up survey responses to the question: What was your students’ reaction to the program:

*My students liked seeing the puppets to deliver the messages. I saw them copying the hand movements of the rain falling and the water. When I asked them what they learned from watching the show, quite a few stated that we need to keep storm drains free from trash. They also liked the live Q&A and were amused when Joe showed puppets during the live visit :)

*Kids love the puppet show. It matches and enhances classroom studies, which thrills them. The show is funny and engaging. They love Joe and the Q and A felt more special because it was live in zoom. They thought so carefully about their questions.

*Loved it!

*They loved the puppet show. They laughed at the funny ways the puppets moved and were mesmerized the entire time.

*I teach at an independent school where I have multiple grade levels. I showed it to my 1st - 3rd grade students and they all loved it.

*They enjoyed it! *They said they liked it. They were engaged during the "show". They took away some learning and understanding of the importance of keeping our environment clean.

*The students were very engaged, they had great questions after the show, and they continue using the words they heard in the presentation. I showed it twice because they were that enthusiastic about it.

*They loved it!

*They enjoyed it. During the play, many were smiling and often younger siblings joined and were watching too.

*My students were engaged the entire time and loved the show!

*They were excited to talk about how pollution gets into our water. They came up with more examples through a class discussion/

*They liked it. They understood the concepts being taught.

*They liked it!

*They smiled and laughed. They enjoyed Mr. Froggy.

*They enjoyed the show and were excited.

*They loved the puppet show about storm drains, protecting our bay and animals.

*They liked the message and of course, loved the puppets.

*Some asked to watch it again. My instructional assistant thought it was awesome.

*They would have preferred a live version.

*They asked to see it again. *They enjoyed it and learned about how to keep the water system clean for the animals in the ocean. *They enjoyed it very much!

*They loved it! They were so excited.

*The loved the show and learned more than what I expected.

*They loved the puppets. They also really liked when you visited with the puppets on our Zoom class.

*They were focused and seemed to enjoy the show.

*They enjoyed it! They thought it was funny.

*They really enjoyed the puppets and they loved the live Q&A session with Mr. Leon. *It was hard to keep them engaged...it was too long!

*They really enjoyed it! It was age appointment for them. They laughed and were concerned for the animals.

*They were excited

*They were so excited and happy with the show. They learned a lot about the drainage and they are ready to help Mr Froggy

PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS RESPONSES TO “WHAT WAS YOURS?” (reaction to the show)

*My students are right!

*What a great way to teach the kids how to help the environment.

*This is an excellent assembly

*Charming and ﬁlled with fact *Worthwhile show. Loved the frog as he could be my prince in disguise *I thought the virtual show was polished, well thought out, and engaging for students. I especially like the hand movements to incorporate audience participation, as well as the large signs Joe held up for creek, etc. I would not make the show any longer. The time was perfect. The message is deﬁnitely important and clearly delivered. Excellent, beautiful production!

*Thank you so much!!!

*I’m so happy you found a way to carry on with this important work. We need to help our student become stewards and special guests really make an impact.

*Also loved it!

*First and foremost, putting this puppet show online and virtual had to be a great challenge. Kudos for getting it all lined up and making it fun and engaging for our students. I enjoyed that the puppet show was engaging for the kids and done in a kid friendly way. Thanks for always being awesome.

*I thought it was great! The introduction with Joe and the puppet show were both great!

*A little too much talking in the beginning

*It was a bit simplistic for some of our advanced students. Maybe add some slides of the whole water cycle and the damage that is caused to reinforce concepts. Thank you!!

*I loved that they enjoyed themselves and learned!

*I have been a fan of Mr. Froggy for YEARS and I love the way the message is presented. The message is very clear and easy for the children to learn and relate to. Thank you so much for making it possible to continue learning in this fun fashion and adding a moment to enjoy to all of us in these uncertain times. Great job to you and your whole team. Your wife's puppets are awesome! *I loved it! The backgrounds were amazing!

*I was very impressed with how well it was done as I know it took time to move into a virtual performance.

*It was great how the show was interactive despite being at home watching!

*it is always a pleasure to watch Mr Froggy and to see the students engaged and learning! Thank you!

*I thought it was great!

*Great program! I liked the activities that went with the program.

*Thank you for creating a great online program!

*Excellent message. It was funny and interesting.

*I thought sound could have been better,

*As always, Mr. Froggy puppet show is an absolute delight! Each year, the puppet show is very entertaining, so creative and unique. The students are always thrilled to watch the show.

*I have been watching your puppet shows for many years and always enjoy taking my ﬁrst graders to see them. good message. Thank you…

*It has a great message. It was a little dark at times but not too much so. I thought it was a bit long, but my ﬁrst graders are so excited to see something- anything, other than me on Zoom! :)

*I thought it was great! My students were glued to the screen and had a lot to say afterward about what they learned so the message was strong and clear. *I thought it was wonderful. Great messaging, engagement, and use of the medium. *So happy it was entertaining for students

*I didn't know what to expect, but was pleasantly impressed!

*I’ve seen the show many times, I love it!

*It is very appropriate for the lower grades

*I also enjoyed the puppets and the critical information.

*Impressed that my students were engaged and very happy with the questions they asked Mr. Leon.

*Not sure they got the concept! Had to do a lot of reteaching

*It was the perfect, engaging way to present this information to my class. Thank you!

*i was happy to see them engaged

*it was a perfect program for my ﬁrst graders. Long enough, they kept attentive all the time and participate. They were so interested to met Joe and asked many questions. Some of them are creating puppet shows for the last project of the year about water pollution and conservation.

D) BUDGET UPDATE

1. Funds awarded (as per agreement): $38,275.84

2. Costs invoiced during this reporting period: $38,275.84

3. Funds remaining: $0 E) PUBLICATIONS

Classroom Materials: Follow up coloring page, Teachers Guide, Activities for K-1 student, Activities for 2nd-3rd grades. Evaluation form. All correspondence was done through email this year. Samples included with materials attached to this report. A booking site, BOOK LIKE A BOSS was used by principals, assembly coordinators or individual teachers to select the start dates of their two week window for use of the video and to schedule the follow-up zoom Q and A sessions with the puppeteer.

Caterpillar Puppets: Educational Outreach Puppet Program

All reports submitted to the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program must contain the following certiﬁcation statement, and be signed and dated by the Project Director.

“I hereby certify that the above and attached statements are true and accurate.” ______June 18, 2021

______Signature of Project Director Date

NOTE: An electronic copy (unsigned) of this ﬁnal report must be emailed to [email protected], AND as per agreement, a signed hard copy of this electronic report including a summary of evaluations, and copies of the receipts (indirect costs) must be submitted to the following address:

Jim Scanlin Countywide Clean Water Program 399 Elmhurst St Hayward, CA 94544 EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021

KIDS for the BAY

A) PROGRAM INFORMATION Organiation Name: KIDS f he BAY Mailing Address: 1771 Alcaa Aee Bekele CA 94703 See Ci Sae Zi Cde

Program Director: Madi Billige Phone: 510-985-1602 E-mail: adi@kidfheba.g

Name of Person Completing the Report: Siea Kkedall Phone: 510-985-1602 E-mail: iea@kidfheba.g

Date of Report: Jaa 15, 2021 Reporting Period: From Se. 8, 2020 to Dec. 18, 2020

Program Scope: The S Dai Rage Schl Wide Tah Redci (SDR) Pga i deiged egage ad edcae eleea chl de i Alaeda C ab ae lli edci. KIDS f he BAY i idig he ga ia diace leaig f he 2020-2021 chl ea. The diace leaig SDR cec de ih hei lcal aehed eie hgh had- eieal ciece, ieacie le ad ie d, ad Ne Geeai Sciece Sadad. The pogam inclde en one-ho ineacie

Zoom leon paied ih a-home aignmen. Pogam componen inclde: ● Place-baed eieal ciece leaig icldig: ○ Elai f he lcal aehed ○ Waehed ceci ad he Sa Facic Ba ea ○ S dai, aia ee e, ad edcig lli ○ A ah clea jec ad acicig he Fie R (Redce, Ree, Reccle, R, Refe) edce ah ad ae a he ce ○ Eieal aci, behai chage ad eieal leadehi ○ A ial Aebl iie chl ciie aiciae i ah clea eff ● Mee-baed ici f ke cce ● Tie f de iie ad cllabae hgh beak , ieacie JaBad, ad ide ad ie ellig ● Sile a-he eeie ad ieigai aied ih cla deai ● Scee-fee d aciiie icldig cecig ih ae, daa clleci ad a ah clea i each de' eighbhd.

The fllig i a li f he le delieed each aiciaig cla: 1. Eee i a Eieali 2. O Lcal Waehed 3. O Waehed i a Ea 4. H Plli Me i Waehed

1 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021

5. H Plli Iac Shaed Waehed 6. Aleaie Plli ad Uig he Fie R 7. Vial Aebl Plaig 8. Vial Aebl Reheaal 9. Vial Aebl 10. Becig a S Dai Rage

Eighteen teachers and classes from eight schools ill be aiciaig i he SDR Pga hi ea. Thi be iclde e eache/clae ha ical be f iee each ea, becae f he fdig ll-e f iclee ga la ea de Cid-19.

2 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021

Storm Drain Rangers Zoom Lesson Highlights The fllig ae highligh fm he Sm Dai Rage Pgam Zm Le cmleed dae:

Lesson 1: Everone is an Environmentalist Fh ad fifh gade de a Hade Eleea Schl i Haad ee ick hae hei idea ab ha a iclded i a aehed i hei fi Z le. Gielle haed, Wae i a f eie. Edad leeed, Ciie ad ele ae al a f he eie. Thgh Z cha ad hiebad, a ell a ebal ee, he cla ade a li f e e elee f eie, icldig la, aial, ae ad ai.

Whe KIDS f he BAY Edca Lael Sebaia aked he cla ha a f beig a eieali he ee ecied ab, de hed diffee fige eee: 1) Cec ih ae, 2) Ele like ciei, 3) Take Aci hel he eie, ad 4) Be Eieal Leade. Se de ee ed f lile chice he he cld decide hei faie a f he ga!

Sde ee hilled hae ie i Z beak g ele he KftB Virtual Watershed. Thi egagig lie eachig l i a Ggle Slide eeai ih a aehed heage ha cai clickable feae like aial, lli, ad ele ha lik addiial lide ih e deailed ifai ad f fac. Sde ciei ee eage lee che feae ele. Afe chig he Dgee cab lide, Vice eclaied, I did k cab ca eg hei cla! Wha if e cld d ha! Whe M. Lael aked Mae elai h lli flig i dai i a ble, he haed, I cld g i ie ad h aial hee.

Lesson Two: Our Local Watershed Thid gade de a Wa Sig Eleea Schl i Fe had ch f dig hei aehed caege h i he d f hei fi SDR hek aige. Sde i M. Wg cla haed hei beai i he Z cha ad eball. Bejai eclaied, I a a dlhi he fail e he beach! Chle haed, I elled e ad delici fd!

Sde i M. Heade cla led cdcig hei fi had- ciece eeie e Z! Sde had eil gaheed he ile lie: ae, ahable ake, a c f ae, ad a a. Sde ciei heled each he ih i h ake a del f a aehed ih ai eak ad alle f ae ad ace ih ble ake he ediced he aha ha ae ld fl. Afe iklig ae e hei del e hei edici, de ee eage hae hei el ih e ahe, akig haig hei ide lighed i Z. Pake elaied, I ediced hee ld be f aehed, b hee ae acall l hee. I hik hid ad fh aehed cbied ake he Pacific Ocea!

Sde i M. Li cla ejed cleig a dag ad d caege h i Jabad lcae ciie, bdie f ae, bidge, ad ilad i he Sa Facic Ba Waehed i Z beak g. We fd ci f Fe! eclaied Raj. Aaa added, We fd he Glde Gae bidge! Ma de aied hei had he KIDS f he BAY Edca Siea Kkedall aked de if he had ced he Glde

3 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021

Gae Bidge befe. Sde he ed ceaie had i deae h he had ced: f, i a ca, b bike!

Lesson Three: Our Watershed is an Estuar Afe leaig ha hei Sa Facic Ba Waehed i a ea, a aiall ecled bd f ae hee alae ad fehae i, hid gade de a Malcl X Eleea Schl i Bekele ee eage cdc a eeie dice e ab he elaie dei f diffee e f ae i hei eie. Sde had eil gaheed he ile li f lie f he Eggeie: c f ae, al, egg, ad a . KIDS f he BAY Edca M. Siea deled ad gided de i he e f he eeie: add al e c f ae ad i i ih he il i dile. She he aked de e hei edici i he Z cha: Will he egg fla i A) feh ae, B) alae?

Sde ee ecied ake haig hei el ad helig each he aale diffeig el. Wih he ide lighed i Z, Ade elaied, M egg ak i alae. Sella eded, I hik ha becae did add egh al. Ade he added e al ad beed ha he egg flaed! Ael added, I ade backih ae! I ied c f feh ae ih c f al ae ad he added egg. Becae i a backih ae, he egg aiall ak becae he ae eha e dee ha backih ae. Ia had a ie, eal ceci he eeie. She haed, M fail ha chicke ad check if he egg ae afe ea, e he i fehae: if he ik he he ae healh! M. Siea aked, Wha ld hae healh egg i alae? The ld fla!, Ia eded.

M. Siea he gided de dead ha hei eeie i he fac ha alae i e dee, hea, ha fehae. She elaied ha i hei lcal Sa Facic Ba ea, al ad fehae ae iiiall laeed, ih al ae a he b f he ba ad fehae ea he face. The e f ae he i i he ll e.

Lesson Four: How Pollution Moves in our Watershed F hid gade de a Maaia Ci Schl i Oaklad, he highligh f le f a iig hei ie ab h lli e i he aehed. I Z beak g, de baied eale f lli, lace, ad aci. The he adl lgged hee i a MadLib Plli S elae. Kaliah aid, Plaic i e e f lli, like laic bag. Jel haed, Oil ad ga ae eale f lli . Back i he Z ai ei, de lee f each g ead he ie ld hei ee. KIDS f he BAY Edca, M. Siea, aked de ealae each f accac: Cld hi eall hae? I hi eall h lli e i he ld? Cheah aid, Well lli eall cld ael f Oaklad, e he Pacific Ocea, ad all he a Aalia like e aid i . B a ige cld ea ke lli! I cld ill be h b he ke hgh he i beahe.

Sde he leaed h lli ael i he aehed b id, illegal dig, lieig, ad dai. Dei, a fifh gade de a Licl Eleea Schl i Neak haed, Whe i ai ad I alk d he ee I ee he aib ga ddle f leakig ca. Thi i ad becae I k i ca ge i ae hgh he dai! Ra added, Thi illegal dig, lieig, ad ah ha ha i he

4 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021 eie i dieecfl. The eie de deee i. KIDS f he BAY Edca Jaie Ball ld Ra ad he hle cla ha he cld agee e. She challeged de g ide afe he le check he dai i hei eighbhd ake e hee a a dage lli eeig aea. Sde ee ead f he challege. Caila eclaied, I ie I ill! I hae kee he fih afe f he lli ha cld g hgh he dai hei he!

Lesson Five: How Pollution Impacts our Shared Watershed KIDS f he BAY Edca M. Jaie aked, Did k ha ea le fe iake laic bag f jellfih? Thid gade de a Jae Madi Eleea Schl i Sa Lead ee cceed ab he deieal iac ha lli ha aial fied ih h e hae eie. Afe leaig ab iclacic, de ee eage ake aci ec he eie. Tala f M. Kee cla aid, We eed h ele h hei lie affec aial ha he d d i ae! M. Jaie ageed ad ld he eage de ha lckil, he ld hae he i ake a BIG diffeece i hei ci b leadig hei lie clea a a hek aige. H a iece f ah d hik e ill be able cllec? aked M. Jaie. 100 iece! de f bh clae eclaied.

Lesson Six: Alternatives to Pollution and Using the Five Rs Back Z he fllig eek, M. Jaie added he al a f iece de f each hid gade cla a Jae Madi Eleea had icked , ad bh clae aed fa a hei gal f cllecig 100 iece f ah. Wih bh clae cbied, he total amount of pieces collected was 386 pieces! Sde jed f hei ea ih eciee a all f he lli he eed f he eie! M. Jaie ld he g eieali, I a d f he eak all f hed b cleaig ciie ad cheeig each he . Ee igle iece f ah ha all icked i e le iece f ah ha ca be eae b a aial! Sde haed hei feelig ab he clea, ad h ha he ee hel aial fied. Kaada aid, I feel d f becae e all heled he aial a afe!

M Jaie idced de he Fie R ad aked he hik ab a ledge a ie ha he ca ake hel ee lli f geig i eie. Wid aid, I ledge e eable ie hel edce he a f ah ha cld ge i he eie ad d he dai! Aa aid, I ledge ee be ad a ad b ff ha de hae ch ackagig becae I a kee ea, lad, ad ai aial afe!!

5 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021

B) PROGRAM UPDATE 1. List the school programs completed during this reporting period into table provided below (sorted b cit): Storm Drain Rangers Activit Schedule 2020-2021 Cit Elementar Teachers/Grade Lesson Dates Number Pieces of School of lessons Trash completed

Oaklad Maaia Caie Ade, 3d Le 1 Ocbe 27 21 f 30 150 al Ci Ralie Bae, 4h/5h Le 2 Nebe 3 iece f Schl Ce Wallace, 3d Le 3 Nebe 10 lie Le 4 Decebe 1 clleced Le 5 Decebe 8 Le 6 Jaa 5 Le 7 Jaa 12 Le 8 Jaa 26 Le 9 Feba 2 Le 10 Feba 9

Oaklad Rie Li Ne, 4h/5h Le 1 Nebe 12 3 f 10 TBD Ci (Ne: Pae eache i Le 2 Decebe 10 Schl Tac Ddell a Ne Le 3 Jaa 7 Highlad; he chl Le 4 Feba 4 ae he ae ca) Le 5 Feba 18 Le 6 Mach 4 Le 7 Mach 18 Le 8 Ail 1 Le 9 Ail 22 Le 10 Ma 6

Oaklad Ne Tac Ddell, 3d Le 1 Nebe 10 3 f 10 TBD Highlad Le 2 Decebe 8 Acade Le 3 Jaa 5 Le 4 Feba 2 Le 5 Feba 16 Le 6 Mach 2 Le 7 Mach 16 Le 8 Mach 30 Le 9 Ail 20 Le 10 Ma 4

Sa Jae Ah Del Ree, 3d Le 1 Nebe 5 16 f 20 386 al Lead Madi Daielle Kee, 3d Le 2 Nebe 12 iece f Eleea Le 3 Nebe 19 lie Schl Le 4 Decebe 3 clleced Le 5 Decebe 10 Le 6 Decebe 17 Le 7 Jaa 7 Le 8 Jaa 14 Le 9 Jaa 21

6 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021

Le 10 Jaa 28

Haad Hade Raa Maie, 4h Le 1 Ocbe 29 16 f 20 1,290 al Eleea Saaha Richad, Le 2 Nebe 5 iece f Schl 4h/5h Le 3 Nebe 12 lie Le 4 Nebe 19 clleced Le 5 Decebe 3 Le 6 Decebe 10 Le 7 Jaa 7 Le 8 Jaa 14 Le 9 Jaa 21 Le 10 Jaa 28

Fe Wa Lida Heade, 3d Le 1 Decebe 1 9 f 30 TBD Sig T Hei Li, 3d Le 2 Decebe 15 Eleea Ida Wg, 3d Le 3 Jaa 12 Schl Le 4 Jaa 26 Le 5 Feba 9 Le 6 Feba 23 Le 7 Mach 9 Le 8 Mach 23 Le 9 Ail 13 Le 10 Ail 27

Bekele Malcl X A Cle, 3d Le 1 Nebe 2 28 f 40 849 al Eleea Richad Cbee, 3d Le 2 Nebe 9 iece f Schl Mia Pa, 3d Le 3 Nebe 30 lie Zia Maeki-Hd, 3d Le 4 Decebe 7 clleced Le 5 Decebe 14 Le 6 Jaa 4 Le 7 Jaa 11 Le 8 Jaa 25 Le 9 Feba 1 Le 10 Feba 8

Neak Licl Kell Bkhead, 5h Le 1 Nebe 17 12 f 20 1,051 al Eleea Li Gae, 5h Le 2 Decebe 1 iece f Schl Le 3 Decebe 8 lie Le 4 Decebe 15 clleced Le 5 Jaa 5 Le 6 Jaa 12 Le 7 Jaa 19 Le 8 Jaa 26 Le 9 Feba 2 Le 10 Feba 9

2. Estimated percent of program completed: 108 le cleed f 180 al le (10 le f 18 eache) = 60% f SDR ga cleed

7 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDCAIONAL EICE M- EPO FOM F 2020-2021

3. Will all the planned lessons/activities be implemented b the end of the 2020-21? school ear? Ye

4. Attach an activit schedule planned for the next quarter (sorted b cit). Schedules need to include cit, school, name of teacher, date, and time of scheduled programs. If our program consists of multiple class lessons/activities, list lesson(s) and activit(ies) for each class. See abe

C) PROGRAM EVALUATION

5. Ealai daa ill be clleced b Je 2021 ad ill be iclded i he fial e be bied i Je 2021.

D) BUDGET UPDATE

1. Funds awarded 2020 - 2021 school ear (as per agreement): $63,750 2. Costs invoiced during this reporting period: $37,125 ($343.75 e e-h le X 108 le) 3. Costs invoiced to date: $37,125 4. Funds remaining this school ear: $26,625

E) PUBLICATIONS

1. Attach copies of an press releases, newsletters, articles, and/or other program marketing materials produced during this reporting period.

Pleae ii he Blg Page ebie ead e ece ie ab ga delieed dig diace leaig: h://kidfheba.g/e/blg/

Pleae eail a elecic c f hi e Ji Scali (ji@aca.g).

___1/15/2021______

Sigae f Pga Diec Dae Madi Billige

8 KIDS f he BAY: Mid Yea Re

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

KIDS for the BAY

A) PROGRAM INFORMATION Organization Name: KIDS for the BAY Mailing Address: 1771 Alcatraz Avenue Berkeley CA 94703 Street City State Zip Code

Program Director: Mandi Billinge Phone: 510-985-1602 E-mail: [email protected]

Name of Person Completing the Report: Sienna Kuykendall Phone: 510-985-1602 E-mail: [email protected]

Date of Report: June 15, 2021 Reporting Period: From March 16, 2021 to June 15, 2021

Program Scope: The Storm Drain Rangers School Wide Trash Reduction (SDR) Program is designed to engage and educate elementary school students in Alameda County about stormwater pollution reduction. KIDS for the BAY is providing the program via distance learning for the 2020-2021 school year. The distance learning SDR connects students with their local watershed environment through hands-on environmental science, interactive lessons and time outdoors, and supports Next Generation Science Standards. The program includes ten one-hour interactive Zoom lessons paired with at-home assignments. Program components include: ● Place-based environmental science learning including: ○ Exploration of the local watershed ○ Watershed connections and the San Francisco Bay estuary ○ Storm drains, sanitary sewer systems, and reducing pollution ○ A trash cleanup project and practicing the Five Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Rot, Refuse) to reduce trash and waste at the source ○ Environmental actions, behavior changes and environmental leadership ○ A virtual Assembly to inspire school communities to participate in trash cleanup efforts ● Movement-based instruction of key concepts ● Time for students to inquire and collaborate through breakout rooms, interactive Jamboards, and video and written storytelling ● Simple at-home experiments and investigations paired with class demonstrations ● Screen-free outdoor activities including connecting with nature, data collection and a trash cleanup in each student's neighborhood.

The following is a list of the lessons delivered to each participating class: 1. Everyone is an Environmentalist 2. Our Local Watershed 3. Our Watershed is an Estuary 4. How Pollution Moves in our Watershed

1 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

5. How Pollution Impacts our Shared Watershed 6. Alternatives to Pollution and Using the Five Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Rot, Refuse) 7. Virtual Assembly Preparation 8. Virtual Assembly Planning & Rehearsal 9. Virtual Assembly Review & Program Celebration 10. Virtual Assembly Presentation & Becoming a Storm Drain Ranger

Eighteen teachers and classes from eight schools participated in the SDR Program this year. This number includes two additional teachers/classes than our typical number of sixteen each year, because of the funding roll-over from incomplete programs last year due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

2 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

Storm Drain Rangers Zoom Lesson Highlights The following are highlights from the Storm Drain Rangers Program Zoom Lessons and Action Projects:

Lesson 1-6 (see SDR Mid-Year Report for more details)

Lesson 7: Virtual Assembly Preparation In preparation for their Environmental Action Project, student environmentalists in Ms. Anderson’s third grade class at Manzanita Community School in Oakland played a game of Trivia to summarize what they had learned in Lessons 1-6 of the Storm Drain Rangers Program. Students set a goal of earning 1,000 points and were very proud to exceed that goal by earning 1,300 points in just 20 minutes! KIDS for the BAY Educator, Sienna Kuykendall, was very impressed with the students’ ability to remember vocabulary words and concepts, such as the names of different bodies of water and sources of fresh and saltwater, what happens when it rains and where the water goes, which types of pollution to keep out of the storm drains, and alternatives to pollution like the Five Rs! Students remembered that their local watershed is the Sausal Creek Watershed, which runs through their neighborhood Dimond Park. They also remembered that the San Francisco Bay is an estuary: “Her name is Esther and that is where fresh and saltwater mix!” Chenoah exclaimed. She then performed the brackish water dance students had learned in a previous lesson and her peers joined in!

Third grade students at James Madison Elementary School in San Leandro also had a blast playing trivia and working together to come up with the answers. Students in Ms. Ketner’s class went straight for the tough questions and did a really great job! Talya explained her answer of how litter can end up in the ocean by saying, “I think the answer is true because the wind can blow the litter to the ocean or into a storm drain which will also take it to the ocean!” In response to a question about waste sorting, Kaliyah shared, “I think that the fats, oils and greases are not supposed to go down the sink drain because they can clog the sewers. I also don’t think they belong in the recycling. My guess is that they are supposed to go in the trash.”

After the fun and confidence-building experience playing Trivia, student environmentalists in Mr. Wallace’s third grade class at Manzanita Community School in Oakland brainstormed ways they could practice environmental leadership. Khloe shared, “We can encourage other people to not litter and to recycle instead!” Eliseo agreed and added, “We can show people what happens when they litter by making art, like posters to show how litter hurts animals.” Ms. Sienna explained that students would have the opportunity to do just that! They would create educational art to share with others what they learned in the Storm Drain Rangers Program through a Virtual Assembly! Ms. Sienna encouraged students to start practicing being teachers and leaders by playing Trivia with their families for their At-Home Activity. Lucius said, “I can’t wait to play this with my family!”

Lesson 8: Virtual Assembly Planning & Rehearsal At the beginning of their Virtual Assembly Rehearsal, third grade student environmentalists at Warm Springs Elementary School in Fremont were excited to share about their experiences playing trivia with their families. Shenali explained, “I felt really good teaching my mom, dad and brother about our environment. My family members learned a lot of stuff! They liked the trivia game so much that we played it twice and earned 3,000 points!” Ved added, “I taught my mom that our environment is special and unique because the San Francisco Bay is an estuary that has lots of different habitats like beaches, marches and mountains! Teaching her something new made me excited for our Virtual Assembly!”

To prepare to make their Virtual Assembly contributions, student environmentalists at Harder Elementary School in Hayward evaluated what makes an interesting and educational video, audio or poster from the examples KIDS for the BAY Educator Laurel Sebastain shared. Students were particularly focused on the importance of speaking

3 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021 with passion when teaching others about the environment. Ryan said, “You need to speak like you mean it! Otherwise nobody is going to believe you!” Mergeena was inspired by the use of props in the example videos and said, “I am going to talk about the Five Rs and use some examples from my home!”

After discussing the examples, students were eager to get straight to work in Zoom Breakout rooms to plan how they would creatively contribute to the Virtual Assembly. Students worked collaboratively to write their lines answering questions such as, “What is the environment and why is it important?” “How does pollution move in the watershed?” “What can you do to keep the watershed clean and healthy?” Several students offered to help each other. When Juelz wasn’t sure what his watershed was called, Michael helped: “We live by San Lorenzo Creek!” Together the groups gave advice on how to make answers clearer and practiced their lines with each other. They also decided what format - poster, audio, or video - they wanted to share their knowledge in. Anthony shared, “I’m excited because I love making videos.” Jasmine shared, “I want to make a poster because I love creating art!”

At the end of the lesson Ms. Laurel asked if the students wanted the link right away so they could start their videos during lunch. Reed and other students said, “Yes! Please send it. I have ideas of what I’m going to do and want to start!” A few minutes after the lesson, Ms. Laurel saw a video submitted by Reed of him acting as a newscaster that explained what brackish water was to his stuffed animals!

Lesson 9: Virtual Assembly Review & Program Celebration Students environmentalists at Malcolm X Elementary School in Berkeley began the lesson by asking questions about the video assembly project, and reviewing a few student submissions. After viewing examples of successful videos, Penny responded, “The video was good because it explained the topic clearly and used props.” Gilda added, “I liked that some videos were outside to show a real environment.” Similarly, students at Warm Springs Elementary in Fremont were inspired by each other’s creativity! Srija exclaimed, “Wow! I love how Raj made a puppet show to teach others about storm drain pollution and how it hurts the animals!” Janice bravely read a powerful poem she had written about how to protect the environment (see student work samples attached to this report).

Students at New Highland Academy in Oakland used the Assembly preparation as an incredible opportunity to integrate their learning from many other experiences at school! They incorporated dioramas and GIFs they made in their art class into their Virtual Assembly video. Additionally, they worked with their teacher, Ms. Dordell, to design and paint KIDS for the BAY T-shirts and record super heroe videos modeling the Five Rs!

After reviewing and celebrating their progress on the Virtual Assembly, student environmentalists at Manzanita Community School loved appreciating the learning and growth they had made through the program by watching a slideshow of the activities and experiments they had participated in, as well as the At-Home Activities they had completed, from scavenger hunts outside to nature art and waste sorting posters. They shared their memories and highlights. Nicole shared, “I loved doing nature art! I made an animal out of leaves and flower petals!” Zar shared, “I had so much fun observing animals in my house and neighborhood!” Abigail was proud to see images of her conducting the litter clean up in her neighborhood. She shared, “I’m happy because I got so much trash away from the storm drains and our animals!”

Lesson 10: Virtual Assembly Presentation & Becoming a Storm Drain Ranger View an Assembly Video Collage here on our KIDS for the BAY YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb_DBZp82rM&list=TLPQMjIwNDIwMjEdO5mXWbG-kg&index=1

4 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

Students in both Ms. Ketner’s and Mrs. Delos Reyes’ classes at James Madison Elementary School in San Leandro were thrilled with the results of their Virtual Assemblies. Many students were able to bring their siblings and parents to watch the Assembly over Zoom, and even Paulette Smith, the school principal, attended! Students felt very proud of everything they accomplished in the Storm Drain Rangers Program. Yessibella said, “I feel so proud of our class because of all the hard work we have put into our Assembly and it makes me feel closer to everyone!” Students celebrated their Assembly with a bow and a round of applause/some pats on the back. Principal Smith was very impressed and said, “Congratulations Environmentalists! You all did such an incredible job. I remember back when I was a teacher in Oakland, I participated in the KIDS for the BAY program and to this day everytime I pass a storm drain I remember our lessons and I always clip the six-pack rings to help save the animals. The information you have all learned is so important and I am so proud of you all!”

The Virtual Assemblies for both classes at Lincoln Elementary School in Newark were also huge successes! Both teachers were clearly proud of the hard work their students put into creating meaningful Assemblies to share their knowledge. Ms. Burkhead shared, “I feel like this is such a proud teacher moment. I love science and these videos are amazing evidence of everything you all learned and all the hard work you have done. Yay science!” After the Virtual Assemblies, KIDS for the BAY Educator Jamie Ball shared the certificates with students and everyone was so excited! “We get certificates?!” the students exclaimed! Ms. Jamie told students that everyone is now an official Storm Drain Ranger!

Students concluded their final Storm Drain Rangers experience by writing pledges about how they plan to continue caring for the environment. Pranjali shared, “I made a club with my friends called ‘This is our World’. We have a litter cleanup kit and whenever we see litter, we pick it up. We are working on our website now!” Other students are eager to engage with their teammates’ resources and clubs. KIDS for the BAY Educator Ms. Sienna encouraged them to continue connecting and sharing their ideas with each other. Aahana shared, “Thanks for teaching us so much stuff about the environment. We will miss you Ms. Sienna! I hope we have KIDS for the BAY next year in fourth grade!” Students left the final lesson clearly feeling the excitement and pride of being official Storm Drain Rangers, and confident about their capacity to make a difference to help the environment.

Photos See attached photo document

Samples of Students’ Work Attached

Thank you Letters Attached

B) PROGRAM UPDATE 1. List the school programs completed during this reporting period into table provided below (sorted by city): Storm Drain Rangers Activity Schedule 2020-2021 City Elementary Teachers/Grade Lesson Dates Number Pieces of School of lessons Trash

5 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

completed

Oakland Manzanita Carrie Anderson, 3rd Lesson 1 October 27 30 of 30 150 total Community Rosalie Barnes, 4th/5th Lesson 2 November 3 pieces of School Corey Wallace, 3rd Lesson 3 November 10 litter Lesson 4 December 1 collected Lesson 5 December 8 Lesson 6 January 5 Lesson 7 January 12 Lesson 8 January 26 Lesson 9 February 2 Lesson 10 February 9

Oakland Rise Liz Noone, 4th/5th Lesson 1 November 12 10 of 10 107 total Community (Note: Partner teacher is Lesson 2 December 10 pieces of School Tracy Dordell at New Lesson 3 January 7 litter Highland; the two schools Lesson 4 February 4 collected are on the same campus) Lesson 5 February 18 Lesson 6 March 4 Lesson 7 March 18 Lesson 8 April 1 Lesson 9 April 22 Lesson 10 May 6

Oakland New Tracy Dordell, 3rd Lesson 1 November 10 10 of 10 97 total Highland Lesson 2 December 8 pieces of Academy Lesson 3 January 5 litter Lesson 4 February 2 collected Lesson 5 February 16 Lesson 6 March 2 Lesson 7 March 16 Lesson 8 March 30 Lesson 9 April 20 Lesson 10 May 4

San James Ahn Delos Reyes, 3rd Lesson 1 November 5 20 of 20 386 total Leandro Madison Danielle Ketner, 3rd Lesson 2 November 12 pieces of Elementary Lesson 3 November 19 litter School Lesson 4 December 3 collected Lesson 5 December 10 Lesson 6 December 17 Lesson 7 January 7 Lesson 8 January 14 Lesson 9 January 21 Lesson 10 January 28

Hayward Harder Ramona Martinez, 4th Lesson 1 October 29 20 of 20 1,290 total Elementary Samantha Richardson, Lesson 2 November 5 pieces of School 4th/5th Lesson 3 November 12 litter Lesson 4 November 19 collected

6 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

Lesson 5 December 3 Lesson 6 December 10 Lesson 7 January 7 Lesson 8 January 14 Lesson 9 January 21 Lesson 10 January 28

Fremont Warm Lorinda Hernandez, 3rd Lesson 1 December 1 30 of 30 2,707 total Springs Tsu Hei Lin, 3rd Lesson 2 December 15 pieces of Elementary Ida Wong, 3rd Lesson 3 January 12 litter School Lesson 4 January 26 collected Lesson 5 February 9 Lesson 6 February 23 Lesson 7 March 9 Lesson 8 March 23 Lesson 9 April 13 Lesson 10 April 27

Berkeley Malcolm X Amy Cottle, 3rd Lesson 1 November 2 40 of 40 849 total Elementary Richard Cobeen, 3rd Lesson 2 November 9 pieces of School Mia Parsons, 3rd Lesson 3 November 30 litter Zia Manekin-Hrdy, 3rd Lesson 4 December 7 collected Lesson 5 December 14 Lesson 6 January 4 Lesson 7 January 11 Lesson 8 January 25 Lesson 9 February 1 Lesson 10 February 8

Newark Lincoln Kelly Burkhead, 5th Lesson 1 November 17 20 of 20 1,051 total Elementary Liz Garrett, 5th Lesson 2 December 1 pieces of School Lesson 3 December 8 litter Lesson 4 December 15 collected Lesson 5 January 5 Lesson 6 January 12 Lesson 7 January 19 Lesson 8 January 26 Lesson 9 February 2 Lesson 10 February 9 Total pieces of litter collected: 6,637

2. Estimated percent of program completed: 180 lessons completed of 180 total lessons (10 lessons for 18 teachers) = 100% of SDR program completed

3. Will all the planned lessons/activities be implemented by the end of the 2020-21? school year? Yes, all lessons have been completed.

7 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

4. Attach an activity schedule planned for the next quarter (sorted by city). Schedules need to include city, school, name of teacher, date, and time of scheduled programs. If your program consists of multiple class lessons/activities, list lesson(s) and activity(ies) for each class. See above

C) PROGRAM EVALUATION

5. Program Evaluation

Teacher Evaluation Quotes

“I am SO grateful to KIDS for the BAY and the funders of the Storm Drain Rangers Program for making this program possible for us in Title 1 schools. We cannot usually pay for things our kids need, so I am very grateful to those who donate money to make this happen.” Carrie Anderson, Third Grade Teacher, Manzanita Community School, Oakland

“I have noticed a change in my students' awareness about the environment. They now remind their friends and family to make sure that they clean up after themselves by throwing their trash away in the proper place and to recycle more. I also feel that my kids did an amazing job with the video for the Assembly. They really put their all into the videos. During the Assembly, the students were amazed at how many people came to see their video. They were proud of themselves for being able to share their hard work with others.” Samantha Richardson, Fourth/Fifth Grade Teacher, Harder Elementary School, Hayward

“For the Assembly, students had time and support to plan out their final products. Their answers were thoughtful and they had a choice in delivery. This allowed them to be successful. Their videos, posters, and answers for the Assembly were amazing! They were able to use vocabulary terms we learned, and really connect it to their own lives. The Assembly itself really felt like we were a community, and the kids were able to share their learning with others. It also helped me see that the students have a shared experience, even if it is through distance learning. I was so proud, and so were the parents!” Ahn Delos Reyes, Third Grade Teacher, James Madison Elementary School, San Leandro

“The Virtual Assembly was terrific! The students did very well and used technology to create an engaging message. They all talked about the Five Rs and how they were going to pay attention to where their garbage was going to go from now on. Our principal asked permission to share the video with the rest of the staff. She was very impressed with the message and the work of the students.” Liz Garrett, Fifth Grade Teacher, Lincoln Elementary School, Newark

“The Assembly helped students learn public speaking skills. A parent who attended said he learned new information as well, and that they have been implementing better practices at home.” Tsu Hei Lin, Third Grade Teacher, Warm Springs Elementary School, Fremont

“The students really loved the hands-on activities and they constantly asked to do them. The materials were simple enough for students to gather around their homes. With the Assembly, it was really nice to see a summary of all that the students had learned over the ten week course, plus it was great that parents could see the results too. As a whole I feel that my students are much more environmentally

8 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

aware than they were prior to this program. My coworkers in third grade loved it. We have nine third grade classes and only one third of us participated. This is an enriching program. I hope more of our team can participate in the future!” Ida Wong, Third Grade Teacher, Warm Springs Elementary School, Fremont

D) BUDGET UPDATE

1. Funds awarded 2020 - 2021 school year (as per agreement): $63,750 2. Costs invoiced during this reporting period: $5,843.75 ($343.75 per one-hour lesson X 17 lessons) 3. Costs invoiced to date: $61,875 (including during this reporting period) 4. Funds remaining from this school year: $1,875

E) PUBLICATIONS

1. Attach copies of any press releases, newsletters, articles, and/or other program marketing materials produced during this reporting period.

Please visit the Blog Page on our website to read some recent stories about our programs delivered during distance learning: http://kidsforthebay.org/news/blog/

Storm Drain Rangers Follow-Up Program: Blue Watershed Classrooms This school year, we have successfully transitioned our Blue Watershed Classrooms teacher follow-up support program online. During the challenges of distance learning, we have found it particularly important to support our past partner teachers with additional resources for teaching our curricula. Each participating Blue Watershed Classrooms teacher received a complete set of interactive slideshows for each lesson, which includes videos, Jamboards, and our Virtual Watershed. They were also supported with program orientation meetings, lesson curriculum guides, and a litter cleanup kit. Now that all of our supporting materials are online, our Blue Watershed Classrooms program is easier than ever for teachers to access and teach with confidence. We hope these new digital resources will allow more teachers to continue participating, and allow us to increase the collective positive impact of our teacher network.

This year, nine previous SDR partner teachers participated in the Blue Watershed Classrooms (BWC) program, engaging an additional 245 Alameda County students in environmental science education (see table below). These BWC teachers eagerly incorporated the BWC curriculum into their distance learning plan this year and intend to continue teaching it for years to come.

# Teacher School & City Grade Level & Class Size

1 Aimee Jocson-Ramirez Birch Grove Elementary School, 3rd, 25 students Newark

2 Debra Fujikawa Birch Grove Elementary School, 4th, 29 students Newark

9 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Final REPORT FORM Fiscal Year 2020-2021

3 Pat Urbi Guy Jr. Emanuele Elementary School, 4th/5th grade, 25 students Union City

4 Shawnetta Jones Guy Jr. Emanuele Elementary School, 5th grade, 29 students Union City

5 Greg Wellman Guy Jr. Emanuele Elementary School, 5th grade, 34 students Union City

6 Elisabeth Carlton James Madison Elementary School, 4th/5th grade, 28 students San Leandro

7 Olivia Emerson James Madison Elementary School, 3rd grade, 23 students San Leandro

8 Rachel Toscano James Madison Elementary School, 3rd grade, 22 students San Leandro

9 Erika Isomura Glassbrook Elementary School, 5th grade, 30 students Hayward

Please email an electronic copy of this report to Jim Scanlin ([email protected]).

__6/15/2021______

Signature of Program Director Date Mandi Billinge

10 | KIDS for the BAY: Final Report Storm Drain Rangers Poem

Let’s protect nature, Like melting ice glaciers. I hope we can stop the global warming, So our environment will be even more charming!

Let’s share some ways To save the day Of our beautiful blue Earth, And we know how much our nature is worth!

We do not litter, It hurts critters. We save energy and water To stop the nature robber.

You may had been told, Our planet is more valuable than gold. Please, don’t cut down all the trees, Just let them be!

Thousands of animals die each day, I should pray For a better environment. I feel worried for animals that are endangered, They protect our animals, thanks to park rangers!

-Janice, Third Grade Student, Warm Springs Elementary School, Fremont

Appendix D

Pesticide Toxicity Control Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

Regional Supplement for Tracking and Participating in Pesticide Regulatory Efforts

San Francisco Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit

Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Collaborative

September 2021 MRP Regional Supplement for Tracking and Participating in Pesticide Regulatory Efforts Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

TRACKING AND PARTICIPATING IN PESTICIDE REGULATORY EFFORTS 2

C.9.f. Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes 2

Activities and Accomplishments during FY 2020-2021 3

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 - 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment, California Stormwater Quality Association, Final Report August 2021

September 2021 1 MRP Regional Supplement for Tracking and Participating in Pesticide Regulatory Efforts Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

INTRODUCTION

This Regional Supplement has been prepared to report on regionally implemented activities complying with portions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), issued to 79 municipalities and special districts (Permittees) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). The Regional Supplement covers tracking of pesticide regulatory activities related to the following MRP provision: • C.9.f. Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes.

The essential requirements of Provision C.9.f are to track U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) actions related to urban uses of pesticides and actively participate in the shaping of regulatory efforts currently underway. This provision allows for cooperation among Permittees through the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), BASMAA, and/or the Urban Pesticide Pollution Prevention Project (UP3 Project) – an approach the Permittees have engaged in for a number of years. Recognizing this approach is the most likely to result in meaningful changes in the regulatory environment, Permittees elected to continue on this course in FY 2020-21 to achieve compliance with this provision.

These regionally implemented activities were conducted by CASQA with funding from and in collaboration with members of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization comprised of the municipal stormwater programs in the San Francisco Bay Area. 1 Most of the 2020-21 annual reporting requirements of the specific MRP Provision covered in this Supplement were completely met by these regional activities, except where otherwise noted herein or by Permittees in their reports.

TRACKING AND PARTICIPATING IN PESTICIDE REGULATORY EFFORTS

C.9.f. Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes

MRP Provision C.9.f states:

i. Task Description – The Permittees shall conduct the following activities, which may be done at a county, regional, or statewide level:

(1) The Permittees shall track U.S. EPA pesticide evaluation and registration activities as they relate to surface water quality and, when necessary, encourage U.S. EPA to coordinate implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the CWA and to accommodate water quality concerns within its pesticide registration process;

1 In late FY 20-21, BASMAA dissolved as a formal non-profit organization and its members continued to meet as an informal organization under the name Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Coalition (BAMSC). BAMSC members jointly prepared this Regional Supplement for FY 20-21. September 2021 2 MRP Regional Supplement for Tracking and Participating in Pesticide Regulatory Efforts Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

(2) The Permittees shall track DPR pesticide evaluation activities as they relate to surface water quality and, when necessary, encourage DPR to coordinate implementation of the California Food and Agriculture Code with the California Water Code and to accommodate water quality concerns within its pesticide evaluation process;

(3) The Permittees shall assemble and submit information (such as monitoring data) as needed to assist DPR and county agricultural commissioners in ensuring that pesticide applications comply with WQS; and

(4) As appropriate, the Permittees shall submit comment letters on U.S. EPA and DPR re-registration, re-evaluation, and other actions relating to pesticides of concern for water quality.

ii. Reporting – In their Annual Reports, the Permittees shall summarize participation efforts, information submitted, and how regulatory actions were affected. Permittees who contribute to a county, regional, or statewide effort shall submit one report at the county or regional level. Duplicate reporting is discouraged.

Activities and Accomplishments during FY 2020-2021

The actual work of tracking and participating in the ongoing regulatory efforts related to pesticides was accomplished through CASQA. CASQA conducted its activities on behalf of members and coordinated funding contributions and activities through its True Source Control Subcommittee (encompassing the former Pesticide Subcommittee, a group of stormwater quality agencies affected by pesticides or pesticides-related toxicity listings, TMDLs, or permit requirements, as well as others knowledgeable about pesticide-related stormwater issues). The CASQA 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment (Attachment 1) provides a comprehensive and detailed accounting of efforts to track and participate in relevant regulatory processes as well as accomplishments related to pesticides and stormwater quality.

September 2021 3 Attachments

Attachment 1 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment California Stormwater Quality Association Final Report August 2021

MRP Regional Supplement for Tracking and Participating in Pesticide Regulatory Efforts Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

TRACKING AND PARTICIPATING IN PESTICIDE REGULATORY EFFORTS 2

C.9.f. Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes 2

Activities and Accomplishments during FY 2020-2021 3

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 - 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment, California Stormwater Quality Association, Final Report August 2021

September 2021 1 MRP Regional Supplement for Tracking and Participating in Pesticide Regulatory Efforts Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

INTRODUCTION

This Regional Supplement has been prepared to report on regionally implemented activities complying with portions of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), issued to 79 municipalities and special districts (Permittees) by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). The Regional Supplement covers tracking of pesticide regulatory activities related to the following MRP provision: • C.9.f. Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes.

TRACKING AND PARTICIPATING IN PESTICIDE REGULATORY EFFORTS

C.9.f. Track and Participate in Relevant Regulatory Processes

MRP Provision C.9.f states:

i. Task Description – The Permittees shall conduct the following activities, which may be done at a county, regional, or statewide level:

1 In late FY 20-21, BASMAA dissolved as a formal non-profit organization and its members continued to meet as an informal organization under the name Bay Area Municipal Stormwater Coalition (BAMSC). BAMSC members jointly prepared this Regional Supplement for FY 20-21. September 2021 2 MRP Regional Supplement for Tracking and Participating in Pesticide Regulatory Efforts Annual Reporting for FY 2020-2021

(4) As appropriate, the Permittees shall submit comment letters on U.S. EPA and DPR re-registration, re-evaluation, and other actions relating to pesticides of concern for water quality.

Activities and Accomplishments during FY 2020-2021

September 2021 3 Attachments

Attachment 1 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment California Stormwater Quality Association Final Report August 2021

2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

California Stormwater Quality Association

Final Report August 2021

2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Preface The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) is comprised of stormwater quality management organizations and individuals, including cities, counties, federal agencies, state agencies, ports, universities and school districts, wastewater agencies, water suppliers, special districts, industries, and consulting firms throughout California. CASQA’s membership provides stormwater quality management services to more than 26 million people in California. This report provides CASQA’s members with focused information on its efforts to prevent pesticide pollution in urban waterways. It is a component of CASQA’s True Source Control Initiative, which seeks to address stormwater and urban runoff pollutants at their sources. This report was funded by CASQA, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, Contra Costa Clean Water Program, Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program, Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, Napa Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Sonoma County Water Agency, and Vallejo Flood & Wastewater District. This report was prepared by Stephanie Hughes under the direction of the CASQA True Source Control Subcommittee (Program Manager: Dave Tamayo), with input from Tammy Qualls of Qualls Environmental Consulting.

DISCLAIMER Neither CASQA, its Board of Directors, the True Source Control Subcommittee, any contributors, nor the authors make any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assume any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of this report or the consequences of use of any information, product, or process described in this report. Mention of trade names or commercial products, organizations, or suppliers does not constitute an actual or implied endorsement or recommendation for or against use, or warranty of products.

Copyright © 2021 California Stormwater Quality Association. All rights reserved. CASQA member organizations may include this report in their annual reports provided credit is provided to CASQA. Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source.

August 2021 Page 1 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Abbreviations Used in this Report BACWA – Bay Area Clean Water Agencies PAH – Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon BE – Biological Evaluation PEAIP – Program Effectiveness Assessment and Improvement Plan CASQA – California Stormwater Quality Association PMAC – Pest Management Advisory Committee CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act PPI – Pests, Pesticides, and Integrated Pest Management DPR initiative CCRWQCB – Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board PMP – Pesticides-specific Management Practice CVRWQCB – Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board SPCB – Structural Pest Control Board CWA – Clean Water Act SFBRWQCB – San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board DPR – California Department of Pesticide Regulation STORMS – Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water (a program of the State Water Board) EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency SWAMP – California Water Boards Surface Water Ambient Monitoring ESA – Endangered Species Act Program FWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SWRCB – State Water Resources Control Board or State Water Board FY – Fiscal Year (July 1 through June 30) TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load (regulatory plan for solving a water IPM – Integrated Pest Management pollution problem) MAA – Management Agency Agreement between DPR and the Water TSC – CASQA True Source Control Subcommittee Boards UP3 – Urban Pesticides Pollution Prevention Partnership MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System UPA – Urban Pesticide Amendments NACWA – National Association of Clean Water Agencies USGS – U.S. Geological Survey NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Water Boards – California State Water Resources Control Board together OPP – U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs with the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards OW – U.S. EPA Office of Water

August 2021 Page 2 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Contents Preface ...... 1 Abbreviations Used in this Report ...... 2 Executive Summary ...... 3 Section 1. Introduction ...... 5 1.1 Importance of CASQA’s Efforts to Improve Pesticide Regulation ...... 5 1.2 CASQA’s Goals and Application to Program Effectiveness Assessment ...... 10 Section 2. Latest Results of CASQA Efforts ...... 11 2.1 Near-Term Regulatory Concerns ...... 11 2.2 Long-Term Change in the Pesticides Regulatory Structure ...... 18 Section 3. CASQA’s Approach Looking Ahead ...... 22 Appendix: Regulatory Participation Outcomes and Effectiveness Assessment Summary Tables

List of Figures Figure 1. Current Pesticide Regulatory System...... 8 Figure 2. Proactive Use of the Pesticide Regulatory Structure to Restrict Pesticide Uses that have the Potential to Cause Urban Water Quality Problems...... 9 Figure 3. EPA’s Registration Process for New Pesticides ...... 14 Figure 4. EPA’s Registration Review – Process to Review Registered Pesticides at a Minimum of Every 15 Years...... 14

List of Tables Table 1. California TMDLs, Statewide Water Quality Control Plans, and Basin Plan Amendments Addressing Currently Registered Pesticides and/or Toxicity in Urban Watersheds ...... 6 Table 2. Current Pesticide Watch List (July 2021) ...... 12 Table 3. Latest Results of Efforts Communicating Near-Term Regulatory Concerns to EPA ...... 15 Table 4. Participation in Other State Efforts to Support CASQA’s Goals ...... 21 Table 5. CASQA Pesticide Activities ...... 23 Table 6. Anticipated Opportunities for Pesticides Regulatory Engagement in 2021-2022 ...... 24

August 2021 Page 2 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Executive Summary This report by the True Source Control (TSC) Subcommittee of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) describes CASQA’s activities related to the goal of preventing pesticide pollution in urban waterways for the period of July 2020 through June 2021. To address the problems caused by pesticides in California’s urban waterways, CASQA collaborates with the California State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards). By working with the Water Boards and other water quality organizations, we address the impacts of pesticides efficiently and proactively through the statutory authority of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). More than 17 years of collaboration with Urban Pesticides Pollution Prevention (UP3) Partnership, as well as EPA and DPR staff, has resulted in significant changes in pesticide regulation. A summary of CASQA’s activities to address key management questions are described below, with more details and outcomes provided in Section 2. Near term / Current problems – Are actions being taken by State and Federal pesticides regulators and stakeholders that are expected to end pesticide-caused toxicity or exceedances of pesticide water quality objectives in surface waters receiving urban runoff? CASQA shared its urban runoff expertise with pesticide regulators by preparing comment letters to EPA for six pesticide reviews, providing the Water Boards and other Partners with information that triggered additional letters on two more pesticide reviews. (See Tables 3, 4 and 5 and the Appendix.) CASQA provided feedback to EPA regarding the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Biological Opinion for Malathion. In response to continued requests from CASQA and Partners, EPA continued following a precedent for improved label language for pool, spa, and fountain chemicals that was established by the decisions for lithium hypochlorite and copper. CASQA reviewed scientific literature in order to update and prioritize the Pesticide Watch List. The Watch List will be shared with pesticides regulators and with government agency and university scientists to stimulate generation of surface water monitoring and aquatic toxicity data for the highest priority pesticides. (See Table 2.) Long term / Prevent future problems – Do pesticides regulators have an effective system in place to exercise their regulatory authorities to prevent pesticide toxicity in urban water bodies? DPR continues to demonstrate its commitment to addressing pesticide impacts on receiving waters through timely mitigation and implementation of improved evaluation procedures. The State Water Board continued to work toward development of the Urban Pesticide Amendments (UPA). The desired outcome for these amendments is to institutionalize the State’s strategy of utilizing pesticide regulations as the primary mechanism for addressing pesticide water quality problems associated with urban runoff. This fiscal year, CASQA continued to directly support State Water Board staff’s efforts to develop the UPAs. For example, CASQA organized a meeting of DPR, Water Board, and CASQA representatives on July 24,2020. The goal of the meeting was for DPR to provide details to senior Water Board management on DPR’s capacity and progress for addressing urban pesticide issues. The outcome was educational for all stakeholders, further advancing regulatory collaboration and solutions necessary for the UPAs. The State Water Board continued to work toward establishment of a coordinated monitoring program, which would be a new statewide urban runoff pesticides monitoring program to support the goals of the UPA. Such a program is intended to coordinate with existing Water Board and DPR urban pesticides and toxicity monitoring programs. The State Water Board is currently reconsidering the structure and function of the monitoring program. CASQA remains dedicated to supporting State Water staff.

August 2021 Page 3 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Although many improvements have been made by OPP since the early 2000s, improvement in scientific evaluations supporting OPP’s regulatory efforts and better understanding of urban runoff management systems are still necessary to adequately protect urban surface waters from pesticide impairments. In recent years, the regulatory climate of the federal administration limited progress by OPP in addressing these concerns. We will continue to work with OPP to further our goals.

In the coming year, CASQA plans to continue to address near-term pesticide concerns and seek long-term regulatory change. Future near-term and long-term tasks are identified in Section 3, Tables 5 and 6. Key topics include: Continued support of the eventual completion and adoption of the UPAs by the State Water Board; Continued development of a coordinated monitoring program in partnership with the Water Boards, DPR, and EPA Region 9; Registration review-related activities at EPA for pyrethroids and fipronil; DPR registration applications and proposed decisions for new products.

August 2021 Page 4 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Section 1. Introduction

1.1 IMPORTANCE OF CASQA’S EFFORTS TO IMPROVE PESTICIDE REGULATION For decades, the uses of certain pesticides in urban areas – even when applied in compliance with pesticide regulations – have adversely impacted urban water bodies. Currently used pesticides are the primary cause of toxicity in California surface waters, including urban water bodies.1 Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), when pesticides impact water bodies, local agencies may be held responsible for exceedances in surface waters, as well as costly monitoring and mitigation efforts. To date, some California municipalities2 have incurred substantial costs to comply with pesticides-related Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and additional permit requirements. In some cases (e.g., diazinon, chlorpyrifos), municipal compliance costs have continued more than a decade after termination of virtually all urban use. In the future, more municipalities throughout the state are expected to be subject to similar requirements, as additional TMDLs and Basin Plan Amendments are adopted (Table 1). Meanwhile, local agencies have no authority to restrict or regulate when or how pesticides are used3 in order to proactively prevent pesticide pollution and avoid these costs and liabilities. Under federal and state statutes, EPA and DPR have the authority and responsibility to New Pesticide 303(d) Listings Proposed in 2021 regulate pesticides and protect water bodies from adverse effects (including impacts from In June 2021, the State Water Board released their 2020-2022 pesticides in urban runoff). Unfortunately, until the relatively recent past, these agencies Integrated Report for which the Central Coast, Central Valley and did not recognize the need, nor possess the institutional capacity, to exercise their San Diego Regions were scheduled for on-cycle 303(d) reviews. authority to protect urban water quality. As a result, past registration actions have allowed The report proposed numerous additional 303(d) pesticide listings a number of pesticides (such as pyrethroids and fipronil) to be used legally in ways that for all three regions. While the most common listings were for have resulted in widespread pollution in urban water bodies. This situation is depicted in pyrethroids, other proposed listings include imidacloprid, fipronil Figure 1. and diuron. Following a public comment period, the listings are To change this situation, CASQA is actively engaged with state and federal regulators in expected to be adopted in January 2022 and submitted to the an effort to develop an effective pesticide regulatory system, based primarily on existing EPA in March 2022 (State Water Board’s 2020-2022 Integrated statutes, that includes timely identification and mitigation of urban water quality impacts, Report, June 4, 2021). and proactively prevents additional problems through the registration and registration review processes (Figure 2).

1 See reports from the California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Sediment Pollution Trends Program including Anderson, B.S., Hunt, J.W., Markewicz, D., Larsen, K., 2011. Toxicity in California Waters, Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, CA. 2 For example, Sacramento-area municipalities spent more than $75,000 in the 2008-2013 permit term on pyrethroid pesticide monitoring alone; Riverside-area municipalities spent $617,000 from 2007 to 2013 on pyrethroid pesticide chemical and toxicity monitoring. 3 Local agencies in California have authority over their own use of pesticides but are pre-empted by state law from regulating pesticide use by consumers and businesses. August 2021 Page 5 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Table 1. California TMDLs, Statewide Water Quality Control Plans, and Basin Plan Amendments Addressing Currently Registered Pesticides and/or Toxicity in Urban Watersheds4 Water Board Region Water Body Pesticide Status Statewide All MS4s/All Urban Waterways: All Pesticides/All pesticide- In preparation Statewide Water Quality Control Plan amendments for urban pesticides related toxicity reduction [“Urban Pesticides Amendments”] (Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays & Estuaries, and Ocean) Sediment Quality Objectives Sediment Toxicity 5 Approved (Enclosed Bays & Estuaries) Toxicity Provisions (Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays & Toxicity 5 In preparation Estuaries) San Francisco Bay (2) All Bay Area Urban Creeks All Pesticide-Related Approved Toxicity Central Coast (3) Santa Maria River Watershed Pyrethroids, Toxicity Approved Lower Salinas River Watershed Pyrethroids, Toxicity Approved Malathion, Chlorpyrifos, In development Diazinon 6 San Lorenzo River Watershed (Santa Cruz) Chlorpyrifos 6 Approved Los Angeles (4) Marina del Rey Harbor Copper (Marine antifouling Approved paint) 7 Oxnard Drain 3 (Ventura County) Bifenthrin, Toxicity EPA-Adopted Technical TMDL Calleguas Creek, its Tributaries and Mugu Lagoon Water & Sediment Toxicity 5 Approved Diazinon & Chlorpyrifos 6 McGrath Lake (Ventura County) Sediment Toxicity 5 Approved Colorado Lagoon (Long Beach) Sediment Toxicity 5 Approved Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Approved Harbors Waters Sediment Toxicity 5 Ballona Creek Estuary Approved

4 Excludes pesticides that are not currently registered in California, such as organochlorine pesticides. 5 These TMDLs/Plan provisions can trigger toxicity testing stressor source identification studies, and additional follow up, even when toxicity is linked to current pesticides. 6 Use prohibited in urban areas (diazinon) or no meaningful use due to use limitations (chlorpyrifos). 7 Primarily addresses pesticides that are directly discharged and should not ordinarily appear in stormwater (marine antifouling paint). August 2021 Page 6 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Water Board Region Water Body Pesticide Status Central Valley (5) Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins Pyrethroids Approved Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta Waterways Diazinon & Chlorpyrifos 6 Approved Sacramento & Feather Rivers Diazinon & Chlorpyrifos 6 Approved Sacramento County Urban Creeks Diazinon & Chlorpyrifos 6 Approved Lower San Joaquin River Diazinon & Chlorpyrifos 6 Approved Lahontan (6) Pesticide Discharge Prohibition All Pesticides Approved Santa Ana (8) Newport Bay Copper (Marine antifouling In preparation paint) 7 San Diego Creek, and Upper and Lower Newport Bay Toxicity (Diazinon & EPA-Adopted Technical Chlorpyrifos) 6 TMDL San Diego (9) Shelter Island Yacht Basin (San Diego Bay) Copper (Marine antifouling Approved paint) 7 Chollas Creek Diazinon 6 Approved

August 2021 Page 7 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Figure 1. Current Pesticide Regulatory System.8

8 Photos in Figures 1 and 2 of spraying pesticide along a garage was taken by Les Greenberg, UC Riverside

August 2021 Page 8 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Figure 2. Proactive Use of the Pesticide Regulatory Structure to Restrict Pesticide Uses that have the Potential to Cause Urban Water Quality Problems.

August 2021 Page 9 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

1.2 CASQA’S GOALS AND APPLICATION TO PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT CASQA’s Vision for Stormwater, first approved by the Board of Directors in 2015, is periodically updated to reflect developments in stormwater management. In October 2020, CASQA released the updated Vision for Sustainable Stormwater Management.9 Within CASQA’s Vision, Action 1.2 is to “Minimize Pollution Through True Source Control.” Among the objectives described within Action 1.2, Objective 2 has the following scope:

The effectiveness of CASQA’s efforts toward this scope can be expressed in relation to management questions established as part of Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems’ (MS4s’) program effectiveness assessments that are required in some MS4 permits. With respect to addressing urban pesticide impacts on water quality, the following two management questions are suggested for inclusion in MS4s’ program effectiveness assessment: Question 1: (Near term / Current problems) – Are actions being taken by State and Federal pesticides regulators and stakeholders that are expected to end recently observed pesticide-caused toxicity or exceedances of pesticide water quality objectives in surface waters receiving urban runoff? Question 2: (Long term / Prevent future problems) – Do pesticides regulators have an effective system in place to exercise their regulatory authorities to prevent pesticide toxicity in urban water bodies? This report is organized to answer these management questions and is intended to serve as an annual compliance submittal for both Phase I and Phase II MS4s. It describes the year’s status and progress, provides detail on stakeholder actions (by CASQA and others); and provides a roadmap / timeline showing the context of prior actions as well as anticipated end goal of these activities. This report may also be used as an element of future effectiveness assessment annual reporting.

9 https://www.casqa.org/sites/default/files/downloads/final_-_vision_for_sustainable_stormwater_management_-_10-07-2020.pdf

August 2021 Page 10 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Section 2. Latest Results of CASQA Efforts At any given time, there are dozens of pesticides with current or pending actions from the CASQA Cost-Sharing with BACWA to Track EPA and DPR EPA or DPR. Addressing near term regulatory concerns is important because some Pesticide Regulatory Actions pesticides may pose immediate threat to water quality that can lead to compliance liability for MS4s, and because some of the regulatory decisions made by EPA and DPR will last many years. For example, pesticide registration decisions are intended to be revisited on a

fifteen-year cycle. To inform its engagement on near-term regulatory concerns, CASQA uses the Pesticide Watch List) in the prioritization of near-term efforts (Section 2.1). There has been a long history of collaboration between CASQA, the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), and the State Meanwhile, CASQA and BACWA continue to work on parallel efforts to effect long-term Water Board, as all entities seek to track and respond to

systemic changes in the regulatory process itself (see inset).By identifying inadequacies pesticide regulatory actions, with the goal of avoiding pesticide- and inefficiencies in the pesticide regulatory process, and persistently working with EPA related toxicity. and DPR to improve the overall system of regulating pesticides, CASQA and BACWA are gradually achieving results (Section 2.2). For instance, CASQA and BACWA regularly track pesticide regulatory activities by EPA, DPR and other agencies that have 2.1 NEAR-TERM REGULATORY CONCERNS significant potential to affect surface water quality. Over the years, the funding for these tracking tasks has shifted back and CASQA seeks to ensure that the Water Boards and EPA’s Office of Water (OW) work with forth between the State Water Board (the original funding DPR and EPA’s OPP to manage problem pesticides that are creating near-term water source), with CASQA and BACWA most recently funding quality impairments. These efforts address CASQA Vision Action 1.2 as well as Phase II separate, but similar efforts. In 2021, CASQA and BACWA MS4 Program Effectiveness Assessment and Improvement Plan (PEAIP) Management combined resources to track stormwater and wastewater Question 1 regarding observed pesticide-caused toxicity or exceedances of pesticide priorities into a single Action Plan. water quality objectives in surface waters receiving urban runoff. Both CASQA and BACWA are committed to continued Assessment Question 1: (Near term / Current problems) – Are actions being taken by collaborations to streamline our proactive regulatory approach. State and Federal pesticides regulators and stakeholders that are expected to end recently observed pesticide-caused toxicity or exceedances of pesticide water quality objectives in surface waters receiving urban runoff? Answer: As detailed below, at the State level, significant progress has been made by DPR in addressing near-term and current problems with pesticides in surface waters receiving urban runoff. DPR continues to implement improved registration processes and responses to observed water quality problems. DPR also continues to implement and evaluate mitigation measures for observed problems with pyrethroids and fipronil. At the Federal level, less progress has been made at addressing near term problems. Some early actions were taken to address pyrethroid and fipronil problems at the urging of CASQA and DPR. However, EPA does not show a clear understanding of key urban uses in its analyses, and it is still unclear if its upcoming risk management decisions for pyrethroids, fipronil, and imidacloprid and other neonicotinoids will provide any additional protection of urban water bodies.

2.1.1 Updated Pesticide Watch List A key tool for identifying near-term regulatory concerns is CASQA’s Pesticide Watch List. As time permits, CASQA reviews scientific literature, government reports, and monitoring studies as they are published. This information is used to prioritize pesticides based on the most up-to-date understanding of urban uses, pesticide characteristics, monitoring, and surface water quality toxicity (for pesticides and their degradates). CASQA uses these insights to update the list each

August 2021 Page 11 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment year (Table 2), which serves as a management tool to help focus efforts on the most important pesticides from the perspective of MS4 agencies.10 There are 2 additions in the 2021 Pesticide Watch List – naled and antimicrobials in paints and coatings. Naled, registered for mosquito abatements, degrades to dichlorvos (DDVP) post-application and remains at levels toxic to aquatic organisms. There are a number of antimicrobial pesticides under review by EPA for uses in outdoor paints and coatings, the leaching of which can lead to water quality impacts; CASQA anticipates many more such pesticides in the coming months.

2.1.2 Description of Near-Term Regulatory Processes Immediate pesticide concerns may arise from regulatory processes undertaken at DPR or EPA’s OPP. For example, when EPA receives an application to register a new pesticide, there may be two opportunities for public comment that are noticed in the Federal Register, as depicted in green in Figure 3. EPA’s process usually takes less than a year while DPR typically evaluates new pesticides or major new uses of active ingredients within 120 days. Now that DPR implements relatively robust surface water quality review procedures for new pesticide registrations, there is reduced need for CASQA to provide input to EPA on new pesticides.

Table 2. Current Pesticide Watch List (July 2021) Priority Basis for Priority Assignment Pesticides Monitoring data exceeding benchmarks; linked to toxicity in Pyrethroids (20 Fipronil Imidacloprid (neonic) 1 surface waters; urban 303(d) listings chemicals11) Malathion Monitoring data approaching benchmarks; modeling predicts Carbendazim (Thiophanate Creosote (PAHs) Pesticides with dioxins benchmark exceedances; very high toxicity and broadcast methyl)12 Indoxacarb impurity14 2 application on impervious surfaces; urban 303(d) listing for Chlorantraniliprole Neonics (other than PHMB + pesticide, degradate, or contaminant that also has non- Copper pesticides + Imidacloprid)13 Zinc pesticides (including pesticide sources Pendimethalin Ziram) + Pesticide contains a Clean Water Act Priority Pollutant; 303(d) Arsenic pesticides Diuron Simazine 3 listing for pesticide, degradate, or contaminant in watershed Chromium pesticides Naphthenates Silver pesticides + that is not exclusively urban Trifluralin

10 The first Watch List was published by the UP3 in 2005. 11 Allethrins, Bifenthrin, Cyfluthrin, Cyhalothrin, Cypermethrin, Cyphenothrin, Deltamethrin, Esfenvalerate, Etofenprox, Flumethrin, Imiprothrin, Metofluthrin, Momfluothrin, Permethrin, Prallethrin, Resmethrin, Sumethrin [d-Phenothrin], Tau-Fluvalinate, Tetramethrin, Tralomethrin. 12 Carbendazim is a registered pesticide, and also a degradate of thiophanate-methyl 13 Acetamiprid, Clothianidin, Dinotefuran, Thiamethoxam (degrades into Clothianidin) 14 2,4,-D, Chlorothalonil, Dacthal, Pentachlorophenol + Used in pools, spas, and/or fountains August 2021 Page 12 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Priority Basis for Priority Assignment Pesticides Abamectin Dichlorvos (DDVP) PCNB ADBAC pesticides15 + Dithiopyr Peroxyacetic acid + Antimicrobials in Halohydantoins + Phenoxy herbicides16 paints/coatings Hydramethylnon Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) Azoxystrobin Hypochlorites + Prodiamine Bacillus sphaericus + Imazapyr Propiconazole Bacillus thuringiensis + Isoxaben Pyrethrins Bromacil Mancozeb Pyriproxyfen + High or unknown toxicity (parent or degradate) and urban use N-Bromosulfamates Methomyl Sodium bromide + 4 pattern associated with water pollution; synergist for higher Busan-77 + Methoprene + Sodium chlorite + tier pesticide; on DPR priority list Carbaryl Methyl anthranilate + Sodium percarbonate + Chlorinated isocyanurates + Mineral bases, weak + Sodium tetraborate + Chlorine + Mineral oil (aliphatic) + Spinosad + / Spinetoram Chlorine dioxide + MGK-264 Sulfometuron-methyl Chlorfenapyr Naled Tebuconazole Chlorsulfuron Novaluron Terbuthylazine + DCOIT + Oryzalin Triclopyr DDAC + Oxadiazon Triclosan Dichlobenil Oxyfluorfen Trimethoxysilyl quats Chloropyrifos (near zero Diazinon (no urban use) Metaldehyde 5 Frequent questions from Partners urban use) Glyphosate Priority determined on the basis of proposed urban use, Not known but may include Cyantraniliprole Nitenpyram (Neonic) New aquatic toxicity, and other information in registration the following: Cyclaniliprole Nithiazine (Neonic) application. Flupyradifurone Sulfoxaflor (Neonic) Based on review of available data, no approved urban use or Most of the >1,000 existing pesticides None no tracking trigger as yet identified. Lack of information. No systematic screening has been Unknown Unknown completed for the complete suite of urban pesticides.

15 Alkyl Dimethyl Benzyl Ammonium Chlorides (ADBAC) includes a family of 21 different quaternary ammonium pesticides. 16 MCPA and salts, 2,4-D, 2,4-DP, MCPP, dicamba August 2021 Page 13 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Figure 3. EPA’s Registration Process for New Pesticides

Another regulatory process, “Registration Review,” depicted in Figure 4, is meant to evaluate currently registered pesticides about every 15 years, to account for new data available since initial registration. In general, it takes EPA five to eight years to complete the entire process. In addition to this process, pesticides are typically evaluated based on Endangered Species Act criteria. EPA regularly updates its schedule for approximately 50 pesticides that will begin the review process in a given year.17

Figure 4. EPA’s Registration Review – Process to Review Registered Pesticides at a Minimum of Every 15 Years.

DPR also has an ongoing, but informal review process (called continuous evaluation) that can address pesticides water pollution. If it needs to obtain data from manufacturers, DPR can initiate a formal action, called “Reevaluation.” These evaluations, mitigation measure development, and mitigation effectiveness evaluation have involved ongoing communication with CASQA and partners. While EPA must consider water quality in all of its pesticide registration decisions, at DPR this step is not yet fully established as standard (most outdoor urban pesticide registration applications are routinely routed by DPR for surface water review, but a few – notably antimicrobial products used in storm drains – do not automatically receive this review). CASQA monitors registration applications, to identify those relevant to urban runoff, based on the Pesticide Watch List in Table 2 and use pattern/toxicity analysis for pesticides that have not previously been reviewed.

2.1.3 Key Near-Term Regulatory Activities and Progress Table 3 presents a summary of recent CASQA and partner activities to address near-term regulatory concerns and the latest results; for additional insight regarding on-going pesticide registrations, see the Appendix. CASQA monitors the Federal Register and DPR’s website for notices of regulatory actions related to new pesticide registrations and registration reviews. Since the Pesticide Watch List is not based on a comprehensive review of all pesticides, CASQA watches for additional pesticides that appear to have any of the following characteristics: proposed urban, outdoor uses with direct pathways for discharge to storm drains, high aquatic toxicity, or containing a priority pollutant. Participating in these regulatory processes can take many years to complete. In addition, EPA’s OPP strives to update their Aquatic Life Benchmarks table on an annual basis.18 In September 2020, EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division updated its pesticides Aquatic Life Benchmarks table.18 These updates included benchmarks for 5 newly registered pesticides (and their degradates) and 9 previously registered pesticides (and their degradates) undergoing registration review. While none of those 14 pesticides

17 See https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-schedules for schedule information. 18 https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/aquatic-life-benchmarks-and-ecological-risk August 2021 Page 14 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment are on CASQA’s Pesticide Watch List, pesticides still awaiting benchmark updates include the many pyrethroids (other than new transfluthrin, which is not yet registered in California) and fipronil and its degradates. These pesticides are currently in EPA’s Registration Review process.

Table 3. Latest Results of Efforts Communicating Near-Term Regulatory Concerns to EPA19 Regulatory Action or CASQA Efforts Partner Support Concern Letter(s) Call(s) or Mtg(s) (Letters) Outcomes and notes emails Pyrethroids Ecological BACWA CASQA continued to recommend that EPA’s risk / benefit finding be Risk Mitigation Proposal SFBRWQCB revised to differentiate among the 23 pyrethroids and pyrethrins due to for 23 Chemicals   NACWA very different toxicity endpoints and outdoor urban uses of the 23 City of Salinas chemicals. EPA declined. Bifenthrin Proposed SFBRWQCB CASQA concluded that special measures to address bifenthrin are an Interim Decision BACWA important part of a pyrethroids mitigation strategy because, from the NACWA urban water quality standpoint, bifenthrin is far more problematic than other pyrethroid pesticides. CASQA continues to request that EPA  terminate urban outdoor use of bifenthrin. EPA response: “EPA has considered these comments and has decided not to develop unique chemical-specific risk mitigation for bifenthrin at this time beyond what is already required as part of this ID.” Cypermethrin Proposed BACWA Pending. In the PID, EPA concluded that outdoor / urban uses present Interim Decision SFBRWQCB substantial risks to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates. On that basis, CASQA sought enhancements to the  proposed label language to include a graphic to prevent spilling or dumping into storm drains, be clear and consistent regarding impervious and vertical surfaces, and provide California-specific labels for outdoor structural pest control. Cyhalothrins Proposed Pending. In the PID, EPA concluded that outdoor / urban uses present Interim Decision substantial risks to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates. On that basis, CASQA sought enhancements to the  proposed label language to include a graphic to prevent spilling or dumping into storm drains, be clear and consistent regarding impervious and vertical surfaces, and provide California-specific labels for outdoor structural pest control.

19 Color coding in this table is meant to reflect the Pesticide Watch List prioritization color coding in Table 2.

August 2021 Page 15 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Regulatory Action or CASQA Efforts Partner Support Concern Letter(s) Call(s) or Mtg(s) (Letters) Outcomes and notes emails Malathion Fish and Pending. The FWS Biological Opinion concluded that products Wildlife Service (FWS) containing malathion can result in serious impacts on endangered and Biological Opinion threatened species and their habitats, including in urban surface waters. On that basis, CASQA has asked EPA to (1) identify mitigation  measures to adequately protect affected listed species and habitats, and (2) to complete an updated ecological risk assessment as part of registration review, to identify potential impacts more broadly on other ecologically important species. Thiophanate methyl/ Sacramento County Pending. Asked that EPA perform surface water modeling for urban Carbendazim runoff, and quantitatively assess risks to surface water aquatic life for Ecological Risk carbendazim products that are used outdoors for protection of building Assessment materials. In addition, the acute freshwater vertebrate toxicity endpoint used in the ERA conducted by the Antimicrobials Division differed from the acute endpoint used in the ERA conducted by EPA’s Environmental Fate and Effects Division leading to a significant difference in the minimum surface area expected to lead to a toxicity endpoint.

Ziram Ecological Risk Pending. For freshwater invertebrates, EPA cited several reasons why Assessment the calculated risks were likely to be overestimates leading to a conclusion that appeared to be speculative and arbitrary, the results of which may not be sufficiently protective of aquatic life. Therefore,  CASQA asked that EPA modify its risk assessment analysis for freshwater invertebrates. In addition, CASQA requested that the risk assessment be amended to include consideration of the results of a sediment toxicity study for freshwater invertebrates. Creosote Interim Pending. EPA’s Decision was made without the benefit of an Ecological Registration Review Risk Assessment. This was due to a lack of data despite multiple data Decision requests by EPA to the registrants (dating back to 2011). Therefore,  CASQA asked that an Ecological Risk Assessment be completed before publishing a registration review decision. CASQA further requested that EPA seek monitoring data given that PAHs found in creosote are commonly detected in urban runoff and receiving waters.

August 2021 Page 16 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Regulatory Action or CASQA Efforts Partner Support Concern Letter(s) Call(s) or Mtg(s) (Letters) Outcomes and notes emails Diuron Ecological Risk Pending. EPA modeling results indicate a clear need for mitigation to Assessment and protect aquatic life from legal uses of diuron within urban areas. CASQA Antimicrobial Use Risk requested that the risk assessment be amended to include consideration Assessment  of the results of a sediment toxicity study for freshwater invertebrates. CASQA is also seeking consistency in toxicity endpoints within EPA documentation. Chlorine gas/swimming SFBRWQCB Success! CASQA recommended that the label language be updated to pools Draft Risk BACWA match the language for copper products, which would also provide Assessment NACWA consistent label language across pool, spa, and hot tub chemicals. EPA adopted the following language for all products used to treat commercial and residential pools and fountains: “Before draining a treated [pool] or  [fountain], contact your local sanitary sewer and storm drain authorities and follow their discharge instructions. Do not discharge treated [pool] or [fountain] water to any location that flows to a gutter, storm drain or natural water body unless discharge is allowed by state and local authorities.” Halohydantoins/pools, BACWA Partial Success. CASQA recommended that the label language be fountains, spas – Draft SFBRWQCB updated to match the language for copper products, which would also Risk Assessment NACWA provide consistent label language across pool, spa, and hot tub chemicals. EPA adopted the following language: “Before draining a treated [pool], [spa], [hot tub], or [fountain], contact your local sanitary sewer and storm drain authorities and follow their discharge instructions.  Do not discharge treated [pool], [spa], [hot tub], or [fountain] water to any location that flows to a gutter or storm drain or natural water body unless discharge is allowed by state and local authorities.” CASQA also recommended that the “Environmental Hazards” label statements be applied on the basis of product end use rather than product size. This would mimic EPA’s decision for lithium hypochlorite and copper products. This suggestion was ignored.

August 2021 Page 17 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

2.2 LONG-TERM CHANGE IN THE PESTICIDES REGULATORY STRUCTURE Since the mid-1990s, CASQA (and its predecessor organization the Storm Water Quality Task Force), have worked toward a future in which the pesticide regulatory structure at the state and federal level proactively restricts pesticide uses that have the potential to cause urban water quality problems. These efforts directly relate to Phase II MS4 PEAIP Management Question 2. Assessment Question 2. (Long term / Prevent future problems) – Do pesticides regulators have an effective system in place to exercise their regulatory authorities to prevent pesticide toxicity in urban water bodies? Answer: Improvements in processes at EPA and especially at DPR have moved us closer to that future. Many of these improvements are linked to the persistent work of CASQA and partners to educate regulators on how previous process deficiencies did not adequately address urban pesticide problems. As detailed below, at the State level, significant progress has been made by DPR and the Water Boards in establishing a comprehensive statewide approach to utilizing pesticide regulatory authorities to prevent pesticide toxicity in urban water bodies. Overall, DPR has a system in place that is reasonably effective at addressing pesticide toxicity in urban water bodies, although improvement is needed to better coordinate this process with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and NPDES MS4 permits. DPR and the Water Board, along with CASQA and other stakeholders, are working diligently to strengthen this system and to institutionalize it. The goal is to embody this process in the State’s UPAs and the Management Agency Agreement (MAA) between DPR and the State Water Board. At the Federal level, OPP has implemented some improvements in how it evaluates and responds to water quality problems associated with pesticides, but it does not yet do this reliably and does not have a system in place to ensure that this will happen consistently and adequately. Meanwhile, scientific studies are being conducted by USGS and EPA’s Office of Research and Development to better understand the complexities of pollution in urban stormwater. Effective regulation of pesticides by EPA is still an important goal for CASQA.20 Although the recent regulatory climate at federal agencies was not favorable for additional improvements in pesticide regulations, CASQA expects OPP to be more receptive in the near-term. Therefore, CASQA will resume efforts to share scientific information and stormwater expertise. However, chronic under-staffing at OPP may hamper these efforts to some degree. As a result, CASQA has decided for the time being to limit its efforts to affect long-term systemic change by EPA and other federal agencies. Instead, CASQA has focused more on solidifying advances made at the state level, which will leverage the considerable authority held by the State of California for regulating the use of pesticides.

2.2.1 Focus on MAA Between DPR and State Water Board In mid-2019, DPR and the State Water Board received approval to sign a major update to their formal MAA that memorializes their existing systems and growing cooperation and lays out the steps they are taking toward a “unified and cooperative program to protect water quality related to the use of pesticides.” The two agencies agree “to work cooperatively to address the discharge of pesticides that may cause or contribute to surface water or groundwater pollution, including surface water toxicity." For example, DPR will evaluate surface water quality risks and consider these risks when making registration decisions; promote environmentally sound pest management; and respond to water quality concerns that pose significant adverse effects to aquatic organisms. Meanwhile, Water Boards will confer with DPR when developing regulatory programs related to pesticides; ensure waters are monitored (in coordination with DPR’s monitoring and including permittee and State

20 Long-term regulatory goals at the state and federal level are described in detail in Section 1.2.

August 2021 Page 18 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Water Board’s own monitoring participation); and require and support use of best management practices relating to pesticides (structural management practices are not intended to be required in urban areas). The Implementation Plan that accompanies the MAA describes opportunities for coordination and mutual enrichment (including cross-training), expectations for both staff and executive level communication (including an annual management-level meeting between the agencies), and current agency organization and interactions. In the context of meetings on the UPA, CASQA has requested that the State Water Board be more active in its implementation of the MAA, in particular by providing resources and leadership in identifying water quality issues for urban use pesticides where action by DPR would be important.

2.2.2 Focus on California’s UPA At the urging of CASQA, in 2014 the State Water Board made a strategically important decision to institutionalize its commitment to work closely with DPR and EPA to utilize pesticide regulatory authority as the primary mechanism for preventing and responding to impairments of receiving waters linked to current use pesticides in urban runoff. To accomplish this goal, the State Water Board established an urban pesticides reduction project (now titled the Urban Pesticides Amendments or UPAs) as a top priority project under the comprehensive stormwater strategy it adopted in December 2015, known as “Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water” or STORMS.21 The State Water Board continues to work towards developing the Urban Pesticides Amendments which will be incorporated into the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries, and the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California. It is important to note that a critical factor in the State Water Board’s decision to move in this direction was DPR’s demonstrated commitment and significant progress in addressing urban water quality issues caused by pesticides.22 CASQA representatives have been participating actively in the development of the Urban Pesticide Amendments since their inception, to ensure that they are consistent with CASQA’s vision for pesticide control.23 The key elements CASQA is advocating for are listed below. Element 1: Establishment of a framework for the Water Boards to work with DPR and EPA to utilize pesticide regulatory authority as the primary means for addressing pesticides in urban runoff. Element 2: Adoption of a program of implementation addressing urban pesticides water pollution that integrates a feasible compliance pathway for MS4s. Element 3: An MS4 Monitoring program designed to coordinate with existing DPR and State Water Board pesticides and toxicity monitoring to support effective implementation of Elements 1 and 2.

21 STORMS' overall mission is to “lead the evolution of storm water management in California by advancing the perspective that storm water is a valuable resource, supporting policies for collaborative watershed-level storm water management and pollution prevention, removing obstacles to funding, developing resources, and integrating regulatory and non-regulatory interests.” (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/storms/) 22 As reported in previous CASQA Pesticide Annual Reports, DPR’s accomplishments include improved modeling, active ingredient screening for urban water quality issues, monitoring, and regulatory mitigation of pyrethroids and fipronil. 23 These elements have been adapted from the CASQA document, “End Goals for Pesticide Regulatory Activities,” 2014. Element 3 is directly tied to Elements 2, 4, and 5 of that document. August 2021 Page 19 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Element 4: Requirements for MS4s to support Elements 1 and 3 by contributing expertise on how pollutants present in urban environments enter and behave in urban runoff and water bodies. Element 5: Other actions that can reasonably be implemented by MS4s, such as IPM outreach, in support of pesticides reductions.

Elements 1-4 are consistent with CASQA Vision Action 1.2. Water Board staff have indicated their intent that the Urban Pesticides Amendments should also establish a consistent set of “minimum pesticides source control measures for MS4 dischargers” (Element 5). CASQA representatives have worked with the Water Boards to ensure that such requirements are reasonable and consistent with similar measures already in place in some regions. At this time, the list of potential minimum measures includes use of IPM, education of and outreach to residents and professional pesticide applicators, providing urban runoff scientific and management expertise to support pesticide regulatory processes, non-stormwater discharge prohibitions, and pesticide and toxicity monitoring. CASQA supports the stated goal to “create a comprehensive, coordinated statewide monitoring framework for pesticides and toxicity in urban runoff and receiving water that improves resource efficiency, usefulness of data, and coordination of data collection to support management decisions.”24 A well-designed and managed monitoring framework that is properly representative of urban areas can simultaneously provide more useful information and improve the utilization of resources by eliminating unnecessary MS4 monitoring requirements that do not contribute to effective management of pesticides and pesticide-caused toxicity. Monitoring. Previously an agreement was reached regarding decision-making channels and membership for a statewide coordinated monitoring program. However, progress in this direction has been slowed this year by changes in staffing at the State Water Board, by complications caused by COVID-19, and by reconsideration by the Water Boards of the structure and function of coordinated monitoring. Technical Support. CASQA continues to provide technical support to the Water Boards on numerous crucial and highly detailed items related to the UPA, Staff Report, CEQA Document, monitoring program, model permit language, and the relationship of these to the MAA. CASQA organized a meeting of DPR, Water Board, and CASQA representatives on July 24,2020. The goal of the meeting was for DPR to provide details to senior Water Board management on DPR’s capacity and progress for addressing urban pesticide issues. The outcome was educational for all stakeholders, further advancing regulatory collaboration and solutions necessary for the UPAs. Brief updates were provided by the State Water Board to CASQA via online meetings on December 9, 2020 and April 8, 2021, with additional various individual discussions between Water Board staff and CASQA.

24 Informational Document, CEQA Public Scoping Meeting, State Water Resources Control Board, January 25, 2017 August 2021 Page 20 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

2.2.3 CASQA Participation in Other State Efforts As presented in Table 4, CASQA has been actively involved with various State agencies and advisory groups that affect pesticide use and pest management in urban areas.

Table 4. Participation in Other State Efforts to Support CASQA’s Goals Agency or Conference Latest Outcomes DPR’s Pest Management Participation on the PMAC has resulted in expanded focus by DPR on urban pest management and water quality issues and Advisory Committee generated funding for urban IPM research and implementation programs. However, only two Pest Management Alliance grant (PMAC) proposals addressing urban pesticide use were submitted this year, and PMAC did not recommend funding for either of those. Two research proposal addressed urban pesticides. The project researching improved bait for German cockroaches was selected for funding. The other project, researching ground squirrel control, was not selected for funding. California Structural Pest A TSC member was an appointed member of the SPCB through May 2021. The SPCB recognizes the potential for excessive Control Board (SPCB) pesticide application to impact water quality. The SPCB is in the process of adopting regulations to increase continuing education hours required in the IPM category. Finalization of these regulations has been slowed due to the need for California

to reconcile its structural licensing requirements with newly adopted Federal regulations for this industry.

The SPCB continues to collect funding for its Research Fund, but elected not to solicit proposals this year since the amount of funding available was not yet sufficient. DPR’s Pesticide A TSC member was selected by the SPCB to serve as its representative on the PREC. The PREC membership includes public Registration Evaluation agency representatives, and is intended to advise DPR on issues related to pesticide registration. The representative requested Committee (PREC) discussion by PREC of issues related to urban issues, as listed below: • Need for additional transparency and timely access to DPR scientific evaluations that form the scientific basis for regulatory decisions; • Need to make notices for Materials Entering Evaluation more transparent and informative; • Update on plans to mitigate imidacloprid. Although the issues were not agendized, the representative met with DPR management to discuss them.

August 2021 Page 21 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Section 3. CASQA’s Approach Looking Ahead At any given time, EPA and DPR may be in the process of evaluating and registering various pesticides for urban use. CASQA will continue to track and engage in EPA and DPR activities, with a focus on top priority active ingredients (as identified in the annual Pesticide Watch List) and sharing relevant urban runoff information and CASQA’s water-quality specific expertise with pesticides regulators. Key documents to be reviewed will include risk assessments and risk management proposals with an eye toward ensuring that pesticide regulators have and consider accurate information on relevant factors in urban areas such as pesticide use patterns, urban pollutant transport mechanisms, and receiving water conditions. CASQA strives to ensure that pesticide regulators have access to relevant information such as monitoring data, water quality regulatory requirements, and urban runoff agency compliance liabilities and cost information. As necessary, CASQA will continue to recommend changes in an individual pesticide’s allowable uses or use instructions, request consideration of impacts on water bodies receiving urban runoff, and/or ask that regulators fill critical data gaps by obtaining more data from manufacturers. As resources allow and circumstances warrant, CASQA will continue to collaborate with wastewater organizations (such as BACWA), other water quality stakeholders, and the Water Boards in commenting on EPA and DPR actions. In the coming year, CASQA will continue to address near-term pesticide concerns and seek long-term regulatory change. Although changes at the federal level are important for fully achieving CASQA’s goal of protecting water quality through the effective use of pesticide regulations, until there is a more favorable situation at that level, we will continue to focus our efforts on solidifying progress at the state level. In the coming year, CASQA will continue engagement on specific regulatory actions for priority pesticides at the federal level, while continuing the strategic focus on supporting State adoption of the UPAs. CASQA’s current priority activities are as follows: (1) Continue collaboration with DPR to address near-term regulatory concerns, while seeking OPP and OW actions to reduce inconsistencies: Ensure DPR action on fipronil water pollution is completed, including effective professional user education about restrictions on its outdoor urban use. Ensure DPR enforces mitigation measures for pyrethroids and fipronil, and adopts additional measures as necessary. Ensure the state continues to conduct surveillance monitoring to evaluate pyrethroids and fipronil mitigation effectiveness and to evaluate occurrence of new threats like imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid insecticides. Continue to encourage EPA to complete scientific groundwork and to identify and implement pyrethroids, fipronil, malathion, and imidacloprid mitigation measures, recognizing that it is likely that necessary mitigation cannot readily be implemented entirely by DPR. (2) Seek long-term changes in the pesticide regulatory structure: Leverage our success at the state level and continue to be a key stakeholder in the STORMS project to adopt the statewide UPA. Through this process, CASQA will work with other stakeholders to implement the planned restructuring of California’s urban surface water pesticides monitoring to increase its effectiveness and improve coordination. Encourage and assist the Water Board to actively implement its MAA with DPR and take a stronger leadership role in preventing and mitigating pesticide impairments through more effective pesticide regulation at the state and federal level. Seek procedure changes such that DPR continues to refine its registration procedures to address remaining gaps in water quality protection. Seek increased transparency of DPR regulatory activities, including timely access to scientific evaluation reports that are the basis of registration decisions. CASQA will continue to seek opportunities to coordinate on high priority regulatory actions, with the Water Boards and other water quality stakeholders such as POTWs and non-profits, to take advantage of efficiencies, increase effectiveness, and ensure that the water quality community has a consistent message. Table 5 presents CASQA’s activities anticipated for the coming year; CASQA will conduct these activities as priorities indicate and resources allow. Table 6 summarizes upcoming regulatory action items that are likely to proceed and may require CASQA attention in the coming year.

August 2021 Page 22 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Table 5. CASQA Pesticide Activities Activity Purpose

Track Federal Register notices Identify regulatory actions for high priority active ingredients that may require review. Track DPR notices of registration Identify pesticides meriting surface water review that are not within DPR’s automatic routing procedures, identify applications and decisions gaps or potential urban runoff-related problems with current DPR evaluation or registration plans other regulations, procedures, and policies. Track activities at the Water Boards Identify opportunities for improvements in TMDLs, Basin Plan Amendments, and permits. Review regulatory actions, guidance Identify potential urban runoff-related problems with current EPA evaluation or registration plans, other

Regulatory TrackingRegulatory documents, and work plans regulations, procedures, and policies. Briefing phone calls, informal in-person Information sharing about immediate issues or ongoing efforts; educate EPA and DPR about issues confronting

meetings, teleconference meetings, and water quality community. Provide early communication on upcoming proceedings that help reduce the need for emails with EPA and DPR time-intensive letters.

Convene formal meetings, write letters, Ensure current pesticide evaluation or registration process accurately addresses urban runoff and urban and track responses to letters pesticide use and management contexts. Take advantage of opportunities to formally provide information and suggest more robust approaches that could be used in future regulatory processes. Request and maintain communication on mitigation actions addressing highest priority pesticides. Regulatory Communications Regulatory

Serve on EPA, DPR, and Water Board Provide information and identify data needs and collaboration opportunities toward development of constructive policy and scientific advisory committees approaches for managing pesticides. Advisory Presentations to and informal discussions Educate EPA, DPR, Water Board, and CASQA members about the urban runoff-related shortcomings of with EPA, DPR, Water Board, CASQA existing pesticide regulatory process, educational efforts to support process improvements, and report on members, achievements. Encourage research and monitoring programs to address urban runoff data needs and priorities. Stimulate academic, government, or private development of analytical and toxicity identification methods to address anticipated urban runoff monitoring needs. Inform development of new pesticides by manufacturers and selection of pesticides by professional users. Educational Develop and deliver public testimony Educate Water Board members about the problems with existing pesticide regulatory process, encourage change, and report on achievements.

August 2021 Page 23 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Activity Purpose Update Pesticide Watch List based on new The Pesticide Watch List (Table 2) serves as a management tool to prioritize and track pesticides used outdoors scientific and regulatory information in urban areas.

Science Data analysis of DPR/SWAMP/USGS/MS4 Summarize data to educate CASQA members and water quality community, Water Boards, DPR, and EPA. monitoring, pesticide use data, and Monitoring and information from scientific literature Prepare Monthly Action Plans Coordinate CASQA’s regulatory actions with Partners

Prepare Annual Report to describe the Provide CASQA’s members with focused information on its efforts to prevent pesticide pollution in urban year’s status and progress, provide detail waterways. The document serves annual compliance submittal for both Phase I and Phase II MS4s. It may also on stakeholder actions, and the context of be used as an element of PEAIPs and future effectiveness assessment annual reporting. Reporting prior actions as well as anticipated end goal of these activities.

Table 6. Anticipated Opportunities for Pesticides Regulatory Engagement (July 2021 – June 2022) EPA Pesticide Registration Review (15-year cycle) Environmental Risk Assessments • Priority 2-4 pesticides: ADBAC family, Chlorinated isocyanurates, Chlorothalonil, Copper 8-quinolinolate, Dacthal (DCPA), Dicamba, DDAC family, N- bromosulfamates, PCNB, Silver, Tebuconazole, others (schedule unknown) Endangered Species Act Evaluations • Priority 1 pesticides: Imidacloprid (Biological Evaluation (BE)) • Priority 2 pesticides: Clothianidin (BE), Cuprous iodide (ESA Final Effects Determination), Thiamethoxam (BE) Proposed Interim Decisions • Priority 1 pesticides: Etofenprox, Fipronil, Malathion, Pyrethroids: Permethrin • Priority 2-4 pesticides: 2,4-D, Carbaryl, Chlorine Dioxide, Dichlorvos (DDVP), Diuron, Isothiazolinones (DCOIT, BIT, BBIT, MIT, OIT), MGK-264 (synergist), Mancozeb, Naled, o-Phenyl phenol, Oxadiazon, Oxyfluorfen, Peroxy Compounds (includes Peroxyoctanoic Acid; Sodium Percarbonate), Piperonyl butoxide (PBO) (pyrethroids synergist), Potassium Peroxymonosulfate and Potassium Peroxymonosulfate Sulfate, Propiconazole, Pyrethrins, Sodium pyrithione, Thiophanate methyl, Ziram, others (schedule unknown)

August 2021 Page 24 of 25 2021 Pesticide Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment

Other EPA-related Items • “Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process” affects how the EPA uses cost and benefit analysis in setting pollution standards. Rule proposal was expected in 5/19. • Proposed rule to eliminate some OPP Federal Register Notices (was anticipated September 2018 according to EPA semi-annual regulatory agenda) • EPA’s Update to Guidelines for Deriving Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria. Draft scoping document external peer review is next step. Seeking OPP engagement. DPR New Pesticide Product Registration Decisions • Proposed new urban pyrethroids (momfluorothrin, alpha-cypermethrin, phenothrin and transfluthrin products) • Proposed expansion of bifenthrin use in non-residential urban locations (including a bifenthrin-novaluron-pyriproxyfen product) • Proposed new fipronil products: fipronil-bifenthrin landscaping product, termite product, product for yellow jackets • Proposed new aerated indoxacarb powder • Others (schedule unknown) Other DPR-related Items • Registration Application Surface Water Reviews – continue to follow up on communications requesting review of all storm drain products and outdoor antimicrobials Water Boards • STORMS Urban Pesticides Amendments • Pesticides 303(d) listings • Pesticide TMDL implementation requirements for permittees Other Statewide Items • California Department of Food & Agriculture Program EIR on invasive species control covering potential broadcast pesticide applications urban areas of multiple priority pesticides. In litigation (California Court of Appeal).

August 2021 Page 25 of 25

Appendix

Regulatory Participation Outcomes and Effectiveness Assessment Summary Tables Pesticides Annual Report and Effectiveness Assessment 2021, CASQA Appendix: Regulatory Participation Outcomes and Effectiveness Assessment Summary Tables

Table of Contents

Chlorine Gas (February 2021)

Cypermethrins (June 2021)

Halohydantoins (February 2021)

Pyrethroids (June 2021)

Terbuthylazine (August 2020)

Pesticide: Chlorine Gas; EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0242 Use: Swimming pools, spas, and hot tubs. Why we care: Toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Actions taken: CASQA has been monitoring updates on the EPA docket. Status: EPA released the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision (PID). Comments were due July 6, 2020. EPA issued a Final Interim Decision in Oct. 2020. Comment period EPA analyzes Endangered Species Comment period on Comment period on on Proposed comments, issues Act (ESA) EPA issues Prelim. Aquatic Risk Interim Decision Final Interim Consultation Final Decision Work Plan (2010) Assessment (2019) (due 7/6/20) Decision (not in EPA workplan)

Next steps: ESA Consultation is required but unlikely to begin before 2022. Recommendation: Write a response letter, supporting the Sacramento County comments that EPA included in the Proposed Interim Decision.

CASQA comments to EPA (July 6, 2020): EPA Response: Did EPA incorporate member comments?

CASQA recommends that the label language be updated to match the EPA adopted the following language for all products used to treat Yes. language for copper products, which would also provide consistent label commercial and residential pools and fountains: “Before draining a language across pool, spa, and hot tub chemicals: "Before draining a treated [pool] or [fountain], contact your local sanitary sewer and storm treated [pool,] [spa,] [hot tub,] or [fountain] contact your local sanitary drain authorities and follow their discharge instructions. Do not sewer and storm drain authorities and follow their discharge instructions. discharge treated [pool] or [fountain] water to any location that flows to Do not discharge treated pool or spa water to any location that flows to a a gutter, storm drain or natural water body unless discharge is allowed gutter, storm drain or natural water body unless discharge is allowed by by state and local authorities.” state and local authorities.”

August 2021

Pesticide: Cypermethrins – EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0167 Use: Insecticide Why we care: Priority pesticide due to toxicity, use, and monitoring data. Pyrethroids have multiple 303(d) listings and TMDLs. Actions taken: CASQA commented on the Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for Pyrethroids in 2017, the Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal (February 2020), and the Cypermethrins Proposed Interim Decision (Nov 2020) Status: EPA released the Final Interim Registration Review Decision (ID) (April 2021)

Comment period on EPA analyzes Endangered Species Comment period on Preliminary Aquatic Comment period on comments, issues Act (ESA) EPA issues Proposed Interim Work plan (2010) Risk Assessment Decision (Nov 2020) Final Interim Consultation (not in Final Decision (2017) Decisions (April 2021) EPA workplan)

Next steps: ESA Consultation is required but unlikely to begin before 2022. Recommendation: No action is needed at this time as there is no opportunity for public comment.

CASQA Comments to EPA (November 2020) EPA Response Did EPA incorporate CASQA’s comment?

The Cypermethrins PID does not provide any additional mitigation “EPA has considered these comments and has decided not No. measures, beyond those found in the RMP, to address the to develop unique chemical-specific risk mitigation for the documented impacts of pyrethroid use in urban (nonagricultural) cypermethrins at this time beyond what is already required areas, and the risks to aquatic life of continued use of pyrethroid as part of this ID. EPA concludes that the cypermethrins pesticides. This is despite significant evidence presented both in provide high benefits for controlling pests in indoor EPA’s risk assessments and in our previous comment letters, clearly residential areas, outdoor urban areas, and in agricultural demonstrating that pyrethroid insecticides as a class, including crop production. The Agency is requiring risk mitigation cypermethrins, continue to cause toxicity in urban waterways. primarily to address risk to non-target invertebrates and fish; however, risks may remain to non-target organisms even after mitigation. Any remaining risks are outweighed by the benefits of the cypermethrins use. In addition, EPA notes that all states, including California, are authorized to restrict pesticide use according to state requirements/standards. For a more detailed response to submitted water quality comments, please see the Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Revised Ecological Risk Mitigation and Response to Comments on the Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal For 23 Chemicals (September 30, 2020).” (ID, p.15)

August 2021

CASQA recommends the following enhancements to the proposed “As discussed in the Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Revised No. (The label language and label language specified in Appendix B of the MRP: Ecological Risk Mitigation and Response to Comments on pictogram EPA refers to is  Design a clear schematic graphic for product labels to completely the Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal For 23 Chemicals one suggested by BACWA of and effectively address products that may be dumped or washed (September 30, 2020), EPA revised the label language to a diagonal strikethrough over into gutters and storm drains; include an image of a required pictogram and added clarity a drain for indoor uses.)  Review proposed label language text, and edit as needed to to various statements on the pyrethroid labels. The provide clear and consistent descriptions of pervious and substance and intent of the statements, however, have not impervious surfaces, to ensure clarity with respect to allowable changed. The label language changes are reflected in exceptions, including with respect to applications to vertical Appendix B.” (ID, p.15) surfaces; and  Provide California-specific labels for outdoor structural pest control pyrethroids products that are completely consistent with California Surface Water Protection Regulations implemented by California Department of Pesticide Regulation.

August 2021

Pesticide: Halohydantoins; EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0220 Use: Swimming pool, spa, hot tubs, and fountain disinfectant. Why we care: Degradants are toxic to aquatic organisms. Actions taken: CASQA sent EPA a comment letter on the Preliminary Risk Assessment on July 6, 2020. Status: EPA released the Proposed Interim Decision in October 2020. Comments were due December 22, 2020.

Comment period on Comment period EPA analyzes Comment period on Prelim. Aquatic Risk on Proposed comments, issues EPA establishes food EPA issues Work Plan (2013) Assessment (July Interim Decision Final Interim tolerances Final Decision 2020) (due 12/22/20) Decision

Next steps: EPA will issue a Final Interim Decision Recommendation: Submit a letter to thank EPA for incorporating proposed label language.

CASQA comments to EPA (July 6, 2020): EPA Response: Did EPA incorporate member comments?

CASQA Requests Revised Labeling as a Mitigation Measure- CASQA EPA included the revised language in its proposed labeling changes: Yes. requests that the current halohydantoins label language for any pool, spa, hot tub, and fountain products be changed to match the lithium “Before draining a treated [pool], [spa], [hot tub], or [fountain], contact hypochlorite and copper compounds labels, which would also provide your local sanitary sewer and storm drain authorities and follow their consistent label language across pool, spa, hot tub, and fountain discharge instructions. Do not discharge treated [pool], [spa], [hot tub], chemicals. or [fountain] water to any location that flows to a gutter or storm drain or natural water body unless discharge is allowed by state and local “Before draining a treated pool, spa, hot tub, or fountain, contact your local authorities.” sanitary sewer and storm drain authorities and follow their discharge instructions. Do not discharge treated pool or spa water to any location that flows to a gutter or storm drain or natural water body unless discharge is allowed by state and local authorities.”

For all swimming pool, spa, hot tub, and fountain products, including those None. No. containing halohydantoins, we also recommend that the “Environmental Hazards” label statements be applied on the basis of product end use rather than product size. This would mimic EPA’s decision for lithium hypochlorite and copper products. As explained in our attached lithium hypochlorite comments, this approach avoids potential conflicting language on product labels.

August 2021

Pesticide: Bifenthrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0384, Cyfluthrins – EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0684, Cypermethrins – EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0167, Cyphenothrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0842, d-Phenothrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0539, Deltamethrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0637, Esfenvalerate – EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0301, Etofenprox – EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0804, Fenpropathrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0422, Flumethrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0031, Gamma-cyhalothrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0479, Imiprothrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0692, Lambda-cyhalothrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0480, Momfluorothrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0752, Permethrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2011- 0039, Prallethrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1009, Tau-fluvalinate – EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0915, Tefluthrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0501, Tetramethrin – EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0907 Use: Insecticides Why we care: Priority pesticide due to toxicity, use, and monitoring data. Multiple 303(d) listings and TMDLs. Actions taken: CASQA commented on the Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment for Pyrethroids in 2017, the Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal (February 2020), and the Bifenthrin Proposed Interim Decision (July 2020). Status: EPA released the Final Interim Registration Review Decision (ID).

Comment period on EPA analyzes Endangered Species Comment period on Preliminary Aquatic Comment period on comments, issues Act (ESA) EPA issues Proposed Interim Work plan (2010) Risk Assessment Decision (July 2020) Final Interim Consultation (not in Final Decision (2017) Decisions (Nov. 2020) EPA workplan)

Next steps: ESA Consultation is required but unlikely to begin before 2022. Recommendation: No action is needed at this time as there is no opportunity for public comment. CASQA Comments to EPA: General (02/12/2020) and Bifenthrin EPA Response Did EPA incorporate CASQA’s (07/06/2020) comment?

EPA’s risk / benefit finding should be revised to differentiate among the “The pyrethroids have many uses across agricultural, No. 23 pyrethroids and pyrethrins and among the various outdoor urban residential, commercial, indoor and outdoor sites, uses of the 23 chemicals and were grouped into broad categories to compare the potential exposure for those active ingredients that were not quantitatively assessed in the 2016 Ecological Risk Assessment. The ecological risk assessment grouped uses into four major categories: indoor uses, outdoor non-agricultural uses, outdoor agricultural uses and wide-area mosquito adulticide uses. For the purposes of risk-benefit analysis, and EPA considers this approach to provide adequate differentiation among uses assessed for the group of 23 chemicals. Among outdoor uses, EPA is aware of

August 2021

the potential for applications to impervious surfaces to contribute to waterway pollution. The Agency’s mitigation for outdoor non-agricultural use as a category is reflective of those risk contributions. The Agency disagrees that a separate analysis of each pyrethroid or each specific use is needed to support EPA’s risk assessment and risk management conclusions and disagrees that a representative analysis featuring bifenthrin is necessary, as bifenthrin is not outstanding among pyrethroids in terms of RQ exceedances, aquatic invertebrate toxicity, or environmental persistence. EPA’s risk assessment supports the conclusions that there are risks of concern for aquatic organisms from exposure to pyrethroids, which is supported by water monitoring data that indicate that pyrethroids are present in the environment that result in adverse effects to aquatic invertebrates. The benefits from the use of these chemicals for these uses is also very high. For further discussion on ecological risk assessment, see EPA’s Joint Response from OPP’s Environmental Fate and Effects Division and Pesticide Re-evaluation Division to Comments on the Preliminary Risk Assessments for Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Insecticides. For more discussion on usage, alternatives, benefits and impacts conducted for the outdoor and indoor uses of the pyrethroids group, see the Usage Characterization and Alternatives Summary for Synthetic Pyrethroids Used in Residential Lawns and Outdoor Vegetative Spot Treatments and the Qualitative Overview of Alternatives for Selected Use Patterns of Pyrethroids Being Assessed for a Down-the-Drain Risk Assessment, available in the pyrethroids special docket (EPA-HQOPP-2008-0331). (Pyrethroids and Pyrethrins Revised Ecological Risk Mitigation and

August 2021

Response to Comments on the Ecological Risk Mitigation Proposal For 23 Chemicals, p. 33)

“The Agency appreciates the comments from NACWA, CASQA, SFBRWQCB, and BACWA. EPA has considered these comments and has decided not to develop unique chemical-specific risk mitigation for bifenthrin at this time beyond what is already required as part of this ID.” (Bifenthrin Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 7402, September 2020, p.14)

EPA should end outdoor urban use of bifenthrin: Therefore, due to the “EPA concludes that bifenthrin provides high benefits No. widely documented impacts of bifenthrin use to aquatic life and the for controlling pests in indoor residential areas, consequent costs to municipal agencies, CASQA urges EPA to take outdoor urban areas, in agricultural crop production, specific action to end registration of bifenthrin for outdoor urban and as an adult mosquitocide to control vectors for (nonagricultural) uses. Our previous letter provides additional detail, so human disease. The Agency is requiring risk we summarize the reasons for our request here: mitigation primarily to address risk to non-target • Monitoring and usage data clearly show that replacing bifenthrin with invertebrates and fish; however, risks may remain to another pyrethroid would reduce non-target organisms even after mitigation. Any water pollution.3 remaining risks are outweighed by the benefits of • There are more than a dozen alternative pesticides available to serve bifenthrin use.” (Bifenthrin Interim Registration the same purposes served by Review Decision Case Number 7402, September bifenthrin outdoors, including other pyrethroids, pyrethrins, and newer 2020, p.14) chemistries like indoxacarb. • Less toxic pest control methods based on integrated pest management (IPM), such as use of containerized baits and sealants have proven highly successful in urban environments. • In light of available alternatives, outdoor urban bifenthrin use does not appear to have benefits that outweigh its environmental impacts and economic costs to municipalities.

If EPA does not end all outdoor urban (non-agricultural) uses of bifenthrin, we request that EPA implement measures to make existing

August 2021

label restrictions more effective. The following measures would support increased adherence to these label instructions: • Make the existing bifenthrin special restrictions more prominent. • Require bifenthrin registrants to conduct aggressive outreach and education to professional structural pest control applicators, aimed at ensuring that all applicators strictly comply with the label. • Provide California-specific labels for outdoor structural pest control products that are completely consistent with California Surface Water Protection Regulations. This will reduce the chance of confusion among end users and will provide a key mechanism in support of California’s more restrictive requirements, which are designed to prevent water pollution caused by bifenthrin and other pyrethroids.

EPA should provide California-specific labels for outdoor structural pest “EPA notes that all states, including California, are No. control products that are consistent with California regulations authorized to restrict pesticide use according to state requirements/needs.” (Bifenthrin Interim Registration Review Decision Case Number 7402, September 2020, p.14)

CASQA supports EPA-proposed label changes, with modifications. “Regarding the suggestion…to add the down-the- No. drain advisory statements to all pyrethroids/pyrethins CASQA supports these other proposed label changes: labels (both agricultural and non-agricultural), • Prohibition on applications during rain outdoor and agricultural product labels already have • Advisory statement to avoid applications if rain is forecast within 24 label statements to prevent these chemicals from hours (We would prefer an enforceable statement) reaching drainage systems. In contrast, products with • Addition of water protection statements indoor uses do not currently have this language. • Definition of spot treatment (2 sq. ft.) Therefore, EPA has determined that these down-the- • Requirement that product labels explicitly state whether particular drain advisory statements are only necessary on products are allowed to be used indoors only, outdoors only, or both products with indoor uses. However, registrants have indoors and outdoors the option to consider including this language (i.e., • Reduction in height above ground level of building treatments from 3 “unless for use in pipes and sinks”) to agricultural feet to 2 feet product labels at their discretion. EPA recognizes that Spanish labeling may increase the size of To ensure that these label elements completely and effectively address residential labels, however the Agency determined products that may be dumped or washed into gutters and storm drains, that providing this advisory information in Spanish we request that EPA modify the “label table” in Appendix B to: would inform more users that products should not be

August 2021

1. Identify a specific outdoor drain graphic and require the same disposed of down the drain, unless they are graphic be used on all products. specifically labelled for that use.” (Pyrethroids and 2. Establish minimum size for the outdoor graphic, to ensure that it is Pyrethrins Revised Ecological Risk Mitigation and legible, i.e., no smaller than 1.5 square centimeters unless this size is Response to Comments on the Ecological Risk greater than 10% of the size of the label. Mitigation Proposal For 23 Chemicals, p. 7) 3. Modify the list of products that must include the graphic, stewardship language, and Spanish translations to specify: Yes, the EPA agreed to this suggestion to better a. The graphic, stewardship language, and Spanish are required on all clarify if pesticide is used indoors or outdoors. The categories of products -importantly including all outdoor non- label correction shows up in the appendices of the agricultural products – not just those labeled for indoor residential Revised Ecological Risk Mitigation as well as the use as indicated in the header on the label table in Appendix B. bifenthrin and permethrin PIDs. (Pyrethroids and • At a minimum, the label table should be revised to indicate the Pyrethrins Revised Ecological Risk Mitigation and graphic must be placed on all products labeled for outdoor use as well Response to Comments on the Ecological Risk as those labeled indoor use in nonagricultural settings (as indicated in Mitigation Proposal For 23 Chemicals, p. 43) the text on page 39). We would prefer that the graphic be required on all products, as even agricultural and mosquito abatement products are often mixed at facilities served by a storm drain system. b. The graphic, stewardship language, and Spanish are required on all types of products (except pet shampoos) that are packaged in a form that could be discharged into a drain (i.e., anything other than an impregnated material like a collar or fly strip). • The graphic should not be placed on pet shampoo product labels, to avoid inadvertently implying that pet wash water should not be discharged to the sewer. The primary discharge alternative – outdoors, would likely direct wash water to storm drains where it could flow untreated to creeks. c. The graphic, stewardship language, and Spanish are required for all 23 pyrethroids and pyrethrins (not just the subset listed in the left column of the label table in Appendix B), recognizing that all pyrethroids have potential to enter gutters and storm drains. • The subset of the 23 chemicals identified for this requirement in Appendix omits pyrethroids (e.g., momfluorothrin) that could also enter gutters and storm drains from outdoor use. d. A Spanish translation is required for the outdoor drain discharge prohibition (“Do not allow the product to enter any drain during or after application.” )

August 2021

The Pyrethroids PIDs do not provide any additional mitigation EPA did not include additional mitigation. No. measures to address the documented impacts of pyrethroid use in urban (non-agricultural) areas, and the risks to aquatic life of continued use of pyrethroid pesticides, despite significant evidence presented both in EPA’s risk assessments and in our previous comment letters clearly demonstrating that pyrethroid insecticides as a class continue to cause toxicity in urban waterways.

August 2021

Pesticide: Terbuthylazine; EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0453 Use: Fountain algaecide/microbiocide/microbiostat. Why we care: Highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Actions taken: County of Sacramento (a CASQA member) sent EPA comments on the Draft Risk Assessment in January 2020, respectively. Status: EPA released the Proposed Interim Decision in May 2020. Comment period EPA analyzes Endangered Species Comment period on Comment period on on Proposed comments, issues Act (ESA) EPA issues Draft Ecological Risk Interim Decision Final Interim Consultation Final Decision Work Plan (2009) Assessment (2012) (due 7/20/20) Decision (not in EPA workplan)

Next steps: EPA will review comments on the Proposed Interim Decision and issue a Final Interim Decision Recommendation: Write a response letter, supporting the Sacramento County comments that EPA included in the Proposed Interim Decision.

Sacramento County comments to EPA (Jan. 2020): EPA Response: Did EPA incorporate member comments?

Our primary concern with the subject pesticides is that the Draft Risk EPA made label changes (see below) that will help reduce the amount Yes. Assessment neglected to consider storm drain discharges of of terbuthylazine that is discharged into the storm drain by requiring terbuthylazine-containing fountain water and the ensuing risk to aquatic notification to local sanitary sewer/ storm drain authorities. life. The Draft Risk Assessment assumed that there would be “no significant exposure to aquatic organisms…from the decorative/ornamental fountain uses given that the label prohibits discharge of this product into lakes, streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters, unless in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations Systems (NPDES) permit.”

Sacramento County requests that the current language be changed to “The agency agrees with the requested label changes and is proposing Yes. match the copper label, which would also provide consistency for label additional label changes to address the potential ecological risks by language across pool, spa, hot tub, and fountain chemicals, which follows: reducing exposure and clarifying the appropriate use methods, as “Before draining a treated pool, spa, hot tub, or fountain, contact described in Appendix B.” your local sanitary sewer and storm drain authorities and follow their discharge instructions. Do not discharge treated pool, spa, hot tub, or fountain water to any location that flows to a gutter or storm drain or

August 2021

natural water body unless discharge is allowed by state and local authorities.”

Sacramento County also notes that the following language exists on EPA did not address this comment. No. several terbuthylazine labels: “Experience will demonstrate the level of (product) is required." We are concerned that this vague label language could lead to overuse these products. We are also concerned that label language states that users should maintain a concentration of product, cited in ppm, to get adequate algae control, but does not specify a practical, low-cost method for determining terbuthalyazine concentrations in treated fountain water. We respectfully request that EPA provide a dosing table, based on the size range (in volume of water) for fountains, to guide consumers in the application amount and frequency of application of the product.

For all fountain products, including those containing terbuthylazine, we also EPA did not address this comment. No. recommend that the “Environmental Hazards” label statements be applied on the basis of product end use rather than product size. This would mimic EPA’s decision for lithium hypochlorite products. As explained in our attached lithium hypochlorite comments, this approach avoids potential conflicting language on product labels.

August 2021

Appendix E

Mercury and PCB Controls 1111 Broadway, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94607 PH 510.836.3034 www.geosyntec.com

Memorandum

Date: August 19, 2021 To: Jim Scanlin, Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program From: Lisa Austin, Principal, and Lisa Welsh, Project Scientist Subject: PCBs in Building Materials Management Program – Fiscal Year 2020/21 Data Summary Geosyntec Project Number: CWR0649

1. BACKGROUND

Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP; Order No. R2-2015-0049) Provision C.12.f requires Permittees to manage polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) containing materials and wastes during building demolition activities. The MRP Permittees have developed and implemented a process, beginning in July 2019, for managing materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in applicable structures when applicable structures undergo demolition. Applicable structures include commercial, public, institutional, and industrial buildings constructed or remodeled between 1950 and 1980 undergoing full-building demolition. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt. This technical memorandum documents the following items for the Alameda County Permittees, as required by MRP Provision C.12.f.iii.(4): a. The number of applicable structures that applied for a demolition permit during the reporting year; and b. A running list of the applicable structures that applied for a demolition permit (since the date the PCBs control protocol was implemented) that had material(s) with PCBs at 50 ppm or greater, with the address, demolition date, and a brief description of the PCBs control method(s) used.

2. NUMBER OF APPLICABLE STRUCTURE APPLICATIONS

Table 1 below lists the number of applicable structures that applied for a demolition permit within Alameda County during Fiscal Year 2020/21 (i.e., from July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021) and the number of samples in those buildings that were equal to or greater than 50 ppm.

ACCWP PCBs in Building Materials 2021 Data Summary (Final 8-19-2021)

ACCWP PCBS in Building Materials Management Program – 2021 Data Summary August 19, 2021 Page 2

Table 1: Number of Applicable Structure Applications Received in FY 2020/21

Permittee # Applicable Applications # Samples ≥ 50 ppm PCBs

Alameda 0 0 Albany 0 0 Berkeley 0 0 Dublin 1 6 Emeryville 0 0 Fremont 3 5 Hayward 2 9 Livermore 0 0 Newark 0 0 Oakland 0 0 Piedmont 0 0 Pleasanton 0 0 San Leandro 0 0 Union City 0 0 Alameda County 0 0 Alameda County Total 6 20

3. LIST OF APPLICABLE STRUCTURES

A list of the applicable structures that applied for a demolition permit since July 1, 2019, that had materials with PCBs at 50 ppm or greater, with the address and estimated demolition date, is provided in Attachment 1.

4. DESCRIPTION OF PCBS CONTROL METHOD

4.1 Permittee Control Method On behalf of the MRP Permittees, the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) conducted a regional project that developed an implementation framework, guidance materials, and tools for local agencies to ensure PCBs-containing materials and wastes are appropriately managed during building demolition. The Regional Project also provided training materials and a workshop for municipal staff, and an outreach workshop for the industry on implementing the framework/protocols developed via the project. Permittees have implemented the following process for this control measure:

ACCWP PCBs in Building Materials 2021 Data Summary (Final 8-19-2020)

ACCWP PCBS in Building Materials Management Program – 2021 Data Summary August 19, 2021 Page 3

• The municipality informs applicable demolition permit applicants that their projects are subject to the program for managing materials with PCBs, necessitating, at a minimum, an initial screening for priority PCBs–containing materials. • For every applicable demolition project, applicants implement the BASMAA protocol for identifying building materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater and then complete and submit a version of BASMAA’s model “PCBs Screening Assessment Form” (Screening Form) or equivalent to the municipality. • The municipality reviews the Screening Form to make sure it is filled out correctly and is complete and works with the applicant to correct any deficiencies. • The municipality then issues the demolition permit or equivalent, according to its procedures. • The municipality sends each completed Screening Form for applicable structures and any supporting documents to its countywide program. The countywide program compiles the forms and works with the other MRP countywide programs to manage and evaluate the data and assist Permittees with associated MRP reporting requirements.

4.2 Building Demolition Applicant Control Method Applicants that determine that PCBs exist in priority building materials must follow applicable federal and state laws for handling and disposal, such as reporting to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). These agencies may require additional sampling and abatement of PCBs. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regulates the disposal of PCBs waste. Depending on the approach for sampling and removing building materials containing PCBs, the applicant may need to notify or seek advance approval from USEPA before building demolition. For example, TSCA requires manifesting the waste for transportation and disposal. (See 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 761 and 40 CFR 761, Subpart K.) Regulation under TSCA is not limited to materials containing PCBs at or above 50 ppm. There are circumstances in which materials containing PCBs below 50 ppm are subject to regulation under TSCA. (See 40 CFR 761.61(a)(5)(i)(B)(2)(ii).). 40 CFR 761.3 provides information relative to the disposal of PCBs- containing building materials, including definitions of PCBs bulk product wastes and PCBs remediation wastes. The memorandum “PCB Bulk Product Waste Reinterpretation” from the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, EPA,1 provides more information.

1 Located here: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/wste-memo_102412.pdf.

ACCWP PCBs in Building Materials 2021 Data Summary (Final 8-19-2020)

ACCWP PCBS in Building Materials Management Program – 2021 Data Summary August 19, 2021 Page 4

Additionally, the disposal of PCBs waste is subject to California Code of Regulations (CCR) California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Section Division 4.5, Chapter 12, Standards Applicable to Hazardous Waste Generators. *****

ACCWP PCBs in Building Materials 2021 Data Summary (Final 8-19-2020)

Attachment 1 List of Applicable Structure Applications for Alameda County Permittees with PCBs at 50 ppm or Greater

ACCWP PCBS in Building Materials Management Program – 2021 Data Summary

# Samples Estimated Demo PCBs Concentration Permittee Building ID Address ≥ 50 Date Range (mg/kg) ppm PCBs Oakland AC - 14 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 5 54 - 174 Oakland AC - 15 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 1 139.4 Oakland AC - 16 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 2 66.1 - 85 Oakland AC - 17 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 1 56 Oakland AC - 18 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 2 53 - 64 Oakland AC - 19 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 1 61 Oakland AC - 21 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 2 58 - 104 Oakland AC - 26 5441 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA, 94601 June 2020 1 125 Oakland AC - 31 7200 Earhart Rd, Oakland, CA, 94621 November 2019 4 190 - 537,000 Fremont AC -32 39150 Fremont Bank, Fremont, CA, 94539 Jan 2020 1 50 Hayward AC -34 22300 City Center Drive, Hayward, CA, 94541 April 2020 3 66 - 9,600 Dublin DUB-1 6700 Golden Gate Drive, Dublin, CA, 94568 To be determined 6 51 - 740 Fremont FRE-1 3820 Peralta Blvd, Fremont, CA, 94536 September 2020 1 1,800 Fremont FRE-3 37887 Shinn St, Fremont, CA, 94536 March 2021 2 76 - 670 Fremont FRE-5 37343 Blacow Rd, Fremont, CA, 94536 April 2021 2 110-28,000 Hayward 22300 City Center Dr. 22300 City Center Drive, Hayward, CA, 94541 April 2021 8 66 – 9,600 Hayward 411 Industrial Pkwy 411 Industrial Pkwy, Hayward, CA, 94544 August 2020 1 1,300

p ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE

CLEAN WATER PROGRAM

MERCURY AND PCBS WATERS HED/MANAGEMENT AREAS, CONTROL

MEASURES, AND LOAD

MEMBER AGENCIES: REDUCTION – UPDATE Alameda Albany 2021 Berkeley

Dublin Report prepared by: Emeryville Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fremont 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward Hayward, California 94544

Livermore Newark Submitted to: Oakland California Regional Water Quality Piedmont Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region Pleasanton

San Leandro Union City County of Alameda August 23,2021 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency

Acknowledgements

Geosyntec Consultants contributed substantially to the writing and preparation of this report.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 i

Preface

This Mercury and PCBs Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Implementation Report was prepared by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) per the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP; NPDES Permit No. CAS612008; Order No. R2-2015-0049) for urban stormwater issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. This report fulfills the requirements of MRP Provisions C.11.a.iii.(3), C.11.b.iii(2), C.12.a.iii.(3), and C.12.b.iii.(2) for updating the list of control measures reported in 2017 as necessary to account for new control measures and to report loads reduced by these control measures.

This report is submitted by ACCWP on behalf of the following Permittees:

• The cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City; • Alameda County; • Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District; and • Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7 Water Agency).

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 ii

List of Acronyms

Acronym Definition

ACCWP Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (also Program) BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association BMP Best Management Practice DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District ESPS Ettie Street Pump Station FY Fiscal Year GI Green Infrastructure GIS Geographic Information System mg/kg milligram per kilogram MPC Monitoring and Pollutants of Concern Committee MRP Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operations and Maintenance PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls POC Pollutants of Concern POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works ROW Right-of-Way SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (also Regional Water Board) SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load W/MA Watershed / Management Area

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 iii

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Report Organization ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 2 1.2.1 Mercury and PCBs Total Maximum Daily Loads ...... 2 1.2.2 Municipal Regional Permit ...... 3 1.3 Approach ...... 4 1.3.1 Control Measures ...... 4 1.3.2 Watershed /Management Area Delineation ...... 8 1.3.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Implementation of Control Measures ...... 9 1.3.4 Load Reduction Methodology ...... 11

2 Description of Control Measures ...... 12 2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 12 2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 14 2.3 Managing PCBs In Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 15 2.3.1 PCBs in Building Materials ...... 15 2.3.2 PCBs in Infrastructure ...... 17 2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance ...... 17 2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 18 2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures...... 19 2.6.1 Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction ...... 19 2.6.2 Illegal Dumping Clean-Up ...... 20 2.6.3 Stockpile, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs ...... 20

3 City of Alameda ...... 22 3.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 22 3.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 23 3.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 23 3.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 23 3.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 23 3.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 23 3.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 23 3.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 24

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 iv

4 City of Albany ...... 26 4.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 26 4.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 27 4.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 27 4.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 27 4.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 27 4.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 27 4.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 27 4.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 28

5 City of Berkeley ...... 30 5.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 30 5.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 31 5.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 31 5.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 31 5.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 32 5.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 32 5.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 32 5.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 32

6 City of Dublin ...... 34 6.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 34 6.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 34 6.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 34 6.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 35 6.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 35 6.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 35 6.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 35 6.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 35

7 City of Emeryville ...... 37 7.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 37 7.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 37 7.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 37 7.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 38 7.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 38 7.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 39

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 v

7.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 39 7.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 39

8 City of Fremont ...... 41 8.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 41 8.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 42 8.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 42 8.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 42 8.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 42 8.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 42 8.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 42 8.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 42

9 City of Hayward ...... 45 9.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 45 9.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 45 9.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 45 9.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 46 9.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 46 9.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 46 9.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 46 9.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 46

10 City of Livermore ...... 49 10.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 49 10.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 50 10.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 50 10.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 50 10.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 50 10.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 50 10.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 50 10.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 51

11 City of Newark ...... 53 11.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 53 11.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 53 11.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 53

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 vi

11.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 54 11.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 54 11.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 54 11.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 54 11.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 54

12 City of Oakland ...... 57 12.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 57 12.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 58 12.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 58 12.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 61 12.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 66 12.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 66 12.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 67 12.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 67

13 City of Piedmont ...... 75 13.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 75 13.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 75 13.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 75 13.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 76 13.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 76 13.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 76 13.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 76 13.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 76

14 City of Pleasanton ...... 78 14.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 78 14.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 78 14.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 78 14.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 79 14.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 79 14.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 79 14.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 79 14.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 79

15 City of San Leandro ...... 82 15.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 82

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 vii

15.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 83 15.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 83 15.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 83 15.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 83 15.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 83 15.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 83 15.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 84

16 City of Union City ...... 86 16.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 86 16.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 87 16.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 87 16.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 87 16.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 87 16.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 87 16.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 87 16.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 88

17 Unincorporated Alameda County ...... 90 17.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 90 17.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 91 17.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 91 17.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 91 17.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 91 17.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 91 17.2.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 91 17.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 92

18 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ...... 95 18.1 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 95 18.1.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 95 18.1.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 96 18.1.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 96 18.1.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 96 18.1.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 96 18.1.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 97

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 viii

19 Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7 Water Agency) ...... 99 19.1 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures ...... 99 19.1.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement ...... 99 19.1.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures ...... 99 19.1.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure ...... 99 19.1.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures ...... 99 19.1.5 Diversion to POTW ...... 100 19.1.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures ...... 100

20 Loads Reduced ...... 102 20.1 Loads Reduced – PCBs ...... 102 20.2 Loads Reduced – Mercury ...... 103

21 References ...... 106

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 ix

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Control Measure Roles and Responsibilities ...... 10

Table 1-2: Permittee Department Roles and Responsibilities ...... 11

Table 2-1: Contaminated Sites Referred to the SFBRWQCB ...... 14

Table 3-1: City of Alameda PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 22

Table 3-2: City of Alameda Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 22

Table 4-1: City of Albany PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 26

Table 4-2: City of Albany Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 26

Table 5-1: City of Berkeley PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 30

Table 5-2: City of Berkeley Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 30

Table 5-3: Source Property Referral ...... 31

Table 6-1: City of Dublin PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 34

Table 6-2: City of Dublin Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 34

Table 7-1: City of Emeryville PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 37

Table 7-2: City of Emeryville Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 37

Table 7-3: Source Property Referrals ...... 38

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 x

Table 8-1: City of Fremont PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 41

Table 8-2: City of Fremont Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 41

Table 9-1: City of Hayward PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 45

Table 9-2: City of Hayward Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 45

Table 10-1: City of Livermore PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 49

Table 10-2: City of Livermore Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 49

Table 11-1: City of Newark PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 53

Table 11-2: City of Newark Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 53

Table 12-1: City of Oakland PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 57

Table 12-2: City of Oakland Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 58

Table 12-3: Source Property Referrals ...... 58

Table 13-1: City of Piedmont PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 75

Table 13-2: City of Piedmont Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 75

Table 14-1: City of Pleasanton PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 78

Table 14-2: City of Pleasanton Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 78

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 xi

Table 15-1: City of San Leandro PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 82

Table 15-2: City of San Leandro Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 82

Table 16-1: City of Union City PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 86

Table 16-2: City of Union City Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 86

Table 17-1: Unincorporated Alameda County PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses ...... 90

Table 17-2: City of Unincorporated Alameda County Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 90

Table 20-1: PCBs Loads Reduced by the Permittees (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 102

Table 20-2: PCBs Loads Reduced Within Alameda County (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) .. 103

Table 20-3: Mercury Loads Reduced by the Permittees (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ..... 104

Table 20-4: Mercury Loads Reduced Within Alameda County (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) ...... 105

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 xii

List of Figures

Figure 3-1: City of Alameda Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 25

Figure 4-1: City of Albany Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures...... 29

Figure 5-1: City of Berkeley Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 33

Figure 6-1: City of Dublin Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 36

Figure 7-1: City of Emeryville Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 40

Figure 8-1: City of Fremont Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 44

Figure 9-1: City of Hayward Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 48

Figure 10-1: City of Livermore Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 52

Figure 11-1: City of Newark Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 56

Figure 12-1: City of Oakland Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 68

Figure 12-2: City of Oakland Port-Related Management Area and Control Measures (Seaport Region) ...... 69

Figure 12-3: City of Oakland Port-Related Management Area and Control Measures (Airport Region) ...... 70

Figure 12-4: Oakland Army Base Management Area and Control Measures ...... 71

Figure 12-5: City of Oakland West Oakland Management Area and Control Measures ...... 72

Figure 12-6: City of Oakland Planned Redevelopment Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 73

Figure 12-7: Oakland Planned Redevelopment Management Areas ...... 74

Figure 13-1: City of Piedmont Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 77

Figure 14-1: City of Pleasanton Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 81

Figure 15-1: City of San Leandro Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 85

Figure 16-1: City of Union City Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 89

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 xiii

Figure 17-1: Unincorporated Alameda County (Full Extent) Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 93

Figure 17-2: Unincorporated Alameda County (Detail) Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures ...... 94

Figure 18-1: ACFCWCD Zones and Representative Facilities and Control Measures ...... 98

Figure 19-1: Channels and Streams Owned by Zone 7 Water Agency ...... 101

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 xiv

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Report Organization

This Mercury and PCBs Watershed/Management Areas, Control Measures, and Load Reduction – Update 2019 report was prepared by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) per the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB; Order No. R2-2015-0049). This report fulfills the requirements of MRP Provisions C.11.a.iii.(3), C.11.b.iii(2), C.12.a.iii.(3), and C.12.b.iii.(2) for updating the list of control measures reported in 2018 as necessary to account for new control measures and to report loads reduced by these control measures using the approved Interim Accounting Methodology (BASMAA, 2017).

The following MRP reporting requirements are addressed within this report:

• The list of Watershed/Management Areas (W/MAs) where control measures are currently being implemented:

• The number, type, and locations and/or frequency (if applicable) of control measures;

• A cumulative listing of all potentially PCBs-contaminated sites Permittees has referred to the SFBRWQCB to date, with a brief summary description of each site and where to obtain further information;

• The description, scope, and start date of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) control measures;

• For each structural control and non-structural best management practice (BMP), interim implementation progress milestones (e.g., construction milestones for structural controls or other relevant implementation milestones for structural controls and non-structural BMPs) and a schedule for milestone achievement;

• Clear statements of the roles and responsibilities of each participating Permittee for implementation of identified control measures;

• Mercury and PCBs loads reduced using the approved assessment methodology to demonstrate cumulative mercury and PCBs load reduced from each control measure implemented since the beginning of the Permit term, including supporting data and information necessary to substantiate the load reduction estimates; and

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 1

• An estimate of the amount of mercury and PCBs load reductions resulting from green infrastructure implementation during the current term of the MRP, including a description of all data used and a full description of models and model inputs relied on to generate this estimate.

This report is organized into the following sections:

1. Introduction and Background – This section describes requirements for managing mercury and PCBs per the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and the MRP, followed by the management approach that has been implemented by ACCWP Permittees. This approach includes delineation of W/MAs based on screening of priority parcels in Old Industrial land classification for likelihood of ongoing PCBs discharge and implementation of control measures. Roles and responsibilities are also described in this section.

2. Control Measures Overview – This section provides a general description of the types of control measures that are currently being implemented to control PCBs and mercury.

3. Watersheds/Management Areas, Control Measures, and Schedule for each Permittee – These sections describe the Permittee-specific W/MAs and control measures identified by the Permittee that are currently being implemented in each W/MA during this permit term. At least one figure is provided for each Permittee. These figures show W/MA boundaries that contain priority land uses for PCBs management (Old Industrial and Old Urban, as well as “Categorical” overlays described in Section 1.3.2); classification of Old Industrial parcels in these W/MAs resulting from partial screening through 2015 (i.e., High, Moderate or Low/No Likelihood of ongoing PCBs discharge); other land use areas (e.g., New Urban/Other and Open Space); and locations of trash capture devices as examples of treatment controls or sites for enhanced sediment removal.

4. Loads Reduced – This section presents the estimates of mercury and PCBs loads reduced by the control measures that are currently being implemented.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Mercury and PCBs Total Maximum Daily Loads

Fish tissue monitoring in San Francisco Bay (Bay) has revealed bioaccumulation of PCBs, mercury, and other pollutants. The levels found are thought to pose a health risk to people consuming fish

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 2

caught in the Bay. As a result of these findings, California has issued an interim advisory on the consumption of fish from the Bay. The advisory led to the Bay being designated as an impaired water body on the Clean Water Act "Section 303(d) list" due to mercury and PCBs. In response, the SFBRWQCB developed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) water quality restoration programs targeting PCBs and mercury in the Bay. The general goals of the TMDLs are to identify sources of PCBs and mercury to the Bay and implement actions to control the sources and restore water quality.

Municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are one of the PCBs and mercury source/pathways identified in the TMDLs. Local public agencies (i.e., Permittees) subject to requirements via National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required to implement control measures in an attempt to reduce PCBs and mercury from entering stormwater runoff and the Bay. These control measures, also referred to as best management practices (BMPs), are the tools that Permittees can use to assist in restoring water quality in the Bay.

1.2.2 Municipal Regional Permit

NPDES permit requirements associated with Phase I municipal stormwater programs and Permittees in the Bay Area are included in the MRP, which was issued to 76 cities, counties, and flood control districts in 2009 and reissued in revised form in 2015.3 Consistent with the TMDLs, Provisions C.11.a. and C.12.a. of the MRP require the implementation of source and treatment control measures and pollution prevention strategies to reduce mercury and PCBs in urban stormwater runoff to achieve specified load reductions throughout the permit area. Although many of the control measures may be selected primarily for the purpose of achieving PCBs load reductions during this MRP permit term, substantial mercury load reductions may result as a tangential benefit and will be accounted for in tracking mercury load reductions. Specifically, the MRP requires the Permittees to:

1 See: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/sfbaypcbstmdl.shtml and http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/TMDLs/sfbaypcbstmdl.shtml.

2 The MRP replaced previous permits issued to permittees grouped by county, but recognizes that many compliance activities are conducted or facilitated by ACCWP and other countywide stormwater consortia. ACCWP and other Bay Area stormwater programs collaborate regionally.

3 The MRP was amended by Order No. R2-2019-0004 to add the East Contra Costa County Permittees (the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Oakley).

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 3

• Identify the watersheds or portions of watersheds (management areas) in which PCBs control measures are currently being implemented and those in which new control measures will be implemented during the term of this permit; • Identify the control measures that are currently being implemented and those that will be implemented in each watershed/management area; • Submit a schedule of control measure implementation; and • Implement sufficient control measures to achieve the mercury and PCBs load reductions stated in the permit.

Provisions C.11.b. and C.12.b. of the MRP require the Permittees to estimate loads reduced by the control measures that have been implemented since the beginning of the Permit term. The MRP allows for load reductions from control measures implemented prior to the effective date of the Permit to be counted toward the required reductions of this permit term if these control measures were established or implemented during the previous permit term, but load reductions from the activity were not realized or credited during the previous permit term (e.g., they were implemented after the 2014 Integrated Monitoring Report was submitted). Therefore, control measures implemented in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013/14, FY 2014/15, FY 2015/16, FY 2016/17, FY 2017/18, FY 2018/19, FY 2019/20, and FY 2020/21 (i.e., controls measures implemented between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2021) may be reported herein.

1.3 Approach

1.3.1 Control Measures

The urban stormwater runoff wasteload allocation for PCBs represents a 90 percent reduction from the estimated existing load. The TMDL implementation plans set roughly 20-year timelines for achieving the reductions but also incorporate an adaptive implementation planning approach. The adaptive approach consists of the development of a plan that includes early implementation actions based on existing knowledge that have a reasonable probability of success and an overview of options for future actions. For PCBs and mercury in the Bay, the immediate or early implementation actions are not expected to completely eliminate the Bay impairment. Therefore, future actions must be evaluated based on continued monitoring and response to the

4 Table 12.1 of the MRP lists interim PCBs load reduction performance criteria that Permittees should achieve during the current permit term. Provision C.11 does not list interim mercury load reduction performance criteria, except for green infrastructure implementation.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 4

early implementation actions, as well as based on well-designed studies used for model refinement.

The MRP Fact Sheet notes that the initial focus of Provisions C.11/12 is on measures designed to reduce PCBs, while also evaluating opportunities for mercury reduction. Implementation actions may fall into four categories depending on the available knowledge and confidence in a control measure’s effectiveness (listed in decreasing order of confidence):

1. Full-scale implementation throughout the region. 2. Focused implementation in areas where benefits are most likely to occur. 3. Pilot-testing in a few specific locations. 4. Other: This may refer to experimental control measures, research and development, desktop analysis, laboratory studies, and/or literature review.

During the previous MRP term, Permittee effort was largely focused on gathering necessary information about control measure effectiveness through pilot projects and some focused implementation of the most effective control measures. In this term of the MRP, the emphasis has shifted towards focused and some full-scale implementation of the most effective control measures. Progress is measured through accounting for specific load reductions as described in the regionally produced report: Interim Accounting Methodology for TMDL Loads Reduced (BASMAA, 2017).

After impacts to the Bay were identified, the Permittees, countywide stormwater programs, Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), and the SFBRWQCB began gathering data and developing an understanding of the sources and pathways for mercury and PCBs runoff to the Bay (e.g., AMS et al., 2001; AMS, 2002; EOA, 2002; Kleinfelder, 2006). These same parties developed a framework to address these pollutants throughout the following decade, as described in the MRP Fact Sheet. The remainder of this section summarizes key regional initiatives to evaluate mercury and PCBs control measures and ACCWP efforts to identify priority areas within Permittee jurisdictions for implementing control measures.

The Regional Stormwater Monitoring and Urban BMP Evaluation: A Stakeholder-Driven Partnership to Reduce Contaminant Loadings (Proposition 13) project funded by a State of California Proposition 13 grant to the San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) defined conceptual

5 General Strategy for Sediment-Bound Pollutants (Mercury and PCBs), MRP Attachment A-82.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 5

models of sources and pathways of mercury and PCBs in Bay Area urban watersheds (McKee et al., 2006). The Proposition 13 project compiled PCBs and mercury chemical analysis results from sites predominantly in older industrial areas developed prior to the 1979 ban on PCBs production and open uses. The combined dataset contained about 600 sediment samples collected at over 360 locations throughout the Bay Area from roadways and stormwater drainage infrastructure (e.g., storm drain inlets, pump house wet wells, piping beneath manholes, and open channels) (Yee and McKee, 2010). These data supported the general hypothesis that concentrations of PCBs and mercury are elevated in specific parts of the urban landscape and showed that:

• Pollutant concentrations are highly patchy, even at moderate to small spatial (sub- kilometer) and temporal (approximately annual) scales. This patchiness reflects the episodic nature of many release and transport events and processes. • Concentrations at sites within three kilometers of one another showed similarities in concentration, which may be due to similarities in land use, activities, or transport of shared pollutant sources. • Individual sites and areas most contaminated with PCBs are often not those with high mercury, which is a logical finding given the different use histories and original pollutant sources.

Another outcome of the Proposition 13 project was a desktop evaluation of control measures for potential region-wide PCBs and mercury load reductions (Mangarella et al., 2010).

Building upon the efforts of the Proposition 13 project, BASMAA conducted an EPA grant-funded project called Clean Watersheds for a Clean Bay (CW4CB). The CW4CB project, which began in May 2010 and was completed in May 2017, was a collaboration among the MRP Permittees designed to evaluate the effectiveness of stormwater controls for PCBs and mercury. The CW4CB Project implemented a number of pilot projects for various control measures called for by the Bay PCBs and mercury TMDLs and the first term MRP. The CW4CB work products6 included:

• Selecting five subwatersheds with relatively high levels of PCBs indicated by Proposition 13 project samples and other data sources for pilot investigations;

6 The CW4CB work products can be found on the BASMAA webpage at: http://basmaa.org/Clean-Watersheds-for-a- Clean-Bay-Project

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 6

• Identifying PCBs and mercury source areas within the project subwatersheds and referring these sites to regulatory agencies for cleanup and abatement; • Developing methods to enhance removal of sediment with PCBs and other pollutants during Permittee sediment management activities; • Retrofitting 8 to 10 urban sites with different types of stormwater treatment facilities; • Facilitating development and implementation of a regional risk communication and exposure reduction program that focuses on educating the public about the health risks of consuming certain species of Bay fish that contain high levels of PCBs and mercury; and • Creating public education outreach materials, a project web portal, guidance manual, and technical workshops.

The Permittees used the information gathered and lessons learned through the CW4CB project and the earlier projects as the basis to identify the W/MAs and control measures listed in this report.

In FY 2015/16, ACCWP began a countywide Geographic Information System (GIS) project focused on maintaining, analyzing, interpreting, displaying, and reporting relevant municipal stormwater program data and information to address requirements in the following MRP Provisions:

• C.3.j Green Infrastructure (GI) Planning and Implementation, • C.10 Trash Load Reduction, • C.11 Mercury Controls, and • C.12 PCBs Controls.

This project is critical to the Permittees’ ongoing work to identify watersheds and management areas where multiple-benefit control measure implementation opportunities have been identified and prioritized for implementation during this permit term and over the coming decades. Additionally, this GIS database is being used to track and map existing C.3 new development and redevelopment projects, allow ease of ongoing review of opportunities for incorporating GI into existing and planned Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs), and assist in the development of GI plans.

The Program’s stormwater GIS platform features web maps and applications created using ESRI’s ArcGIS Online for Organizations environment. This platform can access GIS data, custom web services, and reports that are hosted within an Amazon cloud service running ESRI’s ArcGIS Server technology. The stormwater GIS platform is an important tool for maintaining relevant

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 7

stormwater data; reviewing, analyzing, and displaying data geography; accounting for and assessing compliance with load reduction performance goals; and reporting.

1.3.2 Watershed /Management Area Delineation

Each municipal Permittee has created a list of W/MAs and control measures (i.e., a control measure plan that describes what, where, and when control measures are being implemented) for PCBs and mercury, provided in Sections 3 through 19 below.7 The ultimate goal for the listed control measures is to achieve the Alameda countywide PCBs load reductions listed in MRP Tables 12.1 and Table 12.2 during this MRP term:

• 160 g/yr PCBs by 6/30/18, • 940 g/yr PCBs by 6/30/2020, and • 37 g/yr PCBs and 15 g/yr mercury using green infrastructure by 6/30/2020.

The ACCWP Permittees achieved the required PCBs load reductions in 2018 and 2020, and the PCBs and mercury load reductions using green infrastructure in 2020.

A W/MA is an area where load reduction credit is being sought for PCBs or mercury control measures. The W/MAs identified in this report are based on ACCWP’s ongoing source area identification screening program described in the Mercury and PCBs Control Measures Implementation Status Report (ACCWP, 2016).The W/MAs cover all Old Industrial and Old Urban areas but may also include some New Urban areas where appropriate. W/MAs were delineated through review by Program and Permittee staff of updated maps showing:

1. The results of 2015 PCBs source property screening categorizing Old Industrial parcels as high, moderate, or low/no likelihood of ongoing PCBs discharge; 2. Known past or ongoing PCBs source properties from the CW4CB Task 3 referrals and state environmental databases: Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor, and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Geotracker; and

7 Because Alameda County watersheds generally comprise widely varying land uses with differing potentials for load reductions, W/MAs for ACCWP Permittees are generally based on land use groupings or existing planning zones relevant to implementation and tracking of control measures, rather than hydrological boundaries.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 8

3. Land use classifications (i.e., Old Industrial, Old Urban, New Urban, and Open Space) originally defined and mapped for the Integrated Monitoring Report (ACCWP, 2014) and updated in ACCWP (2016).

These factors were used to create approximate delineations based on the geography within each Permittee’s jurisdiction using best professional judgement and Permittee input. If applicable, W/MA boundaries were aligned with existing delineations in a city’s General Plan, Specific Plans, and/or Redevelopment Plans. Categorical W/MAs were also created for the non-municipally owned electrical utility (i.e., PG&E) and railroad properties (note, the categorical W/MAs can exist within or create “holes” in the other geographically based WM/As).

Details of the W/MAs and identified control measures will evolve over time as the Permittees learn more about these areas through implementation of the control measures.

The two flood control Permittees (ACFCWCD and Zone 7 Water Agency) own and manage specific storm drainage conveyances and related facilities, which may include creeks, channels, levees, pump stations, dams, and reservoirs. Report Sections 18 and 19 show the general locations of key facilities for each of these Permittees, with descriptions of potential opportunities for load reductions that may occur in conjunction with capital projects or maintenance activities. Any documented load reductions from such control measures would be credited to the municipal permittee(s) having jurisdiction over the associated drainage area.

1.3.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Implementation of Control Measures

Table 1-1 below summarizes, for each control measure, the roles and responsibilities of the Permittees, ACCWP, and BASMAA. In a general sense, screening/sampling will primarily be conducted by ACCWP, establishment of regional frameworks is conducted by BASMAA, and adoption and implementation of control measures is conducted by the Permittees.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 9

Table 1-1: Control Measure Roles and Responsibilities Roles and Responsibility Control Measure Category Permittee Program BASMAA • Work with Program to • Design and conduct design monitoring Pollutants of Concern program. monitoring. • Discuss ongoing control measure • Prepare referral forms, Source Property • Compile and submit implementation and adaptive including identification of Identification and referrals to SFBRWQCB. management at Monitoring / enhanced operation and Abatement Pollutants of Concern maintenance (O&M). • Coordinate with BASMAA on ongoing control Committee (MPC). • Implement enhanced measure adaptive O&M for referred management. properties. • Coordinate GI planning at • Prepare a GI Plan. Development Committee. Green Infrastructure / • Support GI planning. • Implement GI projects. • Discuss control measure Treatment Control • Compile data on C.3 • implementation and adaptive Measures Gather data on C.3 projects. projects. management at MPC Committee. • Participate in BASMAA • • Managing PCBs in Regional Project. Assist BASMAA Regional Develop Framework through Building Materials Project. Regional Project. • Adopt Framework.

• Assist BASMAA Regional • Develop monitoring plan and Managing PCBs in • Participate in BASMAA Project. report monitoring results via Infrastructure Regional Project. • Conduct monitoring. Regional Project. • Coordinate with BASMAA • Discuss ongoing control measure • Implement enhanced on ongoing control implementation and adaptive Enhanced O&M O&M where identified. measure adaptive management at MPC management. Committee. • Coordinate with BASMAA • Discuss ongoing control measure Diversion to Publicly • Implement diversion on ongoing control implementation and adaptive Owned Treatment where identified. measure adaptive management at MPC Works (POTW) management. Committee. • Discuss ongoing control measure Mercury Load • Conduct collection implementation and adaptive Avoidance and • Compile and track data. events. management at MPC Reduction Committee. • Identify illegal dumping • Discuss ongoing control measure sites. implementation and adaptive Illegal Dumping Cleanup • Compile and track data. • Conduct/coordinate management at MPC cleanup. Committee. • Identify facilities through • Discuss ongoing control measure Stockpiles, Spills, and routine inspections. implementation and adaptive • Compile and track data. Disposal of PCBs • Conduct/coordinate management at MPC cleanup. Committee.

In addition, the Permittees are tracking control measure implementation and reporting load reductions using the GIS Project Tracking and Load Reduction Accounting Tool, which

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 10

incorporates the Interim Accounting Methodology to estimate load reductions. This report compiles and reports the county-wide list of site referrals and overall load reductions as well as the MRP permit area-wide list of site referrals and overall load reductions.

Although each Permittee’s administrative structure is unique, Table 1-2 summarizes, in general, the roles and responsibilities of the main city or county departments that may be related to implementation of selected control measures. For some Permittees, additional departments may share responsibilities for some implementation activities.

Table 1-2: Permittee Department Roles and Responsibilities Department Typical Role / Responsibility • Creeks, watersheds, and stormwater management • Public facility services and maintenance Public Works • Engineering and construction services • Capital improvement projects

• Planning/zoning/General Plan development Community Development / • Development project review & approvals Planning Department • Construction and building inspections

1.3.4 Load Reduction Methodology

MRP Provisions C.11.a and C.12.a require the Permittees to demonstrate cumulative Bay Area- wide and Program area-specific mercury and PCBs load reductions over the current permit term. MRP Provisions C.11.b and C.12.b required the Permittees to develop and implement an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify mercury and PCBs loads reduced through implementation of pollution prevention, source control, and treatment control measures. The Permittees developed an Interim Accounting Methodology Report (BASMAA, 2017) to document the load reduction accounting assessment methodology that is used to demonstrate progress towards achieving the load reductions required in this permit term. This report was approved by the SFBRWQCB in May 2017. The Interim Accounting System is based on relative mercury and PCBs yields from different land use categories. The method involves using default factors for PCBs and mercury load reduction credits resulting from foreseeable control measures implemented during this permit term. This report implements the Interim Accounting System to estimate the mercury and PCBs loads reduced presented in Section 20.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 11

2 Description of Control Measures This section provides a general description of the types of control measures that are currently being implemented to control PCBs and mercury. Each Permittee has identified the control measures that are currently being implemented in each watershed/management area in the Permittee-specific sections begin with Section 3.

2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement Source property identification and abatement involves investigations of properties located in historically industrial land use or other land use areas where PCBs were used, released, and/or disposed of and where sediment concentrations have been found at levels significantly above urban background levels. The source property identification and abatement control measure begins with performing investigations of these “High Likelihood” areas to identify PCBs sources to the municipal storm drain system. Once a source property is identified, the source of PCBs on the property may be abated or caused to be abated directly by the Permittee or the Permittee may choose to refer the source property to the SFBRWQCB for investigation and abatement by the SFBRWQCB or another appropriate regulatory agency with investigation and cleanup authority. Source properties may include sites that were previously remediated or are currently being remediated but have PCBs soils cleanup levels that are elevated above urban background levels or may be newly identified source properties.

The Permittees will validate the existence of significantly elevated PCBs concentrations through surface soil/sediment sampling in the right-of-way or stormwater sampling in the storm drain system where visual inspections and/or other information suggest that a specific property is a potential source of significantly elevated PCBs concentrations. Where data confirm significantly elevated PCBs concentrations (e.g., a sediment concentration equal to or greater than 1.0 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) or a concentration greater than 0.5 mg/kg plus other lines of evidence) are present in soil/sediment from a potential source property or in stormwater samples, the Permittees will take actions to cause the property to be abated or will refer that property to the SFBRWQCB to facilitate the issuance of orders for further investigation and remediation of the subject property.

For each confirmed source property, the Permittee will implement or cause to be implemented, where appropriate, one or a combination of interim enhanced operation and maintenance (O&M) measures in the street or storm drain infrastructure adjacent to the source property during the source property abatement process to remove historically deposited sediment and/or to prevent further contaminated sediment from entering the storm drain. These enhanced O&M measures are described in the source property referral that is sent to the SFBRWQCB. If the Permittee finds that enhanced O&M measures are not feasible to implement, the Permittee must discuss these findings with the SFBRWQCB prior to submitting the source property referral. The

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 12

SFBRWQCB will review the source property referral and provide comments to the Permittee within 30 days (if needed).

For those source properties that are self-abated (i.e., by the Permittee or the property owner), the Permittee will provide the Regional Water Board with sufficient documentation that source property abatement has effectively eliminated the transport of PCBs or mercury offsite and from entering the MS4 infrastructure for all transport mechanisms that apply to the site (e.g., stormwater runoff, wind, vehicle tracking). This documentation will include information on the type and extent of abatement that has occurred (e.g., have the sources of PCBs to the MS4 been completely eliminated via capping, paving, walls, plugging/removal of internal storm drains, etc.) and any available water or sediment monitoring data that demonstrates the effective elimination of transport of PCBs offsite into the MS4.

ACCWP, in collaboration with the Permittees, is conducting ongoing targeted investigation and monitoring for known or suspected source properties. Source identification is one of five priority Pollutants of Concern (POC) management information needs to be addressed by monitoring required under MRP provision C.8.f. The allocation of sampling effort for POC monitoring is described in the ACCWP POC Monitoring Report, due October 15 of each year, as required by MRP provision C.8.h.iv. Additionally, future source property investigations may be conducted by the Program and/or Permittees as a result of new information (e.g., as a result of industrial inspections, spill reporting, or development activities).

The properties that have been referred to the SFBRWQCB or reported as self-abated as of September 2021 are listed in Table 2-1 below. No new site referrals are included for this fiscal year.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 13

Table 2-1: Contaminated Sites Referred to the SFBRWQCB

PROPERTY SIZE YEAR REFERRAL OR SELF- SITE NAME LOCATION (ACRES) REFERRED ABATEMENT AMG 3438 Helen Street, Oakland 0.43 FY 2017/18 Referral Custom Alloy Scrap 2601 Peralta St., Oakland 7.65 FY 2017/18 Referral Sales Former Giampolini 2838 Hannah St., Oakland 1.93 FY 2017/18 Self-Abatement Facility

General Electric – 5441 East 14th St., Oakland 10.1 FY 2017/18 Self-Abatement Oakland (Phase I)

LBNL Old Town One Cyclotron Rd., Berkeley 1.0 FY 2017/18 Self-Abatement OAB Transformer Spill 10th and Maritime St., Oakland 0.02 FY 2017/18 Self-Abatement 1549 32nd Street and 2868 Precision Cast Products 0.79 FY 2017/18 Referral Hannah Street, Oakland South SPRR/Novartis 4560 Horton St., Emeryville 0.03 FY 2017/18 Self-Abatement UPRR – Oakland 700 73rd Avenue, Oakland 0.40 FY 2017/18 Referral Coliseum 1101 Embarcadero West, Schnitzer Steel 33.7 FY 2019/20 Referral Oakland General Electric 5441 East 14th St., Oakland 13.9 FY 2019/20 Self-Abatement Oakland (Phase 2) 280 West MacArthur Blvd, Kaiser Medical Center 3.6 FY 2019/20 Self-Abatement Oakland Wood Street and 15th Street, OES-21 6.2 FY 2019/20 Self-Abatement Oakland Brownfield Auto Auction (former Nor- 768 46th Avenue, Oakland 1.8 FY 2019/20 Referral Cal Rock) Economy Lumber 750 High Street, Oakland 0.4 FY 2019/20 Referral

2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures This control measure includes new development and redevelopment projects on private and public properties regulated by Provision C.3, as well as retrofit of existing infrastructure in public right-of-way (ROW) areas and on public properties not subject to Provision C.3. Retrofit includes the installation of full trash capture devices (i.e., hydrodynamic separators (HDS) units or inlet- based devices) for the purposes of compliance with MRP Provision C.10, which capture sediment in addition to trash and therefore remove PCBs and mercury.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 14

Permittees have been identifying existing C.3 projects as part of this control measure and, in compliance with the requirement of MRP Provision C.3.b.i.(2), are tracking development projects that are subject to C.3. over this permit term.

In addition, the Permittees have been conducting an ongoing review of opportunities for incorporating GI into existing and planned capital improvement projects over this permit term (a.k.a., no missed opportunities) in compliance with MRP Provision C.3.j. MRP Provision C.3.j also required the Permittees to submit a Green Infrastructure Plan for the inclusion of low impact development drainage design into storm drain infrastructure on public and private lands with the 2019 Annual Report. These plans summarize the amount of existing impervious surface to be retrofit with GI by 2020, 2030, and 2040; map existing public and private projects that incorporated GI from 2003 – 2019; describe any early implementation projects; and list and map potential public retrofit projects from 2020 – 2040.

2.3 Managing PCBs In Building Materials and Infrastructure 2.3.1 PCBs in Building Materials

During the first three years of the permit term, the Permittees developed, in cooperation with BASMAA, a program and protocol for managing materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition. PCBs from these structures can enter storm drains during and/or after demolition through vehicle track-out, airborne releases, soil erosion, stormwater runoff, or improper waste disposal. For MRP compliance, applicable structures commercial, public, institutional, and industrial structures constructed between the years 1950 and 1980 and with building materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater. Single-family residential and wood frame structures are exempt. Each of the Permittees began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials. This Regional Project developed an implementation framework, guidance materials, and tools for local agencies to ensure that PCBs-containing materials and wastes are properly managed during building demolition. This Regional Project also developed training materials and conducted trainings for municipal staff and outreach workshops for the industry on implementing the framework/protocols developed via the project. The tools and materials developed as part of the project build upon materials and outputs developed in 2010-2011 by

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 15

the PCBs in Caulk Project8 conducted by the San Francisco Estuary Partnership in partnership with BASMAA, as well as subsequent and parallel activities by BASMAA.

In addition, BASMAA has developed an assessment methodology and data collection program to quantify the PCBs loads reduced through implementation of the protocol developed by the BASMAA Regional Project, summarized below:

1. The municipality informs demolition permit applicants that their projects are subject to the MRP Provision C.12.f requirements, necessitating, at a minimum, an initial screening for priority PCBs–containing materials. 2. For every demolition project, applicants complete and submit a version of BASMAA’s model “PCBs Screening Assessment Form” (Screening Form) or equivalent to the municipality. 3. The municipality reviews the Screening Form to make sure it is filled out correctly and is complete and works with the applicant to correct any deficiencies. 4. The municipality then issues the demolition permit or equivalent, according to its procedures. 5. For Applicable Structures only, the municipality submits completed Screening Forms and any supporting documents (consultant’s report from PCBs building survey, QA/QC checklist, and lab reports) to its countywide program; forms for exempt sites need not be submitted. Forms should be submitted to the countywide programs electronically if feasible, and at a minimum annually, but quarterly is preferred. 6. The countywide programs compile the completed Screening Forms and any supporting documents. The countywide program then works with the other MRP countywide programs through BASMAA to manage and evaluate the data, and to assist Permittees with associated MRP reporting requirements.

Data collection started with implementation of the new program on July 1, 2019. When sufficient amounts of new data have been collected, the data will support:

8 Initially funded through a State Water Board Proposition 50 grant, and later completed with support from the State Revolving Fund under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 16

• Development of a revised estimate of the reduction in PCBs loading to stormwater runoff resulting from implementation of the new program, and • Evaluation of various aspects of the PCBs management program and the effectiveness of potential future refinements.

To facilitate a regional approach, the countywide programs developed a regional data management system to compile and evaluate all the data generated by the new programs to manage PCBs during building demolition. The data management system also provides a mechanism for Permittees to gather and store the data needed for other closely related reporting requirements, such as tracking the number of applicable structures that applied for a demolition permit that reporting year and a running list of those structures that had materials with PCBs concentrations ≥ 50 ppm, including addresses and demolition dates.

2.3.2 PCBs in Infrastructure

PCBs may also be found in storm drain or roadway infrastructure in public rights-of-way, from use of materials such as caulk and sealants in storm drains and between concrete curbs and street pavement. The Program and Permittees have conducted a study to investigate whether PCBs are present locally in such materials and in what concentrations. A project report prepared by the BASMAA Regional Project was included in the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Fiscal Year 2017/18 Annual Report. The results of these investigations will inform the development and implementation of control measures to address this potential source of PCBs into the storm drain system.

2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Routine MS4 O&M activities include street sweeping, drain inlet cleaning, and pump station maintenance. In addition, culverts and channels are also routinely maintained (i.e., desilted). Enhancements to routine operations and new actions such as storm drain line and street flushing may enhance the Permittees’ ability to reduce PCBs and mercury in stormwater. PCBs load reductions achieved through implementation of enhanced O&M control measures, aside from enhanced O&M control measures associated with source property referrals, may be counted as part of the overall load reductions during this permit term.

Many of the Permittees have installed inlet-based full trash capture devices in response to the trash control requirements of MRP Provision C.10. These devices enhance the capture of sediments that may be contaminated with PCBs. In addition, these inlets are typically cleaned more frequently as a result of the installation of the full trash capture device. Therefore, these Permittees are conducting an enhanced O&M activity for each of these inlets. The load reduction

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 17

achieved by this enhanced O&M implementation effort was estimated in the 2017/18 annual report9.

The following assumptions were used for calculating the reported loads reduced by enhanced O&M control measures:

• Inlet-Based Trash Devices Cleaning

o Basket, connector pipe screen (CPS), and inlet filters that are listed in the AGOL system were included. The drainage area listed for each device was used for the load reduction calculation. Only operational devices installed since FY 2013-14 were included.

o If cleanout was stated to occur three times per year, a ‘quarterly’ frequency was assumed for the purposes of the calculation, as three times per year is not a viable calculation option per the Interim Accounting Methodology. This assumption is assumed to be equivalent to quarterly cleanouts, as a mid-dry season cleanout occurrence is considered superfluous for the purposes of sediment removal.

o The default trash device cleanout frequency enhancement is from annual to semi- annual, as this cleanout frequency is required by MRP Provision C.10, unless a more frequent frequency was reported by the Permittee (or no enhancement was reported).

• Desilting Permittees have conducted some desilting; however, the data needed to estimate loads reduced are difficult to collect for these projects. Therefore, there is no desilting load reduction included in the estimate.

2.5 Diversion to POTW This control measure consists of diverting dry weather and/or first flush events from MS4s to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) as a method to reduce loads of PCBs and mercury in urban runoff. A feasibility evaluation was prepared during the previous permit term (BASMAA, 2010) that developed selection criteria and information needs for evaluating potential diversion

9 The load reduction estimates account only for the change in inlet cleaning frequency, per the Interim Accounting Methodology, and do not estimate loads reduced due to the increase in sediment captured by the inlet-based full trash capture devices.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 18

projects and identified candidate pilot projects in the five counties covered by the MRP. This report also reviewed POTW constraints and concerns regarding diversion projects that were presented in a draft white paper (BACWA, 2009), including:

1. Capacity limits on POTWs and conveyance systems may require restricting diversion flows and limiting attainable load reduction benefits, especially since transport of PCBs loads in the MS4 predominantly occurs during higher flows in wet weather. 2. Potential of stormwater pollutants to disrupt advanced treatment systems or to negatively affect the facility’s compliance with NPDES numerical effluent limits or waste discharge requirements to control sanitary sewer overflows. 3. Not all POTWs own the collection and conveyance systems that serve them, which could require additional negotiations with the entity or entities that own the collection system.

The cost scenarios for conceptual examples of diversion projects presented in the feasibility evaluation varied depending on the details of physical diversion and operations. Ongoing costs of diversion may be high in relation to load reduction benefits unless the receiving POTW agrees to waive treatment fees.

The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is diverting low flows from the Ettie Street Pump Station to the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s main wastewater treatment plant for treatment. See Section 18 for further information.

2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures 2.6.1 Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction

Mercury load avoidance and reduction includes a number of source control measures listed in the California Mercury Reduction Act adopted by the State of California in 2001. These source controls include material bans, reductions of the amount of mercury allowable for use in products, and mercury device recycling. The following source controls bans are included:

• Sale of cars that have light switches containing mercury; • Sale or distribution of fever thermometers containing mercury without a prescription; • Sale of mercury thermostats; and • Manufacturing, sale, or distribution of mercury-added novelty items.

In addition, fluorescent lamps manufacturers continue to reduce the amount of mercury in lamps sold in the U.S. Manufacturers have significantly reduced the amount of mercury in fluorescent linear tube lamps.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 19

Mercury Device Recycling Programs resulting in Mercury load reduction generally include three types of programs that promote and facilitate the collection and recycling of mercury–containing devices and products:

• Permittee-managed household hazardous waste (HHW) drop-off facilities and curbside or door-to-door pickup; • Private business take-back and recycling programs (e.g., Home Depot); and, • Private waste management services for small and large businesses.

2.6.2 Illegal Dumping Clean-Up

This source control measure entails clean-up of construction and demolition debris from illegal dumping areas. This control measure will apply to construction and demolition illegal dumping only during this permit term but may be expanded to other types of illegally dumped trash if supported by monitoring data.

2.6.3 Stockpile, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs

This control measure includes the proper clean-up and disposal of stockpiles, spills, and/or improperly disposed quantities of PCBs. The measure would involve, for instance, a concentrated source of PCBs (e.g., a barrel) that is found and cleaned-up or properly disposed and the cleanup of transformer spills by PG&E.

ACCWP and BASMAA representatives have been working with SFBRWQCB staff to ensure thorough documentation and clean-up completion of PG&E PCBs transformer spills. PCBs transformer spill reporting is inconsistent through the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services reporting system and often cases are closed before the municipality or SFBRWQCB staff hear of the spill. This activity could have a significant effect on where PCBs in the public right-of- way are found, as many spills happen in residential areas. Residential areas are not typically considered high likelihood areas for PCBs, so no other control measures have been developed specifically for these areas. SFBRWQCB and BASMAA representatives are working on better defining agency roles and responsibilities in responding to spills, at least for their own agencies, and are working on getting PG&E to cooperate to make a smoother and more transparent process as in order to reduce the loading of PCBs into the San Francisco Bay.

BASMAA conducted a regional Stressor/Source Identification (SSID) project, in compliance with MRP Provision C.8.e, that developed a regional SSID workplan to further understand the magnitude and extent of PCBs released by electrical utility equipment spills, and to identify controls that could be implemented to reduce the water quality impacts of this source. In FY 2018-19, the regional SSID project developed the SSID workplan. As a result of this project,

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 20

BASMAA sent a letter to the SFBRWQCB requesting that the Regional Water Board use its authority under Section 13267 of the California Water Code to compel private electrical utilities operating in the Bay Region to provide technical information that is needed to support further investigation of electrical utility equipment and properties as potential sources of PCBs to MS4s in the Bay Region.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 21

3 City of Alameda 3.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Alameda are shown on Figure 3-1 and are listed in Table 3-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Lower segment of the Bay.

Table 3-1: City of Alameda PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses Total % % % Area1 Old Old New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space % Other Alameda Beltline 272.4 18.4% 77.0% 2.0% 2.6% 0%

Alameda Old Urban 3,077.5 0% 100.0% 0% 0% 0%

Alameda Point 1,706.3 0% 9.3% 1.9% 1.5% 87.3%

Categorical Railroad 182.5 11.1% 64.5% 2.9% 5.5% 16.0%

Northern Waterfront – East 529.7 14.6% 80.1% 4.3% 0.9% 0%

Northern Waterfront – West 846.5 0% 53.3% 1.1% 5.6% 40.0%

Northern Waterfront Planning Area 367.3 30.8% 63.2% 4.1% 1.9% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented during the term of the permit in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 3-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 3-1.

Table 3-2: City of Alameda Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 339.1 8.3% 6.5% 5.9% 57.8% 21.6%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 6.3 60.3% 39.7% 0% 0% 0%

Enhanced O&M Measures 1090.0 1.4% 93.0% 2.9% 0.6% 2.0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes only Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 22

3.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 3.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Alameda have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

3.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs is subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. On-going development and redevelopment activity completed during the current reporting period within the City of Alameda has resulted in the conversion of old industrial and old urban parcels to renewed urban areas with C.3 stormwater treatment measures. See the City of Alameda’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

3.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Alameda began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

3.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Alameda include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

3.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 23

3.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The City of Alameda actively implements mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The City of Alameda continues to actively identify and cleanup (or direct private property owners to do so) illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris when and where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs. As noted above, there have not been any source property identifications made or, specifically, any PCBs stockpile or spill response actions within the City this reporting period.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 24 .! .! !@ !@

Alameda Point Northern Waterfront - West

Alameda Beltline Northern Waterfront Planning Area

Northern Waterfront - East

.! .!

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Alameda City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 3,200 6,400 3-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

4 City of Albany 4.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Albany are shown on Figure 4-1 and are listed in Table 4-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Central segment of the Bay.

Table 4-1: City of Albany PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Albany Old Industrial 39.2 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Albany Old Urban 2,998.2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Categorical PG&E 0.8 6.0% 94.0% 0% 0% 0%

Categorical Railroad 54.6 27.1% 71.1% 0% 1.8% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented during the term of the permit in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 4-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 4-1.

Table 4-2: City of Albany Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 8.5 20% 80% 0% 0% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 ------

Enhanced O&M Measures 383.9 6.7% 91.3% 2.0% 0% 0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes only Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 26

4.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 4.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Albany have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

4.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

4.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Albany began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

4.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Albany include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

4.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 27

4.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 28 Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Albany City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 790 1,580 4-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

5 City of Berkeley 5.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Berkeley are shown Figure 5-1 and are listed in Table 5-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Central segment of the Bay.

Table 5-1: City of Berkeley PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Berkeley Old Urban 7,432.3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Categorical PG&E 4.4 63.6% 16.4% 0% 20.0% 0%

Categorical Railroad 71.6 48.2% 50.6% 0.2% 1.0% 0%

West Berkeley 1,501.2 26.1% 60.2% 9.4% 4.3% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 5-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 5-1.

Table 5-2: City of Berkeley Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement 1.0 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 22.8 14.9% 80.3% 4.8% 0% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 ------

Enhanced O&M Measures 1,555.4 5.2% 91.9% 2.8% 0.1% 0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes only Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 30

5.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 5.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board One property within the City of Berkeley has been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of the inspection and monitoring activities conducted by the Program: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Old Town Demolition Phase I (see Table 5-3 below and Attachment A). The location of this property is shown on Figure 5-1.

Table 5-3: Source Property Referral AREA YEAR SITE NAME LOCATION (acres) ABATED/REFERRED Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory One Cyclotron Road, Berkeley 1.0 2018

LBNL is located above the UC Berkeley campus. LBNL was known as the California Radiation Laboratory when it began operations in 1931 as an accelerator laboratory at the UC Berkeley campus. In 1939, the Laboratory relocated to the area now known as LBNL’s Old Town. Extensive scientific research was conducted and among others, research projects involved the Horton Sphere and the 184-inch cyclotron accelerator. Building 6 housed the accelerator and until the 1940s was the center of the Laboratory. Shops and research laboratories were built around and beyond Building 6 between the 1940s and 1950s. The seven buildings within the Old Town Demolition Phase I Project footprint were Buildings 5, 16, 16A, 40, 41, 52, and 52A. The superstructures of these buildings have been demolished and only the foundation slabs remain. Ancillary outdoor facilities within the Site’s footprint include an electrical pad for transformers and switching gear (only the pad remains) and a former waste processing yard.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in property referrals in the future.

5.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Berkeley’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 31

5.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Berkeley began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

5.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Berkeley include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

5.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

5.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 32 West Berkeley

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Berkeley City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 2,400 4,800 5-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

6 City of Dublin 6.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Dublin are shown on Figure 6-1 and are listed in Table 6-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Arroyo de la Laguna branch of the Alameda Creek watershed.

Table 6-1: City of Dublin PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % % Total Area1 Old Old New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space % Other Dublin Old Urban 2,684.3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 6-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 6-1.

Table 6-2: City of Dublin Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 1,790.4 0% 5.1% 15.1% 77.1% 2.7%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 289.5 0% 76.1% 13.5% 10.5% 0%

Enhanced O&M Measures 1,038.7 1.1% 32.7% 40.6% 25.6% 0% Note: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes only Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) units. 6.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 6.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Dublin have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 34

6.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

The City of Dublin will evaluate which GI projects it will implement as part of its GI Work Plan. Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Dublin’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

6.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Dublin began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

6.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Dublin include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

6.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

6.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 35 .!

.! .! .! .! .! .! .! .! .! .! .! .! ! .! . .! ! .! .! . .! .!.!.! .! .! .! .! .! .!.! .! .! .! .! .! .! .! .!

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Dublin City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 2,600 5,200 6-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

7 City of Emeryville 7.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Emeryville are shown on Figure 7-1 and are listed in Table 7-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Central segment of the Bay.

Table 7-1: City of Emeryville PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % Total Area1 Old % % % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban New Urban Space % Other

Categorical PG&E 13.4 99.4% 0% 0% 0.6% 0%

Categorical Railroad 42.6 95.0% 5.0% 0% 0% 0%

Emeryville Old Industrial 808.7 54.1% 37.0% 8.8% 0.1% 0%

Emeryville Old Urban 768.5 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 7-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 7-1.

Table 7-2: City of Emeryville Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement 0.03 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 8.8 47.7% 50.0% 2.3% 0% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices ------

Enhanced O&M Measures 48.7 64.1% 28.7% 7.0% 0.2% 0% Note: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 7.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 7.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board One property within the City of Emeryville has been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of the inspection and monitoring activities conducted by the Program - the Former South Southern

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 37

Pacific Railroad (SPRR) site (see Table 7-3 below). The location of this property is shown on Figure 7-1.

Table 7-3: Source Property Referrals AREA YEAR SITE NAME LOCATION (acres) ABATED/REFERRED Former South SPRR/Novartis Site 4560 Horton Street 0.03 2018

The Former South SPRR site is a long narrow strip of land approximately 45 feet wide and 1,100 feet long that is used as a parking lot for office buildings located on the Grifols property immediately west of the Former South SPRR. Grifols purchased the Former South SPRR from Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc. (Novartis), formerly Chiron Corporation, in 2014. The PG&E Emeryville Materials Facility is located immediately east of the Former South SPRR. The eastern edge of the Former South SPRR is landscaped, including areas of uncovered soil; this area is approximately 5 feet wide. An SPRR railroad spur once extended south from Stanford Avenue, crossed 53rd Street, and continued south to 45th Street. In 2000, the northern portion of this former SPRR spur and the adjacent former PG&E property, also located north of 53rd Street, were redeveloped into Chiron Way and Novartis Building 4, respectively.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

7.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Emeryville’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

7.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Emeryville began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 38

7.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Emeryville include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

7.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

7.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 39 Emeryville Old Industrial

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Emeryville City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 920 1,840 7-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

8 City of Fremont 8.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Fremont are shown on Figure 8-1 and are listed in Table 8-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the South Bay and Lower South Bay segments of the Bay.

Table 8-1: City of Fremont PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % % Total Area1 Old Old New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 4,154.4 2.6% 5.0% 17.8% 74.6% 0%

Categorical Railroad 4,465.1 14.2% 19.0% 14.9% 51.9% 0%

Fremont Old Industrial 1,066.3 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Fremont Old Urban 12,642.7 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 8-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 8-1.

Table 8-2: City of Fremont Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 625.6 0.3% 14.0% 37.7% 48.1% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 177.8 7.5% 19.0% 73.5% 0% 0%

Enhanced O&M Measures 3,893.2 1.1% 50.1% 41.0% 7.8% 0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes only Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 41

8.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 8.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Fremont have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

8.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Fremont’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

8.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Fremont began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

8.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

No enhanced operation and maintenance control measures are proposed.

8.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

8.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 42

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 43 .! .!

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Fremont City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 6,100 12,200 8-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

9 City of Hayward 9.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Hayward are shown on Figure 9-1 and are listed in Table 9-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Lower segment of the Bay.

Table 9-1: City of Hayward PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 390.0 4.6% 12.9% 42.7% 39.7% 0%

Categorical Railroad 908.0 27.5% 2.0% 61.6% 8.9% 0%

East Hayward 17,477.5 3.3% 61.0% 9.1% 23.9% 2.6%

West Hayward 10,201.3 15.9% 44.7% 30.9% 4.0% 4.5% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 9-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 9-1.

Table 9-2: City of Hayward Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 365.9 26.5% 37.9% 25.8% 6.4% 3.4%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 1,395.1 8.1% 84.1% 1.7% 3.8% 2.4%

Enhanced O&M Measures 980.5 7.4% 86.4% 2.9% 2.7% 0.7% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) and Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD) units. 9.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 9.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Hayward have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 45

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

9.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application would be made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Hayward’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

9.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Hayward began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

9.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Hayward include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

9.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

9.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 46

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 47 !@

.! .! .!

.! .!.! ! .! .! . .!

.! .! .!

.! .! .! East Hayward .!.! .! West Hayward .!

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Hayward City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 3,600 7,200 9-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

10 City of Livermore 10.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Livermore are shown on Figure 10-1 and are listed in Table 10-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Arroyo de la Laguna branch of the Alameda Creek watershed.

Table 10-1: City of Livermore PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % % Total Area1 Old Old New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 309.9 0.7% 0% 98.5% 0.8% 0%

Categorical Railroad 470.3 48.8% 0% 10.2% 41.0% 0%

East Livermore 8,611.9 8.5% 0.1% 1.7% 89.7% 0%

Livermore Old Urban 5,594.9 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented are summarized in Table 3-2. These control measures are further described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 10-1.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 10-2 and are described in the sections below.

Table 10-2: City of Livermore Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % % Treated Old Old New Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 474.8 3.7% 8.4% 28.5% 59.5% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 423.2 1.7% 86.5% 8.2% 3.7% 0%

Enhanced O&M Measures 1,493.6 0.7% 31.4% 49.4% 18.2% 0.4% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes only Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 49

10.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 10.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Livermore have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

10.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Livermore’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

10.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Livermore began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

10.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Livermore include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

10.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 50

10.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 51 .!

.! .! .! .! .! .!.!.!!.!.!.!.! ! .! .!.!.! ! . . .! .! . .!.!.! .! .! .! ! .! .!.!. .!

.!.! .! .!

.! East Livermore

.! .!

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Livermore City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 4,100 8,200 10-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

11 City of Newark 11.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Newark are shown Figure 11-1 and are listed in Table 11-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Lower and South Bay segments of the Bay.

Table 11-1: City of Newark PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 69.6 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Categorical Railroad 359.8 41.5% 35.9% 15.2% 7.4% 0%

Newark Industrial Area 747.0 38.6% 7.2% 52.3% 1.9% 0%

Newark Old Urban 2,897.4 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 11-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 11-1.

Table 11-2: City of Newark Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 114.3 47.2% 13.5% 25.2% 14.1% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices ------

Enhanced O&M Measures 704.7 6.5% 55.7% 30.3% 7.5% 0% Note: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15.

11.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 11.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Newark have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 53

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

11.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Newark’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

11.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Newark began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

11.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Newark include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

11.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

11.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 54

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 55 .!

Newark Industrial Area

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Newark City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 2,800 5,600 11-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

12 City of Oakland 12.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Oakland are shown on Figure 12-1 and are listed in Table 12-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Central and lower segments of the Bay.

Details for each W/MA are shown in Figure 12-2 through Figure 12-7. The detail maps show land uses (i.e., Old Urban (brown); New Urban and Open (pale green)); non-municipally owned electrical utility parcels (i.e., PG&E, purple crosshatch); railroad parcels (black crosshatch); classification to be confirmed (green crosshatch); and the 2015 PCBs source property screening results (i.e., high (orange), moderate (yellow), and low/no likelihood (green)). The detail map for the West Oakland Management Area (Figure 12-5) also shows known properties referred for PCBs (blue); other PCBs source properties (from the CW4CB Task 3 referrals, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor, and the State Water Board Geotracker, in red or brown crosshatching); and monitoring data (blue, yellow, and fuchsia triangles).

Table 12-1: City of Oakland PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses Total % % % Area1 Old Old New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical Railroad 1,700.0 42.8% 52.3% 2.8% 2.1% 0%

Oakland Army Base (Figure 12-4) 994.5 69.0% 29.9% 1.0% 0.1% 0%

Oakland Old Industrial (Figure 12-1) 1,766.4 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Oakland Old Urban (Figure 12-1) 22,489.2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Planned Redevelopment Areas (Figure 12-6, includes Lake Merritt BART Station Area, Brooklyn Basin, 7,202.2 11.9% 79.2% 6.5% 2.4% 0% International Boulevard TOD Plan, Central Estuary Area Plan, and Coliseum Area Specific Plan) Port-Related (Figures 12-2 5,023.3 32.8% 8.1% 5.1% 11.8% 42.2% (Seaport) and 12-3 (Airport)) West Oakland (Figure 12-5, includes the Ettie Street Pump 2,113.0 19.7% 69.3% 9.1% 1.8% 0% Station (ESPS) Watershed) Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 57

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 12-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 12-1 through Figure 12-7.

Table 12-2: City of Oakland Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement 79.0 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 162.7 38.7% 55.3% 2.6% 3.4% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 64.8 0% 96% 4% 0% 0%

Enhanced O&M Measures 255.9 1.0% 94.6% 3.4% 0.9% 0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) and Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD) units installed since 2014.

12.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 12.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board Thirteen properties within the City of Oakland have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of the inspection and monitoring activities conducted by the Program (see Table 12-3 below). The location of these properties is shown on Figure 12-5.

Table 12-3: Source Property Referrals AREA SITE NAME LOCATION (acres) YEAR ABATED/REFERRED AMG 3438 Helen Street 0.43 2018 CASS 2711 Peralta 7.2 2018 Former Giampolini 2847 Peralta Street and 2847 Peralta Street 1.9 2018 GE Oakland 5441 East 14th Street 10.1 2018 OAB Transformer Spill 10th and Maritime Street 0.02 2018 Precision Cast Products 1549 32nd Street and 2868 Hannah Street 0.79 2018 UPRR Oakland Coliseum 700 73rd Avenue 0.40 2018 Schnitzer Steel 1101 Embarcadero West 33.7 2020 General Electric – 5441 East 14th Street 13.9 2020 Oakland Phase 2 Kaiser Medical Center 280 West MacArthur Blvd 3.6 2020 OES-21 Wood Street and 15th Street 6.2 2020 768 46th Avenue 768 46th Avenue 1.8 2020 Economy Lumber 750 High Street 0.4 2020

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 58

Asbestos Management Group of California, Inc. (AMG) provides general construction services (abatement services) to remove hazardous materials (lead, asbestos, PCBs) from buildings that will be or have been demolished. AMG conducts both interior demolition and exterior demolition. AMG removes caulk and tiles (containing asbestos and PCBs) using hand tools, contains it in plastic, and stores it in an enclosed container onsite.

CASS is a large scrap metal recycling facility operating on four adjacent city blocks. The central facility is the main receiving and sorting area where individuals and small wholesalers deliver metal scrap loads. The eastern facility is where aluminum is taken to be melted down to ingots. The western facility is where large scrap is cut down to manageable sizes and bailed scrap is stored. The northern facility is their parking, machine shop, and community workspace.

The former Giampolini property is an irregularly shaped property bordered by Hannah Street on the west; Peralta Street to the south and Helen Street to the east. Residential and industrial properties border the site to the north. A paint facility was present on the south half of the Site from at least 1939 until the mid-1960s. The paint factory included a varnish kitchen operation. During this time period, the covered storage building on the northwest side of the site was occupied by a reinforcing steel (rebar) bending and storage facility. Foreign Auto Wreckers operated an automobile dismantling business at the Site from the 1980s until 2000.

General Electric Company – Oakland, located in East Oakland, was a transformer manufacturing facility between 1924 and 1975. Between 1975 and the mid-1990s, GE Apparatus Service Department operated an electrical equipment maintenance and repair operation in portions of the site. After that time, the site was used for temporary storage of mobile office trailers. Since 2005, the site has not been in use, but has been undergoing remediation. Phase I of the remediation was performed from August 2013 through March 2015 and was submitted as a self- abatement in FY2017/18. Phase II includes demolition and remediation associated with the eight remaining buildings on the site. After building demolition and remediation, which is planned for completion prior to December 31, 2020, a new industrial building will be constructed with landscaping. This site is being reported as a self-abatement.

A transformer oil spill containing 17 mg/kg of PCBs was cleaned-up at an Oakland Army Base site in October 2014, as described in section 12.2.6.

The Precision Cast Products site (parcels 7-589-1 and 7-589-24) has addresses for 1549 32nd Street and 2868 Hannah Street. From the 1940's to 1983, the site heat-treated metal products, and operated as a steel foundry from 1983 to 2002. A putty and paint factory also operated at the site until 1985. The site is currently a vacant lot. The City of Oakland has approved building permit plans for the proposed "Hannah Street Lofts" redevelopment project contingent upon clearance of environmental conditions at the site.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 59

The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) site is located in the vicinity of the Oakland Coliseum Complex. The property is divided into a “northern” and a “southern” portion. The “northern” portion currently serves as a parking lot for the adjacent Oakland Intercity Rail Station. The “southern” portion (defined as the site) is located southeast of 73rd Avenue and is an unpaved vacant lot enclosed by fencing. The site was acquired by Central Pacific Railroad in 1895 and used as a station depot between 1895 and 1933. From 1959 to 1992, the site was leased to two successive tenants and operated as an auto salvage yard. Since 1992, the site has been vacant and unoccupied.

Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. is a scrap metal recycling facility located in West Oakland with a long history of soil and groundwater contamination. The SFBRWQCB issued Cleanup and Abatement Orders Nos. 88-023 and R2-2013-1001 to Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. in 1988 and 2013 and waste discharge requirements (WDRs; Order No. R2-2016-0045, NPDES Permit CA0030228) for discharges of treated process water, cooling water, dust suppression water, wash water, and stormwater to the facility in 2016. The RWB issued a Water Code Section 13267 Technical Report Requirement order in February 2017. This site is being referred to the SFBRWQCB.

The Kaiser Permanente Oakland Legacy Hospital Tower was a 14-story hospital building with a basement constructed in various phases between the 1940s and 1980s. Sources of PCBs in the facility included caulk, rubber gaskets, and certain metal panels on the building façade that were in contact with PCBs-containing materials. The building was demolished, and the site was landscaped in 2019. This site is being reported as a self-abatement.

OES-21, located at Wood Street and 15th Street, was historically associated with railroad activity. Field sediment sampling performed in the right-of-way adjacent to the property in 2015 measured a PCBs concentration of 2.149 mg/kg. The site has since been redeveloped into a residential housing complex.

Brownfield Auto Auction (former Nor-Cal Rock), located in East Oakland, is currently a storage yard for used automobiles sold for auto auction, was previously operated as a concrete and asphalt recycling business, and prior to that as a scrap metal yard. Seven samples collected from six soil boring locations contained concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/kg. As the site drains directly to an open channel section of Peralta Creek, there is no opportunity for the City of Oakland to implement enhanced O&M measures. Therefore, no load reduction credit has been taken for this source property referral.

The Economy Lumber site is located in East Oakland along the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, extending southeast from High Street to an open channel section of Peralta Creek. The parcel has been used historically for railroad operations, scrap metal operations, and an auto body repair shop. A small portion of the site is unpaved; a work plan for paving has been approved, but as of

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 60

June 2020, the paving had not yet been completed. As the site drains directly to an open channel section of Peralta Creek, there is no opportunity for the City of Oakland to implement enhanced O&M measures. Therefore, no load reduction credit has been taken for this source property referral.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

12.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure project within each of the W/MAs is subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Oakland’s Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan for further information.

C.3/Redevelopment

A W/MA has been designated for the Oakland Army Base and one W/MA has been designated for the other planned redevelopment areas combined, based on existing Specific Plan and/or Redevelopment Plan boundaries. The planned redevelopment in these W/MAs is described below.

Oakland Army Base

The Oakland Army Base is a 360-acre area bounded by Interstate 80, East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant, Oakland Inner, Middle and Outer Harbor (Port of Oakland), Interstate 880, and 7th Street (see Figure 12-4). The Army Base served as a U.S. Army facility until it closed in 1999. In 2000, the Oakland City Council designated the Base and surrounding properties as a Redevelopment Project Area. The 1,800-acre Army Base Project Area was divided into three major sub-districts: 16th and Wood, Maritime, and Oakland Army Base (OARB). The OARB was further divided into two areas - the Gateway Development Area owned by the Oakland Redevelopment Agency, and the Port Development Area owned by the Port of Oakland. Following the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency in 2012, the Gateway Development Area was transferred to the City by deed, and the City assumed all of the environmental obligations attached to the entire former OARB sub-district, and all of the redevelopment obligations for the Gateway Development Area.

On July 3, 2012, the Oakland City Council approved a master plan for the development of a mixed- use project of commercial, maritime, rail, and open space uses on the former Army Base and adjacent Port property (the "Oakland Army Base Project"). Since then, the City has accomplished the following major milestones:

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 61

• On October 23, 2012, the City executed a Lease Disposition and Development Agreement (LDDA) with Prologis CCIG Oakland Global to develop the public infrastructure and approximately 120 acres of the former Army Base. The LDDA spells out the financial terms, the scope of development, and other considerations for developing the Army Base. Construction of the public infrastructure, the first phase of the multi-phased project, was completed on June 14, 2019. In this redevelopment phase, the City, with the support of the Port and CCIG, is delivering public improvements, which include:

o Soil stabilization; o Remediation of hazardous substances; and o Construction of all new public infrastructure, including roadways, utilities, rail improvements, 21 bioretention facilities designed to treat roadway runoff, and landscaping.

• On May 7, 2013, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) executed a grant agreement to provide the City with approximately $176.3 million from the Trade Corridor Improvement Fund (TCIF) for the construction of public improvements.

• On May 7, 2013, and again on April 2, 2014, the City extended the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with California Waste Solutions (CWS) and Custom Alloy Scrap Sales (CASS) for the development of approximately 22 acres in the North Gateway Area of the Army Base. The ENA expired in December 2014.

• On July 30, 2014, the City executed a Lease Disposition and Development Agreement (LDDA) with OMSS, LLC to develop approximately 17 acres of the Army Base for Ancillary Maritime Support (AMS) services. The LDDA spells out the financial terms, scope of development, and other considerations for developing the AMS project.

• As of June 2021, 60% of the project was complete.

Lake Merritt BART Station Area

The Lake Merritt Station Area Plan, a Specific Plan for the area around the Lake Merritt BART Station in Downtown Oakland, was adopted in December 2014. The Plan envisions a high- intensity neighborhood around a rejuvenated Lake Merritt BART station. It seeks to reinforce and integrate the cultural and recreational resources that make the area around the transit station unique. The Plan identifies ways in which streets, open spaces, and other infrastructure in the area can be enhanced and establishes regulations for development projects that further the area’s vibrancy.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 62

Brooklyn Basin

The Brooklyn Basin (formerly “Oak to Ninth Mixed Use Development”) project was approved by the Oakland City Council on July 18, 2006. The project site is approximately 64 acres of waterfront property bounded by Embarcadero Road, Fallon Street, Tenth Avenue, and the Estuary. The project includes up to 3,100 residential units including 465 affordable housing units, 200,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, a minimum of 3,950 parking spaces, approximately 32 acres of parks and public open space, two renovated marinas (total 170 boat slips), and an existing wetlands restoration area. The existing buildings on the site will be demolished with the exception of the Jack London Aquatic Center, a portion of the Ninth Avenue Terminal shed building, and a portion of the Ninth Avenue Terminal wharf structure. The project does not include approximately six acres of privately held property along the east of Fifth Avenue that contain a mix of commercial and industrial uses, as well as a small community of work/live facilities. The project will be constructed in four phases over a seventeen-year period.

The City of Oakland approved the Phase 1 Streets & Infrastructure Final Development Permit in March 2015 and roadway construction activities got underway. Construction activities included site remediation for hazardous materials. Construction on the first phase of the project, 241 apartments, began in 2017. Additional construction on affordable units for families and seniors began in spring of 2018, with the units available for lease in fall 2019. The map below describes project status as of February 2020:

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 63

International Boulevard Transit Oriented Development Plan

The International Boulevard Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Plan explores opportunities for developing TODs at select locations along International Boulevard. The impetus for the International Boulevard TOD Plan is to leverage a planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system – which would extend across multiple cities and run along the full length of International Boulevard on its route, with multiple stops along the corridor – to improve conditions along the street itself and in surrounding neighborhoods. Construction of the BRT system is expected to bring millions of dollars of new investment in infrastructure to the corridor and result in significant physical improvements to the street. The TOD Plan assesses opportunities for developing TOD projects along International Boulevard, identifies possible strategies for realizing TOD projects in these areas, and develops a menu of options for implementing the strategies. The TOD Plan also supports the City’s current land use framework that encourages higher-density developments near transit hubs and along major commercial corridors, promotes high-quality urban design in the city’s neighborhoods, and encourages economic development within targeted neighborhoods.

Central Estuary Area Plan

The City of Oakland adopted the Central Estuary Area Plan (CEAP) in 2013 to guide future development in the Central Estuary Area which encompasses 19th Ave. to 54th Ave and I-880 to the Estuary. The Plan focuses on ten sub-districts where the intensification of commercial/industrial uses is anticipated. The CEAP includes design guidelines and zoning regulations for the various sub-districts. The development contemplated as part of the CEAP would allow for an increase of 390 residential units, 30 live/work units, 370,000 square feet of industrial area, 700,000 square feet of commercial area, and 10 acres of new park space. Additionally, transportation and infrastructure improvements are recommended to address infrastructure deficiencies.

Coliseum Area Specific Plan

The Coliseum Area Specific Plan, which was adopted in March 2015, will guide the future development of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum site and the area across I-880 (Oakland Airport Edgewater Business Park). The Plan seeks to transform the underutilized land around the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum and Arena into a world-class sport, entertainment, and science & technology district that boasts a dynamic and active urban setting with retail, entertainment, arts, culture, live and work uses. The Plan provides both a short-term development plan for the accommodation of up to three new venues for the City’s professional sports teams, and a longer term, 25-year planning document providing a roadmap for land use policy, regulatory requirements and public and private investment that coordinates future development in the Coliseum Area. The Plan covers approximately 800 acres, bounded by 66th

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 64

Avenue to the north, San Leandro Street on the east, Hegenberger Road on the south, and San Leandro Bay and the Oakland International Airport to the west.

Green Street Retrofit Projects

A few of Oakland’s implemented or planned green street retrofit projects (not Regulated Projects) are summarized below.

Latham Square

The approximately ¼ acre Latham Square project was completed in July 2016. The project reconstructed the Latham Square Plaza and neighboring roadways and intersections. The Project area is Telegraph Avenue from Broadway to 17th Street, Broadway from 14th Street to 17th Street, and 16th Street from Telegraph to San Pablo Avenue. The improvements include expansion of the Latham Square Plaza, improved intersections, traffic signal upgrades, new roadway surfacing, bulb-outs, restoration of the historic Latham fountain, informational panels, landscaping, and pedestrian and decorative lighting. Green infrastructure components include raingardens along Broadway.

San Pablo Avenue Green Stormwater Spine

The San Pablo Avenue Green Stormwater Spine is a San Francisco Estuary Partnership pilot project and model for Bay Area municipalities implementing green infrastructure projects as part of their stormwater management efforts. The Spine Project has included the design, building, and monitoring an array of low impact development (LID) projects distributed along 12.5 miles of San Pablo Avenue, in partnership with a number of East Bay cities. Within the City of Oakland, the project includes:

• Installation of a rain garden, new bike lane, and wider sidewalk on one acre between 16th and 17th. Project construction was completed in June 2019. • Installation of a rain garden on one acre at West Macarthur. This project is 20% in Oakland and 80% in Emeryville. Project construction was underway at the end of June 2020.

Lakeside Green Street Project

The intersection of 20th Street, Lakeside Drive, and Harrison Street adjacent to Snow Park has been reconfigured to calm traffic, create safer pedestrian crossings, add bike lanes, and increase park space. The project includes rain gardens and swales to treat roadway runoff and was completed in June 2019.

Broadway/Keith Avenue to Golden Gate Way Bike/Pedestrian Project

This project incorporated a raingarden (bioretention area) to treat roadway runoff. Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 65

7th Street Streetscape

Phase I of this streetscape improvement project, which extends on 7th Street from Peralta to Union, is complete. Phase II, which extends from Wood to Peralta, is currently under construction, and includes the installation of widened sidewalks, corner bulb-outs, planted medians, reduced traffic lanes, new lighting, trees, and bicycle lanes. In addition, the project contains several art features, including a gateway element, dancing lights, and sidewalk medallions as part of a Blues Walk of Fame.

Laurel Access to Mills, Maxwell Park & Seminary (LAMMPs) Streetscape Project

LAMMPS is a community-driven, community-based plan designed to improve transportation conditions along MacArthur Boulevard between High Street and Seminary Avenue. This project includes several bioretention facilities and is under construction.

Lake Merritt Improvement Project

This project, located at the entrance to Lakeside Park, Children’s Fairyland, and the Garden Center, improved pedestrian safety, accessibility, and pathways. Three bioretention facilities were installed at Bellevue and Grand Avenues to collect street and sidewalk runoff.

12.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials Oakland implements its Construction and Demolition Debris Waste Reduction and Recycling Ordinance by assigning an access code to each building permit application for online reporting and tracking of debris recycling and disposal via Green Halo Systems. City staff use the Green Halo data and BASMAA assessment materials to work closely with applicants on compliance with the city’s ordinance and MRP, and require that applicants sample for PCBs-containing materials on applicable projects.

The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Oakland began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

12.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Oakland include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 66

basis. Enhanced inlet cleaning has been implemented for all inlet-based full trash capture devices (i.e., CPS units) as well as a few inlets in the West Oakland/ESPS Watershed W/MA.

12.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed by the City of Oakland, although the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is operating an Urban Runoff Diversion Project at the ESPS to direct dry weather discharges from the ESPS watershed to the East Bay Municipal Utility District’s main wastewater treatment plant for treatment. See Section 18.1.5 below for further information.

12.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The City of Oakland has an extensive illegal dumping program and devotes significant resources to abating dump sites. In fiscal year 2020/2021, Oakland responded to over 35,000 service requests for illegal dumping and removed over 72,310 cubic yards of debris. Oakland will continue to identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs In October 2014, a pole-mounted transformer that had been removed from a utility pole at the Oakland Army Base tipped over and spilled transformer oil. The concentration of PCBs in the spilled oil was measured to be 17 mg/kg. The impacted asphalt and soils were excavated and removed from the site (Terraphase Engineering, 2014).

Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 67 !. !. !. !. !. Planned !. Redevelopment Areas ! . !.!. !. !. !. !. ! !@ !.!. .!. !@ !. !@ West Oakland !. !. !. Oakland !. Army Base ! !@ .

!. !. !. !. !. !.!.

! !. . !.

Port-Related

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Oakland City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Other ³ Categorical PG&E 0 5,400 10,800 12-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM Oakland Army Base

West Oakland

Port-Related

Planned Redevelopment Areas

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Oakland Port-Related Management Area City Limits Baseline Landuse Yield Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M (Seaport Region) County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Figure Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Other ³ Categorical PG&E 0 1,700 3,400 12-2 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\OAK_POC_2021.mxd 8/12/2021 11:05:00 AM Planned Redevelopment Areas

Port-Related

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Oakland Port-Related Management Area City Limits Baseline Landuse Yield Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M (Airport Region) County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Figure Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Other ³ Categorical PG&E 0 2,300 4,600 12-3 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\OAK_POC_2021.mxd 8/12/2021 11:05:00 AM Oakland Army Base

Port-Related

West Oakland

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Oakland Army Base Management Area City Limits Baseline Landuse Yield Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Figure Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Other ³ Categorical PG&E 0 530 1,060 12-4 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\OAK_POC_2021.mxd 8/12/2021 11:05:00 AM Oakland Army Base

West Oakland

Port-Related

Planned Redevelopment Areas

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures West Oakland Management Area City Limits Baseline Landuse Yield Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Figure Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Other ³ Categorical PG&E 0 1,500 3,000 12-5 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\OAK_POC_2021.mxd 8/12/2021 11:05:00 AM West Oakland

Planned Redevelopment Areas

Port-Related

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Oakland Planned Redevelopment City Limits Baseline Landuse Yield Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M Management Areas County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Figure Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Other ³ Categorical PG&E 0 3,700 7,400 12-6 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\OAK_POC_2021.mxd 8/12/2021 11:05:00 AM Oakland Army Base

West Oakland

Planned Redevelopment Areas

Port-Related

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Oakland Old Urban and Old Industrial City Limits Baseline Landuse Yield Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M Management Areas County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Figure Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Other ³ Categorical PG&E 0 12,000 24,000 12-7 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\OAK_POC_2021.mxd 8/12/2021 11:05:00 AM

13 City of Piedmont 13.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Piedmont are shown on Figure 13-1 and are listed in Table 13-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Lower segment of the Bay.

Table 13-1: City of Piedmont PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 0.4 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

Piedmont Old Urban 2,232.4 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 13-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 13-1.

Table 13-2: City of Piedmont Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment ------

Trash Full Capture Devices ------

Enhanced O&M Measures ------Note: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15.

13.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 13.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Piedmont have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 75

13.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Piedmont’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

13.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Piedmont began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

13.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

No enhanced operation and maintenance control measures are proposed.

13.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

13.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 76 Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Piedmont City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 840 1,680 13-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

14 City of Pleasanton 14.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Pleasanton are shown on Figure 14-1 and are listed in Table 14-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Arroyo de la Laguna branch of the Alameda Creek watershed.

Table 14-1: City of Pleasanton PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 204.1 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%

Categorical Railroad 770.1 6.3% 33.2% 25.0% 35.5% 0%

Pleasanton Old Urban 4,317.1 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 14-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 14-1.

Table 14-2: City of Pleasanton Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 262.3 3.2% 12.5% 80.9% 3.4% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices ------

Enhanced O&M Measures 4.0 0% 5% 95% 0% 0% Note: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15.

14.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 14.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Pleasanton have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 78

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

14.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Pleasanton’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

14.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Pleasanton began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

14.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Pleasanton include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

14.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

14.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 79

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 80 .! ! .! .! . .! ! .! ! .! .!.!.!!.! .!.! . ! . .!.!.! .! .! . . ! .! .! . .! .! .!

.! .!

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Pleasanton City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 3,300 6,600 14-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

15 City of San Leandro 15.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of San Leandro are shown on Figure 15-1 and are listed in Table 15-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Lower segment of the Bay.

Table 15-1: City of San Leandro PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 464.8 27.7% 29.1% 33.7% 9.5% 0%

Categorical Railroad 897.6 74.2% 2.2% 22.4% 1.3% 0%

San Leandro Old Industrial 1,333.6 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

San Leandro Old Urban 6,017.7 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 15-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 15-1.

Table 15-2: City of San Leandro Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 88.4 88.6% 6.9% 3.8% 0.7% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 968.6 3.4% 92.9% 1.0% 2.6% 0%

Enhanced O&M Measures 3,322.1 16.4% 76.4% 6.4% 0.9% 0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) and Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 82

15.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 15.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of San Leandro have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

15.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of San Leandro’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

15.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of San Leandro began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

15.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of San Leandro include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi- annual basis.

15.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 83

15.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 84 .!

.! .!

! ! . . .!

.! .!! Legend Watershed/Management Areas and. Control Measures San Leandro City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 3,000 6,000 15-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

16 City of Union City 16.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within the City of Union City are shown on Figure 16-1 and are listed in Table 16-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Lower segment of the Bay.

Table 16-1: City of Union City PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Alvarado Business Park 2,227.1 6.8% 32.9% 36.9% 23.4% 0%

Categorical PG&E 824.9 0.9% 0% 0.1% 99.1% 0%

Categorical Railroad 740.8 30.8% 0% 63.6% 5.6% 0%

Central Bay Industrial Park 1,867.1 40.3% 34.3% 23.4% 2.1% 0%

Union City Old Urban 4,437.2 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Union City Station District 917.7 14.0% 66.5% 7.0% 12.5% 0%

Alvarado Business Park 2,227.1 6.8% 32.9% 36.9% 23.4% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 16-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 16-1.

Table 16-2: City of Union City Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 213.0 39.3% 39.2% 18.0% 3.5% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 204.3 14.5% 24.6% 24.1% 36.8% 0%

Enhanced O&M Measures 1,283.0 10.2% 43.0% 44.4% 2.4% 0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes only Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 86

16.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 16.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within the City of Union City have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

16.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the City of Union City’s Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

16.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. The City of Union City began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The City of Union City recently conducted an investigation of the caulk in the existing curb and gutter at two locations along H Street as part of their design for the H Street Green Street project and the caulk was found to contain an insignificant amount of PCBs (part per billion). The City of Union City also participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

16.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the City of Union City include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

16.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 87

16.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 88 .!

Alvarado Business Central Bay Park Industrial Park

Union City Station District

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Union City City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 2,200 4,400 16-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

17 Unincorporated Alameda County 17.1 List of Watersheds / Management Areas and Control Measures The Watersheds / Management Areas (W/MAs) within Unincorporated Alameda County are shown on Figure 17-1 and Figure 17-2 and are listed in Table 17-1 below. These W/MAs drain to the Central and Lower segments of the Bay and to the Arroyo de la Laguna branch of the Alameda Creek watershed.

Table 17-1: Unincorporated Alameda County PCBs and Mercury Watershed Management Areas (W/MAs) and Associated Land Uses % % Total Area1 Old % New % Open W/MA Identifier (Acres) Industrial Old Urban Urban Space % Other Categorical PG&E 2,504.7 0.2% 4.9% 0% 94.9% 0%

Categorical Railroad 17,066.4 2.0% 2.0% 0.1% 95.9% 0%

Eden Area 5,690.2 4.3% 91.5% 2.1% 2.1% 0%

Unincorporated Old Urban 11,028.3 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% Notes: 1. Land use breakdown as of IMR land use year 2013.

The control measures that are currently being implemented in each of these W/MAs are summarized in Table 17-2 and are described in the sections below. Treatment control projects are also shown on Figure 17-1 and Figure 17-2.

Table 17-2: City of Unincorporated Alameda County Areas with Load Reductions or Treatment by Control Measure Category (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Total Area % % % Treated Old Old New % Open % Control Measure Category (Acres) Industrial Urban Urban Space Other Source Property Identification and Abatement ------

Green Infrastructure and Treatment 417.7 0.9% 35.0% 0% 64.2% 0%

Trash Full Capture Devices1 2,658.9 3.6% 84.3% 0.9% 10.9% 0.2%

Enhanced O&M Measures 179.1 0.5% 82.5% 1.7% 15.3% 0% Notes: Control measure implementation data are incomplete for FY 13-14 and FY 14-15. 1 Includes Hydrodynamic Separator (HDS) and Gross Solids Removal Device (GSRD) units.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 90

17.2 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures 17.2.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

PCBs-Contaminated Properties Referred to the Regional Water Board No properties within Unincorporated Alameda County have been referred to the SFBRWQCB as a result of implementation of the Source Property Identification and Abatement control measure to date.

Ongoing Investigations Ongoing investigations may result in a property referral in the future.

17.2.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

Any development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects within each of the W/MAs are subject to the development standards in effect at the time an application is made, such as demolition standards and applicable provisions of section C.3. See the Alameda County Green Infrastructure Plan for further information.

17.2.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1. Unincorporated Alameda County began implementing the PCBs management program and protocol on July 1, 2019.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

17.2.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

Enhanced Operation and Maintenance (O&M) control measures that have been implemented by the Unincorporated Alameda County include clean out of inlet-based full trash capture devices on a semi-annual basis.

17.2.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 91

17.2.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Mercury Load Avoidance and Reduction The Permittees are actively implementing mercury recycling programs in all W/MAs in order to reduce mercury loading to the Bay.

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The Permittees will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed as they are identified through industrial facility inspection and spill notification programs.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 92 .!.!.! !@

.!! ..! .! .!

.! .! .! !. .! .! .! !.! .!.!.! .! .! . .! .!.! .! .! !!.!.! !. .! .!.! .!.!.!.!.. .!.! .! .!.! .! !.!.!.! .! .!.! .! .!.!.!.! . !@ .! .!.!.! !@ .! .! Eden Area .! .!.! .! .! .!.!.! .! .!.! .!! ..! .! .! .! .! .! .! .!.! .!! .! .

.! .!

Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Unincorporated Alameda County (Full Extent) City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 13,000 26,000 17-1 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM .! .!

Eden Area .!

.! .! .!

.! .!! .! . .! .! .!

.! .!

.! .! .!

.! Legend Watershed/Management Areas and Control Measures Unincorporated Alameda County (Detail) City Limits Yield Classification Control Measures Large Full Trash Capture Enhanced O&M County Boundary Old Industrial C.3.b/Green Streets Projects .! HDS Full Trash Capture Device Cleanout Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Watershed/Management Areas Old Urban Source Property Referral/Abatement !@ GSRD Watershed/Management Areas New Urban HDS Drainage Area Categorical Railroad Open Space GSRD Drainage Area Figure Categorical PG&E Other ³ 0 2,800 5,600 17-2 Feet Oakland August 2021

P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2021\POC_Report_Figures\ACCW P_POC_2021.m xd 8/20/2021 5:38:31 PM

18 Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) manages flood control infrastructure for flood protection of most of the urbanized portions of Western Alameda County, which include the W/MAs described above for the following Permittees (See Figure 18-1):

• Emeryville • Fremont • Hayward • Newark • Oakland • San Leandro • Union City • Parts of unincorporated Alameda County

The District is divided into "zones of benefit" which are based on major watershed areas and treated as separate financial entities for the purposes of maintaining and constructing facilities, and for the levying of assessments based on needs within that zone's watershed area. For nine District zones (shaded blue on Figure 18-1), the Alameda County Board of Supervisors is the governing body, and the Alameda County Public Works Agency provides engineering, technical, and administrative staff for the District. Zone 7 of the District, located in eastern Alameda County and commonly known as Zone 7 Water Agency, has a separately elected Board of Directors and staffing and is a distinct Permittee under the MRP (see Section 19).

18.1 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures Since the District is not a municipal government, a limited range of potential control measures are applicable to its facilities. The scope of control measures that are currently being implemented or may be implemented by the District during the term of the permit is discussed in the sections below.

18.1.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

While some District-owned facilities lie within areas dominated by Old Industrial land use, none have been identified as source properties during initial screening. Site investigations may be initiated as a result of new information that may result in a property referral in the future.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 95

18.1.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

The District will evaluate its capital projects for potential C.3 compliance and other opportunities to implement treatment.

18.1.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

18.1.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

In September 2014, the District conducted enhanced desilting of the ESPS wet wells, which have normally been cleaned on an “as needed” basis. CW4CB-funded monitoring estimated removal of mercury and PCBs through this activity, but listed issues and constraints to quantifying load reduction benefits. There has been large variation in annual sediment deposition and removal since the District acquired the ESPS from the city of Oakland in 1999.

18.1.5 Diversion to POTW

The District has executed an agreement with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) for operation of an Urban Runoff Diversion Project (URDP) at the ESPS to direct dry weather discharge to EBMUD’s main wastewater treatment plant for treatment. The URDP is designed to divert up to 0.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of dry-weather flow during the dry season (i.e., approximately April 16th through November 30th). EBMUD completed the installation of its pump and control system and new 6-inch diameter conveyance pipe in 2016 and implementation is in progress. District staff coordinated with and provided assistance to EBMUD staff in FY 2018/19 to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the diversion pump.

EBMUD agreed to make provision in its piping design for possible future connection by the District to the URDP’s new force main pipe which allows for a future project wherein stormwater flows could be detained and stored until after the end of peak flows when they could be diverted to the EBMUD plant for treatment. The District does not have available space for such detention

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 96

at the ESPS and has no active plans to pursue this concept after initial conversations with state and city representatives about potential access to adjacent street and freeway right-of-way.

Load reductions for PCBs and mercury were computed based on influent and effluent sampling data obtained by EBMUD between 2008 and 2010 (Borisova, Johannesson, and Horenstein, 2012) and flow data from FY 2016/17, FY 2017/18, and FY 2018/19 obtained through email correspondence with EBMUD staff.

18.1.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Illegal Dumping Cleanup The District will identify and cleanup illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris where illegal dumping of construction and demolition debris occurs on District property.

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed if they are identified on District property.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 97 Albany

Berkeley

Emeryville

*# Piedmont

Zone 12

Ettie Oakland St. Pump Station Alameda

Zone 13 Dublin Zone 2A Zone 9 San Leandro Zone 2 Livermore

Pleasanton

Zone 4 Zone 7 Hayward Zone 3A Alameda County Union City

Zone 5 Fremont

Newark Zone 6

Legend ACFCWCD Zones and Representative Zone 7 (See Figure 19-1) Facilities and Control Measures West County Zones (managed by ACFCWCD) Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Alameda County Limits Figure Highways ³ 0 5 10 18-1 Miles Oakland August 2021 P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2018\Project\POC_Report_Figures\FCD_18-1.mxd 9/19/2017 5:30:00 PM

19 Zone 7 of the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Zone 7 Water Agency) Zone 7 Water Agency owns and maintains 37 miles of flood-protection channels located within a 425-square-mile area in eastern Alameda County, which include the W/MAs described above for the following permittees (See Figure 19-1):

• Dublin • Livermore • Pleasanton

19.1 Scope and Schedule of PCBs Control Measures Since the Zone 7 Water Agency is not a municipal government, a limited range of potential control measures are applicable to its facilities. The scope of control measures that are currently being implemented or may be implemented by Zone 7 during the term of the permit is discussed in the sections below.

19.1.1 Source Property Identification and Abatement

Flood control facilities owned by Zone 7 do not occur in significant areas of Old Industrial land use and offer little or no potential to be identified as PCBs source properties.

19.1.2 Green Infrastructure / Treatment Control Measures

The District will evaluate its capital projects for potential C.3 compliance and other opportunities to implement treatment.

19.1.3 Managing PCBs in Building Materials and Infrastructure

Managing PCBs in Building Materials The Program and Permittees are participated in the BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in building materials as described in Section 2.3.1.

Managing PCBs in Infrastructure The Program and Permittees participated in a BASMAA Regional Project to address PCBs in infrastructure as described in Section 2.3.2.

19.1.4 Enhanced Operation and Maintenance Control Measures

No enhanced operation and maintenance control measures are proposed.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 99

19.1.5 Diversion to POTW

No diversion to POTW control measures are proposed.

19.1.6 Source Controls and Other Control Measures

Stockpiles, Spills, and Disposal of PCBs Stockpiles and spills of PCBs will be addressed if they are identified on District property.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 100 Line G-1

1 -

n i

L Altamont Creek

n Dublin i

Line J-1

1 G- e Line J-3 in L J-3 Line Line J-2

Arroyo las Positas

Line G-1-1

Alamo Canal Relocated Arroyo las Positas

k e e r C a r a j a s s a Arroyo Mocho Arroyo Mocho T Arroyo Seco Livermore

Pleasanton Canal

Arroyo del Valle A rr oy o d el Va lle Pleasanton

-2 -2 B A e r in r o L y o Lin d e B e 1 -2 l - -1 a 2 - L B a g e n u i n L a

Legend Channels and Streams Owned by Zone 7 Channel Status Zone 7 (Incorporated Cities) Zone 7 Water Agency Zone 7 (Unincorporated) Drainage Easement Highways Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Full Ownership Partial Ownership Figure Stormdrain Easement ³ 0 1.5 3 19-1 Not Owned/Maintained Miles Oakland August 2021 P:\GIS\Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP)\POC_2018\Project\POC_Report_Figures\FCD_19-1.mxd 9/19/2017 5:30:13 PM

20 Loads Reduced

This section presents estimates of the loads reduced by the control measures that are reported in the preceding sections of this report (Sections 3 through 19) for each Permittee and countywide for FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21. The loads reduced reported in this section reflect previous fiscal years’ reporting, although previously reported load reductions may have been revised.

20.1 Loads Reduced – PCBs

Table 20-1 and Table 20-2 report the estimated PCBs loads reduced for each Permittee and county-wide. Note that these tables reflect the load reduction achieved through implementation of the program and protocol for managing materials with PCBs concentrations of 50 ppm or greater in applicable structures at the time such structures undergo demolition. This load reduction is equivalent to 626.7 g/yr, which was allocated to each Permittee in FY2018/19 based on their population in the year 2000.

Table 20-1: PCBs Loads Reduced by the Permittees (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) PCBs Loads Reduced (g/yr) FY2013- FY2014- FY2015- FY2016- FY2017- FY2018- FY2019- FY2020- Cumulative Load 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Permittee Reduced Alameda 0.01 0.15 0.23 0.70 0.48 33.51 0.27 0 35.35 Albany 0.19 0 0.03 0.23 0.26 7.16 0 0 7.87 Berkeley 0.20 0.11 0.71 0.53 4.20 44.75 0 0 50.50 Dublin 0.60 0.09 1.65 1.18 0.58 13.25 0.34 0.20 17.89 Emeryville 0.13 0.11 0.09 0 0.26 2.98 0 0.04 3.61 Fremont 0.34 0.33 2.09 0.37 0.46 88.27 0.73 0.30 92.89 Hayward 0.37 7.21 1.70 6.82 1.29 62.67 0 0.25 80.31 Livermore 0.23 1.26 0.04 0.19 0.46 34.66 0.38 0.08 37.30 Newark 0 2.00 0.33 2.03 0.61 18.69 0 0 23.66 Oakland 0.54 0.52 0.17 0.29 69.09 175.48 164.34 1.96 412.39 Piedmont 0 0 0 0 0 4.77 0 0 4.77 Pleasanton 0 0.75 0.12 0.01 0.28 27.63 0.29 0.11 29.19 San Leandro 0 1.38 0.42 2.41 0.59 39.02 3.62 0.39 47.83 Union City 0.05 0.26 1.62 7.47 0.46 29.34 0 0 39.20 Unincorporated 0.35 1.68 1.82 0.88 0.84 68.83 0.01 0.23 74.64 County ACFCWCD 0 0 0 0.97 1.98 1.22 1.05 1.23 6.45 TOTAL - All 3.01 15.85 11.02 24.08 81.84 652.22 171.03 4.79 963.84 Permittees

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 102

Table 20-2: PCBs Loads Reduced Within Alameda County (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) PCBs Loads Reduced (g/yr) Required Control Measure Cumulative PCBs Load FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Category Load Reduction 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Reduced by June 30, 2020 Source Property Identification 0 0 0 0 71.47 0 163.44 0 234.91 -- and Abatement1 Green Infrastructure 2.59 14.24 5.38 13.37 6.95 6.68 6.50 3.55 59.26 37 and Treatment2 Trash Full 0.33 1.53 2.47 6.65 0.08 16.86 0 0 27.92 -- Capture Devices3 Enhanced O&M4 0.10 0.07 3.19 3.07 1.36 0.81 0.03 0 8.63 -- Manage PCBs in Building 0 0 0 0 0 626.67 0 0 626.67 -- Materials Manage PCBs in 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- Infrastructure4 Diversion to 0 0 0 0.97 1.98 1.22 1.05 1.23 6.45 -- POTW4 TOTAL - All 3.02 15.84 11.04 24.06 81.84 652.24 171.02 4.78 963.84 940 Permittees Notes: 1. Load Reduced = (Source Property Area (ac)) x (4.065 – 0.0303 (g/ac/yr)). Load reduced is halved for referral rather than self- abatement. Acres associated with this control measure can be found in each Permittee section of this report. 2. For parcel-based projects, Load Reduced = (Project Area (ac)) x (Existing Yield – 0.0035 (g/ac/yr)). For green street or regional retrofit projects, Load Reduced = (Project Drainage Area (ac)) x (area-weighted PCBs yield (g/ac/yr)) x 0.70. Acres associated with this control measure can be found in each Permittee section of this report. 3. Load Reduced = (Project Drainage Area (ac)) x (area-weighted PCBs yield (g/ac/yr)) x 0.20. Acres associated with this control measure can be found in each Permittee section of this report. 4. See individual Permittee sections for how loads were estimated.

Table 20-2 shows that the required load reduction for GI and the overall PCBs load reduction by 2020 have been achieved.

20.2 Loads Reduced – Mercury Table 20-3 and Table 20-4 report the estimated mercury loads reduced for each Permittee and county-wide.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 103

Table 20-3: Mercury Loads Reduced by the Permittees (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Mercury Loads Reduced (g/yr) Cumulative FY FY FY FY FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 Load 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Permittee Reduced Alameda 0.09 1.04 2.18 9.70 2.92 27.51 1.86 0 45.30 Albany 2.35 0 0.25 1.70 2.28 0 0 0 6.58 Berkeley 2.16 0.79 6.75 4.48 2.38 0.28 0 0 16.84 Dublin 4.08 0.61 9.32 8.13 2.81 2.84 2.26 0.45 30.50 Emeryville 1.77 1.57 1.08 0 2.09 0 0 0.31 6.82 Fremont 2.56 2.08 17.54 2.05 3.36 0.42 4.72 1.91 34.64 Hayward 2.52 92.03 24.82 59.96 17.62 18.01 0 2.20 217.16 Livermore 1.51 18.57 0 1.08 3.00 21.38 3.58 0.96 50.08 Newark 0 30.30 2.99 29.76 9.37 1.85 0 0 74.27 Oakland 5.11 4.28 1.21 2.21 42.83 22.85 55.09 26.99 160.57 Piedmont 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pleasanton 0 11.00 0.78 0.06 1.89 0.14 1.97 0.73 16.57 San Leandro 0 20.82 5.64 27.40 5.75 38.14 55.25 5.80 158.80 Union City 0.32 1.80 16.80 103.65 6.57 5.00 0 0 134.14 Unincorporate 3.08 16.29 11.51 6.35 5.71 72.90 0.07 2.50 118.41 d County ACFCWCD 0 0 0 2.30 4.70 2.89 2.50 2.92 15.31 TOTAL - All 25.55 201.18 100.87 258.83 113.28 214.21 127.30 44.77 1,085.99 Permittees

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 104

Table 20-4: Mercury Loads Reduced Within Alameda County (FY 2013/14 through FY 2020/21) Mercury Loads Reduced (g/yr) Control Cumulative FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Measure Load 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 Category Reduced Source Property Identification 0 0 0 0 19.22 0 43.95 0 63.17 and Abatement1 Green Infrastructure 22.15 185.10 49.06 170.46 77.35 74.18 80.56 41.84 700.70 and Treatment2 Trash Full Capture 2.35 15.29 24.31 57.94 0.55 130.37 0 0 230.81 Devices3 Enhanced O&M 1.05 0.76 27.48 28.13 11.45 6.78 0.28 0.01 75.94 Measures4 Manage PCBs in Building N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 Materials Manage PCBs in ------0 0 0 0 Infrastructure Diversion to 0 0 0 2.30 4.70 2.89 2.50 2.92 15.31 POTW Source ------0 0 0 Controls/ Other TOTAL - All Control 25.55 201.15 100.85 258.83 113.27 214.22 127.29 44.77 1,085.93 Measures Notes: 1. Load Reduced = (Source Property Area (ac)) x (1.300 – 0.215 (g/ac/yr)). Load reduction is halved for referral rather than self- abatement. Acres associated with this control measure can be found in each Permittee section of this report. 2. For parcel-based projects, Load Reduced = (Project Area (ac)) x (Existing Yield – 0.033 (g/ac/yr)). For green street or regional retrofit projects, Load Reduced = (Project Drainage Area (ac)) x (area-weighted mercury yield (g/ac/yr)) x 0.70. Acres associated with this control measure can be found in each Permittee section of this report. 3. Load Reduced = (Project Drainage Area (ac)) x (area-weighted mercury yield (g/ac/yr)) x 0.20. Acres associated with this control measure can be found in each Permittee section of this report. 4. See individual Permittee sections for how loads were estimated.

The mercury load performance criterion via green infrastructure implementation for Alameda County is 15 g/yr by June 30, 2020; the results in Table 20-4 indicate that this performance criterion has been exceeded.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 105

21 References Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP), Integrated Monitoring Report Part C: PCBs and Mercury Load Reduction Planning. March 14, 2014.

ACCWP 2016. Mercury and PCBs Control Measures Implementation Status Report. March 31, 2016.

Applied Marine Sciences (AMS), Feng, A., Wiegel, J., and Wood, R., 2001. Initial Characterization of PCBs, Mercury, and PAH Contamination in the Drainages of Western Alameda County, CA. Prepared for the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program. March 2001. BC Job No. 139444.

AMS, 2002. Analysis of 2000-01 Source Investigations in Ettie Street Pump Station and Glen Echo Creek Watersheds, Oakland, California. Prepared for the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, August 2002.

Bay Area Clean Water Agencies (BACWA), 2009. Stormwater Diversion White Paper. Prepared by Carollo Engineers.

Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 2010. Stormwater Pump Station Diversions Feasibility Evaluation. Prepared by Brown and Caldwell for Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), Oakland, California, December 1, 2010.

BASMAA, 2017. Interim Accounting Methodology for TMDL Loads Reduced, Version 1.1. Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants and EOA, Inc. March 2017.

Borisova, N., Johannesson, C., & Horenstein, B. 2012. Improving Surface Water Quality: Stormwater Diversion to POTW. In WEFTEC 2012 – 85th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference. New Orleans, Louisiana.

EOA, Inc. 2002. Final Report: Joint Stormwater Agency Project to Study Urban Sources of Mercury, PCBs, and Organochlorine Pesticides. April 2002a. Prepared for: Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program; San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program; Contra Costa Clean Water Program; Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program; Vallejo Flood Control and Sanitation District; and Fairfield Suisun Sewer District, April 2002.

Kleinfelder, Inc., 2006. Final Project Report, Ettie Street Pump Station Watershed, Oakland, California. Prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc. September 29, 2006.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 106

Mangarella, P., Havens, K., Lewis, W., and McKee, L.J., 2010. Task 3.5.1: Desktop Evaluation of Controls for Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Mercury Load Reduction. A Technical Report of the Regional Watershed Program: SFEI Contribution 613. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA. 41pp.

McKee, L., Mangarella, P., Williamson, B., Hayworth, J., and Austin, L., 2006. Review of methods used to reduce urban stormwater loads: Task 3.4. A Technical Report of the Regional Watershed Program: SFEI Contribution #429. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA.

Terraphase Engineering, Inc., 2014. Summary Narrative of Field Activities for Transformer Oil Spill Response, Former Oakland Army Base, Oakland, California, October 2014.

Yee, Donald and McKee, Lester, 2010. Task 3.5: Concentrations of PCBs and Hg in soils, sediments, and water in the urbanized Bay Area: Implications for best management. A technical report of the Watershed Program. SFEI Contribution 608. San Francisco Estuary Institute, March 2010.

Mercury and PCBs W/MAs, Control Measures, and Load Reduction August 23, 2021 107