Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 80

BAIRWMP Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan bairwmp/ PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 82 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

BAIRWMP Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan http://bairwmp.org/. Background/History Prop 50 2002-2006 - Prop 84 changes (2006) Bay area actions Plan Update and Projects Opportunities/ challenges. Background/History. Prop 50 -2006 BAIRWMP

Download Presentation

BAIRWMP Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan bairwmp/

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan http bairwmp org

BAIRWMPBay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Planhttp://bairwmp.org/

  • Background/History

    • Prop 50 2002-2006

      - Prop 84 changes (2006)

    • Bay area actions

  • Plan Update and Projects

    • Opportunities/ challenges


Background history

Background/History

  • Prop 50

    -2006 BAIRWMP

    -Prop 50 Implementation grant

    -Plan development and Functional Areas

  • Prop 84

    - Regional Acceptance Process

    - Sub-regions and target allocations

    - Project prioritization

  • Prop 84 Implementation Grants


Integrated regional water management planning

Integrated RegionalWater Management Planning

http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/

  • Required By State for certain funding under Prop 50-passed in 2002– $3.4 billion Total

    -$ 500 million for IRWM

  • Required Plan or “functional equivalent” to be adopted in order to receive Implementation funds


2006 bairwmp

2006 BAIRWMP

  • Regional Group

  • Region Description

  • Objectives

  • Water Management Strategies

  • Integration

  • Regional Priorities

  • Implementation

  • Impacts and Benefits

  • Technical Analysis & Plan Performance

  • Data Management

  • Financing

  • Statewide Priorities

  • Relation to Local Planning

  • Stakeholder Involvement

  • Coordination


Prop 50 grant

Prop 50 Grant

  • Grant received-Prop 50 Round 1- 2005/6

    $12.5 million - 10% minimum match

    Conservation and Recycling projects

  • Prop 50 round 2- 2007

    -Policy decision-focus on storm water/ floodplains/ watersheds

    -Step 1Proposal evaluated based on BAIRWMP

    -Not invited to step 2

  • Supplemental Prop 50 -2010

    • Max. $3.7 m –Not invited to step 2


Bay area irwmp regional

Bay Area IRWMPRegional

Function/ REGIONAL ENTITIES

Water Supply and Water Quality

*Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition- BAWAC

Wastewater and Recycled Water

*Bay Area Clean Water Agencies- BACWA http://www.bacwa.org/

Flood Protection and Stormwater Management

Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association

BAFPAA

Watershed Management/Habitat Protection and Restoration

Bay Area Watershed Network BAWN


Bay area irwmp cc

Bay Area IRWMP CC


Bawac

BAWAC

  • Outgrowth of Water Recycling program

  • Created to respond to IRWM concept

  • Includes all major water agencies in 9 counties

  • Emphasis on Conservation

    • New technologies

    • Refining existing programs

    • Evaluating regional opportunities


Bacwa

BACWA

  • Existed since 1984

    Joint Powers Agreement

  • All major Publicly Owned Treatment Works in all 9 counties

  • Emphasis on Water Recycling

  • Lead for $12.5 million IRWM state grant


Bafpaa

BAFPAA

  • Concept developed in 2006 in response to IRWM.

  • Represents the 9 Bay Area counties and communities in regional and statewide issues in the area of flood protection

  • Approval of the Rules of Governance by the counties or agencies occurred from 2006-2009.

  • Collaboration on:

    • IRWMP,

    • USACE Levee Vegetation Policy


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

BAWN

  • Concept developed in 2006

  • Hosted by RWQCB/ SFEP

  • Next Annual meeting- February 10,2012

  • Workgroups established:

    • Policy

    • Outreach and Education

    • Monitoring and Assessment

    • Water and Land Use

    • IRWMP Coordination


Watershed management habitat protection and restoration watershed component

Watershed Management/Habitat Protectionand Restoration (Watershed) Component

  • November 2006-Functional Area Component

  • State Coastal Conservancy

  • Excellent summary of watersheds and needs

  • Can be found on www.bairmp.org website


Bafpaa bawn joint conference

BAFPAA/BAWN Joint Conference

  • June 16,2011-Flood Protection – Watershed Restoration Joint Workshop

  • Over 100 people attended

  • Emphasis on Integration

  • Focus on “sub regions”


Prop 84

Prop 84

  • Changes

  • Regional Acceptance Process

  • Sub regions/ allocations

  • Project prioritization

  • Prop 84 PSP and Grant requirements

    -One applicant & Scoring Process

    -Cost /Benefit

  • Bay Area Implementation Grant

  • 1-E funding


Prop 841

Prop 84

Nov. 2006- $5.4 billion total

-allocated funds by “Region”

-added “Climate Change” to plan

-added “ Relation to local land use” to plan

Total ~ $1 billion for implementing IRWMPs

25% match


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

Prop 84

$1 Billion for IRWM

$900M Allocated to 11 Funding Areas

$100M Interregional

Prop 1E

$300M for Storm Water Flood Management

Requires consistency with IRWM Plan

$ in millions


Region acceptance process

Region Acceptance Process

  • Required under Prop 84

  • 2009 Process

  • Important Themes for Bay Area

    - Consensus Approach

    - Developing sub-regions

    - Ability to rank projects

    - Developing “Regional” projects


Region acceptance process1

RegionAcceptanceProcess


Dwr decisions in september 2009

DWR decisions in September 2009

RAP Summary

 46 Regions submitted

 Approved – 34 Regions

 Conditional Approval – 11

 Not Approved – 1 Region

Final-all approved-10 conditionally

3 address entire funding area


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

  • Regional Acceptance Process

  • IRWM Regions

  • 36Approved Regions

  • 10Conditionally Approved Regions


Sub regions were created to

Sub-regions were created to

  • foster outreach,

  • coordination,

  • project solicitation, and

  • project integration


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

Bay Area

Sub Regions


Decision subareas and funding

Decision-Subareas and Funding

*Target Allocations (After Regional project allocation)-

½-No. of sub regions, ¼ pop. ¼ area

-N bay- 25%

-E bay-29 %

-S bay-25%

-W bay-22%


Project prioritization

Project Prioritization

  • 2006 plan used “cohorts”

    -Evaluated but did not rank projects

    -Evaluation can be converted to a score and ranking


Project evaluation

Project Evaluation


Prop 84 psp and grant requirements

Prop 84 PSP and Grant requirements

*One applicant

*Scoring process

* Cost/Benefit


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

GUIDELINES

August 2010

The IRWM Grant Program is designed to encourage integrated regional strategies for management of water resources and to provide funding for both planning and implementation projects that support integrated water management

  • http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/docs/Guidelines/Prop84/GL_Final_07_20_10.pdf


Irwm program objectives

IRWM Program Objectives

Direct Objectives

Improve water supply reliability

Protect & improve water quality

Ensure sustainability through environmental stewardship

Higher-Level Objectives

Promote regional planning

Financial incentive to promote integration and regional cooperation and collaboration


Scoring 84 50

Scoring 84 50


Bay area implementation grant

Bay Area Implementation grant

  • “Regional” Projects

  • One applicant-BACWA

  • Cost Benefit Analysis


Projects

Projects

  • Regional Recycling Grant request

    ($10 m)

  • Regional Water Conservation

    ($ 9.203 m)

  • Regional Green Infrastructure Capacity Building

    ($4.316 m)

  • Bay Area Wetland Ecosystem Restoration Program

    ($ 3.75 m)

  • Integrated Water Quality Improvement, Flood Management and Ecosystem Restoration in Bay Area Disadvantaged Communities ( $2.2 m)

  • Admin-($ .643 m)

    Total-~ $30.094 m


Recycling north bay

Recycling-North Bay

  • NBWRA Projects

    • Novato North- NMWD- $ 500k

    • Novato South-Hamilton-LGVSD - $ 500k

    • Napa State Hospital-Napa San.- $ 500k

    • Sonoma Valley- SCVSD/ SCWA- $ 500k

  • Peacock Gap- MMWD- $ 500k

    Total= $2.5 m


Regional recycling

Regional Recycling

  • Match-$, 55,815 m (85 %)

  • Acre feet/ year- 3,210 AFY

  • Costs- $53 m (50 years)- 2009 dollars

  • Benefits- ~ $ 108 m

    • Avoided alternative water supply project costs

    • Avoided potable water supply costs

    • ~ $1m- WQ avoided fertilizer costs


Water conservation components

Water Conservation Components


Conservation north bay

Conservation- North Bay

  • City of Napa- $330 k

  • SCWA $765 k

  • Solano $ 692 k

  • MMWD $ 863 k

    31.6 % of $ 8.39 m

  • General- 31.6 % of $ 562 k = $178 k

  • + Napa Rainwater = $250 k

    Total $ 3.078 m


Regional water conservation

Regional Water Conservation

Match $ 6,438,872 (42 %)

Total- ~ $15.4 m

Acre feet- 25,546 over 10 years

Cost / acre –ft- ~ $605

2009 costs- $12.7 m

Benefit- 10 year present value- ~ $ 25 m


Regional green infrastructure north bay

Regional Green InfrastructureNorth Bay

  • No North bay projects

  • Napa Rainwater harvesting shifted to conservation for administration purposes.


Bay area wetlands north bay

Bay Area Wetlands –North bay

  • Sears Point- $1.25 m


Wetlands

Wetlands

  • State Coastal Conservancy lead-3 projects

  • $3.725 m request, $16.53 m match + other state funds ($8.9 m)-57% match

  • 2009 annualized costs- ~$ 25 m

  • 2009 annualized benefits ~ $ 130 m


Integrated components

Integrated… Components

1. Watershed Partnership Technical Assistance ( $150 k)

2. Stream Restoration with Schools and Community in Disadvantaged Communities of the North Bay (STRAW) ($200 k)

3. Floodplain Mapping for the Bay Area with Disadvantaged Communities Focus( $712 k)

4. Storm Water Improvements and Flood Reduction Strategies Pilot Project in Bay Point($160 k)

5. Disadvantaged Communities Richmond Shoreline and City of San Pablo Flood Project( $85 k)

6. Pescadero Creek Watershed Disadvantaged Communities Integrated Flood Reduction and Habitat Enhancement Project($100 k)

7. Pescadero Creek Steelhead Smolt Outmigrant Trapping( $119 k)

8. Stream Channel Shapes and Floodplain Restoration Guidance and Watershed Restoration in San Francisquito Creek, East Palo Alto, a Disadvantaged Community($230 k)

9. Steelhead and Coho: Bay Area Indicator for Restoration Success SF Estuary Steelhead Monitoring Program($379 k)


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

Integrated Water Quality Improvement, Flood Management and Ecosystem Restoration in Bay Area Disadvantaged Communities

  • North Bay

    -STRAW ( PRBO)- $200k

    General mapping and watershed assistance share of ($862 k)

    25% - $ 216k

    North bay share of $379 for Steelhead

    Napa and Sonoma ~$ 250 k


Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

Integrated Water Quality Improvement, Flood Management and Ecosystem Restoration in Bay Area Disadvantaged Communities

  • Total request- $2.134 m

  • Match- -$705 k - 33 %

  • Consolidation of prior proposals and emphasis on DACs

    2009 annualized costs-$1.6 m

    Benefits- $ 2.1 m ( stormwater treatment- STRAW)


North bay share

North Bay Share


1 e stormwater flood management swfm grants

1-E-Stormwater Flood Management (SWFM) grants

  • Projects

    -Manage stormwater runoff to reduce flooding and are ready, or nearly ready, to proceed to implementation

    - Consistent with applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plans, not be part of the State Plan of Flood Control and

    -Yield multiple benefits which may include groundwater recharge, water quality improvements, ecosystem restoration benefits, and reduction of instream erosion and sedimentation.

    -In IRWM Plan

  • $ 212 m statewide competition

    50% match, Max $ 30 m


1 e results

1-E results

  • Sep. 21 DWR Draft Funding recommendations http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/integregio_stormwaterflood.cfm

    -41 Applicants for $ 265 m

  • 18 recommended for $163 million

  • 4/5 approved for Bay Area for ~ $67 m

    SFPUC- $24m, SCVWD-$25 m,

    San Francisquito Creek JPA-$ 8m

    Not funded- Redwood City Pump station-$ 8 m

    North bay

  • Marin County FCWCD/ MMWD

    -Phoenix Lake- $7.66m


Plan update and projects

Plan Update and Projects

  • Elements and schedule

  • Emphasis on integration

  • Project Template

  • Future County Meetings

  • Maps?


Bairwmp plan proposal

BAIRWMP Plan Proposal

  • Submitted September 27, 2010

  • MMWD is applicant

  • Grant request-$842,556

  • Match- $569,761 ( ~ 40 %)

    • Cash- $210,494

    • In kind- $359,267

  • Includes- SVCSD -Groundwater plan

    Salt and Nutrient Management Planning

    $205k request & 50% match ( 25 % cash, 25% in kind)


  • Plan elements

    Plan Elements

    • 1 Governance

    • 2 Region Description

    • 3 Objectives

    • 4 Resource Management Strategies

    • 5 Integration or Supporting Strategies – SCWA Groundwater

    • 6 Project Review Process

    • 7 Impacts and Benefits

    • 8 Plan Performance and Monitoring

    • 9 Data Management

    • 10 Financing

    • 11 Technical Analysis

    • 12 Relation to Local Water Planning

    • 13 Relation to Local Land Use Planning

    • 14a Stakeholder Involvement / Part I – Outreach – General

    • 14b Stakeholder Involvement / Part II – Outreach – DAC & Tribal

    • 14c Stakeholder Involvement / Part III – Outreach – Local Govt.

    • 14d Stakeholder Involvement / Part IV – Plan Update

    • 15 Coordination

    • 16 Climate Change

    • 17 Preparation of Updated IRWM Plan


    6 project review process

    6.PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS

    • Subtasks:

    • Document process for submitting a project for inclusion in the IRWM Plan;

    • Develop and implement review process for projects considered for inclusion into the IRWM Plan;

    • Support sub-regional project review process

    • Add new regional projects into the Plan

    • Add new sub-regional projects into the Plan

    • Update prioritization of implementation projects

    • Develop and implement procedure for communicating the list of selected projects

    • Schedule- ~ Sep. 2011- June 2012


    Plan update schedule

    Plan Update Schedule

    • http://bairwmp.org/events/coordinating-commitee-meetings/cc-meetings-2011/cc-meeting-december-19/CC%20Attachments%2012-19-2011.pdf

    • Overall Schedule

      December 2011- August 2013

    • Project Review Process

      Now- > November 2012


    2009 north bay process designed for grant submittal

    2009 -North Bay Processdesigned for grant submittal

    • Include Solano

    • Lead for Sub- region-NBWA

    • NBWA Watershed Council will advise

    • Propose 3 steps

      • 1) Meeting of all counties to review Guidance

      • 2) Integrated County meetings to include all stakeholders

      • 3) All counties in one meeting to review input


    North bay approach plan update

    North Bay ApproachPlan Update

    County Leads

    * Liz Lewis, Marin County(Chris Choo)

    *Rick Thomasser, Napa County

    *Dave Okita, Solano County Water Agency

    (Chris Lee)

    * Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency


    Next steps north bay process for plan update

    Next StepsNorth Bay Process for Plan Update

    1) Meeting of all county leads- Nov. 2011

    -develop guidance

    - update stakeholder lists

    2) County meetings- early 2012

    -develop preliminary list of projects

    - emphasis on integrated projects

    3) Meeting of all county leads

    - to review input Spring 2012


    Projects1

    Projects

    • Template

      http://bairwmp.org/docs/irwmp-projects/IRWMP%20Project%20Template%20Updated_06.07.10.doc/view

    • Used for Prop 84 Round 1


    Template outline

    Template Outline

    • Project Name:

    • Responsible agency:

    • Other Participating Agencies:

    • Summary Description:

    • Prop 50 Water Management Strategies:

    • Primary Water Strategy:

    • Project Benefits (Prop 84)

    • Purpose and Need:

    • Project Status and Schedule:

    • Readiness to Proceed:

    • Integration with Other Activities:

    • Cost and Financing:


    Template outline cont d

    Template Outline (cont’d)

    • Benefits and Impacts:

    • Disadvantaged Communities/ Environmental Justice:

    • Environmental Compliance Strategy:

    • Statewide Priorities:

    • Stakeholder Involvement and Coordination:

    • Documentation of Feasibility:

    • Detailed Project Description:


    New draft project submittal form

    New Draft ProjectSubmittal Form

    1) Concept

    2) Collaboration

    3) Detailed Project Information for Scoring

    4) Cost- Benefits


    Concept

    Concept

    - Name of Project

    • Subregion (check all that apply)□ North□ East□ South□ West

    • County(ies)

    • Sponsoring agency/organization

    • Other participating or partnering agencies/organizations

    • Contact person

    • Contact person e-mail

    • Contact person phone

    • Basic project description

    • Project website (if any)

    • Estimated project cost

    • Does the agency/organization have the required 25% matching funds? □ Yes □ No

    • Estimated project completion date


    Collaboration

    Collaboration

    • This section includes information that may be useful to others to determine if one or more projects could be combined to make a more integrated project with multiple benefits and thus more competitive for grant purposes.

    • In what watershed tributary is the project located?

    • Will project be located on public or private land?

    • Indicate if the project is an element or phase of a regional or larger program and, if so, what the regional or larger program is.


    Details for scoring

    Details for Scoring

    • Detailed Project Description

      • Provide a detailed description of the project including the general project concept, what will be constructed/implemented, how the constructed project will function, and treatment methods, as appropriate, etc.

      • Indicate if the project is an element or phase of a regional or larger program and, if so, what the regional or larger program is.

      • Proposed construction/implementation start date

      • Proposed construction/implementation completion date

      • Indicate the status of the following:

        • Conceptual plans

        • Land acquisition/easements

        • Preliminary plans

        • CEQA/NEPA

        • Construction drawings (including percent completion)

        • Funding

        • Readiness to proceed

      • List documents that contain information specific to the propose project description and links to those that may be found online.

    • Detailed Project Location

      • Latitude

      • Longitude

      • List any applicable surface water bodies and groundwater basins associated with the proposed project.

    • Project Need

      • Provide a description of the need(s) or problem(s) that the project will address. As applicable, discuss the water supply need, operational efficiency need, water quality need, or resource stewardship [e.g. ecosystem restoration, floodplain management] need. Discuss critical impacts that will occur if the proposal is not implemented.

      • List any additional documents that contain information specific to the needs of the propose project and links to those that may be found online.


    Details for scoring cont d

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    • Project Benefits

      • Provide a detailed descriptive summary of the benefit(s) that the project will address. These should include benefits to any of the following that may apply:

        • Water Supply (conservation, recycled water, groundwater recharge, surface storage, etc.)

        • Water Quality

        • Flood Management

        • Resource Stewardship (watershed management, habitat protection and restoration, recreation, open space, etc.)

      • Does the project reduce water supply demands on the Bay/Delta Estuary?

      • Does the project address any known environmental justice issues?

      • Is the project located within or adjacent to a disadvantaged community?

      • Does the project include disadvantaged community participation?


    Details for scoring cont d1

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    • Detailed Project Costs

      • Lower estimated total capital cost

      • Upper estimated total capital cost

      • Land/easement cost

      • Annual operations and maintenance cost

      • Funding source for annual operations and maintenance

      • Design life of the project (years)

    • Statewide Priorities (check all that the project addresses)

  • □ Drought Preparedness

  • □ Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently

  • □ Climate Change Response Actions

  • □ Expand Environmental Stewardship

  • □ Practice Integrated Flood Management

  • □ Protect Surface and Groundwater Quality

  • □ Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources

  • □ Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits


  • Details for scoring cont d2

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    • California Water Plan Resource Management Strategies(check all that apply). Please see page 45 of Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010.

  • □ Reduce Water Demand

  • □ Improved Operational Efficiency and Transfers

  • □ Increase Water Supply

  • □ Improve Water Quality

  • □ Improve Flood Management

  • □ Practice Resources Stewardship

  • □ Other Strategies

    • Eligibility Criteria

  • □ Groundwater Management Plan

  • □ Urban Water Management Plan

  • □ Water Meter Requirements

  • □ Groundwater Monitoring Requirements


  • Details for scoring cont d3

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    Multiple Benefits – for Proposition 84 grants(check all that apply – at least one must be checked)

    • □ Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency

    • □ Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management

    • □ Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands

    • □ Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring

    • □ Groundwater recharge and management projects

    • □ Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users

    • □ Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality

    • □ Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs

    • □ Watershed protection and management

    • □ Drinking water treatment and distribution

    • □ Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection

      • Exceptions to above (if none are checked)

    • □ Projects that directly address a critical water quality or supply issue in a DAC

    • □ Urban water suppliers implementing certain BMPs as on page 17 of Guidelines


    Details for scoring cont d4

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    • Bay Area IRWM Plan Goals and Objectives(check all that apply)

      Promotion of economic, social, and environmental sustainability

  • □ Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating net impacts to environment

  • □ Maintaining and promoting economic and environmental sustainability through sound water resources management practices

  • □ Maximizing external support and partnerships

  • □ Maximizing ability to get outside funding

  • □ Maximizing economies of scale and governmental efficiencies

  • □ Providing trails and recreation opportunities

  • □ Protecting cultural resources

  • □ Increasing community outreach and education for watershed health

  • □ Maximizing community involvement and stewardship

  • □ Reducing energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate

  • □ Minimizing solid waste generation/maximize reuse

  • □ Engaging public agencies, businesses, and the public in stormwater pollution prevention and watershed management, including decision -making

  • □ Achieving community awareness of local flood risks, including potential risks in areas protected by existing projects

  • □ Considering and addressing disproportionate community impacts

  • □ Balancing needs for all beneficial uses of water

  • □ Securing funds to implement solutions


  • Details for scoring cont d5

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    Improved supply reliability

    • □ Meeting future and dry year demands

    • □ Maximizing water use efficiency

    • □ Minimizing vulnerability of infrastructure to catastrophes and security breaches

    • □ Maximizing control within the Bay Area region

    • □ Preserving highest quality supplies for highest use

    • □ Protecting against overdraft

    • □ Providing for groundwater recharge while maintaining groundwater resources

    • □ Increasing opportunities for recycled water use consistent with health and safety

    • □ Maintaining a diverse portfolio of water supplies to maximize flexibility

    • □ Securing funds to implement solutions


    Details for scoring cont d6

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    Protection and improvement of the quality of water resources

    • □ Minimizing point and non-point source pollution

    • □ Reducing salinity-related problems

    • □ Reducing mass loading of pollutants to surface waters

    • □ Minimizing taste and odor problems

    • □ Preserving natural stream buffers and floodplains to improve filtration of point and non-point source pollutants

    • □ Maintaining health of whole watershed, upland vegetation and land cover to reduce runoff quantity and improve runoff quality

    • □ Protecting surface and groundwater resources from pollution and degradation

    • □ Anticipating emerging contaminants

    • □ Eliminating non-stormwater pollutant discharges to storm drains

    • □ Reducing pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent practicable

    • □ Periodically evaluating beneficial uses

    • □ Continuously improving stormwater pollution prevention methods

    • □ Securing funds to implement solutions


    Details for scoring cont d7

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    Protection of public health, safety, and property

    • □ Providing clean, safe, reliable drinking water

    • □ Minimizing variability for treatment

    • □ Advancing technology through feasibility studies/demonstrations

    • □ Meeting promulgated and expected drinking water quality standards

    • □ Managing floodplains to reduce flood damages to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation

    • □ Minimizing health impacts associated with polluted waterways

    • □ Achieving effective floodplain management by encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas

    • □ Maintaining performance of flood protection and stormwater facilities

    • □ Partnering with municipalities to prepare mitigation action plans that reduce flood risks to the community

    • □ Coordinating resources and mutual aid between agencies to enhance agency effectiveness

    • □ Securing funds to implement solutions


    Details for scoring cont d8

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    • Creation, protection, enhancement, and maintenance of environmental resources and habitats

  • □ Providing net benefits to environment

  • □ Conserving and restoring habitat for species protection

  • □ Acquiring, protecting and/or restoring wetlands, streams, and riparian areas

  • □ Enhancing wildlife populations and biodiversity (species richness)

  • □ Providing lifecycle support (shelter, reproduction, feeding)

  • □ Protecting and recovering fisheries (natural habitat and harvesting)

  • □ Protecting wildlife movement/wildlife corridors

  • □ Managing pests and invasive species

  • □ Recovering at-risk native and special status species

  • □ Improving structural complexity (riparian and channel)

  • □ Designing and constructing natural flood protection and stormwater facilities

  • □ Securing funds to implement solutions


  • Details for scoring cont d9

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    • Climate Change (check all those that indicate to what extent the project contributes to climate change response actions)

      • Adaptation to Climate Change

  • □ Increases water supply reliability

  • □ Advances/ expands conjunctive management of multiple water supply sources

  • □ Increases water use and/or reuse efficiency

  • □ Provides additional water supply

  • □ Promotes water quality protection

  • □ Reduces water demand

  • □ Advances/expands water recycling

  • □ Promotes urban runoff reuse

  • □ Addresses sea level rise

  • □ Addresses other anticipated Climate Change Impact (e.g. Through water management system modifications) Please State: ________________

  • □ Improves flood control (e.g. through wetlands restoration, management, protection)

  • Promotes habitat protection by:

  • □ Establishes migration corridors

  • □ Re-establishes river-floodplain hydrologic continuity

  • □ Re-introduces anadromous fish populations to upper watersheds

  • □ Enhances and protects upper watershed forests and meadow systems

  • □ Other (please state:_______________


  • Details for scoring cont d10

    Details for Scoring (cont’d)

    Climate Change

    Mitigation by Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and/or Energy Consumption

    • □ Increases water use efficiency or promotes energy-efficient water demand reduction

    • □ Improves water system energy efficiency

    • □ Advances/expands water recycling

    • □ Promotes urban runoff reuse

    • □ Promotes use of renewable energy sources

    • □ Contributes to carbon sequestration (e.g. through vegetation growth)

    • □ Other (please state: ___________________________________)

      • List any other project information that merits consideration


    Cost benefits

    COST-BENEFITS

    • We could highlight some of the requested information for Prop 84 implementation grant on Cost benefit which goes well beyond scoring information in requesting dollar estimates not just narrative benefits.

    • This could be presented as Info only with links to example tables so proponents on Notice that may be asked for more analysis BEFORE prioritization is completed.


    Prop 84 100 million left for bay area

    Prop 84 ~ $100 million left for Bay Area

    Sub-regions and watersheds

    Challenges

    • Developing more “Integrated” Projects

    • Including Disadvantaged Communities and Tribes

    • Including Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

    • Responding to Grant application cycles

      • Cost/Benefit Analysis


    Water bond 2012

    Water Bond 2012?

    $45

    • Proposed $1.05 Billion for IRWM

    • $1B Allocated to 12 Funding Areas

    • $50M Interregional

    $76

    $44

    $132

    $64

    $51

    $70

    $58

    $198

    $47

    $128

    $87

    $ in millions


    County meetings

    County Meetings

    • Marin- February 9 2:00- 4:00 pm

      -Marin County Civic Center –room 410-B

    • Napa- February 21 5:30 - 7:30 pm

      • Yountville Community Center

  • Sonoma- March 1 6:00-7:30 pm

    - Petaluma

  • Solano- No meeting scheduled


  • Bairwmp bay area integrated regional water management plan bairwmp

    Maps??

    • Questions??


  • Login