BAIRWMP Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan http://bairwmp.org/

1

2
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

3
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

4
Integrated Regional Water 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

5
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

6
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

7
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

8
Bay Area IRWMP CC
9
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

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
BAFPAA/BAWN Joint Conference

• June 16,2011- Flood Protection Watershed
  Restoration Joint Workshop
• Over 100 people attended
• Emphasis on Integration
• Focus on sub regions

15
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

16
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

17

• 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
18
(No Transcript)
19
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

20
RegionAcceptanceProcess
21
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

22

• Regional Acceptance Process
• IRWM Regions
• 36 Approved Regions
• 10 Conditionally Approved Regions

23
Sub-regions were created to

• foster outreach,
• coordination,
• project solicitation, and
• project integration

24
Bay Area Sub Regions
25
(No Transcript)
26
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

27
Project Prioritization

• 2006 plan used cohorts
• -Evaluated but did not rank projects
• -Evaluation can be converted to a score and
  ranking

28
Project Evaluation
29
Prop 84 PSP and Grant requirements

• One applicant
• Scoring process
• Cost/Benefit

30

• 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/Prop8
  4/GL_Final_07_20_10.pdf

31
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

32
Scoring 84 50
Workplan 15 15
Funding match /////// 5 (10)
Scientific Merit //////// 15
F. A Balance? (5) ////
Budget 5 5
Schedule 5 5
Mon. Ass.. Perf. Meas. 5 5
WS-Econ. Anal.-Cost/benefit (20)-gt 15 15
W Q Other benefits (5)-gt 15 10
Flood Damage-C/B 15 ?
Program Preferences 10 5
Total 85 80
33
Bay Area Implementation grant

• Regional Projects
• One applicant-BACWA
• Cost Benefit Analysis

34
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

35
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

36
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

37
Water Conservation Components
38
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

39
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

40
Regional Green InfrastructureNorth Bay

• No North bay projects
• Napa Rainwater harvesting shifted to conservation
  for administration purposes.

41
Bay Area Wetlands North bay

• Sears Point- 1.25 m

42
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

43
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)

44
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

45
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)

46
North Bay Share
Project Funds requested North bay share
Recycling 10 m 2.5 m 25
Conservation 9.202 m 3.078 m 33.4
Green Infrastructure 4.315 m 0 0
Wetlands 3.75 m 1.25 m 33.3
Integrated DAC 2.182 m 666k 30
Total 29.5 m 7.49 m 25
47
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

48
1-E results

• Sep. 21 DWR Draft Funding recommendations
  http//www.water.ca.gov/irwm/integregio_stormwater
  flood.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

49
Plan Update and Projects

• Elements and schedule
• Emphasis on integration
• Project Template
• Future County Meetings
• Maps?

50
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)

51
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

52
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

53
Plan Update Schedule

• http//bairwmp.org/events/coordinating-commitee-me
  etings/cc-meetings-2011/cc-meeting-december-19/CC
  20Attachments2012-19-2011.pdf
• Overall Schedule
• December 2011- August 2013
• Project Review Process
• Now- gt November 2012

54
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

55
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

56
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

57
Projects

• Template
• http//bairwmp.org/docs/irwmp-projects/IRWMP20Pro
  ject20Template20Updated_06.07.10.doc/view
• Used for Prop 84 Round 1

58
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

59
Template Outline (contd)

• Benefits and Impacts
• Disadvantaged Communities/ Environmental Justice
• Environmental Compliance Strategy
• Statewide Priorities
• Stakeholder Involvement and Coordination
• Documentation of Feasibility
• Detailed Project Description

60
New Draft ProjectSubmittal Form

• 1) Concept
• 2) Collaboration
• 3) Detailed Project Information for Scoring
• 4) Cost- Benefits

61
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

62
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.

63
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.

64
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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?

65
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

66
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

67
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

68
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

69
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

70
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

71
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

72
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

73
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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_______________

74
Details for Scoring (contd)

• 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

75
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.

76
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

77
(No Transcript)
78
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
79
County Meetings

• Marin- February 9 200- 400 pm
• -Marin County Civic Center room 410-B
• Napa- February 21 530 - 730 pm
• Yountville Community Center
• Sonoma- March 1 600-730 pm
• - Petaluma
• Solano- No meeting scheduled

80
Maps??

• Questions??