BAIRWMPBay 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-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

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 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 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 IRWMPRegional

Function/ REGIONAL ENTITIESWater Supply and Water Quality*Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition- BAWACWastewater and Recycled Water*Bay Area Clean Water Agencies- BACWA http://www.bacwa.org/Flood Protection and Stormwater ManagementBay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association

BAFPAAWatershed Management/Habitat Protection and RestorationBay Area Watershed Network BAWN

Bay Area IRWMP CC

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

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

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

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 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

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

Over 100 people attended Emphasis on Integration Focus on “sub regions”

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 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

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

Required under Prop 84 2009 Process Important Themes for Bay Area

- Consensus Approach- Developing sub-regions- Ability to rank projects- Developing “Regional” projects

RegionAcceptan

ceProcess

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

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

Sub-regions were created to

foster outreach, coordination,project solicitation, andproject integration

Bay Area Sub Regions

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

2006 plan used “cohorts”-Evaluated but did not rank projects

-Evaluation can be converted to a score and ranking

Project Evaluation

Prop 84 PSP and Grant requirements

*One applicant

*Scoring process

* Cost/Benefit

GUIDELINESAugust 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

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 50Workplan 15 15

Funding match /////// 5 (10%)Scientific Merit //////// 15F. A Balance? (5) ////Budget 5 5Schedule 5 5Mon. & Ass..& Perf. Meas.

5 5

WS-Econ. Anal.-Cost/benefit

(20)-> 15

15

W Q & Other benefits (5)-> 15 10Flood Damage-C/B 15 ?Program Preferences 10 5Total 85 80

Bay Area Implementation grant

“Regional” Projects

One applicant-BACWA

Cost Benefit Analysis

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 BayNBWRA 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

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

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

Match $ 6,438,872 (42 %)Total- ~

$15.4 mAcre feet- 25,546 over 10 yearsCost / acre –ft- ~ $6052009 costs- $12.7 mBenefit- 10 year present value- ~ $ 25

m

Regional Green Infrastructure

North Bay No North bay projects

Napa Rainwater harvesting shifted to conservation for administration purposes.

Bay Area Wetlands –North bay

Sears Point- $1.25 m

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… Components1. 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)

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% - $

216kNorth bay share of $379 for Steelhead

Napa and Sonoma ~$ 250 k

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 DACs2009 annualized costs-$1.6 m

Benefits- $ 2.1 m ( stormwater treatment- STRAW)

North Bay ShareProject 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 %

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 competition50% match, Max $ 30 m

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-$25 m, San Francisquito Creek JPA-$ 8mNot funded- Redwood City Pump station-$ 8 m

North bay Marin County FCWCD/ MMWD -Phoenix Lake- $7.66m

Plan Update and Projects

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

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 planSalt and Nutrient Management Planning

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

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 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

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

Overall ScheduleDecember 2011- August 2013

Project Review ProcessNow- > November 2012

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 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 StepsNorth Bay Process for Plan

Update1) 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

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

Used for Prop 84 Round 1

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)

Benefits and Impacts: Disadvantaged Communities/ Environmental

Justice: Environmental Compliance Strategy: Statewide Priorities: Stakeholder Involvement and Coordination: Documentation of Feasibility: Detailed Project Description:

New Draft ProjectSubmittal Form

1) Concept

2) Collaboration

3) Detailed Project Information for Scoring

4) Cost- Benefits

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 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 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)

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’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’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’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’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’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’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’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’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’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’d)

Climate ChangeMitigation 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 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

Sub-regions and watershedsChallenges 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?$45

$76

$44

$51

$47

$132

$64

$70$58

$198$128

$87

$ in millions

Proposed $1.05 Billion for IRWM

• $1B Allocated to 12 Funding Areas

• $50M Interregional

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

Maps??

Questions??