Transcript Details for Scoring (cont`d) - Bay Area Integrated Regional Water

North Bay Watershed
Association
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
-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 IRWMP
Regional
Function/ REGIONAL ENTITIES
Water Supply and Water Quality
*Bay Area Water Agencies CoalitionBAWAC
Wastewater and Recycled Water
*Bay Area Clean Water AgenciesBACWA
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
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

$ in millions
Requires consistency with IRWM
Plan
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
Process
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, and
 project 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
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/Pro
p84/GL_Final_07_20_10.pdf
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
Workplan
Funding match
Scientific Merit
F. A Balance?
Budget
Schedule
Mon. & Ass..& Perf. Meas.
WS-Econ. Anal.-Cost/benefit
W Q & Other benefits
Flood Damage-C/B
Program Preferences
Total
84
50
15
///////
////////
(5)
5
5
5
(20)-> 15
(5)-> 15
15
10
85
15
5 (10%)
15
////
5
5
5
15
10
?
5
80
Bay Area Implementation grant

“Regional” Projects

One applicant-BACWA

Cost Benefit Analysis
Projects

Regional Recycling

Regional Water Conservation
Grant request
($10 m)
($ 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-~ $30.094 m
Recycling-North Bay
 NBWRA
Projects
 Novato
North- NMWD$ 500k
 Novato South-Hamilton-LGVSD - $ 500k
 Napa State Hospital-Napa San.- $ 500k
 Sonoma Valley- SCVSD/ SCWA- $ 500k

Peacock Gap- MMWD-
$ 500k
Total= $2.5 m
Regional Recycling

Match-$, 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 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

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… 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)
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
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 treatmentSTRAW)

North Bay Share
Project
North bay
share
$ 2.5 m
%
Recycling
Funds
requested
$10 m
Conservation
$ 9.202 m
$ 3.078 m
~ 33.4 %
Green
Infrastructure
Wetlands
$4.315 m
0
$3.75 m
$1.25 m
33.3 %
Integrated…
DAC
Total
$ 2.182 m
~ $666k
~ 30 %
~ $ 29.5 m
~ $ 7.49 m
~25 %
25 %
0
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

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





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 plan
Salt and Nutrient Management Planning
$205k request & 50% match ( 25 % cash, 25% in kind)
Plan Elements

1
2
3
4
5

6
Project Review Process

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Impacts and Benefits
Plan Performance and Monitoring
Data Management
Financing
Technical Analysis
Relation to Local Water Planning
Relation to Local Land Use Planning

14a
14b
14c
14d
Stakeholder Involvement / Part I – Outreach – General
Stakeholder Involvement / Part II – Outreach – DAC & Tribal
Stakeholder Involvement / Part III – Outreach – Local Govt.
Stakeholder Involvement / Part IV – Plan Update

15
Coordination

16
Climate Change

17
Preparation of Updated IRWM Plan













Governance
Region Description
Objectives
Resource Management Strategies
Integration or Supporting Strategies – SCWA Groundwater
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/coordinatingcommitee-meetings/cc-meetings-2011/ccmeeting-december19/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




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
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
1) Meeting of all county leads-develop guidance
- update stakeholder lists
Nov. 2011
2) County meetingsearly 2012
-develop preliminary list of projects
- emphasis on integrated projects
3) Meeting of all county leads
- to review input
Spring 2012
Projects
Template
http://bairwmp.org/docs/irwmpprojects/IRWMP%20Project%20Template%20
Updated_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 Project
Submittal Form
1) Concept
2) Collaboration
3) Detailed Project Information for Scoring
4) Cost- Benefits
Concept




Name of Project
Subregion (check all that apply)
County(ies)
□ North
□ East
□ South
□ West
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)











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


California Water Plan Resource Management Strategies (check all
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 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


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 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
$45
Proposed $1.05 Billion for IRWM
$76
$44
•
$1B Allocated to 12 Funding Areas
•
$50M Interregional
$132
$64
$51
$58
$70
$198
$47
$128
$87
$ in millions
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
- Petaluma
6:00-7:30 pm

Solano- No meeting scheduled
Maps??

Questions??