MADERA COUNTY STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN TAC Meeting #2 August - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
madera county
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

MADERA COUNTY STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN TAC Meeting #2 August - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 30, 2022 181 likes •444 views

MADERA COUNTY STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN TAC Meeting #2 August 30th, 2017 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E

slide-1
SLIDE 1

MADERA COUNTY

STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN

C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N )

TAC Meeting #2

August 30th, 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

10:30 Introductions (10 mins)

Meet the SWRP team and other TAC Members

10:40 Project Prioritization Approach with Examples (30 mins)

Review the prioritization process and results for the fjrst 3 SWRP projects

M e e t i n g A g e n d a

11:10 New Project Solicitation & Concept Development (30 mins)

Receive TAC input and suggestions on project solicitation approach and identifjcation of new project concepts to develop for inclusion in the SWRP

11:40 Scheduling Future Meetings (10 mins)

Meeting #3 In-Person: Wk of October 16 Meeting #4 Conference Call: Early November

11:50 Time for Questions

http://www.maderacountywater.com/storm-water-resource-plan-swrp/

slide-3
SLIDE 3 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • I. SWRP PROCESS: Project Prioritization Approach

Project Ranking

An objective method to rank project relative to a set of stormwater multi-benefjts with two components:

  • 1. Spatial Prioritization Analysis:

Identify areas of greatest stormwater/dry weather fmow impacts/potential benefjts.

  • 2. Project Multi-Benefits Assessment

Combine multiple criteria for estimating overall value from SW multi-benefjts of projects.

Water Supply Water Quality Flooding Environmental Community

slide-4
SLIDE 4 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • I. SWRP PROCESS: Project Prioritization Approach

Criteria

Metrics

Water quality

Impacts + Potential Benefits Quantitative measure of criteria Modeled runoff Modeled pollutant loading Sold erodibility Length of impaired WB Impervious area Dry weather water use GW elevation change Subsidence GW recharge potential Potential flooded area

Water supply Flood risk

slide-5
SLIDE 5 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • I. SWRP PROCESS: Project Prioritization Approach
slide-6
SLIDE 6 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • I. SWRP PROCESS: Project Prioritization Approach

Draft Regional Spatial Outputs

Overall regional benefjt opportunity score

slide-7
SLIDE 7 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • I. SWRP PROCESS: Project Prioritization Approach

Initial Projects Assessment

slide-8
SLIDE 8 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • I. SWRP PROCESS: Project Prioritization Approach
slide-9
SLIDE 9 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Criteria Weighting

Scoring Projects Based on Weighted Criteria For each of the multi-benefjt criteria: Step #1: Determine the Project Score Project Score is a measure of how well a project satisfjes the criteria. Step #2: Project Score x Criteria Weight = Criteria Score Step #3: Sum of all Criteria Scores = Final Project Score Final Project Score is a measure of how well a project satisfjes ALL the criteria Step #4: Compare Final Project Scores of all Projects and Rank Projects

slide-10
SLIDE 10 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. . SWRP PROCESS: Criteria Weighting

Stakeholder Criteria Weighting

Located in Watershed with Water Supply Impacts Water Supply Benefjts DAC Benefjts Located in a Watershed with Water Quality Impacts Water Quality Benefjts Project Development Environmental Benefjts Flood Management Benefjts Project Capital Cost Community Benefjts Project Readiness

HIGH LOW

slide-11
SLIDE 11 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Criteria Weighting

Input from Stakeholder Meeting #1 - July 13, 2017

Stakeholder Input Category Prioritization Criteria/Benefit Total Votes Criteria Weight risk Project Readiness 1 1% community benefits Community Benefits 2 3% project capital cost Project Capital Cost 3 4% flood management Flood Management 4 6% environmental benefits Environmental (Protection and Improvement) 6 9% project development 1 regional projects 6 water quality Water Quality 7 10% dac benefits Benefit to a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) 8 11% appropriate allocations 1 residental project location benefits water supply 3 water supply 8 project location benefits water supply 10 groundwater recharge 10 Total 70 100% 46% Project Development 10% Water Supply

slide-12
SLIDE 12 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Prioritization of Example Project

Ex Project 1: Root Creek Avenue 10 Intentional Recharge Project Divert stormwater from a new development to a 40 ac recharge area.

Figure 1-1
  • Att. 3.4 - 13
  • 15
slide-13
SLIDE 13 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1 County of Madera Boundary HUC12 watersheds
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Prioritization of Example Project
County of Madera Boundary HUC12 watersheds County of Madera Boundary HUC12 watersheds

Criteria Weight Possible Points Project Score Proposed 3 Flood Impacts

Potential Flooded Area

Acres From Watershed Modeling Analysis 31% 2.40 2 Water Supply Impacts

Is the project located in, and/or directly benefit a subwatershed with identified water supply impacts?

Yes/No 1 Spatial Prioritization Analysis Water Quality Impacts Is the project located in, and/or directly benefit a subwatershed with identified water quality impacts? Yes/No Project Prioritization Inputs Criteria Number Project Task Criteria/Benefit Criteria Description Unit of Measurement Rating Scale (1-10) Critiera Score (Project Score x Criteria Weight)

Example Project: Root Creek Avenue 10 Intentional Recharge Project

slide-14
SLIDE 14 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Prioritization of Example Project

Example Project: Root Creek Avenue 10 Intentional Recharge Project

Criteria Weight Possible Points Project Score Proposed

  • a. Support compliance with applicable permit

and/or TMDL requirements Yes/No 3 3

  • b. Increase the filtration and/or treatment of

runoff Volume Treated 3 2

  • c. Provide nonpoint source pollution control

Pollutant Load Reduction 2

  • d. Re-establish natural water drainage and

treatment Volume Treated 2

  • a. Water supply reliability

3 3

  • b. Water conservation

2

  • c. Conjunctive use

3 3

  • a. Decrease flood risk by reducing runoff

rate and/or volume 7 7

  • b. Reduce sanitary sewer

3 4 Watershed - Based Modeling Water Quality 5% 0.25 5 Water Supply Volume Added or Saved 23% 1.37 6 Flood Management Volume Decreased 3% 0.20 Criteria Number Project Task Criteria/Benefit Criteria Description Unit of Measurement Rating Scale (1-10)

slide-15
SLIDE 15 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Prioritization of Example Project

Example Project: Root Creek Avenue 10 Intentional Recharge Project

Criteria Weight Possible Points Project Score Proposed

  • a. Provide environmental and habitat

protection improvement, via

  • i. Wetland enhancement/creation;
  • ii. Riparian enhancement; and/or
  • iii. Instream flow improvement
  • b. Reduce energy use, greenhouse gas

emissions, or provide carbon sink 1

  • c. Reestablish the natural hydrograph

3

  • d. Increase urban green space

1

  • e. Improve water temperature

1 8 Benefit to a Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Is the project located in, and/or directly benefit a DAC? Yes/No and Size 10 10 11% 1.14 9 Project Capital Cost Compares the estimated capital cost for each project, with the most expensive alternatives ranking less favorably. Dollars 10 5 4% 0.21 Rating Scale (1-10) Critiera Score (Project Score x Criteria Weight) 7 Project Solicitation Environmental (Protection and Improvement) Yes/No, Size and/or Rate 4 4 9% 0.34 Criteria Number Project Task Criteria/Benefit Criteria Description Unit of Measurement

slide-16
SLIDE 16 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Prioritization of Example Project

Sum of all Criteria Project Scores = 6.84/10 Example Project: Root Creek Avenue 10 Intentional Recharge Project

Criteria Weight Possible Points Project Score Proposed

  • a. Employment opportunities

2.5 1.5

  • b. Community Involvement

2.5

  • c. Public education

2.5

  • d. Enhance and/or create recreational and

public use areas 2.5

  • a. Project Developed Using a Metrics Driven

Approach? 5 5

  • b. Does the project provide Regional

Benefits? 5 3

  • a. Is the project ready to implement?

2

  • b. Is the project cost well defined?

2 1

  • c. Is the land currently owned by a public

agency or does it need to be acquired? 2 2

  • d. Is the environmental permitting process

complete or not yet started? 2

  • e. Does the lead agency have funds

available to satisfy the 50% local funding match? 2 2 10% 0.50 12 Project Readiness Yes/No and/or % 1% 0.07 Critiera Score (Project Score x Criteria Weight) 10 Project Solicitation Community Benefits Size and/or # 3% 0.04 11 Project Development Yes/No and % Criteria Number Project Task Criteria/Benefit Criteria Description Unit of Measurement Rating Scale (1-10)

slide-17
SLIDE 17 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • I. SWRP PROCESS: Project Prioritization Approach

Initial Projects Assessment

slide-18
SLIDE 18 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • II. SWRP PROCESS: Questions or Comments?
infiltration retention storage filtration infiltration evapotranspiration biodiversity treatment

How can we transform the roof? How can we transform the walls? How can we transform the ground?

building

LID

Overview

Buildings present ready opportunities for harvesting

stormwater runoff from roofs through small-scale embedded
  • technologies. LID facilities are one aspect of “smart building”
development that optimize feedback between environment and building to achieve net energy production, or regenerative development (versus sustainable development, which is carbon neutral). LID facilities are chosen according to the level of ecological service desired. The simplest service is groundwater recharge from roof stormwater runoff. Gutters and leaders that channel rainwater create concentrated discharges and are avoided in favor of devices that slow, spread, and soak rainwater throughout the site. A higher level of service involves vegetated or green roofs, which absorb and evaporate rainwater through a cultivated plant and soil community. Green roofs are superior building insulators, minimizing heating and cooling demands. Green walls minimize solar gain during the summer and wind loading during the winter. Rainwater harvesting offers three basic levels of service, involving storage cisterns with options for treatment. The simplest service is rainwater reuse for outdoor landscape
  • irrigation. A more complex harvesting service incorporates a
greywater building supply with additional treatment for non- potable water uses like toilet flushing and landscape irrigation. The highest level of service involves harvesting for potable (drinking) water which requires UV light disinfection for a private water system, and when combined with water from a public utility includes proper back-flow prevention. Placement of LID facilities on a building site should be carefully considered. Infiltration and treatment facilities can be used next to a building to capture roof runoff. Infiltration facilities, however, should be located at least 10 feet away from buildings, as they may cause the shrinking and swelling
  • f soils, which can negatively affect foundations.

Input at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRDXKKV

slide-19
SLIDE 19 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Development of New Project Concepts

Approach for Soliciting & Developing New Projects

  • Project Solicitation Form (deadline extended to 9/15)
  • Technical Assistance to Develop Project Concepts ofgered to local

Stakeholders:

  • Madera Irrigation District, Chowchilla Irrigation District, City of

Chowchilla, Gravelly Ford Water District, Self Help Enterprises, Root Creek Water District, Community of Fairmead

  • Posting informational fmyers in Madera Tribune & Ranchos Ind.
slide-20
SLIDE 20 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Development of New Project Concepts

Approach for Soliciting & Developing New Projects, cont’d

  • Review of 2011 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Project List:
  • City of Madera:“Provide stormwater drainage improvements to reduce

frequent fmooding, such as downtown stormwater drains, basins, trunk lines, auxiliary pipes, and interconnections.”

  • City of Chowchilla: “Provide stormwater drainage improvements to

reduce frequent fmooding, such as City downtown stormwater drains, basins (Truman Pond), trunk lines, auxiliary pipes, and interconnections.”

slide-21
SLIDE 21 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Development of New Project Concepts

Approach for Soliciting & Developing New Projects, cont’d

  • Review of 2014 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan:
  • City of Madera:

“Fresno River Consolidated Stormwater Quality Enhancement Project”? “City of Madera / MID Schmidt Creek Recharge and Flood Control Project”?

  • City of Chowchilla:

“Regulating/Recharge Basins in CWD by joint use of City of Chowchilla Basins”?

  • Madera Ranchos:

North & South Detention Basins

slide-22
SLIDE 22 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • III. SWRP PROCESS: Development of New Project Concepts

Approach for Soliciting & Developing New Projects, cont’d

  • Identifjcation of New Project Concepts on City owned Parcels
  • Publicly Owned Parcels (e.g., Chowchilla, Firebaugh, Madera) > 1 Acre
  • Where particulate generation > 0.016 T/ac/y or Runofg > 0.23 AF/ac/yr
  • Site Visits to Evaluate Opportunities
  • Urban Green Infrastructure (LID) Retrofjts
  • Demonstration Projects with High Public Visibility

slow spread soak

flow control detention retention filtration infiltration treatment
slide-23
SLIDE 23 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • IV. SWRP PROCESS: Questions or Comments?

Do you have specifjc suggestions for new Storm Water project locations in Madera County? Do you have recommendations for our Project Team about how we should identify new project locations and/or project proponents? Input at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HRDXKKV

slide-24
SLIDE 24 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • VII. SWRP PROCESS: Schedule

» July - Sept. 2017: Call for Projects! » August - Sept.2017: Project Concept Development & Project Prioritization (TAC Meeting #2 Today) » October 2017: Draft SWRP ready for public review and comment (TAC Meeting #3: Review of new project concepts, draft fjnal prioritization

  • f all projects, and delivery of the Draft SWRP document for review and

comment) » November 2017: Public & Stakeholder Meeting #2 (TAC Meeting #4) » December 2017: Final SWRP

slide-25
SLIDE 25 C o u n t y o f M a d e r a | F a l l C r e e k E n g i n e e r i n g | S i e r r a W a t e r s h e d P r o g r e s s i v e | 2 N D N AT U R E ( 2 N ) M a d e r a C o u n t y S W R P TA C M e e t i n g # 1
  • VIII. SWRP PROCESS: Next Steps

» SOLICIT project information from Stakeholders and Community Members via Project Solicitation Form VISIT: http://www.maderacountywater.com/storm-water-resource-plan-swrp/ Submit forms by September 15, 2017 (Deadline Extended from 8/21/17) » Identify and develop NEW project concepts for inclusion in the SWRP » Present project prioritization results and draft SWRP October 2017

Please direct any questions about the SWRP to Dario Dominguez at dario.dominguez@co.madera.ca.gov