Public Workshop #3 Todays Agenda Welcome and Introductions Meeting - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Public Workshop #3

Presenters: Charles Gardiner Alyson Watson Hicham ElTal

February 26, 2013

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Summary of Technical Studies  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

2

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Summary of Technical Studies  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

3

Meeting Purpose

 Describe the regional planning process  Review the results of the call for projects  Provide an update on implementation grant activities  Discuss results of technical studies  Answer questions

4

Ground Rules

 Civility is required.

 Treat one another with courtesy.  Respect the personal integrity, values, motivations, and intentions of each participant.  Be honest, fair, and as candid as possible.  Participate with an open mind and respect for other’s interests.  Personal attacks and stereotyping will not be tolerated.

 Creativity is encouraged.

 Think outside the box and welcome new ideas.  Build on the ideas of others to improve results.  Disagreements will be treated as problems to be solved rather than battles to be won.

 Efficiency is important.

 Participate fully, without distractions.  Respect time constraints and be succinct.  Let one person speak at a time.

 Constructiveness is essential.

 Take responsibility for the group as a whole and ask for what you need.  Enter commitments honestly, and keep them.  Delay will not be employed as a tactic to avoid an undesired result.

5

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Technical Studies  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

6

Encourage Integrated Flood Management

Nearly Ten Years Ago, California Embarked on a New Adventure…

Protect communities from drought Protect and improve water quality Improve local water security Reduce dependence

• n imported water

 In November 2004, the IRWM Program was born  Promotes a new model for water management

 Encourages integrated strategies for water resources management at the regional level  Provides funding, through competitive grants

$500 M through Proposition 50 in 2003 $1 B through Proposition 84 in 2006 $300 M through Proposition 1E in 2006

7

Today, There Are 46 “Approved” IRWM Regions in California

 To be eligible for funding, Regions must:

 Be governed by a Regional Water Management Group with statutory authority

• ver water management

 Be approved through a structured “Regional Acceptance Process”  Prepare an IRWM Plan consistent with program standards

8

What Does An IRWM Plan Include?

IRWM Plan Standards Governance Data Management Region Description Finance Objectives Technical Analysis Resource Management Strategies Relation to Local Water Planning Integration Relation to Local Land Use Planning Project Review Process Stakeholder Involvement Impact and Benefit Coordination Plan Performance and Monitoring Climate Change

9

What is the Process for Developing and Implementing an IRWM Plan?

Establish Governance Structure Identify Objectives & Performance Measures Integrate Projects and Programs Identify Impacts and Benefits Secure Funding Implement Projects Implement Adaptive Management Prioritize Projects for Implementation

10

The Merced Region is Developing Its First Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

IRWM Plan Standards Existing Data and Information Regional Needs and Objectives New Technical Studies New Governance Structure Public Outreach

11

The Merced Region Encompasses the Northeastern Portion of Merced County

12

Regional Advisory Committee

 Approximately 40 members, representing

 Farming  Dairy  Water and wastewater agencies  Real estate  Public interests  Environment

13

RAC Purpose

 Advise the lead agencies in water resource issues  Assist with public communications

14

Why are we involved?

Water is a Precious Resource.  Future generations will need to use the same water we are using today  There are indications that we are negatively affecting the amount and quality of water available locally

15

 Eastside Bypass is Sinking by up to 5 ft Every 2 Years

Subsidence due to Groundwater Overpumping

16

Flood Management Needs

 A large portion of our county is in the 100 year flood area, including much of Planada and Merced

17

18

We want to Ensure that Our Residents are Safe and Protected from Flood Events

19

20

Water Quality

 Most of our drinking water comes from groundwater  There are some naturally-occurring contaminants in the groundwater such as arsenic  More importantly, humans are the cause of some contamination

21

1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (DBCP) in Groundwater

Preliminary evaluation of groundwater quality based on GeoTacker GAMA data. Subject to revision.

22

What can you do?

 Use less water both indoors and outdoors  Don’t dump pollutants on the ground  Use fewer chemicals

23

RAC Meetings

 All meetings are publically noticed and open to the public  Meetings are held on the fourth Tuesday of every month from 2:00 – 5:00 pm in the Sam Pipes Room

Date Meeting Topic(s) May 2012 Introduction to IRWM June 2012 Region Description, Objectives July 2012 Region Description, Objectives August 2012 Objectives, Resource Management Strategies September 2012 Project Review Process, Database overview October 2012 Prioritization Process, Call for Projects Date Meeting Topic(s) November 2012 Prioritized Projects, Governance December 2012 Special Studies, Governance January 2013 Plan Performance and Monitoring, Data Mgmt February 2013 Finance, Impacts and Benefits, Data Mgmt March 2013 Governance April 2013 Draft IRWM Plan May 2013 Final IRWM Plan 24 As noted during the workshop, the March meeting has been rescheduled; please check website www.mercedirwmp.org for latest schedule

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Technical Studies  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

25

Top Three Regional Objectives Reflect Key Regional Water Management Issues

 Manage flood flows for public safety, water supply, recharge, and natural resource management  Meet demands for all uses, including agriculture, urban, and environmental resource needs.  Correct groundwater overdraft conditions.

26

Technical Studies Developed Additional Information in Key Water Management Areas

27

Manage Flood Flows Meet Demands for All Uses Correct Groundwater Overdraft Conservation   Integrated Flood Management    Groundwater Recharge    Salt & Nutrient Management  Climate Change   

Water Conservation Study Findings

 Potential to increase urban conservation through metering and other programs  Surface water use for irrigation is a significant source of groundwater recharge in the region  The main benefits of conserving irrigation water are:

 Potential reductions in energy consumption  Water quality benefits  Increased supply to the Region, to the extent that net outflows are reduced

28

Flood Management Study Findings

 The Region’s extensive canal system is vulnerable to failure during excessive storm events  Flood management projects are needed to address channel capacity issues  Deadman Slough, Duck Slough (Mariposa Creek), Miles Creek, and Owens Creek lack adequate capacity to convey 100-year flows  Severe flooding occurs along Fahrens Creek and along the San Joaquin River

29

Groundwater Recharge Study Findings

A B C D

30

Salt and Nutrient Study Findings

 The Region’s water quality is generally good  Groundwater overdraft may lead to saline intrusion from the southwest portion of the region  Continued monitoring will be needed to maintain and improve water quality

31

Climate Change Study Findings

32 Vulnerability Description Water Demand Vulnerable to increased agricultural demands due to longer growing season, increased temperatures and evapotranspiration rates, and more frequent/severe

• droughts. Vulnerable to increased urban and commercial, industrial, and

institutional (CII) demand due to increased outside temperatures. Water Supply and Quality Vulnerable to decreased snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, shifts in timing of seasonal runoff, increased demands exacerbating groundwater overdraft, degraded surface and groundwater quality resulting from lower flows, exaggerated overdraft conditions, a reduction of meadows which can provide contaminant reduction, and more frequent/severe droughts and storm events increasing turbidity in surface supplies. Flood Management More severe/flashier storm events and earlier springtime runoff leading to increased flooding, and a reduction of meadows which help reduce floods in the winter. Hydropower Vulnerable to increased customer demand combined with changes in timing of seasonal runoff and flashier storm systems affecting reservoir storage. Ecosystem and Habitat Vulnerable to decreased snowpack, more frequent/severe droughts and wildfires, shift in seasonal runoff, increased low flow periods and increased water temperatures (degraded water quality).

Example Opportunities for Integrated Water Management

33

Example Opportunities Conservation Integrated Flood Mgmt GW Recharge Salts & Nutrients Climate Change Recharge Flood Water     Maximize Surface Water Rights     Implement Enhanced Conservation    Maximize Outreach and Education     

What’s next?

 Including technical study information in IRWM Plan (Region Description, Resource Management Strategies, Objectives, Impacts and Benefits, Project Review Process, Data Management, Technical Analysis and Plan Performance, Relation to Local Planning)  Identifying projects for inclusion in IRWM project database  Making studies available on the IRWM website: www.mercedirwmp.org

34

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Technical Studies  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

35

Project Submittal Summary

 75 Projects Submitted  Numerous Project Proponents

36

• MID
• City of Merced
• County of Merced
• Merced Streams Group
• Ballico Community Water Service District
• Chowchilla Water District
• City of Atwater
• City of Livingston
• East Merced Resource Conservation District
• Franklin County Water District
• Lake Yosemite Sailing Association
• Le Grand Community Service District
• Merquin County Water District
• Planada Community Services District
• Stevinson Water District and

Community of Stevinson

• UC Merced
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service

What will we do with the information submitted?

37

Criterion Plan Project List Implementation Grant Project List Number of Projects Unlimited 3-5 Total dollar value Unlimited ~$2 M Next steps Summarize projects for plan Develop comprehensive project analyses Main focus Meet regional objectives and priorities Implementation projects that are ready to go, meet state funding

• bjectives and meet regional

needs Timeframe Draft complete in March 2013 Application due in March 2013

Plan Project Review / Prioritization Process Applied to Submitted Projects

38

Screening Scoring & Ranking Excluded from IRWMP Tier 2 Project List Tier 1A Project List Tier 1 Project List

Proposed Projects Addresses One or More Objectives and Benefits the Region Top 50th Percentile Fails to Address at Least One Objective Project Integration and Re-Ranking/ Scoring Bottom 50th Percentile Future Phase of Other Tier 1 Project Does Not Benefit the Region

Project Prioritization Summary - Objectives

39

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 A: Manage flood flows B: Meet demands for all uses C: Correct groundwater overdraft D: Improve land use and water resources coord. E: Maximize water use efficiency F: Protect and improve water quality G: Protect, restore, and improve natural resources I: Protect and enhance water-associated recreation J: Establish and maintain effective stakeholder … K: Effectively address climate change L: Enhance understanding of water mgmt issues H: Address water-related needs of DACs Number of Project Achieving Objective Primary Objective Secondary Objective

Project Prioritization Summary – Resource Management Strategies

40

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Agricultural Water Use Efficiency Urban Water Use Efficiency Conveyance ‐ Regional/ Local System Reoperation Water Transfers Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage Recycled Municipal Wastewater Surface Storage ‐ Regional/ Local Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution Groundwater Remediation/ Aquifer Remediation Matching Quality to Use Pollution Prevention Salt and Salinity Management Urban Runoff Management Number of Projects Incorporating RMS

Project Prioritization Summary – Resource Management Strategies, cont’d

41

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Flood Risk Management Agricultural Land Stewardship Economic Incentive Ecosystem Restoration Forest Management Land Use Planning and Management Recharge Area Protection Water-Dependent Recreation Watershed Management Crop Idling for Water Transfer Irrigated Land Retirement Rainfed Agriculture Number of Projects Incorporating RMS

Project Prioritization Summary – Additional Criteria

42 *Revised DAC scoring approach may affect scoring

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Ready to construct / implement Preliminary Design Completed Planning Completed Planning in Progress Conceptual Feasibility documentation No feasibility documentation B:C Ratio ≥ 4 B:C Ratio ≥ 3 and < 4 B:C Ratio ≥ 2 and < 3 B:C Ratio ≥ 1 and < 2 B:C Ratio < 1 Benefits DACs Addresses Critical DAC or EJ Issue Contributes to Climate Change Adapt/Mitig. Number of Projects

Economic Feasibility Technical Feasibility Project Readiness

Project Prioritization Summary – Additional Criteria, cont’d

43

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Creates Local Jobs and/or Uses Local Materials 4+ local project sponsors 3 local project sponsors 2 local project sponsors 1 local project sponsor Number of Projects

Supported by Multiple Local Project Sponsors

Original Disadvantaged Community Scoring Approach

44

Criterion Scoring Procedure Raw Score Assigned Benefits Disadvantaged Communities Score based on providing targeted benefits to more disadvantaged communities within the region Directly benefits a DAC = 100 pts Does not directly benefit a DAC = 0 pts Directly Addresses a Critical Water Supply or Water Quality Need of a Disadvantaged Community and/or Address an Existing Environmental Justice Issue Score is based on whether the project addresses one of the critical needs identified by the DAC outreach effort Yes = 100 pts No = 0 pts

Revis ised Dis Disad advan antage ged C Communitie ies Sc Scorin ing T Tie iers Result lts

ACS Data CA EDD Data MHI Data Combined IRWM Community Unemployment : ACS Rank Unemployment: CA EDD Rank MHI GIS Analysis Rank Avg. Rank Scoring

Planada 19.4% 1 39.3% 1 $31,137 1 1 100 pts Winton 18.2% 2 26.2% 3 $35,370 2 2.3 Le Grand 14.6% 5 29.3% 2 $35,417 3 3.3 El Nido 19.4% 1 Not Reported

• $46,420

8 4.5 Livingston 17.5% 3 21.0% 4 $46,791 9 5.3 75 pts Merced 13.1% 6 18.1% 6 $40,110 4 5.3 Atwater 14.7% 4 18.6% 5 $46,263 7 5.3 Franklin 12.0% 7 Not Reported

• $42,370

5 6 50 points Snelling 10.3% 9 Not Reported

• $45,081

6 7.5 Stevinson 4.9% 10 Not Reported

• $49,018

10 10

45

Project Scoring Currently Being Revised

 Preliminary results on website (www.mercedirwmp.org)  Scoring being updated to:

 Reflect revised DAC scoring approach  Combine projects based on project integration

46

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Technical Studies  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

47

Prop 84 Round 2 Implementation Grants

 Approximately $8.3 million available in the San Joaquin funding area  Applications due March 29

48

Round 1 – 2012: Maximum Allocation $12,666,667; 7 Eligible Competing Regions

Region Requested $ Awarded $ Proposal Score (out of 85) 1 Madera $9,413,947 $9,413,947 57 2 American River Basin (overlapping region) $1,918,456 $1,895,806 56 3 Mokelumne/ Amador/ Calaveras $2,703,327 $2,298,000 54 4 East Contra Costa County $10,885,000 52 5 Cosumnes, American, Bear, Yuba (overlapping region) $712,761 51 6 Eastern San Joaquin $1,345,644 48 7 Westside‐San Joaquin $11,451,053 42 TOTAL $38,430,188 $13,607,753

49

Round 2 – 2013: Maximum Allocation $8,296,000; 12 Eligible Competing Regions

All or Mostly Within Funding Area

• 19. MAC Region
• 7. East Contra Costa County
• 8. Eastern San Joaquin
• 36. Tuolumne-Stanislaus
• 47. East Stanislaus
• 4. Yosemite-Mariposa
• 17. Merced
• 16. Madera

Overlapping Funding Area

• 1. American River Basin
• 44. Westside – San Joaquin
• 33. Southern Sierra
• 6. Cosumnes American Bear Yuba

50

DWR Proposal Scoring Criteria

Scoring Criteria Weighting Factor Range of Points Possible Work Plan 3 0 – 15 Budget 1 0 – 5 Schedule 1 0 – 5 Monitoring, Assessment & Performance Measures 1 0 – 5 Technical Justification of Projects 2 0 – 10 Benefits and Costs Analysis 3 0 – 30 Program Preferences 2 0 – 10 Total Range of Points Without Tie Breaker 0 – 80 Tie Breaker Points 1 0 - 5 51

Merced Region Implementation Grant Projects (1/2)

• 1. Black Rascal and Bear Creek Flood Control Project

 Black Rascal Creek Flood Control Project - $920,000

 Merced Streams Group (County of Merced, City of Merced, Merced Irrigation District)

 Bear Creek Siphon and Diversion Structure Expansion - $80,000

 Stevinson Water District and Community of Stevinson

• 2. Planada Community Services District Water Conservation Project -

$500,000

 Planada Community Services District

• 3. El Nido Recharge Basin - $500,000

 Merced Irrigation District, Central California Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company, San Luis Region, Madera Region

52

Merced Region Implementation Grant Projects (2/2)

• 4. Merced River Education and Enhancement Project

 Lower Merced River Stewardship Project - $185,000

East Merced Resource Conservation District

 Merced Region Climate Change Program - $270,000

UC Merced

 Lower Merced River Recreational Boating Public Access Improvements - $328,625

Merced Irrigation District

53

Schedule / Next Steps

 Project information in to RMC Feb 22  Drafts being developed, out for review by project proponents on March 11  Comments back from project proponents March 18  Package finalized and submitted to DWR March 29

54

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Technical Studies  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

55

Visit the Merced IRWM Website www.mercedirwmp.org for Meeting Materials, Updates, and More

56

Contacts

 Merced RWMG Work Plan Management Committee

 Merced Irrigation District- Hicham Eltal: heltal@mercedid.org  County of Merced- Ron Rowe: rrowe@co.merced.ca.us  City of Merced- Michael Wegley: wegleym@cityofmerced.org

 Consultants

 Ali Taghavi: ataghavi@rmcwater.com  Alyson Watson: awatson@rmcwater.com  Charles Gardiner: clgardiner25@gmail.com

57

Today’s Agenda

 Welcome and Introductions  Meeting Purpose and Ground Rules  Introduction to the IRWM Program  Summary of Technical Studies  Summary of Project Submittals  Implementation Grant Application Update  Resources and Information  Questions and Comments

58