Regional Advisory Committee Regional Advisory Committee eg o a eg - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Presenters: Presenters: Charles Gardiner Charles Gardiner Alyson Watson Alyson Watson

Regional Advisory Committee Regional Advisory Committee

November 27, 2012 November 27, 2012

eg o a d so y Co ttee eg o a d so y Co ttee Meeting #7 Meeting #7

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda

 Introductions and Overview Introductions and Overview  DWR Update  RAC Activities  RAC Activities  Summary of IRWM Projects Received  Next Steps  Next Steps  Public Comment

2

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda

 Introductions and Overview Introductions and Overview  DWR Update  RAC Activities  RAC Activities  Summary of IRWM Projects Received  Next Steps  Next Steps  Public Comment

3

Regional Advisory Committee Purpose Regional Advisory Committee Purpose

 Represent the broad interests and perspectives in the region Represent the broad interests and perspectives in the region  Assist in the completion of the Merced Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWM) Plan  Encourage cooperative planning among various aspects of water resources management in the Merced Region  Review regional water management issues and needs, goals and objectives, plans and projects, and future funding and governance governance  Advise the Regional Water Management Group (RWMG) and the governing bodies on these topics g g p

4

RAC Ground Rules RAC Ground Rules

 Civility is required.

 Treat one another with courtesy  Treat one another with courtesy.  Respect the personal integrity, values, motivations, and intentions of each member.  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  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  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.  E t it t h tl d k th  Enter commitments honestly, and keep them.  Delay will not be employed as a tactic to avoid an undesired result.

5

Project Schedule Project Schedule

Adopt Pl Call for P j t

Governing Bodies

Appoint Plan Projects

1 2 3 4 Bodies Public Workshops

pp RAC

Technical Workshops 1-4 5

Draft & Final IRWM Plan Implementation Plan Project Evaluation & Prioritization

Project Solicitation

Start-up, Goals & Objectives

Resource Management Strategies Finance & Implement Impacts & Benefits Governance

Major

g Project Solicitation Process Prioritized Projects Performance Measures Goals & Objectives

Grant Application

Draft IRWM Plan

j RAC Topics Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2012 2013

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda

 Introductions and Overview Introductions and Overview  DWR Update  RAC Activities  RAC Activities  Summary of IRWM Projects Received  Next Steps  Next Steps  Public Comment

7

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda

 Introductions and Overview Introductions and Overview  DWR Update  RAC Activities  RAC Activities  Summary of IRWM Projects Received  Next Steps  Next Steps  Public Comment

8

RAC Activities RAC Activities

 Approval of notes from RAC Meeting #6 Approval of notes from RAC Meeting #6  Comments on Draft Governance TM

9

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda

 Introductions and Overview Introductions and Overview  DWR Update  RAC Activities  RAC Activities  Summary of IRWM Projects Received  Next Steps  Next Steps  Public Comment

10

Project Submittal Summary Project Submittal Summary

 75 Projects Submitted 75 Projects Submitted  Numerous Project Proponents

• MID
• Lake Yosemite Sailing Association
• MID
• City of Merced
• County of Merced
• Merced Streams Group
• Lake Yosemite Sailing Association
• Le Grand Community Service District
• Merquin County Water District
• Planada Community Services District

Merced Streams Group

• Ballico Community Water Service District
• Chowchilla Water District
• City of Atwater

Planada Community Services District

• Stevinson Water District and

Community of Stevinson

• UC Merced

y

• City of Livingston
• East Merced Resource Conservation District
• Franklin County Water District
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
• University of California, Merced

11

What will we do with the information What will we do with the information submitted? submitted? submitted? submitted?

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 analyses Main focus Meet regional objectives and priorities Implementation projects that are ready to go, meet state funding

• bjectives and meet regional
• bjectives and meet regional

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

12

Plan Project Review / Prioritization Process Plan Project Review / Prioritization Process Applied to Submitted Projects Applied to Submitted Projects Applied to Submitted Projects Applied to Submitted Projects

Screening Scoring & Ranking Tier 1 Project List

Proposed Projects Addresses One or More Objectives and is within Top 50th Percentile

Ranking List

the Region Fails to Address at Least One Bottom 50th Percentile Future Phase of Other Tier 1 Project Is Not in the Region

Excluded from IRWMP Tier 2 Project Tier 1A Project List

Objective Project Percentile Region

IRWMP List

Project Integration and Re-Ranking/ Scoring

13

Screening Criteria Screening Criteria

 Addresses at least one objective j

 Some projects did not identify objectives; where possible we identified appropriate objectives  3 projects screened o t for this reason (b t orking ith project  3 projects screened out for this reason (but working with project proponents to understand what objectives they may achieve)

 All or a portion of the project is within the region p p j g

 Some projects were not located within the region, but benefits would accrue to the region (e.g., upstream stream gages)  5 projects screened out for this reason  5 projects screened out for this reason

 RAC discussion: revise criterion to include projects outside the region with benefits to the region?

14

g g

Scoring Criteria Scoring Criteria – – IRWM Planning Criteria IRWM Planning Criteria

Criterion Scoring Procedure Raw Score Assigned g g Addresses Multiple Score based on # of 6+ objectives = 100 pts 5 objectives = 80 pts Addresses Multiple IRWM Plan Objectives

• bjectives addressed with

priority objectives counting as two objectives 5 objectives = 80 pts 4 objectives = 60 pts 3 objectives = 40 pts 2 objectives = 20 pts 2 objectives 20 pts Integrates Multiple 8+ strategies = 100 pts Resource Management Strategies Score based on # of strategies employed 6-7 strategies = 75 pts 4-5 strategies = 50 pts 2-3 strategies = 25 pts

15

Scoring Scoring Criteria Criteria – – Project Status and Project Status and Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility

Criterion Scoring Procedure Raw Score Assigned Is Ready to be Implemented Score based on degree of work needed prior to Ready to construct / implement = 100 pts Preliminary Design Completed = 75 pts Planning Completed= 50 pts Pl i i P 25 t p e e ted eeded p o to implementation Planning in Progress = 25 pts No Work Completed = 0 pts Score based on availability of Feasibility documentation is available = 100 Is Technically Feasible availability of documentation supporting technical feasibility pts Feasibility documentation is not available = 0 pts technical feasibility Is Economically Feasible Score based on estimated B:C Ratio ≥ 4 = 100 pts B:C Ratio ≥ 3 and < 4 = 75 pts B:C Ratio ≥ 2 and < 3 = 50 pts

16

Feasible benefit:cost ratio p B:C Ratio ≥ 1 and < 2 = 25 pts B:C Ratio < 1 = 0 pts

Revised Scoring Criteria Revised Scoring Criteria – – Other Other Regional Priorities (1 of 2) Regional Priorities (1 of 2) Regional Priorities (1 of 2) Regional Priorities (1 of 2)

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

17

Revised Scoring Criteria Revised Scoring Criteria – – Other Other Regional Priorities (2 of 2) Regional Priorities (2 of 2) Regional Priorities (2 of 2) Regional Priorities (2 of 2)

Criterion Scoring Procedure Raw Score Assigned Contributes to Climate Change Adaptation or Mitigation Score is based on Yes/No response Yes = 100 pts No = 0 pts Supported by Multiple Local Scored is based on # of local project sponsors working 4+ local proponents = 100 pts 3 local proponents = 75 pts Supported by Multiple Local Partners sponsors working together to implement the project 3 local proponents = 75 pts 2 local proponents = 50 pts 1 local proponent = 25 pts project Creates Local Jobs and/or Uses Local Materials Score is based on Yes/No response Yes = 100 pts No = 0 pts

18

Local Materials Yes/No response No = 0 pts

Project Prioritization Summary Tables Project Prioritization Summary Tables

 Prioritization process is strictly for the IRWM plan and does not Prioritization process is strictly for the IRWM plan and does not consider grant criteria, etc  First table shows projects in Tiers 1, 1a, and 2 in alphabetical p j , , p

• rder

 Second table shows actual weighted scores for each project g p j  Remaining tables show raw scores received by each project for each criterion

19

Project Prioritization Summary Project Prioritization Summary -

• Objectives

Objectives Objectives Objectives

Regional Objective

• No. of Projects

Primary Secondary Obj A: Manage flood flows for public safety, water supply, recharge, and natural resource management 31 9 Obj B: Meet demands for all uses, incl. ag, urban, and env resource needs 17 19 j g Obj C: Correct groundwater overdraft conditions 7 17 Obj D: Improve coordination of land use and water resources planning. 3 5 Obj E: Maximize water use efficiency 17 7 Obj E: Maximize water use efficiency 17 7 Obj F: Protect and improve water quality for all beneficial uses 7 17 Obj G: Protect, restore, and improve natural resources 7 9 Obj: H: Address water-related needs of disadvantaged communities 54 16 Obj I: Protect and enhance water-associated recreation opportunities 5 6 Obj J: Establish and maintain effective communication among water 5 9 20 resource stakeholders in the Region Obj K: Effectively address climate change adaptation and/or mitigation 7 13 Obj L: Enhance public understanding of water mgmt issues and need 10 5

Project Prioritization Summary Project Prioritization Summary – – Resource Management Strategies Resource Management Strategies Resource Management Strategies Resource Management Strategies

Resource Management Strategy

• No. of Projects

Agricultural Water Use Efficiency 10 Urban Water Use Efficiency 16 Conveyance ‐ Regional/ Local 35 System Reoperation 12 y p Water Transfers 6 Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage 12 Recycled Municipal Wastewater 2 Recycled Municipal Wastewater 2 Surface Storage ‐ Regional/ Local 13 Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution 9 Groundwater Remediation/ Aquifer Remediation 1 Matching Quality to Use 10 Pollution Prevention 14 21 Pollution Prevention 14 Salt and Salinity Management 5 Urban Runoff Management 9

Project Prioritization Summary Project Prioritization Summary – – Resource Resource Management Strategies cont’d Management Strategies cont’d Management Strategies, cont d Management Strategies, cont d

Resource Management Strategy

• No. of Projects

Flood Risk Management 35 Flood Risk Management 35 Agricultural Land Stewardship 8 Economic Incentive 7 Ecosystem Restoration 6 Forest Management 1 Land Use Planning and Management 4 g g 4 Recharge Area Protection 4 Water-Dependent Recreation 8 Watershed Management 8 Watershed Management 8 Crop Idling for Water Transfer Irrigated Land Retirement 3 22 Rainfed Agriculture 2

Project Prioritization Summary Project Prioritization Summary – – Additional Criteria Additional Criteria Additional Criteria Additional Criteria

Criterion Scoring Summary Is Ready to be Implemented Ready to construct / implement: 19 Preliminary Design Completed: 2 Planning Completed: 10 Planning in Progress: 16 Planning in Progress: 16 Conceptual: 29 Is Technically Feasible Feasibility documentation: 44 No feasibility documentation: 32 I E i ll F ibl B C R ti ≥ 4 30 Is Economically Feasible B:C Ratio ≥ 4: 30 B:C Ratio ≥ 3 and < 4: 12 B:C Ratio ≥ 2 and < 3: 8 B:C Ratio ≥ 1 and < 2: 12 B:C Ratio < 1: 14 Benefits DACs Yes: 70 Addresses Critical DAC or EJ Issue Yes: 50 23 Contributes to Climate Change Adapt/Mitig. Yes: 37

Project Prioritization Summary Project Prioritization Summary – – Additional Criteria cont’d Additional Criteria cont’d Additional Criteria, cont d Additional Criteria, cont d

Criterion Scoring Summary Creates Local Jobs and/or Uses Local Materials Yes: 46 Supported by Multiple Local Project Sponsors 4+ local project sponsors: 29 3 local project sponsors: 16 p j p 2 local project sponsors: 10 1 local project sponsor: 4 24

Project Prioritization Results Project Prioritization Results

 Top 10 Projects:

1. MID Le Grand / Planada Flood Control/ Conjuctive Use Expansion Study 2. Bear Creek Siphon and Diversion Structure (BCSDS) Expansion 3. Merced Region Programmatic Environmental Impact Report ‐ Stream Bed and Vegetation Control and Vegetation Control 4. Study for Potential Water System Intertie Facilities from Merced I.D. to LeGrand‐Athelone W.D. and Chowchilla W.D. 5 Cash for Grass Pilot Program to Eliminate Wasteful Pollution Containing 5. Cash for Grass Pilot Program to Eliminate Wasteful Pollution Containing Water Run‐off 6. Water Efficiencies Rebate Program 7. Black Rascal Creek Flood Control Project Merced Streams Group j p 8. Water Meter Project for Le Grand CSD 9. Lower Merced River Stewardship Project

• 10. Planada Community Services District Water Conservation Project

y j

25

What happened to projects to address What happened to projects to address regional needs? regional needs? regional needs? regional needs?

 Some are in the database some are not Some are in the database, some are not  Where they are not in the database we will follow up with the point people to make sure the concepts are captured in the p p p p p plan

26

Discussion: Prioritization Results Discussion: Prioritization Results

 Questions on Prioritization? Questions on Prioritization?  Reactions: Prioritization process effectively identifying important projects for the region? p p j g

 Example: top flood projects make sense? Others should be ranked higher?

 Comments / feedback on prioritization process?  Comments on specific project scores requested by Tues Dec 4, 2012 extended to Dec 11, 2012

27

What will we do with the information What will we do with the information submitted? submitted? submitted? submitted?

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 analyses Main focus Meet regional objectives and priorities Implementation projects that are ready to go, meet state funding

• bjectives and meet regional
• bjectives and meet regional

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

28

Implementation Grant Project List Implementation Grant Project List

 Recommendations Recommendations

 Limit application to $2 million  Include projects that address regional needs / objectives and address p j g j funding program preferences  Limit to five projects or less

 Cost to participate will depend on number of projects  Review scoring criteria before proposing your project for id ti consideration

http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/Archives/Prop84/Guidelines_ PSPs/Imp PSP Round2 2012 DRAFTpdf PSPs/Imp_PSP_Round2_2012_DRAFT.pdf

29

Implementation Grant Process and Cost Implementation Grant Process and Cost

Process Step Estimated Cost* Process Step Estimated Cost Convene RAC meeting to identify projects for inclusion in package (if more than $2 M or 5 $7,900, divided among those requesting consideration (no limit) inclusion in package (if more than $2 M or 5 projects request funding) consideration (no limit) Prepare Joint Application Elements (project $13,600, divided among project proponents (up management, application checklist, region

• verview, description of project integration, etc)

to five) Prepare project-specific Application Elements $15,300 per project (up to five) 30 *excludes 10% contingency

Implementation Grant Next Steps Implementation Grant Next Steps

 Review scoring criteria before proposing your project for Review scoring criteria before proposing your project for consideration

http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/grants/docs/Archives/Prop84/Guidelines_ PSPs/Imp_PSP_Round2_2012_DRAFT.pdf

 Proponents who wish to have projects considered for this d f f di h ld t t Al b T D 4 round of funding should contact Alyson by Tues Dec 4 (awatson@rmcwater.com / 415-404-6442), including:

 Project name / ID#  Project name / ID#  Requested funding amount

contact changed to Hicham ElTal heltal@mercedid org

31

contact changed to Hicham ElTal, heltal@mercedid.org

Potential Changes to DAC Scoring Potential Changes to DAC Scoring Criteria Criteria Criteria Criteria

 Currently most projects receive 100 pts for benefiting DACs Currently most projects receive 100 pts for benefiting DACs  RAC discussed adjusting this to award more points to communities with greater need g  Workgroup including Patti Dossetti, Bill Spriggs, and Gene Barrera reviewed alternative scoring approaches g pp  Prepared memo: Alternative Disadvantaged Communities Scoring Tiers for IRWM Plan Ranking

32

DAC Scoring Alternatives DAC Scoring Alternatives

A. Use unemployment rates as reported in the 2006-2010 American p y p Community Survey as a weighting method. B. Use most recent annual average unemployment rates as reported by the CA Employment Development Department as a weighting method the CA Employment Development Department as a weighting method. C. Request the Merced County Association of Governments Geographic Information Systems staff to perform block group-level search of each

• f the 10 Merced IRWM areas for detailed MHI information; request
• f the 10 Merced IRWM areas for detailed MHI information; request

that this analysis be submitted to the RAC by January 2013. D. Rely on Alternatives A, B and C to conduct a comparative analysis of th 3 lt ti t i f th lidit i ki th 10 iti the 3 alternatives to reinforce the validity in ranking the 10 communities. E. No-action alternative. F. Some other option, as defined by the RAC. F. Some other option, as defined by the RAC.

33

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda

 Introductions and Overview Introductions and Overview  DWR Update  RAC Activities  RAC Activities  Summary of IRWM Projects Received  Next Steps  Next Steps  Public Comment

34

Next Steps Next Steps

 Comments on draft materials (including project scores) Comments on draft materials (including project scores) to awatson@rmcwater.com by December 4, 2012  Interest in consideration for implementation grant by te est co s de at o

• p e e tat o g a t by

December 4, 2012 to awatson@rmcwater.com  Next Meeting: December 18, 2012 from 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm g , p p  Topics for Next Meeting

 Special Studies

35

Today’s Agenda Today’s Agenda

 Introductions and Overview Introductions and Overview  DWR Update  RAC Activities  RAC Activities  Summary of IRWM Projects Received  Next Steps  Next Steps  Public Comment

36

Contacts Contacts

 Merced RWMG Work Plan Management Committee Merced RWMG Work Plan Management Committee

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

 Consultants

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

37