Presenters: Presenters: Charles Gardiner Charles Gardiner Alyson Watson Alyson Watson November 27, 2012 November 27, 2012 Regional Advisory Committee Regional Advisory Committee eg o a eg o a d so y Co d so y Co ttee 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 Enter commitments honestly, and keep them. it t h tl d k th Delay will not be employed as a tactic to avoid an undesired result. 5
Project Schedule Project Schedule Governing Call for Adopt Bodies Bodies Appoint pp Projects P j t Pl Plan RAC Public 1 2 3 4 Workshops 1-4 5 Technical Workshops Project Evaluation & Draft & Final IRWM Plan Implementation Plan Start-up, Goals & Objectives Project Solicitation Prioritization Resource Finance & Impacts & Management Governance Major j Implement Benefits Strategies g RAC Draft Project Performance Prioritized Goals & IRWM Solicitation Topics Measures Projects Objectives Plan Process Grant Application 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 • MID • Lake Yosemite Sailing Association • Lake Yosemite Sailing Association • City of Merced • Le Grand Community Service District • County of Merced • Merquin County Water District • Merced Streams Group Merced Streams Group • Planada Community Services District Planada Community Services District • Ballico Community Water Service District • Stevinson Water District and • Chowchilla Water District Community of Stevinson • City of Atwater y • UC Merced • City of Livingston • United States Fish and Wildlife Service • East Merced Resource Conservation District • University of California, Merced • Franklin County Water District 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 Implementation projects that are priorities ready to go, meet state funding objectives and meet regional objectives 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 Addresses Top 50 th One or More Percentile Tier 1 Proposed Objectives Scoring & Project Projects Screening and is within Ranking Ranking List List the Region Fails to Is Not Future Phase of Address at Bottom 50 th in the Other Tier 1 Project Least One Region Region Percentile Percentile Objective Tier 1A Excluded Project Tier 2 from List Project Project Project IRWMP IRWMP List 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? g g 14
Scoring Criteria Scoring Criteria – – IRWM Planning Criteria IRWM Planning Criteria Criterion Scoring Procedure g Raw Score Assigned g 6+ objectives = 100 pts Score based on # of Addresses Multiple Addresses Multiple 5 objectives = 80 pts 5 objectives = 80 pts objectives addressed with IRWM Plan 4 objectives = 60 pts priority objectives counting Objectives 3 objectives = 40 pts as two objectives 2 objectives = 20 pts 2 objectives 20 pts Integrates Multiple 8+ strategies = 100 pts Resource Score based on # of 6-7 strategies = 75 pts Management strategies employed 4-5 strategies = 50 pts Strategies 2-3 strategies = 25 pts 15
Scoring Scoring Criteria Criteria – – Project Status and Project Status and Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Scoring Criterion Raw Score Assigned Procedure Ready to construct / implement = 100 pts Score based on Preliminary Design Completed = 75 pts Is Ready to be degree of work Planning Completed= 50 pts Implemented p e e ted needed prior to eeded p o to Planning in Progress = 25 pts Pl i i P 25 t implementation No Work Completed = 0 pts Score based on Feasibility documentation is available = 100 availability of availability of pts Is Technically Feasible documentation Feasibility documentation is not available = 0 supporting pts technical feasibility technical feasibility B:C Ratio ≥ 4 = 100 pts Score based on B:C Ratio ≥ 3 and < 4 = 75 pts Is Economically estimated B:C Ratio ≥ 2 and < 3 = 50 pts p Feasible Feasible benefit:cost ratio B:C Ratio ≥ 1 and < 2 = 25 pts B:C Ratio < 1 = 0 pts 16
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 Criterion Scoring Procedure Scoring Procedure Raw Score Assigned Raw Score Assigned Score based on Directly benefits a DAC = 100 providing targeted pts Benefits Disadvantaged Benefits Disadvantaged benefits to more benefits to more Does not directly benefit a DAC Does not directly benefit a DAC Communities disadvantaged = 0 pts communities within the region region (*to be revisited today) ( to be revisited today) Directly Addresses a Critical Score is based on Water Supply or Water Quality whether the project Need of a Disadvantaged addresses one of the Yes = 100 pts Community and/or Address an critical needs identified No = 0 pts Existing Environmental Justice by the DAC outreach Issue effort 17
Recommend
More recommend
