Proposal Full View

Proposal Full View

Print

Applicant Information

Organization Name * Yolo County Flood Control and water Conservation District

Tax ID 941658520

Proposal Name * Westside RWMG IRWMP Proposal

Proposal Objective

To secure funding to develop an IRWMP for the Westside RWMG that fosters coordination, collaboration and communication between Regional Public Agencies and other Subregion agencies responsible for water-related issues and interested stakeholders to achieve greater efficiencies, to provide for integration of projects, enhance public services and build public support for vital projects. To facilitate regional cooperation in providing but not limited to water supply reliability, water recycling, water conservation, water quality improvement, storm water capture and management, flood management, wetlands enhancement and creation, and environmental and habitat protection and improvements. *

Budget

Other Contribution $0.00

Local Contribution $256,000.00

Federal Contribution $0.00

Inkind Contribution $330,800.00

Amount Requested * $1,000,000.00

Total Project Cost * $1,586,800.00

Geographic Information

Latitude * DD(+/-) MM SS 38 44 37

Longitude * DD(+/-) MM SS 122 13 48

Longitude/Latitude Clarification Centroid of Westside Location Located on the Borders of

County Colusa,Lake,Napa,Yolo,Solano *

Ground Water Basin

Bear Valley,Berryessa Valley,Blanchard Valley,Clear Lake Cache Formation,Collayomi Valley,Coyote Valley,Long Valley,Lower Lake Valley,Middle Creek,North Fork Cache Creek,Pope Valley,Sacramento Valley-Capay Valley,Sacramento Valley-Solano,Sacramento Valley-Yolo,Scotts Valley,Upper Lake Valley

Hydrologic Region Sacramento River

Watershed Cache Creek, Putah Creek, Valley Putah-Cache, Colusa Basin, Upper Elmira, Sacramento Delta

Legislative Information

Assembly District 7th Assembly District,1st Assembly District,2nd Assembly District,8th AssemblyDistrict *

Senate District 2nd Senate District,4th Senate District,5th Senate District * US Congressional District District 1 (CA),District 3 (CA),District 7 (CA),District 10 (CA),District 2 (CA) *

Project Information

Project Benefits Information

Budget

Geographic Information

Project Name Creation of Westside IRWMP

Project Benefit Type Benefit Type Measurement DescriptionPrimary Management Plans-IRWMP 0

Other Contribution 0

Local Contribution 256000

Federal Contribution 0

Inkind Contribution 331000

Amount Requested 1000000

Total Project Cost 1587000

Latitude DD(+/-) MM SS38 44 37

Page 1 of 4Print Preview Proposal

9/28/2010https://www.bms.water.ca.gov/BMS/Agency/ProposalFullView.aspx

Legislative Information

Longitude DD(+/-) MM SS122 13 48

Longitude/Latitude Clarification Centroid of Westside R Location Located on the Borders of

County Colusa,Lake,Napa,Yolo,Solano

Ground Water Basin

Bear Valley,Berryessa Valley,Blanchard Valley,Clear Lake Cache Formation,Collayomi Valley,Coyote Valley,Long Valley,Lower Lake Valley,Middle Creek,North Fork Cache Creek,Pope Valley,Sacramento Valley-Capay Valley,Sacramento Valley-Solano,Sacramento Valley-Yolo,Scotts Valley,Upper Lake Valley

Hydrologic Region Sacramento River

WaterShed Cache Creek, Putah Creek, Valley Putah-Cache,

Assembly District 1st Assembly District,2nd Assembly District,7th Assembly District,8th Assembly District

Senate District 2nd Senate District,4th Senate District,5th Senate District

US Congressional District District 1 (CA),District 2 (CA),District 3 (CA),District 7 (CA),District 10 (CA)

Section : Applicant Information and Question's Tab

APPLICANT INFORMATION AND QUESTION'S TAB APPLICATION TYPE Is this an application for a Regional Planning Grant or an Interregional Planning Grant?

a) Regional Planning Grant b) Interregional Planning Grant

Q1. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION Provide a brief abstract of the Proposal. Please note if the Proposal will facilitate or support the participation of DAC's in the IRWM planning effort.

The Westside RWMG plans to create a Westside IRWMP that will serve as the planning document for all regional water projects in the Putah or Cache Creek watersheds. Useful planning information already included in adopted IRWMPs, such as the Yolo County IRWMP, Solano Agencies IRWMP, and Sacramento Valley

IRWMP will be utilized to create the Westside IRWMP. Significant water management issues to be covered in the IRWMP include water rights and diversions, groundwater quantity and quality, general water quality issues, and specific water management issues dealing with invasive species and mercury contamination. The

proposal includes specific actions to solicit and facilitate the participation of the DACs in the planning process. Q2. PROJECT DIRECTOR Provide the name and details (including email) of the person responsible for executing the grant agreement for the applicant. Persons that are subcontractors to be paid by the grant cannot be listed as the Project Director.

Tim O’Halloran, General Manager, Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 34274 State Highway 16 Woodland CA 95695 (530) 662-0265 (phone) [email protected]

Q3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT Provide the name and contact information (including email) of the Project Manager from the applicant agency or organization that will be the day-to-day contact on this application.

Chris Lee, Supervising Water Resources Specialist, Solano County Water Agency 6040 Vaca Station Road Building #84 Elmira, CA 95625 (707) 455-1105 (phone) [email protected]

Q4. APPLICANT INFORMATION Provide the agency name, address, city, state, and zip code of the applicant submitting the application.

Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 34274 State Highway 16 Woodland, Ca 95695-9371 (530) 662-0265 (phone) Q5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Based on the region's location, what are the applicable DWR regions (Northern, North Central, South Central, and/or Southern)? The following link can be used to view each DWR region office boundaries: http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/groundwater_basics/gw_contacts_info.cfm

a) Northern Region b) North Central Region c) South Central Region d) Southern Region

Q6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION List the name of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in which your project is located. For a region that extends beyond more than one RWQCB boundary, list the name of each Board.http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterboards_map.shtml

Central Valley RWQCB Q7. ELIGIBILITY Does the application represent a single application from an IRWM Planning region approved in the RAP (see section II, Table 1 of the Planning PSP)?



Section : Application Attachments Tab

Yes

If yes, include the name of the IRWM Planning region. If no, explain.

Westside-Sacramento RWMG Q8. ELIGIBILITY Is the applicant a local agency or non-profit organization as described in Appendix B of the Guidelines?

Yes

If no, please explain.

Q9. ELIGIBILITY List the urban water suppliers that will receive funding from the proposed grant. Those listed must submit self certification of compliance with California Water Code (CWC) §525 et seq. and Assembly Bill (AB) 1420 (see Attachment 6 of the Planning Grant PSP). If there are no urban water suppliers, so indicate.

N/A, there are no urban water suppliers receiving funding from the proposed grant. Q10. ELIGIBILITY Have all of the urban water suppliers, listed in Q9 above, submitted complete 2005 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) to DWR? Have those plans been verified as complete by DWR? If not, explain. Will all of the urban water suppliers listed in Q9, along with any additional urban water suppliers that meet the urban water supplier definition threshold for the first time, submit updated 2010 UWMPs, consistent with the 2010 UWMP Guidebook and verified as complete by DWR, before the execution of a grant agreement? If not, explain.

N/A, there are no urban water suppliers receiving funding from the proposed grant. Q11. ADOPTION DATE Identify the adoption date or anticipated adoption date of the IRWM Plan.

12/28/2012

Q12. COMPLETENESS CHECK Have all of the fields in the application been completed?

Yes

If no, please explain.

APPLICATION ATTACHMENTS TAB ATTACHMENT 1: AUTHORIZING DOCUMENTATION Upload authorizing documentation here. Ensure file name is consistent with section V of the Planning Grant PSP (disregard the 5 digit pin).

Upload additional authorizing documentation here.

Last Uploaded Attachments: ,,Att1_PG1_AuthDoc_1of1.pdf




ATTACHMENT 2: ELIGIBLE APPLICANT DOCUMENTATION Upload eligible applicant documentation here. Ensure file name is consistent with section V of the Planning Grant PSP (disregard the 5 digit pin).Last Uploaded Attachments: ,,Att2_PG1_EligDoc_1of1.pdf

Upload additional eligible applicant documentation here.

Upload additional eligible applicant documentation here.

Upload additional eligible applicant documentation here. Upload additional eligible applicant documentation here.

ATTACHMENT 3: WORK PLAN Upload the work plan here. Ensure file name is consistent with section V of the Planning Grant PSP (disregard the 5 digit pin). Upload additional work plan components here.

Last Uploaded Attachments: Att3_PG1_WorkPlan_1of2.pdf

Upload additional work plan components here. Upload additional work plan components here.Last Uploaded Attachments: Att3_PG1_WorkPlan_2of2.pdf



Upload additional work plan components here.

ATTACHMENT 4: BUDGET Upload Budget here. Ensure file name is consistent with section V of the Planning Grant PSP (disregard the 5 digit pin).Last Uploaded Attachments: Att4_PG1_Budget_1of1.pdf

Upload additional budget components here. Upload additional budget components here.

Upload additional budget components here.

Upload additional budget components here.

ATTACHMENT 5: SCHEDULE Upload schedule here. Ensure file name is consistent with section V of the Planning Grant PSP (disregard the 5 digit pin).

Upload additional schedule components here.

Last Uploaded Attachments: ,Att5_PG1_Sched_1of1.pdf






RESOLUTION NO. 10.09 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

YOLO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS (ON BEHALF OF THE

WESTSIDE REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT GROUP) FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

WHEREAS, the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is a member of the Water Resources Association of Yolo County;

WHEREAS, the Water Resources Association of Yolo County is a signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding for the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Westside Subregion of the Proposition 84 Sacramento River Funding Area;

WHEREAS, the Westside Subregion seeks to obtain a $1 million Proposition 84 Planning Grant to develop a Westside Integrated Regional Water Management Plan; and

WHEREAS, the District has agreed to be the applicant and fiscal agent on behalf of the Westside Regional Water Management Group.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the District Board of Directors agrees and authorizes that application be made to the California Department of Water Resources to obtain an Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Grant pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of2006 (Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 75001 et seq.), and to enter into an agreement to receive a grant for the Westside Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. The General Manager of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is hereby authorized and directed to prepare the necessary data, conduct investigations, file such application, and execute a grant agreement with California Department of Water Resources.

The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District at a meeting thereof held on September 7, 2010 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Directors Brice, Mayer, Ron1inger, Tadlock and Vink NOES: None ABSENT: None

Signed by me after its passage this i h day of September 2010.

~~~ Ann Brice, Chair

ATTEST:

~C~Tim 'Halloran, Secretary

Westside Sacramento Regional Water Management Group 1

Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Eligible Applicant DocumentationTh e Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is the applicant on behalf of the Westside-Sacramento Regional Water Management Group.

Is the applicant a local agency as defi ned in Appendix B of the Guidelines? Please explain. 1. Th e District is a local agency as defi ned in Appendix B of the Proposition 84 Guidelines as it is a special district of the State as defi ned in Sections 216 of the Public Utilities Code.

What is the statutory or other legal authority under which the applicant was formed and is authorized 2. to operate?In 1951, at the request of the Yolo County Supervisors, the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District was created by the California Legislature through the Uncodifi ed Acts-Act 3907-Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Act as an independent Special District. At that time, the District’s primary purpose was to seek new water sources and manage them effi ciently.

Does the applicant have legal authority to enter into a grant agreement with the State of California?3. Yes.

Describe any legal agreements among partner agencies and/or organizations that ensure performance 4. of the Proposal and tracking of funds.Lake County Watershed Protection District, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Colusa County Resource Conservation District, Solano County Water Agency and Water Resources Association of Yolo County (collectively referred to as the Westside Regional Public Agencies) have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (see Appendix 1 of Attachment 3). Th e MOU commits the agencies to the following:

Th e Regional Public Agencies have committed to funding a Proposition 84 Planning Grant application for the purposes of developing a Westside IRWMP. Th e Regional Public Agencies agree to a formula for cost share should the Planning Grant application be successful. Based largely on their relative geographic area and population within the Westside Funding Subregion, the local cost share for the development of the IRWMP shall not exceed 28.58% each for Lake County Watershed Protection District, Solano County Water Agency, and Water Resources Association of Yolo County, and shall not exceed 14.29% for Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

2


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Background

Signifi cant planning and stakeholder involvement has occurred through prior resource management activities, including a number of county-level IRWMPning processes. Th e Westside-Sacramento Regional Water Management Group (Westside RWMG) will eff ectively leverage the previous eff orts into a functionally-integrated, watershed-based resource management plan. Th is section provides context for the work plan and includes a brief summary of the following topics:

Th e Regional Water Management Group ■Th e Region ■Existing or Partially completed IRWMPs ■Stakeholder Identifi cation and Engagement, Including Disadvantaged Communities ■Process for Identifying Water-Related Objectives and Confl icts ■Process for Setting Criteria and Developing Regional Priorities ■Management of Data Collection and Technical Analysis ■Application of Integrated Resource Management Strategies ■Anticipated IRWMP Implementation Process, Impacts, and Benefi ts ■Review of Prior IRWMPs Relative to Current IRWMP Standards ■

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

3

2

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Westside Regional Water Management Group (RWMG)Th e Westside RWMG represents primarily the Cache and Putah Creek watersheds. Th e watersheds of these two creeks encompass portions of the following counties: Lake, Napa, Solano, Colusa, and Yolo. Th e specifi c Westside RWMG Regional Public Agencies are:

Lake County Watershed Protection District ■(Lake County WPD)Napa County Flood Control and Water ■Conservation District (Napa County FC&WCD)Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) ■Water Resources Association of Yolo County ■(WRA of Yolo County)Colusa County Resource Conservation ■District (Colusa County RCD)

As discussed in more detail later in this application, the RWMG consists of the fi ve Regional Public Agencies listed above, and a Coordinating Committee (CC) appointed by these agencies. Th e CC will oversee development of the Westside IRWMP until the adoption of the IRWMP including all technical and outreach components.

Leveraging existing regional planning structures increases regional collaboration and communicationTh e Westside RWMG leverages existing regional planning structures to increase regional collaboration and communication. Each of the fi ve Regional Public Agencies has a well-established planning and stakeholder involvement role within their respective counties. Th e table below summarizes the role of each member agency in representing the fi ve county area and provides a summary of existing and future activities to be leveraged for this project.

Th e Westside RWMG is designed to take full advantage of these and

other established planning and communication structures during

preparation of the IRWMP.

Member County Represented

Activities to be Leveraged

Lake County WPD Lake County Has coordinated meetings with Lake County stakeholders for over three years in an effort to educate stakeholders on the need for IRWMPning, build relationships and develop mutual goals and objectives for Lake County, and will continue this approach.

Napa County FC&WCD Napa County Representing Napa County in the Westside RWMG process for those portions of Napa County in the Putah Creek/Lake Berryessa drainage basins.

SCWA Solano County Will represent all entities within Solano County who have an interest in the Westside IRWMP process.

WRA of Yolo County Yolo County Well-established body with an effective means of communication and history of collaborative planning efforts within Yolo County. It was also the group that coordinated the overall development of the 2007 Yolo County IRWMP.

Colusa County RCD Colusa County Representing Colusa County in the Westside RWMG for the sparsely populated Bear Creek portion of the Cache Creek watershed.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

by a number of small watersheds terminating in the Colusa Basin Drain. Th ese small watersheds are underlain by the Colusa Groundwater Sub-basin (DWR Sub-basin 5-21.52) but are wholly contained within Yolo County. Th e area is contiguous with the Cache Creek watershed. From the hydrologic and institutional perspectives both areas are integral parts of the Westside IRWM region.

In summary, the region includes:

Political/jurisdictional boundaries: the ■entirety of Yolo County and portions of Colusa, Lake, Napa, and Solano CountiesGroundwater basins as defi ned in DWR ■Bulletin 118, Update 2003 – California’s Groundwater: 5-94, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-31, 5-93, 5-64, 5-92, 5-66, 5-30, 5-18, 5-19, 5-68, 5-20, 5-21.68, 5-21.67, and 5-21.66.Surface water bodies: Clear Lake, Lake ■Berryessa, Indian Valley Reservoir, Putah Creek, and Cache Creek.Major water related infrastructure: Monticello ■Dam, Lake Solano and the diversion to the Putah South Canal, North Bay Aqueduct, Indian Valley Dam, Cache Creek Dam, Capay Diversion Dam, and the Tehama-Colusa Canal which starts at Red Bluff and terminates near Dunnigan in Yolo County. Some of this infrastructure is associated with water supply and other issues that cross IRWMP boundaries, and will be addressed as it may aff ect the Westside plan.Multiple local agencies, including 9 ■incorporated cities and more than 70 service districts

Serving As A Forum For Different Water Agencies And Stakeholders To Communicate And Develop Collaborative Watershed-Based SolutionsMany agencies share the few key water sources within the Westside region. A majority of the water rights and contractual rights in the region are held by agencies in Yolo, Solano and Lake

The RegionCoordinating with Bordering/Overlapping Regions Is Essential

As shown in Figure 1, the Cache and Putah Creek watersheds comprise most of the Westside IRWM region, which encompasses all or part of the fi ve counties: Lake, Napa, Solano, Colusa, and Yolo. In addition to the two principal watersheds, the region includes two small areas in the northeastern portion of Yolo County and the southeastern portion of Solano County. Th ese areas were included in the region because they were not likely to be included in neighboring IRWM regions, and because they share groundwater basin interconnections. Th e lower Cache Slough watershed drains into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and is located entirely in eastern Solano County. Th e watershed is underlain by the Solano Groundwater Sub-basin (DWR Sub-basin 5-21.66), which underlies much of the rest of eastern Solano County and southeastern Yolo County area. Th e lower Cache Slough watershed is contiguous with the Putah Creek watershed. Th e Yolo Bypass is a large fl oodway that is a critical component of the Sacramento River Flood Control System. It allows fl oodwaters to be diverted out of the Sacramento River north of the Sacramento urban region, and returns the fl oodwaters back to the system near Rio Vista in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Most of the Bypass is farmed, and it is also nationally recognized for important migratory waterfowl habitat. Th e northeastern Yolo County area north of Cache Creek is drained

The Regional Public Agencies coordinate with each other at present, and in the future will cooperate more closely with overlapping and immediately adjacent regions. For example, the Westside RWMG will coordinate with the Northern Sacramento Valley RWMG (which includes Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Sutter, and Tehama counties) on IRWMP matters that relate to the portion of Colusa County con-tained in the Westside RWMG boundary.

4

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

¬«128

¬«99

¬«113

¬«29

¬«45

¬«121

¬«20

§̈¦5

§̈¦80

¬«20

¬«29

¬«113

¬«12

¬«12

§̈¦5

¬«99

¬«45£¤101

¬«128

¬«128

0

CACHE CREEK

PUTAH CREEK

PUTAHCREEK

WILLOW SLOUGH

§̈¦5

£¤101§̈¦505

§̈¦80

¬«20

¬«113

¬«16

FE

AT

HE

R R

IVE

R

SACRAMENTO R

IVER

SAC

RA

ME

NTO

RIV

ER

SAN PABLO BAY

CLEAR LAKE

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

SUISUN BAY

LAKE BERRYESSA

LAKE OROVILLE

Dixon

DavisWinters

Esparto Woodland

Dunnigan

Rio Vista

Vacaville

Clearlake

Clarksburg

Middletown

Upper Lake

Kelseyville

West Sacramento

Knights Landing

Lake

Yolo

Colusa

Napa

Solano

0 157.5

Miles

FIGURE 1

Prop 84 IRWM Planning Grant Application

WESTSIDE RWMGREGION BOUNDARY MAP

N:\C

lients

\35

0 W

RA

of Y

olo Co

unty\0

0-1

0-0

3 IR

WM

P F

un

din

g - We

stside R

WM

G\G

IS\F

igu

res\F

ig1_

We

stside

RW

MG

_DA

C_

Reg

iona

l_2

010

09

24.m

xd 9/2

7/20

10

Westside RWMG Boundary County Boundary


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Existing IRWMPning Efforts and Future Collaboration

YOLO COUNTY | ADOPTED YOLO COUNTY IRWMP IN 2007

The WRA of Yolo County believes that a collaborative effort within the Westside region and neighboring regions is essential to managing existing resources and, even more importantly, to embark on new collaborative projects that can enhance water supply reliability and quality. Therefore, the WRA of Yolo County will not be updating the Yolo County IRWMP and instead has become a member of the Westside RWMG with a focus on the Putah and Cache Creek watersheds.

SOLANO COUNTY | ADOPTED THE SOLANO AGENCIES IRWMP IN 2005 WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY PARTICIPATING IN THE BAY AREA IRWMP

The SCWA adopted the Solano Agencies IRWMP in 2005 while simultaneously participating in the Bay Area IRWMP. The 2005 Solano Agencies IRWMP was based on the Solano County boundary, encompassing multiple watersheds. SCWA will not be updating the Solano Agencies IRWMP and instead has become part of the Westside IRWMP for the portion of Solano County that is in the Putah Creek watershed. SCWA is also continuing participation in the Bay Area IRWMP process for the part of Solano County that is in the San Francisco Bay Area watershed and funding area.

LAKE COUNTY | PARTICIPANT IN THE NORTH COAST IRWMP, INITIAL PHASES OF LAKE COUNTY IRWMP BEGAN IN MAY 2005

Lake County was initially involved in the development stages of the North Coast IRWMP. In 2008, Lake County signed on as a participant in the North Coast IRWMP. In addition, Lake County WPD works with the Yolo County FC&WCD to address Clear Lake issues and to develop projects of mutual benefit with a focus on the Cache Creek watershed. Therefore, Lake County staff attended several of the meetings during development of the 2007 Yolo County IRWMP.Since 2005, Lake County staff has been progressing toward developing an IRWMP for the county. Beginning in May 2007, the County has held public meetings and has established strong stakeholder participation. Lake County will no longer pursue an independent Lake County IRWMP. Instead, the portion of Lake County in the Cache and Putah Creek watersheds will become part of the Westside IRWMP.

NAPA COUNTY | NAPA COUNTY IRWMP FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT, DATED JUNE 2005.

In 2005, Napa County formed the Napa County RWMG, a working group of local water agencies, with the Flood Control District as the lead agency. The group worked together to draft the Napa County IRWMP Functional Equivalent, dated June 2005. Napa County is now participating in the Bay Area RWMG for the Napa River watershed, and the Westside RWMG efforts for the Putah Creek watershed.

COLUSA COUNTY

The Bear Creek watershed in Colusa County has not previously been included in any IRWMP. Bear Creek is tributary to Cache Creek, so this small portion of Colusa County will be included in the Westside IRWMP

counties, including Yolo County FC&WCD and SCWA. Proximity to water sources, customer types within the water agencies, and varying watershed land uses within the region translate into varying levels of emphasis on water quality, supply reliability, environmental stewardship, and fl ood management. For example, the multiple water providers in the Clear Lake area of Lake County may be most concerned about Clear Lake water quality, while the Yolo County FC&WCD may be more interested in water supply and fl ood management aspects of Clear Lake. Th e Westside

RWMG serves as a forum for diff erent water agencies and stakeholders to communicate and develop collaborative watershed-based solutions.

Existing or Partially Completed IRWMPsSignifi cant IRWMPning has occurred within the Westside region. Prior IRWMPning eff orts are summarized below for each of the fi ve counties.

6

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Th e key to DAC involvement is identifi cation, followed by eff ective communication. Th e WRA identifi ed DACs in Yolo County for its IRWMP using Proposition 50 guidelines. Th e Yolo County IRWMP identifi ed two communities as disadvantaged within Yolo County: the East Yolo County and Knights Landing County Census Designations (CCD). Th e Knights Landing CCD includes the towns of Dunnigan and Yolo, and the East Yolo CCD includes a strip of land along the Sacramento River from the north County line to Clarksburg, including West Sacramento. Th e Yolo County IRWMP also identifi ed communities such as Esparto and Madison as disadvantaged, even though they did not meet Proposition 50 DAC criteria, due to failing or defi cient infrastructure or drainage and fl ooding problems.

AGGRESSIVELY PUBLISHING MEETING INVITATIONS USING MULTIPLE MEDIAFor the Yolo County IRWMP, the WRA took specifi c actions to involve the identifi ed DACs in the public planning process. It was recognized that DAC participation could be inhibited within the framework of formal public meetings or workshops. Th erefore an eff ort was made to enlist DAC participation through targeted invitations to smaller and less formal group meetings, in addition to invitations to all formal public meetings and workshops.

PROVIDING MULTIPLE LOCALIZED VENUES TO FACILITATE PARTICIPATION IN RURAL AREASA representative of the WRA technical committee visited with the reclamation districts along the Sacramento River, as well as with the General Plan Advisory Committees of unincorporated communities to discuss their concerns and update these communities about the IRWMP. Special attention was given to informing the communities of the potential to resolve existing infrastructure problems.

Stakeholder Identification and Engagement, Including Disadvantaged CommunitiesTh e Regional Public Agencies have already engaged a wide variety of stakeholders, including Disadvantaged Communities (DACs), in their individual IRWM eff orts. Th ese prior eff orts position the Westside RWMG to eff ectively engage those stakeholders, as well as newly identifi ed stakeholders in the Westside IRWM process. Th e WRA of Yolo County in particular set an example, described below, of how to ensure stakeholder participation in IRWMPning, and used a successful strategy for engaging DACs. Th is section includes the following topics:

WRA of Yolo County Process for Stakeholder ■InvolvementOther Ongoing Eff orts in Lake, Solano, Napa, ■and Colusa CountiesIntegration of Prior Stakeholder Involvement ■Successes

WRA of Yolo County Process for Stakeholder InvolvementTh e WRA process for involving stakeholders has four key elements:

Identifying Stakeholders and Disadvantaged 1. CommunitiesAggressively Publishing Meeting Invitations 2. Using Multiple MediaProviding Multiple Localized Venues to 3. Facilitate Participation in Rural AreasProviding Multiple Avenues for 4. Communication

IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS AND DACSStakeholders in Yolo County for the 2007 IRWMP were identifi ed by attendance at WRA community workshops, attendance at stakeholder group meetings, and through agency identifi cation of water management stakeholders in their jurisdictions.

Procedures, processes, and structures used by the individual counties in past eff orts to successfully promote access to

and collaboration with stakeholders and DACs will be leveraged for future eff orts.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

PROVIDING AVENUES FOR COMMUNICATIONInput from stakeholders and the public were crucial components in the development of the Yolo County IRWMP. Public input was gathered through a variety of means, including three public workshops. Six additional, more focused meetings were held in April 2006, where input on potential actions was gathered from stakeholders. A total of 32 stakeholders were interviewed through these meetings.

Th e WRA also communicated with stakeholders through its web site (www.yolowra.org) which included the following publicly accessible items: draft IRWMP sections and related documents; community workshop meeting agendas and minutes; WRA Board, Executive Committee and WRA Technical Committee (WRA TC) meeting announcements, agendas and minutes; comment forms; list of frequently asked questions; and a brief overview of the IRWMP.

In addition, public input was solicited during the public quarterly WRA Board meetings, bi-weekly Executive Committee meetings, and monthly WRA TC that included IRWMP discussions.

Th ere were three IRWMP newsletters describing the IRWMP process that were published during the Yolo County IRWMP process.

On an ongoing basis the WRA continues to maintain its website and invites the public to attend WRA Board and WRA TC meetings through publicly posted agendas and meeting announcements.

Other Ongoing Efforts in Lake, Solano, Napa, and Colusa CountiesTh e following describes outreach eff orts Westside RWMG member agencies have conducted to date.

LAKE COUNTYIn early 2007, three local Lake County water agencies met to discuss how to start the development of a then county-wide IRWMP. An initial list of stakeholders was developed which included all public water supply purveyors with over 100 connections, all wastewater treatment

agencies, local governments, local tribes, local environmental groups, appropriate agencies from outside the County, and organizations that dealt with water-related functions, including fl ood and storm water management. From the initial stakeholder meeting in May 2007, all meetings were public and the public was invited to attend. New attendees were added to the mailing list. Th e current Lake County stakeholder mailing list includes 87 contacts.

Th e Lake County WPD website contains an IRWMP page with information on meetings and other supporting documentation. Th e Lake County WPD has also posted their previous draft IRWM goals and objectives to a “wiki” site for collaborative editing.

Th e procedures, processes, and structures that have promoted access to and collaboration with people or agencies with diverse views within the Lake County subregion implemented to date include:

Developed a list of stakeholders in the region ■Used various water agency mailing lists to ■invite the public to Lake County IRWMPning meetingsHeld public meetings to solicit public input on ■the IRWMPning processMaintained an IRWMP web page ■Created a “wiki” site for collaborative editing ■of IRWM goals

SOLANO COUNTYSCWA formed a Stakeholder Group for the purpose of creating the Solano Agencies IRWMP. Th e Solano Agencies Stakeholder Group was formed from members of SCWA’s Board of Directors, the SCWA Advisory Commission, the SCWA Flood Control Advisory Committee, and wastewater agencies to focus on IRWMP development. Th e members were a cross-section of technical and policy representatives from agricultural and urban agencies. Th e purpose of this Stakeholder Group was to work together to assemble and apply knowledge and experience regarding the region’s water resources and develop recommendations for consideration by the

8

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

NAPA COUNTYIn 2005, Napa County formed the Napa County Regional Water Management Group (RWMG), a working group of local water agencies, with the Napa County FC&WCD as the lead agency. Th e group worked together to draft the Napa County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) Functional Equivalent, dated June 2005.

Th e activities related to adoption of the IRWMP and the identifi cation of applicable integrated, regional projects were publicly-noticed through agency meeting agendas, websites, and newsletters.

Th e procedures, processes, and structures that promoted access to and collaboration with people or agencies with diverse views within the Napa County subregion implemented to date include:

Delivered focused presentations by the Napa ■County FC&WCD to selected stakeholder groups Created the Napa County Watershed ■Information Center and Conservancy (WICC) and provided email messaging and notices on the WICC website: http://www.napawatersheds.org/)Communicated through regular public board ■meetings of various water agencies in Napa County (including Napa County FC&WCD, Napa County RCD, Lake Berryessa RID, Napa Berryessa RID, WICC, and Napa County CDPD’s watershed program)

Napa County is now developing a Napa County Integrated Water Resource Management Planning Framework (Napa IWRMPF) which will integrate local and regional water and watershed management to provide a cost eff ective process for identifi cation and implementation of water management solutions with multiple benefi ts. Th e IWWMPF will promote integration of existing water planning eff orts and opportunities to further develop regional relationships and expand stakeholder participation. Th e IWRMPF will use a unifi ed approach to sharing project information, primarily through a database on the publically-accessible WICC website (www.

SCWA and member agencies’ boards/councils. Th e Stakeholder Group met six times, from February through October 2004, to develop the Solano Agencies IRWMP. In addition, two public meetings were advertised at board meetings and in local newspapers.

Th e structure of SCWA facilitates ongoing coordination with stakeholder groups in Solano County. Th e SCWA Board of directors consists of all fi ve members of the County Board of Supervisors, all seven mayors and three irrigation districts directors. Additionally there is a SCWA Advisory Commission made up of member agency staff that meets monthly. SCWA also has a Flood Control Advisory Committee made up of agency representatives and the public.

SCWA maintains a website (http://www.scwa2.com/) where it provides updates on its most recent regional management eff orts.

Th e procedures, processes, and structures that have promoted access to and collaboration with people or agencies with diverse views within the Solano County subregion implemented to date include:

Formed Stakeholder Group for Solano ■Agencies IRWMPSent emails and made phone calls to inform ■stakeholders of the RWMG processInvited public to public IRWMP meetings ■via announcements in local newspapers and announcements at other water-related public meetings Held public meetings to solicit public input on ■the IRWMPPosted informational announcements, ■including meeting notes, on the SCWA website.Made presentations to city councils and water ■district boardsMaintained an informational web site ■


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Process for Identifying Water-Related Objectives and ConflictsTh e Westside CC has identifi ed some signifi cant management issues and confl icts related to water in the Putah and Cache Creek watersheds as fairly typical of most areas in California – water rights and diversions, groundwater quantity and quality and general water quality issues. Two additional specifi c major water management issues were identifi ed: 1) invasive species and 2) mercury contamination. Th e Westside RWMG will hold public workshops and solicit comments to identify any other issues and confl icts during the IRWMP process in order to include stakeholder and DAC opinions on objectives and confl icts.

The Cache Creek watershed contributes 30% of the inorganic mercury load to the Delta. This is a 20 year average (mix of low, medium, and high water years). This is a measure of mercury leaving the Cache Creek Settling Basin (CCSB). Currently, the CCSB traps about 50% of the inorganic mercury and sediment entering the basin. As the CCSB fills, it could potentially become less efficient at trapping mercury. [Source: Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2010. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary TMDL for Methylmercury. Final Staff Report, April 2010.]

Aside from invasive species and mercury issues, some of the other issues expected to emerge in the IRWMP process or as continuing issues from the prior IRWMP processes include:

Flood management throughout the region ■Groundwater management throughout the ■regionEutrophication in Clear Lake ■Water-related limitations on development ■opportunities in Lake CountyOld mercury mines within the upper Cache ■Creek watershed

napawatersheds.org). Napa County will contribute to the larger regional IRWMPs in addition to its own independent local planning. Th us the Napa River and Suisun Creek watersheds will participate in the ongoing San Francisco Bay Area IRWMP and related IRWMP-funded projects, and projects from the Putah Creek/Lake Berryessa drainage basins will be integrated into the Westside Sacramento River IRWMP.

COLUSA COUNTYTh e Colusa County RCD was identifi ed as the Regional Public Agency to represent Colusa County in the Westside RWMG, in part because of the RCD’s past and current eff orts in addressing natural resource concerns within the county and working with the local stakeholders. Th e Colusa County RCD has provided stakeholder outreach in the Bear Creek Watershed, assisted the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) with the development of the Bear Creek Watershed Assessment and Stewardship Plan, updated and added to the stakeholder contact list supplied by BLM, posted Bear Creek Watershed reports and information on the Colusa County RCD website. Th e Colusa County RCD has a Bear Creek Watershed Coordinator and Colusa County RCD staff also serve on the Cache Creek Watershed Forum and keep the group up to date on the Westside RWMG’s planning eff orts.

Integration of Prior Stakeholder Involvement SuccessesInput from stakeholders and the public were crucial components in the development of the Yolo County IRWMP, SCWA IRWMP, and the IRWM eff orts that were initiated in Lake and Napa counties prior to the evolution of the Westside RWMG. Similar to each of the counties, stakeholders in Yolo County were identifi ed by attendance at WRA community workshops, attendance at stakeholder group meetings, and through agency identifi cation of water management stakeholders in their jurisdictions. A combined list of existing stakeholders that have been identifi ed in the region is included in Appendix 2.

10

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Technical analysis of effl uent data is largely driven by discharge permit requirements. Stream gaging data is managed and analyzed by many diff erent agencies, including the USGS, counties, cities, and districts. Some of the other specifi c data management practices for the Regional Public Agencies are described in the following paragraphs.

Solano CountySCWA collects data directly and also receives data from member agencies and stakeholders, the state, and private citizens. SCWA collects and analyzes data on water supply, water quality, fl ood management, and environmental protection relevant to the agencies mission. SCWA stores data in an SQL database and provides some water data to the public via their website.

Th e types of data collected by the SCWA include:

Lake Berryessa: Infl ow, storage, dam releases, ■temperature [thermoclines], and evaporationLake Solano: Putah South Canal Headworks ■operation, and Putah Diversion Dam releases to Putah CreekSolano Project: Stage, daily fl ow observations, ■temperature, water quality monitoring data, spillsNorth Bay Aqueduct: Barker Slough water ■quality, hydrodynamic studies, watershed fl ow/storagePrecipitation: SCWA and CIMIS stations, ■private stationsFlow/Stage: for fl ood hazard monitoring, and ■at City stationsPutah Creek: Fish counts, fl ow, temperature ■modelsUlatis Flood Control System: Pesticide ■monitoringGroundwater: Water quality, water elevations ■

Colusa CountyTh e Flood Control and Water Conservation District is not a staff ed department in Colusa County. Local government water management

Periodic wastewater system overfl ow events ■that have resulted in discharges into Lake BerryessaFunding for upgrades to rural water supply ■and wastewater systemsWater-related issues in West Sacramento ■Flood management, water quality, agricultural ■production, and wetlands/environmental habitat in the Yolo BypassStream restoration on both Putah and Cache ■creeks and tributariesAquatic habitat degradation and impacts on ■fi sh and wildlife

Process for Setting Criteria and Developing Regional PrioritiesTh rough several meetings, the CC has identifi ed regional priorities to include: water supply reliability, water conservation, water quality improvement, storm water capture and management, fl ood management, invasive species abatement, mercury contamination cleanup, wetlands enhancement and creation, and environmental and habitat protection and improvements. Th ese identifi ed regional priorities however are subject to addition and change through the Westside IRWMP public process.

Th e process to be used for setting criteria and development Regional Priorities for the newly formed Westside RWMG is described in the Work Plan content section, below..

Management of Data Collection and Technical AnalysisA variety of data collection and analysis practices are maintained by the Westside Regional Public Agencies and the agencies they represent. Effl uent quality and quantity data are collected and managed at each wastewater treatment plant and reported to and stored at the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

as required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Lake CountyData management practices and analysis for specifi c types of data collected in Lake County include:

Groundwater Level Data: Maintained in a Microsoft Access database. Th e semi-annual measurements are submitted to DWR and published in the Water Data Library. Th e Lake County Watershed Protection District will also be serving as the lead for most of, or all of, Lake County for the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM).

Stream Gauging Data: Compiled by the USGS. DWR also maintains three stream gages in Lake County and maintains the data.

Surface Water Quality Data in the Clear Lake Watershed: Data are maintained in Microsoft Access databases. Data has been analyzed by University of California personnel and by District staff . Several reports have been generated over the years providing the results of these analyses.

Numerous documents are available in the Lake County WPD library. Th e most important documents include:

Lake County Groundwater Management Plan ■Lake County Water Demand Forecast ■Th e Clear Lake Integrated Watershed ■Management PlanLake County Floodplain Management Plan ■Clear Lake TMDL Monitoring and ■Implementation Program

Th ese documents are currently available on the District’s FTP site, and a catalog for the library is available on the internet at http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/Water_Resources/database.htm

duties fall upon the Colusa County Board of Supervisors, County’s Planning & Building Department, Public Works and the Agricultural Commissioner’s Department. Th e Colusa County Planning and Building Department manages the County’s “Groundwater Management Plan”. Department staff provides the staff duties for the County’s Groundwater Management Commission. Colusa County groundwater information including the Colusa County Groundwater Management Plan is hosted on a website by UC Davis at http://colusagroundwater.ucdavis.edu/. Public Works provides fl ood management for the County and documents are housed in their offi ce. Th e Ag Commissioner’s Department represents local landowner interests in the sub-watershed program developed to address the discharge of agricultural waters.

Although not an offi cial county department, the Colusa County Resource Conservation District (CCRCD) has provided assistance to local government concerning issues relating to natural resources. Th e CCRCD has historically posted data generated through past DWR grants to the CERES clearinghouse website located at http://ceres.ca.gov/discover.html. Th e CCRCD utilizes their website (http://www.colusarcd.org) to post all watershed related data that they have generated including the Colusa Basin Watershed Assessment and Colusa Basin Watershed Streambank Analysis. Th e Colusa County RCD also posts information to its own website, which also includes the Bear Creek Watershed Assessment and Bear Creek Watershed Stewardship Plan.

Napa CountyData sources relevant to the Westside RWMG include the Napa County Baseline Data Report and the 2050 Napa Valley Water Resources Study. Th e Lake Berryessa and Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement Districts collect groundwater data and surface water quality data to satisfy State permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Public Health respectively. Furthermore, the Napa County Resource Conservation District has been monitoring water quality for the past fi ve years (ending this year) in Pope Creek and Capell Creek

12

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Anticipated IRWMP Implementation Process, Impacts, and BenefitsTh e anticipated IRWMP implementation process for, and impacts and benefi ts from, the Westside IRWMP is described in the Work Plan content section.

Review of Prior IRWMPs Relative to Current IRWMP StandardsTh e principal areas of coverage for existing IRWMPs in the Westside region are Yolo County and Solano County. Th ese earlier IRWMPs are defi cient in meeting the current IRWMP standards because they do not adequately address:

Climate change impacts on near and long- ■term water resources planningIntegration with other planning decisions – ■especially with local land-use planningDetailed project review process for identifying ■what projects to include in the IRWMP

Also, the earlier IRWMPning eff orts naturally fall short of meeting the needs for the newly created Westside IRWM region in the following areas:

Documentation of the region’s governance ■that ensures IRWMP will be updated and implemented in the futureData management for region-wide access and ■integrationIdentifi cation of agencies and entities outside ■the region targeted for coordination and cooperation. Th is includes coordination with overlapping or immediately adjacent regions related to IRWMPs.

Yolo CountyTh e WRA funded a project to make the Water Resources Information Database (a comprehensive database for Yolo County) available online (http://wrid.facilitiesmap.com/). Th is compilation of Yolo County water data was also made available to DWR and other state agencies. Collected groundwater data is added to the statewide DWR Water Data Library – a database available online to the public, thereby supporting statewide data needs. Th e July 2004 Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (YCFC&WCD) AB303 Groundwater Monitoring Program developed a coordinated groundwater monitoring program between the YCFC&WCD, DWR, federal agencies, municipalities, UCD, and others for measurement of groundwater levels, water quality constituents and other parameters, that improve the understanding and thus management of groundwater underlying Yolo County. Th is county-wide groundwater monitoring program is now coordinated by the WRA technical committee with the YCFC&WCD as the lead agency.

Th e Cache Creek Catalog has also been established and is an online library of important documents, maps and photographs that describe conditions in the Cache Creek watershed. Online access is available for many documents in pdf format. Th e Cache Creek Catalog was a project funded through the WRA’s IRWMP Prop 50 Grant from DWR.

Application of Integrated Resource Management StrategiesTh e process to be used for applying integrated resource management strategies for the newly formed Westside RWMG is described in the Work Plan content section.

■


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Work Plan ContentTh e Westside Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) is the most comprehensive, proactive eff ort ever undertaken for water resource planning in the Putah Creek and Cache Creek watersheds. Th e IRWMP builds on previous water planning eff orts, including the Yolo County 2007 IRWMP, the Solano County Water Agency’s 2005 IRWMP, the 2005 Napa County Baseline Data Report, and Clear Lake Integrated Watershed Management Plan. Th e IRWMP will identify high priority water-related issues and provide an implementation strategy for identifi ed solutions. Th rough the IRWMP development process, the Westside RWMG will seek opportunities for collaboration among agencies within the Westside boundary and neighboring IRWM regions, and opportunities to integrate land use and water resource planning.

Th e Westside RWMG has diverse representation and is well-positioned to create a balanced and comprehensive IRWMP for the geographic region. Th e Westside IRWMP will address issues common with immediately adjacent IRWM areas as identifi ed in DWR’s 2009 Region Acceptance Process (RAP).

Th e Westside IRWMP will specifi cally address the program preferences outlined on the following page.

Th e Westside IRWMP will be developed by the Project Team with public input. Th e Project Team will include the technical, public outreach, and facilitation consultants (collectively referred to as

CoordinatingCommittee

Lead Consultant

Technical and Planning Services

Facilitator Public OutreachConsultant

Consultant Team

Figure 2. Westside RWMG Coordination

the Consultant Team) as well as the Coordinating Committee (CC) as shown graphically in Figure 2. Th e CC will direct the eff orts of the Consultant Team.

One of the challenges of integrating planning eff orts of multiple agencies is to develop a common terminology, even though diff erent prior planning eff orts may use diff erent terminology. For the Westside IRWMP we have added “issues” to the standard “goals and objectives” to refl ect matters of importance to be resolved, but are not traditional “goals and objectives”. We also use programs, actions and projects to describe activities that are identifi ed to meet goals and objectives and to address issues.

Th ere will be three separate phases leading to developing the Plan: (1) develop issues, goals and objectives, (2) develop comprehensive list of prioritized potential projects/programs, and (3) develop a draft and fi nal IRWMP.

A four step development, review and adoption process applies to each of these phases:

Consultant Team develops “straw” proposals1. CC reviews/modifi es2. CC sends draft to public for input and review3. Consultant Team and CC modify as needed4.

Although the planning period for the IRWMP will extend to 2032, the IRWMP will focus on guiding the water resources management activities of member agencies and the community for the next fi ve to 10 years.

14

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Westside Sacramento Regional Water Management Group

Sept

embe

r , 2

010

15

Specific Tasks That Address Program Preferences

PROGRAM PREFERENCES

TASK 1. OUTREACH, FACILITATION, AND COMMUNICATION

TASK 2. DATA COLLECTION TASK 3. DEVELOP IRWMP COMPONENTS

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.a.1 3.a.2 3.a.3 3.a.4 3.a.5 3.b.1 3.b.2 3.b.3 3.b.4 3.b.5 3.c 3.d 3.e 3.f 3.g

INCLUSION OF REGIONAL PROJECTS INTEGRATION OF WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS WITHIN THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD REGION

CONTRIBUTIONS TO ATTAINMENT OF ONE OR MORE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CALFED BAY-DELTA PROGRAM CRITICAL WATER SUPPLY OR WATER QUALITY NEEDS OF DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE WESTSIDE RWMG LAND USE PLANNING DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS MORE EFFICIENT USE AND REUSE OF WATER CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP INTEGRATED FLOOD MANAGEMENT GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION MEASURES EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Th e following are anticipated steps to develop the IRWMP. Th is process may be modifi ed as the planning process proceeds depending on public participation and interest.

PHASE 1Th e Project Team will review and update the ■issues, goals and objectives developed under previous and ongoing regional planning processes.Public input will be sought to add and refi ne ■issues, goals and objectives.

PHASE 2Th e Project Team will identify projects, ■program and actions from prior planning resources.Public input will be sought to add other ■projects, programs and actions.Th e Project Team will draft criteria, develop ■a prioritization process, and apply the prioritization process to evaluate projects, programs and actions.Public input will be sought on the criteria and ■prioritization.

PHASE 3Project Team develops a draft IRWMP for ■review and comment by the public and the Regional Public Agencies.Project Team develops fi nal draft IRWMP ■for adoption by the governing boards of the Regional Public Agencies.

Th e Westside RWMG’s overall schedule for performing the work and adopting the IRWMP is presented in Attachment 5. Th e IRWMP will be completed in three phases as shown in the timeline in Figure 3.

Concurrent with the IRWMP process, Regional Public Agencies and other local agencies will be performing related planning work that is an integral part of the overall water resources planning and management eff orts within the Westside region. Th is will provide important information and guidance to the IRWMP. Concurrent eff orts will likely include Urban Water Management Plans, Groundwater Management Plans, Agricultural Water Management Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans, Watershed Management Plans, and county and city General Plans.

JAN JUL JUL DEC

• Stakeholder and DAC meetings• Data collection and mapping

Finaliz

e Objec

tives

• Stakeholder and DAC meetings• Project review process and prioritization• Implementation strategy• Gather list of projects• Data collection and mapping• Discuss impacts and benefits

DEVELOP OBJECTIVES& ISSUES

DEVELOP ACTIONS& PRIORITIZE PROJECTS

DEVELOPIRWMP

Phase 1

2011 2012

Phase 2 Phase 3

Admini

strati

ve D

raft I

RWMP

Public

Rev

iew D

raft I

RWMP

Final D

raft I

RWMP

Region

al Pub

lic A

gency

Boa

rds A

dopt F

inal IR

WMP

• Stakeholder and DAC meetings

Figure 3. Westside IRWMP Development Phases

18

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Th e CC has a Chair and Vice Chair. Th e Vice Chair assumes duties of the Chair when the Chair is unavailable. In the event the Chair and Vice Chair are unavailable, the two will jointly designate an acting Chair. Th e CC expects to meet monthly at a minimum, and more oft en if needed, once the preparation of the Westside IRWMP begins. CC members will be responsible for keeping their respective agency Boards updated on the development of the IRWMP and to update other agencies in their County who may have an interest in the IRWMP. At least one member will attend each of the public meetings, including those held with Tribes, specifi c stakeholders and disadvantaged communities. CC meetings will be open to the public.

CC meetings are the principal means for the Consultant Team to get direction and input on their work. It is envisioned that the Consultant Team will provide agendas and meeting notes for each CC meeting. Draft documents from the Consultant Team are expected to be provided to the CC in advance of the CC meeting. Most of the in-kind hours are assigned to this task as it is envisioned that the CC meetings will be the principal means for the Consultant Team to interact with the CC. Draft s of documents will be sent out in advance of the meeting by the Consultant Team and the CC will be expected to review the documents in advance of the meeting and be prepared to comment at the meeting. Th ere will be additional in-kind hours related to specifi c tasks that will happen outside of CC meetings.

1.2 Develop Structure for Public ProcessTh e Project Team will structure a public process suited to the needs of the IRWMP. An experienced consultant in public participation will be part of the Consultant Team. With input from the CC, the Consultant Team will develop an overall public participation program that includes public meetings, written and web based communications.

Th e work items or tasks and activities presented herein and the resources presented in the budget (Attachment 4) refl ect the Westside RWMG’s commitment to this planning eff ort.

Task 1. Outreach, Facilitation, and CommunicationOutreach will be a complex process, recognizing the wide range of water-related interests in the Westside region, the distribution of population for a mix of rural and urban areas, and travel times related to geography. In addition, special attention will be given to disadvantaged communities and Tribal interests. Th is requires leadership and appropriate skills to lead and conduct public outreach so that the public and stakeholders will be engaged, the process will maintain credibility, and there will be opportunity for widespread community participation and support. Th e Project Team will develop a public outreach plan and conduct a public outreach eff ort, with the assistance of a meeting facilitator. Feedback from each public meeting and outreach eff ort will be essential in assuring that the IRWMP development process succeeds.

1.1 Coordinating Committee (CC) Meetings and CoordinationTh e CC is comprised of one staff representative and an alternate from each Regional Public Agency to apply for funding for a planning grant and to manage development of an IRWMP for the RWMG. See the Governance section (Task 3.a.1) for a description of the MOU.

Th e CC is responsible for taking actions during the development of the Plan including identifying proposed Plan goals and objectives, proposing a process for prioritizing projects, developing draft s of the IRWMP, hiring and managing consultants, and managing funding agreements. Actions by the CC will be by consensus of all the members. Any decisions by the CC shall not cause an increase in expenditures without additional funding approved by the governing bodies of the Regional Public Agencies (as defi ned in the Westside MOU, Appendix 1).


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

State, federal, and regional agencies or ■universities that have specifi c responsibilities or knowledge within the region (10 stakeholders)Members and representatives of DAC, ■including environmental justice organizations, neighborhood councils, and social justice organizationsAny other interested groups appropriate to the ■region (24 stakeholders)

Th e Westside RWMG will hold one set of meetings during Phase 1, two sets of meetings in Phase 2 and one set of meetings in Phase 3. Th e meetings in Phase 3 are described under Task 1.6. For each set of meetings, the meetings will be held in three diff erent geographic areas of the region to facilitate stakeholder input. For example, the initial set of meetings could be held in Woodland, Vacaville, and Clear Lake with the second set of meetings held in Davis, Dixon, and Lower Lake. Each of these meetings will be conducted by a facilitator. Th e CC will have members at each meeting.

Th e fi rst meeting in Phase 1 will be to introduce stakeholders to the IRWMP process and to seek their input on goals, issues and objectives. Aft er this meeting the Project Team will prepare draft issues, goals, and objectives.

Th e second meeting (the fi rst meeting in Phase 2) will be to solicit projects, programs and actions to be considered for inclusion in the IRWMP that would help meet the issues, goals and objectives. Prior to that meeting the Project Team will provide a template for submitting projects.

Th e third meeting (second meeting in Phase 2) will be to review and comment on a draft prioritization of projects, programs and actions. Prior to that meeting the Project Team will provide a draft system for analyzing, prioritizing and ranking projects, programs and actions.

Th e fourth meeting (in Phase 3), also described in Task 1.6, will be to review and comment on a complete Public Review draft Westside IRWMP. Prior to the meeting the Project Team will make available a draft IRWMP for review.

Th e schedule in Attachment 5 identifi es planned stakeholder and DAC meetings for each Phase. Th e public participation program will be adaptively managed based on the level and quality of actual public participation.

As part of this subtask, the Project Team will identify stakeholders and interested individuals that may wish to participate in the public process. Th e stakeholders identifi ed to-date are listed in the table in Appendix 2. Th e CC will invite these stakeholders as well as others to attend public meetings and to participate in the planning process. Th ese stakeholders will receive regular e-mail updates and newsletters.

1.3 Stakeholder Input MeetingsTh e Westside RWMG understands the importance of including the full range of stakeholders in integrated water planning. Th e Westside RWMG intends to solicit input from the stakeholders listed in Appendix 2, as well as from new stakeholders that have not yet been identifi ed. Th e following is a summary list of the stakeholder groups that are listed in Appendix 2:

Wholesale and retail water purveyors (52 ■stakeholders)Wastewater agencies (18 stakeholders) ■Flood management agencies (23 stakeholders) ■Municipal and County Governments and ■Special Districts (16 stakeholders)California Native American Tribes that ■have land within the Westside Region (7 stakeholders)Land use authorities (all cities and counties) ■Watermaster for adjudicated surface water ■basin (1 stakeholder)Self-supplied water users, including ■agricultural, industrial, residential and park districts, school districts, colleges and universities, and others (2 stakeholders)Environmental stewardship organizations ■including watershed groups, fi shing groups, land conservancies, and environmental groups (29 stakeholders)

20

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Additional stakeholder meetings may be held, as necessary, throughout the process.

In addition to these general stakeholder input meetings, which are anticipated to attract a large number of interested parties, the Westside RWMG will hold a number of smaller meetings in rural and/or disadvantaged communities to allow rural and disadvantaged region residents to participate in the IRWMP public process. See Task 1.5 for DAC outreach approach and Task 1.9 for Tribal outreach approach.

Th e Westside RWMG recognizes that developing and maintaining working relationships is not a stagnant process. Most stakeholders and water agencies share an interest in improved regional water quality and watershed protection. However, by brief inspection of the breadth of stakeholders and water agencies already identifi ed for this emerging region, there are inherently some competing interests that may aff ect integrated regional water planning.

Th e Westside RWMG will invite members of the public and all known stakeholders to public meetings during the development of the Westside IRWMP in order to maximize public participation. Th e public will be informed via a Westside RWMG website, public notices in local papers, and announcements at local water district and County supervisor board meetings. To maximize the number of people that understand the IRWM process, many key communications will be written in English and Spanish.

1.4 Communication with StakeholdersFrequent communication with stakeholders, members of the public, and other interested parties (e.g. staff from DWR and other agencies) will be key to a successful IRWMP process. Although there will be many public meetings where input can be accepted, it is anticipated that there will be public input outside of these meetings, such as from telephone or e-mail communications. Th e Project Team will designate a member of the Consultant Team to be the principal point of contact. Additionally each member of the CC will be a designated contact person for the county that they represent. Th at

way the public, as well as local agencies, will have a contact to ask questions about local eff orts and region-wide eff orts. Th e Consultant Team will coordinate with the CC on responding to such inquiries and comments.

In accordance with Section 6066 of the California Government Code, the Westside RWMG will publish a notice of intent to prepare the IRWMP and a notice of intention to adopt the IRWMP aft er the IRWMP has been completed.

1.5 Disadvantaged Community (DAC) MeetingsIn the past some interest groups have attempted to place DAC needs primarily within the framework of “environmental justice”, but the Westside region understands that DAC water needs are more than that. Small disadvantaged communities have needs that extend to fl ood safety, water supplies and wastewater treatment. Due to oft en remote locations, regional solutions are sometimes more diffi cult to assemble, but these needs are real.

Th e Westside RWMG will invite members of all known DACs to public planning meetings during the development of the Westside IRWMP in order to maximize DAC participation. Th e DAC communities will be informed via a Westside RWMG website, public notices in local papers, and announcements at local water district and County supervisor board meetings. To maximize the number of people that understand the IRWM process, key printed and electronic communications will be written in English and Spanish. DACs are identifi ed as communities with an annual median household income (MHI) of less than 80% of the statewide annual MHI (Proposition 84 guidelines). DAC community identifi cation is further explained in the Stakeholder Involvement section of the Work Plan (see Task 3.b.2).

In addition to the general stakeholder input meetings, which are anticipated to attract a large number of interested parties, the Westside RWMG will hold a number of smaller, focused meetings in disadvantaged communities to allow disadvantaged community residents, who


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

1.8 Website Development, Newsletters, Material PreparationA Westside RWMG website will be developed to help keep the public informed and involved with any public meetings and decisions. Th e website will contain a schedule of any public meetings or workshops within the region as well as any important documents to help the public understand the IRWMP process. Th is website will be continually updated as new information is made available and meetings are scheduled. A series of newsletters (at least every six months) will also be created to keep the public and stakeholders up to date on the progress of the Westside IRWMP and to further inform them of any meetings and workshops. To maximize the number of people that understand the IRWMP process, key communication documents will be printed in both English and Spanish. Th e number of newsletters and content will be determined in the “Develop and Implement Structure for Public Process” (Task 1.2) described above.

1.9 California Native American Tribe Notifications/EngagementConsistent with the 2009 Update to the California Water Plan, the Westside RWMG will use the term “California Native American Tribe” to signify all indigenous communities of California, including those that are non-federally recognized and federally recognized. In addition to our separate eff orts related to tribal notifi cation and overall stakeholder outreach, we expect to work with DWR’s tribal coordinator on questions and focused support we may need including emerging changes to Tribal coordination. Coordination, interaction and other responsibilities related to federal, state and local governmental programs is undergoing great change as it relates to water issues. Some of these are set forth in DWR Director Mark Cowin’s May 1, 2010 letter addressed to California Native American Tribe (Tribe) representatives. Th e Tribal Communication Committee’s Tribal Communication Plan addresses the importance of Tribal knowledge of and engagement in water planning processes, including those at the local level such as IRWMPs. Th e 2009 Update

oft en live in rural area, to participate in the Westside IRWMPning process. DAC meeting locations may be held in smaller towns such as Lucerne, Dunnigan, Lower Lake, Middletown, and Rumsey. Th e Westside RWMG plans to hold three meetings, during each project phase in diff erent geographic areas of the region at which DAC stakeholders can provide their input to the Westside IRWMP development. Th e number and locations of DAC meetings will be adaptively managed depending on levels of participation and topics of interest. Th e CC will have a member attend each DAC meeting.

1.6 Public Review Draft IRWMP Public MeetingsIn Phase 3, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the draft IRWMP, both at public meetings and in writing. A public meeting in three prominent locations in the region (e.g. Woodland, Vacaville, and Lakeport) will be held during a 60-day comment period which will begin as soon as the public review draft IRWMP is released (September 2012.)

1.7 Miscellaneous Meetings (with DWR, other RWMGs, etc.)Based on past experience with IRWMP development in Yolo and Solano Counties, the Westside RWMG anticipates periodic meetings with DWR and other state or regional governmental agencies. In addition, the Westside RWMG is aware of many inter-regional issues that will need to be coordinated with other IRWM regions. Th e schedule and budget allow for these miscellaneous meetings to occur approximately every other month for the fi rst year and a half of the IRWMP process.

22

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Lake County engages regularly with all of the Tribal environmental directors in many watershed related venues such as the Clear Lake Advisory Committee and TMDL stakeholder meetings. Collaboration with the Tribes is most active in native fi sh restoration projects, Clear Lake issues and management, invasive species councils and task force, TMDL plans and implementation, sustainable agricultural practices, mercury clean-up and restoration, habitat protection and enhancement. Two Lake County Tribal representatives assisted as facilitators in the local IRWMP process and the development of the WIKI IRWMP site.

Although formal notifi cation is not legally required until specifi c projects undergo the CEQA process, the Project Team plans to notify Tribes of the IRWMPning process as suggested by the IRWM Guidelines. Th e Project Team will employ the Offi ce of Planning and Research’s procedures for tribal consultation for General Plans and Specifi c Plans as guidance. Th e Project Team will fi rst confi rm which tribes have traditional lands located within the Westside region by working with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).

Th e Project Team will actively seek direct Tribal participation in the IRWMP process, including an initial meeting in Phase 1, in addition to a meeting mid-way through Phase 2 with Tribal representatives throughout the region. A high level of outreach is anticipated with Tribes and all other stakeholders in the Westside region.

California Native American Tribe Notifi cation is part of DWR’s CEQA review for projects requesting funding under Proposition 84. All applicable projects adopted under the Westside IRWMP will follow the formal notifi cation required by PRC 75102.

to the California Water Plan includes specifi c recommended actions related to participation of Tribes in local water planning, including IRWMPs. Such concerns were raised in the 2009 California Tribal Water Summit, and formed the framework for additional dialogue at the September 9, 2010 California Water Plan Tribal Workshop. Th e September 9 meeting began a more detailed dialogue among the Tribes and DWR in the context of the next Update to the California Water Plan. Th at meeting reinforced the importance of the elements of the 2009 Tribal Communication Plan, which did address a more active engagement in IRWMPs. We will take advantage of follow-up discussions among the Tribes and DWR to help guide our approach to Tribal engagement and outreach, including DWR’s proposed April 2011 IRWM conference with planned Tribal involvement. More information is available at www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/tribal2/.

Th e Westside RWMG recognizes the importance and uniqueness of engaging Tribes that exist within the boundaries of the Westside RWMG. Th e WRA of Yolo County already coordinates with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation on water-related data collection eff orts, and Lake County has regular contact with many of the environmental coordinators for tribes in Lake County. To date, the CC has identifi ed the following tribes, as shown in Figure 4 on the following page, within its boundary:

Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Yolo County) ■Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Lake ■County)Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Lake ■County)Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake (Lake ■County)Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians (Lake ■County)Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians (Lake ■County)Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians (Lake ■County)


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

¬«128

¬«99

¬«113

¬«29

¬«45

¬«121

¬«20

§̈¦5

§̈¦80

¬«20

¬«29

¬«113

¬«12

¬«12

§̈¦5

¬«99

¬«45£¤101

¬«128

¬«128

0CACHE CREEK

PUTAH CREEK

PUTAHCREEK

WILLOW SLOUGH

§̈¦5

£¤101§̈¦505

§̈¦80

¬«20

¬«113

¬«16

FE

AT

HE

R R

IVE

R

SACRAMENTO R

IVER

SAC

RA

ME

NTO

RIV

ER

Robinson

Lower Lake

Upper Lake

Middletown

Big Valley Sulphur Bank

Yolo

Napa

Dixon

Davis

Zamora

Rumsey

Colusa

Angwin

Winters

Vallejo

Benicia

Dunnigan

Woodland

Williams

Arbuckle

Vacaville

Calistoga

Yountville

Saint Helena

Spring Valley

West Sacramento

Knights Landing

American Canyon

Lake

Yolo

Colusa

Napa

Solano

Scotts Valley

Yocha Dehe Wintun

0 157.5

Miles

Notes1. Mapping data from US Census Bureau

FIGURE 4


WESTSIDE RWMGCALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBAL AREAS

N:\C

lients

\35

0 W

RA

of Y

olo Co

unty\0

0-1

0-0

3 IR

WM

P F

un

din

g - We

stside R

WM

G\G

IS\F

igu

res\F

ig3_

We

stside

RW

MG

_DA

C_

Trib

es_2

01

009

24

.mxd

9/2

4/20

10

Westside RWMG Boundary

County Boundary! California Native American Reservations / Rancherias

Reservation / Rancheria Name Official Federal Register Tribal NameUpper Lake Habematolel Pomo of Upper LakeRobinson (below Upper Lake) Robinson Rancheria of Pomo IndiansScotts Valley Scotts Valley Band of Pomo IndiansBig Valley Big Valley Band of Pomo IndiansSulphur Bank Elem Indian Colony of Pomo IndiansMiddletown Middletown Rancheria of Pomo IndiansLower Lake Not Federally recognized

24

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

2.2 Identify Data Needed to Develop Issues, Goals and Objectives and to Evaluate ActionsTh e Project Team will work with local agencies to update available data. Some data may need to be re-formatted to be useful in IRWMP analysis. Some data sources may be county-wide so agencies that have only part of their county in the Westside Region may have to separate out Westside RWMG data.

Th e Project Team will solicit data from water agencies in the Westside region as needed in Phase 1 and 2. As issues, goals and objectives are identifi ed, specifi c data needed to develop and defi ne issues, goals, and objectives will be identifi ed and the data obtained. For example, if one of the highest ranking region objectives is expected to be minimizing mercury contamination in Cache Creek, the Project Team may request methyl mercury concentration data from agencies in the region, and ask the consultant to use the mercury data to prepare a region map of mercury contamination levels. Th is map would assist the Project Team in developing and quantifying this objective.

Th e Project Team will solicit data from water agencies in the Westside region as needed in Phase 2 to evaluate and prioritize actions (projects and programs). For example, if a high priority objective is invasive species removal along Putah and Cache Creeks and their tributaries, the Project Team may request invasive species data from agencies and conservancy groups in the region, and ask the consultant to use the acquired data received to prepare a region map of invasive species concentrations. Th is map would assist the Westside RWMG in reviewing the action and in prioritizing projects to most eff ectively meet the objective.

Task 2. Data CollectionTh e Plan will be driven in part by information gathered on supporting technical resources (stream fl ows, groundwater levels and quality, etc.) as well as projects/programs. Th is requires an organized approach to collecting and organizing such data so that it will be readily available for development of the Plan. During Phase 1, the Project Team will document how various agencies in the Westside region collect, analyze, monitor, and report data. Th is documentation will begin with reviewing and compiling existing data and identifying data needs under Task 2. Task 2 will primarily be conducted and completed during Phase 1 and 2 of the IRWMP process. However, data collection eff orts will be ongoing throughout the draft ing of the IRWMP and beyond the adoption of the Plan.

2.1 Review Existing Westside Regional Public Agencies’ Resource DataTh e Project Team will review the relevant information contained in the existing Yolo County and Solano County IRWMPs and other integrated water planning documents in the region such as the Napa County Integrated Water Resource Management Planning Framework. Although this subtask allows for some time to review previous documents, that time is necessarily limited. Th e Westside region is a new planning area and the information in existing plans contain information that is at least four years out of date.

Th e Background section of this application has a listing of much of the existing available data sources that will be useful in the planning process.

Another aspect of this task is identifying major data gaps that exist. For example, the Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District anticipates that they will have much less data for the Napa County portion of land in the Westside region compared to the data collected by other Regional Public Agencies. Some new data may need to be collected through the subtasks described below.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

2.3 Compile and Update Land and Water Use Planning DataTh e Project Team will use information from existing General Plans to develop a common land use map of the region. Th e map will be on a macro scale to show broad scale land uses, as opposed to details commonly shown in urban General Plans.

Region water use data will be obtained from existing documents, many of which are shown in the listing of existing data in the Background section of this application (starting on page 10). Th e CC will be responsible for updating this data as necessary.

Th e information obtained through this subtask will be used as a starting point to better integrate land use planning with water resources planning in the Westside region.

2.4 Compile and Update Demographics and DataTh e Westside IRWMP will necessarily contain basic demographic information to adequately describe the Westside region, such as existing population and population projections, income, race and ethnicities, and sizes of population centers in the region. Th e Project Team will review the 2010 U.S. Census data when it is available in order to make sure that no DACs are missed in outreach eff orts. Th is is important because DACs identifi ed in this work plan are based on 2000 U.S. Census data as the more recent data is not yet available.

2.5 Collect Data Needed for Climate Change EvaluationTh e Westside IRWMP will address climate change and how it may impact the region’s resources. Th e Westside IRWMP will address climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Any data required to identify these adaptation and mitigation measures will be collected with the resources allocated under this subtask. For example, obtaining and mapping sea level rise and

evapotranspiration projections for the Westside region may be conducted under this subtask.

Task 3. Develop IRWMP Components3.a. Introduction/Baseline3.a.1. RWMG GOVERNANCEGovernance by its nature will be specifi c to each RAP IRWMP region. For the RAP-approved Westside RWMG, a Westside RWMG has been created through an adopted MOU (see Appendix 1). Th e Westside RWMG consists of the governing bodies of identifi ed Regional Public Agencies. Th e Regional Public Agencies are the Lake County Watershed Protection District, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Colusa County Resource Conservation District, Solano County Water Agency and Water Resources Association of Yolo County. Th e large region contains many other public agencies with an interest in the topics envisioned to be included in the Westside IRWMP and other non-agency stakeholders. Although not signatories to the MOU, these other agencies and stakeholders are welcome to participate in the development of the IRWMP and coordinate their programs and projects as part of the IRWMP.

Th e RWMG has appointed an IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC), comprised of one staff representative and an alternate appointed by each of the Regional Public Agencies. Th e governing boards of the Regional Public Agencies will serve as the decision-making bodies, while the CC members are responsible for keeping the boards informed about the IRWMP process and making recommendations to them. An organization chart for the existing Westside RWMG governance structure is shown in Figure 5.

26

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Th e IRWMP organizational structure has two operational levels: individual Regional Public Agencies comprising the RWMG, and the CC. In addition, there will be a Consultant Team consisting of both technical consultants and other consultants supporting public outreach (including a facilitator to help organize and conduct public meetings). Th e Consultant Team will consist of a combination of “Public Outreach” and “Planning and Technical Services” as shown previously in Figure 2. Th e Consultant Team will work very closely with the CC on all aspects of IRWMP development. Th e CC will assign and guide the work of the Consultant Team.

Th e CC will be assigned the responsibility for overall management of the work and coordination of activities to ensure the successful completion of the IRWMP within the adopted budget and schedule. Th e CC will designate a lead consultant (i.e. a person) to direct Consultant Team activities. Th e Project Team (comprising the CC and the Consultant Team) will meet at intervals appropriate, at least monthly, for coordinating

Th e CC members each have a direct reporting line to their respective Regional Public Agencies. Each of the fi ve governing bodies is a water-related or land-related organization that is broad in its representation. Th ese organizations stay very current on water issues, and are briefed frequently on water-related issues in their respective areas. While the CC will guide and oversee development of the IRWMP, individual CC members will keep their respective governing boards of the Regional Public Agencies current on status of the program and seek their guidance throughout the process of developing the IRWMP. A key milestone in Phase 3 will be the briefi ng of each Regional Public Agency on the draft IRWMP that will have been released to the public for comment. Th is briefi ng will occur prior to the board meetings in which the Regional Public Agencies are asked to adopt the fi nal IRWMP. We are confi dent, due to the nature of the individual governing bodies and the eff ectiveness of the CC, this governance structure will assure timely, eff ective decisions by the Westside RWMG.

Yolo CountyWRA Board

Colusa CountyRCD Board

Napa CountyFCWCD Board

WestsideSubregion MOU

Proposition 84Planning Grant


(Public AgencyStaff Representatives)

Lake County WatershedProtection District Board

Solano CountyWater Agency Board

Public Outreachand Meetings

Proposition 84Implementation Grants

Planning andTechnical Services

Yolo County Flood Control andWater Conservation District

GM (Fiscal Agent)

IRWMP Project Director,Tim O’Halloran

Solano County Water Agency Staff (Coordinating Agent)

IRWMP Project Manager,Chris Lee

Figure 5. Organization Chart For Existing Westside RWMG Governance Structure


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

IRWMP, as a sign of acknowledgment, acceptance, and commitment to the Westside RWMG.

Th e post-adoption governance structure for the region will be determined as part of the IRWMP. Aft er the scope of the IRWMP is better understood (in Phase 2), the Project Team will develop recommendations for a post-adoption governance structure. Th is recommendation will be discussed by the Regional Public Agencies, other public agencies and stakeholders as part of the scheduled public meetings during Phase 3.

Th e long-term governance structure will need to address, at a minimum, how the IRWMP activities will be funded, monitoring of IRWMP projects and programs, continued stakeholder involvement through implementation, the process for amending the IRWMP and a process for keeping the IRWMP current (i.e. adding projects to the IRWMP).

Th e existing Westside MOU will need to be amended or replaced to implement the long-term governance structure. A new MOU or agreement should be executed concurrent with the adoption of the fi nal IRWMP.

3.a.2. REGION DESCRIPTIONTh e Westside IRWMP will include a more detailed version of the region description that was included in the 2009 RAP application and in the Background section of this document. A key part of the Region Description will be the development of a series of maps to visually portray key elements of the Region. While stakeholders in one county may be familiar with their county features, they likely will not be as familiar with the other counties in the Region. Also, these maps

and integrating the work and work products. Th e Project Team will be responsible for preparing material for use in the stakeholder and public involvement process, and in preparing the IRWMP.

Th e Project Team will be involved throughout the preparation of the IRWMP in performing public outreach in accordance with the Public Process Plan developed as part of Task 1.2. Th e Project Team will be involved in coordinating activities with neighboring regions as well.

Any decisions made by the CC will be by consensus (i.e. unanimous vote) of all CC members. Th e CC has a Chair and Vice Chair. Th e Vice Chair assumes duties of the Chair when the Chair is unavailable. In the event the Chair and Vice Chair are unavailable, the two jointly designate an acting Chair.

Th e CC will ensure that the IRWMP is completed according to this Work Plan and Proposition 84 IRWMP standards. For example, in accordance with Section 6066 of the Government Code, the Westside RWMG CC will publish a notice of intent to prepare the IRWMP and a notice of intent to adopt the IRWMP aft er the IRWMP has been completed.

Th e Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFC&WCD) will act as the lead agency during development of the IRWMP for fi scal and contract needs of the Westside RWMG while the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) will serve as the coordinating agent for the CC. YCFC&WCD General Manager Tim O’Halloran will serve as the Westside IRWMP Project Director. He will ensure that invoices are paid and reimbursements are received by the state, and that each Regional Public Agency provides its agreed upon funding match. Chris Lee from the SCWA will serve as the Westside IRWMP Project Manager, ensuring that the Westside IRWMP process is moving forward according to the schedule and communications are eff ective.

Th e Final Draft IRWMP will be approved by the governing bodies of the Regional Public Agencies. Aft er this approval, other public agencies in the region will also be asked to adopt the Final

28

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

input meetings will address water-related issues in the region and focus on developing regional goals and objectives. Prior to the initial stakeholder input meetings the Project Team will meet and develop an initial list of goals and objectives based on existing Regional Public Agency planning documents compiled under Task 2. Th is list will be presented to the attendees at the initial stakeholder input meetings for comments, edits, and additions. Comments will also be received from web postings and other means of communication for those who do not attend public meetings.

Some of the Westside RWMG issues are readily apparent and were identifi ed in the 2009 RAP application such as mercury contamination in Cache Creek and invasive species in both Putah and Cache Creek. Other issues, goals and objectives will be identifi ed through documents such as the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan objectives, the water conservation goals in State law and requirements of the California Water Code for IRWMPs (CWC Section 10608 et seq.) Th rough stakeholder input, additional issues of concern, goals and objectives will be identifi ed.

Th e Project Team will ensure that all objectives are measurable (a metric that the IRWM region can use to determine if the objective is being met as the IRWMP is implemented). Monitoring the success of meeting IRWMP objectives will be a key part of the implementation stage of the Plan.

All IRWMP objectives will be established as part of a collaborative eff ort by the stakeholders in the Westside region. A key part of the Public Process described in Task 1.2 will be to ensure that the Plan objectives are developed with stakeholder and public input. Th e Project Team will develop a process to prioritize objectives. Th is is a necessary action to get to the next step which is to prioritize actions, projects and programs. An explanation of objective prioritization or why objectives were not prioritized will be included in the Plan. Due to the large geographical area of the Region, the Project Team may choose to group objectives into diff erent categories rather than ranking all region objectives. For example, there may be objectives specifi cally for diff erent watersheds,

will provide an important educational component critical to the IRWMP development process. For example, in order to develop a quantifi able objective to solve a problem, it is usually critical to understand the geographical distribution and magnitude of the problem. Maps can be a simple way of portraying this information.

Th e maps to be included will be determined as the planning process proceeds, but the following maps will be included:

Watersheds and identifi ed sub-watersheds in ■the RegionInternal boundaries of agencies such as cities/ ■counties, districts, and other agenciesGroundwater basins ■Water and wastewater systems ■Adjacent and overlapping IRWMP regions ■

Maps will also be used to identify problem areas that need to be addressed in the IRWMP.

Th e Region Description will include a summary of appropriate data gathered as part of Task 2. In particular, water supply and demand data will be portrayed. Water quality conditions will be described and areas of concern mapped. Major objectives and confl icts will be described to help put the IRWMP into context of current issues in the Region.

Some of the pieces of information for the description will be researched under Task 2 and others will be gathered through the public workshops in Task 1. For example, documenting areas of major water related objectives and confl icts will be compiled through both researching written documents as well as receiving input from various stakeholders. Water supply, demand, water quality, and demographics information as well as climate change vulnerabilities will be compiled under Task 2.

3.a.3. OBJECTIVES (ISSUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES)Phase 1 of the IRWMP process will focus on identifying issues and developing goals and objectives for the region. Phase 1 stakeholder


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

region-wide data management. Not all data is suitable nor necessary to be collected on a region-wide basis, however this cannot be determined until the planning process identifi es objectives and projects. Th e extent of a region-wide DMS cannot be determined at this time. Th e IRWMP will include an index that shows what data is available and where the data can be obtained. For all data, the intent will be to make the data available to other agencies and the public to the extent appropriate. Any region-wide DMS will need to coordinate with and provide data to the State databases (SWAMP, WDL, GAMA,CEIC and CERES), to the extent that the data is not already submitted to these databases.

One option under consideration is a GIS-based DMS for the Westside RWMG is the Sacramento River Watershed Information Model (SWIM), http://sacriver.org/wim. Other RWMGs in the Sacramento Funding Area such as CABY and American River Basin (RWA) are using SWIM for data management. SWIM is an online map-based clearinghouse for publicly-contributed watershed and conservation-related data and documents. SWIM was originally funded by DWR, and designed by the Sacramento River Watershed Program (SRWP) using the State Natural Resources Agency’s Data Management Framework. SWIM indexes, manages, and displays project information on digital maps. Users can search the catalog for data and documents using text search or a map interface. Also, SWIM includes an online GIS mapping tool with over 200 diff erent data layers that can be used to design and download custom maps for anywhere in the Sacramento River Watershed.

During the fi rst phase of the IRWM process, various DMS methods will be considered by the Project Team and presented to stakeholders for input on which DMS would best meet the data management needs of the Westside RWMG and be the most effi cient means of consolidating available data resources, and ensuring use of existing data.

Regardless, of the DMS chosen, the Project Team will need to identify a common location for watershed information. Th e Westside RWMG website may end up being the common location

while there will also be region-wide objectives. By the end of Phase 1, objectives will be established aft er consideration of stakeholder input received throughout Phase 1.

3.a.4. DATA MANAGEMENTDuring the fi rst phase of the IRWM process, the Project Team will document how various agencies in the Westside region collect, analyze, monitor, and report data. As a fi rst step, the Project Team will lead the eff orts under Task 2 - which is focused on developing information specifi cally for the IRWMP. However, the Data Management section of the IRWMP will focus on ongoing data collection, analysis, and reporting eff orts that will continue beyond the adoption of the IRWMP. Th e IRWMP will include a description of how data is collected, validated, and shared among diff erent entities in the region. A focus on how data will be made available to stakeholders will be included in this description. Th is data management section will include a brief overview of the data needs within the Westside IRWM region, typical data collection techniques, how stakeholders contribute data to the Westside Data Management System (DMS), and who is responsible for maintaining data in the DMS. Descriptions will be included of data collection QA/QC measures, data transferring and sharing among the Westside RWMG and other interested parties, and data distribution and compatibility with State databases including SWAMP, WDL, GAMA, CEIC, and CERES.

Colusa, Lake, Napa, and Solano Regional Public Agencies will only contribute data from portions of their counties that are within the Westside RWMG.

During the fi rst phase of the IRWMP process, the Project Team will obtain input from stakeholders about the usefulness of existing data management systems in the region and about the additional data needs of the region. Key stakeholders for this task are the public agencies who provide much of the data identifi ed in Task 2 and in the Background section that describes existing data sources. In parallel with other tasks in Phases 1 and 2, the Project Team will develop a recommendation for an appropriate level of

30

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Note: Task 3.c. provides more information on the project review process and project prioritization.

3.a.6. FINANCETh e Westside IRWMP will include a section on IRWMP Financing which will include a program level description of the sources of funding and the potential funding sources for the construction and O&M of projects and programs intended to implement the IRWMP. Potential sources of funding include local agency funding, and state and Federal funding sources. Key state funding sources are DWR’s IRWM and SWFM programs, the state revolving fund, and other state grant or loan programs. On a federal level, funding may be available through the Bureau of Reclamation Water SMART or other grant programs, EPA-funded drinking water quality grants, or American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded grants and loans. Th is section of the IRWMP will also include other funding sources available such as private research and pilot study grants through universities or professional organizations such as the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF).

Th e IRWMP must acknowledge that local agency funding for most new projects will be severely limited. Th e IRWMP will help identify those projects that make the most sense to implement. Additionally, local funding sources are sometimes restricted to be used within specifi c local jurisdictions or for specifi c purposes. Th e project prioritization system and fi nance section will need to acknowledge this fact.

To help determine the fi nancial needs to implement the Westside IRWMP, projects considered in the Phase 2 Project Review Process will be required to include a cost estimate and identify potential initial and long-term funding sources for that particular project – as project proponents are oft en the most knowledgeable about local, governmental, and private agencies with an interest in potentially funding their project.

For projects and programs recommended for implementation, the IRWMP will include a table showing the existing and potential funding sources for capital and anticipated O&M costs. Th e table would also include an indication of the certainty and

for any DMS. For the most part, voluminous data already exists as water resource planners, county, state and federal agencies, watershed groups, and researchers have accumulated enormous volumes of watershed management, monitoring, and conservation-related data including: GIS layers and CAD drawings, permitting documents, monitoring datasets, project reports, photos, web links, and other digital fi les. Th e IRWMP will include an index of key documents and data sources so that the foundational information for the IRWMP is accessible to those who may want to access to them.

3.a.5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIESTh e Westside IRWMP will use the Resource Management Strategies (RMS) included in the California Water Plan (CWP) to help meet the IRWMP objectives that will be adopted. Th e RMS will also be used as a tool for developing objectives and actions in Phases 1 and 2. RMS will be a topic at the Phase 1 and 2 planned stakeholder meetings. In Phase 1 public meetings, the Westside RWMG will seek confi rmation from stakeholders about what RMS are important for the Westside region. Th e RMS listed below will be used as a starting point in the Phase 1 stakeholder meetings. Th e meetings will solicit information on the RMS already being practiced in the region and those RMS that stakeholders believe would be practical and most useful in achieving region objectives. Following is a list of RMS groupings that are relevant to the Westside region:

Reduce water demand ■Improve operational effi ciency and transfers ■Increase water supply ■Improve water quality ■Improve fl ood management ■Practice resources stewardship ■

Th e RMS within each of these groupings, as identifi ed in the Guidelines, will be included in the Westside IRWMP. We expect to have numerous specifi c projects and programs that address these RMS. Th e Plan will identify projects and programs that address these RMS. Th e RMS will be considered during the prioritization of projects and programs. Other RMS may be identifi ed by stakeholders and can be added to this list.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Th e intent of this section is not to perform an impact/benefi t analysis on every project and program identifi ed in the IRWMP, but to portray at a programmatic level impacts/benefi ts for groups of types of projects. A more detailed impact and benefi t analysis is expected to be conducted as part of individual project implemention. In addition, key fi ndings and conclusions pre-implementation impacts and benefi ts of projects will be included. Th e Project Team will include an impact/benefi t table in this section of the IRWMP. Th e table would be similar to that shown in the IRWM Guidelines and would include a column for the various projects to be analyzed on potential impacts/benefi ts within the Westside region and across immediately-adjacent regions. A template of the table that may ultimately be included in the IRWMP is shown below in Table 2 along with a fi ctitious example.

longevity of the funding sources. A template of the table is provided in Table 1.

3.a.7. IMPACTS AND BENEFITSA simplifi ed impact and benefi t analysis regarding implementation of the IRWMP will be included in the IRWMP to document the potential impacts and benefi ts of the IRWMP to entities within the region, including DACs and California Native American Tribal communities, as well as to entities within neighboring or overlapping regions. Th is section of the IRWMP will summarize and document identifi ed impacts and benefi ts.

To help determine the impacts and benefi ts of various projects, project proponents of projects considered in the Phase 2 Project Review Process will be required to include a list of impacts and benefi ts associated with their particular project – as project proponents are oft en the most knowledgeable about impacts and benefi ts associated with their project.

Table 1. Example Template for Westside IRWMP Projects Funding, Last Updated: 9/28/10

Activity/Project Previous and Existing Funding Sources and Amounts (Capital/Initial Cost)

Anticipated Funding Sources (Capital/Initial Cost)

Other Potential Funding Sources (Capital/Initial Cost)

Funding source for program longevity or project O&M

Notes

Table 2. Example Template Known Impacts and Benefits of Implementation of Westside IRWMP Programs and Projects

Program/Project

WITHIN WESTSIDE RWMG INTER-REGIONAL

Potential Impacts

Potential Benefits Potential Impacts

Potential Benefits

Aquifer storage and recovery (example)

Construction-related impacts

Water supply reliability (increase ■in reliable supply by 5,000 acre-feet)decreased reliance on imported ■waterbetter developed water quality to ■customersdecreased TDS discharges from ■wastewater treatment plants

Increased ■power consumptionIncreased ■carbon footprint

decreased TDS discharges from the wastewater treatment plants to surface streams being used as supply by downstream users

TEMPLATE TEMPLATE

TEMPLATE

32

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

3.b. Coordination3.b.1. COORDINATIONTh e nature of integrated regional planning is such that extensive coordination is required for successful and effi cient planning. Th e CC has already identifi ed numerous local agencies and stakeholders within the region (see Appendix 2). Th is section of the IRWMP will document the established communication mechanisms between the Westside RWMG and local agencies and stakeholders and identify measures to improve coordination. Coordination will be a topic of discussion at the fi rst set of stakeholder and DAC workshops as the Project Team would like input from local agencies and stakeholders on their preferred communication mechanisms. A Westside RWMG website will be created both to inform stakeholders of IRWMP activities and provide a mechanism for local agencies and stakeholders to quickly and easily notify the Project Team of their projects of interest. By keeping the Project Team informed of all signifi cant water projects in the region, confl icts can best be avoided.

To ensure eff ective coordination between any neighboring RWMGs and IRWMPs, the CC will designate at least one member to track the plans and projects of each neighboring and overlapping RWMG. For example, the CC member from the Colusa County RCD can represent the Westside RWMG at North Sacramento Valley IRMWP group meetings and serve as the point person for coordination between the two regional groups’ projects. A list of the individuals, or at least the agencies they represent, will be presented in this section of the IRWMP. A preliminary list of individuals responsible for inter-regional coordination is listed in Table 3.

Th ere are also several local, state, and federal agencies that will be important to the development of the Westside IRWMP. Th ose agencies active in the region are listed in the stakeholder table in Appendix 2. A description of the coordination activities with these agencies will be included in this section of the IRWMP.

Where possible, quantifi able impacts and benefi ts will be included, such as the acre-feet per year that will be added to the water supply or better managed. Otherwise, descriptive impacts and benefi ts will be stated.

3.a.8. TECHNICAL ANALYSISTechnical information includes data and other information sources. Data will be collected and utilized as shown in Task 2. Information sources will primarily come from existing plans and reports that will be analyzed under Task 2.1. Th e technical foundations of these data sources and reports will be included to understand how they should be utilized in the IRWMP process. During the stakeholder input process the Project Team expects that other technical information will be identifi ed that will be incorporated into the technical analysis.

Technical analysis will occur in all phases of the Westside IRWMP. During the development of the goals, issues and objectives, the Project Team will analyze each goal, issue and objective from a technical perspective using the data and information sources identifi ed in Task 2. For example if there is not data supporting a specifi c objective, that objective cannot be included, or it becomes a project to obtain data that may lead to a future objective. If an issue, goal or objective fails a technical analysis, the reason will be documented.

During the project prioritization process in Phase 2, a technical analysis will be conducted on each program, action and project. Th e prioritization process will include a determination of whether the program, action or project is supported by data or other technical information. Th e project ranking system will appropriately weight this technical analysis.

Each project, action or program submitted for inclusion in the IRWMP will require technical information and analysis to be submitted along with the project scope.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Th e key coordination role that the CC will have for developing and implementing the Westside IRWMP is shown Figure 6, below. As the fi gure shows, the CC will be responsible for coordinating between the Regional Public Agencies, local agencies and stakeholders, state and federal agencies, as well as other RWMGs.

3.b.2. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENTAn initial list of stakeholders that may want to participate in the Westside IRWMPning eff ort are listed in Appendix 2. Th roughout Phase 1 and 2 this list will be updated as additional stakeholders are identifi ed and as others choose not to participate. Th e list of stakeholders interested in and/or actively participating in the Westside RWMG planning eff ort will be presented in this

RegionalPublic Agencies


Stakeholders(Local Agencies and Public)

Federal Agencies

DWR andOther State Agencies

Neighboring and/orOverlapping RWMGs

Figure 6. Westside RWMG Coordination

Table 3. Inter-regional Coordination Assignments

WESTSIDE RWMG MEMBER AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION

COORDINATING INDIVIDUAL

NEIGHBORING RWMG

Colusa County RCD Patti Turner Northern Sacramento Valley RWMG

Water Resources Association of Yolo County Jacques DeBra Regional Water Authority

Solano County Water Agency Chris Lee San Francisco Bay Area RWMG

Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Deborah Elliott San Francisco Bay Area RWMG

Lake County Watershed Protection District Pam Francis North Coast RWMG

section of the IRWMP. Th e IRWMP will describe the processes to provide outreach and opportunity to identifi ed stakeholders in the region that will be developed in Task 1.2.

Th e Westside RWMG approach to stakeholder involvement is described below and will be described in further detail in this section of the Westside IRWMP. Th e current plan for involving stakeholders has four key elements:

Identify Stakeholders including 1. Disadvantaged Communities and TribesInclude Bilingual Communications2. Provide Multiple Localized Venues to 3. Facilitate ParticipationProvide Multiple Avenues for Communication4.

34

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

defi nition of disadvantaged (as shown on Figure 7) are the Westside RWMG’s preliminary DACs. Th e Project Team may identify additional DACs as more income data becomes available and as the public process develops.

In regards to the relatively small portion of the Westside RWMG that encompasses Colusa County, the U.S. Census Bureau does not publish income data about residents at the geographic level of Bear Creek Watershed census blocks because statistical information about the small number of resident in each block might compromise privacy of residents. Th e Bear Creek watershed includes approximately 57 residents, of which perhaps only 20 people are full-time residents. Although it may be diffi cult to identify portions of the Bear Creek watershed as disadvantaged according to the Proposition 84 guideline defi nition, the Westside RWMG considers the residents in this watershed as an underserved community due to its remote location.

Th e discussion in Task 1.9 provides information on Tribal stakeholder outreach and involvement.

Include Bilingual Communications

Key printed communications will be prepared in both English and Spanish to maximize the number of people that understand and can have access to the IRWM process. Bilingual communications will include meeting announcements and status reports, as well as information on the Westside RWMG website. Th e level of bilingual communication will be adaptively managed based on participation and interest.

Provide Multiple Localized Venues to Facilitate Participation

Th e Westside Region encompasses a large geographical area necessitating the need to have stakeholder meetings in multiple locations to reduce travel time and to encourage participation. Th us the planning process includes locating public meeting is three diff erent locations for each stage of the planning process. Th e specifi c locations will be determined based on expected participation and to ensure a variety of perspectives.

Identify Stakeholders (including Disadvantaged Communities and Tribes)

Th e past and ongoing water and resource related planning eff orts throughout the region have generated awareness, as well as extensive stakeholder contact lists. Th e Westside RWMG has capitalized on previous eff orts by combining all existing stakeholder lists (see Appendix 2 for the existing list of stakeholders). In some areas, prior eff orts have focused on agency stakeholders. In those areas and throughout the region, processes similar to those employed by the Yolo County WRA will be used to connect with the broader realm of potential stakeholders to update and supplement existing lists. Th is stakeholder list forms the initial contact list for direct transmittal of all public announcements. Th is list of stakeholders will continue to be updated through public input throughout the IRWMPning process.

Based on local experience in resource planning, an initial listing of DAC’s and Tribes has been compiled. Th e CC has already analyzed demographic data to identify the DACs within the region. DACs are defi ned as communities with an annual median household income (MHI) of less than 80% of the statewide annual MHI (Proposition 84 guidelines). Th e defi nition of “communities” is intentionally non-specifi c so that local agencies can use various data sources to document the meeting of the MHI criteria. Figure 7, based on 2000 Census data, depicts the DACs identifi ed through current eff orts of the CC in preparing this application. Using GIS tools, the CC applied the MHI defi nition to data from Census Block Groups in the region and mapped the block groups, indicating which ones fi t the adopted defi nition of a DAC. Although many block groups fi t the MHI defi nition of disadvantaged, the Westside RWMG chose not to consider a disadvantaged block group a DAC unless the entire community in which the disadvantaged block group appeared was also disadvantaged. For example, the City of Woodland has a couple disadvantaged block groups, however, the city as a whole does not meet the MHI defi nition of disadvantaged and therefore the City of Woodland is not considered a DAC. Th e communities that appear to meet the MHI


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

¬«128

¬«99

¬«113

¬«29

¬«45

¬«121

¬«20

§̈¦5

§̈¦80

¬«20

¬«29

¬«113

¬«12

¬«12

§̈¦5

¬«99

¬«45£¤101

¬«128

¬«128

0

CACHE CREEK

PUTAH CREEK

PUTAHCREEK

WILLOW SLOUGH

§̈¦5

£¤101§̈¦505

§̈¦80

¬«20

¬«113

¬«16

FE

AT

HE

R R

IVE

R

SACRAMENTO R

IVER

SAC

RA

ME

NTO

RIV

ER

Yolo

Nice

Napa

Dixon

Davis

Capay

Zamora

Rumsey

Colusa

Angwin

Winters

Vallejo

Madison

Lucerne

Benicia

Dunnigan

Woodland

Williams

Lakeport

Arbuckle

Vacaville

Glenhaven

Fairfield

Clearlake

Calistoga

Yountville

Upper Lake

Middletown

Lower Lake

Kelseyville

Saint Helena

Spring Valley

Clearlake Oaks

West Sacramento

Knights Landing

American Canyon

Lake

Yolo

Colusa

Napa

Solano

Esparto

Rio Vista

Suisun City

0 157.5

Miles

Notes1. Mapping data from US Census Bureau

FIGURE 8


WESTSIDE RWMGDISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES (BLOCK GROUPS)

N:\C

lients

\35

0 W

RA

of Y

olo Co

unty\0

0-1

0-0

3 IR

WM

P F

un

din

g - We

stside R

WM

G\G

IS\F

igu

res\F

ig8_

We

stside

RW

MG

_DA

C_

20

100

92

4.mxd

9/2

4/2

010

Westside RWMG Boundary

Disadvantaged Census Block Groups

County Boundary

! Disadvantaged Community

! Pending MHI Verification

7

36

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

while website postings may reach more younger and urban residents and stakeholders. All forms of communication will be designed to invite anyone, regardless of viewpoint, to participate in the planning process.

Th e Project Team will invite members of the public and all identifi ed stakeholders to public meetings. Invitations will be published via a Westside RWMG website, public notices in local papers, and announcements at local water district and County supervisor board meetings. Electronic communication will be used as much as possible since this form of communication is most cost eff ective. Some direct mailing to stakeholders who do not have electronic addresses will be necessary. Smaller, localized meetings will be announced for DACs and Tribes

Stakeholder meetings will be open to the public. Prior to the meetings, notices, including agendas, minutes and supporting materials, will be emailed to current stakeholder mailing lists and posted on the Westside IRWMP website.

Staff from each of the Westside Regional Public Agencies will provide periodic updates to their governing boards and entities that they represent in the IRWMP process.

Th rough all of these outreach eff orts, the Project Team will be inclusive and employ a collaborative, multi-stakeholder process intended to assist participation, including DACs and Tribes.

3.b.3. STAKEHOLDER/RESOURCE INTEGRATIONTh e purpose of the IRWMP will be to integrate water resource management strategies for the entire Westside region. By taking into account the stakeholder concerns, institutional concerns and processes, and integrating resources throughout the Putah and Cache Creek watersheds, this Plan will be an essential region-wide planning document. Although the Westside IRWMP will not likely have a section on “integration” it is listed as a subtask under “Coordination” because integrating stakeholders into the IRWM process eff ectively and integrating resources is intertwined with coordination. Th e processes, structures, and procedures that foster integration will be

In addition to inviting the public to general public meetings the Project Team will conduct many smaller and less formal group meetings to more directly engage identifi ed DACs and tribes (separately) in the public planning process. Th ese smaller meetings will be held in or near identifi ed DACs and Tribal areas to minimize travel distances. Th is approach is intended to facilitate participation of individuals from these communities and demonstrate the Westside RWMG’s direct interest in diverse and comprehensive participation.

Provide Multiple Avenues for Communication

Th e procedures, processes, and structures that the Project Team will implement to promote diverse stakeholder involvement will be developed in Task 1.2. In addition to the many public meetings that will be held (see Task 1.4 and 1.5), communication methods will include:

Developing and maintaining a user-friendly ■and up-to-date web site with: draft IRWMP sections and related documents; public meeting agendas and minutes; CC meeting announcements, agendas and minutes; comment forms; list of frequently asked questions (updated as needed); and a brief overview of the IRWMPning process. Websites already exist for several previous IRWMPning processes. Th e Yolo County site (www.yolowra.org) is one example.Publishing multiple IRWMP newsletters, in ■Spanish and English, describing the process.Designating CC members and a member ■of the Consultant Team to be available to answer questions from the public and to take comments outside of public meetings.

A variety of communication tools are necessary to successfully address the diversity of water management issues, geographical representation, and stakeholder interests in the region. For example, printed publications may tend to reach more elderly and rural residents and stakeholders,


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

relevant elements of local water planning and water management issues common to multiple local entities in the region will be included in this section of the IRWMP.

Water use data and information will be compiled and presented in Task 2. Th is section of the IRWMP will include a comprehensive list of local water planning documents in existence, a description of how they relate to the IRWMP, when they were adopted and when they are expected to be updated. Local water planning documents include Urban Water Management Plans, Groundwater Management Plans, Agricultural Management Plans, Flood Management Plans, and Watershed Management Plans.

Th e Westside IRWMP cannot replace or supplant existing plans, but must be integrated with them. IRWMP policies and actions should be based on existing approved plans and be compatible to the extent possible. However the IRWMP should not feel bound by existing plans and the IRWMP should result in an overall management plan from a Region-wide perspective, while respecting local autonomy.

3.b.5. RELATION TO LOCAL LAND USE PLANNINGTh e Westside IRWMP will include a description of how water management input is considered in land use decisions, and vice-versa, in the region. Included in this section will be how land use planning entities and the Regional Public Agencies interact. Currently all counties and cities in the Westside RWMG already address water in their General Plans to some extent. State law requires land use agencies to consider water availability when making land use decisions (SB 610 and SB 221 requirements, for example). Th e data required to do these analyses comes from the local water purveyor, sometimes it is the city itself. Th is integration is occurring now and will continue to do so. Th e Westside IRWMP intends to improve on this by identifying other opportunities for integration. Th e Prop 84 IRWM Guidelines identify many potential collaborations between water resources planning and land use planning. Th e IRWMP process will determine which of these, and others, are appropriate for the

apparent in IRWMP sections such as governance, stakeholder outreach, data management, and project review process.

Resource integration is described in two ways. First, in relation to the resources that participating agencies and stakeholder can bring to the planning eff ort, such as local expertise, technical skills and staff time. For example, the GIS capabilities at Solano County Water Agency and Lake County Watershed Protection District’s experience and expertise in eff ective stakeholder involvement will be used to the benefi t of the entire Westside RWMG. In essence, integration in the Westside RWMG means combining the strengths that each Regional Public Agency exhibits and using these strengths to benefi t the regional planning eff orts. Th e collaborative IRWMP eff ort will integrate these eff orts during the planning process. Th is resource integration is planned to extend to the Plan implementation stage through ongoing administration, monitoring and updating of the Plan will take place.

Th e second way resource integration is defi ned is in regards to natural and man-made resources. Integration strategies will develop as the IRWMP progresses. Since this IRWMP is the fi rst attempt to deal with resources at the Westside Region level, opportunities for integration are not clearly apparent at this time. Th e Project Team will specifi cally look for opportunities to integrate resources for the most benefi t.

On the project level, the Project Team recognizes that part of the advantage of regional planning is that common objectives of many local interests can oft en be achieved through one regional project and oft en times resources needed for project implementation (personnel, fi nance, materials, and equipment) may benefi t from economy of scale. Th e planning decisions made in the Westside IRWMP will consider integrating the needs of the region and not just the needs of specifi c entities in the Westside RWMG.

3.b.4. RELATION TO LOCAL WATER PLANNINGA description of the how the Project Team will coordinate its IRWMP with local water plans to make sure the IRWMP includes current,

38

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

Th e prioritization process will include at least the following components:

Contribution to Westside IRWMP objectives ■(as developed in Phase 1)Relationship to Resource Management ■StrategiesTechnical feasibility ■Costs, fi nancing and economic feasibility ■Project status (i.e. conceptual, planning, ■feasibility, pre-design, environmental, fi nal design, permitting, or construction bidding) – what level of planning has already been completed for this project to move forward;Level of integration potential (including ■multi-benefi t projects)Project sustainability ■Benefi ts to DACs ■Benefi ts to Tribes ■Environmental justice considerations ■Climate change and GHG considerations ■

How these, and other, factors will be considered and weighted is to be determined as part of the planning process with considerable input from stakeholders.

With the projects submitted for review, the Project Team will determine if certain projects can be combined or modifi ed to function more eff ectively as a multiple purpose project. Th e Project Team will identify potential projects that appear to warrant integration. Th e Project Team will apply the prioritization criteria to determine if relative improvements are gained by integrating projects. Where integration shows measured improvement, the strategy for implementation will be addressed along with other projects.

Th e Westside IRWMP will be a living document, meaning that there will be a process to keep the Plan current. A key part of this process is to allow for projects to be continuously submitted for inclusion in the IRWMP. Th e IRWMP will develop a specifi ed process for submittal of projects aft er the IRWMP is adopted. Th e CC, or its

Westside Region and will incorporate these in the recommended strategies to be prioritized with other actions.

Currently, local land use planning agencies have very limited resources to participate in IRWMP development and implementation. Strategies and action in the IRWMP will need to recognize this as a potential constraint.

Land use planners will be encouraged to attend stakeholder meetings. Th e CC, in the course of their briefi ngs for public agencies they represent in the IRWMP process will outreach to land use planners.

3.c. Project Review Process and PrioritizationDuring the second phase of the IRWMP process, the Project Team will solicit projects, programs and actions to meet the issues, goals and objectives identifi ed in Phase 1. During Phase 1 a Project Submittal Template will be developed for agencies and individuals to submit projects, programs and actions for possible inclusion in the IRWMP. Th e Template will also be allowed to be submitted electronically via the Westside IRWMP web page. Th e Template will ask for basic project data such as a project description, estimated costs, impacts and benefi ts, status for implementation and project proponent. Project submittals will be sought at the beginning of Phase 2.

Some entities, such as DAC’s, may need assistance in submitting a project. Also, projects may be identifi ed at public meetings where there is no specifi c sponsor to develop a submittal. Consultant Team time will be available to compile submittals.

During Phase 2, the Project Team will develop a process to prioritize submitted projects. Th is prioritization process and its initial application to submitted projects will be the subject of the second public meeting in Phase 2. Stakeholders will be able to comment on the prioritization process and the prioritization of projects. Th e Project team will modify the process and prioritization as appropriate.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

“carbon footprint” (reducing greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise result from a program or project). How adaptation and mitigation will be implemented in the context of water resource decisions – particularly in the context of an integrated regional water management plan – is still at an early stage. All IRWMPs will need to address these concerns, but the means and actions to do so will emerge over the next few years.

Th e Westside IRWMP will address the issue of climate change in all parts of the Plan. In the Region Description section, a broad overview of the potential eff ects of climate change on its region will be provided.

In the Issues, Goals, and Objectives section, the development of issues, goals, and objectives will consider climate impacts. Th e issues, goals, and objectives must address adaptation to climate change and sea level rise. Goals and objectives will be included to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In the Resource Management Strategies section, projects and strategies will be developed to provide for adaption to climate change and reduction of GHG emissions.

In the Project Review Process and Prioritization section, projects, programs and actions will be analyzed for specifi cally how they can adapt to climate change and their impact on GHG emission. Th e project prioritization process will score and weight projects on how they are adaptable to climate change and how they impact GHG emissions.

In the Relation to Local Water and Land Use Planning sections, the IRWMP will analyze how existing plans address climate change and GHG emissions. With the understanding that these concepts are relatively new, not all existing plans are expected to address these issues. Th e IRWMP process is intended to provide information to aid local water and land use agencies in incorporating climate change and GHG emissions issues in updates to their planning documents.

successor, will manage this process as an ongoing responsibility of IRWMP administration.

3.d. Climate ChangeClimate change has not been frequently considered in previous planning, but it has been an important public policy issue for the past decade. Th e Westside RWMG is mindful in particular of California’s engagement in climate change in the context of water and other natural resources, particularly in the 2005 and 2009 Updates to the California Water Plan and the 2006 report by the Department of Water Resources, “Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources.” Th ose reports identifi ed areas of vulnerability regarding water, from greater fl ood variation and risk to potential substantial reductions in Sierra Nevada snowpack. Other potential impacts include increases in demand (particularly from agriculture) to serious impacts on forests and fi sheries habitat. Projected potential impacts to rainfall vary widely, from drier to wetter than normal in the future. It is the potential increased variability in rainfall that is of greater concern. Such impacts have been forecasted as possibilities by extending the work on global warming models done under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to regional models specifi c to California. Additionally, the southern and eastern part of the Westside region is vulnerable to sea level rise, an important component of climate change impacts. Important risks have been identifi ed which require actions for both “adaptation” and “mitigation” as those terms are used in the overall climate change debate.

“Adaptation” means developing tools and actions to allow our water and other resource programs to continue to function under future altered conditions resulting from climate change. Th is requires programs and projects that are resilient enough to respond successfully to a changed environment. “Mitigation” is simply the concept of off setting impacts of future programs/projects to those factors that are likely to contribute to future climate change. In the simplest terms, this translates into reducing a program’s/project’s

40

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

years). Th e objective of this inter-regional eff ort is to develop a Mercury Strategic Plan for addressing mercury issues consistently and at a broader scale than individual IRWM regions—a Plan that can be tailored for individual IRWMPs. Because of Cache Creek’s high contribution of mercury to the Delta, the Westside will be a key participant in this inter-regional eff ort to solve the inter-regional mercury problem.

Th e Mercury Strategic Plan will include analyses and decision support tools applicable to each IRWM Region, including the Westside. Th is project will leverage the Natural Hazards mapping already hosted in the Sacramento River Watershed Program’s Sacramento River Watershed Information Model (SWIM) online watershed Geographic Information System (GIS) and document library. New functionality will allow users throughout the watershed to visualize mercury pollution and research spatially, highlight priority areas, submit proposed projects, and view other proposed mercury control or remediation projects from all IRWM Regions and other eff orts. Th is interregional clearinghouse can be used to prioritize mercury projects basin-wide.

3.f. Implementation StrategyTh e IRWMP is only as eff ective as its implementation. Accordingly, the Westside RWMG regards an implementation strategy as an essential part of developing the IRWMP. Similarly, the public involvement and stakeholder process is viewed as a critical element for obtaining widespread support for implementation of the plan.

Th e Westside IRWMP region covers a large geographical area and includes potential implementing agencies that have historically operated independently. Th e challenge will be to encourage implementation of the IRWMP in a coordinated manner while respecting the right of independent agencies to implement projects on their own. Because the IRWMP is not expected to create a new governance structure that can dictate infrastructure decisions, the Westside RWMG will need to assume a coordinating and information sharing role. Th e Westside RWMG will formulate

In the Plan Performance and Monitoring section, a key indicator that will be monitored will be adaptive management of impacts of climate change in the region. Also, in conjunction with land use agencies and transportation agencies, quantifi cation of changes in GHG emissions will be monitored.

Th e IRWM Guidelines identify three documents (Climate Change Scoping Plan, Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water (2008), and 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy) to be kept in mind in addressing these issues.

3.e. Mercury Strategic Plan (Inter-regional)Th rough the eff orts of the Sacramento River Watershed Program a Mercury Strategic Plan will be included in this section of the IRWMP. Th e budget for this task will be covered by an anticipated inter-regional grant for which the Sacramento River Watershed Program is currently applying. If the Sacramento River Watershed Program is unsuccessful in obtaining grant funding for the Mercury Strategic Plan, this section of the IRWMP will not be included. However the Westside IRWMP will include mercury issues as mercury is clearly a major water quality issue that needs to be addressed. For example, the Regional Public Agencies will remain engaged in the Delta Mercury Tributary Council and discussion on the TMDL.

Mercury is the leading cause of water quality impairment in the Central Valley. Mercury sources include abandoned gold mines in the Sierras and legacy mercury mines in the Coast Range, natural mineral springs and native soils, atmospheric deposition, consumer products, and more. Natural and artifi cial wetlands and other productive aquatic ecosystems enhance production of the toxic, bioaccumulative form methylmercury, presenting a dilemma for water managers. An April 2010 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board staff report noted that the Cache Creek watershed contributes 30% of the inorganic mercury load to the Delta (based on a 20 year average mix of low, medium, and high water


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

likely be required prior to agency approval of the respective projects. Th e agency (or agencies) responsible for approving and implementing particular projects will be responsible for all CEQA and NEPA compliance eff orts associated with such projects.

Regulatory Compliance

Regulatory compliance pertaining to implementing the IRWMP relates to the permits that are required for specifi c project implementation. Th ese can involve federal and state agencies including the: California Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.

3.g. Plan Performance and MonitoringDuring the third phase of the IRWMP process, the Project Team will develop a plan for tracking the IRWMP performance and monitoring the progress of the projects contained in the Plan. Th e Westside IRWMP is expected to be a living document, meaning that plan performance will be monitored and reported to interested parties. Th ere will be a process for ongoing submittal for projects to be incorporated into the IRWMP to keep the IRWMP current. Over time, the IRWMP is expected to be amended and updated.

Th e IRWMP will include criteria that will be used by the Westside RWMG to evaluate the progress made to achieve plan objectives and the process linking completion to the IRWMP implementation. Specifi c components of these criteria will be developed by the Project Team.

Th e CC, or its successor, will be responsible for IRWM implementation monitoring and performance evaluation. Monitoring information will be included in the Westside RWMG’s data management system. Th e typical components of these project-specifi c monitoring plans as well as how fi ndings from these plans are used to improve implementation of future projects will also be included in the IRWMP.

an implementation strategy with consideration given to the factors described below.

Institutional Arrangements and Partnerships

As noted above, certain programs and projects may be implemented by individual agencies; however, others may require a partnership or joint participation by multiple agencies. Depending upon the type of project and size, both physically and fi nancially, the legal arrangement may be diff erent. Whether a Memorandum of Understanding, a Joint Powers Agreement, or another instrument is most appropriate, will be evaluated on a project-specifi c basis. Th e most appropriate arrangement will be developed by the agency or agencies responsible for the project.

Funding Options

Th e IRWMP will include projects such as municipal and agricultural water supply projects, fl ood control, ecosystem restoration, etc. Similarly, a variety of funding options will need to be considered. Th e funding options may include bond measures, special assessments, federal and state grant and loan programs, and other funding instruments. Th e Westside RWMG is interested in pursing a Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management Grant Program implementation grant.

Project Readiness

Th e programs, actions and projects that will be included in the IRWMP will be various levels of readiness for implementation. Project readiness will be a factor in project prioritization. Since funding availability is such a major factor as to when a project may be implemented, the implementation strategy will recognize that project implementation will need to be opportunistic to take advantage of funding opportunities as they become available.

Environmental Compliance

CEQA and potentially NEPA compliance will be required for implementing many of the projects, programs and actions included in the IRWMP. Project-specifi c environmental reviews will

42

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Westside RWMG Regional Public Agencies was executed in 2009. Th e purpose of this MOU was to agree to participate in the RAP process to qualify for Proposition 84 funding. Th e MOU provided a structure for the entities within the Westside RWMG to interact with each other to submit the RAP and laid the foundation for an eventual Westside IRWMP eff ort.

Th e Westside RWMG collectively hired a consultant and developed an application for the RAP process. Th e Westside Region has been formally approved as a region for Proposition 84 funding. Some of the data included in the RAP application is being used to develop this planning grant application.

Aft er offi cial approval by DWR as a region in the RAP process, the Westside RWMG MOU was amended to fund and authorize the submittal of a Proposition 84 planning grant application and to commit to provide the required local cost share if the grant is approved. Th e CC was appointed and designated to submit the planning grant application and to manage the planning grant process.

Th e CC hired a consultant to prepare the planning grant application. Th e CC was actively involved in the development of the planning grant application. Th e application identifi es a planning process that the CC feels will be successful in meeting the Region’s needs as well as the State requirements for an IRWMP.

Substantial Westside RWMG staff time and consultant costs are included in this task, refl ecting the large amount of work for a new group of agencies to collaborate on a new regional planning eff ort.

4.2 Prepare and Comment on Administrative Draft IRWMPAn administrative draft IRWMP will be prepared. Th e administrative draft will be the fi rst complete draft of the Westside IRWMP and is intended for the CC’s review. Th e administrative draft will be prepared by the Consultant Team. Th e Consultant

Task 4. IRWMP Preparation4.1 Development of the IRWMP ScopeTh is task includes all the activities of the Westside RWMG leading to completion of this planning grant application.

Th e development of a Westside IRWMP started in 2008. Aft er Proposition 84 was approved in 2006 that included designation of regions eligible for grant funding, entities within the designated Sacramento River Funding Area began meeting to consider coordination and collaboration. Th ese meetings started in 2008 and continue to date.

Early discussions were to understand which entities had existing IRWMPs and which entities in the Sacramento River Funding Area were interested in to applying for Prop 84 IRWMP funds. Discussions were held as to whether it was feasible and desirable to have a single IRWMP for the Sacramento River Funding Area, or should the larger region be subdivided into smaller sub regions.

It quickly became apparent that due to the large geographic scope of the Sacramento River Funding Area and the lack of experience of entities within the area in dealing with each other, a single IRWMP for the area was not possible. Th ere were some areas within the larger region that has some experience working together and some areas where geographic features, mainly watersheds, made sense for creation of sub-regions. Th e Westside Region was developed based on the Putah and Cache Creek watersheds.

Once it was determined that the larger region should be subdivided, the entities that would eventually make up the Westside Region began to meet separately to participate in the Region Acceptance Process (RAP) to qualify as a region to apply for Proposition 84 grants. During this process, the meetings with other sub-regions within the Sacramento River Funding Area continued to share information and to seek additional opportunities to collaborate and integrate planning activities. Th is coordination within the larger region will continue though the Westside IRWMP development and beyond.


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

review draft as appropriate. Th e documentation of public comments will represent a part of the formal documentation of the public involvement and the stakeholder process. Th e fi nal draft IRWMP will be available on the Westside website.

4.5 Adoption of Final Draft IRWMPIn accordance with Section 6066 of the Government Code, the Westside RWMG will publish a notice of intention to adopt the IRWMP aft er the fi nal draft IRWMP has been completed.

Th e fi ve Regional Public Agency governing boards will be asked to adopt the fi nal draft IRWMP at a public meeting. Aft er all fi ve Regional Public Agencies adopt the IRWMP, it will be submitted to DWR. Other public agencies will also be asked to adopt the Final IRWMP, as a sign of acknowledgment, acceptance, and commitment to the Westside IRWMP.

Task 5. IRWMP Grant Process Administration5.1 Contract Execution with DWRTh is task includes the eff orts of the Westside RWMG CC and fi scal agent (Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District General Manager) to execute a contract with DWR for the Proposition 84 planning grant. Th is task will be funded locally with these costs counted toward the grant in-kind match.

5.2 Prepare Request for Proposals (RFP) and Execute Contract with Consultant TeamTh e CC will procure a consultant to develop the Westside IRWMP in accordance with the DWR contract. Th e procurement process will include a request for proposals (possibly preceded with a request for qualifi cations). Th e CC will review the received proposals and select a consultant. Th e CC will conduct contract negotiations and the fi scal agent will execute a contract with the selected consultant.

Team will circulate this administrative draft to the CC for comment. Th e CC members will be encouraged to share this administrative draft to others in their respective agencies, the agencies they represent in the IRWMP process and their governing boards, as appropriate. Although public comments will not be specifi cally sought on the administrative draft , the administrative draft will be posted on the Westside IRWMP web page and CC meetings are open to the public.

Th e administrative draft will be completed towards the beginning of Phase 3 as the consultant will develop sections of the administrative draft IRWMP throughout Phase 1 and 2. Th e CC should provide comments on the administrative draft within 40 working days of receiving the draft .

4.3 Prepare Public Review Draft IRWMP and Solicit Public CommentBased on the comments received on the administrative draft IRWMP, the Consultant Team will prepare a public review draft of the IRWMP. Th e CC will review the changes made by the Consultant Team and approve release of the public review draft . Th e public review draft IRWMP will be distributed for public review and comment by all stakeholders. Th e public review draft IRWMP will be available on the Westside RWMG website and electronic copies will be made available. In addition, three public meetings, described in Task 1 will be held to receive comments on the public draft IRWMP.

At the facilitated public meetings, an overview of the public review draft IRWMP will be presented and input from those in attendance will be solicited. Members of the public will also have the opportunity to provide written comments, so attendance at these public meetings is not the only way to provide feedback on the IRWMP. Th e public comment period is planned to last for 60 calendar days.

4.4 Prepare Final Draft IRWMPUpon receipt of review comments and conducting the public meeting, comments will be reviewed and responses will be prepared. Th e Planning Team will review comments and modify the public

44

Sete

mpb

er, 2

010

from the State, deposit slips of payments received from the State, cancelled checks or disbursement documents showing payments made to consultants under the grant, and bank statements showing the deposit of the receipts. Th e District will keep accounting records as required by the Proposition 84 IRWM Guidelines Appendix E.

Th is task will be funded locally with these costs counted toward the grant in-kind match.

5.4 Prepare Quarterly ReportsTh e Project Director will be responsible for preparing quarterly and fi nal status reports on the work and budget. Th e status reports will be reviewed with the CC and submitted to DWR in compliance with the Proposition 84 grant funding requirements.

Th is task will be funded locally with these costs counted toward the grant in-kind match.

5.3 Prepare Invoices and Fiscal StatementsOn September 7, 2010 the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (District) passed a resolution accepting the fi scal agent role on behalf of the Westside RWMG for the Proposition 84 planning grant (see Appendix 3). Th e Project Director (fi scal agent) will be the District General Manager who will be responsible for preparing invoices with appropriate funding match documentation to DWR. Th e invoices and funding match contributions will be reviewed with the CC and submitted to DWR in compliance with the Proposition 84 grant funding requirements.

Th e Project Director (fi scal agent) will also submit copies of the most recent three years of audited fi nancial statements per the Proposition 84 Guidelines. Th e submittal will include 1) balance sheets, statements of sources of income and uses of funds, a summary description of existing debts including bonds, and the most recent annual budget; 2) a list of all cash reserves, restricted and unrestricted, and any planned uses of those reserves; and 3) any loans required for project funding and a description of the repayment method of any such loans. Th e District (fi scal agent) will also prepare any other fi scal documentation requested by DWR.

During the life of the grant agreement, the District (fi scal agent) will maintain internal controls such as an organizational chart and written internal procedures outlining receipts, deposits, disbursements, state reimbursement requests, grant expenditure tracking, and guidelines, policy, and procedures on the grant funded IRWMP process. Th e District will also maintain in its fi les audit reports of its internal control structure and/or fi nancial statements within the last two years, prior audit reports for the IRWMP grant, original grant agreement with DWR, a listing of all bond-funded grants received from the State, a listing of other funding sources for each project, a listing of all consultant contracts, contracts between the District and Westside RWMG regional public agencies, invoices from all consultants for expenditures submitted to the State for reimbursement, receipts of payments received


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

September 01, 2010 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE WESTSIDE SUBREGION OF THE PROPOSITION 84 SACRAMENTO RIVER FUNDING AREA

1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to document the mutual understanding of the Lake County Watershed Protection District, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Colusa County Resource Conservation District, Solano County Water Agency and Water Resources Association of Yolo County (herein after referred to collectively as “Regional Public Agencies”) which collectively make up the Westside Subregion of the Proposition 84 Sacramento River Funding Area (Subregion), with respect to their joint efforts towards developing an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) that will increase regional coordination, collaboration, communication and assist in obtaining funding for IRWMP development, flood management and water related projects. The basis of the designation of Westside Subregion is generally the Putah and Cache Creek watersheds. 2. GOALS To foster coordination, collaboration and communication between Regional Public Agencies and other Subregion agencies responsible for water-related issues and interested stakeholders to achieve greater efficiencies, to provide for integration of projects, enhance public services and build public support for vital projects. To assist in the development of a comprehensive plan to facilitate regional cooperation in providing but not limited to water supply reliability, water recycling, water conservation, water quality improvement, storm water capture and management, flood management, wetlands enhancement and creation, and environmental and habitat protection and improvements. To prepare a planning grant application for the development of a Subregion IRWMP. 3. DEFINITIONS Agency: A public entity, be it a special district, city, county or other governmental entity, responsible for providing one or more services in the areas of water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, storm water/flood control, watershed planning and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP): A plan prepared pursuant to California Water Code Section 10530 et sec. that integrates the projects and management

Attachment 3 Appendix 1


plans of all water-related agencies and stakeholders in a region, in this case the Subregion, in order to foster coordination, collaboration, and communication among those entities and to assist decision-makers in awarding grants and other funding. The IRWMP will address but not be limited to water supply reliability, water recycling, water conservation, water quality improvement, storm water capture and management, flood management, recreation, wetlands enhancement and creation, and environmental and habitat protection and improvements. Integration: Assembling into one document the water-related management strategies, projects and management plans in the Subregion. Projects and management plans would be categorized and opportunities identified to determine regional benefits of linkages between multiple water management strategies among projects and management plans of separate service functions and to see where projects and management plans of separate service functions may further interrelate, e.g. wastewater treatment and water recycling with habitat restoration. Management Plan: An agency’s or organization’s plan, based in part on the land-use plans within the entity’s jurisdiction, that addresses how that entity will provide service in the future in one or more of the following service functions: water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, storm water/flood control, watershed planning or aquatic habitat protection and restoration. Projects: A comprehensive list of projects, programs, or polices that address: critical water quality needs of disadvantaged communities within the region, integration with land use planning, water supply reliability, drought preparedness, efficiency of water use and reuse, climate change response, environmental stewardship, recreation, integrated flood management, storm water capture and management, surface water and groundwater management and quality protection, improvement of tribal water and natural resources, and equitable distribution of benefits. Proposition 84 Lead Applicant/Fiscal Agent: Designated role of entity to serve the purpose of the lead applicant and fiscal agent for the purposes of securing grant funding to develop the IRWMP on behalf of the Westside Subregion. Stakeholders: Other entities, such as business and organizations, non profit groups, tribes and Public Utility Commission regulated entities interested in ensuring long term water supply, water quality and natural resources. IRWMP Coordinating Committee: A committee comprised of representatives designated by the signatories of this MOU to work with other Subregions in the Proposition 84 Sacramento River Funding Area and the state to apply for funding for a planning grant and to manage development of an IRWMP for the Westside Subregion. 4. IRWMP DEVELOPMENT PARTICIPANTS



Regional Public Agencies: These are the agencies (Lake County Watershed Protection District, Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Colusa County Resource Conservation District, Solano County Water Agency and Water Resources Association of Yolo County) that are developing management plans and projects, are responsible to their respective electorates, and are devoting staff to the process, and shall take the lead as described in the “Governance Section” below. These agencies are signatories to this MOU. Other Public Agencies: Other Public Agencies, which are not Regional Public Agencies (e.g. cities) are invited to participate in the development of the Westside Subregion IRWMP. Contributing Entities: Stakeholders are considered valuable contributors and shall be invited and encouraged to participate. Regulatory Agencies: These agencies, such as but not limited to the Central Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Department of Fish and Game, will be invited to participate. If they cannot participate in work meetings, representatives of the committee will keep them advised of planning efforts and project progress and seek guidance as needed. 5. EXISTING IRWMP EFFORTS Some of the Regional Public Agencies have adopted IRWMPs or equivalent documents that will be used as a foundation for a Subregional IRWMP. They are: Solano Agencies Integrated Regional Water Management Plan and Strategic Plan (http://www.scwa2.com/UWMP_IRWMP.aspx) Yolo County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (http://www.yolowra.org/irwmp_documents.html) 6. MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS Need for a Subregion IRWMP To foster increased coordination, collaboration and communication between water-related agencies and interested stakeholders that may result in more effectively managed resources, cost efficiencies and better service to the public. A qualified IRWMP is required by state law for receiving IRWMP implementation grants from Proposition 84 funds and will likely be required for any future state funding programs.


http://www.scwa2.com/UWMP_IRWMP.aspx�

http://www.yolowra.org/irwmp_documents.html�


Subject Matter Scope of the IRWMP An IRWMP needs to include, but may not necessarily be limited to, water supply, water quality, wastewater, recycled water, water conservation, storm water/flood control, watershed planning, climate change and aquatic habitat protection and restoration. It is acknowledged that the management plans of each individual public agency are based, in part, on the land-use plans within an agency’s jurisdiction. Therefore, when developed, the IRWMP will be designed to have incorporated the land-use plans and assumptions intrinsic to the respective water-related service function. Geographical Scope of the IRWMP The boundaries of the Westside Subregion of the Proposition 84 Sacramento River Funding Area are shown in the attached map included in Exhibit A. Governance The Governing Bodies of the Regional Public Agencies will appoint representatives to an IRWMP Coordinating Committee, hereafter referred to as Coordinating Committee (CC), which will be comprised of one staff representative and an alternate from each of the Regional Public Agencies. The CC will apply on behalf of the Subregion for Proposition 84 grant funding to develop the IRWMP. The CC serves as the governing and decision-making body for the Westside IRWMP Funding Subregion during development of the Plan. The Final IRWMP will be approved by the Governing Bodies of the Regional Public Agencies. Other Public Agencies will also be asked to adopt the Final IRWMP. The completed IRWMP may recommend a different Governance structure for Plan Implementation. The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD) shall act as the Proposition 84 Lead Applicant/Fiscal Agent during development of the Plan addressing fiscal and contract responsibilities of the Westside Subregion within the purview of this MOU. YCFCWCD has been elected to serve this role by consensus of the CC. The Planning Grant application shall be completed reflecting this relationship and upon grant approval the grant shall be managed reflecting this arrangement. The CC is responsible for making decisions and taking actions during the development of the Plan including, but not limited to, identifying Plan goals and objectives, prioritizing projects, hiring and managing consultants, and managing funding agreements. Any decisions made by the CC within the Westside Funding Subregion Boundary will be by consensus of all the CC members. Any decisions by the CC shall not cause an increase in expenditures beyond amounts authorized by the Governing Bodies of the Regional Public Agencies in the “Cost Share” provision of this MOU.



The CC will have a Chair and Vice Chair. The Vice Chair assumes duties of the Chair when the Chair is unavailable. In the event the Chair and Vice Chair are unavailable, the two will jointly designate an acting Chair. Term This MOU shall take effect upon signature or counter signature of the parties. This MOU shall expire on December 31, 2013 or upon its replacement by a subsequent MOU, Agreement, Joint Powers Authority Agreement, or other instrument. It is expected that the Final IRWMP shall recommend a long-term Westside Subregion governance structure. Cost Share The Regional Public Agencies have committed to funding a Proposition 84 Planning Grant application for the purposes of developing a Westside IRWMP. The Regional Public Agencies agree to a formula for cost share should the Planning Grant application be successful. Based largely on their relative geographic area and population within the Westside Funding Subregion, the local cost share for the development of the IRWMP shall not exceed 28.58% each for Lake County Watershed Protection District, Solano County Water Agency, and Water Resources Association of Yolo County, and shall not exceed 14.29% for Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The cumulative local cost share shall not exceed $334,000 without amendment to this MOU by the Governing Bodies of the Regional Public Agencies. The $334,000 is the minimum required local cost share of 25% of the IRWMP planning grant of $1,000,000 (total project cost of $1,334,000). Local cost share may include direct funds and in-kind services. The cost share is expected to be expended over three fiscal years (FY 2010-2011 through FY 2012-2013). Non-binding nature This document and participation in the development of an IRWMP effort are nonbinding, and in no way suggest that any agency may not continue its own planning and implementation of projects. Personnel It is expected that Regional Public Agencies contribute staff time necessary to meet the goals of this MOU. Reports and communications



Members of the CC will regularly report on the development and status of the Westside Subregion IRWMP to their respective Regional Public Agencies and stakeholders. Execution This MOU may be executed in counterparts and the signed counterparts shall constitute a single instrument. The signatories to this MOU represent that they have the authority to bind their respective agency to this MOU.



7. SIGNATORIES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS.

We the undersigned representatives of our respective agencies, acknowledge the above as our understanding of the development of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Westside Subregion of the Sacramento River Funding Area. _______________________________ Mike Reagan, Chairman Solano County Water Agency _______________________________ William L. Marble, Chairman Water Resources Association of Yolo County _______________________________ Bill Dodd, Chairman Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District _______________________________ Anthony Farrington, Chairman Lake County Watershed Protection District __________________________________ Jay Dee Garr, Board President Colusa County Resource Conservation District



EXHIBIT A

Map of the Westside Sub-Region of the Sacramento River Funding Area


1

APPENDIX 2

Initial List of Stakeholders to be Included in IRWMP Input Meetings

Agencies or Stakeholders Counties Involved

Working Relationship with Westside RWMG

Wholesale and retail water purveyors; including a local agency, mutual water company, or a water corporation as defined by Section 241 of the Public Utilities Code

Member agencies of SCWA in the Westside Region: City of Dixon, City of Rio Vista, City of Vacaville, Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, Reclamation District No. 2068

Solano The member agencies of SCWA generally allow SCWA to act on their behalf in regional water resource decision making. Therefore, the SCWA member agencies will not have a direct working relationship with the Westside RWMG – although they will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Adams Springs Water District, Anderson Springs CSD, B.I. Mutual Water Company, Buckingham Park Water District, California Cities Water Company, Callayomi County Water District, City of Lakeport, Clearlake Oaks County Water District, Cobb Area County Water District, Cobb Mountain Water Company, Corinthian Bay Mutual Water Company, Crescent Bay Improvement Company, Glenhaven Mutual Water Company, Golden State Water Company, Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District (HLCSD), Highlands Mutual Water Company, Jago Bay Mutual Water Company, Kelseyville Co Waterworks District 3, Konocti County Water District, Lake County, Lake County Watershed Protection District, Loch Lomond Mutual Water Co, Los Brez's Park Homeowners Association, Lower Lake County Water District, Lucerne Water Co. - Cal Water Service, Mt. Konocti Mutual Water Company, Nice Mutual Water Company, Pine Grove Water System, Riviera West Mutual Water Co., Sunrise Shore Mutual Water Company, and Upper Lake County Water District.

Lake The listed water purveyors in Lake County are (and have been) invited to participate in Lake County IRWM meetings which began in May 2007. Issues were identified, and goals and objectives are being developed. Lake County WPD is utilizing a collaborative and consensus-based process to develop the goals and objectives to address the issues identified. Sharing of data, information and resources is encouraged. As the process moves further along with the Westside RWMG, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives.


2

Initial List of Stakeholders to be Included in IRWMP Input Meetings, cont’d…



City of Davis, City of West Sacramento, City of Winters, City of Woodland, Dunnigan Water District, Reclamation District 2035, Reclamation District 108, UC Davis, and the Yolo County FC&WCD.

Yolo These water agencies are all members of the WRA of Yolo County and therefore have much experience collaborating with each other and educating each other on individual agency water projects. For almost twenty years the WRA of Yolo County has served as a forum for interactions between the listed water agencies in Yolo County and the listed stakeholders. The WRA members will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.

Napa Berryessa RID, Lake Berryessa RID, Napa County FC&WCD, Spanish Flat Water District, and Circle Oaks County Water District

Napa The Napa County FC&WCD will invite the Districts to participate and will relay important information to them through the Westside effort and the Napa County IRWMP Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The Napa County PAC will be actively involved in disseminating information from the Westside RWMG planning process to the Districts as needed.

Wastewater Agencies City of Dixon, City of Rio Vista, City of Vacaville

Solano These cities do not have a current wastewater-related working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings in this capacity.


3




City of Lakeport, Clearlake Oaks County Water District, Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District (HVLCSD), Lake County Sanitation Districts, Kelseyville Co Waterworks District 3, and Los Brez's Park Homeowners Association.

Lake These wastewater agencies in Lake County do not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. They have however, been invited to participate in Lake County IRWM meetings where the sharing of data, information and resources is encouraged. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing the goals and objectives identified in the local IRMWP meetings for return to the entire group.

City of Davis, City of West Sacramento, City of Winters, and City of Woodland

Yolo These cities with wastewater responsibilities are all members of the WRA of Yolo County and therefore have much experience collaborating with each other and educating each other on individual agency water projects. The WRA members will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.

Napa Sanitation District, Napa Berryessa Resort Improvement District, Lake Berryessa Resort Improvement District, Spanish Flat Water District, Circle Oaks County Water District

Napa Invite the Districts to participate and will relay important information to them through the Westside effort and the Napa County IRWMP Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The Napa County PAC will be actively involved in disseminating information from the Westside RWMG planning process to the Districts as needed.


4




Flood Management Agencies Central Valley Flood Protection Board Colusa,

Solano, Lake, Yolo

The Board manages State Project levees in the Central Valley watershed, including levees in Lake, Solano and Colusa Counties. Many of the Project levees are maintained by local agencies, who participate in the Westside RWMG. The Board is expected to play an active role in the Westside RWMG IRWM planning process, especially regarding floodplain management issues.

City of Davis, City of West Sacramento, City of Winters, City of Woodland, Reclamation District 2035, UC Davis, Yolo County FC&WCD,

Yolo These agencies in Yolo County with storm drainage and flood management responsibilities are all members of the WRA of Yolo County and therefore have much experience collaborating with each other and educating each other on individual agency water projects. The WRA members will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.

City of Clearlake, City of Lakeport, Hidden Valley Lake Community Services District (HVLCSD), Lake County, Lake County Watershed Protection District (WPD)

Lake These agencies in Lake County with stormwater and/or flood management responsibilities do not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. They have also been active participants in Lake County IRWM meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives for return to the entire group.


5




Napa County FC&WCD Napa As a member agency, the Napa County FC&WCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.

SCWA, Solano County, City of Vacaville, City of Rio Vista, City of Dixon, Solano Irrigation District, Maine Prairie Water District, Reclamation District 2068, Dixon Resource Conservation District, and other various Reclamation Districts in Solano County

Solano Except for SCWA, these agencies in Solano County with stormwater, drainage or flood management responsibilities do not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. SCWA is a member agency of the Westside RWMG and will represent the listed agencies at the Westside RWMG discussions.

Municipal and County Governments and Special Districts

Colusa County RCD Colusa As a member agency, Colusa County RCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.

Yolo County FC&WCD Colusa, Lake, Yolo

Colusa County RCD recognizes the Yolo County FC&WCD as a stakeholder for water rights from Bear Creek. Lake County also works with Yolo County FC&WCD regarding operation of Clear Lake and other issues of mutual concern. Yolo County FC&WCD serves is an active member of the WRA of Yolo County and as such will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. The Yolo County FC&WCD will communicate at regular WRA meetings with other agencies in Yolo County and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.


6




Colusa County Groundwater Commission

Colusa Colusa County RCD coordinates with the Colusa County Groundwater Commission. As a member agency, Colusa County RCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.

Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District

Napa The Open Space District does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG. The Napa County FC&WCD will invite the Open Space District to participate in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.

Colusa County Department of Planning and Building

Colusa Colusa County RCD coordinates with the Colusa County Department of Planning and Building. As a member agency, Colusa County RCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.

West Lake RCD, East Lake RCD Lake The West Lake and East Lake RCD do not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. The West Lake and East Lake RCD have been active participants in Lake County IRWM meetings and as the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing the goals and objectives identified in the local IRMWP meetings for return to the entire group.


7




Napa County Conservation, Development and Planning Department (Napa County CDPD), Napa County Department of Environmental Management, Napa County Department of Public Works

Napa The Napa County FC&WCD will invite these Napa County Departments to participate in Westside RWMG IRWM planning and will relay important information to them through the Napa County PAC on a regular basis. Napa County CDPD and other Department staff attend the PAC meetings and will also receive regular updates from Napa County FC&WCD.

Big Valley Groundwater Management Zone Commission

Lake The Commission advises Lake County WPD on management issues in the Big Valley groundwater basin and takes an active role in Lake County IRWM efforts.

Lake County Department of Public Works

Lake The Lake County Department of Public Works does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. Lake County Department of Public Works staff attends Lake County IRWM working group meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing the goals and objectives identified in the local IRMWP meetings for return to the entire group.


8




Yolo County RCD Yolo Yolo County RCD is an active participant of the WRA of Yolo County and therefore has much experience collaborating with the Yolo County WRA members. For almost twenty years the WRA of Yolo County has served as a forum for interactions between Yolo County stakeholders. The WRA members will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.

Solano RCD and Dixon RCD Solano The Solano and Dixon RCD does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

California Native American Tribes that have lands within the region

Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians, Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians

Lake Lake County maintains working relationships with the tribes and works cooperatively with them on projects of mutual interest. Although these tribes do not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, they will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. They have also been invited to participate in Lake County IRWM meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing the goals and objectives identified in the local IRMWP meetings for return to the entire group.


9




Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Yolo The WRA coordinates with the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation on water-related issues.

Land Use Authorities All cities and counties in Westside RWMG

Colusa, Lake, Napa,

Solano, Yolo

Vacaville, Dixon, Winters, Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento, Lakeport, Clearlake, Middletown

Watermaster for Adjudicated Surface Water or Groundwater Basins

Upper Putah Creek Watermaster Solano, Napa, Lake

The Upper Putah Creek Watermaster is funded by SCWA and surface water right holders. SCWA is part of the Upper Putah Creek Watermaster advisory committee. SCWA is a member agency of the Westside RWMG and will represent the Upper Putah Creek Watermaster at the Westside RWMG discussions.

Self-supplied water users, including agricultural, industrial, residential and park districts, school districts, colleges and universities, and others

University of California Cooperative Extension

Colusa, Lake, Napa,

Solano, Yolo

The Cooperative Extension provides input on agricultural and wildlife habitat issues to the public and agencies. The Cooperative Extension will play a major role in the Westside IRWM process.


10




Private ranches/landowners Colusa, Lake, Napa, Solano

The Colusa County RCD works with private ranches within the watershed. As a member agency, Colusa County RCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning. The Lake County WPD is the lead agency representing Lake County and has been involved with the Westside RWMG since inception. Napa County Department of Environmental Management inspects, permits, and manages private groundwater wells and septic systems in the unincorporated County. The Napa County FC&WCD will invite the Napa County Department of Environmental Management to participate in Westside RWMG IRWM planning and, in addition, will relay important information to them through the Napa County PAC on a regular basis. The Solano County Water Agency is the lead agency representing Solano County and has been involved with the Westside RWMG since inception.

Environmental stewardship organizations including watershed groups, fishing groups, land conservancies, and environmental groups

Solano Land Trust Solano The Solano Land Trust does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.


11




Lake County Land Trust Lake The Lake County Land Trust works cooperatively with private property owners, Lake County, state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders to preserve important habitat in Lake County. Although the Trust does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, it will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives for return to the entire group.

Napa County Land Trust Napa The Napa County FC&WCD will invite these Napa County Departments to participate in Westside RWMG IRWM planning and, in addition, will relay important information to them through the Napa County PAC on a regular basis.

Tuleyome Colusa, Yolo, Lake

Colusa County RCD and Yolo County FC&WCD recognize Tuleyome as a stakeholder and maintain dialogue with this environmental stewardship organization. Tuleyome will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. Yolo County FC&WCD is an active member of the WRA of Yolo County and as such will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As a member agency, Colusa County RCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.


12




Cache Creek Conservancy, Cache Creek Watershed Forum

Colusa, Yolo, Lake

Colusa County RCD and Yolo County FC&WCD recognize Cache Creek Conservancy and the Cache Creek Watershed Forum as stakeholders and maintain dialogue with these conservation organizations. Both the Cache Creek Conservancy and the Cache Creek Watershed Forum will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives for return to the entire group. Yolo County FC&WCD is an active member of the WRA of Yolo County and as such will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As a member agency, Colusa County RCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.

California Rangeland Trust Colusa Colusa County RCD will coordinate the California Rangeland Trust. As a member agency, Colusa County RCD will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning.

Redbud Audubon Society Lake The Redbud Audubon Society does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. Redbud Audubon works to preserve important habitat in Lake County and works cooperatively with private property owners, Lake County, state and federal agencies, and other stakeholders to accomplish these goals.


13




Lake County Sierra Club Lake The Lake County Sierra Club does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives for return to the entire group.

Lower Lake Watershed Council, Upper Putah Creek Stewardship, Middle Creek Watershed Council, Big Valley CRMP, Scotts Creek Watershed Council, Nice-Lucerne Watershed Group, Schindler Creek/High Valley CRMP, Chi Council for the Clear Lake Hitch, Lower Lake CRMP

Lake Local watershed groups interact with property owners and agency personnel in order to protect and restore watershed health. These groups and agencies do not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings as their local input will be critical to the Westside IRWM efforts. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives for return to the entire group.

Yolo Wildlife Area Yolo Yolo Wildlife Area is a participant of the WRA of Yolo County. The WRA will represent the environmental interests in Yolo County at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.


14




Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership Napa, Solano

Lake Berryessa Watershed Partnership does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Putah Creek Discovery Corridor, Putah Creek Council

Solano, Yolo

Putah Creek Discovery Corridor and Putah Creek Council do not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Lower Putah Creek Coordinating Committee

Solano, Yolo

Lower Putah Creek Coordinating Committee does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Blue Ridge-Berryessa Natural Area Partnership

Napa Blue Ridge-Berryessa Natural Area Partnership does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Berryessa Trails and Conservation (BT&C)

Napa, Yolo,

Solano, Lake,

Colusa

Although not yet involved with the Westside RWMG, BT&C works with other non-profit organizations and will be invited to participate in Westside IRWM planning meetings.

Yolo Basin Foundation Yolo Yolo Basin Foundation is a participant of the WRA of Yolo County. The WRA members will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.


15




California Audubon Lake, Solano, Napa, Yolo,

Colusa

California Audubon does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Yolo County Audubon Yolo Yolo County Audubon is a participant of the WRA of Yolo County. The WRA will represent Yolo County Audubon’s interests by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.

Yolo County HCP/NCCP Joint Powers Authority (JPA)

Yolo Yolo County HCP/NCCP Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is a participant of the WRA of Yolo County. The WRA members will be represented by the WRA at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.


16




State, federal, and regional agencies or universities that have specific responsibilities or knowledge within the region

UC Davis, UC Davis Quail Ridge Reserve, UC Davis Putah Creek Preserve

Colusa, Solano, Napa,

Lake, Yolo

Colusa County RCD has sub-contracted Craig Thomas’ services from UC Davis as the Bear Creek Watershed Coordinator. The SCWA has used UC Davis expertise by contract multiple projects. UC Davis is a landowner in Napa County around Berryessa for Quail Ridge Reserve (http://nrs.ucdavis.edu/quail.html). In addition, UC Davis manages the Homestake Gold Mine property in Lake/Napa/Yolo counties. UC Davis is also working with the Lake WPD on Clear Lake nutrient loading TMDL. The Colusa County RCD and the SCWA are member agencies, and will be actively involved in Westside RWMG IRWM planning. UC Davis, the UC Davis Quail Ridge Reserve, and the UC Davis Putah Creek Preserve will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

BLM – property owner Colusa, Napa,

Solano, Lake, Yolo

As a land manager in parts of all Westside RWMG counties, BLM will be an active participant in Westside RWMG planning. Presently, BLM has working relationships with many water agencies in the Westside RWMG.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB)

Colusa, Napa,

Solano, Lake, Yolo

Focused with a concern for mercury in the watersheds, the CVRWQCB will continue its working relationship with water agencies and landowners through the Westside RWMG.


17




Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Colusa, Napa,

Solano, Lake, Yolo

The NRCS works with landowners in all Westside RWMG counties to implement conservation practices in the watershed. NRCS will be invited to participate in Westside IRWM planning meetings.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR)

Colusa, Lake, Yolo

DWR has funded some projects in the Bear Creek (Cache Creek) watershed. DWR is also a grant manager for projects in Lake County and Yolo County. The Lake County WPD cooperative maintains the Middle Creek Flood Control Project with DWR.

California Department of Fish & Game (DFG)

Colusa, Lake, Napa,

Solano, Yolo

DFG actively works with environmental stewardship organizations in the Yolo Bypass. DFG is not currently involved in Westside RWMG planning, but will be invited to participate in Westside RWMG planning efforts.

US Forest Service (USFS) Colusa, Lake

Landowner in Colusa and Lake Counties. USFS will be invited to participate in Westside RWMG planning.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Lake, Solano, Napa, Yolo,

Colusa

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is not directly working with the Westside RWMG. However, Bureau staff will likely participate in Westside IRWM planning.

Members and representatives of DAC, including environmental justice organizations, neighborhood councils, and social justice organizations

Rumsey Water Users’ Association Yolo Rumsey Water Users’ Association is a participant of the WRA of Yolo County. The WRA will represent Yolo County water users at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these agencies in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.


18




Any other interested groups appropriate to the region

Various aggregate mining companies Lake, Yolo Aggregate mining companies do not presently have a working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Cacheville CSD, Madison CSD, Knights Landing CSD, Esparto CSD

Yolo Cacheville CSD, Madison CSD, Knights Landing CSD, and Esparto CSD are indirect participants of the WRA of Yolo County. The WRA will represent Yolo County CSDs at the Westside RWMG meetings. As the Westside RWMG develops, these CSDs in Yolo County will communicate at regular WRA meetings and collectively develop strategies and recommendations for the WRA to report to the Westside RWMG.

Watershed Information Center and Conservancy (WICC) Board of Napa County and WICC Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Napa The WICC Board and WICC TAC provide a local forum for vetting draft IRWM guidance documents. A database in which project sponsors can submit potential projects will exist on the publically-accessible WICC website (www.napawatersheds.org ). The WICC web-site and e-mail notices will be used to notify residents of various Napa County and Westside IRWM related programs and activities. The Napa County FC&WCD will invite the WICC Board and WICC TAC to participate in Westside RWMG IRWM planning and, in addition, will relay important information to them through the Napa County PAC on a regular basis.

Wilbur Hot Springs Resort Colusa Landowner and business in watershed; concerned about preserving natural resources. The Resort has a working relationship with Colusa County RCD, a Westside RWMG member agency.


19




Cow Mountain Kiko Goats Lake Cow Mountain Kiko Goats does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives for return to the entire group.

LCWMA Lake LCWMA does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed.

CLEAN Lake CLEAN coordinates local public outreach for the USEPA Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund site cleanup and coordinates with local, state, and federal agencies. CLEAN does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed.

CAL Fire Lake CAL Fire does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Napa County Firewise Foundation (NCFF)

Napa NCFF collaborates with numerous community organizations and is an IRWM stakeholder that will be invited to participate in Westside IRWM planning.


20




California Urban Water Agencies Lake, Solano, Napa, Yolo,

Colusa

CUWA does not have a working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but is engaged in watershed issues related to water quality in the Sacramento River.

California Native Plant Society Lake, Solano, Napa, Yolo,

Colusa

The Society represents citizens and agencies who are leaders in habitat protection, conservation, and promoting the use of native plants in landscaping and home gardens. The Society does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings.

Lake County Department of Agriculture Lake The Department of Agriculture does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed. The Department of Agriculture’s goal is to protect agricultural interests in Lake County.

Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, Yolo County Farm Bureau

Yolo The Commissioner’s Office and Farm Bureau staff frequent WRA of Yolo County meetings. The WRA represents Yolo County agricultural interests at the Westside RWMG meetings.

Solano County Agricultural Commissioner

Solano The Solano County Ag Commissioner will be involved in protecting agricultural interests affected by Westside IRWMP planning and is an IRWM stakeholder that will be invited to participate in Westside IRWM planning.


21




Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Napa The Napa County Ag Commissioner will be involved in protecting agricultural interests affected by Westside IRWMP planning and is an IRWM stakeholder that will be invited to participate in Westside IRWM planning.

Solano County Farm Bureau Solano The Solano County Farm Bureau will be involved in protecting agricultural interests affected by Westside IRWMP planning and is an IRWM stakeholder that will be invited to participate in Westside IRWM planning.

Napa County Farm Bureau Napa The Napa County Farm Bureau will be involved in protecting agricultural interests affected by Westside IRWMP planning and is an IRWM stakeholder that will be invited to participate in Westside IRWM planning.

Lake County Farm Bureau Lake, Napa

The Farm Bureau will be involved in protecting agricultural interests affected by Westside IRWM planning. The Farm Bureau coordinates the irrigated lands stakeholder grouping the Upper Cache and Putah Creek watersheds. The Farm Bureau does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed.


22




Lake County Sierra Club Lake Lake County Sierra Club does not have a current working relationship with the Westside RWMG, but will be invited and encouraged to participate in Westside RWMG meetings to provide input on environmental issues. As the process moves further along with the Westside IRWM, workgroups in Lake County will be formed to develop the initial strategies for addressing these goals and objectives for return to the entire group.

El Macero CSA, Willowbank CSA, North Davis Meadows CSA

Yolo The CSAs in Yolo County will be represented by the City of Davis at the WRA of Yolo County. The City of Davis serves these CSA’s and is a member of the WRA of Yolo County. The WRA of Yolo County is a member agency of the Westside RWMG.



Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Budget NarrativeTh e Westside RWMG IRWMP budget is broken down into fi ve main tasks as outlined in the Work Plan. Th e total project budget of $1,586,800 is assumed to be funded through a combination of a $1 million Proposition 84 planning grant and a $586,800 local match (37%). Th e Westside RWMG funding match consists of both in-kind labor and cash contributions. Based on past activities we believe will qualify towards the non-state share funding match and proposed future work hours, the in-kind labor contribution for the Westside RWMG Regional Public Agencies equates to approximately $330,800. Th e $256,000 balance of the local match will be cash contributions. Th e cash contribution and total grant award are both included in the consultants cost, as shown in the attached budget.

A summary of the overall budget is shown in the table below:

Task No. Description Amount, $

1 Outreach, Facilitation, Communication 461,600

2 Data Collection 211,000

3 Develop IRWMP Components 420,800

4 IRWMP Preparation 406,200

5 Grant Process Administration 87,200

TOTAL 1,586,800

Task 1 requires substantial resources since eff ective stakeholder outreach and engagement requires a substantial number of meetings throughout the region in addition to development of documents and other means of keeping stakeholders informed. Th ere are also the special requirements for Tribes and Disadvantaged Communities (DAC). Th e Task 2 budget assumes that a centralized database will not be developed, instead relying on existing resources and developing centralized access to the necessary data. Th e budget for Task 3 is based on a straightforward approach to each of the required IRWMP components. We expect that there may be a need to move funding among the diff erent subtasks within Task 3 as the work proceeds. Th e Task 4 budget is fairly straightforward, and based largely on the collective experience of the Regional Public Agencies in preparing draft and fi nal comprehensive planning documents (including the two existing IRWMPs described in the background section of the work plan). Task 5 is an estimate of the costs to administer the grant program, and is based in part on past experience in grant administration for development of the Yolo County IRWMP.

Careful attention has been given to developing the proposed budget consistent with details of the tasks described in the work plan. We also recognize that budget details may change over time due to a refi nement of the work plan as a consultant team is selected and the work is scheduled.

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

4

Westside-Sacramento IRWMP BudgetATTACHMENT 4

Non-State Share (Funding Match)Non-State Cash Share In-Kind Share Total

Consultant Team Hours ($159/hour)a

Grant Funded

Consultant Costs

Cash Funded

Consultant Costs

Fiscal Agent Costs

In-Kind Hours

In-Kind Cost ($80/hour)b

Non-State Share

(Funding Match)c

Requested Grant Funding

(DWR Grant Amount) Total

% Funding Match

TASK 1Outreach, Facilitation, and Communication1.1 Coordinating Committee Meetings and Coordination 300 $40,000 $8,000 1050 $84,000 $92,000 $40,0001.2 Develop Structure for Public Process 94 $13,000 $2,000 100 $8,000 $10,000 $13,0001.3 Stakeholder Input Meetings 414 $56,000 $10,000 300 $24,000 $34,000 $56,0001.4 Communication with Stakeholders 330 $44,000 $8,000 100 $8,000 $16,000 $44,0001.5 Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Meetings 200 $27,000 $5,000 40 $3,200 $8,200 $27,0001.6 Public Review Draft IRWMP Public Hearings 120 $16,000 $3,000 40 $3,200 $6,200 $16,0001.7 Miscellaneous Meetings (with DWR, other RWMGs, etc.) 132 $18,000 $3,000 40 $3,200 $6,200 $18,0001.8 Website Development, Newsletters, Material Prep. 257 $35,000 $6,000 10 $800 $6,800 $35,0001.9 California Native American Tribe Notifications/Engagement 191 $25,000 $5,000 40 $3,200 $8,200 $25,000

TASK TOTAL 2,038 $274,000 $50,000 1,720 $137,600 $187,600 $274,000 $461,600 41%TASK 2Data Collection2.1 Review Existing Westside Regional Public Agencies' Resource Data 162 $22,000 $4,000 20 $1,600 $5,600 $22,0002.2 Identify Data Needed to Develop Issues, Goals, and Objectives and to Evaluate Actions 391 $52,000 $10,000 40 $3,200 $13,200 $52,0002.3 Compile and Update Land and Water Use Planning Data 177 $24,000 $4,000 200 $16,000 $20,000 $24,0002.4 Compile and Update Demographics and Data 207 $28,000 $5,000 20 $1,600 $6,600 $28,0002.5 Collect Data Needed for Climate Change Evaluation 237 $32,000 $6,000 20 $1,600 $7,600 $32,000

TASK TOTAL 1,174 $158,000 $29,000 300 $24,000 $53,000 $158,000 $211,000 25%TASK 3Develop IRWMP Componentsa. Introduction/Baseline 3.a.1. RWMG Governance 100 $13,000 $3,000 10 $800 $3,800 $13,000 3.a.2. Region Description 150 $20,000 $4,000 10 $800 $4,800 $20,000 3.a.3. Objectives (Issues, Goals, and Objectives) 100 $13,000 $3,000 50 $4,000 $7,000 $13,000 3.a.4. Data Management 150 $20,000 $4,000 10 $800 $4,800 $20,000 3.a.5. Resource Management Strategies 120 $16,000 $3,000 10 $800 $3,800 $16,000 3.a.6. Finance 100 $13,000 $3,000 10 $800 $3,800 $13,000 3.a.7. Impacts and Benefits 100 $13,000 $3,000 10 $800 $3,800 $13,000 3.a.8. Technical Analysis 300 $40,000 $8,000 10 $800 $8,800 $40,000b. Coordination 3.b.1. Coordination 140 $19,000 $3,000 10 $800 $3,800 $19,000 3.b.2. Stakeholder Involvement 110 $15,000 $2,000 10 $800 $2,800 $15,000 3.b.3. Stakeholder/Resource Integration 210 $28,000 $5,000 10 $800 $5,800 $28,000 3.b.4. Relation to Local Water Planning 150 $20,000 $4,000 10 $800 $4,800 $20,000 3.b.5. Relation to Local Land Use Planning 150 $20,000 $4,000 10 $800 $4,800 $20,000c. Project Review Process and Prioritization 170 $23,000 $4,000 35 $2,800 $6,800 $23,000d. Climate Change 240 $32,000 $6,000 10 $800 $6,800 $32,000

e. Mercury Strategic Plan (Inter-regional) d 0f. Implementation Strategy 140 $19,000 $3,000 10 $800 $3,800 $19,000g. Plan Performance and Monitoring 100 $13,000 $3,000 10 $800 $3,800 $13,000

TASK TOTAL 2530 $337,000 $65,000 235 $18,800 $83,800 $337,000 $420,800 20%TASK 4IRWMP Preparation4.1 Development of IRWMP Scope 180 $0 $29,000 1070 $85,600 $114,600 $04.2 Prepare and Comment on Administrative Draft IRWMP 1005 $135,000 $25,000 100 $8,000 $33,000 $135,0004.3 Prepare Draft IRWMP and Solicit Public Comment 350 $48,000 $8,000 100 $8,000 $16,000 $48,0004.4 Prepare Final Draft IRWMP 310 $41,000 $8,000 100 $8,000 $16,000 $41,0004.5 Adoption of Final Draft IRWMP 8 $1,000 $0 20 $1,600 $1,600 $1,000

TASK TOTAL 1853 $225,000 $70,000 1,390 $111,200 $181,200 $225,000 $406,200 45%TASK 5IRWMP Grant Process Administration5.1 Contract Execution with DWR 0 $0 $0 $6,000 70 $5,600 $11,600 $05.2 Prepare RFP and Execute Contract with Consultant Team 0 $0 $0 $0 100 $8,000 $8,000 $05.3 Prepare Invoices and Fiscal Statements 20 $3,000 $0 $18,000 160 $12,800 $30,800 $3,0005.4 Prepare Quarterly Reports 20 $3,000 $0 $18,000 160 $12,800 $30,800 $3,000

TASK TOTAL 40 $6,000 $0 $42,000 490 $39,200 $81,200 $6,000 $87,200 93%

PROJECT TOTAL 7635 $1,000,000 $214,000 $42,000 4135 $330,800 $586,800 $1,000,000 $1,586,800 37%

(a) Blended Consultant Team Hourly Rate(b) Blended Coordinating Committee Hourly Rate

(c) SOURCES OF FUNDING The Non-State Share includes: 1. In-kind hours contributed by the Regional Public Agencies 2. Cash contributions from the Regional Public Agencies totaling $256,000 as follows: - $73,100 from Solano County Water Agency - $73,100 from Water Resources Association of Yolo County - $73,100 from Lake County Watershed Protection District - $36,700 from Napa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

(d) The Mercury Strategic Plan will be completed with Grant and In-Kind Services associated with an Inter-Regional Project. To avoid double-counting, the In-Kind Services associatedwith the Inter-Regional Project are not shown here, but are shown in the Inter-regional application being submitted by the Sacramento River Watershed Program.

Westside-Sacramento IRWM Planning Grant Application


Sept

embe

r, 20

10

Schedule NarrativeScheduling for the Westside RWMG IRWMP will be broken down into three phases as shown in the timeline graphic below (also included in the Work Plan) and in the detailed schedule. Th e fi rst phase will involve coordination among the Westside RWMG members, DWR, California Native American tribes, stakeholders and disadvantaged communities (DACs). Th ese meetings will involve establishing region-wide objectives. Th e second phase will consist of using the established objectives from Phase 1 to develop components of the IRWMP and identify projects that will address the region’s objectives. Prioritization of projects will also occur during Phase 2 of IRWMP development.

Th e third and fi nal phase will involve developing an administrative, public review, and fi nal draft of the Westside IRWMP and soliciting public comment. Once the comments are received and addressed, the fi nal draft IRWMP will be prepared and submitted to the Westside RWMG Regional Public Agencies for adoption.

Please note that the start date for the Contract Execution with DWR (Task 5.1) is unrealistic. However, the length of time required for this task is realistic and necessary in order to complete Task 5.2 on time in order to start the IRWMP process by January 17, 2011. Most likely the dates shown in the schedule will be shift ed, but the relative length of time for each task is representative of the anticipated actual schedule.

AT

TA

CH

ME

NT

5

JAN JUL JUL DEC

• Stakeholder and DAC meetings• Data collection and mapping

Finaliz

e Objec

tives

• Stakeholder and DAC meetings• Project review process and prioritization• Implementation strategy• Gather list of projects• Data collection and mapping• Discuss impacts and benefits

DEVELOP OBJECTIVES& ISSUES

DEVELOP ACTIONS& PRIORITIZE PROJECTS

DEVELOPIRWMP

Phase 1

2011 2012

Phase 2 Phase 3

Admini

strati

ve D

raft I

RWMP

Public

Rev

iew D

raft I

RWMP

Final D

raft I

RWMP

Region

al Pub

lic A

gency

Boa

rds A

dopt F

inal IR

WMP

Westside IRWMP Process Timeline

• Stakeholder and DAC meetings

Proposal Full View

Documents

Transcript of Proposal Full View