460 likes | 570 Views
Strategy Session. Outline. Part I-The Past Mission / Goals / Process for Projects Past Project Evaluation IRWMP / Policies Recent Projects-Evaluation Performance Measures / Long-term Targets Part II-The Future New Projects Budget options. Mission / Goals / Process for Projects.
E N D
Outline Part I-The Past • Mission / Goals / Process for Projects • Past Project Evaluation • IRWMP / Policies Recent Projects-Evaluation • Performance Measures / Long-term Targets Part II-The Future • New Projects • Budget options
Mission / Goals / Process for Projects • Mission The mission of the NBWA is to facilitate partnerships across political boundaries that promote stewardship of the North Bay watershed resources.
Goals • Bring together local agencies to work on issues of common interest • Maximize effective use of resources • Promote watershed stewardship • Be proactive on watershed based regulations • Enhance NBWA’s influence on local, state, and federal policies and programs • Increase eligibility for watershed based funding
Projects • Typically identified in NBWA committees • Water Quality- Beverly James • Habitat and Flood Protection- Liz Lewis • Integrated Water Resources- Chris DeGabriele
Evaluation • Criteria • Furthers NBWA goals • 2. Funds used effectively • 3. Useful (or transferable) • Ratings • A-Outstanding • B-Very good • C-Average, • D-Below average • E-Waste of money
Past Projects • North Bay Regional Water Recycling Study- ($67k) • B (H/F) • B+ (IWR)-*Seemed useful to group and organizational development • B (WQ) -*Led to NBWRA
Satellite Treatment Plant Study(total cost~$ 62k) C (IWR)-Could have been better A (WQ) -Useful study
North Bay Mercury Pollution Prevention ($75k) B (H/F) C (WQ) -Probably not good use of funds due to spread out nature of districts
Stream Restoration Demonstration Project (total cost ~ $28k) -Thompson Creek in the City of Petaluma C (H/F)-Not sure if public outreach was sufficient
Watershed Stewardship Plan (Total cost ~ $ 160k, completed in 2005) • B(H/F)-Good preliminary effort but it wasn’t able to provide much in watershed specific recommendations due to limited budget. • B (IWR)-Resource management only received cursory review at this scale but good starting point. • C+ (WQ)
Consolidated Grant Proposal (NBWA administrative costs~ $45k)- 8 projects • Grant-~ $640k • San Anselmo Creek Restoration • Novato Creek Watershed Citizen’s WQMP • Petaluma Watershed Restoration • Redwood Creek Watershed Sediment Control • Sonoma Creek- Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control • Sonoma Creek- Watershed Stewardship • Sonoma Creek- Channel reach Rehab • Sonoma Creek- Water Quality Monitoring
San Anselmo Creek Park: Riprap Removal and Restoration, Town of San Anselmo, Marin County-FOCMC $41k, 99 % complete *Project included rip-rap removal and restoration, removal of invasive non-native vegetation, brush layering, planting, irrigation and fencing for a 90’ reach. *Project is essentially complete- Draft final report available. * Project received additional funding from RWQCB and RVSD to expand efforts. Monitoring (BMI) activities conducted by MCSTOPPP will be included when available.
Novato Creek Watershed Citizens Water Quality Monitoring Program- FNC $68k, 95% complete *FNC trained Citizen volunteers and finalized five monitoring sites and GPS mapping. * Project included monthly sampling- BMI, pathogens, and turbidity.
Petaluma Watershed Restoration and Outreach-SSCRCD $142k, 95 % complete *Based on Petaluma Watershed Enhancement Plan the focus was on the highest priority -San Antonio Creek. *The goal was to reduce sediment. The project included BMPs on private lands- establishing riparian habitat and fencing for seasonal exclusion of cattle. Six potential projects were evaluated and 3 were funded. * A draft San Antonio Creek Watershed Plan was drafted using additional funding. * Need identified for long term monitoring.
Redwood Creek Watershed Sediment Control on Marin Municipal Water District Lands-MMWD $91k, 99% complete *Goal was to improve streambed quality and restore salmon habitat through erosion control. * 10 sites originally identified-stream crossings and 6 added. *Work included larger culverts and road repair. * Most work done in house after single high bid received.
Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control Recommendations for Jack London State Historic Park Watershed -SEC $109k, 100% complete *The Erosion Inventory and Sediment Control project for Jack London State Historic Park Watershed is complete and SEC has issued a report entitled Inventory to Erosion Sites: Memorandum and Action Plan for JLSHP Watershed, which details the project findings. * Sites include active and abandoned roads and utility routes. * New funding from SCC and SWRCB will be used for remediation.
Watershed Stewardship for Landowners- SEC $30k, 100 % complete * SEC provided guidance and assistance to private landowners for BMPs to prevent erosion, enhance infiltration, and improve habitat *SEC created a landowners database, guide and user’s guide. * BMP implementation report drafted.
Sonoma Creek Channel Reach Rehabilitation (support TMDL)-SEC $54k, 100% complete *SEC conducted “Creek Salons” and identified with landowners their stream issues, setting priorities for restoration and management. *SEC has issued the Sonoma Creek, Glen Ellen-Kenwood Reach: A Community-based Conceptual Management Plan.
Sonoma Creek water quality monitoring -SEC $94k, 100 % complete *SEC assessed biological and physical/habitat condition and did flow monitoring for summer low flows. * SEC completed BMI and sediment and turbidity monitoring. * “Sediment Source Analysis”. Report completed- The full report can be displayed or printed from SEC website: www.sonomaecologtcenter.org On the RESEARCH page click on “Sediment Source Analysis”.
Prop 13 Evaluation • Administrative issues for MMWD and project managers • Projects would likely not have been funded without consolidated grant • Leveraged $43k in NBWA funds for $640 in state funds plus local match • Projects all seemed successful • Rating A-
Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) (Costs ~ $93k) A (H/F)-This really helped the Board and Council to focus on goals and objectives and to reinforce working together B (IWR)- Prioritized projects A- (WQ) -Very helpful in participating in Bay Area IRWMP
NBWA IRWMP PoliciesSupport….. • Development of Integrated, reliable water supply…. • Sharing of information… • Integrated projects-SW, FP, Habitat… • Effective water monitoring… • Member agencies efforts to meet WQ stds… • Efforts to protect habitat for special status species… • Reduce erosion and sediment in streams … Road Show Digital Library SEC Report SFEI Report NapaPP Miller Creek Novato Creek
NBWA “Road show”- Circle Point ~ $26k from carryover in 06-07 budget(Policy #1) • C (H/F) *Turned out to be not that useful and appears hard to update. • B+ (IWR) ( F for NBWA follow up) • D (WQ) * Not successful at capturing info from great programs …organized for the NBWA meetings
North Bay Digital Library ~ $ 29k from 2005-2006 budget (Policy #2) • C (H/F) *Provides good summary of what data other agencies have collected but not as informative as I thought it would be. • Didn’t like it • Not sure who if anyone is using the databases
Regional Assessment- Integrated Projects- SEC ~$20k from carryover in 06-07 (Policy #3) • B (H/F) Good initial effort, will use this to develop Marin Watershed Stewardship Plan • Interesting
Watershed Monitoring- SFEI ~ $20k from carryover in 06-07 budget (Policy #4) • C (H/F) Disappointed in this effort that SFEI couldn’t commit to specific recommendations.
High School Pollution Prevention Pilot- Napa .San ~$10k budgeted from carryover (Policy #5) • B (WQ) Encouraged that it is being tried in 2 more schools. Too early to tell if will be successful
Miller Creek Pilot-Watershed ~ $50k from carryover -added to 06-07 budget (Policy #6) • A (H/F) The process and product is now desired by multiple watershed organizations • A (WQ) Seemed very successful
Novato Creek-Erosion Control BMPs- ~$60k from Novato San. (Policy #7) • B+ (H/F) Great pilot effort next time need to integrate public outreach element* • B+ (WQ) I think it will prove useful—the quality of the work was high.
IRWMP • Performance Measures / Long-term Targets • #1: Recycling, conservation, desal. • #2: Sources of data, website hits • #3: Number of integrated projects • #4: Number of streams being monitored • #5: % decrease in wastewater discharged • #6: Restored riparian and wetland habitat • #7: Number of stream restoration projects
Table ES-1NBWA Policy Performance Measures 1.RecyclingUse of recycled water (AF, % of wastewater produced){WQ-4/06- NBWA should defer to NBWRA to develop targets for both Policy #1-use of recycled water and Policy #5=percent decrease in wastewater discharged} • Conservation -Level of BMPs implemented (% of implementation complete)Level of participation in incentive programs (%)Reduction in potable water demand (AF, gallon per capita per day)[IWR-1/06 NBWA should Encourage the development of long term targets and Endorse and support targets developed by member agencies] • DesalinationPotable water supply provided by desalination (AF, % of regional supply) 2.Sources of available data (#)Website hits
3.Number of integrated projects (#)[H/F-1/06-“nothing better right now”]{H/F-4/06–Not ready yet to identify targets-revisit after SEC project completed on this policy. Also consider alternative measures such as “ % of projects that are integrated” or “number of projects over time that are integrated”.} • 4.Percent of rivers and streams fully (?) monitored (%)[H/F-1/06-Number of streams being monitored]{H/F-4/06- need denominator}{WQ-4/06-Revisit after SFEI study}Increase in the type and amount of data collected (parameters, schedule) • 5.Percent decrease in wastewater discharged (%){WQ-4/06- NBWA should defer to NBWRA to develop targets for both Policy #1-use of recycled water and Policy #5=percent decrease in wastewater discharged}Percent compliance with permit requirements (%) • 6.Restored ( H/F-1/06-including created or enhanced) riparian habitat (acres)(NEED Baseline H/F-1/06)Restored wetlands (acres){H/F -4/06- Need baseline for both-total riparian habitat existing and wetlands(denominator)} • 7.Level of sediment in streams (turbidity)-H/F 1/06 Number of erosion control projects Number of stream restoration projects (#){H/F-4/06- Not ready yet to identify targets-revisit after SFEI study on Water Quality}
Part II-The Future • New proposed projects • Budget options
New Approved Projects2007-2008 *Wastewater Laterals $90k total ($12.5 K NBWA) -Contracts signed * “Signs” $15k-purchase orders to 3 counties *Salmon Monitoring $34k -Contract signed
Proposed 2008-2009 H/F TC Maps-TBI- $100k Document data base - SEC $25k Miller Creek -”flash”-SFEI $5-9.5k Indicators SEC $ 50k Petaluma TAG-SFEI-$14.5k IWR TC Web-pervious /impervious surfaces-MMWD ?? Conservation-pilot “off the grid” SCWA $50k Flood water recharge SCWA $50k NBWA Fact sheet- WC -$12.5k
Project Evaluation • Criteria • Addresses Goals& Policies • Benefits multiple members • Matching funds • Useful • Other?
Maps-TBI- $100k Document data base -SEC $25k Miller Creek -”flash”-SFEI $5-9.5k Indicators SEC $ 50k Petaluma TAG-SFEI-$14.5k Web-pervious /impervious surfaces-MMWD Conservation-pilot “off the grid” SCWA-$50k Flood water recharge SCWA $50k NBWA Fact sheet- WC -$12.5k
May 2-Concept Proposals NBWA Fact sheet - WC -$12.5k -Report and Webpage Conservation-pilot “off the grid” - SCWA $25k -Report-survey of use, potential incentive programs, feasibility of outreach, grant opportunities Indicators/Performance Measures- SEC, SFEI, TBI $ 43k -Project team, synthesis of systems, 3 workshops-develop consensus on performance measures and indicators, Report and revised NBWA performance measures Total= $80.5 k = present carryover (was $55k) • update due to conference-expect more carryover
Uncommitted Budget items • 6. Public outreach Materials $ 7,500 • 10. Data Management $10,000 • 13. Update of IRWMP $ 20,000 • 15. Contingency Reserve $ 20,000 Remnant • 10. Legislative Action $0
Goals • Bring together local agencies to work on issues of common interest • Maximize effective use of resources • Promote watershed stewardship • Be proactive on watershed based regulations • Enhance NBWA’s influence on local, state, and federal policies and programs • Increase eligibility for watershed based funding
June Board meeting • Expect additional carryover to be identified • May have additional projects • Data Management ($25k?) • Petaluma TAG ($10k) • ?Board direction