BAIRWMP Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Background/History Background/History...
-
Upload
amos-dennis -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of BAIRWMP Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Background/History Background/History...
BAIRWMPBay Area Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan
http://bairwmp.org/ Background/History
Prop 50 2002-2006 - Prop 84 changes (2006)
Bay area actions
Plan Update and Projects Opportunities/ challenges
Background/History Prop 50
-2006 BAIRWMP-Prop 50 Implementation grant-Plan development and
Functional Areas Prop 84
- Regional Acceptance Process- Sub-regions and target allocations- Project prioritization
Prop 84 Implementation Grants
Integrated Regional Water Management Planning
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/ Required By State for certain
funding under Prop 50-passed in 2002– $3.4 billion Total
-$ 500 million for IRWM Required Plan or “functional
equivalent” to be adopted in order to receive Implementation funds
2006 BAIRWMP Regional Group Region Description Objectives Water Management Strategies Integration Regional Priorities Implementation Impacts and Benefits Technical Analysis & Plan Performance Data Management Financing Statewide Priorities Relation to Local Planning Stakeholder Involvement Coordination
Prop 50 Grant Grant received-Prop 50 Round 1- 2005/6
$12.5 million - 10% minimum match
Conservation and Recycling projects
Prop 50 round 2- 2007-Policy decision-focus on storm water/ floodplains/ watersheds
-Step 1Proposal evaluated based on BAIRWMP
-Not invited to step 2 Supplemental Prop 50 -2010
Max. $3.7 m –Not invited to step 2
Bay Area IRWMPRegional
Function/ REGIONAL ENTITIESWater Supply and Water Quality*Bay Area Water Agencies Coalition- BAWACWastewater and Recycled Water*Bay Area Clean Water Agencies- BACWA http://www.bacwa.org/Flood Protection and Stormwater ManagementBay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association
BAFPAAWatershed Management/Habitat Protection and RestorationBay Area Watershed Network BAWN
Bay Area IRWMP CC
BAWAC
Outgrowth of Water Recycling program
Created to respond to IRWM concept
Includes all major water agencies in 9 counties
Emphasis on Conservation New technologies Refining existing programs Evaluating regional opportunities
BACWA
Existed since 1984 Joint Powers Agreement
All major Publicly Owned Treatment Works in all 9 counties
Emphasis on Water Recycling Lead for $12.5 million IRWM state
grant
BAFPAA
Concept developed in 2006 in response to IRWM.
Represents the 9 Bay Area counties and communities in regional and statewide issues in the area of flood protection
Approval of the Rules of Governance by the counties or agencies occurred from 2006-2009.
Collaboration on: IRWMP, USACE Levee Vegetation Policy
BAWN
Concept developed in 2006 Hosted by RWQCB/ SFEP Next Annual meeting- February
10,2012 Workgroups established:
Policy Outreach and Education Monitoring and Assessment Water and Land Use IRWMP Coordination
Watershed Management/Habitat Protection
and Restoration (Watershed) Component November 2006-Functional Area
Component State Coastal Conservancy Excellent summary of watersheds
and needs Can be found on www.bairmp.org
website
BAFPAA/BAWN Joint Conference
June 16,2011- Flood Protection – Watershed Restoration Joint Workshop
Over 100 people attended Emphasis on Integration Focus on “sub regions”
Prop 84 Changes Regional Acceptance Process Sub regions/ allocations Project prioritization Prop 84 PSP and Grant
requirements-One applicant & Scoring Process
-Cost /Benefit Bay Area Implementation Grant 1-E funding
Prop 84
Nov. 2006- $5.4 billion total
-allocated funds by “Region”
-added “Climate Change” to plan-added “ Relation to local land use” to
plan
Total ~ $1 billion for implementing IRWMPs
25% match
Prop 84 $1 Billion for IRWM
$900M Allocated to 11 Funding Areas
$100M Interregional
Prop 1E $300M for Storm Water Flood Management Requires consistency with
IRWM Plan
$ in millions
Region Acceptance Process
Required under Prop 84 2009 Process Important Themes for Bay Area
- Consensus Approach- Developing sub-regions- Ability to rank projects- Developing “Regional” projects
RegionAcceptan
ceProcess
DWR decisions in September 2009
RAP Summary 46 Regions submitted Approved – 34 Regions Conditional Approval – 11 Not Approved – 1 Region Final-all approved-10 conditionally
3 address entire funding area
Regional Acceptance Process IRWM Regions• 36 Approved Regions• 10 Conditionally Approved Regions
Sub-regions were created to
foster outreach, coordination,project solicitation, andproject integration
Bay Area Sub Regions
Decision-Subareas and Funding
*Target Allocations (After Regional project allocation)-
½-No. of sub regions, ¼ pop. ¼ area
-N bay- 25%-E bay-29 %-S bay-25%-W bay-22%
Project Prioritization
2006 plan used “cohorts”-Evaluated but did not rank projects
-Evaluation can be converted to a score and ranking
Project Evaluation
Prop 84 PSP and Grant requirements
*One applicant
*Scoring process
* Cost/Benefit
GUIDELINESAugust 2010
The IRWM Grant Program is designed to encourage integrated regional strategies for management of water resources and to provide funding for both planning and implementation projects that support integrated water management
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/docs/Guidelines/Prop84/GL_Final_07_20_10.pdf
IRWM PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Direct Objectives Improve water supply reliability Protect & improve water quality Ensure sustainability through
environmental stewardship
Higher-Level Objectives Promote regional planning Financial incentive to promote integration
and regional cooperation and collaboration
Scoring 84 50Workplan 15 15
Funding match /////// 5 (10%)Scientific Merit //////// 15F. A Balance? (5) ////Budget 5 5Schedule 5 5Mon. & Ass..& Perf. Meas.
5 5
WS-Econ. Anal.-Cost/benefit
(20)-> 15
15
W Q & Other benefits (5)-> 15 10Flood Damage-C/B 15 ?Program Preferences 10 5Total 85 80
Bay Area Implementation grant
“Regional” Projects
One applicant-BACWA
Cost Benefit Analysis
Projects Regional Recycling Grant
request($10
m) Regional Water Conservation
($ 9.203 m)
Regional Green Infrastructure Capacity Building
($4.316 m) Bay Area Wetland Ecosystem Restoration
Program ($
3.75 m) Integrated Water Quality Improvement, Flood
Management and Ecosystem Restoration in Bay Area Disadvantaged Communities
( $2.2 m) Admin- ($ .643
m)
Total-~ $30.094 m
Recycling-North BayNBWRA Projects
Novato North- NMWD- $ 500k
Novato South-Hamilton-LGVSD - $ 500k
Napa State Hospital-Napa San.- $ 500k
Sonoma Valley- SCVSD/ SCWA- $ 500k
Peacock Gap- MMWD- $ 500k
Total= $2.5 m
Regional Recycling
Match-$, 55,815 m (85 %)
Acre feet/ year- 3,210 AFY
Costs- $53 m (50 years)- 2009 dollars Benefits- ~ $ 108 m
Avoided alternative water supply project costs Avoided potable water supply costs ~ $1m- WQ avoided fertilizer costs
Water Conservation Components
Conservation- North Bay
City of Napa- $330 k SCWA $765 k Solano $ 692 k MMWD $ 863 k 31.6 % of $ 8.39 m General- 31.6 % of $ 562 k = $178 k + Napa Rainwater = $250
k Total $ 3.078
m
Regional Water Conservation
Match $ 6,438,872 (42 %)Total- ~
$15.4 mAcre feet- 25,546 over 10 yearsCost / acre –ft- ~ $6052009 costs- $12.7 mBenefit- 10 year present value- ~ $ 25
m
Regional Green Infrastructure
North Bay No North bay projects
Napa Rainwater harvesting shifted to conservation for administration purposes.
Bay Area Wetlands –North bay
Sears Point- $1.25 m
Wetlands
State Coastal Conservancy lead-3 projects
$3.725 m request, $16.53 m match + other state funds ($8.9 m)-57% match
2009 annualized costs- ~$ 25 m 2009 annualized benefits ~ $ 130 m
Integrated… Components1. Watershed Partnership Technical Assistance
( $150 k)2. Stream Restoration with Schools and Community in
Disadvantaged Communities of the North Bay (STRAW) ($200 k)
3. Floodplain Mapping for the Bay Area with Disadvantaged Communities Focus( $712 k)
4. Storm Water Improvements and Flood Reduction Strategies Pilot Project in Bay Point($160 k)
5. Disadvantaged Communities Richmond Shoreline and City of San Pablo Flood Project ( $85 k)
6. Pescadero Creek Watershed Disadvantaged Communities Integrated Flood Reduction and Habitat Enhancement Project
($100 k)7. Pescadero Creek Steelhead Smolt Outmigrant Trapping ( $119 k)8. Stream Channel Shapes and Floodplain Restoration Guidance and
Watershed Restoration in San Francisquito Creek, East Palo Alto, a Disadvantaged Community($230 k)
9. Steelhead and Coho: Bay Area Indicator for Restoration Success SF Estuary Steelhead Monitoring Program
($379 k)
Integrated Water Quality Improvement, Flood Management and Ecosystem Restoration in Bay
Area Disadvantaged Communities
North Bay-STRAW ( PRBO)- $200k
General mapping and watershed
assistance share of ($862 k)25% - $
216kNorth bay share of $379 for Steelhead
Napa and Sonoma ~$ 250 k
Integrated Water Quality Improvement, Flood Management and Ecosystem
Restoration in Bay Area Disadvantaged
Communities Total request- $2.134 m Match- -$705 k - 33 % Consolidation of prior proposals and
emphasis on DACs2009 annualized costs-$1.6 m
Benefits- $ 2.1 m ( stormwater treatment- STRAW)
North Bay ShareProject Funds
requested
North bay share
%
Recycling $10 m $ 2.5 m 25 %
Conservation
$ 9.202 m
$ 3.078 m ~ 33.4 %
Green Infrastructure
$4.315 m 0 0
Wetlands $3.75 m $1.25 m 33.3 %
Integrated…DAC
$ 2.182 m
~ $666k ~ 30 %
Total ~ $ 29.5 m
~ $ 7.49 m ~25 %
1-E-Stormwater Flood Management (SWFM)
grants Projects-Manage stormwater runoff to reduce flooding and
are ready, or nearly ready, to proceed to implementation
- Consistent with applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plans, not be part of the State Plan of Flood Control and
-Yield multiple benefits which may include groundwater recharge, water quality improvements, ecosystem restoration benefits, and reduction of instream erosion and sedimentation.
-In IRWM Plan
$ 212 m statewide competition50% match, Max $ 30 m
1-E results Sep. 21 DWR Draft Funding recommendations
http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/integregio_stormwaterflood.cfm
-41 Applicants for $ 265 m- 18 recommended for $163 million- 4/5 approved for Bay Area for ~ $67 m
SFPUC- $24m, SCVWD-$25 m, San Francisquito Creek JPA-$ 8mNot funded- Redwood City Pump station-$ 8 m
North bay Marin County FCWCD/ MMWD -Phoenix Lake- $7.66m
Plan Update and Projects
Elements and schedule Emphasis on integration Project Template Future County Meetings Maps?
BAIRWMP Plan Proposal Submitted September 27, 2010 MMWD is applicant Grant request-$842,556 Match- $569,761 ( ~ 40 %)
Cash- $210,494 In kind- $359,267
Includes- SVCSD -Groundwater planSalt and Nutrient Management Planning
$205k request & 50% match ( 25 % cash, 25% in kind)
Plan Elements 1 Governance 2 Region Description 3 Objectives 4 Resource Management Strategies 5 Integration or Supporting Strategies – SCWA
Groundwater 6 Project Review Process 7 Impacts and Benefits 8 Plan Performance and Monitoring 9 Data Management 10 Financing 11 Technical Analysis 12 Relation to Local Water Planning 13 Relation to Local Land Use Planning 14a Stakeholder Involvement / Part I – Outreach –
General 14b Stakeholder Involvement / Part II – Outreach –
DAC & Tribal 14c Stakeholder Involvement / Part III – Outreach –
Local Govt. 14d Stakeholder Involvement / Part IV – Plan Update
15 Coordination
16 Climate Change 17 Preparation of Updated IRWM Plan
6.PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS Subtasks: Document process for submitting a project for
inclusion in the IRWM Plan; Develop and implement review process for
projects considered for inclusion into the IRWM Plan;
Support sub-regional project review process Add new regional projects into the Plan Add new sub-regional projects into the Plan Update prioritization of implementation projects Develop and implement procedure for
communicating the list of selected projects Schedule- ~ Sep. 2011- June 2012
Plan Update Schedule
http://bairwmp.org/events/coordinating-commitee-meetings/cc-meetings-2011/cc-meeting-december-19/CC%20Attachments%2012-19-2011.pdf
Overall ScheduleDecember 2011- August 2013
Project Review ProcessNow- > November 2012
2009 -North Bay Processdesigned for grant
submittal Include Solano Lead for Sub- region-NBWA NBWA Watershed Council will advise Propose 3 steps
1) Meeting of all counties to review Guidance
2) Integrated County meetings to include all stakeholders
3) All counties in one meeting to review input
North Bay ApproachPlan Update
County Leads* Liz Lewis, Marin County (Chris Choo)
*Rick Thomasser, Napa County
*Dave Okita, Solano County Water Agency
(Chris Lee)
* Brad Sherwood, Sonoma County Water Agency
Next StepsNorth Bay Process for Plan
Update1) Meeting of all county leads- Nov. 2011
-develop guidance- update stakeholder lists
2) County meetings- early 2012-develop preliminary list of projects- emphasis on integrated projects
3) Meeting of all county leads- to review input
Spring 2012
Projects Templatehttp://bairwmp.org/docs/irwmp-projects/IRWMP%20Project%20Template%20Updated_06.07.10.doc/view
Used for Prop 84 Round 1
Template Outline Project Name: Responsible agency: Other Participating Agencies: Summary Description: Prop 50 Water Management Strategies: Primary Water Strategy: Project Benefits (Prop 84) Purpose and Need: Project Status and Schedule: Readiness to Proceed: Integration with Other Activities: Cost and Financing:
Template Outline (cont’d)
Benefits and Impacts: Disadvantaged Communities/ Environmental
Justice: Environmental Compliance Strategy: Statewide Priorities: Stakeholder Involvement and Coordination: Documentation of Feasibility: Detailed Project Description:
New Draft ProjectSubmittal Form
1) Concept
2) Collaboration
3) Detailed Project Information for Scoring
4) Cost- Benefits
Concept - Name of Project
Subregion (check all that apply) □ North □ East □ South □ West County(ies)
Sponsoring agency/organization Other participating or partnering agencies/organizations
Contact person Contact person e-mail Contact person phone
Basic project description
Project website (if any)
Estimated project cost
Does the agency/organization have the required 25% matching funds? □ Yes □ No
Estimated project completion date
Collaboration This section includes information that may be
useful to others to determine if one or more projects could be combined to make a more integrated project with multiple benefits and thus more competitive for grant purposes.
In what watershed tributary is the project located?
Will project be located on public or private land?
Indicate if the project is an element or phase of a regional or larger program and, if so, what the regional or larger program is.
Details for Scoring Detailed Project Description
Provide a detailed description of the project including the general project concept, what will be constructed/implemented, how the constructed project will function, and treatment methods, as appropriate, etc.
Indicate if the project is an element or phase of a regional or larger program and, if so, what the regional or larger program is.
Proposed construction/implementation start date Proposed construction/implementation completion date Indicate the status of the following:
Conceptual plans Land acquisition/easements Preliminary plans CEQA/NEPA Construction drawings (including percent completion) Funding Readiness to proceed
List documents that contain information specific to the propose project description and links to those that may be found online.
Detailed Project Location Latitude Longitude List any applicable surface water bodies and groundwater basins associated with the
proposed project. Project Need
Provide a description of the need(s) or problem(s) that the project will address. As applicable, discuss the water supply need, operational efficiency need, water quality need, or resource stewardship [e.g. ecosystem restoration, floodplain management] need. Discuss critical impacts that will occur if the proposal is not implemented.
List any additional documents that contain information specific to the needs of the propose project and links to those that may be found online.
Details for Scoring (cont’d)
Project Benefits Provide a detailed descriptive summary of the benefit(s)
that the project will address. These should include benefits to any of the following that may apply: Water Supply (conservation, recycled water, groundwater
recharge, surface storage, etc.) Water Quality Flood Management Resource Stewardship (watershed management, habitat
protection and restoration, recreation, open space, etc.) Does the project reduce water supply demands on the
Bay/Delta Estuary? Does the project address any known environmental
justice issues? Is the project located within or adjacent to a
disadvantaged community? Does the project include disadvantaged community
participation?
Details for Scoring (cont’d) Detailed Project Costs
Lower estimated total capital cost Upper estimated total capital cost Land/easement cost Annual operations and maintenance cost Funding source for annual operations and maintenance Design life of the project (years)
Statewide Priorities (check all that the project addresses)
□ Drought Preparedness □ Use and Reuse Water More Efficiently □ Climate Change Response Actions □ Expand Environmental Stewardship □ Practice Integrated Flood Management □ Protect Surface and Groundwater Quality □ Improve Tribal Water and Natural Resources □ Ensure Equitable Distribution of Benefits
Details for Scoring (cont’d)
California Water Plan Resource Management Strategies (check all that apply). Please see page 45 of Proposition 84 and Proposition 1E Guidelines dated August 2010.
□ Reduce Water Demand □ Improved Operational Efficiency and Transfers □ Increase Water Supply □ Improve Water Quality □ Improve Flood Management □ Practice Resources Stewardship □ Other Strategies
Eligibility Criteria □ Groundwater Management Plan □ Urban Water Management Plan □ Water Meter Requirements □ Groundwater Monitoring Requirements
Details for Scoring (cont’d)Multiple Benefits – for Proposition 84
grants (check all that apply – at least one must be checked)
□ Water supply reliability, water conservation and water use efficiency □ Stormwater capture, storage, clean-up, treatment, and management □ Removal of invasive non-native species, the creation and
enhancement of wetlands, and the acquisition, protection, and restoration of open space and watershed lands
□ Non-point source pollution reduction, management and monitoring □ Groundwater recharge and management projects □ Contaminant and salt removal through reclamation, desalting, and
other treatment technologies and conveyance of reclaimed water for distribution to users
□ Water banking, exchange, reclamation and improvement of water quality
□ Planning and implementation of multipurpose flood management programs
□ Watershed protection and management □ Drinking water treatment and distribution □ Ecosystem and fisheries restoration and protection
Exceptions to above (if none are checked) □ Projects that directly address a critical water quality or supply issue
in a DAC □ Urban water suppliers implementing certain BMPs as on page 17 of
Guidelines
Details for Scoring (cont’d) Bay Area IRWM Plan Goals and
Objectives (check all that apply)
Promotion of economic, social, and environmental sustainability
□ Avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating net impacts to environment □ Maintaining and promoting economic and environmental sustainability
through sound water resources management practices □ Maximizing external support and partnerships □ Maximizing ability to get outside funding □ Maximizing economies of scale and governmental efficiencies □ Providing trails and recreation opportunities □ Protecting cultural resources □ Increasing community outreach and education for watershed health □ Maximizing community involvement and stewardship □ Reducing energy use and/or use renewable resources where appropriate □ Minimizing solid waste generation/maximize reuse □ Engaging public agencies, businesses, and the public in stormwater pollution
prevention and watershed management, including decision -making □ Achieving community awareness of local flood risks, including potential risks
in areas protected by existing projects □ Considering and addressing disproportionate community impacts □ Balancing needs for all beneficial uses of water □ Securing funds to implement solutions
Details for Scoring (cont’d)
Improved supply reliability
□ Meeting future and dry year demands □ Maximizing water use efficiency □ Minimizing vulnerability of infrastructure to
catastrophes and security breaches □ Maximizing control within the Bay Area region □ Preserving highest quality supplies for highest use □ Protecting against overdraft □ Providing for groundwater recharge while
maintaining groundwater resources □ Increasing opportunities for recycled water use
consistent with health and safety □ Maintaining a diverse portfolio of water supplies to
maximize flexibility □ Securing funds to implement solutions
Details for Scoring (cont’d)
Protection and improvement of the quality of water resources
□ Minimizing point and non-point source pollution □ Reducing salinity-related
problems □ Reducing mass loading of
pollutants to surface waters □ Minimizing taste and odor problems □ Preserving natural stream buffers and floodplains to
improve filtration of point and non-point source pollutants □ Maintaining health of whole watershed, upland vegetation
and land cover to reduce runoff quantity and improve runoff quality
□ Protecting surface and groundwater resources from pollution and degradation
□ Anticipating emerging contaminants □ Eliminating non-stormwater pollutant discharges to storm
drains □ Reducing pollutants in runoff to the maximum extent
practicable □ Periodically evaluating beneficial uses □ Continuously improving stormwater pollution prevention
methods □ Securing funds to implement solutions
Details for Scoring (cont’d)
Protection of public health, safety, and property
□ Providing clean, safe, reliable drinking water □ Minimizing variability for treatment □ Advancing technology through feasibility
studies/demonstrations □ Meeting promulgated and expected drinking
water quality standards □ Managing floodplains to reduce flood damages
to homes, businesses, schools, and transportation □ Minimizing health impacts associated with
polluted waterways □ Achieving effective floodplain management by
encouraging wise use and management of flood-prone areas
□ Maintaining performance of flood protection and stormwater facilities
□ Partnering with municipalities to prepare mitigation action plans that reduce flood risks to the community
□ Coordinating resources and mutual aid between agencies to enhance agency effectiveness
□ Securing funds to implement solutions
Details for Scoring (cont’d) Creation, protection, enhancement, and
maintenance of environmental resources and habitats
□ Providing net benefits to environment □ Conserving and restoring habitat for species protection □ Acquiring, protecting and/or restoring wetlands, streams,
and riparian areas □ Enhancing wildlife populations and biodiversity (species
richness) □ Providing lifecycle support (shelter, reproduction, feeding) □ Protecting and recovering fisheries (natural habitat and
harvesting) □ Protecting wildlife movement/wildlife corridors □ Managing pests and invasive species □ Recovering at-risk native and special status species □ Improving structural complexity (riparian and channel) □ Designing and constructing natural flood protection and
stormwater facilities □ Securing funds to implement solutions
Details for Scoring (cont’d) Climate Change (check all those that indicate to what extent
the project contributes to climate change response actions) Adaptation to Climate Change
□ Increases water supply reliability □ Advances/ expands conjunctive management of multiple water
supply sources □ Increases water use and/or reuse efficiency □ Provides additional water supply □ Promotes water quality protection □ Reduces water demand □ Advances/expands water recycling □ Promotes urban runoff reuse □ Addresses sea level rise □ Addresses other anticipated Climate Change Impact (e.g. Through
water management system modifications) Please State: ________________
□ Improves flood control (e.g. through wetlands restoration, management, protection)
Promotes habitat protection by: □ Establishes migration corridors □ Re-establishes river-floodplain hydrologic continuity □ Re-introduces anadromous fish populations to upper watersheds □ Enhances and protects upper watershed forests and meadow
systems □ Other (please
state:_______________
Details for Scoring (cont’d)
Climate ChangeMitigation by Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and/or Energy Consumption □ Increases water use efficiency or promotes
energy-efficient water demand reduction □ Improves water system energy efficiency □ Advances/expands water recycling □ Promotes urban runoff reuse □ Promotes use of renewable energy sources □ Contributes to carbon sequestration (e.g.
through vegetation growth) □ Other (please state:
___________________________________) List any other project information that
merits consideration
COST-BENEFITS We could highlight some of the
requested information for Prop 84 implementation grant on Cost benefit which goes well beyond scoring information in requesting dollar estimates not just narrative benefits.
This could be presented as Info only with links to example tables so proponents on Notice that may be asked for more analysis BEFORE prioritization is completed.
Prop 84 ~ $100 million left for Bay Area
Sub-regions and watershedsChallenges Developing more “Integrated” Projects Including Disadvantaged Communities
and Tribes Including Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation Responding to Grant application cycles
Cost/Benefit Analysis
WATER BOND 2012?$45
$76
$44
$51
$47
$132
$64
$70$58
$198$128
$87
$ in millions
Proposed $1.05 Billion for IRWM
• $1B Allocated to 12 Funding Areas
• $50M Interregional
County Meetings Marin- February 9 2:00- 4:00
pm-Marin County Civic Center –room 410-
B
Napa- February 21 5:30 - 7:30 pm
- Yountville Community Center
Sonoma- March 1 6:00-7:30 pm
- Petaluma
Solano- No meeting scheduled
Maps??
Questions??