&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4204)
EPA-832-R-01-002
March 2001
Integrated Planning and
Priority Setting in the
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program
-------
Integrated Planning
and Priority Setting
in the Clean Water
State Revolving
Fund Program
March 2001
-------
Table
of
Contents
I. Introduction 2
II. Integrated Planning and Priority Setting 4
A. Overview 4
Identifying water quality priorities 4
Assessing the CWSRF role 4
Undertaking outreach efforts 4
Selecting priority projects 5
B. Identifying Water Quality Priorities 5
Water quality information sources 5
Using water quality information to establish priorities 8
C. Assessing the CWSRF Role 8
D. Undertaking Outreach Efforts 9
A comprehensive example 9
Targeted outreach efforts 10
E. Selecting Priority Projects 10
Integrated ranking systems 10
Establishing a draft ranking system 11
Goal-based ranking systems 15
Testing a project ranking system 16
III. Development Processes for Integrated Planning
and Priority Setting Systems 17
Stakeholder involvement 17
Development timeline 17
Cost 18
IV. Conclusion 19
Appendix A: State Project Ranking Systems 20
-------
ail Prill-in
I.
Introduction
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) has implemented $26.1 bil-
lion in water quality improvement
projects since 1987. This state-run
program has greatly reduced point
source pollutants entering the nation's
waters from municipal wastewater sys-
tems, and in recent years it has been
increasingly effective in addressing
polluted runoff from a variety of non-
point sources. Through June 30, 2000,
state CWSRF programs have made
more than 2,100 loans for more than
$1.1 billion-which have funded more
than 9,000 nonpoint source and estu-
ary projects.
The Clean Water Act stipulates that
states may use CWSRF funds for the
construction of publicly owned waste-
water treatment systems, the imple-
mentation of nonpoint source man-
agement plans, or the development
and implementation of estuary com-
prehensive conservation and manage-
ment plans. As part of the project
selection process, states are required to
rank potential municipal treatment
projects in priority order. States are
not required to include nonpoint
source and estuary projects on this
project priority list. Nor are states
required to select the highest priority
projects from this list for inclusion in
each year's Intended Use Plan for
CWSRF funds.
As states began lending to a wide vari-
ety of nonpoint source and estuary
projects, some states wished to fund
projects with a primary purpose other
than water quality protection. For
example, some wished to fund new
municipal solid waste disposal facili-
ties. Elements of these solid waste
disposal projects may protect water
quality, but their primary purpose is
waste disposal.
To address this issue, a state/EPA
workgroup engaged in a year-long dia-
logue to consider how states could
evaluate their environmental priorities
and develop an integrated list of prior-
ity projects appropriate for CWSRF
funding. The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Funding Framework:
Funding to Solve Our Nation's Water
Quality Problems (EPA 832-B-96-005,
October 1996) referred to hereafter as
the Funding Framework, outlines the
resulting policy and recommendations
of the workgroup.
The Funding Framework requires that a
state use an integrated planning and
priority setting system if it intends to
fund nontraditional projects (projects
with a primary purpose other than
water quality). As part of this agree-
ment, if a state funds nontraditional
projects, it must offer funding to all
projects based upon their priority rank-
ing. EPA does not require that a state
fund projects in strict priority order, but
funding decisions must be consistent
with this ranking. Despite the Funding
Framework's focus on nontraditional
projects, it encourages all states that
fund nonpoint source and estuary proj-
ects to integrate their planning and pri-
ority setting systems-so that CWSRF
-------
funds can most effectively target the
nation's water quality problems.
The Funding Framework includes two
examples of integrated planning and
priority setting systems designed by
the state/EPA workgroup. Both exam-
ples are very similar, but diverge in the
method proposed for selecting proj-
ects. One example uses a goals
approach to select projects; the other
uses an integrated ranking system
designed to equally evaluate municipal
wastewater, nonpoint source, and
estuary projects. A state may use
either of these methods or it may
develop its own approach.
Showing a strong commitment to
integrated planning and priority set-
ting, EPA established a goal under the
Government Performance Results Act
that by 2001 seventeen states will
implement integrated planning and
priority setting systems. In 2000,
twelve states used integrated systems
to develop their CWSRF Intended Use
Plan (IUP) [Table 1]. Many states had
systems in development.
State systems vary in terms of content,
structure, and complexity. Several
states have completely redesigned
their planning and priority setting sys-
tems, while others have made more
modest changes. This document cites
state systems throughout and contains
each cited system in its entirety in
Appendix A.
Table 1.
States with Integrated Planning
and Priority Setting Systems
California
Delaware
Maryland
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island
Washington
This document will explore the inte-
grated planning and priority setting
concept and the process by which
states have developed these systems.
It will not attempt to establish a model
system. However, it should serve as a
reference tool for states that are evalu-
ating and/or modifying their planning
and priority setting systems.
The main body of the document
discusses four key activities in these
systems:
• Identifying water quality priorities
• Assessing the CWSRF role
• Undertaking outreach efforts
• Selecting priority projects
A final section of the document
describes how states have established
development processes for integrated
planning and priority setting systems.
This section includes information
about stakeholder participation, devel-
opment timelines, and resource
requirements.
-------
o
ail Prill-in
II.
Integrated
Planning
and Priority
Setting
•.
An integrated planning and priority
setting system is effective if it ensures
that CWSRF-funded projects address
high priority water quality problems.
Four actions are key to its success:
identifying water quality priorities,
assessing the CWSRF role, undertak-
ing outreach efforts, and selecting pri-
ority projects.
Water quality priorities provide a con-
text for the activities of the CWSRF
program. CWSRF resources should
address these priorities in the most
efficient manner possible. State water
quality priorities also provide a valu-
able standard against which a state can
measure the success of its water quali-
ty programs, i.e., has the state used its
resources to address its highest water
quality priorities?
A state's water quality program should
be the CWSRF's major resource in
identifying the state's water quality
priorities. A water quality program has
typically developed its understanding
of the state's priorities by considering
water quality information from many
sources. Familiarity with these sources
of water quality information is also
useful to the CWSRF during the devel-
opment of project ranking systems.
tie rale
The CWSRF is one funding source of
many available to each state for water
pollution control. A state must deter-
mine the CWSRF's role in addressing
the state's water quality priorities. This
assessment will help to direct CWSRF
outreach efforts and project selection.
It will also enable the state to measure
the program's success.
Outreach efforts are an often-over-
looked component of integrated plan-
ning and priority setting systems.
Outreach efforts enable a CWSRF pro-
Key Actions in an
Integrated Approach
Identifying
Water
Quality
Priorities
assessing
Jne
CWSRF
Rote
Undertaking
Outreach
Efforts
Selecting
Projects
-------
Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
gram to ensure that it attracts high pri-
ority projects. Finely crafted priorities
and ranking systems will only enable a
state to address its highest priority
water quality issues if the program has
attracted appropriate projects to the
program.
Many CWSRF programs have targeted
geographic areas and threats to water
quality in their outreach efforts. Some
have partnered with other state pro-
grams to more effectively recruit high
priority CWSRF projects.
Selecting priority projects
After a state has established water
quality priorities, defined the CWSRF
role, and developed a promising pool
of applicants, it then selects its highest
priority projects. As mentioned previ-
ously, the Funding Framework suggests
two methods of selecting projects-one
uses a goals approach, and the other
uses an integrated ranking system
designed to equally evaluate municipal
wastewater, nonpoint source, and
estuary projects. A state may use
either of these suggested methods to
select projects for its IUP or it may
develop its own method. To date, all
but one of the twelve states with inte-
grated planning and priority setting
systems have chosen to prioritize proj-
ects with an integrated ranking sys-
tem. If a state uses an integrated
ranking system, EPA does not require
that the state fund projects in strict
priority order. Funding decisions
should, however, be consistent with
this ranking.
B. IDENTIFYING WATER
QUALITY PRIORITIES
States have a variety of information
sources available for assessing their
water quality priorities. When estab-
lishing water quality priorities, states
use these information resources to
determine the location of the greatest
water quality problems, the causes of
those problems, and suitable actions
to address those problems. Later in
the planning and priority setting
process (see Section II(E): Selecting
Priority Projects), states will use these
same sources of water quality infor-
mation to select projects for funding.
This section of the document high-
lights some of the most common
sources of water quality information.
Water quality information sources
Unified Watershed Assessments
and Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies
www. epa.gov/owow/uwa
The Clean Water Action Plan asked
states to coordinate with stakeholders
at all levels and develop an overall
statement of water quality. This
Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA)
brings together a broad array of exist-
ing information and assesses state
water quality to identify where
restoration activities and funding can
be most effectively targeted. Each
UWA divides a state's watersheds into
four categories:
Unified Water Assessment-Texas
UWA Classifications
Restoration Needed-Highest Priority
Restoration Needed
Meeting Water Quality Goals
Pristine or Sensitive
Insufficient Information
I. Restoration Needed-
watersheds needing additional
action to help meet clean waters
and other natural resource goals
II. Meeting Water Quality Goals-
these watersheds still may need
preventive action to sustain water
quality and aquatic ecosystem
health
III. Pristine or Sensitive-
watersheds on federal land that
may need an extra measure of
protection.
IV. Insufficient Information-
not enough information is available
to make an assessment.
-------
Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
States further identified a subset of
their Category I watersheds as priori-
ties for watershed restoration. States
and tribes have been working with
federal, interstate, and local agencies,
watershed-based organizations, and
the public to develop watershed
restoration action strategies for these
watersheds. The watershed restoration
action strategies will provide plans for
addressing water quality problems in
each priority watershed.
1998 §305(b) Report-Minnesota
Percent of Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and
Estuaries Meeting All Designated Uses
80%-100% Meeting All Uses
50%-79% Meeting All Uses
20%-49% Meeting All Uses
096-19% Meeting All Uses
Insufficient Assessment Coverage
Basin Boundaries
(USGS 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit)
National Water Quality Inventory
(Section 305(b) Report)
www. epa.gov/305b
Section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act
requires each state to monitor and
assess all of its waters and report this
information to Congress every two
years. States do not use identical sur-
vey methods and criteria to assess
water quality, but they generally use
four types of water quality standards:
designated beneficial uses (e.g., fish-
able and swimmable), numeric water
quality criteria (e.g., measures of phos-
phorus, species richness), narrative
water quality criteria (e.g., free of sub-
stances toxic to humans, aquatic life,
and wildlife), and anti-degradation
statements (e.g., waters should be pro-
tected from water quality deteriora-
tion) . States survey the health of sur-
face waters, groundwater, and, in a
growing number of states, wetlands.
The state reports identify waters meet-
ing and not meeting standards, and
EPA uses the reports to develop the
National Water Quality Inventory
Report to Congress. State 305 (b)
reports are based upon a comprehen-
sive collection of a state's water quality
data and are therefore an invaluable
source of information for water
resource prioritization.
List of Impaired Waters (303 (d)
List) and TMDLs
www. epa.gov/owow/tmdl
The section 303 (d) list is a prioritized
list of waters not meeting water quality
1998 List of Impaired Waters-Oregon
Legend
Aj Sedimentation
A/ Nutrients
Pathogens
Multiple*
Other**
^— 8-digit USDS Cataloging Units
* Any combination of sediments, nutrients,
and pathogens
** All other causes
standards. In these priority waters,
point source, technology-based limits
are not sufficient to restore and protect
water quality. The 303 (d) list will indi-
cate how these waters are impaired,
and the sources of those impairments.
The list is developed by states every
two years.
A state is required to establish a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) frame-
work for each of its listed waters. In
the TMDL process, the state calculates
the maximum amount of a pollutant
that a listed water can accept and still
-------
Planning ani Pnanii Satiiiij
meet water quality standards, and
then distributes that amount to the
pollutant's sources. Priority on the
303 (d) list is given to waters most in
need of TMDL development.
National Water Information Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey's National
Water Information System (NWIS) is a
comprehensive database for informa-
tion on quantity and quality of surface
and ground water. The system contains
flow data from over 10,000 current and
historic streamflow gauging stations,
and water-quality data from over 3.5
million analyses. Sampling sites have
been selected for a variety of reasons;
their conditions range from pristine to
contaminated. This variation can pres-
ent a challenge when trying to use
NWIS data to develop an overall picture
of water quality.
Natural Resources Inventory
ww w.nhq.nrcs. us da. g o v/NRI
The Natural Resources Inventory (NRI)
is a compilation of natural resource
information on nonfederal land in the
United States-nearly 75 percent of the
total land area. Conducted by the
Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), this inventory cap-
tures data on land cover and use, soil
erosion, prime farmland, wetlands,
habitat diversity, selected conservation
practices, and related resource attrib-
utes at more than 800,000 scientifically
selected sample sites.
The NRI provides a record of trends in
natural resources over time and docu-
ments conservation accomplishments
as well. At each sample point, infor-
mation is available for 1982, 1987,
1992, and 1997, so that trends and
changes in land use and resource
characteristics over a 15-year time
period can be examined and analyzed.
Nonpoint Source Assessment
Reports and Management Programs
(Section 319)
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act
requires that each state address non-
point source pollution by developing
nonpoint source assessment reports
that identify nonpoint source pollution
problems and the nonpoint sources
responsible for those problems. States
are also required to adopt manage-
ment programs to control the identi-
fied nonpoint source pollution.
In 1997, state and federal representa-
tives of the nonpoint source program
identified nine key elements of
enhanced state programs. Element
number five stated that a state pro-
gram should review currently available
information and identify waters
impaired or threatened by nonpoint
source pollution. The program should
also identify the primary categories of
nonpoint source pollution causing the
water quality impairments and threats.
At five-year intervals, the state should
update the identification of waters and
their watersheds impaired or threat-
ened by nonpoint source pollution-
preferably as part of a comprehensive
state water quality assessment that
integrates reports required by sections
319(a), 305(b) (National Water Quality
Inventory, above), 303(d) (List of
Impaired Waters, above), 314 (a) (Clean
Lakes Program) and 320 (National
Estuary Program, below) of the Clean
Water Act. To date, 46 states have
developed enhanced programs.
National Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs)
Each National Estuary Program (NEP)
is charged with creating and imple-
menting a CCMP that addresses all
aspects of environmental protection
for the estuary. In each NEP, a broad-
based coalition of stakeholders devel-
ops a CCMP on the basis of a scientific
characterization of the estuary. The
CCMP establishes priorities for action,
research, and funding, and serves as a
blueprint to guide future decisions and
activities related to the estuary.
Index of Watershed Indicators
www. epa .go v/i wi
The Index of Watershed Indicators
(IWI) is a compilation of information
on the condition of aquatic resources
in the United States. The IWI uses
data from several EPA programs, from
the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the U.S. Geological
Survey, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, The Nature Conservancy,
and states, tribes, and other jurisdic-
tions. The IWI is updated periodically.
-------
Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
Index of Watershed
Indicators-Pennsylvania
Legend
Better Water Quality
(Low Vulnerability)
Better Water Quality
(High Vulnerability)
Water Quality Problems
(Low Vulnerability)
Water Quality Problems
(High Vulnerability)
More Serious Water Quality
Problems (Low Vulnerability)
More Serious Water Quality
Problems (Low Vulnerability)
Data Sufficiency Threshold
Not Met
Sixteen indicator maps and an overall
characterization map show the condi-
tion and vulnerability of each of the
nation's watersheds. For example,
data from the National Water Quality
Inventory regarding designated use
attainment illustrates watershed con-
ditions, and data regarding population
growth and agricultural runoff poten-
tial illustrates watershed vulnerability.
Other data sources
States have a variety of other water
quality data sources at their disposal,
many of which are maintained in EPA's
STORET database. Chemical and bac-
terial monitoring of waterbodies is
most common. Other efforts monitor
bottom sediments, fish and macroin-
vertebrate tissue, or biological integri-
ty. Field assessments of lakes, ponds,
and wetlands may contain valuable
information. Human health concerns
such as fish consumption advisories,
shellfish bed closures, drinking water
advisories and septic system failures
are also commonly tracked. Many of
these other data sources will prove
particularly useful when the state
selects priority projects for funding.
Using water quality information
to establish priorities
In establishing priorities, CWSRF pro-
grams must be adaptive to the realities
of their state water quality assess-
ments. A comprehensive Unified
Watershed Assessment, taken together
with Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies for a state's priority water-
sheds, would provide an ideal blue-
print for addressing a state's water
quality problems. This legacy of the
Clean Water Action Plan will eventual-
ly provide complete information about
each state's water quality priorities.
However, many states may find that
these plans are not yet available.
Regardless, each state's Unified
Watershed Assessment provides a
starting point-at a minimum, it identi-
fies watersheds that the state has
deemed high priorities for restoration
or protection. A state may choose to
use TMDL priority (from a state's
303 (d) list) or the comprehensive state
map from the Index of Watershed
Indicators in a similar fashion.
States can go further to gain a more
complete understanding of the threats
to water quality in these watersheds. A
state's section 305(b) report examines
water quality concerns statewide and in
individual stream segments. Other
data sources provide a wealth of infor-
mation about rivers, streams, ground-
water sources, and wetlands. Reports
from nonpoint source and estuary pro-
grams also provide valuable informa-
tion relevant to those specific issues.
Quoting or citing from this informa-
tion, a state can develop a brief sum-
mary of its water quality priorities. This
assessment provides context for the
activities of a state's water programs,
including the CWSRF program, and
provides a valuable standard against
which the state can measure the suc-
cess of its water quality programs.
C. ASSESSING THE CWSRF ROLE
The CWSRF is one funding source of
many available to each state for water
pollution control. Other sources of
funding include EPA's Nonpoint
Source Grant Program and HUD's
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program. At the Department
of Agriculture, the Environmental
-------
ail Point!
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) of
the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and the water and waste dis-
posal grant and loan programs of the
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) are two of
many programs that provide signifi-
cant funding assistance. State-funded
grant and loan programs also comple-
ment this assortment of funding tools.
A state should not view its CWSRF
planning and priority setting system in
a vacuum-all of these funding pro-
grams collectively impact a state's
water quality. A CWSRF program
should clearly identify its role in
addressing state water quality priori-
ties. This understanding is critical in
marketing the CWSRF program, in
selecting projects for CWSRF funding,
and in assessing the success of the
CWSRF program.
The CWSRF role can be affected in a
number of ways. Many states have
state-funded grant and loan programs
that adequately address specific water
pollution issues. For example, a large
state-funded grant program targeting
dairy best management practices may
address a significant state need with-
out funding assistance from the
CWSRF. Dairy BMPs would not be a
CWSRF priority, and the CWSRF
would not need to market the program
to dairy farmers. CWSRF resources
would target the state's other water
quality priorities.
Other states have established a "one-
stop-shopping "concept for assistance
programs. A state may develop one
planning and priority setting system
(and one application) for all of its
water quality funding programs. The
state would then fund its highest pri-
ority projects with resources from the
most appropriate program or programs.
In a "one-stop-shopping"scenario, the
CWSRF-funded projects would not
always match up perfectly with the
state's water quality priorities. This is
not a concern if the sum of projects
funded by the state's water quality
programs are consistent with the
state's water quality priorities.
Washington State provides an example
of this last concept. The state address-
es its water quality problems with
funding from three sources: the sec-
tion 319 grant program, the
Centennial Clean Water Fund pro-
gram, and the state's CWSRF program.
The Centennial Clean Water Fund pro-
gram is a state-funded program that
offers both loans and grants for water
pollution control.
Washington has integrated the three
funding programs. Potential water
quality projects submit one application
to the Department of Ecology. The
state develops a single priority list
using a ranking system, and financial
staff decide how to appropriately allo-
cate resources from the three funding
programs to the highest priority proj-
ects. Based upon this analysis, the
Department of Ecology develops an
offer list, and the projects have one
year to accept the funding.
I.
Effective outreach efforts are crucial to
the success of an integrated planning
and priority system. Finely crafted pri-
orities and ranking systems will only
enable a state to address its highest
priority water quality issues if the pro-
gram has attracted applications for
appropriate projects. To ensure that
the appropriate projects receive fund-
ing, state CWSRF programs will likely
find it necessary to modify and expand
their outreach efforts.
State CWSRF programs have an estab-
lished relationship with communities
as a source of funding for municipal
treatment projects. Most state CWSRF
programs do not have the benefit of a
similar relationship with communities
or individuals where the CWSRF has
been used as a source of funding for
nonpoint source projects. For this rea-
son, an expanded approach to out-
reach is necessary.
I
Washington provides an excellent
example. The state's CWSRF program,
in coordination with its nonpoint
source grant program and a third state
grant and loan program, uses a three-
part approach to reach potential bor-
rowers. First, the CWSRF program has
an excellent internet website. The
website contains a variety of up-to-
date information, including schedules,
application forms, application instruc-
tions, and places to find additional
information.
-------
0
ail Pliant!
As a second step, the Department of
Ecology holds application workshops
in its four regions during the time
period when the CWSRF is soliciting
applications. In addition, the depart-
ment holds additional workshops to
assist applicants with the development
of their applications. In these applica-
tion development workshops, potential
applicants receive one-on-one assis-
tance from Ecology staff.
Finally, the Washington Water Quality
Financial Assistance Advisory Council
advises the Department of Ecology on
subjects related to the state's assistance
programs. The council's membership
includes representatives of irrigation
districts, conservation districts, county
and city governments, Indian tribes,
citizen groups, the Rural Utilities
Service and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service. These represen-
tatives provide a valuable link to their
constituents-potential borrowers for
the CWSRF program.
Ohio's CWSRF program envisions an
outreach approach that works with the
state's Total Maximum Daily Load
process to further target the state's
highest priority waters. While this idea
is in an early stage of development, at
present Ohio's CWSRF program works
informally with state water quality per-
sonnel to identify waters that are
impaired or threatened-and where
there are opportunities to positively
impact water quality. After identifying
the threats to these priority waters, the
state uses this analysis to target mar-
keting efforts for the CWSRF.
In West Virginia, the CWSRF program
has attempted to target a significant
water quality problem identified in the
state's nonpoint source management
plan-agricultural nonpoint source pol-
lution. West Virginia's CWSRF pro-
gram has worked with the state's Soil
Conservation Agency, local soil conser-
vation districts, and banking institu-
tions experienced with agricultural
lending to develop a CWSRF-funded
loan program that targets agricultural
nonpoint source pollution. The Soil
Conservation Agency, local soil conser-
vation districts, and banking institutions
have prior relationships with the agri-
cultural community that enables the
program's outreach effort to be very
effective. A program that began as a
pilot project in five counties has been
expanded statewide with great success.
E.
The Funding Framework suggests two
methods of selecting projects: one uses
a goals approach, and the other uses
an integrated project ranking system
that addresses both point source and
nonpoint source pollution. To date,
twelve states are using integrated
planning and priority setting systems,
and eleven of the twelve have devel-
oped integrated ranking systems.
For this reason, much of the analysis in
this section will focus on the composi-
tion of integrated ranking systems.
When a state develops a ranking sys-
tem, two broad questions should
define the thought process. What are
the advantages and disadvantages of
different types of ranking systems?
What type of system would be best
considering available data and other
constraints? The following section
will examine the first question. The
next will provide examples of state
ranking systems and how they use
available data.
Evaluating ranking system
features/characteristics
Integrated systems vary greatly. When
developing its ranking system,
Washington considered eight alterna-
tive models for ranking systems. Ohio
considered six. The following six fea-
tures and characteristics highlight
some of the major differences among
ranking systems.
Single-track/multiple track scoring
Single-track scoring systems evaluate
all projects with the same criteria.
Multiple-track scoring systems evaluate
different types of projects on the basis
of different criteria. The majority of
ranking systems use single track scor-
ing. However, some states use multi-
ple-track scoring because scoring crite-
ria that are very relevant to the value of
some projects may be irrelevant to the
value of others. For example,
Montana's ranking system uses differ-
ent criteria to evaluate surface water
pollution and groundwater pollution,
uses the same criteria to evaluate proj-
-------
o
r ,s i si
I 'in
,s « «1 P n m » y f»
ect effectiveness, and uses different cri-
teria to evaluate a small number of
issues specific to point source or non-
point source projects. Ohio considers
very different criteria when considering
projects that affect groundwater, wet-
lands, or streams, rivers and lakes.
Best professional judgment
If staff must use their own judgment
in completing the annual priority
ranking, the ranking may require more
staff time, be subject to inconsistency,
be less transparent to the public, and
appear partial. However, staff expert-
ise may provide information not easily
quantified and a more accurate assess-
ment of project priority. Rhode Island
chose to avoid the use of staff judg-
ment in the annual ranking process.
Conversely, Montana's system requires
staff to award points (within guide-
lines) in assessing water quality
impairment and a project's effective-
ness in addressing that problem.
Reserves
A ranking system may reserve funding
for some of its highest priority water
quality needs. This ensures that prior-
ity projects are encouraged to apply
and are then funded. For example,
West Virginia has reserved $3 million
in loan funding for projects that par-
ticipate in its Agriculture Water Quality
Loan Program. Washington reserves
20 percent of its CWSRF funding for
nonpoint source and estuary projects.
Numerical/categorical scoring
Each project may be given a numerical
score or projects may be grouped into
California's Categorical Ranking System
Class A Public health problems
Class B Pollution of impaired waterbodies
Class C Compliance with requirements and water recycling projects
Class D Projects serving as preventative measures against additional water
quality degradation for impaired or unimpaired water bodies
Class E Other projects
priority categories. The majority of
ranking systems use a numerical scor-
ing system. California and Nevada
use categorical systems. For example,
California divides all projects into five
broad classes for priority funding. The
state allocates CWSRF funding first to
Class A projects, then to Class B proj-
ects, and so on, until all available
funds are committed.
Priority watersheds/projects
A ranking system may place its
emphasis on impaired or threatened
watersheds and assign high priority to
projects that address pollution within
those watersheds. Conversely, a rank-
ing system may prioritize projects
most likely to be effective in reducing
pollution, regardless of the watershed
affected. Most ranking systems con-
sider both factors, but there are signif-
icant differences in emphasis.
Complexity
Ranking systems vary widely in com-
plexity. A comprehensive system may
consume time and resources and be
confusing to the public. A simpler
system may be easy to implement,
inexpensive, and transparent to the
public, but it may not be as effective in
assessing the value of each project.
The categorical ranking systems used
in California and Nevada are relatively
easy to implement and understand.
Ohio's ranking system is moderately
complex, as it can call upon a variety
of information sources to assess each
project's priority. To address some of
the potential disadvantages of this
complexity, Ohio has automated a por-
tion of the ranking process.
n
After assessing the advantages and
disadvantages of different types of
ranking systems, states have consid-
ered available data and established
ranking systems. While ranking sys-
tems vary widely in design, many have
attempted to measure three major fac-
tors: the value of the waterbody a proj-
ect will address; the impairment or
threat to that waterbody; and the
effectiveness of the project in address-
ing the identified impairment or
threat. Other factors considered by
-------
o
states include planning considerations
and financial need. This section of the
document will provide examples of
how states have attempted to quantify
these factors in their ranking systems.
Water resource value
New York and Ohio take very different
approaches to measuring the value of
water resources. New York considers a
water resources's public use, estab-
lished by its state classification.
Ohio also values the public use of
water resources; projects that address
public health risks in drinking waters,
recreational waters, or fishing waters
receive highest priority. At a secondary
level, Ohio protects and remediates
high-quality ecosystems. For example,
Ohio prioritizes its rivers, streams,
inland lakes and Lake Erie with "aquat-
ic life use designations" from state
water quality standards. Water
resources with the potential to support
Ohio's Wetland Resource Value Assessment
Total wetland area
Wetland vegetation classes
Plant species diversity
Forested wetlands vertical structure diversity
Plant community interspersions
Habitat features
Wetland-stream water quality functions
Buffer features
Connection to other habitat areas
a high diversity of aquatic organisms
are assigned a higher priority than
resources that can only support pollu-
tion-tolerant organisms. Ohio priori-
tizes wetlands in a different manner,
using information from a state wetland
assessment that notes wetland size,
diversity, and functionality.
New York's Water Resource Value Classification Factor
Specially-protected high-quality drinking water and shellfish waters 8 pts
Other drinking water 6
Contact recreation 4
Other fishing 3
Other water uses 2
Impairment of environmental resource other than water 1
(For projects that have important non-water-quality impacts
such as odor, sludge disposal, etc.)
No resource is impaired 0
0-8 pts
0-10
0-12
0-5
0-5
0-11
0-8
0-6
0-5
0-70
Impairment/threat
A commonly used measure of water-
body impairment is its priority for
TMDL development. Both Montana
and Maryland, the examples in this sec-
tion, assign a high value to waters that
are priorities for TMDL development.
Montana evaluates a waterbody's
impairment on the basis of four fac-
tors: its priority for TMDL develop-
ment; the number of classified uses
impacted by a particular source of pol-
lution; the area impacted by the source
of pollution; and the period of time the
source of pollution impacts the water-
body. However, a waterbody's priority
for TMDL development is by far the
most heavily-weighted factor.
Maryland evaluates surface water
impairments and threats with priorities
established by its 303 (d) list and its
Unified Watershed Assessment.
-------
o
Unified Watershed Assessments
The State Unified Watershed
Assessments may be a useful tool in
evaluating projects. In completing a
Unified Watershed Assessment,
each state must consider both the
value of waters and the degree to
which they are impaired or threat-
ened. Data from a comprehensive
Unified Watershed Assessment
could address both of these factors
in a project ranking system.
Maryland places higher priority on
restoration of impaired waters (TMDL
priorities, UWA category 1) than on
protection of threatened waters (UWA
categories 2 and 3).
Project Effectiveness
Ohio and Montana both attempt to
assess a project's effectiveness in
addressing water pollution. Montana's
measurement of this factor is very
simple. Montana's staff must use its
best judgment to determine the likely
effectiveness of each project and
assign points according to an estab-
lished scale.
Maryland's Assessment of Impairment/Threat (Surface Waters)
Surface water restoration
Project benefits a high priority TMDL waterbody
Project benefits a medium priority TMDL waterbody
Project benefits a low priority TMDL waterbody
Project indirectly addresses TMDL waterbody
Add 2 bonus points if project benefits Clean Water Action Plan
Category 1 Priority Watershed
Surface water protection
Project benefits a Clean Water Action Plan Selected
Category 3 Watershed
("Selected"denotes a particularly pristine watershed)
Project benefits a Clean Water Action Plan Category 3 Watershed
Project benefits a Clean Water Action Plan Category 2 Watershed
Add 2 bonus points to projects that address a regional/local
8 pts.
6
4
2
4 pts.
2
1
L \\JL\JL l-> iJ VV1 1LJ.O L/VV11 1 LO LW L/l W I V^,Vy LO LI 1CIL CIVJ.VJ.I
watershed plan to benefit water quality
Montana's Assessment of
Project Effectiveness
The project is expected to eliminate
all health hazards or restore the water
body to fully supporting all uses.
100% of points assigned for water
quality impairment
The project is expected to eliminate
some health hazards or restore
some of the uses for which the
water body is intended.
50% of points assigned for water qual-
ity impairment
The project is expected to reduce
health hazards or improve water
quality but will not fully restore
any uses.
2596 of points assigned for water
quality impairment
The project is not expected to sub-
stantially improve water quality or
reduce health hazards.
0 points
Ohio's assessment is more involved. It
considers two elements of project
effectiveness: the potential of the
waterbody for restoration, and the
likely effectiveness of a particular proj-
ect in addressing the source of the pol-
lution. The measurement of these ele-
ments varies by type of waterbody, but
the following examples show how
project effectiveness is considered in
stream segments.
-------
o
Ohio's Assessment of Project Effectiveness
Ohio's Assessment of Project
Effectiveness: Example
Part I-Stream Restoration Potential
Most restorable: extremely high or a fully attaining segment
Very high
High
Moderate-High
Moderate
Low-Moderate
Low
Very low
Essentially none
Intermediate Step-Pollution Source Ranking
High source
Moderate source
Threat
Slight source
Part II-Effectiveness of Action
71-100%
51-70%
41-50%
31-40%
21-30%
11-20%
1-10%
0%
8 pts.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
4 pts.
3
2
1
14 pts.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
In a hypothetical example, a non-
profit organization applies to Ohio's
CWSRF for funding to purchase a
conservation easement along a
high-quality stream segment.
Ohio's 305(b) report states that the
affected stream segment has a high
restoration potential. This adds 6
points to the project's score.
The 305 (b) report also states that the
stream segment is impacted by
runoff from nonirrigated crop pro-
duction (high source-4 points),
runoff from feedlots (high source-4
points), and urban runoff (threat-2
points). The project will completely
address runoff problems from an
adjacent farm, but will not address
the threat of urban runoff from a
nearby housing development
(receiving 8 of the available 10
points). The project addresses 80
percent of the stream segment's
sources of impairment and therefore
adds 14 points to its score.
Total points related to project
effectiveness:
6 points (restoration potential) + 14
points (effectiveness of action) = 20 pts.
-------
o
ill
Ohio's 305 (b) report rates stream seg-
ments based upon the likelihood that
aquatic life can be restored to a condi-
tion comparable to minimally impact-
ed reference streams. This restoration
potential rating gives highest priority
to unaffected or highly restorable
water resources and lowest priority to
the least restorable water resources.
Ohio also considers the likely effec-
tiveness of a project restoring a stream
segment. Ohio considers the sources
of impairment or threats to impair-
ment and the degree to which the
project will address those sources.
Ohio's 305 (b) report identifies the
sources of threat and impairment for
each stream segment, and rates each
source either as a high, moderate or
slight source of impairment, or as a
threat. These ratings are converted
into points, but these points are not
used in the overall project ranking
score. Instead, these points are used
as an intermediate step in developing
an effectiveness of action score.
For each stream segment, these points
are summed and then divided by a
total of points for sources that the
project will address. If the project
does not completely address the
source, it receives partial values. This
percentage is converted into a point
value for the project ranking system.
Other Considerations
States may evaluate planning consid-
erations and financial need in their
ranking systems. Both New York and
Washington assign priority to projects
that are consistent with local, state,
and federal planning efforts. New York
assigns twenty points (out of 317 over-
all) to projects that address problems
discussed in an approved watershed
management plan, the state's nonpoint
source management plan, or a county's
water quality strategy. The ranking
system assigns ten additional points to
projects that are consistent with a sec-
ond group of water quality plans,
including the Peconic Estuary CCMP,
the New York City Watershed
Memorandum of Agreement, and the
Lake Champlain Management Plan.
Washington assigns points to projects
that are consistent with specific rec-
ommendations in a variety of recent
planning efforts: regional plans such as
the Puget Sound Action Plan or the
Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem
management plan; local watershed
management plans; or sewer system
and stormwater comprehensive plans.
Projects may receive up to thirty points
(out of 1000 overall)-projects receive
points depending upon their degree of
consistency with these planning efforts.
Washington also allows local water-
shed groups to assign bonus points to
priority projects as determined by a
comprehensive and stakeholder-inclu-
sive planning effort. Projects may
receive five to one hundred bonus
points in this fashion.
New York also considers financial need
in the ranking process. The state
assigns ten points to projects in com-
munities with a Median Household
Income (MHI) that is below the
statewide MHI. This weighting
attempts to prioritize projects that
would not be completed without
CWSRF assistance.
Integrated Ranking System Summary
The factors examined in this section
are not the only ones used in project
ranking systems. However, taken
together, water resource value, water
resource impairment or threat, and
project effectiveness provide a reason-
able measure of a project's expected
effect on water quality. A state can
confirm and reinforce this initial
assessment by rewarding consistency
with other water quality planning
efforts. By considering financial need,
a state may ensure that CWSRF fund-
ing is targeted to projects that most
need the assistance.
Although it has not been fully imple-
mented in any state, the goals approach
described in the Funding Framework is
another viable option for project selec-
tion. A goals approach suggests that a
state CWSRF program establish specific
goals for targeting its available
resources-based on the state's assess-
ment of its water quality priorities and
its assessment of an appropriate
CWSRF role in addressing those priori-
ties (as discussed in Section II(A-B)).
For a goals approach to be effective, it
should clearly target funding goals for
-------
0
ail Pliant!
specific water quality problems. For
example, targets could be established
for nutrient reduction, habitat protec-
tion, or wetland restoration. These tar-
gets might specify funding goals (e.g.,
5 percent of available funds to address
nutrient and sediment runoff from
agricultural operations) or perform-
ance objectives (e.g., a 50 percent
reduction in the number of failing sep-
tic systems). These goals might address
statewide concerns or be targeted to
specific high-priority watersheds.
A state CWSRF program would then
select projects for its Intended Use
Plan that will help to achieve these
program goals. These selections might
also reflect considerations such as
cost-benefit analyses or assessments of
borrowers' creditworthiness.
Delaware
Delaware uses a project ranking sys-
tem that has many similarities to that
used by the Funding Framework's
goals approach. The state's nonpoint
source management plan identifies
nonpoint sources as a significant cause
of the state's water quality problems.
For this reason, each year Delaware
considers using approximately 20 per-
cent of its available CWSRF funding
for projects that address nonpoint
source pollution. Delaware establishes
reserve levels each year at the same
time that it prioritizes wastewater proj-
ects.
The state has developed programs that
target homeowners with failing septic
systems, poultry producers, dairy pro-
ducers, and owners of leaking under-
ground storage tanks. These programs
help to identify revenue streams that
can ensure the repayment of CWSRF
loans to private borrowers. Since
1994, Delaware has used more than six
percent of its funds to address non-
point source pollution. The state has
funded 559 projects at a cost of more
than $4.9 million.
a
Once a state has developed a draft
ranking system, it typically tests the
system to determine the effectiveness
of the new design. States have
approached this task in different ways.
Because Ohio has funded a great vari-
ety of point source and nonpoint
source projects in its CWSRF program,
the state was able to select a wide-
ranging sample of completed projects
and re-evaluate their applications with
the draft integrated ranking system.
Rhode Island does not have a similar
breadth of experience lending to non-
point source projects. Therefore, staff
developed a variety of hypothetical
projects and evaluated them with the
draft system.
When analyzing the results, states are
able to investigate a number of questions:
Where are the incomplete? Ohio
found that a draft method of assessing
human health risks was difficult to
implement because of incomplete data.
Where are the ineffective in cap-
turing a project's value? Ohio discov-
ered that data sources in a draft system
were ineffective in assessing the value
of projects impacting the Ohio River,
Lake Erie, and Ohio's inland lakes.
What factors in the ranking system are
inappropriately weighted? Rhode
Island found that a number of criteria
related to project planning favored
point source projects at the expense of
nonpoint source projects.
Can the system be consistently applied?
Washington found that its guidance for
project evaluation enabled a variety of
staff to score projects in a very consis-
tent fashion. In addressing this ques-
tion, New York and Ohio have devel-
oped comprehensive scoring hand-
books showing how a variety of proj-
ects would be scored in their systems.
Testing is an important part of the
development process for an integrated
ranking system-it attempts to ensure
that a new system produces the
expected results. Most states have
made revisions to their ranking sys-
tems on the basis of this analysis.
Some have cycled through many peri-
ods of testing, analysis, and revision
before producing a final integrated
ranking system.
-------
o
III.
Development
Processes
for
Integrated
Planning
and Priority
Setting
Systems
The previous section of this document
describes the integrated planning and
priority setting process in general, and
describes the systems designed by
states at the forefront of this innova-
tion. This section will provide more
detail about a few aspects of the
development process: who should be
involved; how long does it take; and
how much does it cost?
As noted in this document's overview
of the integrated planning and priority
setting process, an effective CWSRF
program is well integrated into a
state's water quality program-the proj-
ects funded by the CWSRF should
reflect the state's overall water quality
priorities. For this reason, input from
a variety of state water program per-
sonnel is critical to the development of
a CWSRF integrated planning and pri-
ority setting system.
In addition to CWSRF engineering and
financial staff, states have included
representatives from a variety of pro-
grams to take part in the development
of integrated planning and priority set-
ting processes, including the following:
• Watershed planning
• Nonpoint source pollution
• Estuaries
• Wetlands
• TMDLs
• Permits and enforcement
• Soil and water conservation
• Health
• Transportation
The public is the most important
stakeholder for any government pro-
gram, and states have involved the
public in this development process in
many different ways. Interested par-
ties often include elected officials,
municipal personnel, tribal personnel,
representatives of public interest
groups, engineering consultants, and
general citizens. For instance,
Washington included representatives
from these groups on its development
committee. Committee staff conduct-
ed further interviews to solicit input
from the public about an initial set of
alternatives. Using a different
approach, Ohio convened a public
advisory group-separate from its
development committee-to provide
input into its development process.
Finally, many states have used public
meetings to discuss proposed changes
to the CWSRF project selection process.
EPA is also a participant in the inte-
grated system development process.
States often seek input from EPA
regional offices. Washington even
included an EPA representative on its
development committee.
The development timeline is quite
variable. However, this variation can
often be explained by a few considera-
tions: project scope, system unique-
ness, and political sensitivity.
The development timeline for an inte-
grated system will depend greatly on
the size of the task that must be
-------
0
ail
accomplished. For example, a state
with clearly defined water quality pri-
orities, an aggressive CWSRF outreach
program, and state water quality data
that can be easily quantified into a
project ranking system will be able to
complete this project faster than a
state without those advantages. The
complexity of the system developed
also impacts the size of this task. For
example, in designing its project rank-
ing system, a state that uses a few
major indicators of water quality will
be able to design its system much
more rapidly than a state that tries to
use its water quality data more com-
prehensively.
Historically, states have emulated suc-
cessful aspects of other CWSRF pro-
grams. States using this form of benev-
olent plagiarism in developing their
integrated planning and priority setting
systems have been able to shorten their
development timelines. For example,
by using Rhode Island's project ranking
system as a starting point for its own
efforts, Maryland was able to develop
its system quite efficiently.
Many of the states that have devel-
oped integrated planning and priority
setting systems currently have funding
available for any eligible water quality
project-although funding shortfalls
may be expected in the future.
Because a revised planning and priori-
ty setting process does not threaten
the availability of project funding in
those states in the near future, the
development process has been rela-
tively free of political tensions. In
other states, changes to the planning
and priority setting system will likely
affect the list of projects selected for
funding in the coming year. In those
states, the development process may
be slowed down considerably. For
example, Washington has dramatically
changed the system that it uses to
select projects for its priority list twice
in recent years.
As mentioned earlier in this document,
most states have focused their efforts
on revising their project ranking sys-
tems. Due to the variation in the
states' situations, these efforts have
been completed in different periods of
time. For some states, this process has
been completed in a few months. For
others, a major revision has required a
year and a half of effort.
The major cost associated with the
development of an integrated planning
and priority setting system is staff
time. As with the development time-
line, the cost of this effort is largely
dependent on the scope of the devel-
opment process. Some states that
have developed integrated project
ranking systems were able to complete
these revisions largely through the
effort of one employee working part-
time on the project for a few months.
Montana spent less than $10,000 revis-
ing its system. Others have accessed a
wide range of staff for longer periods
of time. Ohio spent about $80,000
developing an integrated project rank-
ing system.
-------
o
IV.
Twelve states are using integrated plan-
ning and priority setting systems in
their CWSRF programs. The planning
and priority setting systems vary widely-
therefore, this document does not
attempt to show a" model" system. It
does attempt to show some of the com-
mon issues that states have addressed
in the development of integrated plan-
ning and priority setting systems.
This document shows how states have
attempted to accomplish the four key
actions of an integrated planning and
priority setting system: identifying
water quality priorities; assessing the
CWSRF role; undertaking outreach
efforts; and selecting priority projects.
The innovation that characterizes these
state efforts provides examples that
will spur further innovation as states
continue to revisit their planning and
priority setting systems.
However, despite this great variety
among states, a state can evaluate the
success of its planning and priority
setting system with ease. A system is
effective if CWSRF projects help a
state address its highest water quality
priorities.
-------
ail Prill-in
Appendix A.
State
Project
Ranking
Systems
The following excerpt from California's
" Policy for Implementing the State
Revolving Fund for the Construction of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities,"
amended in June 1998, describes the
ranking system that the State Water
Resources Control Board uses to select
projects for funding. As noted on page
10 above, California uses a categorical
scoring system to integrate stormwa-
ter, nonpoint source, and estuary proj-
ects with wastewater treatment plants.
All projects are divided into five broad
classes, and the classes are funded in
priority order. This type of ranking
system is relatively easy to implement
and to understand.
-------
o
(af) "Storm Drainage Project" means any programs, devices, methods, or systems used
for preventing, abating, reducing, transporting, separating, storing, treating,
recycling, or disposing of pollutants arising or flowing in storm drainage that is
transported in pipes, culverts, tunnels, ditches, wells, channels, conduits, from urban
or rural areas to surface or ground waters of the State.
(ag) "Treatment Facilities" means any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment,
recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid
nature to implement Section 201 of the Federal Clean Water Act, or necessary to
recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost over the estimated life of the
facilities, including intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, sewage collection systems,
pumping, power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances; extensions,
improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof; and elements essential
to provide a reliable recycled supply such as standby treatment units and clear well
facilities.
In addition, "treatment facilities" means any other method or system for preventing,
abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating, or disposing of municipal waste,
including storm water runoff, or industrial waste, including waste in combined storm
water and sanitary sewer systems.
(ah) "Water Quality Assessment" means a report prepared by the SWRCB to identify the
water quality conditions in the waters of the State.
(ai) "Water Quality Control Plan" means a SWRCB approved plan adopted pursuant to
Division 7 of the Water Code designating or establishing beneficial uses and water
quality objectives for water within a specified area and a program of implementation
needed to achieve these objectives.
IV- PRIORITY SYSTEM
The primary purpose of this section is to implement a Priority System for providing
SRF loan assistance for the planning, design, and construction of wastewater
treatment, nonpoint source, storm drainage, water recycling, and estuary
enhancement projects and programs eligible under Title VI of the CWA.
A. Development of RWQCB Project Priority List Recommendations
1. Annually, each RWQCB Executive Officer shall develop Project
Priority List recommendations for the RWQCB.
2. The Executive Officer's Project Priority List recommendations shall
be transmitted to the Division each year by the scheduled date set by
the Division.
-------
Annually, after review of the Executive Officer's Project Priority List
recommendations, the SWRCB shall adopt a Statewide Project Priority List
(Statewide List). The Statewide List shall identify those projects for which
assistance from the SRF Loan Program is expected during the succeeding
five-year planning period.
1. The Statewide List shall be adopted by the SWRCB not later than
June 30 of each year.
2. The fundable portion (first year) of the Statewide List shall include
those wastewater treatment, water recycling, nonpoint source, storm
drainage, and estuary enhancement projects which have received a
preliminary loan commitment from the SWRCB and are scheduled for
loan assistance during the first year of the five-year planning period.
Projects receiving a preliminary loan commitment from the SWRCB
during the fiscal year shall be automatically moved to the fundable
portion (first year) of the Statewide List provided the project is
scheduled to receive a loan contract in the current fiscal year. The
extended portion of the Statewide List shall include those projects
without a preliminary loan commitment and those scheduled for a
loan contract during the following four years. Placement on the
extended portion of the Statewide List will be based on project
schedules.
3. Placement of a project on the Statewide List shall not constitute a
commitment to provide loan assistance.
C. Priority Classes
Each Project shall be assigned to one of the following priority classes:
1. Class A - Public Health Problems.
a) Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities projects required
to alleviate public health problems where the County Board of
Supervisors or the County Health Officer has certified that a health
problem exists, and where a RWQCB has (1) adopted a prohibition
for elimination of discharges from individual treatment systems and
such prohibition has been approved by the SWRCB, or (2) approved a
local moratorium prohibiting the construction of new individual
systems (See Appendix C), or (3) adopted a cease and desist order;
and
b) nonpoint source, storm drainage pollution, and estuary
enhancement projects required to comply with prohibitions, postings,
limitations, or warnings that have been imposed by responsible health
-------
authorities, and where the RWQCB has concurred with the findings of
the health authority and has established a time schedule for correction
or elimination of the threat to public health.
2. Class B — Pollution of Impaired Water Bodies.
Projects required to correct conditions where a certification is made
by the RWQCB Executive Officer that the water quality objectives
for an impaired water body are not being attained.
3. Class C — Compliance With Requirements and Water Recycling
Projects.
1) Projects necessary to comply with waste discharge requirements or
other regulatory requirements formally imposed by the SWRCB or
RWQCB, or projects necessary for correction of threatened violations
of existing or proposed waste discharge requirements; and 2) projects
which recycle water and are cost effective when compared to the
development of new sources of water.
4. Class D — Projects Serving as Preventative Measures Against
Additional Water Quality Degradation for Impaired or Unimpaired
Water Bodies.
Projects which would control discharges to impaired or unimpaired
waters, where correction of such discharges may, or may not, be
required through formally adopted waste discharge requirements.
Includes projects to provide additional wastewater treatment capacity.
5- Class E — Other Projects.
Projects not included in any of the other priority classes.
D. Project Ranking
Projects within each priority class shall be ranked on the basis of readiness to
proceed. The project with the earliest estimated date for award of a loan
contract will be ranked above a project with a later estimated date. In the
case of a tie, the project discharging to the water body with the greater
resource value will be ranked higher.
E. Restrictions and Adjustments
1. If a project falls in more than one priority class, the full project shall
be placed in the highest priority class applicable to the more costly
segment of the project, except as specifically ordered by the SWRCB.
2. If the priority classification of a project is in any way dependent upon
State, County, or local action, or upon SWRCB or RWQCB action,
only action taken prior to the adoption or amendment to the Statewide
List will be considered.
-------
3. The Statewide List may be adjusted or amended by the SWRCB for
good cause subject to approval by EPA.
4. The SWRCB reserves the right to transfer treatment facilities from
one priority class to another priority ranking, to reduce the eligible
cost of any project, and to allocate available funds among one or more
priority classes when the SWRCB determines such action to be
necessary or appropriate for effective and equitable use of available
monies. Such action will only be taken after a public hearing.
5. When appropriate, the SWRCB may create a set-aside for the
purposes of assuring that SRF assistance will be available for
nonpoint source, water recycling, estuary enhancement, and storm
drainage projects and programs contained on the fundable portion of
the Statewide List.
F. Management of the Statewide List
Before a facilities plan approval is given, a project implementation schedule
shall be submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Division.
The Division shall monitor and compare progress on the project to the
established schedule to assure that the loan applicant is proceeding
expeditiously with the project.
If at any time the Division determines that progress has slipped sufficiently to
push the loan contract award beyond the end of the scheduled state fiscal
year, the SWRCB may add a project, or projects, of approximately equal
dollar value from the planning portion to the fundable portion of the
Statewide List, provided the project, or projects have received preliminary
loan commitments from the SWRCB and are projected to be ready for loan
contracts during the current State fiscal year. After such additions, all
projects on the fundable portion of the Statewide List will continue to
compete on an as ready basis for available funds.
G. Funding of Projects
Except as may be directed by the SWRCB, projects on the fundable portion
of the Statewide List will receive loan contracts from the SWRCB on an as
ready-basis.
H. Project Removal and Changes
Projects shall not be removed from the Statewide List unless:
1. The SWRCB so instructs;
2. The project has received a loan contract;
-------
Appendix A
MARYLAND
Maryland uses the following score
sheet to rank projects for CWSRF
funding. This numerical scoring system
is highlighted on page 13 in the text as
an example of a scoring system that
considers waterbodies' TMDL priority
(from the state's List of Impaired
Waters (303(d) list)) and Unified
Watershed Assessment category.
-------
Maryland Department of the Environment
Integrated Project Priority System
PROJECT SCORE SHEET
APPLICANT: PROJECT:
DATE OF PRE-APPLICATION:
I. ELIGIBILITY THRESHOLD (Select one project category only)
A. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
• Is the project consistent with County Water and Sewerage Plan? Y/N
• Is the project consistent with Smart Growth Priority Funding Area? Y/N
(For new or proposed expansion of POTW, route pre-application to Wastewater Permits Program for Tributary Strategy
Consistency Review.)
B. Non-Point Source Capital Improvements
« Is the project consistent with the Non-Point Source Management Plan (319 Plan)? Y/N
C. Estuary Capital Improvement
» Is the project consistent with the Estuary Conservation and Management Plan (320 Plan)? Y/N
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS CRITERIA (Select one criterion only-Max 8 points) Max Point Actual Item#
Values Rating
A. Surface Water Pollution (Sewerage Facilities)
A-l Combined Sewer Overflow 8 A-l
A-2 Wastewater Treatment Facility 7 A-2
A-3 Excessive Inflow and Infiltration 6 A-3
A-4 Collection System/Pump Station 3 A-4
B. Untreated/Uncontrolled Runoff
B-l Stormwater Treatment/Management Facility 7 B-l
B-2 Agricultural Best Management Practices 7 B-2
B-3 Landfill Capping 5 B-3
B-4 Non-Traditional Project 2 B-4
C. Groundwater Pollution
C-l Failing Onsite Septic System 8 C-l
C-2 Leaking Underground Storage Tank 7 C-2
C-3 Hazardous Waste Site 7 C-3
C-4 Landfill Leachate Collection/Treatment 7 C-4
C-5 Subsurface Discharge 6 C-5
D. Aquatic/Riparian Habitat and Stream Degradation
D-l Streams, Creeks, and Estuaries Restoration 7 D-l
[Section II - Total Points]
HI. PROPOSED PROJECT BENEFITS CRITERIA (Select one criterion only - Max 10 Points)
A. Project addresses enforcement activities 10 A
B. Project addresses documented water quality, public health and safety issue 10 B
C. Project provides advanced treatment at POTW 8 C
D. Project provides for Resources Conservation/Multiple-Use Benefits 6 D
E. Project provides Operational Reliability Improvement 6 E
F. Project helps maintain nutrient loading cap as per tributary guidelines 6 F
G. Project provides treatment of septage/leachate at POTW 5 G
-------
o
Attachment 2
H. Project restores an aquatic/riparian habitat and stream 4 H
I, Project provides Regional Consolidation 3 I
J. Project provides Demonstration/Pilot Project or Innovative Treatment Technique 2 J
K. Project incorporates pollution prevention/waste minimization technique 2 K
[Section III - Total Points]
IV. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CRITERIA (Max 10 Points)
For water bodies that are included in both the surface water restoration and protection sections, the highest total point
rating under either of those sections must be used, but not both.
Watershed Segment/Basin Code:
A. Surface Water Restoration [Use 303(d) List to select one criterion only]. The 303(d) List identifies impaired waters,
known as Water Quality Limited Segments (WQLSs), for which required technology based controls are inadequate to meet
water quality standards.
A-l Project benefits a high priority TMDL waterbody 8 A-l
A-2 Project benefits a medium priority TMDL waterbody 6 A-2
A-3 Project benefits a low priority TMDL waterbody 4 A-3
A-4 Project indirectly addresses TMDL waterbody 2 A-4
A-5 Add 2 bonus points if project benefits Clean Water Action Plan Category 1 Priority
Watershed
Subtotal IV A
B. Surface Water Protection [use Clean Water Action Plan to select one criterion only]
B-l Project benefits a Clean Water Action Plan Selected Category 3 Watershed 4 B-l
B-2 Project benefits a Clean Water Action Plan Category 3 Watershed 2 B-2
B-3 Project benefits a Clean Water Action Plan Category 2 Watershed 1 B-3
B-4 Add 2 bonus points to projects that address a regional/local watershed plan to 2 B-4
Benefit water quality
Subtotal IV B
C. Ground Water Protection [Select one criterion only] COMAR 26.08.02.09 describes
Type I - III Aquifer.
C-l Project benefits a Wellhead Protection Area for Public Water Supply 8 C-l
C-2 Project benefits Type I - III Aquifer 4 C-2
Subtotal IVC
[Section IV - Total points]
Section II - IV - Total Points
Tie Breaker
In case of a tie in the priority ranking, projects will be selected in the order of the population served. The project benefiting the
larger population will be rated higher.
Date Reviewer
Date Capital Program Planning, Division Chief
Date Water Quality Infrastructure, Program Administrator
-------
Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
MONTANA
Montana uses the following ranking
system to select projects for CWSRF
funding. This numerical scoring sys-
tem is noteworthy for two main rea-
sons. First, Montana's ranking system
initially uses different tracks to assign
points to surface water projects and to
groundwater projects (noted on page
12, above). Second, Montana's rank-
ing system requires water program
staff to quantify each project's expect-
ed effectiveness (highlighted on page
13, above).
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
STATE REVOLVING FUND
PRIORITY LIST RANKING CRITERIA
A. WATER QUALITY IMPAIRMENT
Choose either surface water or ground water category to evaluate impairment of water
quality. Then proceed to categories, B, C, D for all projects. If the discharge is primarily to
ground water, yet surface water is impacted also, use the ground water category to evaluate
the impairment of water quality.
1. SURFACE WATER
a. Impaired or threatened water body
Use current 303(d) list or criteria similar to that used for 303(d) list to evaluate the surface
water body. The 303(d) list will show the assigned priority for TMDL development for
each surface water basin.
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
High priority for TMDL development 20
Medium priority for TMDL development 10
Low priority for TMDL development 5
b. Number of Classified Uses Impacted by this activity.
See 303(d) list of impaired streams for uses which are impacted for the water body in
question. Not all water bodies in Montana have been assessed and, therefore, may not
appear on the 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. If the water body does not appear on
the 303(d) list, a preliminary ranking can be performed using best professional judgment
with regard to number of uses impacted, extent and duration of the impact. An assessment
of the water body should be requested from proper DEQ personnel.
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
Three or more uses impacted 5
Two uses impacted 3
One use impacted 2
No uses impacted 1
If drinking water supply or aquatic life support is an impacted use, the project
automatically gets the maximum points in this subcategory.
-------
c. Area impacted by this activity
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
More than 10 stream miles or more than 1000 acres 5
Between 1 and 10 mi. or between 100 and 1000 ac. 3
Between 0.1 and 1 mi. or between 10 and 100 ac. 2
Less than 0.1 stream mi, or less than 10 ac. 1
d. Duration of Impact From This Activity
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
Duration of impact continuous 4
Duration of impact is seasonal 2
Duration of impact is less than 15 days per year 1
e. TOTAL POINTS FOR IMPACT TO SURFACE WATER
Multiply points assigned in subcategories b.. c., and d. to arrive at the total points for
impact to surface water quality (i.e., b x c x d = e).
TOTAL POINTS FOR SURFACE WATER IMPAIRMENT
(Sum of a. ande.)
2. GROUND WATER
Use this category only to evaluate impairment of water quality resulting from a
ground water discharge.
a. Impaired or Threatened Aquifer or Hydrologically Connected Surface Water Body
There are no formal lists of impaired aquifers. Therefore, best professional judgment must
be used in evaluating whether the aquifer is impaired or if there is a direct hydrologic
connection to a water body. The proximity of the contaminant source to the surface water
body is the most commonly used preliminary indicator that a direct hydrologic connection
exists.
-------
o
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
Cumulative impacts to the aquifer have precluded one or more classified uses. OR The
aquifer is hydrologically connected to a water body identified on the 303(d) list of
impaired streams as a high priority for TMDL development.
20
Cumulative impacts to the aquifer are threatening one or more classified uses. OR the
aquifer is hydrologically connected to a water body identified on the 303(d) list as a
medium priority for TMDL development.
10
Cumulative impacts to the aquifer have a minor effect on one or more classified uses. OR
the aquifer is hydrologically connected to a water body identified on the 303(d) list as a
low priority for TMDL development. 5
b. Classified uses impacted by this activity.
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
Community drinking water supply is impacted or,
due to a hydrologic connection, aquatic life in a
surface water body is impacted. 5
Other public drinking water supply is impacted 3
Non-public drinking water supply is impacted, 2
(i.e., not a public water system)
Other use is impacted 1
c. Area Impacted by Activity
Generally, little information is available to demonstrate the extent of a contaminant plume.
Best professional judgment will be required to estimate the extent of contamination due to
the activity in question. Sampling results and the duration of the problem should be
considered when assigning points under this category. Be sure to include the extent of any
impacts to surface water if known.
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
More than 100 acres 5
Between 10 and 100 acres 3
Between 1 and 10 acres 2
Less than 1 acre 1
d. Duration of Impact From This Activity
-------
Pick one of the following:
(Give 0 points or full points)
Duration of impact is continuous 4
Duration of impact is seasonal 2
Duration of impact is less than 15 days per year 1
e. TOTAL POINTS FOR IMPACT TO GROUND WATER
Multiply points assigned in subcategories b., c., and d. to arrive at the total points for
impact to ground water quality (i.e., b x c x d = e).
TOTAL POINTS FOR GROUND WATER IMPAIRMENT
(Sum of a and e in category A. 2., ground water, only)
B. EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PROJECT IN IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
Pick one of the following:
Project is expected to eliminate health hazards or restore water body to fully supporting all uses
which are impacted by the activity: 100% of pnts in A.I OR A.2
Project is expected to eliminate health hazards or restore some of the uses for which water body
was intended and which were impacted by the activity:.
50% of pnts in A. 1 OR A.2
Project is expected to improve water quality or reduce health hazards but will not eliminate the
health hazards or fully restore any uses impacted by the activity.
25% of pnts in A.I OR A.2
Project is not expected to substantially improve water quality or reduce health hazards
0 pnts
POINTS FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
-------
C. ACTIVITY-SPECIFIC CRITERIA
Select either category 1 (Municipal WW Projects) or 2 (Nonpoint Source Projects) below.
1. Municipal Wastewater Projects
a. Existing Equipment or Processes
May assign points in all categories
(Give 0 points or full points)
Reliability is adversely affecting current unit process. 10
(this could include failing septic systems)
Equipment obsolescence is affecting or has the potential
to affect unit process performance and the proposed project
will upgrade the obsolete equipment or process. 10
TOTAL POINTS IN a.
b. Pollution Prevention
May assign points in all categories
(Give 0 points or full points)
Project involves beneficial use of treated wastewater or biosolids
resulting in reduction or elimination of a discharge to surface
water or groundwater and provides some further benefit such as
the growth of crops or turf. 10
Water meters are installed in the entire project area. 10
A water conservation plan is being or has been implemented within the
project area. 10
An I/I reduction program is being implemented or will be part
of the proposed project or, if I/I is less than 20% of the total
wastewater flow on an annual basis. 10
The applicant has no recent MPDES permit or other water
pollution-related violations (within the last 3 years). 10
Encourages the use of phosphate-free detergent. 10
TOTAL POINTS IN b.
SUM OF a. AND b. (FOR WWTP ONLY)
2. NONPOINT SOURCE ACTIVITIES
-------
o
(Partial points may be given in each of the following subcategories)
a. The entire watershed has been assessed, critical areas have been
identified and will be addressed in the project. 30
b. The project deals with a common problem in Montana, and
the results of this project are likely to have a high demon-
stration, technology transfer, and/or educational value to other
watersheds in the state. 20
c. Project will be implemented in order to prevent pollution rather
than to correct existing pollution problems. 10
d. Project funds will be used in conjunction with other funds to
increase the scope or magnitude of the pollution reduction or
prevention activities. 10
TOTAL POINTS FOR NFS ACTIVITIES
D. READINESS TO PROCEED
May assign points for each category
(Give 0 points or full points)
All other project funding is in place - bond resolution has been adopted
or equivalent loan security is in place. 20
Final plans and specs have been approved or final project approval
has been given by DEQ. 20
Complete SRF application has been submitted to DEQ. 20
Preliminary planning document or complete, conceptual plan has been
approved by DEQ. 10
TOTAL POINTS FOR READINESS TO PROCEED
-------
TOTAL POINTS IN CATEGORY A. (impairment)
(Maximum points ~ 120)
TOTAL POINTS IN CATEGORY B. (improvement)
(points cannot exceed points assigned in A. above)
TOTAL POINTS IN CATEGORY C. (activity-specific)
(maximum points — 70)
TOTAL POINTS IN CATEGORY D. (readiness)
(maximum points — 70)
TOTAL PRIORITY POINTS
-------
Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
NEW YORK
New York uses the following scoring
criteria to rank projects in its CWSRF.
New York's system is highlighted in the
text on page 12 to demonstrate a
method of considering a waterbody's
resource value. This ranking system is
also noted in the text on page 15
because it awards points to projects
based on "other considerations"— a
community's financial need and a pro-
ject's consistency with local, state, and
regional planning efforts.
-------
o
649.12 Priority Ranking System Scoring Criteria
The numerical scores in the priority ranking system are based on the following criteria:
A. The existing source of pollution causing a water quality problem.
B. The water quality improvement.
C. Consistency with management plans or programs.
D. Enforcement and construction status.
E. Financial need.
The total numerical score for the project being scored shall be the sum of the scores for
Criteria A, B, C, D and E.
The project score will be computed based on information in an approvable engineering
or technical report. Projects without approvable engineering or technical reports will be scored
based on information from other sources and adjusted when an engineering or technical report
is determined to be approvable. Projects must be adequately supported by technical
documentation, data, reports, etc.
A. Existing Source Criterion
The project receives a score based on whichever of the factors (1-5) listed below best
describes the most critical source of pollution associated with the impairment of use scored
under Criterion B which will be resolved by the project.
If a project is complete as defined in section 649.2 (a) (40) of this Part and the
municipality is refinancing only existing debt for that project through the SWPCRF, it will be
scored on the post-construction environmental conditions.
1. A critical source of pollution 50 points
a. A raw, partially treated or intermittent point or
nonpoint source causing or significantly
contributing to a water use impairment identified
on the priority waterbodies list as "precluded" or
"impaired" or causing a documented use
impairment of surface water or groundwater quality
equivalent to "precluded" or "impaired", OR
b. A source from which bioaccumulative chemicals
of concern (BCCs) would be reduced or eliminated.
-------
2. A significant source of pollution 25 points
a. A raw, partially treated or intermittent point or
nonpoint source causing or significantly
contributing to a water use impairment identified
on the priority waterbodies list as "stressed" or
"threatened", or causing a documented use
impairment of surface water or groundwater
quality equivalent to "stressed" or "threatened", OR
b. A source from which toxic chemicals of concern
other than BCCs that are identified in a water quality
management plan would be reduced or eliminated.
3. A project necessary to maintain or protect existing 15 points
facilities, conditions or water quality.
4. A raw, partially treated or intermittent point or nonpoint 10 points
source causing or significantly contributing to a water
use impairment that is not identified on the priority
waterbodies list nor causing a documented use impairment
of surface water or groundwater quality.
5. None of the above. 0 points
B. Water Quality Improvement Criterion (WQIC)
The WQIC is determined by the following three factors: 1) Classification Points Factor
(CPF); 2) Impairment Factor (IF); and 3) Potential Improvement Factor (PIF). Based on the
existing source identified for Criterion A, points are allotted to a project on the basis of the
State-assigned classification of the receiving water at the point of discharge, or where higher,
the classification of downstream surface waters, the use of which is impacted or potentially
impacted by the existing discharge. The points are modified dependent upon the severity of
impairment of the desired best usage of the receiving water and the potential for the proposed
project to improve water quality.
The WQIC is calculated using the following equation:
WQIC = CPF x IF x PIF
1. Classification Points Factor (CPF)
Points are allotted to a project on the basis of the State-assigned classification of the
receiving water at the point of discharge, or where higher, the classification of downstream
-------
surface waters, the use of which is impacted or potentially impacted by the existing
discharge.
Classification
AA, SA, GA
(primary water
supply aquifer),
AA special
A, A special,
GA (other),
GSA
B, SB, C(T)1,
C (TS)1
C2, SC, I
D, SD, GSB
Description Points
Specially protected high quality drinking water and 8
shellfish waters
Other drinking water
Contact recreation, trout and trout propagation 4
Other fishing 3
Other water uses 2
Impairment of environmental resource other than 1
water (For projects which have important non-
— water quality impacts such as odor, sludge
disposal, etc.)
— No resource is impaired 0
2. Impairment Factor (IF)
Points are allotted to a project based on the severity of impairment of the desired best
usage of the affected surface water or groundwater caused by the existing discharge, as
indicated in the priority waterbodies list, or verifiable documentation of the surface water or
groundwater impairment.
Impairment Definition
Precluded A use is not possible (i.e., frequent/persistent water
quality or quantity conditions prevents all aspects of
the waterbody use) - for example:
- swimming is banned by the local health department.
- there exists documented contamination of a potable
water supply.
Points
6
1 (T) and (TS) indicate the application of standards to protect trout and trout spawning, respectively.
2 Classification C without (T) or (TS) appended.
-------
- consumption offish or shellfish is banned.
Impaired A use cannot be fully met (i.e., occasional water
quality or quantity conditions periodically prevent or
discourage the use of the waterbody) - for example:
- fishing is possible, but consumption is restricted.
- there exists documented raw discharges including
floatables or pathogens to a Class A or Class B
surface water. This would include direct discharges
of raw sewage, combined sewer overflows, sanitary
sewer overflows, and septic tank effluent discharged
via ditches or pipes.
- continual or near continual outbreak or discharge of
sewage or grey water to ground surface, or septic
effluent is present immediately below ground
surface from on-site wastewater disposal systems.
These would be evidenced by blackened, odorous
or saturated soil, or usage of property surrounding
on-site system generally impaired, or in-house
waste plumbing is occasionally rendered unusable
due to inadequate wastewater disposal.
Stressed A water quality problem is evident, but impairment is
nor clearly demonstrated (i.e., waterbody uses are not
significantly limited or restricted, but occasional water
quality or quantity conditions periodically discourage
the use of the waterbody) - for example:
- there exists documented raw discharges including
floatables or pathogens to a Class C or Class D
surface water. This would include direct discharges
of raw sewage, combined sewer overflows, sanitary
sewer overflows, and septic tank effluent discharged
via ditches or pipes.
- residents with on-site wastewater disposal systems
are not able to enjoy full usage of their in-house
plumbing. Some problems and/or nuisances occur
during peak usage or stressed conditions.
- a stream runs turbid with sediment after rainfall.
Threatened There is a threat to future water quality but no existing
or None evidence of impairment.
3. Potential Improvement Factor (PIF)
-------
o
Points are allotted to the project based on the potential for the project to improve
water quality.
Potential Improvement Factor
Degree of impairment reduced by three levels
(i.e., from "Precluded" to "Threatened or None").
Degree of impairment reduced by two levels
(i.e., from "Precluded" to "Stressed" or from
"Impaired" to "Threatened or None").
Degree of impairment reduced by one level
(i.e., from "Precluded" to "Impaired", from
"Impaired" to "Stressed", or from "Stressed" to
"Threatened or None").
No reduction in impairment level.
C. Management Plan Consistency Criterion
1. Project will address a water quality problem identified
in an approved watershed management plan, the New
York State Nonpoint Source Management Plan, or in a
county water quality strategy.
2. A project which will address a water quality problem
identified in one of the following management plans,
or any other plan approved by the department and
incorporated into the State Water Quality Management
Plan, receives an additional 10 points under this criterion:
Peconic Estuary CCMP, South Shore Estuary Reserve
CCMP, Long Island Sound CCMP, New York/New
Jersey Harbor CCMP, Hudson River Estuary Plan,
New York City Watershed Memorandum of Agreement,
Lake Champlain Management Plan, Onondaga Lake
Plan, and Great Lakes Program.
Points may be allotted under both C.1 and C.2.
D. Enforcement and Construction Status Criterion
1. Enforcement status: Abatement of water pollution
required by an executed enforcement instrument.
Points
4
20 points
10 points
25 points
-------
2. Construction status: Construction has commenced as 10 points
defined in section 649.2 (a) (8) of this Part and project
work is proceeding or completed.
Points may be allotted under both D.1 and D.2.
E. Financial Need Criterion
If a project receives points under A - Existing Source Criterion 10 points
and B - Water Quality Improvement Criterion, or D.1 - Enforcement
Status Criterion, and the Median Household Income (MHI) of the
municipality in which the project service area is located is below
the Statewide MHI, the project receives 10 points for financial need.
The MHI of the municipality in which the project service area is
located and the Statewide MHI will be determined from income data in the
most recent United States census. If there is reason to believe that the
census data are not an accurate representation of the MHI within the area
to be served, the reasons must be documented and the applicant will furnish,
or the department may obtain, additional information regarding the MHI.
Information will consist of reliable data from local, regional, state or federal
sources or from an income survey conducted by a reliable impartial source.
F. Tie Breaking
In the event of equal total scores, preference shall be given: first to the project having
the highest Existing Source Criterion score; then, if not resolved, to the project receiving the
highest Water Quality Improvement Criterion score; and finally to the project serving the
greatest population.
-------
o
Proposed Additions to 6 NYCRR 649.2-
Definitions in Conjunction with Proposed
Revisions to 6 NYCRR 649.12 - Priority Ranking
System Scoring Criteria
() Bioaccumulative chemical of concern (BCC) is any chemical that has the
potential to cause adverse effects which, upon entering surface waters, by
itself or as its toxic transformation product, accumulates in aquatic organisms
by a human health bioaccumulation factor greater than 1000, as defined in
USEPA regulation, 40 CRF 132.2 published in the Federal Register, Vol. 60,
No. 56, March 23, 1995.
() Priority waterbodies list means a list published periodically by the department
of waterbodies that either cannot be fully used as a resource, or have water
quality problems that can damage their environmental integrity.
-------
Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
OHIO
The following excerpt, taken from the
Ohio Water Pollution Control Fund
FY2000 Final Program Management
Plan, describes the state's project rank-
ing system. Ohio's project ranking
system is mentioned many times in
the above text. As noted on page 12,
Ohio uses different scoring systems
when considering projects that affect
groundwater, wetlands, or streams,
rivers and lakes. The relative complex-
ity of the ranking system is noted on
page 11. Ohio's valuations of water
resource value provide examples for
the text on pages 12-13. Finally, pages
14-15 of the above text highlight
Ohio's method for determining a pro-
ject's effectiveness.
-------
o
From the Ohio Water Pollution Control Fund FY2000 Final Program Management Plan,
pgs. 5-9.
B. WPCLF Project Priority System and Project Priority List
1. The Project Priority System rates the assistance proposals ("projects") submitted to
the WPCLF. Each project's rating represents its estimated relative direct contribution in
protecting public health or improving water resources. For the current program year,
projects are assigned points according to the nature of their public health and water
quality benefits.
Under the Project Priority System a project will receive a score of greater than zero if it
will either address a public health concern, or directly benefit water quality as an
expected result from the project. Projects with positive scores will be considered priority
projects.
Projects which receive zero points from the ranking system are projects that, while
providing facilities that optimize or improve wastewater treatment or address a nonpoint
source of pollution, have not been shown to address a potential public health problem,
or measurably improve or protect the quality of water resources. This is not to say that
projects receiving zero ranking points have no connection to better water quality, as they
all contribute to maintaining and improving Ohio's water pollution control infrastructure,
and some may address NPDES permit requirements, Rather, it indicates that these
projects do not address a potential public health problem or a known source of threat or
impairment to water resources.
As the Ohio EPA progresses with implementation of the Clean Water Act, new water
quality initiatives will emerge which may warrant consideration as rating factors in the
WPCLF project priority rating system. For example, the State's Total Maximum Daily
Load analyses are currently being conducted, and as those results become available,
the Ohio EPA may propose inclusion of other water quality-based criteria in the priority
system.
Also, as we noted previously in the WPCLF Business Plan, the Agency will be seeking
public input on the use of other factors in the formula as well. In keeping with ORC
sections 6111.036, any proposed revisions will be designed to assist in the
accomplishment of statewide water quality and public health objectives. We will provide
further notice regrding the opportunity to comment on these ideas as they develop.
In response to the Clean Water Act's objective of restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters and to the Ohio EPA's
goal of increasing the percentage of stream miles attaining designated uses by
15percent by the year 2001, a joint effort between the Divisions of Environmental and
Financial Assistance and Surface Water has resulted in a system which can be used to
rank, on a single priority list actions addressing both point and nonpoint sources of
impacts on water resources. This system is called the Integrated Priority System (IPS)
and is used to prioritize projects on the 2000 WPCLF project priority list.
The IPS rates a project by considering: 1) the potential uses of the water resources
benefitting from the project; 2) the restorability of the water resources to their potential
-------
o
1 111 ' ' " ' • " 1 111 "111
uses or the protection of existing uses; and 3) the effectiveness of the project in
addressing identified sources of impairment or threat.
The highest category of priority is placed on the protection of human health; the second
category of priority is placed on the protection or restoration of the: 1) aquatic life uses
of surface water resources; 2) ecological integrity of wetlands: or, 3) quality of ground
water resources for human use. The different IPS categories are described below.
a. Human Health Category
Actions addressing documented human health concerns arising from waterborne
pathogens or pollutants form the first level of priority within the IPS, reflecting the
importance of protecting public safety. Within the Human Health category, there
are two levels of priority, the top level being those cases where there is a
confirmed disease outbreak, the second level being those cases where a risk is
posed to human health. Beyond differentiating between disease outbreaks and
risks to human health, it is difficult to establish distinctions as to the degree of
human health risk posed by different sources of pollution. Consequently, actions
are rated as either: 1) First Priority - addressing a documented disease outbreak
(40 points), 2) Second Priority - addressing a documented human health threat
(35 points), or 3) No priority - addressing neither a documented disease outbreak
nor a documented human health threat (0 points).
b. Water Resources Protection and Restoration Category
Actions addressing Water Resources constitute the second major category of the
ranking system. Within this category actions are ranked relating to protecting and
restoring: i) Rivers and Streams, Inland Lakes, and Lake Erie; ii) Wetlands;
and iii) Ground Water.
Actions affecting Rivers and Streams, Inland Lakes, and Lake Erie are ranked
using the same system of factors, which is based on the aquatic life use of these
resources. Actions affecting Wetlands are ranked using a system which considers
wetland quality and function. Actions affecting Ground Water resources are
ranked using a system which considers factors influencing ground water quality for
human use. While each of these 3 major water resource types has its own
system for assigning rank, all of the systems provide final scores which range
from 0 to 30 points. After they are scored, actions affecting these resource types
form a second level of priority below actions addressing human health. In those
cases where a proposed action receives scores in more than one category, the
highest single category score is used to rate the action. The rating systems for
the different water resource types are described below.
i. Rivers, Streams, Inland Lakes, and Lake Erie
This portion of the IPS focuses on aquatic life and how actions can protect
or restore water resources so that full attainment of the potential aquatic
life use designation can be realized. An aquatic life use-based priority
rating system was developed consisting of three factors: 1) Importance of
-------
o
Resource, 2) Restoration Potential and 3) Effectiveness of Action. In this
system, the three factors are summed to yield scores for the actions being
ranked.
a. Importance of Resource Factor
The Importance of Resource factor refers to the potential for a
water body to support a healthy biological community. In general,
those resources that have the potential to support a high diversity
of aquatic organisms will rate higher than those resources that can
only support pollution-tolerant organisms. This is determined by
using the aquatic life habitat use designations in Ohio's Water
Quality Standards. For watershed projects, all of the water body
segments in the watershed will be rated. The sum of these scores
will be divided by the total number of segments in the watershed to
get an average watershed score for Importance of Resource.
b. Restoration Potential Factor
The Restoration Potential factor uses different sets of criteria for: 1)
rivers, streams and watersheds; 2) inland lakes; and 3) Lake Erie.
However, the point scale used for scoring this factor (0-8 points) is
the same for all water bodies addressed. For rivers, streams, and
watersheds the "ultimate aquatic life use restorability factor"
described in the Appendices to Volume I of the 1996 305(b) Report
is used to rate the restorability of these resources. For inland lakes
the Ohio Lake Condition Index is used to assess the overall
ecosystem health of Ohio's public lakes. This index uses
information gathered on 14 different parameters to allow
assessment of the overall condition of lake ecosystems. For Lake
Erie the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), which uses the characteristics
of fish communities as an indicator of overall ecosystem health and
water quality conditions, is used to rate the restorability of Lake Erie
near shore areas. IBI scores have been placed in five groups
ranging from an IBI score equal to or greater than 50, which is
considered exceptional, to an IBI score of less than 20, which is
considered very poor.
c. Effectiveness of Action Factor
The factor reflects whether the action being rated will improve the
quality of its associated water resource. This is determined based
on: 1) what the sources of impairment or threats to attainment are
for the water body, 2) which of the identified impairments or threats
the action will address, and 3) the degree to which the action will
address the sources of impairment or threats. In rating actions
using this factor, both the primary and secondary environmental
effects of actions are taken into consideration in determining
scores. The causes and sources of impairments or threats are
contained in the 305(b) database for all monitored streams, rivers
-------
o
p 11 1
and lakes of the state. For those segments that have not been
monitored, watershed information is used to identify sources of
impairment or threats. This factor also rates actions as to whether
they will protect water resources from declines in current quality. If
an action scores 0 points for this factor, it receives 0 points for rank
in the Rivers, Streams, Inland Lakes and Lake Erie portion of the
IPS regardless of scores it receives in the other two factors.
ii. Wetlands
The system used to rank wetlands projects is different from the other
ranking systems for water resources in that it rates wetlands on the basis
of their ecological integrity using the same rating criteria to evaluate both
actions to protect and actions to restore wetlands.
The system evaluates wetlands using two factors: quality and function.
Quality is identified by using the wetland categories contained in Ohio
EPA's Water Quality Standards (OAC 3745-1-05, and 50-54) for wetlands.
Function is determined by using the "Ohio Wetland Assessment Method
Field Data Form, Version 3," developed by Ohio EPA. This assessment
methodology provides a means to assign points to each action affecting a
wetland on the basis of the wetland size; its vegetation class(es); the
diversity of species found in each vegetation class; its habitat features; its
wetland-stream water quality functions; adjacent land uses; and connection
to other habitat areas.
An initial score for a proposed action is determined by the sum of the
scores that are obtained for the quality and function factors. An additional 2
points are added if the purpose of the action is to protect an existing
wetland. The final score is then obtained by multiplying the initial score by
0.429 and rounding the score to the nearest 0.1. Final scores range from
0 to 30 points.
iii. Ground Water
Actions affecting ground water are evaluated since ground water resources
are a part of Ohio's water resources and because actions connected to
surface water programs can also affect ground water resources. The
ranking system for ground water was developed with advice from the
Division of Drinking and Ground Waters (DDAGW).
An initial determination is made as to whether actions affecting ground
water are intended to protect or restore the quality of ground water
resources. Depending on the answer to this question, the action is rated
using either a system that rates actions protecting ground water resources
or a system that rates actions restoring ground water resources. Within
both of these systems, actions are rated based on the sensitivity of the
ground water resource to pollution, and its use as a source of drinking
water supply. DRASTIC mapping done by the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources or Agriculture to identify the sensitivity of ground water
resources to pollution is being used to identify ground water resource
-------
o
sensitivity.
2. The 2000 Project Priority List is a compilation of all projects currently nominated by
their appropriate representatives for consideration for WPCLF financing at various times.
The projects are presented in priority sequence in Appendix B-1. For ease of location of
nominated projects, projects are also arranged alphabetically by the names of their
applicants in Appendix B-2.
New projects may be added to the Project Priority List as outlined in section IV.A.1.
-------
Integrated Planning and Priority Setting
RHODE ISLAND
Rhode Island uses the following scor-
ing system in its CWSRF program.
Rhode Island's ranking system is high-
lighted in the text on page 11 because
implementation of the scoring system
does not require the use of staff judg-
ment. For this reason, the ranking
process is consistent, requires very little
staff time, and is transparent to the
public.
-------
o
APPENDIX 1 - PROJECT RATING CRITERIA
APPLICANT: PROJECT:
Point Actual Item
I. EXISTING CONDITIONS CRITERIA t Values Rating _§
A-l Raw Sewage Discharge - Major (>. 5000 gpd estimated flow) 10 A-l
A-2 Raw Sewage Discharge - Minor (< 5000 gpd estimated flow) 7 A-2
B-l Failing I.S.D.S.-Documented Water Quality Degradation 5 B-l
B-2 Failing I.S.D.S - Other 3 B-2
C-l Untreated/uncontrolled runoff - Documented Water Qual. Degrad. (Pathogen impacts) 5 C-l
C-2 Untreated/uncontrolled runoff - Documented Water Qual. Degrad. (Non-path, impacts) 3 C-2
C-3 Untreated/uncontrolled runoff - Other 2 C-3
D-l Wastewater Treatment Facility 3 D-l
D-2 Collection System/Pump Station 1 D-2
E. Combined Sewer Overflows 10 E
F. Landfill - Closure imminent or closed 3 F
G-l Underground Storage Tank - Leaking 3 G-l
G-2 Underground Storage Tank - Potential to leak (single wall construction) 2 G-2
H. Materials Storage Area 3 H
1-1 Sub-surface Discharge - non-sanitary wastewater 2 1-1
1-2 Sub-surface Discharge - stormwater only 1 1-2
J. Stormwater treatment/management facility 3 J
K. Documented Critical Aquatic Habitat Resource - Impacted or threatened 2 K
L. Atmospheric Deposition 1 L
M. Excessive Flows - exceeds design flow or operational capacity 3 M
Section I - Total Points
H. PROPOSED PROJECT BENEFITS CRITERIA t *
A. Project Provides for Resource Conservation/Multiple-use Benefits 5 A
B. Regional Project (i.e. project serves more than one community) 3 B
C-l Treatment of Septage at Existing WWTF (from outside service area) 3 C-l
C-2 Treatment of Septage at Existing WWTF (within service area only) 2 C-2
D. Operational Reliability Improvement 2 D
E. Project helps to alleviate a Sewer Connection/Extension Ban in the area served 5 E
F. Demonstration or Pilot Projects 2 F
G. Project incorporates pollution prevention/waste minimization techniques 2 G
H. Project restores a critical habitat or resource 3 H
I. Project provides technical assistance/public education 2 I
J. Project improves permitted discharge from interim to final limits
(discharge is presently in compliance with interim limits) 3 J
Section H - Total Points
HI. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT CRITERIA t
A. Surface Water Restoration t TUse 303(d) List!
A-l Project affects a waterbody targeted for a TMDL 8 A-l
A-2 Project affects a high priority TMDL waterbody 6 A-2
A-3 Project affects a medium priority TMDL waterbody 4 A-3
A-4 Project affects a low priority TMDL waterbody 2 A-4
Subtotal ffl A
B. Surface Water Protection t FUse RIDEM Water Quality Regulations!
B-l Project affects an SRPW waterbody 6 B-l
B-2 Project affects a fully supporting non-SRPW waterbody 4 B-2
B-3 Project affects a threatened non-SRPW waterbody 2 B-3
Subtotal ffl B
-------
C. Groundwater Protection Factor fUse Rules and Regulations for Groundwater Quality] t
C-l Project affects a Wellhead Protection Area for Community Water System Well
C-2 Project affects an area of GAA Groundwater
C-3 Project affects an area of GA Groundwater
C-4 Project affects an area of GB Groundwater
Subtotal ffl C
6
4
2
1
Section m - Total Points
IV. INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEEDS CRITERIA tt
A. Project is consistent with Community Comprehensive Plan/State Guide Plan
B. Project is consistent with an approved 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan
C. Project is consistent with a Special Area Management (SAM) Plan
D. Project is consistent with the Areawide Waste Management Plan (208 Plan)
E. Project is consistent with the Nonpoint Source Management Plan (319 Plan)
F. Project is consistent with the Comp. Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)
G. Population Served bv the Project t
G-l
G-2
G-3
A. Planning t
1 - 14,999
15,000 - 49,999
3: 50,000
:EED CRITERIA
5
5
5
5
5
5
Section IV - Total Points
A-l Watershed Management Plan approved 2
A-2 Project Management/Recovery Plan has been approved 2
A-3 Wastewater Facilities Plan (WWFP) approved or reaffirmed 2
A-4 Categorical Exclusion Approved 2
A-5 Diagnostic Feasibility Study (Clean Lakes Program) Approved 2
B. Design
B-l Plans and Specifications approved 2
C. Financial/Other tt
C-l Local bonding authority approved/ other local funds committed 2
C-2 Pre-application for SRF Funding complete (i.e. qualified for loan by RICWFA) 2
C-3 Grant funding has been secured 2
C-4 Local ordinance/zoning passed in support of the project 2
Section V - Total Points
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G-l
G-2
G-3
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
B-l
C-l
C-2
C-3
C-4
Footnotes for Table I:
t Select one criterion, at most, for each category. For example, choose A-l, A-2 or neither as applicable.
t t Select each and every criterion which applies
* Points are awarded for projects at the project site if the criterion is included in the proposed project.
$ For water bodies that are included on both the surface water reclamation and protection lists, the highest total point rating under
either of those lists must be used, but not both.
Regulation * 12-190-019 (M»y 199«
Page 8 of 9 pages
-------
Appendix A
WASHINGTON
As Washington's application also
serves as its scoring system (see fol-
lowing) , each applicant should be
knowledgeable about how a project is
scored. Washington's system is noted
on pages 9-10 in the text as an exam-
ple of a system that considers a pro-
ject's consistency with other planning
efforts.
-------
o
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
II. What are the specific public health and water quality impairments caused by the problem and
what are the pollution prevention aspects (see below)? (Category total [II.A-J]: 340 points)
Application Tips: Regarding aU_potential impairments, specific descriptions must be provided, and the
I project must directly address the impairment to receive points. Remember, no proposal will receive points
for all (or even most) impairments, so please don't be overly "creative. "
A. Does the problem or threat adversely impact a shellfish harvesting area? If so, check ONE
answer below and describe in space provided. Letter(s) from the Washington State Department of
Health of the existence of the downgrades or listings must be provided. (Highest applicable points
will be assigned, as noted below based on the description provided):
O The classification of a shellfish growing area within the proposed project area has been downgraded
(0 to 50points will be assigned).
O A shellfish growing area within the proposed project area has been placed on the Department of
Health's Early Warning System Threatened List (0 to 40points will be assigned).
O Specific, identified potential problems are addressed as preventive measures (0 to 25 points will be
assigned).
Remember: Points will only be assigned if the downgrade or threat is directly addressed and is correctable.
Application Tips: Discuss the quality and size of the area involved, the distance between the problem and
the impaired area, the specific habitat impairments or specific problems that would lead to impairment,
which shellfish species are being impaired, and how your project addresses the impairment or preventive
measures needed.
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
B. Does the project address a domestic water supply that is threatened or degraded? If so, check
ONE answer below and describe in space provided. (Points will be assigned as noted below):
G Recurrent or continued health advisories have been issued by the local or State of Washington health
department(s) during the past two years. (50 points will be assigned)
G According to the health department(s) there is "significant noncompliance" with drinking water
quality standards. (40 points will be assigned)
G There is a documented trend toward advisory or noncompliance. Provide data documenting the
trend. (30points will be assigned)
G Past comprehensive wellhead protection planning has identified significant potential threats to
drinking water quality. (20points will be assigned)
Application Tips: If you have checked any of the boxes above, describe the problem and provide
documentation from the local and/or Washington State Department of Health of the condition. Material
documenting the condition may be attached and referenced in the response. Documentation should at least
include formal letters or advisories from the health department(s) describing the problem and making the
declaration.
-------
p 11, 1
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
C. Does the water quality problem to be addressed impair or threaten habitat of salmonid stocks or other aquatic
species? Is so, check only ONE answer below and describe below. (Points are not additive, and will be
assigned based on the criteria noted below and considerations noted in the Application Tips): *
O The proposed project specifically and substantively addresses "Limiting Factor(s)" identified in a "Limiting
Factors Analysis"** for salmonid stocks prepared or approved by the State of Washington Conservation
Commission or equivalent and current salmon recovery planning effort that is identified and described below.
(0 to 50 points will be assigned), or
Q The proposed project is in an area for which a local salmonid recovery plan such as Limiting Factors Analyses
and Reports, basin analyses, etc have not been completed, but the proposed project implements specific and
identifiable key action(s) in the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon. (0 to 30 points will be assigned), or
O The water quality problem to be addressed substantively impairs or threatens habitat of other threatened or
endangered aquatic species. (0 to 25 points will be assigned based on the description provided), or
C] Other wildlife habitat is adversely affected by the problem (0 to 10 points will be assigned based on the
description provided).
Special note: If you've checked one of the first two boxes above, you must complete the following and provide the
description noted to receive any points in this section.
Name of specific Limiting Factors Analysis or equivalent salmon recovery planning effort, Date
or specific references to the Statewide Strategy to Recover Salmon, (Describe below)
For "equivalent salmon recovery planning efforts" concurrence of equivalency from the Conservation Commission documented in
a letter attached to the application is needed. Location of the letter in this application:
Note: A list of habitat limiting factors analyses and information on how to obtain electronic and hard copies of these
reports is at http://www.conserver.org/salmon/reports/index.shtml The Statewide Salmon Strategy is available at
http://www.governor.wa.gov/esa, or through calling the Governor's Salmon Office at (360) 902-2216.
Application Tips: Applicants must describe:
• Which species are being impaired, and
• The status of species (endangered, threatened, critical, depressed, healthy, or unknown) and
• The quality and size of the area involved, and,
• The distance downstream between the problem and the impaired area, and
• The specific limiting factors/habitat impairments, and,
• Specifically how your project addresses the impairment, etc.
* PLEASE NOTE: Projects that address the removal or enhancement offish passage barriers that do not
impair water quality (as documented by the proposal) will not receive priority points in this criterion.
**According to Chapter 246 RCW, Salmon Recovery Act of 1998 (ESHB 2496, see Volume 3 of the funding Program Guidelines)
-------
©
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
D. Does the problem or threat affect primary contact recreation (swimming, or water skiing)? If
so, check one answer below and describe in space provided. (Points will be assigned as noted
below):
Q The problem to be addressed results in water body being closed an average of 30 or more days per
year for two, or more, years. (30points will be assigned)
Q The problem to be addressed results in water body being closed an average of 5-29 days per year for
two, or more, years. (20points will be assigned)
Q The problem to be addressed results in water body being closed an average of 1-4 days per year for
two, or more, years. (JOpoints will be assigned)
Application Tips: If you have checked any of the boxes above, describe the problem and provide
documentation from the local and/or Washington State Department of Health of the condition. Material
documenting the condition may be attached and referenced in the response. Documentation should at least
include formal letters or advisories from the health departments) describing the problem and closure area.
Special Note: Please remember, regarding aU potential impairments, specific descriptions must be
provided, and the project must directly address the impairment to receive points. Remember, no proposal
will receive points for all (or even most) impairments, so please don't be overly "creative."
E. | I Are agricultural or industrial water supplies adversely affected by the problem?
(0 to 10 points will be assigned based on the severity of the impairment described)
Application Tips: Don't forget, quality/quantity impairments (for example, insufficient flows to meet
agricultural or industrial water supply needs), if your project will address such flows.
F. | I Is there aesthetic impairment (smell, color, visual aspect, etc) due to the water quality
problem? (0 to 10 points will be assigned based on the severity of the impairment described)
Application Tips: Discuss the specific impairment and how long it lasts each year. Don't forget to link the
project to the impairment, as needed.
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
G. I I Are the state's surface or ground water quality standards being violated by the problem
to be addressed? (0 to 20 points will be assigned based on the description provided). *
*Please note: Approximately 5 points will be assigned for each parameter being violated. However, based
on beneficial uses, severe violations may receive higher priority point assignment, and some parameters may
have higher priority than others.
Application Tips: Be sure to describe: the source of information (e.g. 303 (d) Hst(s), documented monitoring
efforts), specific parameters violated, the seriousness of violation, (e.g. specific concentrations, frequency,
and duration) of the violations, the downstream distance, and clear linkages to the problem to be addressed.
If you need help to determine whether or not a water body is listed as impaired, a copy of the 303(d) list can
be found on Ecology's web page located at http://www. wa.gov/ecologv/wq/303d/index.html
H. Q Will the project prevent degradation of water quality in waters that currently meet
water quality standards, but water quality standards are in jeopardy of being violated?
(0 to 20points will be assigned based on the description provided**).
**Please note: Approximately 5 points will be assigned for each parameter being threatened. However,
based on beneficial uses, severe incursions may receive higher priority point assignment, and some
parameters may have higher priority than others.
Application Tips: Be sure to describe: the source of information (e.g. documented monitoring efforts),
specific parameters, the seriousness of the potential violation, (e.g. trends toward violation, specific
concentrations, frequency, and duration), downstream distance, and clear linkages to the problem to be
addressed.
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
I. Does the project develop or implement a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)? If so, check
ONE answer below and describe (Points will be assigned as noted below and are not additive):
I I The project substantively implements corrective activities (strategies) as outlined in the summary
implementation strategy or detailed implementation plan of an approved TMDL (0 to 100 points will
be assigned based on the description below of the number and the relative importance of the activities
to be addressed).
[H The project is to partner with Ecology (see note below) in the development of a TMDL presently
being developed or scheduled to be initiated during the period now through June 30, 2002, for one
or more 303 (d) listed waterbodies (0 to 75 points will be assigned). To be assigned points, the
applicant must describe how it will:
1. Coordinate with Ecology in the development of a scheduled (initiated by 6/30/02) TMDL study to:
2. Conduct modeling, and/or
3. Conduct sampling and data collection in accordance with an approved QAPP, and/or
4. Coordinate public outreach activities, and/or
5. Coordinate development of an implementation strategy
Note: Only applicants that demonstrate substantial independent capability in the description below and
practical experience explained in Question Area HI, will receive high priority in this sub-criterion.
~] The project implements specific actions to reduce pollution in a waterbody for a TMDL that is
currently under development where actions have been recommended and documented (0 to 50
points will be assigned based on the description below of the number and the relative importance of
the activities addressed AND the degree to which the TMDL is completed as explained below).
] The project will conduct and produce specific follow-up monitoring components of an approved
TMDL (0 to 30 points will be assigned).
Special note: If you 've checked any of the four boxes above, you must complete the following and provide
the description noted to receive any points in this section.
Name of TMDL Status (approved, pending, scheduled) Approval/scheduled date
Name of Regional Ecology TMDL staff contact Date of most recent contact
Application Tips: Explain which TMDL(s) are being addressed, the status of TMDL development (e.g. approved,
under review by Ecology or EPA, etc.) and the direct linkage of your project, as outlined above.
*For further information about location and status ofTMDLsyou may contact Regional Office TMDL Points of
Contacts at: http://www.ecv.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/contacts.html or Ron McBride at (360) 407-6469 or
rmcb461 (ftjecy. wa.gov.
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
J-l. Is the general public presently exposed to unrestricted contact with inadequately treated
surfacing septage or raw sewage in a widespread area of human habitation (throughout a town,
city, tribal reservation, etc.)?
DYes DNo
OR
J-2. Is the pollution problem, which is directly related to domestic water supply, shellfish
harvesting, or primary contact recreation considered to be a documented "Public Health
Emergency or Severe Public Health Hazard by the State of Washington or local health district
or department?
If the answer to either J-l or J-2 is yes, answer the following questions, and provide letters
documenting declarations.
1 . Has a Public Health Emergency regarding this problem been declared by State Department of
Health?
DY
es
2. Has a Severe Public Health Hazard regarding this problem been declared by State Department of
Health?
DYes
3. Has a Severe Public Health Hazard been declared by the local county health department?
Application Tips: If the answer is yes to any of the questions above describe the problem and provide
documentation from the local and/or Washington State Department of Health (DOH) of the condition.
Material documenting the condition may be attached and referenced in the response. Documentation should
at least include formal letters or advisories from the health department (s) describing the problem and
making the declaration. Formal declarations of a "Severe Public Health Hazard" or a "Public Health
Emergency" must be in accordance with criteria noted in the Glossary to the Program Guidelines. Points
under the subject area will be assigned as follows:
State DOH Declared Public Health Emergency: 3 40 points, or
State DOH Declared Severe Public Health Hazard: 170 points, or
Locally Declared Severe Public Health Hazard: 85 points
Special Note: Regardless of the determination above, please continue to answer all questions.
-------
o
1 r
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
III. How will your proposed project address the water quality problem, and what are your
measures of success? (Category total: 340 points)
A. How will you solve or address the problems you have noted above with this project? This is
your opportunity to explain specifically what you are going to do to address the problem(s). Up to
240 points will be assigned based on the description provided. Points in 1, 2, 3, and 4 are additive.
1. Explain below the water quality goals, objectives, tasks, and other milestones of the project and how
they will address the problem(s) explained above in Part 2 Section II in a timely manner, including a
discussion of any new or unique approach proposed (0 to 140 points will be assigned).
2. Describe the proposed project management team (no resumes-please) and highlight its qualifications
and experience in similar water pollution control projects, all experience completing grant or loan
projects (including preparation of progress reports and completion of the similar projects in a timely
manner and whether or not they were completed with State or Federal financial assistance) OR
describe the specific criteria to be used to select the project management team.* Also describe if any
other agencies are involved in the project and the nature of their contribution and level of
commitment to the project (0 to 30 points will be assigned).
Application Tips: Describe specific objectives and goals (for example, "18 miles of Endangered Upper Columbia Spring Run
Chinook spawning habitat will be restored, " or "further degradation of the domestic water supply for 18,000 people will be
prevented"). Tasks and milestones might include: "the first year, 9 miles of salmon habitat "will be restored by doing a....b....c,"
"at least 4000 homes will receive low/low toilets, shower heads, and flow meters during the first year , " "ordinances will be
passed requiring " etc. Discuss the timeframe for completion of the project and the efforts to complete the project in a timely
manner.
*Be sure to assemble a skilled project management team and outline its experience on projects like the one proposed; as
Ecology's past experience with the applicant regarding the ability of the project team to complete the proposed project may be
used in the assignment of points
3. Cost effectiveness and affordability of the proposed project (0 to 20 points will be assigned).
4. Budget, (Complete the "Budget Worksheet" provided on the next page). Any proposed equipment
purchase must be itemized as shown (0 to 50 points will be assigned).
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
Budget Worksheet
Months Needed to Complete
4.a. Major Work Tasks or Elements
Tasks or Elements: Cost
1. Project Administration and Management
2.
3.
4,
5.
6.
Application Tips: Tasks might include, for example, preliminary monitoring, fencing, riparian restoration, post-monitoring,
etc. but must include as Task 1 "Project Administration and Management." Elements might include facilities planning,
design, construction, construction management, preparation ofO & M manual, etc but must likewise include Element 1.
"Project Administration and Management."
4.b. Type of Expenditures:
Salaries:
Benefits (?% of Salaries):
Contracts:
Materials, Goods, and
Services (List major items): $_
Total Materials, Goods, and Services $_
Equipment (Please list):
$
Total cost of equipment:
Travel:
Other (Please Outline):
Total Direct Costs
Indirect Costs (Up to 25% of
Salaries and Benefits):
Total Project Cost:
4.c. Funding Sources:
Funds Requested from Ecology: $_
List other funding sources $_
And amounts (including local funds, $_
If any) $_
Funding Source:
Funding Source:
Funding Source:
Total Project Cost:
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
B. What is the likelihood that your project will be completed in a timely manner according to the
schedule above, and what is the specific basis of this prediction? (0 to 50points will be assigned
based on the description provided)
Applicant Tips: Discuss local commitment to the project to ensure timely project completion, and include the
rationale for the prediction (e.g. track record of applicant, etc).
C. How will you determine and report on the success of the project throughout its useful life, and
how will the project's follow up needs be met financially after State assistance has ended?
(0 to 50 points will be assigned based on the description provided)
Applicant Tips: Make sure your description includes the following discussions, as appropriate, for your
project:
Water quality monitoring before, during, and after implementation of the project to determine the
effectiveness of the project at meeting goals and objectives, AND long-term commitment (including
financial commitment to monitoring).
Other measures of success; such as behavior or activity changes, public awareness, project visibility,
etc.; and specifically how these will be determined - both in the short and long-term (e.g. surveys of 386
area households will be conducted at the initiation of the project, one year after the project has begun
and 3 years after project completion. The surveys will determine a, b, c, ).
Examples of follow up needs might include continued water quality and/or flow monitoring, operation
and maintenance, replacement, public involvement surveys (including survey intervals) etc.
-------
0
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
IV. What are some of the local initiatives you have taken that will help make your project a
success? (Category total: 120 points)
A. Have necessary project prerequisites been completed and is the project ready to proceed?
Please Note:
A total of 0-90 points will be assigned based on the description of project prerequisites completed and
the readiness of your project to proceed (please see "Application Tips"). Prerequisites include
comprehensive planning, AND monitoring efforts, AND appropriate prior efforts and needed
approvals. Points are additive to the 90 point maximum.
• Comprehensive planning:
A subtotal of 0 to 40 points will be assigned based on the description of the relationship to and
implementation of comprehensive plans. For example, statewide plans such as the Washington's Water
Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution, Statewide Strategy to Recover
Salmon, etc; regional plans, such as the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Plan, the
Puget Sound Action Plan, etc.; local watershed management plans, such as Chapter 400-12 WAC
plans, Watershed Planning Act plans (Chapter 90.82 RCW) (or similar planning efforts), sewer system
and stormwater comprehensive plans, etc.
• Monitoring efforts:
The description of monitoring efforts (including water quality monitoring, public education surveys,
etc.) will receive 0 to 25 points assigned based on the description provided.
• Prerequisite approval(s)/prior efforts:
• Substantive prior efforts to complete the project and prerequisite approval(s) will receive 0 to 25
points assigned based on the description provided. (See next page)
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
Please note: Check, discuss, as needed, and document any and all of the following that are appropriate
for your project proposal: Points ARE additive to the 90 point maximum.
Comprehensive Planning (0 to 40 points)
Q] The problem to be addressed was identified in Statewide, regional, and/or area wide comprehensive planning
effort(s) completed less than five (5) years ago (See previous page for examples). Outline and discuss below.
Monitoring efforts (0 to 25 points)
O Monitoring study(s) and efforts (including water quality monitoring, public education surveys, etc.) have been
conducted to determine the scope of the problem. Discuss below.
Prerequisite approval(s)/prior efforts (0 to 25 points):
Q Completed or Q Substantially in progress of completing land acquisition (explain progress)
Q] Completed or \^\ Substantially in progress of completing acquisition of easements (explain progress)
O Completed or Q Substantially in progress of completing Hydraulic Project Permits (explain progress)
Q Received all or fj Substantially in progress of completing other environmental permits (explain)
O Completed or |~] Substantially in progress of completing interlocal agreements (explain progress)
O Completed or Q Substantially in progress of completing staffing plans or procurement (explain)
Q Completed or Q Substantially in progress of completing SEPA (explain progress)
[H For design (or design/construction) of wastewater facilities, facilities plan is approved (eligibility
consideration; please attach approval letter).
O For construction of wastewater facilities, facilities design is approved (eligibility consideration; please attach
approval letter).
O No such prerequisites are needed (e.g. public education projects); however, explain all other prior efforts to
obtain local acceptance and interest in the project, and other such information needed to ensure completion in a
timely manner.
Application Tips: Remember to
• Include reference(s) to the specific comprehensive plan(s), including dates of plans or updates.
• Describe the priority of the problem identified in the comprehensive plan(s).
• Describe the number and scope of plans addressing the problem, as appropriate.
• Explain the degree the proposed project addresses implementation of the comprehensive plan(s). Please note:
Implementation project proposals will generally receive higher priority in accordance with Legislative mandates. Projects
specifically addressing comprehensive plans based on local consensus building efforts (e.g. Watershed Management Act
Plans, updated Chapter 400-12 WAC plans, etc) will also receive higher priority than those that support statewide or
regional planning alone.
• Include date(s) and reference to monitoring study(s), and/or approval of the Quality Assurance Project Plan
• Regarding progress securing permits, etc., explain specific efforts to date.
• Describe other prior efforts, as needed.
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
B. How do you intend to provide the required match for the grant and/or repay the loan?
(0 to 20 points will be assigned based on the description provided)
Applicant Tips: Remember to include the specific steps that have been and are being taken to ensure that
the match or necessary dedicated revenue (for loans) is collected to ensure that the project is completed,
such as establishing or adjusting user fees, or drafting or adopting ordinances, sale of reclaimed water, etc.
If in-kind volunteer work or interlocal funds are to be used, include the status of the commitment of
volunteers or status ofinterlocal agreements. Include timelines for steps to be taken.
C. How will you deal with any constraints on any of the sources of funds noted above? (0 to 10
points will be assigned based on the description provided)
Applicant Tips: Examples might include voter approval, receipt of other grants or loans, and time
limitations associated with funding sources. Include the status, degree of certainty, and contingency plans if
these other funds are not available.
-------
o
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
V. Are there any State of Washington or Federal mandates that this proposed project addresses?
(Category total: 100 points)
A. Fiscal efforts of residential ratepayers and/or efforts to address nonpoint needs
O How have the applicant and area residential ratepayers made fiscal efforts to finance water
pollution control facilities and activities since 1972,
AND/OR
O What has the applicant done to establish programs to address nonpoint source water pollution
control needs in the area?
(0 to 20 points will be assigned based on the description provided).
(Describe up to four of the applicant's most significant efforts)
Application Tips: List and describe, as needed, water pollution control efforts funded completely, or in part,
by the applicant and ratepayers in the area since 1972, delineate progressive increases to user rates to meet
water pollution control needs. List and describe up to four significant efforts of the applicant to establish
programs to address nonpoint water pollution control needs (e.g. establishment of shellfish protection
districts, wellhead protection districts, stormwater management areas, etc).
B. Financial burden or likelihood the project would proceed without state assistance
Q For facilities design or construction projects, what would be the cost to residential ratepayers if
they had to finance the construction of facilities without state assistance, and how did you
calculate these costs?
OR
O For nonpoint source control activities and facilities planning projects, what is the likelihood
that the project would proceed without state assistance?
(0 to 10 points will be assigned based on the description provided)
Application Tips'. Show how computations and assumptions were made and discuss, as needed.
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
C, How does the project involve water conservation and/or the development of facilities to provide
reclaimed water to replace potable water in non-potable applications? (0 to 30 points will be
assigned based on the description provided)
Application Tips: If applicable, describe how your project will employ water conservation, and/or provide
reclaimed water to replace or supplement existing surface and ground water supplies and to assist in
meeting the future water requirements (e.g. domestic non-potable applications; agricultural, industrial,
recreational needs; fish and wildlife habitat creation, preservation and, enhancement; and preserve potable
water for domestic uses).
-------
FY 2002 Water Quality Financial Assistance Application - Part 2
Special Note: The following two questions (D-l and D-2) were developed to acknowledge the statutory
recognition of both remediation of existing (compliance related) water quality problems, AND preventive
projects. Although some projects have both remediation and preventive components, answer only the
question that best fits your project. Points will only be assigned for one answer.
EITHER
D-l. How does the proposed project primarily address an administrative order or specific discharge
permit requirement? (0 to 40 points will be assigned based on the description provided)
Application Tips: Describe and attach copies of court orders, enforcement orders, portions of discharge
permits, and/or other regulatory orders that require the action(s) proposed in your project. Include required
compliance schedules.
OR
D-2. How is the proposed project primarily preventative? (0 to 40points will be assigned based on
the description provided)
Application Tips: Describe the preventive aspects of the project, e.g. construction in advance of water
quality standard violation, public involvement and education to keep pollutants out of our waterways, etc.
To the best of my knowledge, this proposal is complete (including any attachments) and is accurate:
Preparer's Printed Name Signature Date
VI. Local Priority-Setting Process (Category total: 100 points)
In order to receive points in this portion of the application, applicants must submit a "Statement of
Agreed Priority" according to Local Priority-Setting Process. (Please see the Appendices to the Water
Quality Program Financial Assistance Program Guidelines for Fiscal Year 2002 for further explanation).
-------
-------
-------
------- |