Prioritizing Wastewater
and Stormwater Projects
Using Stakeholder Input
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wastewater
Management
August 2017
EPA 830-R-17-002
A

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Community Team
Megan Moir, City of Burlington, Vermont
Steve Roy, City of Burlington, Vermont
Madison Quinn, Onondaga County, New York
Tom Rhoads, Onondaga County, New York
Ellen Pritchett, City of Santa Maria
Shawn Hagerty, Best Best and Krieger LLP
Lisa McCann, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Ashli Desai, Larry Walker Associates
Betsy Elzufon, Larry Walker Associates
Alexandra Griffith, City of Santa Maria
U.S. EPA Team
Emily Halter, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
Jamie Marincola, EPA Region 9
Mohammed Billah, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
Kevin Weiss, EPA Office of Wastewater Management
This report was developed under EPA Contracts EP-C-11-009 and EP-C-16-003.
Cover photos: City of Santa Maria, Department of Utilities (top left); Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech (top right)
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input

-------
CONTENTS
1.	Introduction	1
2.	Overview of Decision-Making Processes	2
3.	Identifying Criteria for Project Evaluation	3
4.	Ranking and Applying Project Evaluation Criteria	5
5.	Case Studies	8
5.1	Burlington, Vermont	8
5.1.1	Introduction and Background	8
5.1.2	Identifying Stormwater and Wastewater Issues	9
5.1.3	Identifying Potential Projects	10
5.1.4	Developing and Selecting Criteria	10
5.1.5	Applying Criteria	12
5.2	Onondaga County New York	12
5.2.1	Introduction and Background	12
5.2.2	Identifying Stormwater and Wastewater Issues	13
5.2.3	Identifying Potential Projects	14
5.2.4	Developing and Choosing Criteria	14
5.2.5	Applying Criteria	17
5.3	Santa Maria, California	22
5.3.1	Introduction and Background	22
5.3.2	Identifying Stormwater and Wastewater Issues	22
5.3.3	Identifying Potential Projects	25
5.3.4	Developing and Selecting Criteria	25
5.3.5	Applying Criteria	26
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • ii

-------
INTRODUCTION
Many communities face complex challenges
operating their wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure, including meeting Clean Water Act
(CWA) obligations under financial constraints.
Communities with multiple CWA obligations for
their wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs),
sewer systems and stormwater infrastructure must
prioritize their investments. In addition, they must
evaluate different approaches and options for
improving their systems, including gray, green and
data infrastructure investments.
Integrated planning is the process of
systematically identifying and prioritizing actions
and projects to meet CWA obligations. EPA
released the Integrated Municipal Stormwater
and Wastewater Planning Approach Framework1
to provide guidance on developing integrated
plans. The framework identifies the operating
principles and essential elements of an integrated
plan. It also encourages communities to work with
stakeholders to identify and evaluate options to
respond to CWA requirements.
This report describes how communities can use
stakeholder input to select and rank criteria and
apply those criteria to prioritize stormwater and
wastewater projects. Three case studies illustrate
this process.
What's in This Document?
Section 2 presents an overview of processes
for prioritizing wastewater and stormwater
projects.
Section 3 describes ways to select and rank
criteria using stakeholder input.
Section 4 discusses how to rank criteria and
apply them to decision-making.
Section 5 presents three case studies of
communities that have used stakeholder
input to prioritize projects: Burlington,
Vermont; Onondaga County, New York; and
Santa Maria, California.
A sample decision support tool for scoring
projects, "Using Stakeholder Input to Evaluate
and Rank Alternatives - Basic Decision-
Making Spreadsheet Tool," is available as a
separate file at https://www.epa.gov/npdes/
integrated-planning-municipal-stormwater-
and-wastewater#resources
1 For more information, visit ittp://www.epa.aov/npdes/intearated-
plannina-municipal-stormwater-and-wastewater.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 1

-------
2 OVERVIEW OF DECISION
MAKING PROCESSES
Engaging key stakeholders is vital to understanding what's
important to the local community.
The criteria that help characterize potential
outcomes of projects and actions may be
qualitative, semi-quantitative or quantitative. If
they are quantitative, data sets and computer
simulations can be used to measure the criteria for
each action.
One decision-making approach,, called multi-
criteria decision analysis, involves using multiple
criteria to compare potential projects and actions.
Stakeholders are typically involved throughout the
process to both identify relevant criteria and apply
criteria to potential projects.
A multi-criteria decision analysis might be used to
identify several high-priority projects; then a more
focused analysis., such as a benefit-cost analysis,
might be conducted on each priority project to
choose the highest priority.
EPA encourages communities to give stakeholders
appropriate opportunities for meaningful input
during the identification, evaluation and selection of
alternatives. This includes input on identifying and
evaluating decision-making approaches.
The community should evaluate diverse factors
and compare potential projects when deciding
which wastewater or stormwater management
project(s) to initiate. These factors could include-
but are not limited to—water quality improvement,
quantity and cost of pollutant load reduced, public
amenities and public support.
Many approaches are available to guide this
complex decision-making. In general, successful
decision-making processes include the following
steps:
1.	Ensure upfront and continuing involvement of
stakeholders
2.	Develop goals and objectives
3.	Identify projects that would advance progress
toward the goals and objectives
4.	Choose criteria for evaluating projects
5.	Consider weighting the criteria (optional)
6.	Apply criteria to identify priority projects
Downspout disconnection and flow dispersal for
infiltration in Syracuse help reduce stormwater volumes
that exacerbate CSOs and contribute to "flashy" runoff
episodes. Barry Tonnihg, Tetra Tech

Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 2

-------
3 IDENTIFYING CRITERIA FOR
PROJECT EVALUATION
Identifying criteria that reflect a community's
goals and objectives is key to evaluating and
comparing project alternatives. For example, a
community may have a goal of minimizing flood
hazards to life and property. Peak flow reduction
as a criterion would help identify projects that
would directly contribute to this goal.
Goals and objectives may include broader
benefits for the community. A community
might consider the "triple bottom iine" of
environmental, economic and social criteria
as illustrated in Figure 1. Table 1 lists potential
criteria for a triple bottom line approach.
Criteria should be locally specific and developed
with the involvement of key stakeholders. The
choice of criteria will also be influenced by
the priorities of the wastewater/stormwater
utility (e.g., capital costs, maintenance, permit
compliance, asset management) and external
concerns such as job creation, environmental
impacts and property valuation.
Figure 1. Environmental, economic and social criteria
groupings and relationships. Source: WE&RF Product No.
DEC3R06, Distributed Water Infrastructure for Sustainable
Communities: A Guide for Decision-Makers
Burlington (and other cities facing multiple wastewater or stormwater issues) may consider an integrated approach to
project evaluation, selection and implementation. Dicky Hayward - Flickr, CC BY2.0, httDs://comrnons.wikimedia.orci/w/index.
Dhp?curid=6396407
Sustainable
Equitable
Social
Economic
Viable
Bearable
Environmental
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 3

-------
Table 1. Examples of criteria for water infrastructure project selection
Economic
Environmental
Societal
Maximize Economic Value Optimiz^Envnronmental Fulfill Community Objectives
Minimize capital costs
•	Planning and design
•	Land
•	Phasing
•	Existing treatment
•	Existing collection
•	Financing
Water quality
•	Avoidance
•	Removal
Quality of life
•	Health
•	Outdoor environment
•	Built environment
Minimize operating
costs
•	Financing cost
•	Labor
•	Power
•	Byproducts
•	Other
Water quantity
•	Water balance
•	Sustain flow
Stability
•	Dependable
•	Resilient
•	Safe
Meet community
economic needs
•	Availability
•	Adaptability
•	Externalities
Natural environment
•	Biodiversity
•	Disturbance
•	Global warming
Equitability
•	Serves all equally
•	Charges everyone fairly
This is not intended to be a complete list of all criteria.
Source: WE&RF Product No. DEC3R06, Distributed Water Infrastructure for Sustainable Communities: A Guide for Decision-
Makers
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input

-------
4 RANKING AND APPLYING
PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA
The perceived importance of evaluation criteria
will vary among stakeholders. For example,
residents living near a potential site for a new
WWTP may be concerned about construction
and long-term impacts (e.g., noise, odors, traffic):
much more than water quality improvements
or cost. Other stakeholders may consider water
quality their highest concern. It is critical to engage
representative stakeholders.
Worksheet #1 (see page 6) presents an approach
to ranking the criteria that the community has
identified as important.
Planners can conduct scoping-level reviews of
proposed projects and actions using the preferred
criteria, and produce an initial comparison to
determine how proposed alternatives stack up.
Figure 2, for example, shows a comparison of
centralized versus decentralized wastewater
treatment alternatives using criteria for maximizing
economic value, optimizing environmental benefits,
and fulfilling community objectives.

Home

O TS - 73
sl l| !
! § I § 1 S
55 a <75 o z v5
Centralized
Strongly Favors
Centralized
1 Maximize Economic Value



1 1 Minimize Capital Costs

i

1.2 Minimize Operating Costs



1.3 Meet Community Economic Needs
¦

2 Optimize Environmental Benefit


2.1 Improve and Protect Water Quality
III	 i

2.2 Assure Long Term Water Quantity
¦
—

2 3 Protect Natural Environment



3 Fulfill Community Objectives



3 1 Quality of Life


3.2 Stability


33 Equitability


Total Project
—

Figure 2, Decision model results: scoping-level analysis
of decentralized vs. centralized alternatives using
selected evaluation criteria. Source: WE&RF Product No.
DEC3R06, Distributed Water Infrastructure for Sustainable
Communities: A Guide for Decision-Makers
Stormwater infiltration swale near Onondaga Lake.
Stakeholders may prefer the aesthetic improvements
associated with "green" solutions to combined sewer
overflow management, rather than underground sewer
separation projects. Barry Tonhing, Tetra Tech
To help prioritize alternatives, a community can
assign weights to the selected criteria, to reflect
the relative importance to the community of each
criterion. Planners might have several alternatives
that are expected to rise to the top of any
prioritization, in that case, weighting should reflect
stakeholder priorities. Often a simple review of
several weighting schemes, including an option
for no weighting, allows stakeholders to provide
feedback on the best way to prioritize criteria.
Simple weighting schemes tend to work best so
that methods and results can be easily interpreted.
Worksheet #2 (see page 7) provides an example of
how stakeholders can assign weights to criteria.
To help communities score proposed projects
using the criteria they choose, EPA has developed
a basic Excel-based decision support tool,
"Using Stakeholder input to Evaluate and Rank
Alternatives - Basic Decision-Making Spreadsheet
Tool," available online at https://www.epa.gov/
npdes/integrated-planning-muriici pal-storm water-
and-wastewater#resources. The spreadsheet
allows users to weight criteria, score projects and
see score results according to the criteria and
community goals.

Prioritizing Wastewater arid Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input

-------
Integrated Planning Worksheet #1:
Prioritizing Project Evaluation Criteria
A key part of integrated wastewater and stormwater planning is evaluating new projects. You can help in this
important work by ranking various evaluation criteria using the table below. Please review the evaluation
criteria and the details and examples that go with them. Then rank the criteria according to your priorities—
with 1 the highest priority and 15 the lowest—through the entire list below.
Priority
Ranking:
1 (Highest)
Through
15 (Lowest
Criteria Used to
Evaluate Projects
Details and Examples

Availability of assistance
Grants, loans or other programs are available to cover some capital
costs, land acquisition, etc.

Resilience
Project can withstand extreme weather events/changes over the long
term

Low to moderate costs
for construction or
implementation
Project implementation costs to ratepayers in terms of cost per
gallon for treatment or cost per pound of pollutant removed is low to
moderate

Low to moderate costs
for maintenance
Maintenance cost to ratepayers, per gallon or per pound of pollutant
removed, is low to moderate

Low to moderate costs
for operation
Operation cost to ratepayers, per gallon or per pound of pollutant
removed, is low to moderate

Environmental
performance
Project will measurably reduce pollutant discharges and/or improve
receiving water quality

Flooding mitigation
Project eliminates or reduces flooding in residential, commercial or
other areas

Lack of disruptions during
construction
No or few traffic disruptions, dust, noise or other impacts during the
project construction period

Low-profile operation
Project has a low visual profile and low/no odors, noise or other
operational nuisances

Operational stability and
resilience
Project can handle diverse flows and pollutant loads, and has a low
failure risk and high reliability

Partnerships in project
implementation
Outside parties are willing to cost-share or otherwise help with
construction, operation, maintenance, etc.

Positive economic and
employment impact
Project creates positive economic impact and local jobs during
construction and operation

Positive visibility and
community relations
Project enhances the city's image and relationships within the
community

Quality of life
enhancements
Project fits into greenway, park, recreation, ecosystem restoration,
transportation, other plans

Sustainability support
Project meets overall sustainability goals: energy use, materials,
environmental footprint, etc.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 6

-------
Integrated Planning Worksheet #2:
Assigning Weights to Project Evaluation Criteria
Rather than the "Priority Ranking" column from Worksheet #1, the table below has a "% Weight" column to
the right. Please revisit your discussion on prioritizing the various criteria, and think about this question: how
much weight should each criterion get during project evaluation! Indicate a weight for each criterion—that
is, the percentage you think it should count for during a project review. For example, if you think "Costs for
construction or implementation" should count for half the total score, write "50%" in the "% Weight" column
(50 percent is half of 100 percent). You can enter low percentages—even 0 percent—for criteria you don't
think are very important. After you finish entering the percentages, they should add up to 100.
Criteria Used to
Evaluate Projects
Details and Examples
% Weight
Availability of
assistance
Grants, loans or other programs are available to cover some capital costs,
land acquisition, etc.

Resilience
Project can withstand extreme weather events/changes over the long
term

Low to moderate
costs for construction
or implementation
Project implementation costs to ratepayers in terms of cost per gallon for
treatment or cost per pound of pollutant removed is low to moderate

Low to moderate
costs for maintenance
Maintenance cost to ratepayers, per gallon or per pound of pollutant
removed, is low to moderate

Low to moderate
costs for operation
Operation cost to ratepayers, per gallon or per pound of pollutant
removed, is low to moderate

Environmental
performance
Project will measurably reduce pollutant discharges and/or improve
receiving water quality

Flooding mitigation
Project eliminates or reduces flooding in residential, commercial or other
areas

Lack of disruptions
during construction
No or few traffic disruptions, dust, noise or other impacts during the
project construction period

Low-profile operation
Project has a low visual profile and low/no odors, noise or other
operational nuisances

Operational stability
and resilience
Project can handle diverse flows and pollutant loads, and has a low failure
risk and high reliability

Partnerships in project
implementation
Outside parties are willing to cost-share or otherwise help with
construction, operation, maintenance, etc.

Positive economic and
employment impact
Project creates positive economic impact and local jobs during
construction and operation

Positive visibility and
community relations
Project enhances the city's image and relationships within the community

Quality of life
enhancements
Project fits into greenway, park, recreation, ecosystem restoration,
transportation, other plans

Sustainability support
Project meets overall sustainability goals: energy use, materials,
environmental footprint, etc.

Total (percentages should add up to 100%)
100%
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input

-------
5 CASE STUDIES
The three community case studies featured in
this section— Burlington. Vermont; Onondaga
County, New York: and Santa Maria, California-
illustrate the process of identifying and evaluating
alternatives with stakeholder participation. Each of
these communities is unique., but all are facing the
challenge of managing wastewater and stormwater
through affordable, sustainable, legally compliant
approaches. The following sections summarize how
each community approached identifying which
programs or projects would best help meet local
objectives.
5.1 Burlington, Vermont
5.1.1 Introduction and Background
Burlington is the largest municipality in Vermont,
with a population of 42,000. It is located on the
shores of Lake Champlain,
The city operates three WWTPs. The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for the three WWTPs provide phosphorus
effluent limitations., with the north and east plants
currently set at 0.8 milligrams per liter and the main
plant set at 0.6 milligrams per liter. These limits
are dictated by a local total maximum daily load
(TMDL) for phosphorus.
Burlington has
both separate
and combined
sewer areas.
City of
Burlington
The city of Burlington is considering options for restoring
flows in several local streams considered impaired due to
poor aquatic habitat, exacerbated by "flashy" urban runoff.
Trudell Engineers, Horsley Witten Group
Most of the community is served by combined
sewers, which convey both wastewater and
stormwater. The city made efforts in the 1980s and
during 2010-2012 to eliminate and/or bring many
of the combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharge
locations into compliance with the Vermont CSO
policy® The city currently has only a few remaining
CSO outfalls. Basement backups have been on the
rise recently due to increasing frequency of intense
storms.
Burlington operates a municipal separate storm
sewer system (MS4) in portions of the city that are
not connected to the combined sewer system. The
current NPDES permit for discharges from the MS4
requires the city to develop and implement flow
restoration plans for impaired watersheds in order
to maintain compliance with a bacterial wasteload
allocation and contribute to the achievement of
the bacteria TMDL for Englesby Brook, a tributary
to Lake Champlain. Further, EPA recently revised
the Lake Champlain phosphorus TMDL, which will
result in more stringent regulatory requirements for
Burlington.
2 Accessible online at http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed/wastewater/
discharge-permits.
Figure 1: Drainage and Impervious Areas
Managed under Flow Restoration Scenario

1
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 8

-------
The city has created a stormwater utility that
provides a sustainable funding source for
stormwater management; it expects substantial
rate increases to meet the revised Lake Champlain
TMDL and provide further program enhancements.
5.1.2 Identifying Stormwater and Wastewater
Issues
Going into the integrated planning process, the city
knew that a primary focus of the plan would be
phosphorus reduction at the main plant WWTP. The
community explored a number of potential projects
to address this issue (see Section 5.1.3).
The city conducted an online poll to assess
Community concerns about stormwater and
wastewater issues. The poll was open to the public,
posted to the city's stormwater website, and
advertised through direct emails and news media.
Pol! respondents were asked how concerned they
Table 2. Burlington online poll scoring on water quality issues
Rank
Stormwater and Wastewater Issues
Score
1
General pollution of our waterway ecosystems (lakes, rivers, streams) due to pollutants (sediment, oils/
grease, bacteria, nutrients, thermal) in urban stormwater runoff
10%
2
Combined sewer overflows (release of untreated mixture of stormwater and wastewater-sewage) to
the WinoOski River and the Intervale Wetlands during intense or large storm events due to excess
stormwater from impervious surfaces
10%
3
Beach closures due to E. col! bacteria (stormwater runoff of pet/wildlife fecal matter)
9%
4
Release of PARTIALLY TREATED stormwater and Wastewater from our Main Wastewater Treatment
Plant during large storm events due to excess stormwater from impervious surfaces
9%
5
Blue green algae blooms in the Lake in general (not necessarily beach closures) which can affect
ecosystem health and Lake recreation and tourism
9%
6
Beach closures due to blue green algae (phosphorus pollution)
9%
7
Sediment runoff from construction projects during storm events
7%
8
Acute and/or toxic levels of chloride in local small streams due to winter salting of roadways and
Sidewalks
8%
9
Localized flooding due to undersized stormwater management infrastructure
8%
10
Stream bank erosion and loss of fish habitat in our small local streams (Englesby, Centennial, Potash
Brooks) due to excess volumes of stormwater runoff
8%
11
Basement flooding (where a mixture of sewage and stormwater surcharges into basements with
plumbing fixtures) due to combined sewer surcharges caused by excess stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces
7%
12
Condition of our collection system infrastructure (Wastewater and stormwater pipes and stormwater
outfalls);
8%
Stormwater outfall near a popular recreational beach on
Lake Champlain in Burlington. Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech
were (from "very concerned" to "not concerned")
about a set of stormwater and wastewater issues.
The results did not indicate significant scoring
variability, but did provide information about the
relative importance of the issues to respondents.
Table 2, below, summarizes the results of the poll.

Prioritizing Wastewater arid Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input

-------
5.1.3	Identifying Potential Projects
To explore possibilities for reducing phosphorus
in the main plant WWTP effluent, the city used
contractor support to conduct an analysis at
the facility. The analysis considered treatment
process adjustments, increased sampling to further
characterize and understand wastewater quality
at various points in the treatment plant, and
alternative ways to handle and process treatment
residuals. Other potential projects evaluated at the
scoping level included stormwater management
and flow restoration.
Buriington officials generated a list of projects
proposed for implementation during the next few
years. The list (see text box below) was based on
previous planning and ongoing efforts, as well as
best professional judgment on how to address the
community's stormwater and wastewater issues.
5.1.4	Developing and Selecting Criteria
The city of Burlington gathered stakeholder input
On the community's priority water quality issues
and preferred criteria through three activities:
• Neighborhood meetings. The city held
meetings with neighborhood associations and
Burlington stakeholders at the August 2015 integrated
planning meeting. Input was used to identify, choose
and weight project evaluation criteria. Jonathan Smith,
Te tra Tech
the public to educate community members
about integrated planning and to learn their
views on water quality, wastewater treatment
and stormwater management.
• An online poll for neighborhood groups
and the general public. The city used this
poll (also described in Section 5.1,2) to assess
respondents' general concerns about water
quality issues and to prioritize criteria. The
poll was posted to the city's stormwater
Potential Projects:
1.	WWTP phosphorus upgrade
2	WWTP phosphorus optimization
3.	Combined sewage storage—Perkins Pier
4.	Combined sewer tunnel—Battery Street
5	Distributed storage vault system, based on
tiered flow control
6	Residential rooftop disconnection
7a. Green Streets Initiative—CSS
7b. Green Streets Initiative—MS4
8a. Retrofits of public property (parks, schools,
city buildings)—CSS
8b, Retrofits of public property (parks, schools,
city buildings)—MS4
Burlington, Vermont
9.	Enhanced post-construction regulatory
requirements
10.	Private property retrofit incentive program
11.	Pet waste cleanup
12.	Dirty driveway mitigation
13.	Flow restoration plan BMP implementation
14.	Outfail repair
15.	Enhanced street sweeping
16.	CIPP lining
17.	Enhanced catch basin cleaning/pipe cleaning
18.	Improved snow fighting (Brine Systems)
19.	Riparian/stream channel restoration
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 10

-------
Score sheet from a stakeholder meeting breakout
group. Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech
website and advertised through direct emails
and news media. Poll respondents were
asked to rank criteria (from "most important"
to "not important"). The poll did not force
respondents to allocate concern or importance
proportionally, but rather to rank criteria
nominally. The results did show how the
community ranked the nine criteria in the poll,
though the difference between the highest- and
lowest-ranked criteria was not large (see Table
3).
• A facilitated meeting of internal and external
stakeholder group representatives. The city
held a final meeting, open to the public, to
present the stakeholder input and discuss how/
if the criteria should be further refined for use in
a decision tool. During the meeting, participants
were split into two groups to further discuss the
criteria and consider how they would weigh the
relative importance of the criteria. The exercise
helped confirm the importance of environmental
performance and iife cycle costs as key criteria,
but also uncovered supplemental benefits and
issues important to subsets of both breakout
groups. For example, social and environmental
justice, walkability/bike-abTty, and green space
features were identified as criteria that should
be considered in any project/program analysis.
Table 3. Burlington online poll scoring on criteria preferences
Rank
Stormwater and Wastewater Issues
Score
1
Addresses multiple water resource issues at the same time
13%
2
Addresses the water resource issues *1* feel are most critical as identified above
12%
3
Removes multiple pollutants at the same time (for example, a project that targets removal of
multiple pollutants vs, only phosphorus removal)
12%
4
Integrated with other upcoming city infrastructure projects such as, Streets/road projects, parks
improvements, public building improvements
12%
5
Costs to build, operate and maintain the project compared to amount of a pollutant removed
12%
6
Increases green/open space in the urban environment
11%
7
Improves Walkability and bike-ability of streetscape
10%
8
Provides green-house gas reduction benefits
10%
9
Increases local property values/storefront value through improved aesthetics
8%:

Total
100%
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 11

-------
The text box below presents the criteria derived
from online poll respondents and workshop/
meeting participants.
Project Evaluation Criteria:
Burlington, Vermont
•	Ability to reduce the phosphorus load
•	Ability to reduce the sediment load
•	Ability to reduce the bacteria load
•	Ability to reduce untreated CSOs or wet-
weather events at the WWTP
•	Potential to address regulatory requirements
•	Potential to address local/neighborhood
flooding or combined sewer basement
backups
•	Ability to address top priorities of
stakeholder groups (e.g., reduced urban
runoff, CSO reduction)
•	Operations and maintenance intensity
•	Level of water quality performance certainty
•	Scalability
•	Ability to address more than one water
quality issue
•	Relative capital cost
•	Visibility and/or catalyzes engagement and
collaboration
•	Ability to integrate with existing projects
•	Accessible green/open space impacts
•	Socio-economic equity impacts
•	impacts walkabiiity/bike-abiIity
•	Greenhouse gas impacts
•	Energy consumption
•	Reduced infrastructure deficit/increased
Infrastructure resilience
5.1.5 Applying Criteria
Stakeholder input outcomes were used to construct
an Excel spreadsheet containing the criteria and a
scoring mechanism. The spreadsheet was used to:
1.	Rank proposed wastewater and stormwater
projects to determine which projects should be
considered further.
2.	Use the cost/pollutant loading data, generated
during the analysis phase, to determine benefit-
cost ratios for each project. The benefit-cost
ratios were used to create the implementation
schedule for the integrated plan.
3.	Prioritize individual projects based on site-
specific conditions (e.g., frequency of flooding).
The city has already used the selected criteria to
further assess the viability of some of the potential
projects. Additional projects will be evaluated as the
integrated planning process continues.
5.2 Onondaga County, New York
5.2.1 introduction and Background
Onondaga County, located in central New York, has
a population of about 467,026 according to the
2010 U.S. census. The city of Syracuse is the county
seat.
Onondaga Lake, the receiving water for most
stormwater and wastewater discharges in
Onondaga County, was once known as one of the
most polluted lakes in North America due to many
decades of industrial, municipal, agricultural and
other impacts. But its water quality has been
Green roof in the combined sewer area of downtown
Syracuse, A wide range of stormwater projects in this area
have reduced CSO overflow events and volumes in recent
years. Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 12

-------
improving over the past three decades, and it is
now on the road to recovery.
Over the past 20 years, the Onondaga Lake
Partnership, which includes local, state and federal
partners, has worked to improve the water quality
of the lake. Its activities have included improving
wastewater treatment at the main Metropolitan
WWTP, reducing CSOs, improving management
of industrial facilities, cleaning up hazardous waste
sites, installing groundwater separation barriers,
restoring targeted shoreline and aquatic habitat
areas, and ensuring better management of polluted
runoff from urban, residential and agricultural areas.
Results of Previous Efforts to
Improve Onondaga Lake Water
Quality
•	About 95 percent of CSO flows have been
eliminated through previous efforts.
•	Operational CSO outfalls have been
reduced from 72 in 1998 to 46 in 2014.
•	More than 175 green infrastructure projects
have been funded over the past six years
by the county's landmark "Save the Rain"
program.
•	Ammonia and phosphorus discharges to
the lake from the Metropolitan WWTP
have been reduced by 98 percent and 80
percent, respectively.
•	Bacteria and mercury levels in the lake are
declining.
•	Ammonia concentrations have met
standards for aquatic life use protection,
and phosphorus levels now average just
above 20 micrograms per liter—the state
guidance value.
•	No major algal blooms have been observed
since 2007.
•	Bacteria and dissolved oxygen levels are
approaching the numeric criterion in most
locations.
5.2.2 Identifying Stormwater and Wastewater
Issues
Continued efforts to restore Onondaga Lake have
become increasingly difficult, due to:
•	Elimination of most of the "low-hanging fruit"
opportunities for remediation/restoration.
•	Higher costs associated with achieving pollution
abatement benefits.
•	The engineering and technical challenges
associated with the wide range of pollutant
sources.
Pollutant sources may include sediment from
mudboils,3 stormwater impacts from urbanized
areas, nutrient runoff from agricultural operations,
remaining CSOs, remaining waste sites to be
remediated, and WWTP effluent.
There are three main regulatory drivers for
addressing the Onondaga Lake water quality
challenges:
1.	Implementation of the TMDL for phosphorus
reductions in Onondaga Lake, which will lead
to phosphorus discharge reductions at the
Metropolitan WWTP.
2.	CSO requirements in permits to be issued
by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
3.	Fish consumption advisories caused by the
remaining sources of mercury PCBs, dioxin and
other contaminants associated with past waste
disposal practices.
In its planning, the Onondaga County Department
of Water Environment Protection (OCDWEP) is
focusing on further phosphorus reductions from
permitted and other sources, and increasingly
stringent NPDES effluent limitations at the
Metropolitan WWTP. The phosphorus TMDL issued
by the state in 2013 calls for significant phosphorus
load reductions from the Metropolitan WWTP,
3 Mudboils are composed of water, liquefied sediments and dissolved
mineral salts that bubble up through vents in the Earth's surface clue to
localized land subsidence activity and persistent groundwater pressure.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 13

-------
The Onondaga
County Executive
has been widely
recognized for
aggressively
pursuing green
infrastructure
to abate CSOs
and manage
stormwater.
CSO discharges, MS4s and agricultural areas. The
TMDL requires phosphorus load reductions of 15
percent and 44 percent for Metro outfalls #1 and
#2, respectively; 39 percent for CSO discharges; 18
percent for discharges from MS4s; and 18 percent
for agricultural areas. In addition to these more
stringent phosphorus requirements, there is the
possibility of more stringent requirements to reduce
bacteria, sediment, metals, phenols and other
pollutants from these sources.
5.2.3	Identifying Potential Projects
Onondaga County began exploring an integrated
wastewater and stormwater planning approach in
2014 with robust stakeholder input. In June 2015,
the county used contractor support to assess its
water issues and approaches to wastewater and
stormwater management. The assessment included
interviews, discussions and exchanges with a wide
range of stakeholders. Based on the results, a list of
potential projects was generated, shown in the text
box to the right.
5.2.4	Developing and Choosing Criteria
In the next phase of the integrated planning
process, the county identified key stakeholders;
solicited input on which wastewater/stormwater
criteria were most important to them through
a discussion and survey; weighted the selected
project review criteria: and assessed the potential
for integrating wastewater, stormwater and other
water resource management activities into a
Potential Projects: Onondaga
County, New York
4.	Industrial waste site cleanup (i.e.,
dredging, removal and capping of
contaminated material)
5.	Expansion, upgrade, operation and
management of stormwater and
wastewater collection and treatment
systems
6.	Agricultural nonpoint source pollution
abatement and sediment loading to
Onondaga Creek and Onondaga Lake
from the mudboils area
7.	Green infrastructure CSO abatement
projects (such as infiltration projects)
8.	Working with the city of Syracuse
to implement stormwater and tree
ordinances
9.	Stormwater pond retrofits
10.	Development of treatment wetlands
11.	Stabilizing of eroding channels
12 Public education on lawn and landscape
maintenance and fertilization
13. Conversion of turf areas to native
vegetation
14	Redirection of stormwater flows from
impervious surfaces to pervious areas
15	A fully coordinated stormwater
management program in the county
16, Expanding the Save the Rain grant
funding to the farm sector
17 Stream restoration
consolidated planning framework (see Table
4, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Stakeholders considered
criteria such as environmental performance,
life cycle costs and supplemental benefits. In
discussions held in June and November 2015,
stakeholders and agency staff recommended that
.	TECHNOLOGY TEST DRIVE;
MUNICIPAL	CUES DtGITAL UNIVERSAL CAMERA
SEVIER
WATER

/BUYER'S
kGUIDE
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 14

-------
;		
Large stormwater treatment wetland installed by the "Save
the Rain" program near Onondaga Lake. Barry Tonning.
Tetra Tech
enhancements to the current wastewater and
stormwater programs, further coordination of town
and village MS4 efforts, and reduction in agricultural
nonpoint source pollution be included as key
elements of an integrated planning framework.
In developing a systematic process for considering
project alternatives, OCDWEP chose to focus on a
limited number of key stakeholders, recognizing 1)
the size of the jurisdiction and the number of issues
at play and 2) a less pressing need for immediate
reaction to specific project options, since the
utility's capital projects plan for the upcoming
three-year period was already established.
Key stakeholders initially provided input on
wastewater, stormwater and water resource
management needs and current program
Operations via extensive phone interviews. Two
meetings—one attended by key public- and private-
sector stakeholders, another for local, state and
EPA representatives—helped to refine the project
evaluation approach. Both sessions solicited input
from attendees on the types of criteria the county
might use in evaluating the pros and cons of new
management activities, and how the criteria should
be prioritized and weighted.
A total of 21 people representing a wide range of
water resource management interests attended
the meeting for public and private stakeholders.
The meeting included two breakout sessions:
One to prioritize potential criteria, and another to
assign weighting to the criteria, based on relative
Onondaga stakeholders meeting to review draft project
evaluation criteria. Barry Tonning, Tetra Tech
importance in decision-making (Table 4). Attendees
completed individual scoring sheets for both the
criteria priorities and weighting.
The evaluation criteria can be grouped into
three categories: environmental and operational
performance, life cycle costs, and supplemental
benefits. Table 4 shows that criteria related to
environmental and operational performance-
environmental performance, operational stability
and resilience, sustainabiIity support, and quality
of life enhancements—were the most important
criteria overall, with a relative weight totaling
55 percent. Specific life-cycle cost criteria-
construction, operation, maintenance, availability of
assistance and partnerships for implementation-
together totaled 22 percent. The remaining criteria,
ranging from quality of life to economic and
employment enhancements, made up the remaining
23 percent of the weighted values assigned by the
stakeholder group..
The meeting for local, state and EPA
representatives included staff from OCDWEP the
Onondaga County Office of the Environment, the
Syracuse/Onondaga County Planning Agency,
EPA Headquarters. EPA Region 2, NYSDEC
Headquarters and NYSDEC Region 7. Participants
1) reviewed activities related to the possible
development of an integrated wastewater and
stormwater planning approach and 2) discussed
criteria and weighting that could be used. In
addition, meeting attendees individually provided
input on how they would weigh criteria. Figure 4
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 15
1

-------
Table 4. Stakeholder group weighting of criteria (percentages total 100%)
Average
Ranking
%
Weight
Criteria to Evaluate
Projects
Details and Examples of Each Criterion
1
27.5
Environmental
performance
Project will measurably reduce pollutant discharges and/or
improve receiving water quality
4.5
4.5
Low to moderate costs
for construction or
implementation
Project implementation costs to ratepayers in terms of cost per
gallon for treatment or cost per pound of pollutant removed is low
to moderate
5.75
6.5
Low to moderate costs for
maintenance
Maintenance cost to ratepayers, per gallon or per pound of
pollutant removed, is low to moderate
6.25
6.5
Low to moderate costs for
operation
Operation cost to ratepayers, per gallon or per pound of pollutant
removed, is low to moderate
6.5
7.5
Quality of life
enhancements
Project fits into greenway, park, recreation, ecosystem restoration,
transportation, other plans
6.75
1
Availability of assistance
Grants, loans or other programs are available to cover some capital
costs, land acquisition, etc.
6.75
3.5
Flooding mitigation
Project eliminates or reduces flooding in residential, commercial or
other areas
7.25
0.5
Positive economic and
employment impact
Project creates positive economic impact and local jobs during
construction and operation
8
3.5
Low-profile operation
Project has a low visual profile and low/no odors, noise or other
operational nuisances
9
10
Operational stability and
resilience
Project can handle diverse flows and pollutant loads, and has a low
failure risk and high reliability
9.5
10
Sustainability support
Project meets overall sustainability goals: energy use, materials,
environmental footprint, etc.
11.5
7.5
Resilience
Project can withstand extreme weather events/changes over the
long term
11.5
3.5
Partnerships in project
implementation
Outside parties are willing to cost-share or otherwise help with
construction, operation, maintenance, etc.
12.5
5.5
Positive visibility and
community relations
Project enhances OCDWEP's image and relationships within the
community
13.25
2.5
Lack of disruptions during
construction
No or few traffic disruptions, dust, noise or other impacts during
the project construction period
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 16

-------
Supplemental
benefits
23%
Environmental
and
operational
performance
55%
Life-cycle
costs
22%
Supplemental

W benefits

f 21%
¦
I
Environmental 1

and I

operational 1

performance J
52% J
Figure 3. Public- and private-sector stakeholder weighting
for criteria, from the Onondaga County workshop.
Figure 4. Informal local, state and federal agency
stakeholder weighting for criteria.
shows the results. The public agency group focused
on environmental performance, assigning it about
half of the total weighting valuation; life cycle costs
were weighted at 27 percent and supplemental
benefits at 21 percent.
5.2.5 Applying Criteria
An Excel spreadsheet was produced to facilitate
the county's process and provide a useful tool
for scoring groups of projects. The criteria were
grouped according to the broad categories of
environmental performance, life cycle costs and
supplemental benefits. The spreadsheet includes
an editable column where evaluators from each of
the groups can assign weights to each criterion.
Each criterion can be individually scored (from 1 to
10) and weighted, allowing the user to evaluate and
compare multiple projects using a common tool.
Figure 5 shows the columns for the assigned criteria
scores, the criteria weight assignments, and the
total scores.
The format for the scoring matrix, shown in Figure
6, was based on two similar evaluation tools
developed for OCDWEP's asset management
program. EPA technical support chose to develop
a project evaluation tool that capitalized on the
familiarity and consistency of these existing
approaches.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 17

-------
Figure 5. Excerpt from Excel-based spreadsheet used by Onondaga County to rank weighted criteria and score alternatives.
After assigning weighted values for each critieron (i.e., % value), enter a I to 10 score for each critierion below (green boxes). Total project
calculated scores will appear in the orange box.
Key
1 to 10 Evaluated Score
Assigned Weighted Value
Calculated Score
Evaluation
Criteria
Poor = 1
Low = 4
Moderate = 7
High = 10
1 to 10
Score
%
Weight
Final
Score
Environmental Performance
Pollutant
Removal
Negligible effect on
pollutant removal / water
quality
Some pollutant removal,
difficult to quantify
Moderate but measurable
pollutant removal
expected
High, measurable
removals for targeted
pollutants expected



Reliability
Process/technology is
unstable, failure-prone
Process/technology
somewhat stable
Stable/reliable under
normal conditions
Able to handle diverse
flows and pollutant loads;
stable and reliable



Extreme Weather
High likelihood of failure in
extreme weather
Somewhat likely to fail
during extreme weather
Mostly stable during all
but severest storms
Able to withstand strong
storms with heavy rain,
winds, flooding



Sustainability
Sustainability poor or
unknown; high energy use
Some minor sustainability
features (materials,
energy)
Nearly meets many
sustainability goals
Meets goals for
energy use, materials,
environmental impacts



Integration
Poor fit with greenway,
parks, recreation,
transportation, other
plans
Fits in with a few
greenway, parks,
recreation, and
transportation projects
Consistent with several
parts of parks, recreation,
transportation plans
Excellent fit with current/
future greenway, parks,
recreation, transportation,
other plans



Life-Cycle Costs
Construction
Costs
Construction/
implementation costs
are very high relative
to anticipated project
benefits
Construction costs
are moderately high
vs. anticipated project
benefits
Construction costs
are moderately low
vs. anticipated project
benefits
Construction/
implementation costs are
low relative to benefits
(i.e., excellent cost/benefit
ratio)



Figure 5 continued to next page
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 18

-------
Evaluation
Criteria
Poor = 1
Low = 4
Moderate = 7
High = 10
1 to 10
Score
%
Weight
Final
Score
Operating Costs
Operating costs are very
high relative to benefits
Operating costs are
moderately high vs.
benefits
Operating costs are
moderately low vs.
benefits
Operating costs are low
relative to anticipated
project benefits



Maintenance
Costs
Maintenance costs/
needs are high relative to
benefits
Maintenance costs are
moderately high vs.
benefits
Maintenance costs are
moderately low vs.
benefits
Maintenance costs/
needs are low relative to
anticipated benefits



Funding/
Assistance
No external funding
assistance or
implementation partners
are available
Grants, loans, or partner
contributions can cover
1-20% of project costs
Grants, loans, or partner
contributions can cover
21-49% of project costs
Grants, loans, or partner
contributions can cover
> 50% of project costs



Supplemental Benefits
Flood Mitigation
Project has no impact
on flooding, or worsens
flooding
Minor benefits regarding
flood prevention/
mitigation
Moderate benefits
for flood prevention/
mitigation
Significantly reduces
localized flooding in
target area(s)



Acceptability
Project likely obtrusive;
noise, odor complaints are
likely during operation
Moderate expectations
for noise, odor, and
other complaints during
operation
Some/few complaints are
expected from project
operations
Low-profile; low/no odors,
noise, other nuisances
expected during project
operation



Economic
Impact
No jobs or other
economic impact
expected
A few jobs and a small
economic impact
expected
Moderate level of jobs
and economic impact
expected
Creates local jobs,
enhances local economy/
business climate



Implementation
Significant dust, traffic/
other disruptions
during construction/
implementation
Moderate level of
dust, traffic, and other
disruptions expected at
construction
Low level of dust, traffic,
and other disruptions
expected at construction
No/few dust, traffic/
other disruptions during
project construction/
implementation



Relationships
No community relations,
good will, or other
benefits expected from
project
Some minor good will
and relationship benefits
expected from project
Moderate level of good
will and relationship
benefits anticipated from
project
Project expected to
enhance image of utility
and/or project sponsors;
project expected to build
good will



Final Score

Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 19

-------
Figure 6. Consequence of failure by level of service category..
Consequence
Category
Negligible = 1
Low = 4
Moderate = 7
Severe = 10
System Reliability (60%)
Capacity
Adequate hydraulic
and/or treatment
capacity for all existing
flows
Loss of hydraulic and /
or treatment >0 <10%
of existing capacity
Loss of hydraulic and /
or treatment >10 <30%
of existing capacity
Loss of hydraulic
and/or treatment
>30% existing capacity
SSO / Dry
Weather CSO
No SSOs or Dry
weather CSOs
SSO or DWCSO
<2,000 gallons per
event
SSO or DWCSO
>2,000 < 100,000 per
event
SSO or DWCSO
>100,000 gallons per
event
Property Damage
No property damage
<5 property damage
claims
<25 property damage
claims
<25 property damage
claims
Odor
No odor complaints
<5 odor complaints
<25 odor complaints
Widespread odor
complaints
Process/System
Impact
No loss of treatment or
system effectiveness
No loss of treatment or
system effectiveness
but need to use
redundant systems
Will result in loss of
treatment or system
effectiveness if action
is not taken promptly
Use of redundant
system required,
facility not staffed 24/7
Will immediately result
in significant loss of
treatment or system
effectiveness if action
is not taken promptly
Regulatory Compliance (5%)
Permit Limits
No permit violations
Violation with no
formal enforcement
action (single permit
violation, SSO, or
DWCSO with no
long-term operational
issues)
Potential for formal
enforcement action
with potential fines
(violation of permit,
SSO, or DWCSO, >
2days, < 7 days)
Potential for major
enforcement action
or Consent Decree
impact (including fines,
permit violation, SSO,
DWCSO > 7 days)
Consent Decree
Meet all Consent
Decree requirements
(e.g., ACJ green &
gray)
Restore all impaired
receiving waters to
target classifications
not on set schedule
Impaired receiving
water bodies not
improving
Adverse impact on
Consent Decree
Water Body Use
Attainability
Restore all impaired
receiving waters to
target classifications
on set schedule


Receiving water bodies
degradation
Public & Employee Health & Safety (10%)
Injuries
No potential injuries or
adverse health effects
Potential minor injury
with no loss of time; 1
of the following:
confined space entry,
480V circuit, >20ft. in
height
Potential minor injury
with lost time; 2 or
more of the following:
confined space entry,
480V circuit, >20ft. in
height; acidic/caustic
chemicals
Potential major injury
due to extreme unsafe
condition; >480V;
loss of ventilation in
classified areas
Figure 6 continued to next page
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 20
1

-------
Consequence
Category
Negligible = 1
Low = 4
Moderate = 7
Severe = 10
Impact to Public
Health
No infectious disease,
no release of sewage,
chemical, fuel, or
contamination
No infectious disease.
Release of chemicals
or contaminates within
area / volume.
Remote possibility
of infectious disease.
Release of chemical
or contaminates in
excess of containment
volume.
Possible infectious
disease or release
of chemicals or
contaminates without
any containment and
draining into water
body or storm sewer
Fiscal Impacts (20%)
Capital & O&M
Budgets (User
rate stability)
Sufficient financial
resources to meet
capital and O&M
budget (<$5,000)
Needs to go to
WEP Fiscal Officer
(> $5,000 and
< approximately
$35,000)
Cost > $35,000 and <
$100,000
Needs to go to full
County Ledge (> 100K)
Public Confidence (5%)
Construction
Impact (e.g.,
traffic, noise)
No adverse impact on
community
Managed traffic
disruption
Total closure to lower
density areas or local
streets
Total closure or
significant traffic
disruption (e.g.,
congested area,
major arterial, major
connectors)
Business Impact
No adverse impact on
businesses
Limited adverse impact
on businesses. Impacts
< 5 businesses, not
resulting in temporary
closure
Localized adverse
impact on businesses.
Impacts > 5 businesses
with potential for
temporary close of less
than 1 day
Disruption to
customers providing
critical services.
Impacts >10 businesses
with temporary closure
lasting longer than 1
day
Natural Resource
No impact on natural
resources or recreation


Discharge of
contaminate to an
impaired water body,
tributary, or hydraulic
connected storm
sewer with impacts to
local recreation
Public Perception
No adverse media
attention
Loss of some support
from the public; some
concerns expressed
publicly (local 1-day
story)
Loss of support from
the public; concerns
expressed publicly
(multiple local news
stories)
Widespread adverse
impact on multiple
businesses (national
news story)
Development
Impact
Support smart growth


No public confidence
in the utility (consistent
negative media)
Last modified: March 27, 2015

Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 21

-------
5.3 Santa Maria, California
5.3.1 Introduction and Background
Located in California's central coast region, the
city of Santa Maria has a population a little above
100,000. The Santa Maria River flows along the
northern edge of the city, and its watershed is one
of the largest coastal basins in California. The Santa
Maria groundwater basin is a valuable source of
drinking water for the city and the surrounding
area.
The soil properties and existing drainage system
in Santa Maria are important considerations for
stormwater management planning. The soils
within the city generally have high Infiltration rates,
providing viable opportunities for infiltration-based
water quality improvement projects. The existing
drainage system contains many large and small
detention and retention facilities.
The city operates a separate sanitary sewer system
and the associated WWTP. Treated wastewater
from the plant is disposed of through ponds that
percolate wastewater into the groundwater basin
without a discharge to surface waters. California
regulates the effluent from the plant through Waste
Discharge Requirements issued under California's
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
Stormwater discharges from the city are regulated
by a NPDES general permit for a small MS4, The
general permit requires that Santa Maria take
steps to address the TMDL for bacteria, nutrients,
pesticides and toxicity in the Santa Maria River.
City Hall, Santa Maria, California. City of Santa Maria
5.3.2 Identifying Stormwater and Wastewater
Issues
Agriculture and livestock operations in the lands
surrounding the city are significant contributors
to water quality impairments of the Santa Maria
River through both surface water and groundwater
pathways. Other pollutant sources include onsite
treatment systems, urban runoff, oil production and
natural background.
The city's stormwater drainage system includes a
series of constructed flood-control channels and
basins. The city is challenged in meeting its own
water supply protection needs in terms of both
quantity and quality. Its priorities include recharging
groundwater supply and protecting groundwater
from contamination.
The city of Santa Maria held several public meetings
to explain the purpose of integrated stormwater
and wastewater planning, discuss the stormwater
and wastewater issues in the city, and solicit
public input on primary goals for an integrated
planning effort. The city organized a project team
that included city staff and their consultants,
representatives from state agencies, and other
stakeholders. The project team identified three
overarching goals that reflected the purpose of the
city's integrated plan, shown in Figure 7.
Guided by these goals, the project team developed
more specific objectives (Figure 8). The challenge
was to write objectives general enough to
address the wide array of water quality and
quantity concerns, yet specific enough to propose
measurable outcomes.


Me;









Mouth of the Santa Maria River. City of Santa Maria

Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 22

-------
The first goal described what the city wishes to accomplish in
terms of water quality and quantity. This goal includes
language on the regulatory requirements and what the city
wishes to achieve.
Protect and improve water quality and/or quantity in the Santa Maria River
watershed and the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin upstream, downstream,
and within the city. Achieve regulatory requirements and sustainability.
Regulatory requirements include, but are not limited to, the municipal
stormwater permit which addresses TMDL wasteload allocations and
monitoring activities.
Goal



The second goal expressed how the city is seeking
cost-effective actions by considering both the feasibility
and flexibility of management options.
Apply the city's resources cost-effectively towards feasible and flexible
actions that achieve the greatest improvement in water quality and
quantity.
Goal

a

The third goal reflected stakeholder input during the public
meetings. Stakeholders expressed interest in projects that
would beautify the city.
Promote beautification of the city through actions and programs that
improve quality of life and provide other economic and social benefits.
Figure 7. Overarching goals in the city of Santa Maria's integrated plan.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 23

-------
City of Santa Maria Integrated Plan Objectives
1.	Maximize infiltration and minimize runoff and pollutant loading to water resources through best
management practices (BMPs); ensure these features continue to function according to design.
2.	Reduce stormwater runoff and increase the aesthetic value and livability of the community
through low impact development (LID) projects associated with new development and
redevelopment projects.
3.	Detect and eliminate illicit discharges.
4.	Engage public in pollution prevention and water quality issues.
5.	Promote implementation of BMPs that maximize community benefits and beautification.
6.	Safely promote groundwater recharge through treatment and percolation/infiltration techniques.
7.	Provide enhanced nutrient removal through projects.
8.	Work collaboratively with agriculture to protect the health of the groundwater basin.
9.	Work closely with the Regional Board, neighboring cities and counties, local agencies and
organizations, and agriculture to identify collaborative opportunities. Possible stakeholder groups
could include, but are not limited to, the Integrated Resources Water Management Group, the
Twitcheii Management Authority, and irrigated agriculture industry groups and associations,
10.	Seek opportunities to creatively manage water resources, increasing water quantity and
preserving water quality.
Figure 8. Santa Maria's integrated plan objectives.

Artificial channels in Santa Maria.	Aerial view of the Santa Maria WWTP.

Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 24

-------
5.3.3	Identifying Potential Projects
At this point, the city drew on its experience in
stormwater management and developed a list of
potential projects to evaluate, including a wide range
of green infrastructure projects. The city operates
a variety of nonstructural stormwater management
strategies as well (e.g., street sweeping, educational
outreach, storm drain markers). Many of the projects
on the list had been under consideration from other
planning efforts; other projects were added based
on stakeholder input. The city's final iist of potential
projects to be evaluated in the integrated plan is
shown in the text box to the right.
5.3.4	Developing and Selecting Criteria
After identifying issues and potential projects, the city
Of Santa Maria identified metrics to measure how well
a project would address its goals. The city defined a
metric as a qualitative or quantitative measurement
of a project's performance or other characteristic
relevant to achieving the goals—for example, how
many regulations are addressed by a particular action,
or the quantity of pollutant load reduced. Metrics were
developed so that they could help identify the projects
that would best achieve the community's goals.
Green infrastructure options for Santa Maria. Clockwise
from upper left: grass arid payer stone driveway, dry gravel
drainage, in filtration basin used as soccer field, pervious
parking
Potential Projects: City of
Santa Maria, California
II,	Infiltration basin improvements
2.	New water infiltration basins
3.	Water quality treatment—public LID
4.	Promoting LID on private property
5.	Dry weather flow diversion to
sanitary sewer
6.	initial peak stormwater flow diversion
to sanitary sewer
7.	Urban flow from Main Street
subwatershed to WWTP
8.	Expansion of secondary water system
for landscape irrigation
9.	Biofilter at WWTP
10.	WWTP process enhancements for
nitrogen removal
11.	Water quality filters at Black Road
12.	Sanitary sewer collection system
evaluation
13 Agriculture tailwater treatment
through WWTP
14, Nutrient trading
15 Residential dry weather runoff
16. Treat and release BMPs
17., Channel or basin improvements
18.	Trash capture
19.	Salt removal at city blending and
disinfection facility
20.	Acquisition of more Table A state
water
21 Residential salinity reduction
alternative

Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 25

-------
The project team developed an initial list of metrics
that incorporated water quality and quantity
regulatory requirements to make sure pollutants
of concern and other regulatory requirements
were within the decision-making framework.
Scoring each action (from 1 to 10) provided a way
to compare benefits across all metrics. After the
team reached consensus on the subjective scoring
approach, the city developed scoring criteria for
each metric that best reflected achievement of the
city's goals.
The project team recognized that if a decision-
making process uses too many metrics, it can be
difficult to interpret or document the methods and
results. For example, some heavy metals are often
delivered to waterbodies through sediment loading.
Using two metrics, one for reducing sediment and
one for reducing sediment-bound heavy metals,
would give double weight to a similar benefit. A
simpler yet still effective approach is to choose one
of these metrics to represent both.
5.3.5 Applying Criteria
A scoring matrix tool was created: a spreadsheet
that allowed users to choose and weight criteria
and score projects (see "Overview of Santa Maria's
Spreadsheet Tool").
The tool was reviewed by the project team
and revised, then tested in a work session with
stakeholders. Attendees included representatives
from the city California's Central Coast Regional
Water Quality Control Board, the city's consultants,
and public works officials from neighboring cities
and counties. The work session was designed
to promote conversation between city staff and
stakeholders and to encourage participants to think
more deeply about the priorities.
The stakeholder work session was integral to the
development of the decision-making spreadsheet
tool. Several lessons learned emerged from the
work session experience:
•	Testing the spreadsheet tool early helped
the workgroup understand the interaction
of weights, metrics, and scoring criteria, and
identified needed changes.
•	Holding the testing session in person enabled
the workgroup to effectively navigate the
integrated planning tool together and
implement changes and enhancements that
maximize its usefulness.
•	A successful strategy was to have a subset
of stakeholders with expert knowledge of the
projects choose the initial scores and explain
their reasoning to the larger group. This helped
keep assumptions consistent across the
projects.
•	Choosing a diverse set of projects proved useful
for initial testing and refinement of the tool.
•	Testing the tool enabled stakeholders to agree
on using pollutant removal efficiency (instead
of pollutant loading) and project location
as metrics, and incorporating weighting to
prioritize certain metrics.
•	The work session helped the city incorporate
cost metrics based on operation and
maintenance and capital costs that best fit
their specific needs. During the work session,
the stakeholders debated whether to score
the project based on cost-effectiveness or
magnitude of cost. They decided on cost
magnitude so that projects with very large
capital costs, which may be difficult to fund,
would receive a lower priority.
The role of the decision-making framework
in project selection evolved throughout its
development. Ultimately the city decided that
the framework and tool would be used to screen
projects, and those selected as "promising" would
be further evaluated using more quantitative
pollutant removal, hydrologic, cost and other
analyses.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 26

-------
Overview of Santa Maria's Spreadsheet Tool
Info
Contains instructions for using the tool.
Metrics
The user chooses criteria for each project using drop-
down menus.
Scoring
Reports individual and composite scoring results.
Scoring by goals
Reports scoring aggregated by goals as well as composite
scoring results.
Project drop-
downs
Text used in drop-down menus. The user can adjust this
text.
Scores and
weighing
Levels of scores and weighting are set.
Extra metrics
Instructions for adding metrics to the tool.
The spreadsheet has seven tabs that guide the user through the process. The first step in using the
tool is to enter the names of the projects to be evaluated in the "Metrics" tab. Once the project names
are entered and initial weighting adjustments made, the user begins to choose scores using the drop-
down menus under each metric. The user can then view the results in the "Scoring" and "Scoring
by Goals" tabs. The "Scoring" tab shows the weighted scores for all three goals by metric and the
composite score for all metrics across the three goals.
In the city's process, metrics that are given higher weights have more influence over the composite
score. For example, if the nutrients metric is given more weight than the bacteria metric, then a project
that provides 50 percent nutrient reduction will score higher than a project that provides 50 percent
bacteria reduction (with all other scores equal between the two projects). A weighted average is used
so that the composite score is normalized to the 1 to 10 point scale. The tool allows for different visual
comparisons among projects in the "Scoring" and "Scoring by Goals" tabs. Unless the drop-down
menu text or weights are adjusted, using the tool is straightforward and does not require experience
with Excel. The desired scores are chosen in the "Metrics" tab, and the results are reviewed in the
"Scoring" and "Scoring by Goals" tabs (Figures 9 and 10).
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 27

-------
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Nutrients
Bacteria
Pesticides
Trash
Salts
Sediment
Watershed benefitted by
surface water improvement
Watershed benefitted by
groundwater improvement
Regulatory requirements
addressed
Basin plan beneficial uses
Minimize runoff/discharge
Maximize infiltration,
supplement groundwater
Operations and maintenance
costs
Capital cost
Collaborative opportunities
Availability of technology
Addresses priorities of stakeholder groups
Acres of land aesthetically enhanced
Project location
Extra metric 1
Figure 9. Composite score stacked chart in the "Scoring" tab.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 28

-------
Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project Project
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Protect and improve water quality
and/or quantity
Apply resources cost-effectively
and/or collaboratively
Beautification and other economic
and social benefits
Figure 10. Composite score stacked chart in the "Scoring by Goals" tab.
Prioritizing Wastewater and Stormwater Projects Using Stakeholder Input • 29

-------