Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority:
A Wet Weather Case Study of Incorporating Community Interests into
Effective Infrastructure Decision-Making
a
Jurisdictions:
• City of Camden
• City of Gloucester
• Camden County
CCMUA: a county-wide public
wastewater utility.
Wastewater System
Residents served 510,0000
Lines 125 mi.
Plant capacity 58 mgd
*»1
*
0o
Receiving water: Delaware River
Revenues: ~$100 million/annually
Average number of Combined Sewer
Overflows annually: 70
LTCP required to be in place by
2020
CCMUA Goal: 2018
Executive Summary
The following case example describes the ways in which the Camden County Municipal Utility Authority (CCMUA),
together with the U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management (OWM) and representatives from the community-based
Camden SMART Initiative, used an augmented infrastructure alternatives analysis approach to help CCMUA identify
an optimal and cost-effective mix of green and gray infrastructure to support its Combined Sewer Long-Term Control
Plan (LTCP). The method used by CCMUA is designed to engage community stakeholders in the infrastructure
alternatives analysis process at a very early stage. The method allows utilities and community members to use a
range of environmental, social, and economic criteria (also known as "Triple Bottom Line" criteria) and create a broad
basis for comparison of infrastructure alternatives.
By using this broad range of criteria to assess infrastructure alternatives, CCMUA was able to better understand the
optimal mix of green and gray infrastructure necessary to protect the health of its citizens, consistent with a set of
community goals agreed to by the Camden SMART stakeholders. With this method, utilities can accomplish internal
infrastructure objectives and community goals as well as enhance their standing as an integral, engaged, and dynamic
part of the economic and social fabric of the community.
Just as importantly, the approach described in this case example will help CCMUA communicate with their board
members and other decision makers to ensure these individuals have a clear understanding of the choices before
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
them as they make the critical financial and policy decisions
necessary to ensure the utility's infrastructure is sustainable over
time. Finally, the approach described in this case example is
transferable to other communities facing a myriad of infrastructure
challenges.
EPA wishes to extend its appreciation to Andrew Kricun, Executive
Director of the Camden County Municipal Utility Authority, his staff,
and the dedicated members of the Camden SMART Initiative for
their contributions that led to this case study.
Relationship to Integrated and Other Infrastructure
Planning
This case study focuses on one important aspect of wet-weather
challenges facing utilities and communities: Combined Sewer
Overflows (CSOs). However, the methodology and process
described are also relevant for communities facing other wet-
weather challenges seeking to adopt an integrated planning
approach to address these challenges (consistent with EPA's 2012
memorandum on integrated planning), as well as a full range of
other infrastructure planning activities (e.g., long-range capital
planning).
Integrated planning offers communities an opportunity to evaluate
and incorporate sustainable, community-first solutions, such as the
development of green infrastructure and meeting water quality and
human health goals in a cost-effective manner that sustains our
nation's essential water infrastructure and creates jobs to
strengthen the local economy.
U.S. EPA Partners with CCMUA
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Office of Wastewater Management
was aware of the forthcoming effort to
prepare the LTCP in New Jersey, and
offered to partner with the three
jurisdictions in support of a test case for a
recently developed alternatives analysis
methodology, which incorporates Triple
Bottom Line criteria into infrastructure
decision-making processes. The analytical
method uses community priorities to
create a structure for decision-making and
offers a process for engaging community
stakeholders to objectively evaluate a
range of infrastructure and/or operational
options; the partnering stakeholder sought
to test the method's value to utilities in a
real-world setting.
Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority:
Project Background
In 2015, the Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority began a proactive effort to develop a watershed-wide LTCP
to address aging infrastructure and an overloaded combined sewer system for the cities of Camden and Gloucester,
New Jersey. CCMUA aimed to use the LTCP development process as an opportunity to meaningfully incorporate the
needs and values of the community into its infrastructure decision-making. In addition, CCMUA hoped to improve the
region's Triple Bottom Line sustainability and overall resiliency through infrastructure investments.
Community Characteristics
Camden is the largest city in Camden County, New Jersey, and is situated directly across the Delaware River from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The smaller city of Gloucester is immediately south of the City of Camden. Historically,
this area has experienced wide disparities in income and poverty rates, with the City of Camden typically ranked as
the poorest city in the State of New Jersey. The wastewater systems for both cities connect to the regional interceptor
system and treatment facility operated by CCMUA, a unit of the Camden County government.
2
-------
The Problem: Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
Like many aging urban centers in the U.S., Camden's sewer system manages both wastewater and stormwater in a
single network of pipes. Every day, the system carries wastewater to the regional treatment plant operated by CCMUA.
When it rains, the pipes fill with runoff from the city and this stormwater runoff combines with untreated wastewater
in the system. During heavy rain events, the pipes and treatment plant cannot handle the combined volume of water,
sometimes causing overflows to occur. In Camden, CSOs of untreated wastewater and stormwater can discharge
directly into rivers and streams. In some neighborhoods, the untreated water floods city streets and parks and backs
up into residents' homes and basements. Not only does this create a nuisance for the community, it is a public health
concern that can adversely affect the quality of life of Camden's residents and negatively impact the region's
economic viability and environmental quality.
Need for a Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP)
In an average year, the Camden wastewater system experiences approximately 70 combined sewer overflow events.
Under its current CSO policy, EPA expects a municipality to reduce CSO occurrences to four overflow events (or fewer)
in a typical year.
To address the CSO problem in the Camden area, the Cities of Camden and Gloucester engaged CCMUA as the entity
to prepare a watershed-wide LTCP. CCMUA knew that any LTCP decision would involve large, long-term financial
commitments and infrastructure investments that would influence the economic, social, and environmental
sustainability and resiliency of the community. Though the LTCP was not required to be completed until 2020, CCMUA
decided to accelerate the completion of its LTCP to 2018 to eliminate combined sewage flooding and combined
sewage overflows in Camden as quickly as possible. From the onset of the LTCP planning process, CCMUA wanted
meaningful engagement with the communities of Camden County, the City of Camden, and the City of Gloucester
around the infrastructure options available to meet the goals of an LTCP.
How Does the Process Used in Camden Augment Conventional Alternatives Analysis?
In conventional alternatives analysis,
utilities typically focus on criteria
based on technical performance (e.g.,
whether the alternative supports
meeting a regulatory endpoint such as
a technology or water quality
discharge standard) and the cost of
doing so (i.e., the present value of the
full life-cycle costs of the alternative),
along with other important technical
and operational criteria such as
reliability, maintainability, and
accessibility.
These criteria are important, and the
augmented process used in Camden
does not discount this importance, but
rather it adds to the core concepts of
alternatives analysis in a few key
ways:
Conventional Alternatives
Analysis
Augmented Alternatives
Analysis
Utility
W% #1 / Determine Goals and Objectives
Determine Goals and Objectives
Compliance
Cost-Effectiveness
Reliability
Maintainability
Accessibility
Determine Goals and Objectives
Compliance
Cost-Effectiveness
Reliability
Maintainability
Accessibility
Public Health
Economic Development
Environmental Impact
Community Livability
1 1
1 1
Refine Goals to the Metric Level
Rank the Importance of Goals
i i
1 1
Evaluate Alternatives
Refine Goals to the Metric Level
I I
Determine the Best Alternative
Scale Metrics
1 1
i i
Communicate the Decision to the
Community
Evaluate Alternatives
Determine the Best Alternative
Clearly Communicate the Decision and Process
to the Community
3
-------
• Facilitates the use of additional environmental, economic, and social criteria and allows for comparability across
otherwise dissimilar criteria.
• Provides a supplementary step between analysis and output to help utilities communicate clearly with community
stakeholders and substantively engage them in the process of identifying potential infrastructure alternatives.
• Helps utilities who may have difficulty determining the best way to incorporate specific community input into the
decision-making processes. Accordingly, it closes the gap between intentions and ability to incorporate
community feedback by providing a step-by-step structure to accomplish that objective.
Camden's Stakeholder Engagement and LTCP
Development Process
In early 2016, CCMUA, together with the U.S. EPA Office of
Wastewater Management, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and the Camden SMART
Initiative, formed a Workgroup and held an initial in-person
meeting to discuss the needs, concerns, and values of the
community. Together, the Workgroup tackled the first step in
the process: goal setting.
The Workgroup used the augmented alternatives analysis
process to expand their consideration of the range of benefits
that can result from an LTCP. Due to frequent CSOs in the area,
the Workgroup felt that protecting neighborhoods from
untreated water and street flooding was a top priority. With
CCMUA's encouragement, the Workgroup considered
regulatory requirements, such as water quality criteria, as the
baseline (or floor) for future performance. Workgroup
members began to discuss what the ideal future state would
look like: exceeding requirements and proactively protecting
the health and environment of the community. With
community benefits and needs at the center of the discussion,
the Workgroup identified the six following goals for the LTCP:
Camden
SMART
Initiative
The Camden SMART Initiative
The Camden Stormwater Management and
Resource Training ("SMART") Initiative is a
community-driven movement to protect human
health, improve conditions for economic
development, improve water quality, and
enhance the quality of life for Camden
residents. The partnership includes six
community organizations including local and
state governments, community non-profits, and
academic organizations. Importantly, the
initiative focuses on the use of both green and
gray infrastructure techniques for stormwater
management.
O
\
Figure 1: Camden's LTCP Goals
Enhance Public Health
and Environment
Meet or Exceed Permit
Requirements
(Water Quality Protected)
Enhance Overall System Resiliency
Produce Economic and
Neighborhood Benefits
Optimize Existing Public Resources
Increase Public Understanding and
Support for Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Solutions
4
-------
Some of Camden's goals, such as Meet or Exceed Permit Requirements, are typically considered in a conventional
alternatives analysis. Others, such as Enhance Public Health and the Environment, go beyond the conventional scope
of goals and embody the desire of the Workgroup to evaluate alternatives against their ability to achieve a state of
public health and environment above levels dictated by regulatory requirements. EPA's method provided the
community a systematic means to use compliance as starting point on which to improve even further.
Once the goals were established, the Workgroup ranked the
importance of each goal according to the supplementary step in
EPA's augmented process. By ranking goals, the Workgroup was able
to further guide the alternatives analysis to reflect the needs and
strength of preferences of Camden and the surrounding areas.
The Workgroup determined that "Enhance Public Health and
Environment" was the most important goal and was given a 10
weight. Each consecutive goal was then ranked according to its
importance relative to "Enhance Public Health and Environment." As
such, any alternative under consideration that met this goal had the
potential to receive a higher score than alternatives that did not offer
enhanced public health and environment performance.
Weighted Goals
10 Enhance Public Health and
Environment
9 Meet or Exceed Permit
Requirements
8 Enhance Overall System Resiliency
8 Produce Economic and
Neighborhood Benefits
Optimize Existing Public Resources
Increase Public Understanding and
Support for Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO) Solutions
At the second in-person meeting held in June 2016, the Workgroup
further refined how they would measure each alternative's
performance relative to LTCP goals by establishing criteria and
metrics for each goal. Criteria provide the basis for evaluation while metrics provided a specific unit that can be used
for measurement. See Figure 2 for an example of how two goals were refined to the metric level. For a full list of the
goals, objectives, criteria, and metrics, see the Scoring Table in Attachment A.
Goal
Public Health and
Environment Enhanced
Economic and
Neighborhood Benefits
Produced
Figure 2: Goals Refined to the Metric Level
Objective
Reduce Human Contact y Reduction in Street
with Sewage Flooding Events
m
f
Increase Compatibility
with Regional
Redevelopment Efforts
Criteria
Flexibility in Siting
Project
Ffic
Metric
Flood Quantity Percent
Reduction
Site Adaptability of
Project
Once goals had been refined down to the metric level, the Workgroup needed a way to compare very different types
of measurements, such as flood quantity percent reduction and site adaptability of a project. The collaboratively
developed method provided the Workgroup with a scaling framework that supports comparability between dissimilar
metrics. To scale, the Workgroup first determined the current state of performance and assigned that performance a
"0" on the scale. Next, the highest and lowest possible performance outcomes were identified and assigned a +5 and
-5 value respectively. For metrics in which negative outcomes would be unacceptable, such as an increase in flood
quantity, the Workgroup created a 0 to +5 scale. The Workgroup then filled in the interim performance outcomes and
created a numerical scale for each metric. See Figure 3 for an example of scaling for the metrics in Figure 2.
5
-------
Figure 3: Scaled Metrics
Flood Quantity Percent Reduction (positive only)
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
CO
1
5
Alternative
has no impact
on the flood
quantity
Alternative
reduces flood
quantity by
10% annually
Alternative
reduces
flood
quantity by
20% annually
Alternative
reduces flood
quantity by
30% annually
Alternative
reduces
flood
quantity by
40%
annually
Alternative
reduces
flood
quantity by
50%
annually
Increase Com|
Datibi
lity with Regional Rec
levelopment Efforts
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
CO
1
5
Alternative
has no site
adaptability
Alternative has
low site
adaptability
Alternative
has moderate
site
adaptability
Alternative
has high
site
adaptability
Camden's Sewershed Alternatives Analysis
Once the Workgroup had established a common scale by which to compare performance uniformly, CCMUA undertook
a pilot test of the methodology and the stakeholder group met for a third time in February 2017 to review the results.
At the time of the final Workgroup meeting, CCMUA was in the initial development phase of the LTCP and the
alternatives, modeling, and evaluation were conducted as a proof of concept, rather than as a full-scale analysis
conducted at the detailed alternatives evaluation phase. To conduct this proof of concept analysis, CCMUA first
identified two sewersheds: C-11 and C-32. For these sewersheds, CCMUA and a third-party engineering consultancy
evaluated a set of selected alternatives using the scaled metrics and scored each alternative based on its projected
performance. To demonstrate the application of the augmented alternatives analysis process, this case study focuses
on C-32 only. For more information on the analysis of alternatives in Sewershed C-11, see the textbox below.
Sewershed C-32 is a highly residential neighborhood in Camden with a land area of 491 acres. Of the total land mass,
43% (211) is impervious area. C-32 experiences an average of 57 overflows during a typical year and these overflows
result in roughly 152 million gallons of overflow volume during a typical year. Due to the residential nature of the
sewershed and the high frequency of flooding events, CCMUA chose this sewershed as an ideal candidate to test the
performance of a set of alternatives.
CCMUA conducted a sewershed site analysis for C-32 and assessed other urban CSO programs to determine the
realistic bounds for impervious area reduction using green infrastructure. CCMUA identified three viable alternatives
for consideration with three distinct levels of green/gray technologies which would each result in equivalent levels of
CSO control:
• Alternative A: All Gray (0% Impervious Reduction)
• Alternative B: Moderate Green (10% Impervious Reduction)
• Alternative C: Heavy Green (35% Impervious Reduction)
To conduct this proof of concept exercise at this phase of the LTCP process, CCMUA made the following simplifying
assumptions:
6
-------
• The infrastructure alternatives were analyzed at the
sewershed level and not evaluated on a system-wide
scale, and due to the system-wide nature of some metrics
(e.g., improved maintenance of Camden collection
system), the exercise used 9 of the 20 metrics, which
represented a full spectrum of environmental, economic,
and social outcomes, to evaluate the performance of the
alternatives.
• Certain types of gray infrastructure, such as conveyance
or sewer separation, were not evaluated due to the site-
specific nature of their effects and the need to evaluate
the impacts at a multi-sewershed, basin-wide, and/or
system-wide level of analysis. CCMUA decided to
consider two types of gray technologies for comparison
in the sewershed assessment: (1) storage and slow
release; and (2) treatment in satellite facilities.
• Cost estimates were established using basic planning
level estimates; Association for the Advancement of Cost
Engineering (AACE) Level 4 (-30% to +50% accuracy
range).
Next, CCMUA modeled each of the three alternatives
identified above and measured their performance. To
accurately score, all three alternatives were evaluated
against each metric. As shown in Figure 4, Alternative C was
estimated using best professional judgment by CCMUA to
reduce flood quantity by 30% annually in C-32. For this
reason, Alternative C received a 3 for this metric. This score
was then multiplied by the weight of 10 assigned to the goal,
"Enhance Public Health and Environment." Figure 5 shows the
final score of 30 for Alternative A. Each alternative was
measured using this framework, and the final, weighted
scores for each are listed in Figure 5.
Figure 4: Alternative C Scoring Example
Flood Quantity Percent I
Reduction (positive only)
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
( 3 \
4
5
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
Alternative
has no impact
reduces flood
reduces
reduces flood
reduces
reduces flood
on the flood
quantity by
flood
quantity by
flood
quantity by
quantity
10% annually
quantity by
30% annually
quantity by
50% annually
20% annually
y
40% annually
In this exercise, Alternative C: Heavy Green (35% Impervious Reduction) was the preferred alternative in C-32 as it
received the highest score. This result indicates that of all three alternatives, Alternative C had the highest estimated
performance outcomes based on the criteria the Workgroup identified as important to the community.
Sewershed C-11
Sewershed C-11 contains the commercial core of
Camden and is the site of a major redevelopment
effort scheduled to begin in Fall 2017. In contrast
to the residential makeup of C-32, CCMUA chose
C-11 to test the augmented alternatives analysis
in a dense, highly commercial area. Using a 2016
site analysis conducted by the Rutgers New
Jersey Agriculture Experiment Station, it was
determined that 15.2 acres, or 12%, was the upper
bound of the impervious removal rate in C-11. For
this reason, CCMUA measured the performance
of two alternatives in C-11:
• Alternative A: All Gray (0% Impervious
Reduction)
• Alternative B: Moderate Green (12%
Impervious Reduction)
The process used in C-11 follows the same steps
detailed below for C-32: score performance,
weight scores, and identify the alternative with
the highest final score. This exercise
demonstrated that the methodology created a
robust and standard framework by which to judge
the performance of each of the identified
alternatives. See Appendix C for final scores for
Alternatives A and B in C-11.
7
-------
Figure 5: C-32 Final Scores
Criteria
Weighted Score
Alternative A Alternative B
f \
Alternative C
I.A.i - Reduction in flooding events
0
10
30
1 .B.i. - Reduction in CSO discharge volume
40
40
40
2.A.i - Annual system-wide CSO volume capture
45
45
45
4.A.i - Flexibility in siting project
8
8
8
4.A.ii - Flexibility in timing of implementation of project
32
24
16
4.A.iii - Flexibility in phasing implementation of alternatives
24
24
24
4.B.i. - Green space
0
8
8
4.B.ii - Reduction in heat island effect
0
8
8
5.A.i - Cost effectiveness
14
-7
-21
6.A.i - Visibility to citizens and opp. to present educational materials
6
18
30
TOTAL
169
178
CO
loo
After reviewing the scores, the Workgroup discussed the outcomes of the evaluation exercise. By incorporating
specific community values and broadening the type of values considered, the augmented steps allowed alternatives
with the greatest portfolio of benefits to compete, even though those alternatives may be more cost-intensive to
implement. Additionally, the augmented process created a structured format for CCMUA to communicate the results
of its technical modeling and analysis. Though the Workgroup was comprised of stakeholders with varying levels of
technical expertise, all Workgroup members reported that the decision-making process was accessible and
transparent and allowed them to provide meaningful and timely input.
Next Steps in Camden
The work with CCMUA confirmed that the approach used was technically and methodically sound throughout. For
example, the work demonstrated that the scaling method for the criteria did allow for uniform comparability across
otherwise dissimilar metrics. However, since this exercise was conducted at the initial development phase of the
LTCP, the final scoring of the alternatives may change at the detailed analysis phase of the LTCP process. The
specifics of each alternative may also be modified as CCMUA further refines the infrastructure options available.
Although both the alternatives and the scoring may be modified as CCMUA moves into the detailed analysis phase,
the framework used to evaluate and score those alternatives developed by the Workgroup and used in the exercise
above will remain the same. Over the next two years, CCMUA will model the alternatives at a sewershed level and will
evaluate the performance of alternatives against all 20 of the metrics identified by the Workgroup.
8
-------
Benefits Associated with the Process Used in Camden
Incorporated a Wider Range of Benefits for Consideration
When developing control plans for CSOs or other wet-weather events, infrastructure alternatives analysis methods
used by utilities often focus on technical performance and cost. With the augmented process, the full range of
community benefits - social, environmental, and economic (including costs reduction) - were considered and
incorporated into the analysis in a systematic and replicable way. Due to the context of frequent CSOs, CCMUA's
Workgroup determined that enhanced public health was the highest priority for their community. By creating the
Scoring Table with public health as the highest priority goal, alternatives that would provide these benefits were able
to compete against alternatives that would score higher in a traditional cost-effectiveness evaluation focused on
regulatory compliance endpoints.
Allowed the Utility to Effectively Engage Community Stakeholders in the Discussion
The augmented process did not replace the modeling and analysis conducted by CCMUA and its engineering teams;
instead it provided tools that translated the technical results of this work into a format accessible to the community.
Each step in the process required an explicit articulation of its rationale, which prepared both the utility and the
community members to engage in a discussion with an increased specificity about why certain decisions were made.
For example, near the end of the process, one community member questioned the decision to place public health as
the most important goal. Because of the transparent nature of the goal-setting and scoring process, both the utility
staff and community members were able to articulate the Workgroup's thought process and the conversation that led
to the decision.
Closed the Gap Between Intentions and Ability to Incorporate Community Values as an "Anchor Point"
CCMUA was able to build trust with the community by incorporating community values into the publicly-stated goals
of the LTCP. Those goals created a structure for the scoring system for comparing alternatives. Even though the goals,
weights, and the scales for measuring alternatives were debated extensively, the structure created a uniform
measurement by which each alternative was judged. Once the Workgroup agreed to the framework and process, there
was general agreement that the final scores were valid. By explicitly demonstrating the impact of community values
on the evaluation and scoring of alternatives, CCMUA was able to close the gap between the intention to incorporate
community feedback and an effective and transparent structure to accomplish that outcome.
Take-Away Messages
The augmented alternatives analysis process used in Camden can
provide utilities with a clear, structured process for engaging
stakeholders and broadening the analysis to systematically and
replicably incorporate a wider range of benefits into infrastructure
investments, whether they be for CSOs, other wet weather challenges, or
infrastructure planning in general. As demonstrated in this case study,
utilities are able to use this methodology in concert with the
conventional technical analysis. The methodology creates a common
ground on which utilities and their communities can communicate with
each other in a clear and accessible format to find affordable and
effective solutions for their residents.
"I think the approach is very
transferable to any utility to address
wet-weather issues in an integrated
fashion including, but not limited to,
areas with combined sewers like
Camden. The work in Camden lends
itself to more opportunities to consider
when working with other communities.
--Andy Kricun, P.E., Executive Director/
9
-------
This process is also well-suited for other situations where communities are in the process of developing integrated
plans to address multiple wet weather issues in vulnerable watersheds. For more information on this augmented
process and how to apply it to your program, see the Making the Right Choices for Your Utility: Using Sustainability
Criteria for Water Infrastructure Decision Making guidance located at www.watereum.org.
10
-------
Attachment A: Scoring Table
Goals
Objectives
Criteria
Metric
1. Public Health and
Environment Enhanced
1 .A Reduce human contact
with sewage
1 .A.i. Reduction in street flooding events -
emphasis on residential areas
1 .A.i.a flood quantity % reduction (positive only), discern
high residential area impacts
Weight = 10
1 .B Improve receiving water
quality
1 .B.i Reduction in CSO discharge volume
1 .B.i.a System wide total capture %
2. Permit Requirements
Met or Exceeded (Water
2.A Meet/exceed capture
targets
2.A.i Annual system-wide CSO volume
capture
2.A.i.a % Annual capture relative to baseline (positive only)
Quality Protected)
Weight = 9
2.B Meet/exceed treatment
targets
2.B.i Treatment target exceedance
2.B.i.a % Over treatment target
3. Overall System
Resiliency Enhanced
Weight = 8
3.A Increase resilience to
storm surges
3.A.i Ability to sustain storm surge and other
flood events without significant structural or
functional damage
3.A.i.a CSO control facilities can withstand the year
(e.g. 500 year) storm surge and other flood events without
structural or equipment damage that would preclude
operation after the storm or flood
3.B Increase adaptability to
changing hydrologic
conditions
3.B.i Adaptability to maintain design
performance with consideration for future
design storm conditions
3.B.i.a CSO Control facilities can be designed with ability to
increase design capacity to accommodate future storm
conditions as projected by agencies such as IPCC, USEP,
and NJDEP
4. Economic and
4.A Increase compatibility
4.A.i Flexibility in siting project
4.A.i.a Site adaptability of project
Neighborhood Benefits
Produced
Weight = 8
with regional redevelopment
efforts
4.A.ii Flexibility in timing implementation of
alternatives
4.A.ii.a Performance contribution weighted lead time1
4.A.iii Flexibility in phasing implementation
of alternatives
4.A.iii.a Scalability potential (rated by minimum, technically
and financially viable performance level in gallons
managed)2
4.B Improve livability in
4.B.i Green space
4.B.i.a Area of green space in acres
neighborhoods
4.B.i.b Area of recreational space in acres
4.B. reduction in heat island effects
4.B.ii.a Area of tree canopy cover in square feet
1 Example: An alternative meet 10% of CSO reduction volume through Green infrastructure, 60% with WWTP improvements, 30% with conveyance enhancements: Green Infrastructure -
5-year average lead time for implementation * 0.1 =0.5; WWTP Improvements - 10 years lead time for implementation * 0.6 = 6.0; Conveyance - 7 years of lead time for
implementation * 0.30 = 2.1; Weighted average lead time = 8.6 years
2 Scalability Potential reflects that the ability to phase alternatives will have value when uncertainty exists about 1) the performance of initial investments, 2) treatment demand from
population/economic growth/decline, and/or 3) future wet weather conditions (e.g., more, more intense storms; fewer and lower intensity storms). The scalability of an alternative is
key to its ability to support phasing - the lower the level of technical and financial performance viability, the more scalable an alternative will be. For example, a deep tunnel for
storage has a higher minimum technical and financial performance viability level than high velocity side-stream treatment, thus side-stream treatment has greater Scalability Potential.
11
-------
Goals Objectives Criteria Metric
4.B.iii Reduction in underdeveloped/vacant
properties
4.B.iii.a Acres of underdeveloped/vacant properties
converted
5. Existing Public
Resources Optimized
Weight = 7
5.A Identify and establish an
affordable CSO strategy
based on full lifecycle cost
(identify best value project
alternatives)
5.A.i Cost effectiveness
5.A.i.a Least present worth cost (for this exercise)
5.A.ii Wastewater (and stormwater) costs
<2% of Median Household Income upon full
implementation of LTCP
5.A.ii.a Annual wastewater and stormwater costs for a
typical residential user as a percentage of Camden MHI
5.B Reduce the amount of
stormwater and groundwater
entering system
5.B.i Source reduction volume
5.B.i.a Million gallons of flow removed (Positive only)
5.C Support ongoing
collection system operations
5.C.i Increase in annual collection sewer
rehab or replacement
5.C.i.a Length of rehab/replacement (Positive only)
5.C.N Improved maintenance of
infrastructure
5.C.ii.a Percent of pipe inch-miles and catch basins cleaned
annually (after current initial 3-year remedial program)
6. Public Understanding
and Support for CSO
Solutions
Weight = 6
6.A Transfer knowledge of
CSO problems and value of
wastewater services
6.A.i Visibility to citizens and opportunity to
present educational materials (design,
construction, operation)
6.A.i.a H, M, L ranking for visibility and opportunity
6.B.i Multi-use nature of infrastructure and
degree of access (operation)
6.B.i.a H, M, L ranking for multi-use and accessibility
12
-------
Attachment B: Sample Scaled Metrics for C-32
Goal 1: Public Health and Environment Protected
Objective 1.A.: Reduce human contact with sewage
Criteria 1 .A.i: Reduction in street flooding events - emphasis on residential areas
Metric I.A.i.a: flood quantity % reduction (positive only), discern high residential area impacts
Scorin
g
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Alternative has
no impact on
the flood
quantity
Alternative
reduces flood
quantity by 10%
annually
Alternative
reduces flood
quantity by 20%
annually
Alternative
reduces flood
quantity by
30% annually
Alternative
reduces flood
quantity by
40% annually
Alternative
reduces flood
quantity by 50%
annually
Alternative A: All Gray
0
Alternative B: Moderate Green
1
Alternative C: Heavy Green
3
Objective 1.B.: Improve receiving water quality
Criteria I.B.i: Reduction in CSO discharge volume
Metric 1 .B.i.a: System wide total capture %
Scoring
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
Alternative has
no effect on the
annual discharge
volume
Alternative
decreases
discharge
volume by 10%
annually
Alternative
decreases
discharge
volume by 20%
annually
Alternative
decreases
discharge
volume by 30%
annually
Alternative
decreases
discharge
volume by
40% annually
Alternative
decreases
discharge volume
by 50%+ annually
Alternative A: All Gray
4
Alternative B : Moderate Green
4
Alternative C: Heavy Green
4
13
-------
Goal 2: Permit Requirements Met or Exceeded (Water Quality Protected)
Objective 2.A: Meet/exceec
Criteria 2.A.i: Annual syste
Metric 2.A.i.a: % Annual ca
capture targets
m-wide CSO volume capture
iture relative to baseline (positive only)
Scoring
-5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
¦
Alternative
has no impact
on the %
annual
capture
Alternative
increases %
annual capture
quantity by 10%
annually
Alternative
increases %
annual
capture by
20% annually
Alternative
increases %
annual capture
by 30% annually
Alternative
increases % annual
capture by 40%
annually
Alternative
increases %
annual capture by
50%+ annually
Alternative A: All Gray
5
Alternative B: Moderate Green
5
Alternative C: Heavy Green
5
Goal 4: Economic and Neighborhood Benefits Produced
Objective 4.A: Increase
Criteria 4.A.i: Flexibility
Metric 4.A.i.a: Site ada|
compatibi
1 in siting |
ptability ol
ility with regional redevelopment efforts
project
F project
Scoring
-5
g
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
Alternative has no
site adaptability
Alternative has low
site adaptability
Alternative has
moderate site
adaptability
Alternative has
high site
adaptability
Alternative A: All Gray
1
Alternative B: Moderate Green
1
Alternative C: Heavy Green
1
14
-------
Attachment C: C-11 Final Scores
Weighted Score
Criteria Alternative A Alternative B
(All Grey) (Moderate Green)
"I.A.i - Reduction in Flooding Events
0
0
"I.B.i. - Reduction in CSO Discharge Volume
10
10
2.A.i - Annual System-Wide CSO Volume Capture
9
18
4.A.i - Flexibility in siting project
8
8
4.A.ii - Flexibility in timing of implementation of project
40
40
4.A.iii - Flexibility in phasing implementation of alternatives
24
24
4.B.i. - Green Space
0
8
4.B.ii - Reduction in heat island effect
0
8
4. B.iii. - Reduction in underdeveloped/vacant properties
0
35
5.A.i - Cost Effectiveness
0
-14
6.A.i - Visibility to citizens and opportunity to present educational materials
6
30
TOTAL 97
167
15
------- |