Supplemental Guide V-Feasibility Study Guidance Document CONTENTS

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Supplemental Guide V-Feasibility Study Guidance Document CONTENTS"

Opal Booth
6 years ago
Views:

1 Supplemental Guide V-Feasibility Study Guidance Document CONTENTS Introduction...1 Purpose...2 Scoring Method...2 Feasibility Study Matrix... 3 Feasibility Study Narrative... 3 Categories, Decision Criteria and Data Requirements...3 Examples...6 Introduction One requirement of source water protection planning is to develop a contingency plan and to assess whether a secondary source is available. If no secondary source is available, water systems are expected to include an examination and analysis of the technical and economic feasibility of each of the following options to provide continued safe and reliable public water service in the event the primary source of supply is detrimentally affected by contamination, release, spill or other event ( i). These options include: a) Constructing or establishing a secondary or backup intake which would draw water supplies from a substantially different location or water source; b) Constructing additional raw water storage capacity and/or treated water storage capacity, to provide at least two days of additional system storage based on the plant s maximum level of production experienced within the last year and demand throughout the distribution system; NOTE: Studies examining the alternative of additional raw and/or treated water must comply with existing design standards regulating treated water storage, including minimum storage capacity and adequate turn-over requirements ( a, ). Storing two days of additional treated water based on maximum level of production, may not allow adequate turn-over of the treated water during average production. Therefore, it is likely that all or a portion of the two days additional stored water will be raw water. 1

2 c) Creating or constructing an operational interconnection(s) between the public water supply utility (PWSU) with other plants on the PWSU or another PWSU to allow the utility to receive its water from a different source of supply during a period its primary water supply becomes unavailable or unreliable due to contamination, release, spill event or other circumstance; d) Any other alternative which is available to the PWSU to secure safe and reliable alternative supplies during a period it primary source of supply is unavailable or negatively impacted for an extended period. If one or more alternative set forth in items (a) through (d) above is determined to be technologically or economically feasible, the public water utility shall submit an analysis of the comparative costs, risks and benefits of implementing each of the described alternatives. Purpose This document provides the data requirements and guidance to score alternatives for a feasibility study. The feasibility study process is designed to identify the viable alternatives available to public water utilities. The process is developed with three goals in mind: 1. Eliminate any obvious non-feasible alternatives 2. Allow for the presentation and development of alternatives 3. Provide a relative ranking system to compare each alternative The analysis develops a numerical score, whereby the higher the score, the more feasible the alternative. The score is obtained by evaluating the alternatives across a series of relevant decision criteria and providing a relative numerical score for each. The decision criterion scores for each alternative are then added to provide a total feasibility score. After ranking, the selection of which alternatives should be considered for further analysis can be determined in a number of ways. At a minimum, one alternative should be selected regardless of the score, however, if there are multiple alternatives that are close in ranking, all feasible alternatives should be considered. Scoring Method The scoring methodology includes a numerical scale for each criterion. Scoring for the criteria occurs on a scale of 1 to 3 with least feasible being assigned a 1 and most feasible being assigned a 3. In addition there is a 0 score which represents a non-feasible score. 0- Not feasible. Data provided for this criterion indicates that the alternative cannot be accomplished. 2

3 1- Somewhat Feasible. Date provided for this criterion represents a significant barrier to successful implementation. Accomplishing this alternative is unlikely. 2- Feasible. Data provided for this criterion indicates that accomplishing this alternative would encounter a high level of complexity and difficulty, but is feasible. 3- Very Feasible. Data provided for this criterion indicates that accomplishing this alternative would encounter a typical level of complexity and difficultly. Feasibility Study Matrix Scoring should be based on best professional judgment as supported by the presentation of the required data. In order to document and calculate scores that are provided for each alternative, WVBPH has developed a Feasibility Study Matrix. This matrix is an Excel spreadsheet that performs calculations to weight scores for criteria, described below. Those alternatives with the highest final scores are considered the most feasible and may be considered in future engineering studies to develop an alternative source of water. Note: The Feasibility Study Matrix is a password protected Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet can be obtained from the WVDHHR SWAP Program website, To unlock the spreadsheet to enter scores, click on cell C4 on the Alternatives tab and type swap when prompted for a password. This will allow data entry into white and gray cells. The Feasibility Matrix tab will be automatically populated based on the scores provided for each alternative. Feasibility Study Narrative In addition to completing the Feasibility Study Matrix spreadsheet, water systems should prepare a brief narrative that identifies one or more feasible alternative, provides a summary of data used to make this determination, and briefly summarizes the results of the matrix. The data required to properly assess each category may extend beyond the space provide in the Feasibility Study Matrix. If so, these data should also be summarized in the narrative and attached to the source water protection plan. Categories, Decision Criteria and Data Requirements The approach to the feasibility study process identifies three major categories: 1. Economic 2. Technical 3. Environmental 3

4 Decision criteria for each category encompass the major feasibility issues for the alternatives. The decision criteria are shown in Table 1. Each criterion is described below and presents several data requirements that should be considered and scored on the Feasibility Study Matrix (Table 2). Table 1. Decision Criteria for Major Feasibility Categories Economic Criteria Technical Criteria Environmental Criteria Operation and Maintenance Costs Permitting Environmental Impacts Capital Cost Flexibility Aesthetic Impacts Resilience Stakeholder Issues Institutional Requirements Economic Criteria Economic criteria consider the impact of the cost of the alternative. The costs developed should be inclusive of all expenses. The data should be based on planning level estimates. The Economic Criteria score in the feasibility matrix is automatically weighted at 40% of the total score. A. Operation and Maintenance Costs Consider the additional estimated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs to operate the alternative. The cost should include not only the cost to operate when the alternative is in use but also the stand-by O&M costs when the alternative is not in use. The O&M costs should also include any additional costs from the existing treatment and distribution facilities incurred as a result of implementing the alternative. This criterion should be presented in normalized terms (cost per gallon per day) for a comparison with other alternatives. Provide the total current budget year cost to operate and maintain the public water system (current budget year). This will be used to compare O&M and capital costs for each alternative. Describe the major O&M cost requirements for the alternative Provide the incremental cost ($/gal) to operate and maintain the alternative Compare the incremental O&M cost to the current budgeted costs (%). This field will be automatically calculated on the Feasibility Study Matrix. B. Capital Cost Consider the cost to plan, design, permit and construct the alternative. Capital Costs also include any other capital requirements to the existing treatment and distribution facilities that may be required as a result of implementing the alternative. Capital cost should be annualized over the expected life of the improvements using an acceptable amortization factor. As with O&M costs, the annualized capital cost be presented on a normalized basis ($/gal) for comparison with other alternatives 4

5 Describe the capital improvements required to implement the alternative What is the annualized capital cost to implement the alternative, including land and easement costs ($/gal). (Note: In some instances interconnections require convenience fees to connect to neighboring systems. When considering interconnection as an alternative these convenience fees should be included.) Cost comparison of the alternatives annualized capital cost to the current budgeted costs of the PWSU (%).This field will be automatically calculated on the Feasibility Study Matrix. Technical Criteria Technical criteria evaluate the engineering, operations and management issues associated with the alternatives. The Technical Criteria score is automatically weighted at 40% of the total score. A. Permitting Consider the permits and permitting agencies that are required to implement the alternative. Permitting criteria consider the likelihood of successfully obtaining the permits, including studies, design reports, public hearings, etc. The criteria also consider the projected amount of time to obtain the permits. Provide a listing of the expected permits required and the permitting agencies involved in their approval. What is the timeframe for permit approval for each permit? Describe the major requirements in obtaining the permits (environmental impact studies, public hearings, etc.) What is the likelihood of successfully obtaining the permits? Does the implementation of the alternative require regulatory exceptions or variances? B. Flexibility The amount of operational flexibility or lack thereof the public water system can expect as a result of implementing the alternative. Will the alternative be needed on a regular basis or only used intermittently? How will implementing the alternative affect the water system s current method of treating and delivering potable water including meeting Safe Drinking Water Act regulations? (Note: In the case of treated water storage, will the alternative increase the likelihood of disinfection byproducts?) C. Resilience The degree to which the alternative is resistant to changes in demand. This considers not only daily and seasonal changes, but also expandability in response to long term demand due to customer and usage growth. Will the alternative provide any advantages or disadvantages to meeting seasonal changes in demand? How resistant will the alternative be to extreme weather conditions such as drought and flooding? Will the alternative be expandable to meet the growing needs of the service area? 5

6 D. Institutional Requirements Identify any agreements or other legal instruments with governmental entities, private institutions or other public water utilities required to implement the alternative (ex. mutual aid agreements). Are development/planning restrictions in place that can act as a barrier to the implementation of the alternative? Identify potential land acquisition and easements requirements. Environmental Criteria- Environmental criteria evaluate the environmental, aesthetic, and stakeholder issues associated with the alternatives. The Environmental Criteria score is automatically weighted at 20% of the total score. A. Environmental Impacts Identify how the alternative will affect local ecosystems. Identify any environmentally protected areas or habitats that might be impacted by the alternative (streams, wetlands, endangered species habitat, historic or archeological site, etc.) B. Aesthetic Impacts Addresses how the alternative impacts the residents and businesses in the surrounding area. Identify any visual or noise issues caused by the alternative that may affect local land uses? Identify any mitigation measures that will be required to address aesthetic impacts? C. Stakeholder Issues Identifies stakeholders and stakeholder values with respect to the alternatives. Identify the potential stakeholders affected by the alternative. Identify the potential issues with stakeholders for and against the alternative. Will stakeholder concerns represent a significant barrier to implementation (or assistance) of the alternative? Examples Economic Criteria An interconnect with an adjacent utility is expected to add $1.25/kgal to the O&M cost of the PWSU. This cost includes the purchase of water. This cost represents a 20% increase over the existing $/kgal cost of the utility but would only occur in an emergency situation when water is purchased. Since the increase would only occur on an intermittent basis it is not expected to greatly affect the cost of service and therefore is scored as a 3. The piping and pumping for the interconnect would have an annualized cost of $2.50/kgal, which is 40% over the existing public water utility operating cost. This would have to be paid regardless of usage and represent a 6

7 significant increase to the customers. However, with supplemental grant funding this cost may be reduced. Based on this information the score for the capital cost criterion would be a 1. Technical Criteria Constructing a raw water storage reservoir is required to provide raw water storage and a second intake. There is available land nearby but it is owned by a private party and is partially wetlands. Additional permits will be required to address the disruption of the wetland so the permit criterion would be scored as a 2. The reservoir will provide for some increased flexibility and improve the facility s ability to meet demands during periods of low source water availability. The reservoir will not negatively impact the operations of the treatment facility so both of these criteria are scored as 3. Although the land is adjacent to the treatment facilities it has some very restrictive land use requirements due to its wetland status. The public water utility will have to seek a variance from the local planning authority to construct the reservoir. There is a lengthy review and approval process with no guarantee of approval. Therefore this criterion is scored as a 1. Environmental Criteria A water storage tank will be constructed in a park that is vital to the community for recreation and tourism. Because preparing for tank construction will require removing a stand of trees thought to be habitat for endangered species and obtaining Endangered Species Act concurrence will restrict construction periods and species surveys, the environmental criterion would be scored a 2. The vital nature of the area and the fear of an unsightly tank in the area would be of concern to many residents and business in the area. However, it is expected that with decorative plantings and painting the visual impact of the tank could be minimized. Therefore the aesthetic criterion would be scored a 2. If there happens to be a very vocal community or business group that has historically been very effective preventing projects in the area the stakeholder criterion might be ranked a 1. 7

8 Table 2. Feasibility Study Matrix Economic Criteria Technical Criteria Environmental Criteria Alternative Strategy Description Operation and Maintenance Costs Capital Costs Total Total % Weighted Total Permitting Flexibility Resilience Institutional Requirements Total Total % Weighted Total Environmental Impacts Aesthetic Impacts Stakeholder Issues Total Total % Weighted Total Final Score Capital Cost Comments Backup Intake Interconnect Treated water storage Raw Water Storage Other Scoring: 0 Not feasible. Criterion cannot be met by this alternative and removes the alternative from further consideration. 1 Feasible but difficult. Criterion represents a significant barrier to successful implementation but does not eliminate it from consideration. 2 Feasible. Criterion can be met by the alternative. 3 Very Feasible. Criterion can be easily met by the alternative 8

Environmental Aspects, Impacts, and Risk ISO 14001:

Environmental Aspects, Impacts, and Risk ISO 14001: 1. PURPOSE: This document describes the procedure for identification of environmental risks, opportunities, aspects and impacts for the City of Dallas (City) Environmental Management System (EMS) and determining