-For SAC Discussion Purposes Only- Page 1 of 17

Transcription

1 Project Scoring Criteria Framework The following describes project scoring criteria for the Safe, Clean Water Program. The Scoring Criteria within this framework is meant to evaluate the merit of every project on an uniform set of scoring criteria. The actual selection of projects that have been d through this criteria is a function of governance. The role of the selection process is to make sure that the suite of projects selected meet the goals of the Safe, Clean Water Program. Individual project s are meant to inform the Selection Process, but project s alone will not be the deciding factor for selection of a project for funding. I. Overarching Project/Program Criteria Types of (Definitions) Water supply Increase in the amount of locally available water. Activities resulting in this benefit include but are not limited to the following, provided there is a nexus to stormwater capture or urban runoff diversion: o Reuse and conservation practices o Water recycling o Increased groundwater replenishment, storage or available yield Water quality Consistent improvement in the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of stormwater and urban runoff and/or protections of these characteristics in surface waters, rivers, creeks, lakes, streams and the marine environment. Activities resulting in this benefit include but are not limited to: o Infiltration or treatment of stormwater runoff o Non-point source pollution control o Diversion of urban runoff or stormwater to sanitary sewer system Community enhancements - A benefit in addition to water supply or water quality, including but not limited to: o Improved flood management and flood risk mitigation o Creation of parks and wetlands, or restoration of habitat and wetlands o Reduction of urban heat island effect, carbon reduction/sequestration, or improved air quality o Improved public access and/or enhanced or new recreational opportunities o Greening of schools, or green waste reduction/diversion Funding Program Requirements Regional Program Projects submitted for consideration through the Safe, Clean Water Program do not have to be part of an existing plan. Projects from existing plans as well as new concepts will have equal opportunity for consideration; however existing planned projects will still need to be run through the Safe, Clean Water Program Project Selection Critiera. All regional projects must be multibenefit and provide two or more of the following benefits: Water Supply, Water Quality, and Community Enhancement All projects must be watershed-based and must impact a combined tributary area exceeding one hundred (100) acres of land, and/or provide benefits to more than one Municipality / EWMP Group / etc. As a default, Regional Program projects will be designed, constructed, and operated and maintained by FCD in partnership with project proponents, unless another jurisdiction has the capabilities to take on this role. Regional Program Funds restrictions are as follows: o Not less than TBD% of Regional Program funds will be used to benefit DACs (where applicable) Municipal Program All Municipal projects must be multibenefit and provide two or more of the following benefits: Water Supply, Water Quality, and Community Enhancement. An exception to this requirement may be made for municipal level single-purpose water quality projects FCD Program All FCD projects must be multi-benefit and provide two or more of the following benefits: Water Supply, Water Quality, and Community Enhancement Page 1 of 17

2 II. Project Prioritization Criteria (Scoring) Regional Program projects will be d using the following framework: Section Range Scoring Standards A. Water Supply B. Water Quality C. Community Enhancement D. Leveraging Funds & Readiness for Implementation Yes / No (If A1 = Yes Only) (If A1 = Yes Only) Yes/No The project provides water supply benefits A1. Project provides Water Supply benefits as defined above and results in a significant increase in local water supply of > 25 acre feet per year (includes offseting existing potable water use through capture/on-site reuse or reduction in required irrigation). A2. Water Supply Cost Effectiveness. The total life-cycle cost* per unit of acre foot of stormwater captured for water supply is awarded as follows: >$2000/ac-ft = TBD pts $ /ac-ft = TBD pts <$1000/ac-ft = TBD pts A3.Water Supply Benefit Magnitude. The additional water supply resulting from the project is as follows: >50 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >100 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >500 ac-ft/year = TBD pts A4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water supply benefits The project provides water quality benefits B1. Project provides Water Quality benefits as defined above and addresses polluntants of concern. B2.Water Quality Cost Effectiveness. The (ac-ft Volume of stormwater managed in a 24-hour period)** / (Life-Cycle Cost* in $Millions) is awarded as follows: <0.49 = TBD pts = TBD pts >1.0 = TBD pts B3. Water Quality Benefit Magnitude. Quantify the pollutant reduction for the controlling pollutants identified in appropriate E/WMP using the LACFCD s Watershed Management Modeling System. The analysis should be an average reduction over a ten year period showing the impact of the project. <50% = TBD pts 74-50% = TBD pts >75%= TBD pts B4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water quality benefits The project provides community enhancement benefits C1. Project provides community enhancement benefits directly to and within a disadvantaged community C2. Project has at least one of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above C3. Project has at least two of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above The project achieves one or more of the following: D1. Cost-Share. Additional Funding has been awarded for the project. >25% Funding Matched = TBD pts >50% Funding Matched = TBD pts D2. The project demonstrates strong local, community-based support and/or has been developed as part of a partnership with local NGOs/CBOs. D3. Project will begin construction within 18 months Total Total Points All Sections TBD *Total Life-Cycle Cost: The Present Value of all planning, design, land acquisition, construction, and total life O&M costs for the project for the entire life span of the progect (eg. 50-year design life span) **Management of the 24-hour event is considered the maximum capacity of a project for a 24-hour period. For water quality focused projects, this would typically be the 85 th percentile design storm capacity. Page 2 of 17

3 III. Project Scoring Criteria: Eligible Project Types The project scoring criteria has been applied to prototypical projects that would be eligible for funding by the Safe, Clean Water Program. The scoring criteria equally distributes points between water quality, water supply, and community enhancements. Project type EWMP Project with water supply element EWMP Project without water supply element Wetland treat and release Green Street without infiltration Green Street without infiltration Sewer Connection Scoring Features high s for community enhancement and water quality. Water supply is typically <100 AFY Mid-range water supply Features high s for community enhancement and water quality. Lacks water supply element Features high s for community enhancement and water quality. Inability to capture and treat large storm volumes Decreased water quality Features high s for community enhancement and water quality. Small project size with capacity to reuse onsite Low supply Features high s for community enhancement and water quality. Lacks water supply element Stormwater capture is minimal as daily dry weather flow is the design element for this type of project Mid-range s for water quality 35 Water Quality / 12 2 / 12 Community Enhancements Water Supply (Typical EWMP Project) / / / / / / / / 12 9 / / / 12 6 / 12 0 EWMP Project w/ water supply element (WQ/CE/low WS) EWMP Projectw/out water supply element (WQ/CE) Wetland -treat and release (WQ/CE) Green Street w/ onsite reuse (WQ/CE) Green Street (WQ/CE) Sewer Connection (WS/WQ) Page 3 of 17

4 V. Example Projects and s CONCEPT PROJECT Page 4 of 17

5 Bassett High School EWMP Project Section Range Scoring Standards Bassett High School EWMP Range A. Water Supply B. Water Quality Yes / No (If A1 = Yes Only) (If A1 = Yes Only) Yes/No The project provides water supply benefits A1. Project provides Water Supply benefits as defined above and results in a significant increase in local water supply of > 25 acre feet per year (includes offseting existing potable water use through capture/on-site reuse or reduction in required irrigation). A2. Water Supply Cost Effectiveness. The total life-cycle cost* per unit of acre foot of stormwater captured for water supply is awarded as follows: >$2000/ac-ft = TBD pts $ /ac-ft = TBD pts <$1000/ac-ft = TBD pts A3.Water Supply Benefit Magnitude. The additional water supply resulting from the project is as follows: >50 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >100 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >500 ac-ft/year = TBD pts A4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water supply benefits The project provides water quality benefits B1. Project provides Water Quality benefits as defined above and addresses polluntants of concern. B2.Water Quality Cost Effectiveness. The (ac-ft Volume of stormwater managed in a 24-hour period) / (Life-Cycle Cost* in $Millions) is awarded as follows: <0.49 = TBD pts = TBD pts >1.0 = TBD pts B3. Water Quality Benefit Magnitude. Quantify the pollutant reduction for the controlling pollutants identified in appropriate E/WMP using the LACFCD s Watershed Management Modeling System. The analysis should be an average reduction over a ten year period showing the impact of the project. <50% = TBD pts 74-50% = TBD pts >75%= TBD pts B4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water quality benefits 38 ac-ft 875 ac tributary Area 266 AFY on average for recharge 266 * 50-year = 13,300 AF $37M + PV(5%*O&M) = $81.5M $81.5M / 13,300AF = $6,130/AF 266 AFY on average Project would use soil infiltration to produce new water supply Total Points Section A: Bassett High School is a water quality focused EWMP project 38 ac-ft / $37 = 1.03 Zinc is controllng pollutant. 50% reduction in zinc load for 10 year average Enhancements and redesign of existing sports fields, and educational garden Addresses Urban Heat Island Total Points Section B: Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 Low End of the A2 Mid Range of the A3 for A4 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 High End of the B2 Mid Range of the B3 for B4 Page 5 of 17

6 Bassett High School EWMP Project Section Range Scoring Standards Bassett High School EWMP Range C. Community Enhancement D. Leveraging Funds & Readiness for Implemen-tation The project provides community enhancement benefits C1. Project provides community enhancement benefits directly to and within a disadvantaged community C2. Project has at least one of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above C3. Project has at least two of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above The project achieves one or more of the following: D1. Cost-Share. Additional Funding has been awarded for the project. >25% Funding Matched = TBD pts >50% Funding Matched = TBD pts D2. The project demonstrates strong local, community-based support and/or has been developed as part of a partnership with local NGOs/CBOs. D3. Project will begin construction within 18 months Project is located within a disadvantaged community in the City of La Puente. Provides community enhancmenets for the students and local residents near Bassett High School New Recreational Opportunities Reduction of Urban Heat Island Outdoor classroom and Educational Garden New Recreational Opportunities Reduction of Urban Heat Island Outdoor classroom and Educational Garden Total Points Section C: Project has received a 50% Match for funding Project has worked with stakeholders from the school and the area to address the needs of the community. Project design will finish in Spring Construction date TBD Total Points Section D: for C1 for C2 for C3 High End of the D1 for D2 Total Total Points All Sections: Page 6 of 17

7 CONCEPT PROJECT Page 7 of 17

8 Rory M. Shaw Wetlands Project Section Range Scoring Standards Rory M. Shaw Wetlands Range A. Water Supply B. Water Quality Yes / No (If A1 = Yes Only) (If A1 = Yes Only) Yes/No The project provides water supply benefits A1. Project provides Water Supply benefits as defined above and results in a significant increase in local water supply of > 25 acre feet per year (includes offseting existing potable water use through capture/on-site reuse or reduction in required irrigation). A2. Water Supply Cost Effectiveness. The total life-cycle cost* per unit of acre foot of stormwater captured for water supply is awarded as follows: >$2000/ac-ft = TBD pts $ /ac-ft = TBD pts <$1000/ac-ft = TBD pts A3.Water Supply Benefit Magnitude. The additional water supply resulting from the project is as follows: >50 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >100 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >500 ac-ft/year = TBD pts A4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water supply benefits The project provides water quality benefits B1. Project provides Water Quality benefits as defined above and addresses polluntants of concern. B2.Water Quality Cost Effectiveness. The (ac-ft Volume of stormwater managed in a 24-hour period) / (Life-Cycle Cost* in $Millions) is awarded as follows: <0.49 = TBD pts = TBD pts >1.0 = TBD pts B3. Water Quality Benefit Magnitude. Quantify the pollutant reduction for the controlling pollutants identified in appropriate E/WMP using the LACFCD s Watershed Management Modeling System. The analysis should be an average reduction over a ten year period showing the impact of the project. <50% = TBD pts 74-50% = TBD pts >75%= TBD pts B4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water quality benefits 400 ac-ft 929 ac tributary Area 590 AFY on average for recharge 590 * 50-year = 29,500 AF $52M + PV(5%*O&M) = $ 62M $ 62M / 29,500 AF = $ 2,100/AF 590 AFY on average Project would use soil infiltration to produce new water supply Total Points Section A: Rory M. Shaw Wetlands Park provides water quality benefits 10 ac-ft / $52 = 0.2 Many pollutants of concern including lead and zinc 100% of stormwater is captured, treated, and infiltrated for a 100% reduction in pollutant loads Creating of new open space and wetlands Addresses Urban Heat Island Project improves air quality by replacing an active inert landfill Total Points Section B: Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 Low End of the A2 High End of the A3 for A4 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 Low End of the B2 High End of the B3 for B4 Page 8 of 17

9 Rory M. Shaw Wetlands Project Section Range Scoring Standards Rory M. Shaw Wetlands Range C. Community Enhancement D. Leveraging Funds & Readiness for Implemen-tation The project provides community enhancement benefits C1. Project provides community enhancement benefits directly to and within a disadvantaged community C2. Project has at least one of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above C3. Project has at least two of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above The project achieves one or more of the following: D1. Cost-Share. Additional Funding has been awarded for the project. >25% Funding Matched = TBD pts >50% Funding Matched = TBD pts D2. The project demonstrates strong local, community-based support and/or has been developed as part of a partnership with local NGOs/CBOs. D3. Project will begin construction within 18 months Project is located within a disadvantaged community in Sun Valley. Provides active and passive community enhancements Improved flood management and flood risk mitigation Creation of habitat and wetlands Reduction of urban heat island effect through urban greening Improved public access and new recreational opportunities Creation of parks and wetlands Improved flood management and flood risk mitigation Creation of habitat and wetlands Reduction of urban heat island effect through urban greening Improved public access and new recreational opportunities Creation of parks and wetlands Total Points Section C: Project has funding match of $17.8M $17.8M/$52M = 34% match Project has been in planning/development with the community and local NGOs/CBOs since Project will begin construction in Spring 2019 Total Points Section D: for C1 for C2 for C3 Low End of the D1 for D2 for D3 Total Total Points All Sections: Page 9 of 17

10 CONCEPT PROJECT -For SAC Discussion Purposes Only- Page 10 of 17

11 Sewer Diversion Project (Santa Ynez) Section Range Scoring Standards Santa Ynez Range A. Water Supply B. Water Quality Yes / No (If A1 = Yes Only) (If A1 = Yes Only) The project provides water supply benefits A1. Project provides Water Supply benefits as defined above and results in a significant increase in local water supply of > 25 acre feet per year (includes offseting existing potable water use through capture/on-site reuse or reduction in required irrigation). A2. Water Supply Cost Effectiveness. The total life-cycle cost* per unit of acre foot of stormwater captured for water supply is awarded as follows: >$2000/ac-ft = TBD pts $ /ac-ft = TBD pts <$1000/ac-ft = TBD pts A3.Water Supply Benefit Magnitude. The additional water supply resulting from the project is as follows: >50 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >100 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >500 ac-ft/year = TBD pts A4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water supply benefits Yes/No The project provides water quality benefits B1. Project provides Water Quality benefits as defined above and addresses polluntants of concern. B2.Water Quality Cost Effectiveness. The (ac-ft Volume of stormwater managed in a 24-hour period) / (Life-Cycle Cost* in $Millions) is awarded as follows: <0.49 = TBD pts = TBD pts >1.0 = TBD pts B3. Water Quality Benefit Magnitude. Quantify the pollutant reduction for the controlling pollutants identified in appropriate E/WMP using the LACFCD s Watershed Management Modeling System. The analysis should be an average reduction over a ten year period showing the impact of the project. <50% = TBD pts 74-50% = TBD pts >75%= TBD pts B4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water quality benefits NA 4,490 ac tributary Area 1333 AFY on average diverted to treatment plant 1333 * 50-year = 66,650 AF $1.7M + PV(5%*O&M) = $3.7M $3.7M / 66,650AF = $55.6/AF *Note: Before Treatment Costs 1,333 AFY on average Total Points Section A: Santa Ynez is a water quality focused LFD project 3.65 ac-ft / $3.7M = 1.0 <50% Total Points Section B: Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 High End of the A2 High End of the A3 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 High End of the B2 Low End of Range NA Page 11 of 17

12 Sewer Diversion Project (Santa Ynez) Section Range Scoring Standards Santa Ynez Range C. Community Enhancement D. Leveraging Funds & Readiness for Implemen-tation The project provides community enhancement benefits C1. Project provides community enhancement benefits directly to and within a disadvantaged community C2. Project has at least one of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above C3. Project has at least two of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above The project achieves one or more of the following: D1. Cost-Share. Additional Funding has been awarded for the project. >25% Funding Matched = TBD pts >50% Funding Matched = TBD pts D2. The project demonstrates strong local, community-based support and/or has been developed as part of a partnership with local NGOs/CBOs. D3. Project will begin construction within 18 months Total Points Section C: County currently matches 50% for all sewer diversion projects Project will begin construction within the next 18 months Total Points Section D: High end of for D3 Total Total Points All Sections: Page 12 of 17

13 CONCEPT PROJECT -For SAC Discussion Purposes Only- Page 13 of 17

14 Monteith Park Stormwater Capture Project (Green Street) Section Range Scoring Standards Monteith Park Range A. Water Supply B. Water Quality Yes / No (If A1 = Yes Only) (If A1 = Yes Only) Yes/No The project provides water supply benefits A1. Project provides Water Supply benefits as defined above and results in a significant increase in local water supply of > 25 acre feet per year (includes offseting existing potable water use through capture/on-site reuse or reduction in required irrigation). A2. Water Supply Cost Effectiveness. The total life-cycle cost* per unit of acre foot of stormwater captured for water supply is awarded as follows: >$2000/ac-ft = TBD pts $ /ac-ft = TBD pts <$1000/ac-ft = TBD pts A3.Water Supply Benefit Magnitude. The additional water supply resulting from the project is as follows: >50 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >100 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >500 ac-ft/year = TBD pts A4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water supply benefits The project provides water quality benefits B1. Project provides Water Quality benefits as defined above and addresses polluntants of concern. B2.Water Quality Cost Effectiveness. The (ac-ft Volume of stormwater managed in a 24-hour period) / (Life-Cycle Cost* in $Millions) is awarded as follows: <0.49 = TBD pts = TBD pts >1.0 = TBD pts B3. Water Quality Benefit Magnitude. Quantify the pollutant reduction for the controlling pollutants identified in appropriate E/WMP using the LACFCD s Watershed Management Modeling System. The analysis should be an average reduction over a ten year period showing the impact of the project. <50% = TBD pts 74-50% = TBD pts >75%= TBD pts B4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water quality benefits 7.9 ac-ft capacity for 230 ac. 80 AFY 80 * 50-year = 4,000 AF $7M + PV(5%*O&M) = $15.4M $15.4M / 4,000AF = $3,850/AF 80 AFY on average Project would use soil infiltration to produce new water supply Total Points Section A: Monteith Park is a water quality focused EWMP project 7.9 ac-ft / $15.4 M = 0.51 Zinc is controllng pollutant. 83% reduction in zinc load for 10 year average Enhancements and design of natural bioswales and soil filtration Addresses Urban Heat Island Total Points Section B: Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 Low End of the A2 Low End of the A2 for A4 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 Mid Range of the B2 Mid Range of the B3 for B4 Page 14 of 17

15 Monteith Park Stormwater Capture Project (Green Street) Section Range Scoring Standards Monteith Park Range C. Community Enhancement D. Leveraging Funds & Readiness for Implemen-tation The project provides community enhancement benefits C1. Project provides community enhancement benefits directly to and within a disadvantaged community C2. Project has at least one of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above C3. Project has at least two of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above The project achieves one or more of the following: D1. Cost-Share. Additional Funding has been awarded for the project. >25% Funding Matched = TBD pts >50% Funding Matched = TBD pts D2. The project demonstrates strong local, community-based support and/or has been developed as part of a partnership with local NGOs/CBOs. D3. Project will begin construction within 18 months Not part of a DAC Natural Green Street features Enhanced recreational opportunities (walking trail) Traffic Calming Urban Heat Island Reduction Natural Green Street features Enhanced recreational opportunities (walking trail) Traffic Calming Urban Heat Island Reduction Total Points Section C: 50% Match The project is working closely and meeting regularly with local communities Construction will begin 2019 Total Points Section D: for C2 for C3 High End of the D1 for D2 for D3 Total Total Points All Sections: Page 15 of 17

16 VI. Example Project Summary Section A. Water Supply B. Water Quality Scoring Standards The project provides water supply benefits A1. Project provides Water Supply benefits as defined above and results in a significant increase in local water supply of > 25 acre feet per year (includes offseting existing potable water use through capture/on-site reuse or reduction in required irrigation). A2. Water Supply Cost Effectiveness. The total life-cycle cost* per unit of acre foot of stormwater captured for water supply is awarded as follows: >$2000/ac-ft = TBD pts $ /ac-ft = TBD pts <$1000/ac-ft = TBD pts A3.Water Supply Benefit Magnitude. The additional water supply resulting from the project is as follows: >50 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >100 ac-ft/year = TBD pts >500 ac-ft/year = TBD pts A4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water supply benefits The project provides water quality benefits B1. Project provides Water Quality benefits as defined above and addresses polluntants of concern. B2.Water Quality Cost Effectiveness. The (ac-ft Volume of stormwater managed in a 24-hour period) / (Life-Cycle Cost* in $Millions) is awarded as follows: <0.49 = TBD pts = TBD pts >1.0 = TBD pts B3. Water Quality Benefit Magnitude. Quantify the pollutant reduction for the controlling pollutants identified in appropriate E/WMP using the LACFCD s Watershed Management Modeling System. The analysis should be an average reduction over a ten year period showing the impact of the project. <50% = TBD pts 74-50% = TBD pts >75%= TBD pts B4. Project utilizes Nature Based Solutions to achieve the water quality benefits Bassett Infiltration Gallery Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 Low End of the A2 Mid Range of the A3 A4 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 High End of the B2 Mid Range of the B3 B4 Rory M. Shaw Wetlands Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 Low End of the A2 High End of the A3 A4 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 Low End of the B2 High End of the B3 B4 Santa Ynez Sewer Connect Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 High End of the A2 High End of the A3 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 High End of the B2 Low End of Range NA Monteith Green Street Yes. Move to A2, A3, & A4 Low End of the A2 Low End of the A2 A4 Yes. Move to B2, B3, and B4 Mid Range of the B2 Mid Range of the B3 B4 Page 16 of 17

17 Section C. Community Enhancement Scoring Standards The project provides community enhancement benefits C1. Project provides community enhancement benefits directly to and within a disadvantaged community C2. Project has at least one of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above C3. Project has at least two of the Community Enhancement benefits defined above Bassett Inf. Gallery C1 C2 C3 Rory M. Shaw Wetlands C1 C2 C3 Santa Ynez Sewer Con. Monteith Green Street C2 C3 D. Leveraging Funds & Readiness for Implemen-tation The project achieves one or more of the following: D1. Cost-Share. Additional Funding has been awarded for the project. >25% Funding Matched = TBD pts >50% Funding Matched = TBD pts D2. The project demonstrates strong local, community-based support and/or has been developed as part of a partnership with local NGOs/CBOs. High End of the D1 D2 Low End of the D1 D2 High end of High End of the D1 D2 D3. Project will begin construction within 18 months D3 D3 D3 Page 17 of 17