Transcript Prioritization of Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects

US-Mexico Border
Infrastructure Program
Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects
FY2009/2010 BEIF-PDAP
Prioritization Process
EPA Region 6
Stakeholder Workshop
Javier Torres
Regional Project Manager
Workshop Agenda
 Welcome and Introductions
 Workshop Purpose and Materials
 FY09/10 Prioritization Process
 Summary of Important Modifications
 Methodology
 Criteria for Category Placement
 Ranking Parameters
 BECC Website – Access to Information
 Anticipated Process Schedule
 Prioritization Process Questions & Answers
 Agency Stakeholders
 Comments, Questions, Discussion
 Region 6 Project Application Review
Workshop Purpose and Materials
 Inform Potential Sponsors/Stakeholders and
distribute process documents
 Review Criteria and Methodology
 Describe Anticipated Process Steps/Schedule
 Establish Contacts to Support Sponsors
through Process
 Encourage Early Collaboration with Funding
Partners
 Provide Opportunity to Review Project
Application examples
 Workshop Materials:
•Presentation – Criteria
•Project Application
•Instructional Booklet
•Presentation – Sample Applications
•Region 6 Prioritization Criteria –
Drinking Water and Wastewater Projects
Summary of Important Process Modifications
 Category Conditions – Category 1
 DW – All EPA Primary Water Quality Standard Violations
 WW – All Non-compliant, failing on-site treatment systems
 Ranking Parameter Scoring
 Score Modifications
 Project Development and Funding Status
 Protecting Water Resources and Increasing Access to
Services replaces Transboundary Impact
 Degree of Economic Distress – new MHI comparison factor
 Institutional Capacity – new sub-parameter: Entity Status
 Project Application – minor changes
 Documentation Requirements
 Aerial Imagery-based Project Map
 Prioritization Methodology
 Category Condition Field Verification during Documentation
Process
Other Important Process Highlights
2-year Funding Cycle – FY2009 and FY2010
All Projects must provide a US-side Benefit
Maximum Construction Cost: $30 million
BEIF contribution is determined, project-byproject, according to an affordability analysis
by NADB and can not exceed $8 million.
 By-Pass and Schedule Provision




2-year Project Development from Notification
3-year Construction from signing NADB sub-grant
 Adequate Provisions for Pretreatment of
Industrial/Commercial sewage prior to design
or construction financing
 Appropriate Cost-effectiveness and
Sustainable Building Practices
Prioritization Process Methodology – R6
Define Project
Application & Documentation
Focused on Conditions
Adverse Human
Health Effect ?
YES
Category 1
Category Evaluation
NO
Immediate Adverse
Environmental Effect or
Potential Adverse Human
Health Effect?
NO
Risk to Human Health
or Environment?
YES
YES
Category 2
Category 3
Determine Category requiring Ranking Process.
Ranking Parameter Evaluation
(project receives a score)
- Development & Funding Status - Protecting Water Resources
- Cost per Residential Connection and Increasing Access
- Utility Institutional Capacity
- Impact to BEIF
- Degree of Economic Distress
- Sustainable Development
Project is
ranked within
its category
Category 1 – First Priority
Alleviate existing adverse human health effects
Existing Area-Wide Conditions for:
 Potable water connections to existing un-served populations
where drinking water is unavailable
 Microbial contamination in the potable water system resulting in
repeated fecal coliform or e-coli bacteria levels above
applicable standards
 Potable water exceeds maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
for contaminants per US EPA primary drinking water standards,
or equivalent Mexican standards (NOM-127-SSA1-1994)
 Current drinking water system uses unfiltered surface water or
groundwater-under-the-direct-influence-of-surface-water
(GWUDI) with microbial contamination and does not meet
applicable surface water treatment regulations
Category 1 – First Priority (cont.)
Alleviate existing adverse human health effects
Existing Area-Wide Conditions for:
 Untreated sewage discharges due to the absence of WW
collection.
 Untreated sewage discharges due to the absence or complete
failure of centralized wastewater treatment facilities
 Non-compliant, failing on-site treatment systems, in at least
2/3 of the project area, experience surface pooling and/or
cause a significant threat to the environment
 History of cases of acute and/or chronic health problems
directly linked to waterborne contaminants in the existing
drinking water system or untreated or partially treated
wastewater
Category 2 – Second Priority
Correct immediate adverse environmental effects and/or
Potential for adverse human health effects
Existing Area-Wide Conditions for:
 Water Outages due to Insufficient Capacity in Water Treatment
or Distribution Systems and not attributable to operational
issues or lack of fire flow storage
 Non-compliant WW Discharges to Impaired US Water Bodies
where water quality objectives are not being attained (305(b)
report) or in Mexico, water bodies classified by the Mexican
Federal Government as a National Water Body where specific
discharge requirements, CPD’s, apply.
 Non-compliant WW Effluent Discharge Quality Exceeds Acute
Aquatic Standards or Impacts Threatened/Endangered species
 Major WW Collection or Treatment System Deficiencies not
attributable to the lack of maintenance which cause an
immediate and significant threat to the environment and/or a
potential for human contact/exposure to untreated sewage
Category 3 – Third Priority
Risk to human health or environment
Existing Area-Wide Conditions for:
 Major Deficiencies of the Drinking Water Treatment and
Distribution systems and/or WW Collection and Treatment
systems that cause a risk to human health or the environment
and a corrective action is required so that the situation is not
exacerbated
 Drinking Water exceeds Enforceable Secondary Drinking
Water Standards, equivalent Mexican standards (NOM-127SSA1-1994), or other regulatory requirements
 Inadequate Water Pressures exist violating an enforceable
standard and are not attributable to operational issues or
storage capacity requirements such as fire flow storage
 Treated WW Effluent Quality does not meet current Effluent
Discharge Limits
Ranking Parameter Evaluation
Summary of FY09/10 Parameters
Project Development
and Funding Status
25 Points
1515
Points
Cost per Connection
Impact to BEIF
15 Points
Billing Efficiency Collection Efficiency
5 Points
5 Points
Entity Status
5 Points
Utility Institutional
Capacity
10 Points
Protecting Water Resources and
increasing access to services
10 Points
Degree of Economic Distress
10 Points
Sustainable Development
Total
100 Points
Ranking Parameters
Project Development and Funding Status – 25 Points
Part 1:
Advanced Project Development Status provides:
 Effective and time-efficient use of funds – Sooner to
Construction.
 Increased accuracy of project scope and data such as costs
and benefited connections.
 Improved validity of other ranking parameters
Project Development Status
Application
Facility Plan - Update Required*
Facility Plan - Under Development
Facility Planning – Complete
EPA NEPA completed
100% final design completed w/NEPA
0
2
5
10
15
20
*Documented effort is older than 5 years, the project conditions have changed requiring
modification to planning elements such as site, service factors, funding availability, regulatory
requirements, and others or the recommended solution requires additional analysis
Ranking Parameters
Project Development and Funding Status (cont.)
Part 2:
Supplemental Points for Funding Status:
 Rewards projects with ≥50% Design Funds or final design is
complete (with or without NEPA)
 Rewards projects with any existing formal funding commitments
for any portion of construction funds – BEIF is a “funding of last
resort” – every project will eventually require formal funding
commitments from sources other than BEIF/PDAP.
Status of Funding (supplemental points)
Formal Commitment of ≥50% Design Funds or final design is
complete (with or without NEPA)
Same as above plus a formal commitment for any portion of
construction funds
Score
3
5
Note:
A formal funding commitment can be documented with:
Specific project allocation reserved/committed by governing body in an approved budget.
Notification of Award or funding agreement from funding resource.
A commitment for construction funds must be available in a firm amount and for
sufficient time to implement the project.
Ranking Parameters
Cost per Residential Connection – 15 Points
 Measures the value of investment and cost-effectiveness of
the project.
 Benefited Residential Connections –
 connections that will directly receive new or improved
service as a result of the project and are not necessarily
the total connections served.
 Does not include the projected residential connections or
population anticipated to benefit from the project.
US
No Data
MEXICO
No Data
> $25,000
> $3,500
≤ $25,000 and > $15,000
≤ $15,000 and > $5,000
≤ $5,000 and > $2,500
≤ $2,500
≤ $3,500 and > $2,000
≤ $2,000 and > $1,000
≤ $1,000 and > $500
≤ $500
Score
0
0
4
8
12
15
The measure for this parameter is developed separately for each country
primarily due to differences in employee wages and design requirements between
the two countries, which impact costs associated with construction.
Ranking Parameters
Impact to BEIF – 15 points
Impact to BEIF measured by total construction cost:
 Indicates a more effective use of BEIF – greater opportunity to
offer the limited resource to more projects.
 Rewards projects which require less BEIF because other
funding sources are available.
Total Construction Costs
> $20 Million
Score
0
≤ $20 million and > $15 million
4
≤ $15 million and > $5 million
8
≤ $5 million and > $3 million
12
≤ $3 million
15
Note:
Projects with funding commitments that exceed 50% of construction will be
considered according to the unfunded costs. Funding commitments must be
in a firm amount and for sufficient time to implement the project.
Ranking Parameters
Utility Institutional Capacity – 15 points (cumulative)
Recognizes Utilities for:
 Operational efficiencies, indicating improved opportunities for
long-term stability.
 The ability to maintain sufficient cash flow.
 Establishing the legal authority to develop the proposed
project, obtain and manage project financing sources, and
own and operate the constructed infrastructure.
Billing Efficiency
US Measure
Measure
At or Above 85% At or Above 65%
At or Above 70% At or Above 55%
Below 70%
Below 55%
Score
5
3
0
Collection Efficiency
US Measure
Measure
At or Above 90% At or Above 80%
At or Above 70% At or Above 65%
Below 70%
Below 65%
Entity Status
Score
Fully Established Entity
5
Established Entity with pending legal tasks
3
No Established Entity
0
Score
5
3
0
Ranking Parameters
Protecting Water Resources and
Increasing Access to Services– 10 points (cumulative)
 Recognizes projects which target or include components that
are aligned with EPA's National Strategic Plan
 Access to Safe Drinking Water and Adequate Wastewater
Services through New Connections
 Protection of Transboundary Surface Water Quality
Impacts to Impaired Surface Water*
>1 MGD
≤1MGD and >0.5 MGD
≤0.25 MGD
New connections**
>1,000 new connections
≤1,000 and >500
≤500
Score
5
3
1
5
3
1
*Discharges/flows are calculated based on 280 gpd per connection in the US and
206 gpd per connection for projects in Mexico.
**For combined water and wastewater projects, the number of new connections for
each shall be aggregated and evaluated in total.
Ranking Parameters
Degree of Economic Distress – 10 points
 Measure of Financial Need relative to other communities in
the Region 6 Border States
 Supports the intent of BEIF to make projects affordable.
 Compares community’s MHI to the highest eligible US County
MHI or eligible Municipio MHI in Mexico, as applicable.
US – Sutton County, Texas @ $44,721
Mexico – Juarez Municipio @ $10,761


% of “Top” County/Municipio MHI
Score
<50 %
10
>50% and < 60%
8
> 60% and < 70%
6
> 70% and < 80%
4
> 80% and < 90%
2
> or = 90%
0
The MHI for each State is presented in Exhibit C.


For the US, the state MHI is obtained by the 2000 US Census.
For Mexico, the MHI has been calculated based on the average income earned
by the economically active population during 2000 as published by INEGI.
Ranking Parameters
Sustainable Development – 10 points (cumulative)
Projects which incorporate sustainable development measures
such as:
 Reduction in Energy Consumption: Use of Renewable Energy
Sources or Notable Energy Efficiencies as a result of project.
 Reduction in Potable Water Use: Water Conservation or
Reuse, including water reuse for aquifer recharge and
irrigation.
Sustainable Development
Score
Sustainable Development Element Included
(other than water reuse)
5
Water Reuse Element Included
5
No Sustainable Development Element
0
Rewarded sustainable development activities:
 shall consist of physically constructed facilities,
 shall be implemented as part of the proposed project, and
 shall be directly related to the proposed project.
www.cocef.org
www.cocef.org
US EPA Region 6 FY09/10 BEIF/PDAP Prioritization Process
Application Deadline of 10/15/08
FY09/10 Prioritization Criteria for Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Projects
A detailed description of how the prioritization process will be implemented including definitions of the
prioritization methodology, criteria and documentation requirements for category placement and the scoring
opportunities in the ranking parameter evaluation.
Region 6 Project Application [PDF or Word]
Projects submitted for consideration for prioritization must be submitted on the Project Application form
available here in PDF or Word format.
Instruction Booklet for US Project Applications – EPA Region 6
The Instruction Booklet provides guidance to complete the Project Application form. Examples and
additional explanation is provided for many of the application questions. Project Sponsors are strongly
encouraged to review this instruction booklet during the preparation of a Project Application.
Important Funding Opportunity – General Announcement and Workshop Schedule
A general announcement for the FY09/10 prioritization process for drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure projects was posted to BECCnet on August 25, 2008. As part of the process, regional
workshops to present the FY09/10 prioritization methodology, criteria and application process will be
conducted September 10-12, 2008 in seven Region 6 border communities. Detailed date, time, location and
contact information can be found in the general announcement accessed here.
EPA Border Facilities Construction Program - Project Selection Criteria
EPA’s Border Facilities Construction Program provides the funding to support the BEIF and PDAP. Read the
specific project selection criteria which serve as the basis for the prioritization process.
North American Development Bank – BEIF and Other Funding Programs
Link to the North American Development Bank (NADB) website which provides more information on the
BEIF program as well as other funding resources such as the Loan and Guaranty Program which includes a
competitive Low Interest Rate Lending Facility (LIRF) program.
Anticipated Process Schedule
General Overview
 FY09/10 Process Announcement
August 25 General Publication
Sept 10-18Regional Workshops (BECC, EPA, C.N.A., NADB)
Sept-Oct Sponsor Support and Follow-up Meetings
 Application Review and Prioritization
Oct 15
Step 1 – Receipt of Applications (BECC)
Oct
Step 2 – Application Review: Completeness/Eligibility
(BECC, EPA, C.N.A., NADB)
Nov
Step 3 – Evaluation: Category Placement
(BECC/EPA)
Nov-Dec Step 4 – Documentation/Field Verification (BECC)
Dec
Step 5 – Ranking Parameter Evaluation (BECC)
Dec-Jan Step 6 – Preliminary Ranking Review
(BECC/EPA)
Jan-Mar
Step 7 – Final Ranking and Project Selection
(BECC, EPA, C.N.A., NADB)
Anticipated Process Schedule
Important Project Sponsor Dates
Project Application submission period Aug 25 - Oct 15
Attn:
Armando Carrasco
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
PO Box 221648
El Paso, TX 79913
US Fax:
(915) 975-8280
Documentation/Verification Meetings
Nov - Dec 2008
Publication of Prioritization List
Spring 2009
Project Sponsor Support
Contact Information
BECC:
1-877-277-1703
Javier Torres, Regional Project Manager
[email protected]
NADB:
210-231-8000
Jose Ruiz, Senior Officer
[email protected]
EPA:
Gilbert Tellez, Infrastructure Coordinator
[email protected]
Jose Rodriguez, Environmental Engineer
[email protected]
Questions and Answers
SAMPLE PROJECT: BORDER CITY
City Limits
Current Service Area
Contaminated
Wells
Un-served Area