SAWPA OWOW 2 0 PROJECT RANKING PROCESS December

SAWPA OWOW 2. 0 PROJECT RANKING PROCESS December 6, 2012

Multi-Step Project Ranking Process 1. OWOW Steering Committee developed five criteria and weights and eight performance measures § Criteria equally weighted at 20% each (each criteria can contribute a maximum of 20% of the overall project score) 2. Project applicants submitted data to SAWPA 3. Project data initially reviewed for data entry errors by SAWPA 4. Scales developed and data normalized for each criteria 5. Data entered into Criterium Decision Plus (CDP) software and scored for each project 6. Results sorted into three tiers

Criterium Decision Plus Software § CDP software developed by Info. Harvest utilized to develop initial project tiers § CDP uses a multi-attribute rating technique o Methodology involves 1) Defining the evaluation criteria for comparison between alternatives 2) Developing performance measures indicating when a criterion is achieved 3) Determining the relative weight of importance that each criterion has in terms of influencing the decision

Criteria 1 – Improve Water Reliability and Reduce Reliance on Imported Water 1. AFY yields summed for each project: § Water use efficiency § Stormwater capture and storage § Recycled water reuse § Groundwater desalination § Other 2. Multiplied maximum AFY by 110% - maximum bookend Example: Maximum summed AFY = 100 Maximum scale = 110 (100 x 110%) 3. Minimum scale set to 0 4. Projects with higher values receive higher scores for Criteria 1 5. Resultant values entered into CDP

Criteria 2 – Improve Water Quality and Salt Balance in the Watershed 1. Three categories of data contribute to criteria score: § Non-point source reduction (mgd) § Reduction of TMDLs and other pollutants (kg/year) § Salt removal (tons/year) 2. Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for each category § 1 = worst § 5 = best § Data for each category with a value greater than 0 was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the scale 3. Normalized data summed together by project across the three categories

Criteria 2 – Continued 4. Summed data adjusted by subtracting 2 to ensure projects with values of 1 in each category receive an overall value of 1, resultant values entered into CDP 5. Summed values greater than 5 capped at 5 Example: Normalized Values Criteria TMDL & Other Sum Score Salt Removal Nonpoint Source Project 1 1 3 1 Project 2 1 3 2 6 4 Project 3 5 5 5 15 5

Criteria 3 – Manage Flood Waters Through Preservation and Restoration of Natural Hydrology 1. Three performance measures with varying weights: § 3 a - Acres of habitat created (acres), weight 60% § 3 b - Natural hydrology restoration and connectivity, weight 20% § 3 c - LID or resource efficient land use practices, weight 20% 2. 3 a assigned weight of 60% as provides greatest benefit to criteria 3. When a criteria has multiple performance measures resultant data for each performance measure is entered into CDP

Criteria 3 – Performance Measure 3 a 1. Acres of habitat performance measure – developed using same methodology as Criteria 1 2. Maximum bookend = 110% of maximum data value 3. Minimum bookend = 0

Criteria 3 – Performance Measures 3 b and 3 c 1. Data for performance measures 3 b and 3 c consists of yes/no answers to whether the project provides the applicable benefit and a description of the benefit § 1 = answer provided was no and no explanation § 2 = answer provided was yes and no explanation or explanation not applicable § 5 = answer provided was yes and logical explanation provided 2. Scale of 1 to 5 used § 1 = worst § 5 = best

Criteria 4 – Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Water Management Activities 1. Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for greenhouse emissions (co 2 e metric tons) § 1 = worst § 5 = best § Data > 10, 000 co 2 e metric tons assigned a score of 5 § Data with a value greater than 0 and less than 10, 000 co 2 e metric tons was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the scale 2. Normalized data entered into CDP

Criteria 5 – Cost Effectiveness 1. Criteria is composed of five components evaluating the cost effectiveness on a per unit basis per year for each benefit claimed: § 5 a - Cost per AFY of water § 5 b - Cost per acre of habitat § 5 c - Cost per tons of salt removed § 5 d - Cost per mgd of water treated § 5 e – Cost per kg of TMDL or other pollutants removed 2. Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for each component § 1 = worst § 5 = best § Data for each component with a value greater than 0 was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the scale § Data for a component with a value of 0 received a score of 1

Criteria 5 – Continued 3. Normalized values for each component summed together and divided by 5 to arrive at cost effectiveness score 4. Data entered into CDP Normalized Values Cost per kg Cost per of TMDL or Cost per MGD of Other AFY of Acre of Ton of Salt Water Pollutant Criteria Water habitat Removed Treated Removal Sum Score Project 1 1 1 5 1 Project 2 4 3 3 5 4 19 4. 75 Project 3 5 5 5 25 5

Results § Tiers developed using natural breaks in resultant project scores from CDP o Tier 1 - Projects closely matching the OWOW project criteria v 100% match to 22% match of the OWOW project criteria v 33 projects o Tier 2 - Projects that match OWOW project criteria in some respects, but have deficiencies in areas v 21% match to a 5% match of the OWOW project criteria v 54 projects o Tier 3 – Projects that provide lesser benefits than projects in Tier 1 or Tier 2 or projects earlier in development phase or benefits cannot be determined at this time v 4% to 0% match of the OWOW project criteria v 49 projects

Results - Continued § Example on following slide illustrates overall contribution of each criteria for three hypothetical projects and provides a total score for each project based on output from CDP o Maximum score is 1 (100%) overall and 20% for each criteria

Results – Continued