HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 11W Approval of State Fiscal Year 2012 Clean Water SRF Intended Use PlanMissouri Clean Water Commission Meeting
Department of Natural Resources
Lewis and Clark State Office Building
LaCharrette/Nightingale Creek Conference Rooms
1101 Riverside Drive
Jefferson City, Missouri
May 4, 2011
Approval of the State Fiscal Year 2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Intended Use Plan
Issue: Approval of the State Fiscal Year 2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) Intended Use Plan (IUP)
Background: The draft State Fiscal Year 2012 CWSRF IUP was presented to you in a
hearing at your March meeting. Comments were solicited for revisions to the final IUP.
As indicated during the hearing, the Fundable Project List has been revised to reflect the
current readiness to proceed status of several projects.
The available funds for State Fiscal Year 2012 total $199,539,280. Projects that meet the
readiness to proceed criteria exceed the available funds. Therefore, a Fundable
Contingency List was created. Projects are shown in priority point order and will be
funded as funds become available.
Recommended Action: The Program recommends that the Commission approve the
State Fiscal Year 2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan as revised.
Suggested Motion Language: "I move that the Clean Water Commission approve the
State Fiscal Year 2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan as
presented today."
List of Attachments: Proposed State Fiscal Year 2012 Clean Water State Revolving
Fund Intended Use Plan
23
24
'!
Ow
1
4
!.
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Missouri State Fiscal Year 2012
(July 1, 2011 - June 30, 2012)
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
INTENDED USE PLAN AND PRIORITY LIST
Proposed May 4, 2011
25
26
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2012 CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
INTENDED USE PLAN,
STATE GRANT AND LOAN PRIORITY LISTS
AND
PROGRAM APPLICATION FORMS & INSTRUCTIONS
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan 5
I. Background 5
I l . Description of the CWSRF Loan Program 6
1 1 1 . Goals and Objectives 7
IV. Modifications 8
V. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Use of Funds 9
VI. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Sources of the Funds 11
Sources and Distribution of Capitalization Grant and Loan Repayment Funds Table 12
Sources and Distribution of Loan Administration Fees 13
Sources and Distrubution of Loan Administration Fees Table 14
VII. State Assurances and Proposals 15
A. Administrative Costs 15
B. Public Review and Comment 15
C. Environmental Review 15
D. First Use for Enforceable Requirements 15
E. Compliance with Title II 15
F. Binding Commitments 15
G. Expenditure of Funds 15
H. Potential for Environmental Impact Statements 15
I. Description of Assistance 15
J. Carryover Priority List 15
K. Anticipated Cash Draw Ratio (Proportionality) 16
VIII. Additional Recipient Requirements 16
Federally Funded Loan Programs - Program Descriptions and Project Lists 19
State Funded Grant and Loan Programs - Program Descriptions 31
List of Fiscal Year 2012 Applicants 35
Sources and Distribution of Funds Detail 41
Program Application Forms and Instructions 48
27
Table of Contents (continued)
The following application forms. instructions and guidance documents may be found on the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources web page: http://www_dnr.mo.gov/envlwppJsrflwastewater-
assistance.htm. Potential applicants may also contact the Financial Assistance Center at (573) 751-1192.
Missouri Clean Water State Revolving Fund Application
Water Quality Review Assistance/Antidegradation Review Request Form
I II. Facility Plan Checklist
IV. Facility Plan/Environmental Information Document Guidance for Clean Water SRF Funded
Projects
V. Environmental Protection Agency Green infrastructure Guidance dated April 21, 2010
28
STATE FISCAL YEAR 2012
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
INTENDED USE PLAN
Introduction
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program (WPP) is the
delegated authority for the administration of federal funds made available to the state under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
funds are for financing a variety of eligible projects and are to be used in perpetuity for low
interest loans made from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
References throughout this document to the "Commission" and the "department" refer to the
Missouri Clean Water Commission and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
respectively.
The department is given authority by the state legislature to administer several related state -
funded grant and loan programs.
This document contains the Intended Use Plan (IUP) and priority fists for the CWSRF program
and a listing of the CWSRF program applicants. In November 2007, $50 million in State Water
Pollution Control Bonds were sold to fund the State Grant and Loan Programs. These funds
have been committed to projects. It is not known at this time when additional State Grant and
Loan Program funding may become available.
Operation and management of the CWSRF program are directed by regulations 10 CSR 20-
4.010 through 10 CSR 20-4.020 and 10 CSR 20-4.040 through 10 CSR 20-4.050.
Intended Use Plan
This I U P contains information regarding the development and management of the CWSRF
priority lists and assurances mandated by federal rules. The IUP details the proposed
distribution of Missouri's anticipated CWSRF Capitalization Grants, the repayments of
previously awarded SRF loans, and the interest earnings from the repayment account deposits
for the upcoming fiscal year.
CWSRF Applications and Project Priority
The department solicits applications for the State's Revolving Fund program throughout each
year. Applications for assistance are prioritized in accordance with the Construction Grant and
Loan Priority System, 10 CSR 20-4.010. State Regulation establishes November 15th as the
annual submittal deadline for applications to participate in the programs during any fiscal year.
However, applications will be accepted and processed at any time. Potential Applicants are
strongly encouraged to contact the department prior to submitting an application.
Except for projects funded solely through the CWSRF, all applicants anticipating the use of
other state/federal funds must complete a Missouri Water and Wastewater Review Committee
(MWWRC) project proposal. The applicant should contact the MWWRC for a complete project
proposal package. The MWWRC agencies include:
1
29
Liz Roberts
Missouri Department of Economic Development
Community Development Block Grant Program
301 W. High Street, P.O. Box 118
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Telephone: 573-751-3600
David Potthast
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
State Revolving Fund
1101 Riverside Dr., P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Telephone: 573-526-0828
Tim Rickabaugh
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Rural Development
601 Business Loop 70 West, Parkade Center, Suite 235
Columbia, MO 65203
Telephone: 573-876-0995
State regulation 10 CSR 20-4.040 establishes that applications are valid for two IUP cycles or
"years". Those projects not meeting program criteria within the allotted two-year cycle will have
their allocated funds released and reallocated to other projects. Re -application to the program
is possible at the end of the two-year cycle, but a project's position on a fundable, contingency,
or planning lists may change with each subsequent application.
Project applications listed in this IUP are separated into two groups, carryover and new.
Projects that were listed as "Fundable New Projects" in the previous IUP are placed on the
"Fundable Carryover Projects" list for SFY 2012. All remaining projects are evaluated and
priority points are assigned in accordance with 10 CSR 20-4.010. Projects are placed on the
fundable, fundable contingency, contingency or planning lists based upon their priority paints,
their progress towards meeting funding eligibility criteria, and availability of adequate monies.
Staff will closely monitor each applicant's progress towards funding eligibility and may shift
projects between the lists.
Bypassing Projects
As funds become depleted, staff will present recommendations to the commission to fund or
bypass an applicant's project. Projects failing to progress towards fundable status are subject
to funding "bypass". A project with fewer priority points may bypass a project with a higher
priority point ranking that is failing to make sufficient advancement towards funding eligibility.
Recommendations to the Commission to fund or bypass a project may be made at any
commission meeting throughout the fiscal year. Applicants whose projects are recommended
for bypass or funding will be notified prior to the commission meeting when their projects appear
on the agenda and will be allowed time to present their points of view regarding the proposed
change in project status.
Readiness to Proceed
A CWSRF project's readiness to proceed is based upon two criteria; acceptable debt instrument
and the submittal of a complete facility plan. A facility plan submittal checklist is included with
the CWSRF application form. Potential CWSRF applicants are strongly encouraged to obtain a
water quality review sheet/anti-degradation report from the department before initiating facility
planning activities. Facility plans that are submitted to the department without the appropriate
2
30
water quality review sheet/anti-degradation report and the Facility Plan Submittal Checklist will
be deemed incomplete. Incomplete facility plans will delay proposed projects and, ultimately,
project funding.
A summary of each program, beginning on page 19, is included with its fundable, contingency
and planning lists.
3
31
This page was intentionally left blank.
4
32
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
SFY 2012 INTENDED USE PLAN
I. Background
Each year as required by Title VI of the Clean Water Act, Missouri prepares an IUP that
identifies the projected uses of and serves as a basis for distribution of the monies available in
its CWSRF.
During SFY 2012 the State of Missouri expects to be awarded the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)
2011 capitalization grant for the CWSRF program. The anticipated grant amount is
$18,500,000. The federal funds will be matched with 20% state funds from the proceeds of
state Environmental Improvement and Energy Resources Authority (EIERA) bond sales.
Applications for assistance are considered based upon the priority ranking criteria contained in
10 CSR 20-4.010. When applications exceed the funds available, projects are listed in priority
point order. In order to recognize the efforts of CWSRF applicants to complete their proposed
wastewater infrastructure projects, the funding lists consider an applicant's readiness to
proceed, in addition to their priority paint ranking.
Project Lists
• Fundable Carryover Projects List — The commission shall maintain a carryover list identifying
unfunded projects approved for funding in the prior SFY. These projects shall maintain their
funding eligibility in the current SFY.
• Fundable Projects List — The fundable list identifies those projects that the commission
intends to fund during a given SFY. The commission will not consider placing a proposed
project on the fundable list unless the Facility Plan Submittal Checklist is submitted with the
facility plan and items one through four on the list are completed. Prior to completion and
submittal of a facility plan, the applicant is strongly encouraged to obtain a water quality
review from the department. An entity seeking to have a project placed on the Fundable List
must have submitted a complete facility plan and information indicating that the public entity
has an appropriate debt instrument in place. A debt instrument includes, but is not limited to
general obligation bonds and revenue bonds.
• Fundable Contingency Projects List — Identifies projects meeting all programmatic criteria to
receive funds. This list is created due to insufficient available funds. Projects will be listed in
priority point order regardless of the date which all programmatic criteria are met.
• Contingency Projects List — The contingency project list identifies those projects which may
be considered for funding during a given fiscal year if unanticipated or uncommitted funds
become available. Projects will not be considered for the contingency list unless a facility
plan/engineering report has been submitted for review.
• Planning List -- The planning list identifies all potential loan projects not contained on a
fundable priority list. Planning list projects may advance to the contingency or fundable lists,
with Commission approval, and the successful completion of the listing criteria: voter
passage of bond issues or approval of alternate debt instruments, and submission of a
complete facility plan.
5
33
" D i r e c t L o a n L i s t T h e d i r e c t l o a n l i s t i d e n t i f i e s a i l p o t e n t i a l l o a n p r o j e c t s t h a t q u a l i f y f o r a
d i r e c t l o a n . T h e s e i n c l u d e a p p l i c a t i o n s t o f u n d N e i g h b o r h o o d I m p r o v e m e n t D i s t r i c t s ( N I D s ) ,
v e r y s m a l l c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d n o n p o i n t s o u r c e p r o j e c t s .
" N o n p o i n t S o u r c e a n d G r e e n I n f r a s t r u c t u r e D e m o n s t r a t i o n G r a n t s T h e n o n p o i n t s o u r c e a n d
g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e l i s t i d e n t i f i e s p r o p o s e d d e m o n s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o
a d d r e s s i n g n o n p o i n t s o u r c e s o f p o l l u t i o n a n d / o r p r o j e c t s i m p l e m e n t i n g g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e .
" D i s a d v a n t a g e d C o m m u n i t y R e s e r v e - - T h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d c o m m u n i t y r e s e r v e l i s t w a s
e s t a b l i s h e d a s a r e s u l t o f t h e f e d e r a l f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 1 0 b u d g e t . C o n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n t i s t o
p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l s u b s i d i z a t i o n t o s t a t e d e f i n e d d i s a d v a n t a g e d c o m m u n i t i e s . C o m m u n i t i e s
s h o w n o n t h i s l i s t m u s t m e e t r e a d i n e s s t o p r o c e e d c r i t e r i a a s w e l l a s m e e t t h e
d i s a d v a n t a g e d c o m m u n i t y c r i t e r i a ( p a g e 1 0 ) .
P r o j e c t s w i l l b e e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e s u b j e c t t o f i n a l p r o g r a m a p p r o p r i a t i o n s ,
p r o j e c t r e v i e w s , a n d p r o j e c t s c h e d u l e s .
1 1 . D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e C W S R F L o a n P r o g r a m
D e p a r t m e n t s t a f f w o r k s w i t h e a c h a p p l i c a n t t o d e v e l o p a s c h e d u l e t h a t a l l o w s t h e p r o j e c t t o b e
f i n a n c e d a t a p r e d e t e r m i n e d c l o s i n g d a t e .
C W S R F a s s i s t a n c e w i l l b e i n t h e f o r m o f l o a n s w i t h a t a r g e t i n t e r e s t r a t e o f 3 0 p e r c e n t o f m a r k e t
r a t e . i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n 1 0 C S R 2 0 - 4 . 0 4 0 , t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e s h a l l b e b a s e d o n
t h e T w e n t y - F i v e B o n d R e v e n u e I n d e x a s p u b l i s h e d i n T h e B o n d B u y e r . A n a n n u a l f e e o f 1 . 0
p e r c e n t o f t h e o u t s t a n d i n g l o a n b a l a n c e w i l l b e c h a r g e d b y t h e d e p a r t m e n t . T h e l o a n f e e s h a l l
b e u s e d t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e C W S R F p r o g r a m a n d o t h e r w a t e r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l a c t i v i t i e s i n
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h f e d e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s . S h o r t - t e r m l o a n s w i l l b e f o r a o n e t o t h r e e y e a r p e r i o d .
L o n g - t e r m l o a n s w i l l b e f o r u p t o 2 0 y e a r s .
C o n s t r u c t i o n l o a n r e p a y m e n t s m u s t b e g i n w i t h i n o n e y e a r a f t e r t h e f i r s t o p e r a t i o n a l c o n t r a c t i s
" c o m p l e t e d " , i . e . , t h o s e f a c i l i t i e s a r e p l a c e d i n t o o p e r a t i o n . T h e b o n d r e p a y m e n t s c h e d u l e s w i l l
g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t o f s e m i - a n n u a l i n t e r e s t p a y m e n t s , a n d a n n u a l p r i n c i p a l p a y m e n t s . T h e t r u s t e e
b a n k h o l d s t h e p e r i o d i c p a r t i c i p a n t r e p a y m e n t s i n s e p a r a t e r e c i p i e n t a c c o u n t s ( r e p a y m e n t f u n d )
o u t s i d e t h e S R F . I n t e r e s t e a r n i n g s o n t h e s e r e c i p i e n t a c c o u n t s a r e c r e d i t e d t o t h e d e b t s e r v i c e
a c c o u n t a n d u s e d w h e n t h e p a y m e n t i s m a d e t o D N R . T h e s e r e v o l v i n g f u n d s c a n t h e n b e u s e d
a g a i n t o s u p p o r t n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n p r o j e c t s .
P r i o r t o s t a t e f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 1 0 , t h e p r o g r a m w a s l e v e r a g e d t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f a r e s e r v e f u n d
m o d e l . G e n e r a l O b l i g a t i o n o r R e v e n u e b o n d s a r e u s e d t o s e c u r e a b o r r o w e r ' s p r o p o s e d d e b t .
T h e b o n d s w e r e p u r c h a s e d a n d r e s o l d n a t i o n a l l y b y t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l I m p r o v e m e n t a n d
E n e r g y R e s o u r c e s A u t h o r i t y ( E I E R A ) . T h e f u n d s g e n e r a t e d b y t h e s a l e o f t h e b o n d s w e r e
d e p o s i t e d w i t h a t r u s t e e b a n k i n t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s n a m e a n d a r e u s e d f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n .
A s c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s w e r e i n c u r r e d , s t a t e a n d f e d e r a l f u n d s a r e d e p o s i t e d i n t o a r e s e r v e
a c c o u n t i n a n a m o u n t e q u a l t o 7 0 p e r c e n t o f c o s t . I n t e r e s t w a s e a r n e d o n t h e r e s e r v e t h r o u g h
G u a r a n t e e d I n v e s t m e n t C o n t r a c t s ( G I G ) , w h i c h w a s t h e n c r e d i t e d t o t h e i n t e r e s t p o r t i o n o f t h e
d e b t s e r v i c e o f t h e b o n d s t h e r e b y p r o v i d i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s u b s i d y t o t h e r e c i p i e n t . D u e t o r e c e n t
e c o n o m i c c o n d i t i o n s , G I C s a r e n o l o n g e r a v a i l a b l e . D u r i n g S F Y 2 0 1 1 , t h e S t a t e R e v o l v i n g F u n d
p r o g r a m t r a n s i t i o n e d t o a ` h y b r i d c a s h f l o w m o d e l l o a n p r o g r a m ' .
6
3 4
Under the `hybrid cash flow model loan program', the Department of Natural Resources
purchases the debt obligations of the participants directly. As construction progresses funds are
released to the participant so the construction costs can be paid. Upon completion of the
project, the loans are adjusted to reflect the final loan amount. The repayments of these "direct
loans" are then pledged to the EIERA. At such time as the State Revolving Fund program
needs to replenish their funding the EIERA exercises their authority to sell bonds. The
proceeds of this safe are deposited into the State Revolving Fund program account. The
principal and interest payments on the EIERA bonds are secured through the pledge of the
direct loan repayments from previous State Revolving Fund program participants.
The department continues to work with the SRF finance team to refine the new program
structure, and will continue to evaluate possible future program structures to ensure the
program provides a stable source of funding for drinking water infrastructure projects well into
the future.
The department reserves the right to refinance, assign, pledge or leverage any loans originated
through the CWSRF Loan Program.
Cross-Collateralization of Funds
The Departments of Veteran Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and the Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105-65) authorized limited cross-collateralization
between the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the CWSRF. Cross-
collateralization allows states to use CWSRF funds as security for bonds issued to finance
DWSRF projects and vice versa. The cross-collateralization of the two funds may enhance the
lending capacity of one or both SRFs. State statute 644.122 RSMO provides the state's legal
authority to implement cross-collateralization.
111. Goals and Objectives
Each year the department evaluates the operations and the financial structures of the SRF to
gauge program effectiveness. Long and short-term goals are proposed to improve program
services and investment returns. Assessment of the improvement effort is included in the
Annual Report. The following sections present the current strategies for program improvement.
Long -Term Goals (Three to Five Years)
Goal: Conduct year -by -year financial analysis of the availability and use of CWSRF monies.
Evaluate the effects of differing program structures on the availability of the CWSRF to provide
financial assistance now and in the future.
Goal: Promote coordination efforts both within and outside the agency for the purpose of
expediting the funding of projects. The SRF program staff commits to work with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture -Rural Development and the Department of Economic Development
Community Block Grant program to provide affordable financing for municipal pollution
prevention and control projects.
Goal: Pursue more holistic regional and watershed -based solutions that address both point and
nonpoint source pollution problems and opportunities to use distributed wastewater treatment
options where they could be applied.
Short -Term Goals
Goal: Target available loan funds to high priority needs in accordance with the IUP priority list in
order to encourage construction of the highest impact water quality improvement projects.
7
35
Goal: Look at ways the SRF program can be used to encourage sustainable infrastructure and
capacity development concepts with borrowers.
Goal: Continue to identify projects that qualify for Green Project Reserve Funding, in
accordance with Federal guidance.
IV. Modifications
After the commission adopts the CWSRF priority lists, it may modify the lists or redistribute the
available CWSRF funds in accordance with paragraphs A through D below. The commission
may only take this action after providing notice to those projects directly affected.
As stated previously, in accordance with 10 CSR 20-4.040, CWSRF applications must be
postmarked or received by November 15 prior to the fiscal year for which SRF assistance is
being sought. However, to facilitate the timely and expeditious use of available CWSRF funds,
eligible applications that are not received in time to be placed on the project lists adopted by the
commission, and received prior to September 1, 2011 will be evaluated upon receipt. By
amendment, the commission may place the new project(s) on the appropriate project list.
A. Inadequate Allocations
If the actual federal CWSRF allocations are less than the allocations anticipated by the
commission in the development of the CWSRF priority lists, or if previous allocations are
reduced, the commission may find it necessary to reduce their commitments to projects
on the priority lists or to the various purposes outlined in the appendices. The
commission may take formal action to reduce the number of commitments in accordance
with subparagraphs 1-3 of this paragraph.
1. The commission may reduce the funds allocated to each purpose as shown on
the table found on page 12.
2. The commission may remove the lowest priority projects from the fundable
priority lists, placing these projects on the appropriate contingency list in a
position dictated by their priority relative to other projects on that contingency
priority lists.
3. The commission may bypass projects on the fundable priority lists in accordance
with paragraph C of this document.
B. Unanticipated and Uncommitted Funds
If unanticipated or uncommitted funds become available, the commission may take
formal action to distribute them in accordance with subparagraphs 1-3 of this paragraph.
1. The commission may use the unanticipated or uncommitted funds to move the
highest priority project(s) from contingency priority lists to the proper fundable list.
2. The commission may use the unanticipated or uncommitted funds to increase the
amount of funds allocated to the various purposes as shown on the table found
on page 12.
8
36
3. The commission may increase the amount of funds allocated to projects on the
fundable lists or to provide increased assistance to projects which have already
received assistance.
C. Project Bypass
The commission may bypass any project on a fundable priority list that is not, in the
commission's opinion, making satisfactory progress in satisfying requirements for
CWSRF assistance. Such projects will be removed from the fundable priority lists and
placed on the proper contingency or planning priority list in a position dictated by the
commission. In determining whether a project is making satisfactory progress in
satisfying the requirements for CWSRF assistance, the commission shall use the criteria
contained in subparagraphs 1-2 of this paragraph. Funds released through project
bypass will be considered uncommitted and available for distribution in accordance with
paragraph B of this section.
1. All projects originally on the fundable lists when adopted may be by-passed if the
applicant fails to submit the documents required for CWSRF assistance at least
60 days prior to the beginning of the quarter for which the assistance is
anticipated.
2. The commission may use individual schedules developed by the Department to
determine whether a CWSRF project is making satisfactory progress during the
fiscal year.
3. Carryover projects may be automatically bypassed if they do not have all
documents submitted and approved on or before February 1, 2012. Recovered
funds will be immediately available for contingency projects in accordance with
paragraph B of this section.
D. Project Removal
Projects may be removed from the priority list at the request of the applicant, a finding by
the department that the project is ineligible for CWSRF assistance, or a finding by the
El ERA that the applicant is not eligible for participation in the CWSRF Program.
V. Use of Funds
The table on page 12 summarizes the state's allocation of federal funds, distribution of those
resources, and the amount available for eligible construction for the SFY 2012 CWSRF
proposed projects.
Since 1989, the CWSRF has made binding commitments for project costs in excess of $2
billion. In 199E the first CWSRF Nonpoint Source (NPS) loan program was instituted; nearly
$12.7 million has been obligated to NPS projects in the subsequent years.
SFY 2012's IUP contains NPS loan requests of $5,000,000.
The CWSRF project lists are found on pages 23 - 3D of this document.
TRANSFER OF LOAN FUNDS FROM THE DWSRF TO THE CWSRF
Section 302 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 authorized the transfer of
funds between the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund. In State Fiscal Year 2001 the Department, with the approval of the Safe Drinking Water
9
37
Commission and the Clean Water Commission, transferred $10,475,000 from the CWSRF to
the DWSRF. The transfer was made to off set the anticipation of excessive demand for
DWSRF loan funds with a portion of the large, unobligated loan fund balance in the CWSRF at
the time.
In State Fiscal Year 2011 there was an unprecedented demand for loans through the CWSRF.
As a result, the Department recommended and the Commissions approved the transfer of
$10,475,000 from the DWSRF repayment fund to the CWSRF repayment fund, as
reimbursement for the previous transfer of funds and to help meet the demand for CWSRF
loans. The Department, with prior approval from the SDWC and the CWC, reserves the right to
make additional transfers in the future.
INTEREST EARNINGS TO RETIRE STATE DEBT
The debt service for all Water Pollution Control Bonds has historically been paid through the
state's general revenue, with the exception of the last series sold in 2002. The department
obtained an agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to repay the 2002
series using the interest earnings from the CWSRF fund.
The department renegotiated this agreement with EPA to apply CWSRF interest earnings to
bonds issued prior to 2002, not just the 2002 series. Specifically, the CWSRF Operating
Agreement, between the department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has been
amended to allow for the use of interest earnings to retire the SRF's share of the Water
Pollution Control Bonds used for state match. On January 10, 2007, the commission amended
the SFY 2007 CWSRF Intended Use Plan (IUP) to allow for the use of interest earnings to retire
the SRF's share of the Water Pollution Control Bonds issued prior to 2002 used for state match.
The department has analyzed the impact on the CWSRF should the interest earnings be used
to pay interest on the SRF's share of the Water Pollution Control Bonds. The department
intends to use approximately $8.2 million during SFY 2012. Staff will continue to monitor the
use of interest earnings in future years to ensure that the integrity of the CWSRF fund will not be
negatively impacted.
FFY-2010 Capitalization Grant Requirements
There are additional requirements being imposed on the state as a condition of receiving the
FFY-2010 Capitalization Grant,
A. Additional Subsidization.
The FFY-2010 capitalization grant requires that not less than 14.98 percent of the
capitalization grant shall be used to provide additional subsidization in accordance with
P.L. 111-88. The Department intends to reserve $5,000,000 for additional subsidies in
the form of grants.
Since the intent of Congress was "to target, as much as possible, the additional
subsidized monies to communities that could not otherwise afford an SRF loan", we
further propose to offer an even higher percentage grant for the most disadvantaged
communities. For any community with a population of 3,300 or less, whose user rates
will be at or above 2% of the median household income (MHI) and the MHI is at or below
75% of the state average MHI, they will receive a grant for up to 75% of their project cost
and a loan for the remaining 25%.
10
38
It is the Department's intent to give preference to disadvantaged communities as well as
on-site/decentralized wastewater treatment and green infrastructure demonstration
projects.
B. Green Project Reserve.
The FFY-2010 capitalization grant requires that not less than 20 percent of the
capitalization grant shall be used for projects that address green infrastructure, water or
energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities. The
Department intends to use CWSRF funds reserved for loans and/or grants in the amount
of not less than $11,296,600 to fund projects or portions of projects that address green
infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally
innovative activities. Department staff will work directly with CWSRF applicants to
identify projects and/or components of projects, prior to funding, that address green
infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally
innovative activities. Additional information regarding green infrastructure may be found
in Appendix VI.
VI. CWSRF Sources of Funds
The estimated sources and anticipated distribution of funds can be found in the table on page
12.
Funds Available
The Clean Water SRF program expects to have approximately $200 million available for
financing during this SFY. The estimate includes carry-over monies from previous years,
repayments, interest earnings on investments of CWSRF resources and the federal
capitalization grant for Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2011. The amount of funds made available
through this IUP for financing may be revised at any time due to current economic conditions.
The Department will use the 4 percent program administration set aside from the FFY 2010 and
FFY 2011 federal capitalization grants and fees charged to CWSRF recipients for program
administration. The Department will reserve $100,000 of the 4 percent program administration
set aside from the FFY 2010 federal capitalization grant for an independent audit in cooperation
with the Environmental Protection Agency.
11
39
Distribution of Capitalization Grant and Loan Repayment Funds
Funds will be distributed to projects that are moved to the Fundable List by the Clean Water
Commission. Sources and distribution of funds are as of December 31, 2010.
Fiscal Year 2012 Intended Use Plan
Sources And Distribution Of Funds
Current
Anticipated
Balance
Capitalization Grants Funds (federal portion only)
2008
$ 2,352,837
2009
$ 18,863,757
2010
$ 56,483,000
2011
$ 18,500,000
$ 96,199,594
Bond Refinancing Proceeds
$ 611,946
$ 611,946
Repayment Fund (Fund 0602 &
0649)
$ 212,650,861
$ 55,988,279
$ 268,639,141
Total Funds
$ 365,450,681
Loan Commitments
$ ( 6,088,680)
$ ( 6,088,680)
Committed for ARRA projects
$ (93,634,621)
$ ( 93,634,621)
$ ( 42,315,148)
Committed for Direct Loans
$ (42,315,148)
Independent Audit
$ ( 100,000,
$ ( 100,000)
4% FFY 09 Administration Costs
$ ( 754,550)
4% FFY 10 Administration Costs
$ ( 2,259,320)
4% FFY 11 Administration Costs
$ ( 740,000)
$ ( 3,753,870)
Match Bond Debt Service'
Remaining Principal Due
$ (11,282,500)_
Interest Due through SFY 2011
$ ( 518,800)
! $ ( 11,801,300)
Additional Match Bond Debt Service2
Due through SFY 2012
$ ( 8,217,782)
$ ( 8,217,782)
Funds Available for Pra.ects
_y_
- - _ _.._.._.._.._.
_.._
$_..199,539,280
Anticipated Direct Loans during
SFY 2011
$ (133,996,582)
NPS Direct Loans
$ ( 5,000,000)
FFY 11 Anticipated Grants
$ ( 8,459,361)
Disadvantaged Community
Loans
$ ( 1,486,454)
$ (148,942,397)
Total Available for Construction
$ 50,596,883
1. Debt service for the 2002A State Match Bond.
2. Debt service for the Match Bond Debt Service currently being funded from the SRF program rather
than state funds.
12
40
Distribution of Loan Administration Fees
On October 20, 2005 the Environmental Protection Agency issued guidance relative to the
administration fees charged by the state to recipients of CWSRF program assistance. Fees
charged by the Missouri CWSRF program are not included as principal in loans. ❑ependent
upon the source of the loan, as well as the timing of the receipt of the administration fee, the
administration fee is considered to be program income. As shown in the following table, the
administration fees collected are considered as:
• program income earned during the Capitalization Grant period;
• program income earned after the Capitalization Grant period, or;
• non -program income.
"During the grant period" is defined as "the time between the effective date of the grant award
and the ending date of the award reflected in the final grant financial report."
Program income earned during the grant period may only be used for eligible CWSRF activities,
as defined in the Federal Clean Water Act, and CWSRF program administration. Program
income earned after the grant period, as well as non -program income, may be used for a broad
range of water -quality related purposes. The state has obtained approval from the
Environmental Protection Agency to use program income earned after the grant period for
water -quality related purposes.
13
41
Source And Distribution Of Funds*
Loan Administration Fees
Program Income
Earned During
Grant Period
Program
Income Earned
After Grant
Period
Non -Program
Income
Balance as of 12/31/10
$ 928,343
$ 14,890,336
$ 6,789,179
Income
Anticipated (01/01/11 thru
06/30/11)
$ 78,661
$ 1,601,233
$ 1,097,677
Anticipated (07101111 thru
06130112)
$ 117,992
$ 2,401,849
$ 1,646,516
Total AnticipatedIncome
$._.._.._..196,653
$ 4,003,082
$ 2,744,193
Projected Expenses
(01/01/11 thru 06/30/11)
Program Administration
$ (2,103,881)
ITSD Direct Costs
$ (825,500)
Projected Expenses for FY 12
Program Administration
$ (4,568,876)
ITSD Direct Costs
$ (1,051,000)
Abatement of Water Quality
Emergencies
$ (1,000,000)
Board Training & Operator
Certification
$ (250'000)
40% State Construction
Grants
$ (1,500,000)
Fixed Station Ambient
Network Contract
$ (335,293)
Water Quality Studies
$ (150,000)
Small Community Technical
Assistance Program
$ (500,000)
State Parks Wastewater
Infrastructure
$ (750,000)
Total Anticipated Expenses
$ -
$ (13,035,550)
$ -
Estimated Balances
$ 1,124,997
$ 5,857,858
$ 9,533,371
* The distribution of loan administration fees to various department activities is subject to
change throughout the state fiscal year. Actual fund uses will be shown in detail in the SFY
2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Annual Report.
14
42
VII. State Assurances and Proposals
A. Administrative Costs
The department will use 4 percent of the FFY 2010 and FFY 2011 federal capitalization
grant funds for program administration. For the SFY 2012 IUP financing period, the
department will use $100,000 of the 4 percent program administration set -aside from the
FFY 2010 federal capitalization grant for an independent audit in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency.
B. Public Review and Comment
The IUP and priority list will be reviewed and adopted through a public review and
comment process in accordance with 40 CFR Part 25.
C. Environmental Review
The Department has adopted regulation 10 CSR 20-4.050, which provides for a National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) like review for all projects receiving CWSRF loans.
D. First Use for Enforceable Requirements
EPA's CWSRF guidance requires states to have the national municipal policy (NMP)
facilities either under construction or on enforceable schedules prior to using CWSRF
funds for non-NMP projects. Missouri satisfied this requirement in December 1989.
E. Compliance with Title II
The Commission assures that all CWA CWSRF requirements were met by the
designated equivalency projects in prior IUPs.
F. Binding Commitments
The Department will enter into binding commitments (loans) for a minimum of 120
percent of each EPA grant payment into the CWSRF within one year of the receipt of
each payment.
G. Expenditure of Funds
The Department will expend all funds in the CWSRF in an expeditious and timely
manner.
H. Potential for Environmental Impact Statements
All of the proposed fundable list projects have a low potential need for preparation of an
environmental impact statement. A final decision regarding the need for an EIS will be
made on each project during review of the facility plans.
Description of Assistance
For projects listed in this ILIP, the CWSRF assistance will be in the form of loans with a
target interest rate of 30 percent of market and an annual fee of 1.0 percent on the
outstanding loan balance. Short-term loans will be for a one to three year period. Long-
term loans will be for up to 20 years.
J. Carry-over Projects
Unfunded projects which filed an original application by November 15, 2009 were
automatically carried into the SFY 2012 IUP unless the commission removed the project
under the provisions of V.C.I (Bypass) or IV.D. (Removal) of this document or the
proposed loan recipient has requested to be removed.
15
43
Carry-over projects in the SFY 2012 IUP are not eligible to compete in the SFY
2013 IUP unless reapplication is made by November 15, 201t
K. Anticipated Cash Draw Ratio (Proportionality)
In accordance with the Water Quality Act, the Department will deposit in the SRF an
amount equal to at feast 20% of the total amount of the capitalization grant. Therefore,
for any incurred cost, cash will be drawn from the Federal Letter Of Credit for EPA's
proportionate share.
ViIl1. Additional Recipient Requirements
A. Single Audit Act Compliance
Recipients of federal funds totaling greater than $500,000 are subject to the provisions
of the federal Single Audit Act of 1984 and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996.
These requirements provide the federal government with assurances that the
expenditures of federal funds are for their intended purposes and that the dispersal of
those funds occurs in a timely manner. Final loan documents will include specific
information and calculation instructions for the audit.
B. Missouri Labor Standards
In accordance with Chapter 290 RSMo. projects receiving financial assistance for any
construction project carried out in whole or in part with assistance made available by
through the CWSRF, must comply with the requirements of the Missouri Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations (DOLIR).
The Department will not supply annual wage orders (wage determinations) for the
projects. It will be the responsibility of each recipient to obtain the correct wage orders
and to maintain compliance with them throughout the project. For additional information,
applicants for funding should contact DOLI R's Division of Labor Standards Wage and
Hour Section, 3315 W. Truman Boulevard, Room 205, PO Box 449, Jefferson City, MO
65102-0449, Phone: (573) 751-3403, or by E-mail at: laborstandards@labor.mo.gov
C. Davis -Bacon Act
The FFY-2010 Interior and Environment Appropriation (P.L. 111-88) and subsequent
continuing resolutions require that all agreements to provide assistance for the
construction of treatment works carried out in whole or in part with assistance made
available through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund as authorized by title VI of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), or with such assistance
made available under section 205(m) of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1285(m)), or both, a term or
condition requiring the compliance with the requirements of section 513 of that Act (33
U.S.C. 1372) in all procurement contract. The purpose of this language is to apply the
Davis -Bacon Act wage rules to all assistance agreements executed on or after October
30, 2009.
All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and sub contractors on projects
funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal Government
pursuant to the Act shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on
projects of a character similar in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in
accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code. With
respect to the labor standards specified in this section, the Secretary of Labor shall have
the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (64
Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C.App.) and section 3145 of title 40, United States Code.
16
44
The U.S. Department of Labor provides all pertinent information related to compliance
with the Davis -Bacon Act including labor standards, prevailing wage rates and
instructions for reporting.
17
45
This page was intentionally left blank.
18
46
LOAN PROGRAMS
19
47
This page was intentionally left blank.
20
48
Loan Programs:
The department presently offers a direct loan program, which includes loans for NPS projects.
Submittal deadline for these programs, established by state regulations, is November 15.
However, SRF staff will accept and process applications as received during the year. Financial
information submitted by the applicants determines which loan program best meets the
applicant's needs and financial capability.
The EPA has approved a class deviation from 40 CFR 35.3125 (b)(1). The class deviation
allows for non-federal, non -state match CWSRF funds (CWSRF repayment funds) to provide
loans that can be used to satisfy the local match requirement for most EPA grant -funded
treatment works projects, including special Appropriations Act projects. This change can be
applied to any EPA grant -funded treatment works project, other than a construction grant
project, regardless of the date of the grant award, or the date that funds were appropriated for
the project.
Clean Water SRF Loans
Missouri's CWSRF program offers low -interest loans for wastewater treatment improvements.
The commission, the department and the EIERA are cooperating to maximize the amount of
construction which can be supported by the CWSRF. The terms of the loan program are
outlined below.
• Loan Term
• Interest Rate
• Loan Fees
0 to 20 years
30 percent of market rate
1.0 percent on outstanding loan balance
Loans are available to communities that are financially able to support repayment of a loan.
These loans are made possible by the federal capitalization grants awarded to the state.
Capitalization grant funds are supplemented with matching funds equal to 20 percent of the
annual grant amount. The matching funds are currently generated by the sale of EIERA bonds.
Loans may be made to finance a variety of eligible nonpoint source projects.
Direct loans may be offered as interim loans on a case -by -case basis. Interim loans are offered
as a means to provide funding for the development of plans and specifications and/or to initiate
construction activities. For more information on the SRF Loan Program, contact Doug Garrett
at: (573) 751-1192.
Nonpoint Source Loans
Financial resources from the SRF can be made available to address any NPS pollution problem
that is defined in the state's NPS Management Plan. NPS water pollution occurs in Missouri
from agricultural sources, failed on -site wastewater treatment systems, focal contamination of
potable water table aquifers, abandoned water wells, and many other sources.
For information regarding the SRF funding of NPS projects, contact Doug Garrett or Traci
Newberry at (573) 751-1192.
21
49
MASBDA Animal Waste Treatment System Loan Program
The CWSRF currently funds a loan program through the Missouri Department of Agriculture for
the construction of animal waste treatment facilities. Loans for animal waste treatment facilities
are awarded to the Missouri Agriculture and Small Business Development Authority (MASBDA)
which in turn loans the funds to livestock and dairy producers for animal waste treatment
facilities.
For information regarding the MASBDA Animal Waste Treatment System Loan Program,
contact MASBDA at (573) 751-2129.
Disadvantaged Community Reserve
As stated previously, the FFY-2010 capitalization grant requires that not less than 14,98 percent
of the capitalization grant shall be used to provide additional subsidization in accordance with
P.L. 111-88. The Department will reserve $8,459,361 for additional subsidies in the form of
grants. It is the department's intent to give preference to disadvantaged communities as well as
on-site/decentralized wastewater treatment and green infrastructure demonstration projects.
The intent of Congress was 'to target, as much as possible, the additional subsidized monies to
communities that could not otherwise afford an SRF loan". Accordingly, any community with a
population of 3,300 or less, whose user rates will be at or above 2% of the median household
income (MHI) and the MHI is at or below 75% of the state average MHI, will receive a grant for
up to 75% of their project cost and be eligible to receive a loan for the remaining 25%.
The Department also intends to provide grant funds for on-site/decentralized wastewater
treatment and green infrastructure demonstration projects. Applicants may receive a 50% grant,
based on the total eligible project costs, with a maximum grant amount of $3 million per
applicant. Applicants are responsible for securing the necessary matching funds.
22
50
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
SFY 2012 Fundable Carry-over Projects
Applicant
Project #
Description
w m
` c
a. d
Service
Area
Pop,
Eligible Costs
NPDES#
m ei
o v
a
CD p
''a a
m s u.
c c�
LLtoN
Needs
Initiation of
Operations
Available Funds
$50,596,883
Greenfield '
C295645-01
TP, Lit
80
1,358
5726,380
MO.0055590
MO -0055603
4, 5
12.1 1, IUTA, I11B
13-1
Franklin County
PWSD#1
(Pottery Road) '
C295325-02
Coll, LS
75
989
52,300,000
Multiple
1, 4, 5
12.2
iVA, IVB
13-2
Total Fundable Carryover Projects
$3,026,380
Balance Forward
$47,570,503
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
SFY 2012 Fundable Projects
Applicant
Project #
Description
=.. 77
ri- a`
a -
Service
P p
Eligible Costs
NPDES#
E O
o 0
Financing
Schedule
SPY -qtr
Needs
Category
Initiation of
Operations
Balance Forward
$47,570,503
Huntsville
C295670.01
TP, Call Rehab
130
2,176
$3.075,000
MO -0040827
MO -0040819
4 5
12-4
1, IIIA, I11B
13-4
Boone County
RSD (Rayfield
Subd.)
C295375-14
1
125
107
51,030,730
MO -0099261
MO.0085944
4, 5
12-1
IVB
13-1
Jefferson City
(Cale Jct & Route
5)
0295401.06
Coil, Rehab
120
11,000
515,000,000
MO.0094046
4, 5
12-4
1115. IVA, IVB
13-3
Gape Girardeau
(Phase 1)
C295531-01
TP
110
36,421
525,000,000
MC.0050580
5
12-2
I
13-4
Cuba
C295560-01
TP, Coll Rehab
105
3,230
52,600,000
M0.0094919
5
12-1
1, 111B
13-1
Total Fundable Projects
$46,705,730
Balance Forward
$864,773
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
23
51
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
SFY 2012 Fundable Contingency Projects
(Complete Facility Plan Submitted and Approved Debt Instrument)
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
Service
Area
Pop.
Eligible Costs
NPDES#
a n
1i c)
Financing
Schedule
SFY-Qtr
Needs
Category
Initiation of
Operations
Cape Girardeau
(Phase 2)'
C295531.02
TP
110
36,421
$45,000,000
MO -0050580
5
12-2
I
13-4
Columbia (Upper
HinksonOutfall
C295361-10
I
95
12,672
$8,150,000
MO -0097837
4
12-1
1VB
13-1
Phase I)
Columbia (North
MO -0097837
Grindstone Outlall
C295361-09
1
85
50
$1,370,000
MO -0118672
5
12-1
1VB
13-1
Phase Il)
MO -0102113
Platte City
C295693-01
TP Inap
85
3,866
$727,000
MO -0026298
4, 5
12-3
1
13-1
MO -0128490
Northeast Pthlic
Sewer district
C295684-01
I/1
80
4,920
$8,843,088
MO -0110752
MO 0105767
4, 5
12-2
I11B
13-1
(Lower Saline Cr.)
MO -0092371
C295686-01
TP
75
3,863
$5,432,860
MO -0023124
1Louisiana
4.5
12-3
1
14-1
Northeast Public
Sewer District
C295684-03
111
75
16,785
$4.652,517
MO.0128490
4, 5
12-3
1118
13-2
(Saline Cr.)
Northeast Public
Sewer District
C295684-02
Ill
75
7,450
$2,454,469
MO -0128490
4, 5
12-2
111E
13-1
(Upper Saline Cr.)
New Franklin '
C295661-01
TP
70
1,222
$1.964,500
MO.0050296
4, 5
12-2
I
13-2
Hillsboro
C295585-01
TP
70
2,255
$2,350,000
MO.0085838
5
12-3
1, 11
13-3
Perry
C295690-01
RP Coll, Rehab
70
666
$305,200
MO -0111821
4, 5
12-3
I, IIIA, IIIB
13.3
KC-WSD Second
Creek PS & Force
C295588.16
PS, FM
60
447,306
$10,626,295
MO -0024961
4
12.1
IVA, IVB
13-1
Main '
Little Blue Valley
S.D. (Atherton
C295439-03
TP, I, P5,
5
320,000
$85,430,000
MO.0101087
5
12-3
I, IV8
13-2
WWTP Phase II)
Rehab
Total Fundable Contingency Projects
$175,541,429
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
24
52
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
SFY 2012 Contingency Projects
(Complete Facility Plan Submitted)
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
Service
Area Eligible Costs
Pop.
NPDES#
Problem
Code
Financing
Schedule
SFY-Otr
Needs
Category
Initiation of
Operations
Rock Creek PSP '
C295622-01
TP 85
40,757
$4,392,283
MO.0106481
4
12.2
I
13-2
Naylor '
0295606.01 TP
50 610 $207,500
MO.0099279
4, 5
12-1
I
13-1
Total Contingency Projects
$4,599,783
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
Clean Water SRF
SFY 2012 Nonpoint Source
Direct Loan Program
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
service
Pop.
Eligible Costs
NPDES#
Problem
Code
=v�
c y
= v
Needs
Category
Initiation of
Operations
Missouri
Agriculture &Small
Business
Development
0295212-09
TP
NIA
NIA
55,000,000
N/A
3
131
VIIB
15-1
Total Nonpoint Source Direct Loan Projects
$5,000,000
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears an page 30.
SFY 2012 Nonpoint Source and Green
Infrastructure Demonstration Grants
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
service
Area
Pop.
Grant Amount
NPDES#
m a
.n v o
2
a
Financing
Schedule
SFY-Qtr
Needs
Category
D 2
C
o O
m
m
Eo o.
Available Funds
S4,000,000
Taney County
(Regional Class A
Biosolids Facility) '
0295535.01
TP lmp
120
68,361
$3.000,000
Multiple
5
11-4
I 12-4
Ozark Clean Water 0295611.01
Company '
NP5
Decentralized
65
28,658
51,000,000
N/A
4
11-4
Vfl
12.2
Total Demonstration Grants
$4,000,000
Balance
$ 0
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
25
53
SFY 2012 Disadvantaged Community Reserve
Applicant
Project #
c
a
u
Co
0
T
o
a a
Service
Area Pop.
Eligible
Costs
Grant
Amount
Loan
Amount
NPDES#
Problem
Code
Financing
Schedule
SFY-Qtr
Needs
Category
Initiation of
Operations
Available Funds
$4,459,361
$1,486,454
Brashear '
C295649.01 I TP
80
f
280 I $648,500
!!
$486,375
5162,125
MO -0046990
4, 5
11-4
[
12-4
Total Disadvantaged Community Funds $486,375
$162,125
Balance
$ 3,972,9$6
$ 1,324,329
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
26
54
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
SFY 2012 Planning List
Note: An expfanalian of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
Service
¢
p.
Eligible
Costs
NPDES#
Problem
Code
Needs
Category
Archie '
C295648.01
TP
70
950
$ 112,030
MO -0048208
4.5
I
Arnold (Telegraph
Road) •
0295568.01
Call
125
167
2,050,000
MO -0127949
4
IVA
Arnold (Upper
Tenbrook Rd.) '
C295569.01
Coll
125
104
1,194.000
MO -0127949
4
IVA
Auxvasse
C295547-01
PS Rehab
10
999
376,667
MO -0100986
5
IlIB
Bland (Sewer
Extension) '
C295649-01
Coil
50
565
85,000
MO -0055395
4
WA
Bland (WWTP) "
C295649.02
TP Imp
50
565
125,000
MO.0055395
4, 5
1
Bonne Terre '
C295572.01
Coll
40
45
200,000
MO.0100706
4
WA
Boone County
Commission
(Manchester Heights)
C295685-01
1
30
76
382,978
MO -0081922
MO 0097837
5
IVB
Boone County RSD
(Highway HH Phase I)
C295375-13
TP, TP Impr, 1
110
1,095
4.901.400
Multiple
4, 5
1, II, IVB
Boone County RSD
(Spring Park Int.)
0295375-11
I, VI
95
470
417,273
MD 0100463
MO -0097837
4 5
IIIA, IVA, IVB
Boone County RSD
(Sunrise Estates Int.)
C295375-10
1
80
544
652,592
MD 009081fi
MO -0090824
4, 5
IVB
Boone County RSD
(Energy Efficiency
Upgrades)
C295375-15
TP Imp
80
6,360
66,671
Multiple
N/A
I
Boone County RSD
(Rocky Fork Cr.)
C295375-12
TP, 1
95
1,328
11,431,926
Multiple
4, 5
I, IVB
Boone County RSD
(Twin Lakes WWTF)
C295375-16
TP
95
194
1,079,932
MO -0101885
4.5
Boone County RSD (El
Rey Heights)
C295375-17
I, FM
80
139
203,490
MO -0091766
4, 5
IVB
Buckner
0295694-01
TP Imp
Rehab • Coll
55
2,900
830,000
MO -0098094
5
I, 1118
Calvey Creek 5.D_
(Phase 11)
C295524-03
Coll
75
500
1,670,000
NIA
4
IVA, IVB
Calvey Creek S.D.
(Catawissa Area) '
C295524-02
TP Imp, Coil, I
85
225
3,470,000
MO -01154110
4, 5
I, IVA, 1V8
Carl Junction "
C295650-01
VI
100
5,294
614,000
MO.0025186
4
111A, IIIB
Cass County Sewer
District "
C295672-01
TP, I Coll
55
65
882,980
New
2, 4
1, IVA, IVB
Cassville (Rehab) '
C295657-02
VI Rehab
75
3,245
88,550
MO -0042579
4
IIIA, 1118
Chaffee
C295692-01
TP, Coll Rehab
75
3,044
6,069,968
MO -0025305
5
1,11113
Columbia (Sewer
Extensions) '
0295647-01
1
75
99,174
11,466,000
-MO-0097837
4
IVB
Cuba (Force Main)
C295560-02
I
10
-
1,210,000
MO -0094919
5
i
NB
27
55
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
SrArea
Pop.
Eligible
Costs
NPOES#
Problem
Code
Needs
Category
Duquesne
C295447-04
Coll
50
113
744,359
N/A
4
IVA,1VB
Ellington
0295689-01
TP Imp, VI
65
1,530
3,239,785
MO -0022896
5
I, WA
Eminence
C295688-01
III, Coll Rehab
100
548
510,000
MO -0055328
4, 5
1118
Excelsior Springs '
C295679.01
TP
80
11,556
9,357,000
MO -0028843
5
1
Festus-Crystat City
Sewage Commission
C295642-01
TP, IA
100
15,749
1.607,018
MO.0080632
4, 5
1, IIIA, 111B
Festus-Crystal City
Sewage Commission
(Biosalids) '
C295641-01
TP
85
15,749
3,487,418
MO -0080632
5
i
Faristell '
C295579-01
TP,I
30
4,711
1,700,000
MO -0080888 MO -0133264
MO -0133264
I, 1VB
Frontenac '
C295652-01
Stormwater
25
3,483
1,318,171
MOR-040035
4
VI
Gladstone •
C295602-01
1/1
90
26,384
25,000,000
MO -0049531
4, 5
IIIA, 1118
Gladstone '
C295602-02
Stormwater
10
26,384
13,200,000
MOR-040035
4
VI
Grain Valley •
C295678-01
I
60
630
386,251
NIA
4, 5
IV
Green County '
C295646-01
On -site
Training
Center
45
280,000
1,227,731
NIA
4
VII
Hawk Point •
C295651-01
TP
20
459
919,562
MO -0028053
5
1
Hemlann '
C295680.01
TP, Coll Rehab
115
2,674
4,375,000
MO-01MO-011160600509
4, 5
1,111A, IIIB
Wilts Summit '
C295192-03
TP, PS, 1, Coll
30
3,520
4,505,000
MO 0106810
MO -0033910
4, 5
I, II, IVA, IVB
Humansviile '
C295567-01
III Rehab
60
946
1,679,000
MO -0025739
5
111B
Jackson '
C295247-03
TP, I
60
11,947
8,373,000
MO.0022853
5
I, It, IVB
Johnson County PWSD
#3 '
C295644-01
TP,
30
350
1,400,600
MO -0082945
MO -0050784
5
1, IVB
Kansas City WSD
(Birmingham P5) •
C295588-03
I, Rehab
40
447,306
521,034
MO.0049531
5
IIIB
Kansas City WSD (Blue
RiverWWTP) •
C295588-06
TP
90
447,306
700,000
MO -0024911
5
I, VII
Kansas City WSD
(Brookside Phase 111)
C295588-07
Stormwater, III
110
447,306
11,690,849
MO -0024911
4, 5
IIIA, VI
Kansas City WSD
(Catch Basin Removal
& Replacement) '
C295588-08
Stormwater
75
447,306
1,860,000
N/A
5
VI
Kansas City WSD
(Chouteau/Gardner
Stormwater) '
C295588-09
Storrnwaler
75
447,306
24,088,558
MO -0024911
4, 5
Vi
Kansas City WSD (East
Bannister) '
C295588-11
1
90
447,306
1,274,138
MO.0024911
4
IVB
Kansas City WSD
(Second Creek) '
C295588-15
1
40
447,306
30,305,158
MO -0024961
4
IVB
Kansas City WSD
'(Turkey Creek P5) '
0295588.19
Coll Rehab
110
447,306
15,812,700
MO.0024929
4, 5
IIIB '
28
56
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
Service
Area
Pop.
Eligible
Costs
NPl3E5#
Problem
Code
Needs
Category
Kansas City WSD
(Universal Avenue) '
C295588-20
Stormwater
75
447,306
9,052,000
M00024911
4. 5
VI
Knob Nester •
C295656-01
TP
55
2,462
338,000
MO.0048712
4,5
I
Lake Ozark
C295646-02
Coll Rehab
100
1,489
2,722,674
N/A
4.5
10B
Leadwood •
C295659-01
TP,111
55
1,247
3,319,100
MO.0104256
4,5
1,111A
Lee's Summit •
C295591-01
III, I
70
92,000
3,364,714
N/A
4,5
IIIA, IIIB, !VB
Lee's Summit '
C295592-01
Ill
70
92,000
26,226,000
N/A
4,5
IIIA
Lee's Summit (Holding
Basins) '
C295293-01
VI
55
92,000
8,931,900
NIA
4,5
IIIA
Lincoln Co. PWSD #1 '
C295567-01
Coll
65
3,020
7,221,900
Mulliple
4, 5
IVA, IVB
Lincoln Co. PWSD #1
(Green Acres Subd.) •
C295598-01
TP
80
800
206,000
MO -0099228
4, 5
Madison •
C295658.01
III
i5
586
844,647
MO.0096920
4, 5
IIIA
Miner •
C295556.01
TP, PS Rehab
70
1,056
2,120,000
MQ-0095133
4, 5
1, 0, IIIB
MSD - Bond Place '
C295683-01
Coll
125
40
111,000
MO -0004391
2, 3, 4
IVA
Niangua '
C295607-01
WI, Rehab
40
445
524.870
MO.0095109
4, 5
111A, IIIB
Odessa "
C295675-01
TP
95
5,100
15,620,000
MO -0026395
4, 5
I, 0, IVB
Olympian Village *
C295610-01
TP
10
690
300,000
MO.0101109
5
I
Peculiar '
C295612-01
TP, P5, FM,
Coll
45
4,700
13,400,000
MO -0089443
4, 5
I, IVA, IVB
Peculiar '
C295613.02
S1ormwater
65
4,700
5.300,000
N/A
4
VI
Peculiar (Rodeo) •
C295613-01
Stormwater
10
800
500,000
N/A
4
VI
Penermon '
C295615-01
TP
25
136
220,100
MO -0091715
4,5
I
Poplar Bluff
C295671-01
TP
80
17,100
17,015,100
MO.0043648
1, 4, 5
1
Potosi '
C295673-01
!Rehab
45
1,300
62,000
MO.0099732
4, 5
1VB
Princeton
c'295691-01
TP Imp
60
1,047
358.000
MO -0028762
4, 5
I, II
Pulaski Co. S.D. No. 1
(Collection Syslem
Rehab)
C295676-01
Coll Rehab
30
19,700
2,464,000
N/A
4
IIIA, 1€IB
Pulaski Co. S.D. No. 1
(Weeks Hollow WWTP)
0295320-06
TP
95
9,850
7,019,136
MO -0111716
5
I
Raymore (Silver
Lake/Lakeshore) '
0295660.01
VI
35
17.238
206,000
NIA
4, 5
IIIA
Rocky Mount S.D.
C295623-01
Coll
70
450
7,638,540
NIA
4
I, IVA, the
Shelbina (Collection) '
C295655-01
1/1
35
1,943
1,713,041
MO -0041092
4, 5
MA
Shelbina (WWTP) •
C295655-02
TP
30
1,943
1,260,720
MO -0041092
4, 5
I
Sikeston '
C295323-02
P, PS, FM,
80
16,992
15,000,000
MQ-0035p09
4, 5
i,lllA,iVB
South Greenfield •
C205653-01
TP
55
160
30,800
MO -0129747
5
I
29
57
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 30.
Applicant
Project #
Description
Priority
Points
Service
Area
Pop.
Eligible
Costs
NPDES#
Problem
Code
Needs
Category
St. Clair '
C295663-01
Ili
35
4,390
180,400
MC -0099465
4, 5
IIIA
Sunrise Beach C295540.01
TP, Coll
105
1,796
6,102,000
Multiple
4
I, 11, IVA, IVB
Upper White River
Basin Watershed
Improvement District
(River Downs West) '
C295682.01
TP, I
110
255
798,880
MO.01 14464
4, 5
I, iVB
Valley Park (Street
Sweeper) -
C295632-01
Stormwater
80
8,518
245.000
MO -8040005
5
V1
Walnut Grove '
C295518.01
TP Call, I,
Rehab
70
630
1,000,000
MO -0107174
5
1,IIFA,IIIB,IVB
Washburn •
C295555-01
173
65
448
7,055,000
MO -0109355
5
J
Webb City '
C295644.01
I, 1/1
105
9,812
1,613,755
MO.0040185
4, 5 111A, 1113, IVB
Wildwood '
C295661-01
Stormwater
15
34,549
595,122
MOR-040035
4 VI
Willard '
C295639-01
1
70
3,193
7,772,000
MC -0103039
4 IVB
Windsor '
C295512-01
TP, Coll, 1, PS,
FM, Rehab
70
3087
5 000,000
MO.0047317
MO.0047325
5 1118, IVA, !V8
Total Planning List Projects
$ 396,315,148
Abbreviations and Codes
Problem Codes
Needs Codes
Description Reference List
1 - NPDES Permit Violation
t Secondary Treatment
Coll Collection
2 - Unperrnitted Discharge
II Advanced Treatment
Det Detention
3 - Water Quality Stds. Violation
IIIA Ill correction
Exp Expansion
4 • Public Health Problems
11113 Sewer replacement or rehabilitation
FM Force Main
5 - Future NPDES Violation Expected
IVA New Collection
Impr Improvements
1V8 New Interceptors
1 Interceptor
V C50
111 Inflow/Infiltration
Rehab Rehabilitation
VIIE NPS: Animal
TP Treatment Plant
VIiD NPS: Urban
NPDES National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System
Notes:
Final eligible costs will be determined as documents are submitted and the project is closer to financing.
Financing schedule shown is for planning purposes only. Final scheduling will be determined as documents are submitted and approvals
obtained.
An ' indicates the project is carried over from last years IUP.
Carry over projects from the SFY 2011 list must reapply to be considered for the SFY 2013 list.
Disadvantaged communities are reflected in bold italic print.
30
58
State Funded Grant and Loan Programs
31
59
This page was intentionally left blank.
32
60
Forty -Percent Construction Grant Program
The Clean Water Commission developed the State Forty Percent Construction Grant Program
to provide assistance to those communities who do not qualify for a leveraged loan for the total
amount of eligible project costs.
There are no additional funds for the Forty Percent Construction Grant program in state fiscal
year 2012.
For more information on the State Forty -Percent Grant Program, contact Ms. Traci Newberry at:
(573) 526-0940.
Small Borrower Loan Program
This program is limited to communities under 1,000 population and the loan amount is limited to
$100,000. Loans can be secured by a bond issue or can be annually appropriated debt.
This program was established with water pollution control bonds and continues with state direct
loan repayments. This small revolving fund is state funded exclusively and is not a part of the
State Revolving Fund. The funds can be used for either drinking water or clean water needs.
For SFY 2012 there is a balance of 5271,000 available. This balance includes all repayments
from clean water and drinking water loans made with state water pollution control bond funds as
well as projected interest and repayments through June 30, 2011.
Applications are accepted throughout the year. Uncommitted funds can be accessed at any
time. To apply, contact Ms. Traci Newberry at (573) 526-0940.
Once an application is received and reviewed, it will be presented to the Clean Water
Commission for their approval.
33
61
This page was intentionally left blank.
34
62
List of Fiscal Year 2012 Applicants
35
63
This page was intentionally left blank.
36
64
List of Fiscal Year 2012 Applicants
Note: An exotanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 39.
APPLICANT
APPLICATION
DATE
PRIORITY
POINTS
SERVICE
AREA
POP.
FEDERAL
PROGRAM
Archie
04/20/2009
70 950
P
Arnold (Telegraph Road)
04/13/2009
125
167
P
Arnold (Lipper Tenbroak Rd.)
04/13/2009
125
104
P
Auxvasse
11/12/2010
10
999
P
Bland (Sewer Extension)
05/15/2009
50
565
P
Bland (WWTP)
05/15/2009
50
565
P
Bonne Terre
04/01/2009
40
45
P
Boone County Commission
11/12/2010
30
76
P
Boone County RSD ( Highway NH
Phase I)
11/12/2010
110
1,095
P
Boone County RSD (Rayfield Subd.)
11/03/2010
125 107
Fund
Boone County RSD (Rocky Fork Cr.)
11/10/2010
95 1,328
P
Boone County RSD (Spring Park Int.)
10/29/2010
95
470
P
Boone County RSD (Sunrise Estates
Int.)
11/03/2010
80
544
P
Boone County RSDLEnergy Efficiency)
12/30/2010
80
6,360
P
Boone County RSD (Twin takes
W WTF)
12/30/2010
95
194
P
Brashear
11/9/2009
80
280
0
Buckner
11/15/2010 55
2,900
P
Cafvey Creek S.D.
08/31/2010 75
500
P
Cafvey Creek S.D. (Catawissa Area)
11/06/2009 85
225
P
Cape Girardeau
Carl Junction
Cass County Sewer District
Cassville (Rehab)
Chaffee
Columbia (North Grindstone Outfall
Phase I )
Columbia (Lipper Hinkson Outfall Phase
I)
Columbia (Sewer Extensions)
Cuba
Cuba (Forcemain)
Duquesne
Ellington
Eminence
Excelsior Springs
Festus-Crystal City Sewage
Commission (I/1 reduction)
Festus-Crystal City Sewage
Commission (Solar Biosolids)
Foristell
Franklin County PWSD#1 (Pottery
Road)
Frontenac
Gladstone
Gladstone (Stormwater)
Grain Valley
Greene Court
Greenfield
Hawk Point
Hermann
Hillsboro 11/12/2010
Hogs Summit 11/11/2009
Humansviile
Huntsville,
Jackson
Jefferson City (Cole Jct. & Rt. B)
Johnson County PWSD #3
11/13/2009
05/18/2009
06/22/2009
06/05/2009
12/08/2010
110
100
55
75
75
36,421
Fund
5,294
P
65
P
P
P
3,245
3,044
11/12/2010
85
50
Fund-Cont
11/12/2010
95
12,672
Fund-Cont
05/11/2009
11/15/2010
11/15/2010
11/15/2010
11/15/2010
11/15/2010
10/27/2009
75
105
10
50
65
100
80
99,174
3,230
P
Fund
113
P
P
P
P
P
1,530
548
04/16/2009
100
11,556
15.749
P
04/16/2009
02/25/2009
85
30
15,749
4,711
P
P
11/16/2009
75
989
C -Fund
05/26/2009
04/17/2009
04/20/2009
09/08/2009
04/17/2009
04/17/2009
05/22/2009
11/16/2009
25
90
10
60
45
80
20
115
70
30
3,483
P
P
P
P
P
26,384
26,384
630
280,000
1,358
C -Fund
459
2,674
2,255
3,520
P
Fund -Cant
P
P
03/16/2009 60
01/11/2011
11/14/2008
11/15/2010
04/27/2009
946
130
60
120
30
2,176
Fund
11,947
11,000
P
Fund
350
P
37
65
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes aopears an page 39.
APPLICANT
APPLICATION
DATE
PRIORITY
POINTS
SERVICE
AREA
POP.
FEDERAL
PROGRAM
KC-WSD Birmingham P.S. root
repiacem ent
KC-WSD Blue River WWTP storage
bui ding and rain garden
01/30/2009
40
447,306
P
01/30/2009
90
447,30
P
KC-WSD Brookside Phase III
01/30/2009
110
447,306
P
KC-WSD Catch Basin
Removal/Replacement
01/30/2009
75
447,306
P
KC-WSD ChouteaulGardner
Stormwater Sewers
KC WSD East Bannister Rd. Interceptor
KC-WSD Second Creek Interceptor
KC-WSD Second Creek PS & Force
Main
KC-WSD Turkey Creek P.S.
KC•WSD Universal Avenue Stormwater
Improvements
Knob Noster
Lake Ozark
Leadwood
Lee's Summit 04/06/2009
Lee's Summit
Lee's Summit (Holding Basins)
Lincoln Co. PWSD #1
Lincoln Co. PWSD #1 (Green Acres
Subd.)
Little Blue Valley S.D. (Atherton WWTP
Phase I I)
Louisiana
Madison
Miner 11/17/2009
Missouri Agriculture & Small Business
Development
MSD - Bond Place
Naylor
New Franklin
Niangua
Northeast Public Sewer District (Lower
Saline Cr.)
Northeast Public Sewer District (Saline
Cr.)
Northeast Public Sewer District (Upper
Saline Cr.)
Odessa
Olympian Village
Ozark Clean Water Company
Peculiar
Peculiar
Peculiar
Penermon
Perry
Platte City
Poplar Bluff
Potosi
Princeton
Pulaski Co. S.D. No. 1 (Collection
System Rehab)
Pulaski Co. S.D. No. 1 (Weeks Hollow
WWTP)
Rayrnore
Rock Creek PSD
Rocky Mount S. D.
Shelbina (Collection)
Shelbina (WWTP)
Sikeston 03/12/2009
South Greenfield
01/30/2009
75
447,306
P
01/30/2009
01/30/2009
90
40
447,306
447,306
P
P
01/30/2009
60
447,306
Fund-Cont
01/30/2009
01/30/2009
110
75
447,306
447,306
P
P
05/28/2009
12/13/2010
03/26/2009
55
100
55 1,247
70
70
55
2,462 P
1,489 P
P
P
P
P
92,000
92,000
92,000
04/06/2009
04/06/2009
02/27/2009 65
3,020 P
03/17/2009
80
800
P
11/15/2010
5
320,000
Fund-Cont
11/12/2010
05/28/2009
75
15 586 P
70
3,863
Fund-Cont
1,056
P
04/23/2010
N/A
N/A
NPS
07/02/2010
03/30/2009
04/09/2010
03/06/2009
125
50
70
40
40
P
610
Cont
1,222 1 Fund-Cont
09/24/2010
10/19/2010
80
75
445
4,920
16,785
P
Fund-Cont
Fund-Cont
10/19/2010
75
7.450
Fund -font
11/12/2009
04/01/2009
02/17/2009
03/16/2009
03/16/2009
03/16/2009
03/19/2009
11/15/2010
12/08/2010
11/15/2010 80
06/15/2009
11/18/2010
95
10
65
45
65
10
25
70 666
85
5,100
P
P
690
28,658 NPS-GI
4,700
4,700
P
P
P
P
800
136
45
60
3,866
17,100
1,300
1,047
Fund-Cont
Fund-Cont
P
P
P
11/12/2010
30
19,700
P
11/12/2010
95
9,850
P
06/02/2009
04/01/2009
11/10/2010 70
05/29/2009
05/29/2009
35
85
17,238
40,757 Cont
P
35
30
80
55
450
1,943
1,943
P
P
P
I'
P
16,992
05/26/2009
160
38
66
Nate: An exxianation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 39
APPLICANT
APPLICATION
DATE
PRIORITY
POINTS
SERVICE
AREA
POP.
FEDERAL
PROGRAM
St. Clair
06/08/2009
35
4,390
P
Sunrise Beach
11/15/2010
105
1,796
P
Taney Co. RSD (Regional Biosoiids
Facility)
11/16/2009
120
68,361
NPS-Gt
Upper White River Basin Watershed
Improvement District (River Downs
West)
06/10/2010
110
255
P
Valley Park
02/23/2009
80
6,518
P
Walnut Grove
11/09/2009
70
630
P
Washburn
04/03/2009
85
448
P
Webb City
04/17/2009
105
9,812
P
Wildwood
06/04/2009
15
34,549
P
Willard
03/11/2009
70
3,193
P
Windsor
11/16/2009
70
3,087
P
ABBREVIATIONS & CODES
C - Carryover
L - Late Application
Cont - Contingency
NPS - Nonpoint Source
D - Disadvantaged Community
P - Planning List
F - Forty Percent Grant
PL - Planning Loan
Fund - Fundable List
SB - Small Borrower
GI - Green Infrastructure
39
67
This page was intentionally left blank.
40
68
Sources and Distribution of Funds Detail
41
69
This page was intentionally left blank.
42
70
Sources and Distribution of Funds Detail
Capitalization Grants and Loan Repayments
(As of December 31, 2010)
Estimated Sources of Funds
FFY 2008 CW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only)
FFY 2009 CW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only)
FFY 2010 CW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only)
FFY 2011 CW SRF Capitalization Grant (not yet awarded, federal portion only)
Loan Repayment Fund (Balance in Fund 0602 as of 12/31/10)
Balance of Fund 0649 as of 12/31/10
Projected Proceeds from Bond Refinancing
Estimated CWSRF portion of Fund 0602 Investment Interest (01/01/11 - 06/30/11)
Estimated CWSRF portion of Fund 0649 Investment Interest (01/01/11 - 06/30/11)
Reserve Release (01/01/11 — 12/31/11)
Direct Loans - Principal and Interest Repayments (01/01/11 - 12/31/11)
Total Estimated Sources of Funds
$ 2,352,837
$ 18,863,757
$ 56,483,000
$ 18,500,000
$ 211,562,890
$ 1,087,971
$ 611,946
$ 2,049,692
$ 13,020
$ 46,222,801
8 7,702,767
$ 365,450,681
Estimated Fund Commitments
Binding Loan Commitments (Balance of Reserve Payable 12/31/10)
Base Program Funds Committed for ARRA projects as of 12/31/2010
Base Program Funds Committed for Direct Loans as of 12/31/2010
4% Administrative Expenses from FFY 2009 Capitalization Grant
4% Administrative Expenses from FFY 2010 Capitalization Grant
4% Administrative Expenses from FFY 2011 Capitalization Grant
Independent Audit
Match Bond Debt Service (2002 A)
Remaining Principal Due as of 12/31/10
Interest Due Through 10/31/2011
Additional Match Bond Debt Service
Due through SFY 2012
Total Estimated Fund Commitments
$ 6,088,680
$ 93,634,621
$ 42,315,148
$ 754,550
$ 2,259,320
$ 740,000
$ 100,000
$ 11,282,500
$ 518,800
$ 8,217,782
$ (165,911,401)
Estimated Amount of Available Funds for Future Loans
Anticipated Direct Loans during SFY 2011
Joplin — Closed 1/26/11
Wentzville (Phase 11) — Closed 3/14/11
Little Blue Valley S.D. (Middle Big Creek Phase I) — Closed 3/16/11
Macon — Closed 3/17/11
Waynesville — Closed 3/21/11
Loans Expected to Close by 6/30/11
Boone County Regional Sewer District (University Estates & Arrowhead Lake)
Cuba
Stockton
MSD (Missouri River WWTP) C295564-02
Taos
NPS Direct Loans
FFY 2010 Anticipated Grants
Disadvantaged Community Loans
Estimated Amount of Available Funds
$ 26,000,000
$ 21,046,361
$ 37,854,600
$ 1,300,000
$ 4,750,000
$ 489,221
$ 2,600,000
$ 1,350,000
$ 34,769,712
$ 3,836,688
$ 5,000,000
$ 8,459,361
$ 1,486,454
$ 199,539,280
$ (133,996,582)
$ (14,945,815)
$ 50,596,883
43
71
This page was intentionally left blank.
44
72
SOURCE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS
LOAN ADMINISTRATION FEES
Fund 0568
As of December 31, 2010
Program
Program Income
Income Earned
Earned During
After Grant
Non -Program
Income Grant Period
Period
Income
Beginning Balance as of 07/01/10
$ 1,082,293
$ 13,323,907
$ 6,575,192
FY11 Income (thru 12/31/10)
$ 3,283
$ 1,510,425
$ 730,438
FY11 Interest Earnings (thru 12/31/10)
$ 4,008
$ 56,004
$ 27,176
Subtotal
$ 1,089,584
$ 14,890,336
$ 7,332,806
Expenses thru 12/31/10
FY11 Personnel Services
$ (948)
$ -
$ (180,971)
FY11 Fringe
$ (471)
$ -
$ (84,331)
FY11 Expenses
$ (125,515)
$ -
$ (161,800)
FY11 DNR Transfers
$ (17,332)
$ -
$ (47,110)
FY11 ITSD Transfers
$ (8,403)
$ -
$ (31,299)
FY11 HB 13 Transfers
$ (8,573)
$ -
$ (26,718)
FY1 1 State Owned Expenditures
$ -
$ -
$ (11,397)
Subtotal
$ (161,242)
$ -
$ (543,626)
Income Less Expenses
$ 928,343
$ 14,890,336
$ 6,789,179
Estimated Income
FY11 Income (01101111 •06130/11)
$ 70,738
$ 1,522,062
$ 1,055,234
FY11 Interest Income (01/01111 - 06130111)
$ 7,923
$ 79,171
$ 42,443
FY12 Income (07101111 - 06130112)
$ 106,108
$ 2,283,092
$ 1,582,851
FY12 Interest Income (07101111 - 06/30/12)
$ 11,885
$ 118,757
$ 63,664
Subtotal
$ 196,654
$ 4,003,082
$ 2,744,193
Estimated Expenditures
FY11 Personnel Services
$ -
$ (1,113,338)
$ -
FY11 Fringe
$ -
$ (557,337)
$ -
FY11 Indirect
$ -
$ (433,206)
$ -
FY11 ITSD Direct Costs
$ -
$ (825,500)
$ -
FY12 Personal Services
$ -
$ (2,280,807)
$ -
FY12 Fringe
$ -
$ (1,210,884)
$ -
FY12Indirect
$ - $ (1,077,185)
$ -
FY12 ITSD Direct Costs
$ - $ (1,051,000)
$ -
FY12 Abatement of Water Quality Emergencies
$ - $ (1,000,000)
$ -
FY12 Board Training & Operator Certification
$ -
$ (250,000)
$ -
FY12 40% Construction Grants
$ -
$ (1,500,000)
$ -
FY12 Fixed Station Ambient Network Contract
$ -
$ (336,293)
$ -
FY12 Environmental Water Quality Studies
$ -
$ (150,000)
$ -
FY12 Small Community Technical Assistance Prog
$ -
$ (500,000)
$ -
FY12 State Parks Wastewater Infrastructure
$ -
$ (750,000)
$ -
Subtotal
$ -
$ (13,035,550)
$ -
Total Actual and Estimated
$ 1,124,997
$ 5,857,868
$ 9,533,371
NOTE: The distribution of loan administration fees to various department activities is subject to
change throughout the state fiscal year. Actual fund uses will be shown in detail in the SFY
2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Annual Report.
45
73
This page was intentionally left blank.
46
74
Program Application Forms and Instructions
47
75
This page was intentionally left blank.
48
76
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
f FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE CENTER
DATE RECEIVED
4
*`
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN APPLICATION
PROJECT NUMBER
Submit to: P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
ATTN: Financial Assistance Center
This application is for a Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan described in 10 CSR 20-4.040
PRIORITY POINTS
APPLICANT INFORMATION
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
DUNS NUMBER
❑ Incorporated Municipality ❑ Public Water/Sewer District ❑ Other:
APPLICANT TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE APPLICANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
- - Ext. - -
APPLICANT MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE + FOUR
COUNTY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAME
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TITLE
2. NAME OF PERSON TO CONTACT ABOUT THIS APPLICATION
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
3. CONSULTING ENGINEER
CONSULTANT MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE + FOUR
CONSULTANT TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AHEACODE
- Ext.
CONSULTANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
- -
4. POPULATION (CURRENT CENSUS)
POPULATION OF AREA TO BE SERVED
5. STATE SENATE DISTRICT NUMBERS)
STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT NUMBER(S)
6. PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION
❑ Point Source Project
• Non -Point Source Project
■
Green Project Components (See Instructions)
Decentralized/Cluster Wastewater System ❑
On -Site System Rehabilitation/Replacement
❑
Other Non -Point Source Project
❑
Project Description. Include Green Project Components, if applicable (Attach Engineering Report):
PERMIT INFORMATION Factor A at 10 CSR 20-4.010 (1)(A)1
7. List National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, Permit Number(s) of Water or Wastewater facilities affected
by this project:
8. List Non -Permitted facilities to be eliminated by this project (attach list if necessary):
Name Population Served ' Type and Condition of Facility
I
MO 780.1951{a5111)
77
PROJECT COST INFORMATION
9. Cost Estimate Dated: / /
10. Cost Breakdown for Designated Categories
Engineering Planning and Design
$
I. Secondary Treatment
$
Engineering (Construction Phase)
$
II. Advanced Treatment
$
Engineering Inspection
$
WA. Inflow/Infiltration Correction
$
Land and Easements"
$
I I I B. Sewer Rehabilitation
$
Construction
$
IVA. Collection Sewers
$
Equipment
$
IVB, Interceptor Sewers
$
SRF Closing Costs (estimate 3 percent)
$
V. Combined Sewer Overflow Correction
$
Other Costs (specify)
$
VI. Storm Water
$
Contingencies
$
Vll. Non -Point Source
$
Total Project Costs
$0
Total Project Costs
$0
Funding From Other Sources
$
Funding Request (this application only)
$
" These costs are generally not eligible for CWSRF funding.
11. DEBT INSTRUMENT
A. Bonds
B. Capital Improvements Sales Tax
Date of Bond Election
/ /
Date of Election
1 1
Type of Bond
Dedicated? 9 Yes 0 No
Amount of Bond
$
Sunset Provision?
• Yes 0 No
C. Other (specify):
12. APPLICANT FINANCIAL INFORMATION Factor C at 10 -CSR 20-4.010(1)(A)3
A. Median Household Income (from census)
B Current monthly sewer use rate (for 5,000 gallons)
Proposed sewer rate (for 5,000 gallons)
C Sewer revenues for most recent year ended
Most recent year's date of data used / /
❑. Sewer operating expenditures for most recent year
13. BOARD TRAINING Factor C at 10 CSR 20-4.010(1)(A)3
List any board training(s) related to wastewater utility management that current board members have attended in the last
three years:
MO 7841961 (05/11)
2
78
14. WATERSHED INFORMATION Factors A at 10 CSR 20-4.010 (1)(A)1 and Factor E at 10 CSR 20-4.010 (1)(A)5
WATER BODY AFFECTED BY PROPOSED PROJECT
•
❑
o
Check if this is the receiving water body
Check if the body is classified
If affected water body is not classified, provide the nearest
downstream water body
Is proposed project identified in a multi -jurisdictional area watershed plan? 0 Yes
■ No If yes, provide a copy of the plan.
Does the proposed project serve more than one community? • Yes
• No If yes, identify communities:
Does the proposed project eliminate the need for multiple wastewater treatment facilities?
■ Yes 0 No
Does the proposed project address groundwater pollution? ❑ Yes
• No
GROUNDWATER is USED FOR:
OTHER PROBLEMS ADDRESSED:
15. PROJECT TYPE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) Factor B at 10 CSR 20-4.010 (1)(A)2
• Combined sewer overflow/sanitary sewer overflow Number of overflows per year:
• Wastewater
❑ Failing
•
0
0
Treatment Facility (specify) Has antidegradation report been submitted? ❑ Yes
New facility
Increase capacity/increase level of treatment
Rehabilitation/process improvement
or failed on -site wastewater disposal system Percentage of systems failing: °_
•
No
• N/A
The project
The project
0
❑
❑
•
•
❑
❑
❑
■
0
Collection
New
Upgrade
Storm
Agricultural
Landfill
addresses
Addressing
Addressing
Addressing
considers
Including
❑ On -site system replacement/rehabilitation
• Construction of a decentralized wastewater system
❑ New collection system
system rehabilitation primarily to address inflow/infiltration
collection system
or expansion of existing collection system
water detention
Best Management Practice
capping, leachate collection, side slope seepage prevention and control system, and monitoring wells
groundwater pollution by: Factors E at 10 CSR 20-4.010 (1)(A)5
problems caused by petroleum storage tanks
problems caused by a hazardous waste site participating in the department's Voluntary Cleanup Program
water quality problems caused by inadequate landfill ieachate collection systems
aquatic/riparian habitat by: Factor F at 10 CSR 20-4.010(1)0)6
measures to restore aquatic/riparian habitat and/or to prevent aquatic/riparian degradation
MO 780-1951 (05/11)
3
79
16. PROJECT SCHEDULE (READINESS TO PROCEED) Factor C at 10 CSR 20-4.010(1)(A)3
Milestone
Anticipated Date
A. Antidegradation report submitted (for any new, expanded or upgraded wastewater
treatment plant)
/ /
B. Engineering Report and Facility Plan complete
/ /
C. All other funding is secured (if necessary, bonds are voted)
1 1
D. Engineering Plans and Specifications complete
/ /
E. Construction start date
/ 1'
F. Mandatory completion date (attach copy of compliance schedule)
1 1
17. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED BY 10 CSR 20-4.040(8) AND MUST SE INCLUDED WITH THIS
APPLICATION FORM:
❑
■
•
A project
The
Proposed
summary that includes the need for the project :
❑ The project components including maps or drawings showing the project location
❑ A cost estimate including a cost breakdown
most recent financial statement
project schedule including:
• Construction start date defined as the date of notice to proceed
❑ Construction completion
❑ Initiation of operation
❑ Project completion
18. SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION DOCUMENTATION MUST BE ATTACHED Factor C at 10 CSR .20-4.010(1)(A)3
• User charge system budgets showing revenues and expenses for the past five years.
E Documentation showing that an inflow/infiltration reduction program has been in place for the fast five years.
o Water or Energy Conservation Plan
• Proposed project is specifically identified in the applicant's master wastewater or capital improvement plan. (Master
wastewater or capital improvement plan should be for a period of five or more years).
❑ Documentation indicating the percentage of failed on -site wastewater disposal systems to be replaced
or rehabilitated.
1 CERTIFICATION:
The undersigned representative certifies that the information submitted in this application is true and correct to the best of his/her
knowledge and that he/she is authorized to sign and submit this application. The applicant agrees, if a loan is awarded on the basis
of this application, to comply with ail applicable terms, conditions and procedures of the Department of Natural Resources, the
applicable rules and regulations of the Missouri Clean Water Commission and the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.
Incomplete applications will be returned.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
DATE
/ /
NAME AND OFFICIAL TITLE (TYPE OR PRINT)
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
- - Ext.
PREPARER'S NAME AND SIGNATURE (IF APPLICABLE)
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER
DATE
. 1 /
NAME AND TITLE (PRINT OR TYPE)
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
- - Ext.
MO 780-1951 {O5/11)
4
80
,�'
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan
Application Instructions for Form 780-1951
Water Protection Program fact sheet 412011
Note: Any funding assistance is subject to all State Revolving Fund requirements. Potential
applicants should contact the Financial Assistance Center prior to completing and submitting an
application. Contact the Financial Assistance Center at 573-751-1192 or toll free
at 800-351-4827.
1. Print or type the applicant information. Include a street address if available. The applicant is
the entity that will receive the loan funds if awarded. Prior to receiving a loan, the entity must
have a DUNS (Data Universal Numbering System) number. The DUNS number is a nine
digit number established and assigned by Dun and Bradstreet, Inc. (D&B) to uniquely identify
business entities. A DUNS number may be obtained from D&B by telephone (currently
866-705-5711) or the Internet (currently at http:rrfedgov.dnb.comlwebform). The authorized
representative is the person designated by the applicant to sign official documents and to
speak for the applicant on project related matters.
2. This contact noted on the application should be knowledgeable about the application and
able to be contacted during business hours.
3. Include the engineering firm name and the professional engineer working on this project.
4. Show the population of the entire service area. The "population to be served" will be
different from the census population if the project is to sewer, or construct improvements in,
a portion of the municipality or district.
5. Provide the state senate and state representative district number(s) for the project area.
6. Point source projects include those projects that directly or indirectly impact a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permitted facility. In addition, a
proposed project that will ultimately result in the issuance of an NPDES permit is to be
considered a point source project. A non -point source project is one that does not fit the
point source project description, e.g., a project to rehabilitate or replace on -site wastewater
systems, the construction of a decentralized (cluster) wastewater system, or riparian corridor
restoration. Provide a brief project description. Green Project Components may include the
following:
• Management of stormwater runoff at the local level through the use of natural systems,
or engineered systems that mimic natural systems, to treat polluted runoff.
• Water or energy efficiency improvements.
• Environmentally innovative activities.
7. List the wastewater discharge permit numbers of all facilities affected by the proposed
project.
et: Recycled Paper
PUB2284
81
8. List the non -permitted facilities to be eliminated by the proposed project.
9. Supply the cost estimates for the project. Land acquisition and easements are not eligible
unless they are integral to the wastewater treatment process (land application).
Call for additional guidance if land acquisition is related to a project to address non -point
source pollution.
10. Provide a cost breakdown by category of need.
11. 11A and 11B, Provide information on existing or proposed ballot issues. If a bond or
tax issue has already been voted, provide a copy of the ballot language and certified
election results.
11C. List other types of debt instruments and funding sources such as Neighborhood
Improvement District, or NID, U.S. Department of Agriculture -Rural Development,
Community Development Block Grants, etc. Supporting documentation should be attached
to the application.
12. The financial information will be used to determine the applicant's financial capability to carry
out the proposed project.
12A. The median household income is based on the most recent census.
12B. Fill in the current rate for 5,000 gallons. Use the proposed rate if the project area is
currently unsewered.
12C. Show the total revenues for the most recent year. Show when the accounting year
ended if the fiscal year used is not the calendar year. If this is a new system, write in
"new system"
12D. Show the total expenditures for the sewer system for the same time period
shown in 12C.
13. List any board trainings related to wastewater management that your board members have
attended in the last three years.
14. Provide as much information as possible related to the watershed the project is located
in, and the problems to be addressed by the project. This information will be used in
determining the project priority in relation to other applications for funding.
15. Check the boxes that apply to the proposed project.
16. Provide the anticipated dates for the milestones listed. Put N/A in the space if the milestone
isn't applicable to the project.
17. information required by 10 CSR 20-4.040(8) must be submitted before the application
will be prioritized.
This additional information, if provided, may allow for additional priority points. The applicant
may submit other project related information that applicant feels should be submitted with the
application.
2
82
Incomplete Applications will be Returned
Sign the application; attach any additional information that will enable the department to
prioritize your wastewater needs.
• If you are using funds from U.S. Department of Agriculture -Rural Development or Depart-
ment of Economic Development, Community Development Block Grant Program, be certain
that you have included this information.
■ Make a copy of the completed application for you records.
■ Electronically transmitted applications will not be accepted.
■ Mail the Completed Application to:
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program,
Financial Assistance Center, P.C. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176.
For More Information
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Water Protection Program, Financial Assistance Center
PO. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
800-361-4827or 573-751-1192
FAX: 573-751-9396
www.dnr.rnagovienv/wpp/srf/index.html
3
83
84
Q
A
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH
WATER QUALITY REVIEW ASSISTANCEIANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW REQUEST
PRE -CONSTRUCTION REVIEW FOR PROTECTION OF BENEFICIAL USES AND DEVELOPING EFFLUENT LIMITS
TYPE OF PROJECT
• Grant ■ SRF Loan • All Other Projects
REQUESTER
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
PERMITTEE
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
REASON FOR REQUEST
❑ New Discharge (See Instruction #9) ❑ Upgrade (No expansion) (See A!P) • Expansion
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY:
FACILITY INFORMATION
FACILITY NAME
MSOP NUMBER (IF APPLICABLE)
COUNTY
SIC 1 NAICS CODE
METHOD OF BACTERIA COMPLIANCE
❑ Chlorine Disinfection 0 Ultraviolet Disinfection ❑ Ozone 0 Not Applicable
WATER QUALITY ISSUES
Water quality issues inc ude: effluent limit compliance issues, notice (s) of violation, water body beneficial uses not attained or supported, etc.
OUTFALL
LOCATION (LAT/LONG OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
MAPPED'
(CHECKy
RECEIVING WATER BODY2
•
•
•
' Attach topographic map (See www.dnr.mo.gov/internetmapviewer/) with outfall location(s) clearly marked.
For additional outfalls, attach a separate form.
2 See general instructions for discharges to streams.
OUTFALL
NEW DESIGN FLOW "
(MOD)
TREATMENT TYPE
EFFLUENT TYPES'
Describe predominating character of effluent. Example: domestic wastewater, municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater,
starrn water, mining leachate, etc.
If expansion, indicate new design flow.
❑ Checked for rare or endangered species and provided determination with this request. See instruction #8.
ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW SUBMISSION:
See attached Antidegradation instructions. Applicant supplied a summary within:
0 Tier Determination and Effluent Limit Summary
❑ Attachment A — Significant Degradation
❑ Attachment B — Minimal Degradation
❑ Attachment C — Temporary degradation
. ❑ Attachment D.— Tier 1 Review
❑ No Degradation Evaluation — Conclusion of Antidegradation Review
MO 780 1893 (03-09)
85
See general instructions. Additional information may be needed to complete your request. Your request may be returned if items are
missing. Revised submittal will be considered a new submittal.
SEGNATURE DATE
PRINT NAME
E-MAIL ADDRESS
Submit request to:
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Water Protection Program
Attn: Permits and Engineering Section
P.Q. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
Phone: 573-751-1300
Fax: 573-522-9920
The water quality review assistance is a process to determine effluent limits for new facilities or existing facilities seeking to increase
loading into the receiving stream. Limits can be calculated by the permittee and submitted for review the department.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. Please attach: A. A list of pollutants expected to be discharged.
B. The location of each outfall clearly shown on map(s). A U.S. Geological Survey topographic map is
available at www.dnr.mo.govlintemetmapviewerl.
2. Discharge(s) to all gaining streams: Applicant must submit dissolved oxygen analysis (i.e., using Missouri Department of
Natural Resources approved models such as Streeter Phelps (www.ecy.wa.govlprogramsleaplpwspreadlpwspread.html)
or Qual2KIQuaI2E (Q2KJQ2E) stream water quality study(www.epa.govlathenslwwgtsclindex.htm!)) indicating that the
preferred alternative's BQD5 effluent limitations from the alternative analysis or the technology-based/regulatory BOD5
effluent limits are protective of Missouri's water quality standard for dissolved oxygen. Note: Et Q2K1Q2E is used,
wasteload allocation for ammonia must be assumed. All Q2K1Q2E studies must have department approved Quality
Assurance Project Plans. Recommended modeling procedures from the department (may differ with discharge) for this
analysis are available upon request.
3. Discharge(s) to unclassified gaining stream: Applicant may provide the time of travel to the confluence with the classified
stream segment for modeling pollutant decay (See Total Ammonia Nitrogen Criteria Implementation Guidance Policy at
www.dnr,mo.govlenvlwpplpermitslantideg-implementation.htm). Otherwise, the applicant may determine limits based on
no decay of discharge pollutants, which typically results in lower permit limits. Please use the TR-55 method (Natural
Resource Conservation Service, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release No. 55, June 1986) for time
of travel determination (http:lldirectives.sc.egov,usda.gov122162.wba). Please include a map, schematic or description of
flow segments with your calculations. A worksheet with instructions is available upon request.
4. For a!I discharges, the chronic water quality criteria point of compliance is the classified stream or the confluence
with the classified stream. No mixing is allowed for streams with seven-day 010 low flow less than 0,1 cfs
(10 CSR 20.7,031(4)(A)B(I)), while mixing is allowed for streams with seven-day Q10 low flow greater than 0.1 cfs
(10 CSR 20-7.031(4) (A)B(ll)).
5. For industrial facilities, a list of all chemicals, compounds, elements, etc. found in the discharge must be submitted with
the request. Proprietary names of chemicals are not sufficient, as these chemicals may contain several pollutants for
which the department must evaluate separate effluent limits. A pre -construction review meeting is highly recommended.
6. Do not submit water quality review assistance requests for renewals. All water quality -based effluent limits will be
determined during the renewal process.
7. 10 CSR 20-7.015(8)(B)3. allows alternative limitations (i.e., lagoon or trickling filters) if a water quality impact study is
conducted_ This impact study should indicate that equivalent to secondary treatment for lagoons or trickling filters are
protective of Missouri Water Quality standards for dissolved oxygen and ammonia.
8. Applicant must check for rare and endangered aquatic species that may be affected by the discharge at
http://mdcgis.mdc,mo.gov/heritage/newheritage/heritage.htm.
9. Additional requirements for new facilities:
A. Division of Geology and Land Survey Geohydrologic Evaluations must be submitted with the request.
B. Coordinates of outfa!! (s) in latllong or in the public land survey system must be provided.
C. Please submit a letter with project timeframe.
Note: Lack of response for additional informational within a reasonable timeframe will result in return of request.
MO 780.1883 (G3-09)
2
86
ANTIDEGRADATION INSTRUCTIONS:
For more detailed instructions, the applicant should refer to Missouri's Antidegradation Rule and Implementation Procedure,
which is available at www.dnr.mo.govlenvlwpplpermitsiantideg-implementation.htm. All waters of the state (except
groundwater) are subject to the Antidegradation lmpiementation Procedure. All applicants must submit determination of
assigned tier(s) of protection to water quality for all waters of the state on a pollutant -by -pollutant basis. The applicant should
consult Antidegradation Implementation Procedure, Section 1.B. for the process of assigning Tier Protection Levels. Both Tier
1 and 2 reviews are conducted on a pollutant -by -pollutant basis. Outstanding national and state water resources listed on
Table D and E in the Water Quality Standards at 10 CSR 20-7,031 automatically are assigned Tier 3 reviews that are
conducted an a water body -by -water body basis.
As an overview, Antidegradation Implementation Procedure requires the new or expanded discharge either:
1. Demonstrate that the loading is below allowed facility assimilative capacity and segment assimilative capacity.
2. Demonstrate that loading will be maintained or decreased.
3. Demonstrate degradation or assume degradation with alternative analysis and SEI evaluation.
For minimally degrading activities as defined in Antidegradation Implementation Procedure, no alternative analysis or socio-
economic importance demonstration is required. If the activity is degrading or assumed to be degrading, then in order to
complete the Administrative Record of Decision the applicant must submit both:
1. An alternative analysis that demonstrates the non -degrading and minimally degrading discharging options are either
impracticable, non -cost efficient, or unaffordable.
2. An evaluation of socio-economic importance of the proposed degrading discharging activity for social and economic
development of the community. Applicants must summarize the review using the attached summary sheets (See below).
Tier 1 Reviews: Pollutants of concern that qualify for Tier 1 Reviews may be discharged in accordance with Water Quality
Standards without performing the altemative analysis or socio-economic importance demonstration. However, for a Pollutant of
Concern with Tier 1 designation, the applicant must provide existing receiving water quality data', or an appropriate water
quality model', or department Section 303(d) listings (facilities with water bodies having 305(b) listed Pollutants of Concern
should contact the department). Appendix 2 of the Antidegradation tmplementation Procedure demonstrates the statistical
process (90 percentile value is significantly more than 95 percent of the Water Quality Standards for the Pollutant of Concern)
that applicants must use to designate Pollutant of Concern as Tier 1 (below, at or near Water Quality Standard), if Pollutant of
Concern is not department Section 303(d) listed for that water body. Finally, for Tier 1 Pollutants of Concern the total
maximum daily load process must be followed to maintain or improve water quality. The applicant must demonstrate that
discharge will not violate the water quality criterion for that pollutant (see Attachment 0). For a list of activities that are
considered not to result in significant degradation, see Antidegradation Implementation Procedure, Section ILA.
Tier 2 Reviews: By default, 4nd in the absence of existing water quality data, all waters of the state must have a Tier 2 review
before an application for a permit to discharge is filed. If an applicant is assuming all POCs cause degradation, alternative
analysis and socic — economic demonstration is required. Worksheets for evaluating altemative to discharge (see
Antidegradation Implementation Procedure, Section II.B) and socio-economic importance to the community (See
Antidegradation Implementation Procedure, Section II,E), as provided in 10 CSR 20-7.031, must be provided for review (see
Attachment A). For Pollutant of Concern with Tier 2 designation, applicant must provide basis for determination by providing
existing water quality3 or an appropriate water quality model'. The applicant must consider the current existing water quality
value in the administrative record from previous sampling events (see Antidegradation Implementation Procedure, Water
Quality Assessment Procedures). If degradation is minimal or temporary, no alternative analysis and socio-economic
demonstration (Tier 2 Review is not required) is required but applicant must provide basis for minimal determination.
Degradation is considered minimal if the proposed new or expanded loading is less than 10 percent of the facility assimilative
capacity and the cumulative degradation is less than 20 percent of the segment assimilative capacity as a result of all
discharges combined. Minimal degradation as defined by Antidegradation Implementation Procedure must be supported by
summary worksheet in Attachment B for facility assimilative capacity or segment assimilative capacity demonstrating
assimilative capacity of Pollutant of Concern.
Tier 3 Reviews: Tier 3 water bodies shall receive no degradation of water quality. If hydrologic connection to Tier 3 water
bodies has been or is demonstrated, then the applicant must demonstrate that water quality in the Tier 3 segment will not be
lowered. Applicants in watersheds with significant losing segments should contact the department's Division of Geology and
Land Survey fora Geohydrological Evaluation and available dye tracings information. Temporary degradation of water
receiving with Tier 3 protection may be allowed by the department on a case -by -case basis as explain in Section lI.A of
Antidegradation Implementation Procedure document. Applicant must provide information stated below for evaluation of
temporary degradation (see Attachment C).
3 A Quality Assurance Project Plan, or QAPP, must be provided to the department's Water Protection Program for review well
in advance (i.e., at least six months) of the proposed data collection activity and well before submittal of the Antidegradation
Review. A pre -applicant conference is highly recommended. Important: Applicant must follow the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Quality Assurance Project planning document, which is available at www.epa.gav/QUALITY/qs-docs/r5-
final.pdf.
MO 780.1893 (03-09)
3
87
ANTIDEGRADATION INSTRUCTIONS: (CONTINUED)
Temporary degradation is defined in the Antidegradation Implementation Procedure on pages 8 and 23. If degradation is
temporary, describe the nature of the temporary impact by providing:
1. Length of time during which water quality will be lowered.
2. Percent change in ambient conditions.
3. Parameters affected.
4. Likelihood for long-term water quality benefits to the segment.
5 Degree to which achieving the applicable water quality standards during the proposed activity maybe at risk.
6. Potential for any residual long-term influences on existing uses.
Summary Documentation: Please attach the entire antidegradation review report. In addition, the department requests
antidegradation review summaries of the major findings for each analysis. Attached to this request form are outlines of the
requested information:
Tier Determination and Effluent Limit Summary (required for all submittals) — Summary of the tier determination, list of
pollutants of concern, existing water quality, and summary of effluent limitation.
Attachment A — Significant degradation requires an alternative analysis, preferred alternative outline, social and economic
importance of discharge, and if necessary, facility and segment assimilative capacity.
Attachment El — Minimal degradation requires a summary of facility and segment assimilative capacity. Tier determination
analysis must be submitted with this review.
Attachment C — Temporary degradation requires description of nature of the impact.
Attachment t7 — Tier I Review requires determination of Tier I and may require facility assimilative capacity and segment
assimilative capacity for discharge water body or downstream water body segment.
No Degradation Evaluation — Conclusion of Antidegradation Review — Do not submit water quality review assistance
request. Note: During consultation with Water Protection Staff under the "Other" option of no degradation, a Water Quality
Review Assistance Request may be required.
f 1O 78o-1893 [93-09)
4
88
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
"—
WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
DATE RECEIVED
A
::
FACILITIES PLAN SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Submit to: P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
Attn: Financial Assistance Center
This form must be submitted with the Facility Plan
1.0 APPLICANT INFORMATION
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
APPLICANT MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE ZIP CODE • FOUR
COUNTY
APPLICANT TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE APPLICANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
NAME OF PERSON TO CONTACT ABOUT THIS APPLICATION
CONTACT PERSON'S TITLE CONTACT PERSON'S TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
CONSULTING ENGINEER
CONSULTANT MAILING ADDRESS
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE + FOUR
CONSULTANT TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE CONSULTANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
2.0 CONTINUING AUTHORITY
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NAME
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TITLE
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT NAME
■ SRF Project No.
❑ DED/CDBG No.
❑ SG Project No.
■ Other Funding Sources:
■ EPA Grant No.
Q Applicant funded:
❑ USDAIRD
4.0 FACILITIES PLAN INFORMATION (CHECK THE BOXES OF
THE ENCLOSED ITEMS)
❑ Copy of antidegradation review report and preliminary determination, if applicable
❑ Copy of Draft Effluent Limits review letter provided by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Water Protection Program, Permits Section
❑ Evaluation of existing Waste Water Treatment Facility
❑ Appropriate design period used
❑ Hydraulic and organic projected loadings
❑ Inflow/Infiltration analysis and evaluation
❑ Alternative evaluation with economic analysis
❑ General project design criteria
❑ Location of treatment facility on a map with legal description
❑ Current and estimated future user charge
❑ Signed, sealed and dated by a registered Professional Engineer of Missouri
MO 780.2041 (03-09)
89
CLEARANCE LETTERS
❑ Army Corps of Engineers
❑ Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation
❑ Department of Conservation
and Land Survey (lagoon collapse potential and receiving
parks)
■ United States Fish and Wildlife
❑ Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology
stream determination)
❑ A-95 Clearing House
0 Division of State Parks (If infringes on federally funded
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION in accordance with 10 CSR 20-4.040 (14) and 10 CSR 20-4.050 (2)16)2
❑ Facility Plan
A User Charge
0 Environmental Effects
Note: Review will not be initiated until items 1.0 through 4.0 are submitted. Issuance of an environmental review and
final approval of the Facility Plan can not be given until all items have been submitted. Attach a schedule for
submittal of any remaining information or documents.
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
l
DATE
NAM AND OFFICIAL TITLE (TYPE OR PRINT)
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
PREPARERS NAME AND SIGNATURE (IF APPLICABLE)
SIGNATURE OF PREPARER
DATE
NAME AND TITLE (TYPE OR PRINT)
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
MO 780-2041 (03-09}
2
90
I=�
A
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Water Protection Program
Financial Assistance Center
Facility Plan/Environmental Information Document Guidance
for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Funded Projects
Engineering Reports or Facility Plans are required for State Revolving Fund (SRF) Projects. The
following guidance has been prepared for engineering consultants to provide a comprehensive list of
the department's recommendations and requirements for state and federally funded projects. The
following should be considered as suggested guidance, except where reference has been made to the
regulations, which may include 10 CSR 20-4, 6, 7 and S.
This document addresses the planning, engineering and environmental aspects of a project. While the
rules for SRF address separately the requirements for a facility plan and environmental impact
document, most applicants incorporate both of these documents into a single Facility Plan and
Environmental Information Document.
The Engineering Report or Facility Plan identifies and evaluates wastewater related problems;
assembles basic information; presents criteria and assumptions; examines alternate projects, with
preliminary layouts and cost estimates; describes financing methods, sets forth anticipated charges
for users; reviews organizational and staffing requirements; offers a conclusion with a proposed
project for client consideration; and outlines official actions and procedures to implement the project.
The planning document must include sufficient detail to demonstrate that the proposed project meets
all applicable criteria.
The concept (including process description and sizing), factual data and controlling assumptions and
considerations for the functional planning of wastewater facilities are presented for each process unit
and for the whole system. This data forms the continuing technical basis for the detailed design and
preparation of construction plans and specifications.
Drawings identifying the site of the project and anticipated location and alignment of proposed
facilities are required. Architectural, structural, mechanical and electrical designs are usually
excluded. Sketches may be desirable to aid in presentation of a project. Outline specifications of
process units, special equipment, etc., are occasionally included.
The level of effort required to prepare Facility Plans and the depth of analysis within should be
proportional to the size and complexity of the proposed project. It is anticipated that projects
involving minor collection system, pump station, and interceptor work will not be as detailed as
projects involving new, expanded or rehabilitated wastewater treatment facilities or major sewer
projects. A professional engineer registered in Missouri must sign and seal all Engineering Reports or
Facility Plans.
1
91
1. Title Page
Name of Project
Owner of System
Preparer Name, Address, Phone Number, Fax Number, Seal and Signature
Date of Submittal
2. Table of Contents
3. Introduction
The introduction should state the purpose for the project and should include an evaluation
of the conditions and problems needing correction. It should also include any schedules
contained in enforcement related administrative orders or agreements.
The recommended project may be presented in the introduction or at the end of the
engineering report, whichever is desired by the writer.
4. Existing Conditions and Projections
Sketches should indicate the planning area and existing and potential future service areas.
Present and predicted population shall be based on a 20 year planning period. Phased
construction of wastewater facilities should be considered in rapid growth areas. Sewers
and other facilities with a design life in excess of 20 years should be designed for the
extended period.
Please note that master facility plans can be approved for multiple phases of construction
and loans; however, as per 10 CSR 20-4.050, the Finding of No Significant
Environmental Impact (FNSI) is only effective for a period of five years. Projects based
upon a master facility plan approved more than five years ago will have to obtain new
Environmental Clearances and conduct public participation. Master facility plans older
than five years should also be updated for current opinion of costs.
5. Existing Facilities Evaluation
Existing Collection System: The Existing Facilities Evaluation should include a brief
inventory of the collection system, including approximate miles of gravity sewers and
forcemains, number of pump stations and related pump station capacity. An analysis of
the existing collection system is not required if the project is for a wastewater treatment
facility only. Cities that have large collection systems need only to report on the
collection system in the drainage basin in which the project being studied is located.
2
92
If an infiltration/inflow (111) analysis has been conducted, the facility plan should present
the findings of the study along with the recommendations for the most cost-effective
solution to the excessive 1/I.
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility: Please provide a detailed description of the
existing treatment facility along with an estimate of the capacities of each process unit
and the capacity of the facility as a whole. Please include a sketch or drawing that shows
the layout of the treatment facility. The age and condition of each process unit should be
evaluated and presented. A copy of the current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit should also be included. Problems with the current treatment
facility should be identified and recommendation made for correction.
6. Existing Hydraulic Load
Projections shall be made from actual flow data to the extent possible. See 10 CSR 24-
8.144(5)(C)1.B. for detailed requirements. The probable degree of accuracy of data and
projections shall be evaluated. This reliability estimation should include an evaluation of
the accuracy of existing data, as well as an evaluation of the reliability of estimates of
flow reduction anticipated due to infiltration/inflow reduction or flow increases due to
elimination of sewer bypasses and backups.
Please include critical data and the methodology used. The department recommends that
graphical displays of critical peak wet weather flow data be included for a sustained wet
weather flow period of significance to the project.
For consistency, the department suggests that the following flow definitions be used as a
basis for design of sewers, lift stations, wastewater treatrnent plants and treatment units.
A. Design Average Flow - The design average flow is the average of the daily volumes
to be received for a continuous 12 -month period expressed as a volume per unit time.
However, the design average flow for facilities having critical seasonal high hydraulic
loading periods (e.g., recreational areas, campuses, industrial facilities) shall be based
on the daily average flow during the seasonal period.
B. Design Maximum Day Flow - The design maximum day flow is the largest volume
of flow to be received during a continuous 24 -hour period expressed as a volume per
unit time.
C. Design Peak Hourly Flow - The design peak hourly flow is the largest volume of
flow to be received during a one hour period expressed as a volume per unit time.
D. Maximum Month Flow - The maximum flow to be received in a continuous 30 -day
period expressed as a volume per unit time.
7. Existing BUD and TSS Loading
3
93
Sufficient composite samples of the influent wastewater should be taken to characterize
the organic strength. The average organic load must be determined and it is
recommended that peak month and peak day loading rates also be determined. Existing
data should be evaluated for reliability and accuracy. See 10 CSR 20-8.(5)(C)2.
For consistency, the department suggests that the following definitions be used for
design of wastewater treatment facilities.
A. The five-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is defined as the amount of
oxygen required to stabilize biodegradable organic matter under aerobic
conditions within a five-day period in accordance with Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater. The carbonaceous five-day
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (CBOD) is defined as BOD less the nitrogenous
oxygen demand of wastewater.
B. Design Average BOD — generally the average of the organic load received for a
continuous 12 -month period for the design year expressed as weight per day.
However, the design average BOD for facilities having critical seasonal high
loading periods (e.g., recreational areas, campuses, industrial facilities) shall be
based on the daily average BOD during the seasonal period.
C. Design Maximum Day BOD — is the largest amount of organic load to be received
during a continuous 24 -hour period expressed as weight per day.
8. Flow and Organic Strength for New Systems
New sewer systems shall be designed on the basis of an average daily per capita flow of
sewage of not less than 100 gallons per day. See 10 CSR 20-8.120(5)(A). In the absence
of flow measurement data, peak flows for the design of sewers shall be based on the
equation found at 10 CSR 20-8.120(5)(B).
The design for sewage treatment plants to serve new sewerage systems being built in
currently undeveloped areas shall be based on an average daily flow of 100 gallons per
capita, unless water use data or other justification upon which to better estimate flow is
provided. See 10 CSR 20-8.140(5)C)1.A.(1).
For design of new wastewater treatment facilities in currently unsewered areas, the
design organic strength must be in accordance with 10 CSR 20-8.140(5)C)2.A.
9. Project Development
The determination of probable effluent limits received from the department in the form of
a water quality review sheet must be included. Also include any special water quality
studies completed by or on behalf of the applicant.
4
94
The project shall be consistent with the approved elements of any applicable water
quality management plan under Section 208b of the Federal Clean Water Act. See 10
CSR 20-6.010(9)(F)
Consideration should be given to transport of wastewater to a regional wastewater
treatment facility, when feasible. See 10 CSR 20-6.010(3)(C)
Whenever a project proposes a new discharge, consideration should be given to the
feasibility of constructing a no -discharge. See 10 CSR 20-6.010(4)(D)1. When feasible,
is the department recommends that unsewered communities consider centralized
management of onsite sewage systems.
The facility plan must present and evaluate at least two alternatives. As per 10 CSR 20-
4.040(9), the proposed project shall provide for the most cost-effective technology to
treat wastewater and nonexcessive III to meet the requirements of 10 CSR 20-7.015,
Effluent Regulations and 10 CSR 20-7.031, Water Quality Standards. Please include
the construction cost, average annual operation and maintenance cost and 20 -year present
worth for each alternative. Sewer and rehabilitation projects do not need detailed cost
effectiveness analyses.
An estimate of the user charges must be included in the facility plan. See 10 CSR 20-
4.040(9) and 10 CSR 20-4.040(17).
Engineering criteria to be used in the design of the project must be included. Design of
the proposed wastewater facilities shall be in accordance with 10 CSR 20-8; however,
these rules allow for deviations when adequate justification is presented. In general,
justification for a deviation from the rules is considered when the following references
are used:
A. Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, Great Lakes -Upper Mississippi
River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers,
2004 Edition. (10 States Standards)
B. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, Fourth Edition. WEF manual of
Practice No. 8. ASCE Manual and Report on Engineering Practice No. 76.
C. Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, Metcalf & Eddy Inc.,
Fourth Edition
D. Treatment devices or processes not specifically addressed in 10 CSR 20-8 or the
above references will be reviewed in accordance with the criteria for evaluating new
processes and equipment found at 10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(B)2. or 10 CSR 20-
8.140(5)(B).
The wastewater treatment facility design capacity is the design average flow at the design
average BOD. The design should include the appropriate peaking factors for flow and
BOD, as previously discussed.
5
95
Flood considerations, including the 25 and 100 -year flood levels, impact on floodplain
and floodway, and compliance with applicable regulations regarding construction in
flood prone areas, should be evaluated. See 10 CSR 20-140(3)(A).
10 CSR 20-4.040(18) prohibits the use of structures, materials, equipment or processes
which are available from a single source unless the applicant's engineer adequately
justifies in writing to the department that the proposed use meets the project's minimum
needs. If it is known that a particular process or equipment will be procured from a sole
source, the justification for sole source procurement should be contained in the facility
plan. Otherwise, review of sole source procurement will occur during plans and
specification review.
A geohydrological evaluation must be obtained from the department's Division of
Geology and Land Survey (DGLS) for projects involving earthen basins such as lagoons
or sludge holding basins. The use of an earthen basin will not be approved if the
geohydrological evaluation indicates that the proposed earthen basin has severe
geological limitations. For projects that propose a new discharge, a Losing/Gaining
Stream Classification must be obtained from the Division of Geology and Land Survey.
10. Recommended Project
Please provide the total project costs for the recommended project, which would include
construction, engineering, land, legal and administrative costs_ Also include the
estimated operation and maintenance costs and the estimate of the user charge. For the
recommended project, please include the following:
A. Wastewater treatment plant design average and peak flows
B. Wastewater treatment plant design organic loading
C. For treatment plant improvement projects, please indicate what treatment units are to
be upgraded or added.
11 For sewer projects, please indicate the average and peak hourly flow requirements for
pump stations and sewers.
E. Engineering criteria used for preliminary sizing of the facilities
11. Environmental Review
As per 10 CSR 20-4.050(2)(A), applicants seeking a Categorical Exclusion from
environmental review will provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate compliance
with the criteria of subsection (1)(A) of this rule, as follows:
A. Statement indicating that the project is cost-effective and that the applicant is
financially capable of constructing, operating and maintaining the facilities.
B. Plan map(s) of the proposed project showing the location of all construction, the
planning area boundaries and any known environmentally sensitive areas.
6
96
As per 10 CSR 20-4.050(2)(B), an environmental information document (EID) must be
submitted by those applicants whose proposed projects do not meet the criteria for a
Categorical Exclusion. The EID must contain the following:
A. The environmental setting for the project and the future of the environment without
the project.
B. The potential environmental impacts of the project as proposed including those that
cannot be avoided.
C. The relationship between the short term uses of the environment and the maintenance
and enhancement of long term productivity.
D. Any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources to the proposed project.
E. A description of public participation activities conducted, issues raised and changes to
the project, which may be made as a result of the public participation process.
F. Documentation of coordination with the appropriate governmental agencies
(clearances).
Historic Preservation:
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
State Historic Preservation Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
(573) 751- 2479
Division of State Parks:
Department of Natural Resources
Division of State Parks
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Missouri Ecological Services Office
101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A
Columbia, Missouri 65203-0007
(573) 234-2132
A-95 Clearinghouse:
Office of Administration
Intergovernmental Relations
P.O. Box 809
Room 125
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
(573) 751-0337
Missouri Department of Conservation:
Missouri Department of Conservation
P.Q. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180
(573) 751-4115
DGLS:
Division of Geology and Land Survey
Geological Survey Program
P.Q. Box 250
Rolla, MO 65401
Corps of Engineers District Office:
The State of Missouri is divided between three different Corps of Engineers Districts: the Omaha
District, the Kansas City District and the Little Rock District. The district boundaries and
addresses for the appropriate district office can be found on the Internet at:
h up: li www . swt.us ace. army . rn i l lad d ress:'addre ss P A O. c fm.
12. Public Participation
To satisfy therequirements of 10 CSR 20-4.040(14)(A), a public meeting shall be conducted,
to discuss the alternative engineering solutions
7
97
A. Public Meeting --- Facility Plan & Engineering Alternatives (Per 10 CSR 20-
4.040(14)(A), a public meeting shall be conducted to discuss the alternative
engineering solutions. At a minimum, the following information should be presented
during the public meeting related to the Facility Plan and Engineering alternatives).
1) Discuss the problems that have created the need to expand/upgrade/repair the
existing collection system (e.g. Abatement Order, Violation Notice, etc.).
2) Discuss what alternatives were evaluated. This can include a "no action"
alternative. The City should choose the most cost efficient means of collecting
their wastewater for the long term.
3) Discuss which option the City is proposing to build and how this option will meet
the City's needs.
To document the advertisement requirement was completely within the required time frame,
provide verification of the public meeting to the department's Water Protection Program.
B. Public Hearing — Environmental Impact (Per 10 CSR 20-4.050(2)(13)2.)
1) The hearing will be advertised for at least 30 days prior to the meeting.
2) A verbatim transcript of the meeting must be submitted to the Water Protection
Program director of staff.
3) A list of all attendee's with addresses, any written testimony and applicant's
responses to the issues raised.
4) Discuss how the project will impact such areas as wetlands, floodplains,
threatened /endangered species, cultural resources, prime farmland, public lands,
parks, etc.
5) Discuss how the proposed project may impact the development pattern of the
area.
6) Discuss the environmental clearances requested from the numerous agencies.
7) Discuss the impact on personal property such as driveways, trees, easements, etc.
8) Discuss the impact on water quality, air quality, etc.
9) Discussion of the user charges.
To document the advertisement requirement was complete, include a verification of the
hearing public notice with the transcript to the department's Water Protection Program.
NOTE: THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING MUST BE
SEPARATE EVENTS AND MUST BE PREFORMED BEFORE A FINDING OF NO
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT / ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT DETERMINATION CAN BE
OBTAINED AND THE FACILITY PLAN IS APPROVED.
8
98
Although not part of the requirements for the Facility Plan or the environmental review, the
applicant may want to consider holding the public meeting and hearing at the same time for
convenience. In addition to the public participation requirements mentioned above, the
applicant may want to hold the required public meeting needed for the user charge rates
during at the same time as the Public Meeting and the Public Hearing. See the requirements
for this meeting below.
C. Public Meeting — User Charge Rates (Per 10 CSR 20-4.040(14)(B))
1) Public notice of the meeting should be published at least 30 days prior to the meeting.
2) A transcript, recording or other complete recording of the meeting shall be prepared
and submitted to the department and made available to the public upon request.
3) Outline how the City will finance the cost of the improvements. Sales Tax, Bonds,
City Reserves, etc.
4) Discuss what additional costs will result from this project. Additional electricity,
upkeep on additional collection lines, additional labor for maintaining the new
equipment vs. the current system, etc.
5) Discuss the estimated user rates that will be necessary to cover the Operation &
Maintenance (O&M) budget including debt service. NOTE: All users must be
charged a proportional rate based on their usage.
6) Discuss when any increases will go into effect (e.g. gradual over a few years, at loan
closing, upon completion of construction, etc.)
9
99
100
2010 Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
20% Green Project Reserve:
Guidance for Determining Project Eligibility
April 21, 2010
I. Introduction: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Appropriation Law (P.L. 111-88) included
additional requirements affecting both the Clean Water and the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (SRF) programs. This attachment is included in the Procedures for Implementing Certain
Provisions of EPA's Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriation Affecting the Clean Water and Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund Programs dated April 21, 2010. Because of differences in project
eligibility for each program, the Clean and Drinking Water SRFs have separate guidance
documents that identify specific goals and eligibilities for green infrastructure, water and energy
efficient improvements, and environmentally innovative activities. Part A includes the details for
the Clean Water SRF program, and Part B the Drinking Water SRF program.
Public Law 111-88 included the language "Provided, that for fiscal year 2010, to the extent there
are sufficient eligible project applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds made available
under this title to each State for Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalization grants and not
less than 20 percent of the funds made available under this title to each State for Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund capitalization grants shall be used by the State for projects to address
green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally
innovative activities." These four categories of projects are the components of the Green Project
Reserve (GPR).
II. GPR Goals: Congress' intent in enacting the GPR is to direct State investment practices in
the water sector to guide funding toward projects that utilize green or soft -path practices to
complement and augment hard or gray infrastructure, adopt practices that reduce the
environmental footprint of water and wastewater treatment, collection, and distribution, help
utilities adapt to climate change, enhance water and energy conservation, adopt more sustainable
solutions to wet weather flows, and promote innovative approaches to water management
problems. Over time, GPR projects could enable utilities to take savings derived from reducing
water losses and energy consumption, and use them for public health and environmental
enhancement projects. Additionally, EPA expects that green projects will help the water sector
improve the quality of water services without putting additional strain on the energy grid, and by
reducing the volume of water lost every year.
III. Background: EPA used an inclusive approach to determine what is and is not a `green' water
project. Wherever possible, this guidance references existing consensus -based industry practices
to provide assistance in developing green projects. Input was solicited from State -EPA and EPA -
Regional workgroups and the water sector. EPA staff also reviewed approaches promoted by
green practice advocacy groups and water associations, and green infrastructure implemented by
engineers and managers in the water sector. EPA also assessed existing `green' policies within
4/21/2010 l
101
EPA and received input from staff in those programs to determine how EPA funds could be used
to achieve shared goals.
The 2010 SRF GPR Guidance provides States with information needed to determine which
projects count toward the GPR requirement. The intent of the GPR Guidance is to describe
projects and activities that fit within the four specific categories listed in the 2010 Appropriations
Act. This guidance defines each category of GPR projects and lists projects that are clearly
eligible for GPR, heretofore known as categorically eligible projects. For projects that do not
appear on the list of categorically projects, they may be evaluated for their eligibility within one
of the four targeted types of GPR eligible projects based upon a business case that provides clear
documentation (see the Business Case Development sections in Parts A Sc B below).
GPR may be used for planning, design, and/or building activities. Entire projects, or the
appropriate discrete components of projects, may be eligible for GPR. Projects do not have to be
part of a larger capital project to be eligible. All projects or project components counted toward
the GPR requirement must clearly advance one or more of the objectives articulated in the four
categories of GPR discussed below.
The Green Project Reserve sets a new precedent for the SRFs by targeting funding towards
projects that States' may not have funded in prior years. Water quality benefits from GPR
projects rely on proper operation and maintenance to achieve the intended benefits of the projects
and to achieve optimal performance of the project. EPA encourages states and funding recipients
to thoroughly plan for proper operation and maintenance of the projects funded by the SRFs,
including training in proper operation of the project. It is noted, however, that the SRFs cannot
provide funding for operation and maintenance costs, including training, in the SRF assistance
agreements. Some of these costs may, however, be funded through appropriate DWSRF set -
asides under limited conditions.
4/21/2010 2
102
PART A — CWSRF GPR SPECIFIC GUIDANCE
CWSRF Eligibility Principles
State SRF programs are responsible for identifying projects that count toward GPR. The
following overarching principles, or decision criteria, apply to all projects that count
toward GPR and will help states identify projects.
0.1 All GPR proiects must otherwise be eligible for CWSRF funding. The GPR requirement
does not create new funding authority beyond that described in Title VI of the CWA.
Consequently, a subset of 212, 319 and 320 projects will count towards the GPR. The
principles guiding CWSRF funding eligibility include:
0.2 All Sec 212 projects must be consistent with the definition of "treatment works" as set forth
in section 212 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
0.2-1 All section 212 projects must be publicly owned, as required by CWA section
603(c)(1).
0.2-2 All section 212 projects must serve a public purpose.
0.2-3 POTWs as a whole are utilized to protect or restore water quality. Not all portions
of the POTW have a direct water quality impact in and of themselves (i.e. security
fencing). Consequently, POTW projects are not required to have a direct water
quality benefit, though most of them will.
0.3 Eligible nonpoint source projects implement a nonpoint source management program under
an approved section 319 plan or the nine element watershed plans required by the 319
program.
0.3-1 Projects prevent or remediate nonpoint source pollution.
0.3-2 Projects can be either publicly or privately owned and can serve either public or
private purposes. For instance, it is acceptable to fund land conservation activities
that preserve the water quality of a drinking water source, which represents a public
purpose project. It is also acceptable to fund agricultural BMPs that reduce
nonpoint source pollution, but also improve the profitability of the agricultural
operation. Profitability is an example ofa private purpose.
0.3-3 Eligible costs are limited to planning, design and building of capital water quality
projects. The CWSRF considers planting trees and shrubs, purchasing equipment,
environmental cleanups and the development and initial delivery of education
programs as capital water quality projects. Daily maintenance and operations, such
as expenses and salaries are not considered capital costs.
0.3-4 Projects must have a direct water quality benefit. Implementation ofa water quality
project should, in itself, protect or improve water quality. States should be able to
estimate the quantitative and/or qualitative water quality benefit of a nonpoint
source project.
0.3-5 Only the portions ofa project that remediate, mitigate the impacts of, or prevent
water pollution or aquatic or riparian habitat degradation should be funded. Where
water quantity projects improve water quality (e.g. reduction of flows from
impervious surfaces that adversely affect stream health, or the modification of
irrigation systems to reduce runoff and leachate from irrigated lands), they would be
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 3
103
considered to have a water quality benefit. In many cases, water quality protection
is combined with other elements of an overall project. For instance, brownfield
revitalization projects include not only water quality assessment and cleanup
elements, but often a redevelopment element as well. Where the water quality
portion of a project is clearly distinct from other portions of the project, only the
water quality portion can be funded by the CWSRF.
0.3-6 Point source solutions to nonpoint source problems are eligible as CWSRF
nonpoint source projects. Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Plans identify
sources of nonpoint source pollution. In some cases, the most environmentally and
financially desirable solution has point source characteristics and requires an
NPDES discharge permit. For instance, a septage treatment facility may be crucial
to the proper maintenance and subsequent functioning of decentralized wastewater
systems. Without the septage treatment facility, decentralized systems are less
likely to be pumped, resulting in malfunctioning septic tanks.
0.4 Eligible projects under section 320 implement an approved section 320 Comprehensive
Conservation Management Plan (CCMP).
0.4-1 Section 320 projects can be either publicly or privately owned.
0.4-2 Eligible costs are limited to capital costs.
0.4-3 Projects must have a direct benefit to the water quality of an estuary. This includes
protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allows
recreational activities, in and on water, and requires the control of point and
nonpoint sources of pollution to supplement existing controls of pollution.
0.4-4 Only the portions of a project that remediate, mitigate the impacts of, or prevent
water pollution in the estuary watershed should be funded.
0,5 GPR projects must meet the definition of one of the four GPR categories. The Individual
GPR categories do not create new eligibility for the CWSRF. The projects that count toward
GPR must otherwise be eligible for CWSRF funding.1
0.6 GPR projects must further the goals of the Clean Water Act.
Drinking Water Utilities can apply for CWSRF funding
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 4
104
CWSRF Technical Guidance
The following sections outline the technical aspects for the CWSRF Green Project Reserve.
It is organized by the four categories of green projects: green infrastructure, water
efficiency, energy efficiency, and environmentally innovative activities. Categorically green
projects are listed, as well as projects that are ineligible. Design criteria for business cases
and example projects that would require a business case are also provided.
1.0 GREEN INFRASTRUCUTRE
1.1 Definition: Green stormwater infrastructure includes a wide array of practices at multiple scales
that manage wet weather and that maintain and restore natural hydrology by infiltrating,
evapotranspiring and harvesting and using stormwater. On a regional scale, green infrastructure is
the preservation and restoration of natural landscape features, such as forests, floodplains and
wetlands, coupled with policies such as infill and redevelopment that reduce overall imperviousness
in a watershed. On the local scale green infrastructure consists of site- and neighborhood -specific
practices, such as bioretention, trees, green roofs, permeable pavements and cisterns.
1.2 Categorical Projects
1.2-1 Implementation of green streets (combinations of green infrastructure practices in
transportation rights -of -ways), for either new development, redevelopment or retrofits
including: permeable pavement2, bioretention, trees, green roofs, and other practices
such as constructed wetlands that can be designed to mimic natural hydrology and
reduce effective imperviousness at one or more scales. Vactor trucks and other capital
equipment necessary to maintain green infrastructure projects.
1.2-2 Wet weather management systems for parking areas including: permeable pavement2,
bioretention, trees, green roofs, and other practices such as constructed wetlands that
can be designed to mimic natural hydrology and reduce effective imperviousness at one
or more scales. Vactor trucks and other capital equipment necessary to maintain green
infrastructure projects.
1.2-3 Implementation of comprehensive street tree or urban forestry programs, including
expansion of tree boxes to manage additional stormwater and enhance tree health.
1.2-4 Stormwater harvesting and reuse projects, such as cisterns and the systems that allow
for utilization of harvested stormwater, including pipes to distribute stormwater for
reuse.
1.2-5 Downspout disconnection to remove stormwater from sanitary, combined sewers and
separate storm sewers and manage runoff onsite.
1.2-6 Comprehensive retrofit programs designed to keep wet weather discharges out of all
types of sewer systems using green infrastructure technologies and approaches such as
green roofs, green walls, trees and urban reforestation, permeable pavements and
bioretention cells, and turf removal and replacement with native vegetation or trees
that improve permeability.
1.2-7 Establishment or restoration of permanent riparian buffers, floodplains, wetlands and
other natural features, including vegetated buffers or soft bioengineered stream banks.
2 The total capital cost of permeable pavement is eligible, not just the incremental additional cost when compared to
impervious pavement.
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 5
105
This includes stream day lighting that removes natural streams from artificial pipes and
restores a natural stream morphology that is capable of accommodating a range of
hydrologic conditions while also providing biological integrity. In highly urbanized
watersheds this may not be the original hydrology.
1.2-8 Projects that involve the management of wetlands to improve water quality and/or
support green infrastructure efforts (e.g., flood attenuation).3
i .2-8a Includes constructed wetlands.
1.2-8b May include natural or restored wetlands if the wetland and its multiple
functions are not degraded and all permit requirements are met.
1.2-9 The water quality portion of projects that employ development and redevelopment
practices that preserve or restore site hydrologic processes through sustainable
landscaping and site design.
1.2-10 Fee simple purchase of land or easements on land that has a direct benefit to water
quality, such as riparian and wetland protection or restoration.
1.3 Projects That Do Not Meet the Definition of Green Infrastructure
1.3-1 Stormwater controls that have impervious or semi -impervious liners and provide no
compensatory evapotranspirative or harvesting function for stormwater retention.
1.3-2 Stormwater ponds that serve an extended detention function and/or extended
filtration. This includes dirt lined detention basins.
1.3-3 In -line and end -of -pipe treatment systems that only filter or detain stormwater.
1.3-4 Underground stormwater control and treatment devices such as swirl concentrators,
hydrodynamic separators, baffle systems for grit, trash removal/floatables, oil and
grease, inflatable booms and dams for in -line underground storage and diversion of
flows.
1.3-5 Stormwater conveyance systems that are not soil/vegetation based (swales) such as
pipes and concrete channels. Green infrastructure projects that include pipes to collect
stormwater may be justified as innovative environmental projects pursuant to Section
4.4 of this guidance.
1.3-6 Hardening, channelizing or straightening streams and/or stream banks.
1.3-7 Street sweepers, sewer cleaners, and vactor trucks unless they support green
infrastructure projects.
1.4 Decision Criteria for Business Cases
1.41 Green infrastructure projects are designed to mimic the natural hydrologic
conditions of the site or watershed.
1.4-2 Projects that capture, treat, infiltrate, or evapotranspire water on the parcels where it
falls and does not result in interbasin transfers of water.
1.4-3 GPR project is in lieu of or to supplement municipal hard/gray infrastructure.
1.4-4 Projects considering both landscape and site scale will be most successful at
protecting water quality.
3 Wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, vernal
pools, and similar areas.
4/21/2010
PART A - CWSRF 6
106
1.4-5 Design criteria are available at:
http:ilcfpub.epa.govtupdeslgreeninfrastructureirnunichandbook.efin and
httn://cfoub.e Da.aov/nodes/Rreeninfrastructure/teclinolonv.cfm and
1.5 Examples of Projects Requiring A Business Case
1.5-1 Fencing to keep livestock out of streams and stream buffers. Fencing must allow
buffer vegetation to grow undisturbed and be placed a sufficient distance from the
riparian edge for the buffer to function as a filter for sediment, nutrients and other
pollutants.
2.0 WATER EFFICIENCY
2.1 Definition: EPA's WaterSense program defines water efficiency as the use of improved
technologies and practices to deliver equal or better services with less water. Water efficiency
encompasses conservation and reuse efforts, as well as water loss reduction and prevention, to
protect water resources for the future.
2.2 Categorical Projects
2.2-1 Installing or retrofitting water efficient devices, such as plumbing fixtures and
appliances
2.2 -la For example -- shower heads, toilets, urinals and other plumbing devices
2.2-1b Where specifications exist, WaterSense labeled products should be the
preferred choice(http:iiwww.epa,gov!watersenseiindex.htnll).
2.2-1 c implementation of incentive programs to conserve water such as rebates.
2.2-2 Installing any type of water meter in previously unmetered areas
2.2-2a If rate structures are based on metered use
2.2-2b Can include backflow prevention devices if installed in conjunction with
water meter
2.2-3 Replacing existing broken/malfunctioning water meters, or upgrading existing
meters, with:
2.2-3a Automatic meter reading systems (AMR), for example:
2.2-3a(i) Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI)
2.2-3a(ii) Smart meters
2.2-3b Meters with built in leak detection
2.2-3c Can include backflow prevention devices if installed in conjunction with
water meter replacement
2.2-4 Retrofittingladding AMR capabilities or leak detection equipment to existing
meters (not replacing the meter itself).
2.2-5 Water audit and water conservation plans, which are reasonably expected to result in
a capital project.
2.2-6 Recycling and water reuse projects that replace potable sources with non -potable
sources,
2.2-6a Gray water, condensate and wastewater effluent reuse systems (where local
codes allow the practice)
2.2-6b Extra treatment costs and distribution pipes associated with water reuse.
2.2-7 Retrofit or replacement of existing landscape irrigation systems to more efficient
landscape irrigation systems, including moisture and rain sensing controllers.
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 7
107
2.2-8 Retrofit or replacement of existing agricultural irrigation systems to more efficient
agricultural irrigation systems.
2.3 Projects That Do Not Meet the Definition of Water Efficiency
2.3-1 Agricultural flood irrigation.
2.3-2 Lining of canals to reduce water loss.
2.3-3 Replacing drinking water distribution lines. This activity extends beyond CWSRF
eligibility and is more appropriately funded by the DWSRF.
2.3-4 Leak detection equipment for drinking water distribution systems, unless used for
reuse distribution pipes.
2.4 Decision Criteria for Business Cases
2.4-1 Water efficiency can be accomplished through water saving elements or reducing
water consumption. This will reduce the amount of water taken out of rivers, lakes,
streams, groundwater, or from other sources.
2.4-2 Water efficiency projects should deliver equal or better services with less net water
use as compared to traditional or standard technologies and practices
2.4-3 Efficient water use often has the added benefit of reducing the amount of energy
required by a POTW, since less water would need to be collected and treated;
therefore, there are also energy and financial savings.
2.5 Examples of Projects Requiring a Business Case.
2.5-1 Water meter replacement with traditional water meters (see AWWA M6 Water
Meters — Selection Installation, Testing, and Maintenance).
2.5-2 Projects that result from a water audit or water conservation plan
2.5-3 Storage tank replacement/rehabilitation to reduce loss of reclaimed water.
2.5-4 New water efficient landscape irrigation system.
2.5-5 New water efficient agricultural irrigation system.
3.4 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
3.1 Definition: Energy efficiency is the use of improved technologies and practices to reduce the
energy consumption of water quality projects, use energy in a more efficient way, andlor
produce/utilize renewable energy.
3.2 Categorical Projects
3.2-1 Renewable energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal, micro -hydroelectric, and
biogas combined heat and power systems (CHP) that provide power to a POTW.
[http:: /iwww.epa.govlcleanenergv). Micro -hydroelectric projects involve capturing
the energy from pipe flow.
3.2 -la POTW owned renewable energy projects can be located onsite or offsite.
3.2 -lb Includes the portion of a publicly owned renewable energy project that
serves POTW's energy needs.
3.2-1c Must feed into the grid that the utility draws from andlor there is a direct
connection.
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 8
108
3.2-2 Projects that achieve a 20% reduction in energy consumption are categorically
eligible for GPR4. Retrofit projects should compare energy used by the existing
system or unit process' to the proposed project. The energy used by the existing
system should be based on name plate data when the system was first installed,
recognizing that the old system is currently operating at a lower overall efficiency
than at the time of installation. New POTW projects or capacity expansion projects
should be designed to maximize energy efficiency and should select high efficiency
premium motors and equipment where cost effective. Estimation of the energy
efficiency is necessary for the project to be counted toward GPR. If a project
achieves less than a 20% reduction in energy efficiency, then it may be justified
using a business case.
3.2-3 Collection system Infiltration/Inflow {Ul} detection equipment
3.2-4 POTW energy management planning, including energy assessments, energy audits,
optimization studies, and sub -metering of individual processes to determine high
energy use areas, which are reasonably expected to result in a capital project are
eligible. Guidance to help POTWs develop energy managerent programs,
including assessments and audits is available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructurelpdfs/guidebook si euergymanagement.pdf.
3.3 Projects That Do Not Meet the Definition of Energy Efficiency
3.3-1 Renewable energy generation that is privately owned or the portion of a publicly
owned renewable energy facility that does not provide power to a POTW, either
through a connection to the grid that the utility draws from and/or a direct
connection to the POTW.
3.3-2 Simply replacing a pump, or other piece of equipment, because it is at the end of its
useful life, with something of average efficiency.
3.3-3 Facultative lagoons, even if integral to an innovative treatment process.
3.3-4 Hydroelectric facilities, except micro -hydroelectric projects. Micro -hydroelectric
projects involve capturing the energy from pipe flow.
3.4 Decision Criteria for Business Cases
3.4-1 Project must be cost effective. An evaluation must identify energy savings and
payback on capital and operation and maintenance costs that does not exceed the
useful life of the asset.
h#tp;:/wwi.v.epa.6oviwaterinfrastructure' pdfs/guidebook si energ.vrnanagement.pdf
3.4-2 The business case must describe how the project maximizes energy saving
opportunities for the POTW or unit process.
3.4-3 Using existing tools such as Energy Star's Portfolio Manager
(http: www.encrgystar.goviindex.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliornana
4 The 20% threshold for categorically eligible CWSRF energy efficiency projects was derived from a 2002
Department of Energy study entitled United States. industrial Electric Motor Systems Market Opportunities
Assessment, December 2001 and adopted by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Further field studies conducted
by Wisconsin Focus on Energy and other States programs support the threshold.
5 A unit process is a portion of the wastewater system such as the collection system, pumping stations, aeration
system, or solids handling, etc.
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 9
109
er or Check Up Program for Small Systems (CUPSS) (http:/.!www.epatcuvss) to
document current energy usage and track anticipated savings.
3.5 Examples of Projects Requiring a Business Case
3.5-1 POTW projects or unit process projects that achieve less than a 20% energy
efficiency improvement.
3.5-2 Projects implementing recommendations from an energy audit that are not
otherwise designated as categorical.
3.5-3 Projects that cost effectively eliminate purnps or pumping stations.
3.5-4 Infiltration/Inflow (1/I) correction projects that save energy from pumping and
reduced treatment costs and are cost effective.
3.54a Projects that count toward GPR cannot build new structural capacity. These
projects may, however, recover existing capacity by reducing flow from I/I.
3.5-5 U1 correction projects where excessive groundwater infiltration is contaminating the
influent requiring otherwise unnecessary treatment processes (i.e. arsenic laden
groundwater) and 111 correction is cost effective.
3.5-6 Replacing pre -Energy Policy Act of 1992 motors with National Electric
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) premium energy efficiency motors.
3.5-8a NEMA is a standards setting association for the electrical manufacturing
industry (http://www.nerna.orgigov/energw efficiency/premium/J.
3.5-7 Upgrade of POTW lighting to energy efficient sources such as metal halide pulse
start technologies, compact fluorescent, light emitting diode (LED).
3.5-8 SCADA systems can be justified based upon substantial energy savings.
3.5-9Variable Frequency Drive can be justified based upon substantial energy savings.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTALLY INNOVATIVE
4.1 Definition: Environmentally innovative projects include those that demonstrate new and/or
innovative approaches to delivering services or managing water resources in a more sustainable way.
4.2 Categorical Projects
4.2-1 Total/integrated water resources management planning likely to result in a capital
project.
4.2-2 Utility Sustainability Plan consistent with EPA's SRF sustainability policy_
4.2-3 Greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory or mitigation plan and submission of a GHG
inventory to a registry (such as Climate Leaders or Climate Registry)
4.3-3a Note: GHG Inventory and mitigation plan is eligible for CWSRF funding.
4.2-3b EPA Climate Leaders: http:l'www.epa.gov/climateleaders/basic/index.hnnl
Climate Registry: http://www.theclimatereeistry.orgi
4.24 Planning activities by a POTW to prepare for adaptation to the long-term effects of
climate change and/or extreme weather.
4.2-4a Office of Water — Climate Change and Water website:
http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange/
4.2.5 Construction of US Building Council LEED certified buildings or renovation of an
existing building on POTW facilities.
4.2-5a Any level of certification (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Certified).
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 10
110
4.2-5b All building costs are eligible, not just stormwater, water efficiency and
energy efficiency related costs. Costs are not limited to the incremental
additional costs associated with LEED certified buildings.
4.2-5c U.S. Green Building Council website
http://ww-w.usgbc.org:'displaypave.aspx?Categorv1D=19
4.2-6 Decentralized wastewater treatment solutions to existing deficient or failing onsite
wastewater systems.
4.2-6a Decentralized wastewater systems include individual onsite and/or cluster
wastewater systems used to collect, treat and disperse relatively small
volumes of wastewater. An individual onsite wastewater treatment system
is a system relying on natural processes and/or mechanical components,
that is used to collect, treat and disperse or reclaim wastewater from a
single dwelling or building. A cluster system is a wastewater collection and
treatment system under some form of common ownership that collects
wastewater from two or more dwellings or buildings and conveys it to a
treatment and dispersal system located an a suitable site near the dwellings
or buildings. Decentralized projects may include a combination of these
systems. EPA recommends that decentralized systems be managed under a
central management entity with enforceable program requirements, as
stated in the EPA Voluntary Management Guidelines.
http://www.cpa,gov!owtti'septic:'pubs;septic iidcliiies.tid f
4.2-6b Treatment and Collection Options: A variety of treatment and collection
options are available when implementing decentralized wastewater systems. They
typically include a septic tank, although many configurations include additional
treatment components following or in place of the septic tank, which provide for
advanced treatment solutions. Most disperse treated effluent to the soil where further
treatment occurs, utilizing either conventional soil absorption fields or alternative soil
dispersal methods which provide advanced treatment. Those that discharge to
streams, lakes, tributaries, and other water bodies require federal or state discharge
permits (see below). Some systems promote water reuse/recycling, evaporation or
wastewater uptake by plants. Some decentralized systems, particularly cluster or
community systems, often utilize alternative methods of collection with small
diameter pipes which can flow via gravity, pump, or siphon, including pressure
sewers, vacuum sewers and small diameter gravity sewers. Alternative collection
systems generally utilize piping that is less than 8 inches in diameter, or the minimum
diameter allowed by the state if greater than 8 inches, with shallow burial and do not
require manholes or lift` stations. Septic tanks are typically installed at each building
served or another location upstream of the final treatment and dispersal site.
Collection systems can transport raw sewage or septic tank effluent. Another popular
dispersal option used today is subsurface drip infiltration. Package plants that
discharge to the soil are generally considered decentralized, depending on the
situation in which they are used. While not entirely inclusive, information on
treatment and collection processes is described, in detail, in the "Onsite Wastewater
Treatment Technology Fact Sheets" section of the EPA Onsite Manual
]tttp:/!www.epa.govior-niiseptic/pubs.!septic_2042_osdin all.pdf and on EPA's septic
system website under Technology Fact Sheets.
http ://cfpub epagoy: ownvseptic/septic.ctin ?page_ id -283
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 11
111
4.3 Projects That Do Not Meet the Definition of Environmentally Innovative
4.3-1 Air scrubbers to prevent nonpoint source deposition.
4.3-2 Facultative lagoons, even if integral to an innovative treatment processes.
4.3-3 Surface discharging decentralized wastewater systems where there are cost effective
soil -based alternatives,
4,3-4 Higher sea walls to protect POTW from sea level rise.
4.3-5 Reflective roofs at POTW to combat heat island effect.
4.4 Decision Criteria for Business Cases
4.4-1 State programs are allowed flexibility in determining what projects qualify as
innovative in their state based on unique geographical or climatological conditions.
4.4-1 a Technology or approach whose performance is expected to address water
quality but the actual performance has not been demonstrated in the state;
4.4-1 b Technology or approach that is not widely used in the State, but does
perform as well or better than conventional technology/approaches at lower
cost; or
4.4-1c Conventional technology or approaches that are used in a new application in
the State.
4.5 Examples of Projects Requiring a Business Case
4.5-1 Constructed wetlands projects used for municipal wastewater treatment, polishing,
and/or effluent disposal.
4.5 -la Natural wetlands, as well as the restoration/enhancement of degraded
wetlands, may not be used for wastewater treatment purposes and must
comply with all regulatory/permitting requirements.
4.5 -lb Projects may not (further) degrade natural wetlands.
4.5-2 Projects or components of projects that result from totallintegrated water resource
management planning consistent with the decision criteria for environmentally
innovative projects and that are Clean Water SRF eligible.
4.5-3 Projects that facilitate adaptation of POTWs to climate change identified by a carbon
footprint assessment or climate adaptation study.
4.5-4 POTW upgrades or retrofits that remove phosphorus for beneficial use, such as biofuel
production with algae.
4.5-5 Application of innovative treatment technologies or systems that improve
environmental conditions and are consistent with the Decision Criteria for
environmentally innovative projects such as:
4.5-5a Projects that significantly reduce or eliminate the use of chemicals in
wastewater treatment;
4.5-5b Treatment technologies or approaches that significantly reduce the volume
of residuals, minimize the generation of residuals, or lower the amount of
chemicals in the residuals. (National Biosolids Partnership, 2010; Advances
in Solids Reduction Processes at Wastewater Treatment Facilities Webinar;
h[tp://www.e-Fief.orOtimssnevnzeetings'Mt_meetin s.cfm?vrirnat_ id=l0
WCAP2&Action=LONG&sttbsystem=ORD° u3 cbr).
4.5-5b(i) Includes composting, class A and other sustainable biolsolids
management approaches.
4.5-6 Educational activities and demonstration projects for water or energy efficiency.
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 12
112
4.5-7 Projects that achieve the goals/objectives of utility asset management plans
(http:.f/ w w.cpa.govlsafewater'snlallsysteinsiydfs/g iidc srnallsysteots assetniana
Bement bestoractices.pdf; http:/,www.epa.gov/owiniassetrnanagelindex.httn).
4.5-8 Sub -surface land application of effluent and other means for ground water recharge,
such as spray irrigation and overland flow.
4.5-8a Spray irrigation and overland flow of effluent is not eligible for GPR
where there is no other cost effective alternative.
Business Case Development
This guidance is intended to be comprehensive: however, EPA understands our examples
projects requiring a business case may not be aU inclusive. A business case is a due
diligence document. For those projects, or portions of projects, which are not included in
the categorical projects lists provided above, a business case will be required to
demonstrate that an assistance recipient has thoroughly researched anticipated `green'
benefits of a project. Business cases will be approved by the State (see section IILA. in the
Procedures for Implementing Certain Provisions of EPA's Fiscal Year 2010 Appropriation
Affecting the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs). An
approved business case must be included in the State's project files and contain clear
documentation that the project achieves identifiable and substantial benefits. The following
sections provide guidelines for business case development.
5.0 Length of a Business Case
5.0-1 Business cases must address the decision criteria for the category of project
5.0-2 Business cases should be adequate, but not exhaustive.
5.0-2a There are many formats and approaches. EPA does not require any specific
one.
5.0-2b Some projects will require detailed analysis and calculations, while others
many not require more than one page.
5.0-2c Limit the information contained in the business case to only the pertinent
`green' information needed to justify the project.
5.0-3 A business case can simply summarize results from, and then cite, existing
documentation — such as engineering reports, water or energy audits, results of
water system tests, etc.
5.1 Content of a Business Case
5.1-1 Quantifiable water and/or energy savings or water loss reduction for water and
energy efficiency projects should be included.
5.1-2 The cost and financial benefit of the project should be included, along with the
payback time period where applicable. (NOTE: Clean Water SRF requires energy
efficiency projects to be cost effective.)
5.2 Items Which Strengthen Business Case, but Are Not Required
5.2-1 Showing that the project was designed to enable equipment to operate most
efficiently.
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 13
113
5.2-2 Demonstrating that equipment will meet or exceed standards set by professional
associations.
5.2-3 .including operator training or committing to utilizing existing tools such as Energy
Star's Portfolio Manager or CUPSS for energy efficiency projects.
5.3 Example Business Cases Are Available at httn_//www_srfbusinesscases.netl.
4/21/2010 PART A - CWSRF 14
114