HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 99G - Original Fiscal Year 2015 Clean Water SRF Intended Use PlanIntended Use Plan and Priority List
Fiscal Year 2015
Approved by the Missouri Clean Water Commission - October 1, 2014
STATE R EVOLVING FUND
Cover Photo: Finley River in Ozark, Missouri by Jacquelin Gatlin. Used with permission.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Governor • Sara Parker Pauley, Director
T OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DATE:
TO:
FROM: John Madras, Director
Water Protection Pro
MEMORANDUM
OCT 1 0 2014
Applicants and Interested Parties
www.dnr.mo.gov
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2015 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan and
Priority List
Attached is the Fiscal Year 2015 Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Intended Use
Plan (IUP) and Priority List (effective October 1, 2014) that was adopted by the Missouri Clean
Water Commission on October 1, 2014. It is also available at
http://dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/wastewater-assistance.htm. This document briefly describes the
loan programs administered by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources' Water Protection
Program and identifies applicants that have requested inclusion in those programs.
Applications submitted by the November 15, 2013 deadline were considered in the competitive
review and approval process. Projects were assigned to the Carryover Fundable, Fundable,
Fundable Contingency, Contingency or Planning lists based upon their priority point ranking as
described in state regulation. Submittal of the required documents and securing appropriate debt
instruments were also used to determine which projects would most likely be ready to proceed to
the construction phase. Projects with high priority, complete facility plans and debt instruments
secured were placed highest on the funding lists. The lists are designed to be a dynamic part of
the IUP. By expediting submittal of the facility plan and securing the appropriate debt
instrument, a community's project may move from one list to another during the fiscal year
subject to available funds.
Applicants are encouraged to make satisfactory progress towards securing the financial
assistance on the schedule identified in the IUP. Satisfactory progress includes submitting
required engineering documentation for review and approval, holding the required public
meetings/hearings and providing financial due diligence information to the Department.
Recycled Paper
FY 2015 CWSRF IUP
Page 2
An applicant who does not make satisfactory progress may have its project bypassed in
accordance with the bypass procedures outlined in the IUP.
Missouri has been informed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the Green Project
Reserve requirement has been carried forward to this funding cycle. Not less 10 percent of the
2014 capitalization grant must be used to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency
improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities. Therefore, the Department
continues to solicit green projects and requests applicants to identify the green components of
their projects in order to meet this reserve. Applicants are encouraged to contact Department
staff early in the planning process to determine the eligibility of green projects (or components).
Missouri is required to match the federal funds received to operate the CWSRF. State match
funds are expected to come from the proceeds of the sale of state Environmental Improvement
and Energy Resources Authority bonds.
Also included is the Fiscal Year 2016 Clean Water State Revolving Fund application. The
CWSRF application must be received by November 15, 2014 in order to be competitively
evaluated for placement in next year's IUP.
Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please call (573) 751-1192 or
contact the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program, Financial
Assistance Center, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176. Thank you.
JM:j sk
Attachment
Celebrating 40 years of taking care of Missouri's natural resources.
To learn more about the Missouri Department of Natural Resources visit www.dnr.mo.gov
Adopted October 1, 2014
Fiscal Year 2015
(Oct. 1, 2014 – Sept. 30, 2015)
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Intended Use Plan And Priority List
Fiscal Year 2015 Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Intended Use Plan,
State Grant And Loan Priority Lists
And
Program Application Forms And Instructions
Table of Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plan ……………………………………… 4
I. Background …………………………………………………………………………………… 4
II. Description of the Clean Water SRF Loan Program ……………………………………… 5
III. Goals and Objectives ………………………………………………………………………… 8
IV. Modifications ………………………………………………………………………………… 9
V. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Use of Funds ……………………………………… 10
VI. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Sources of the Funds ……………………………….. 13
Sources and Distribution of Capitalization Grant and Loan Repayment Funds Table ……….. 15
Sources and Distribution of Loan Administration Fees ………………………………………… 17
VII. State Assurances and Proposals …………………………………………………………… 18
A. Administrative Costs ………………………………………………………………………….. 18
B. Public Review and Comment ……………………………………………………………… 18
C. Environmental Review ……………………………………………………………………….. 18
D. First Use for Enforceable Requirements …………………………………………………… 18
E. Compliance with Title II ……………………………………………………………………… 18
F. Binding Commitments ……………………………………………………………………… 18
G. Expenditure of Funds ………………………………………………………………………… 18
H. Potential for Environmental Impact Statements ………………………………………… 18
I. Description of Assistance …………………………………………………………………….. 18
J. Carryover Priority List ……………………………………………………………………… 18
K. Anticipated Cash Draw Ratio (Proportionality) …………………………………………….. 19
VIII. Additional Recipient Requirements ………………………………………………………… 19
Federally Funded Loan Programs - Program Descriptions and Project Lists ………………… 21
State Funded Grant and Loan Programs - Program Descriptions …………………………… 39
List of Fiscal Year 2015 Applicants ……………………………………………………………… 43
Sources and Distribution of Funds Detail ……………………………………………………… 47
Program Application Forms and Instructions ………………………………………………… 53
Table of Contents (continued)
The following application forms, instructions and guidance documents may be found on the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources web page: www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/wastewater-assistance.htm .
Potential applicants may also contact the department’s Financial Assistance Center at 573-751–1192.
Missouri Clean Water State Revolving Fund Application
Water Quality Review Assistance/Antidegradation Review Request Form
Facility Plan Checklist
Clean Water SRF Fund Project Facility Plan Guidance
Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Green Infrastructure Guidance
Fiscal Year 2015
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Intended Use Plan
Introduction
The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Water Protection Program 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. 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 (SRF).
The Department of Natural Resources 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 lists for the Clean W ater SRF
program and a listing of program applicants.
Operation and management of the Clean W ater SRF program is directed by regulations 10 CSR
20-4.010, 10 CSR 20-4.040 through 10 CSR 20-4.042 and 10 CSR 20-4.050.
Intended Use Plan
This Intended Use Plan contains information regarding the development and management of
the Clean Water SRF priority lists and assurances mandated by federal rules. The plan details
the proposed distribution of Missouri’s anticipated Clean Water SRF capitalization grants, the
repayments of previously awarded SRF loans, and the interest earnings from the repayment
account deposits for the upcoming fiscal year.
The program is at a crossroads; the continued success of the program is dependent on how the
department will allocate funding in the future to address the clean water infrastructure needs
throughout the state. With the uncertainty of future federal funding, the allocation of available
Clean W ater SRF funding has come under greater scrutiny.
Historically, the Clean Water SRF Intended Use Plan has been prepared and, after public
comment, been adopted by the commission with an effective date of July 1. This schedule
allowed the program to run concurrently with the state fiscal year. However, due to the
economic uncertainty of the last several years, it has become evident that the financial
information necessary to prepare the Intended Use Plan would not be available in time to
prepare the plan as in the past. Upon careful review of federal and state processes, it has been
determined that preparing the Intended Use Plan on a schedule that coincides with the federal
fiscal year would be beneficial to the Clean Water SRF program and applicants.
This Intended Use Plan describes the proposed use of funds reserved for financial assistance
for clean water infrastructure improvements during fiscal year 2015 (Oct. 1, 2014 to Sept. 30,
2015). This Intended Use Plan shall remain effective until Sept. 30, 2015 or until such time as
the fiscal year 2016 Intended Use Plan becomes effective.
1
In addition to the schedule change, the department considered a variety of options to enhance
the program and expand the number of projects receiving funding. Two options were selected
for implementation.
The department may utilize the ability of the Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Authority (EIERA) to sell bonds, the proceeds of which would supplement projected
annual funding levels. Size of the sales would be based on current Clean W ater SRF loan
repayment schedules and projected new loans. An anticipated bond sale of $130 million is
included in the Sources and Uses table on page 15.
The department allocates a certain percentage of available funding for certain size communities
or for high priority project types, such as Combined Sewer Overflows. Funds set aside for this
reserve are based on a percentage of the anticipated available funds, the number of applicants
ready to proceed, as well as federal and departmental issues.
Projects carried over from the previous fiscal year would be allocated available funds first.
Remaining funds would be allocated, to the extent we receive applications, as shown below.
Any remaining funds from a specific group would be distributed as necessary to fund other
projects that are ready to proceed.
• 40% allocated to outstate Missouri
• 30% allocated to large metropolitan areas and districts
• 15% allocated to address combined sewer overflow projects
• 15% allocated to Green Project Reserve incentives and department initiatives
Large metropolitan areas and districts have service area populations of 75,000 or more.
Outstate Missouri areas have service area populations of less than 75,000. Additional
information on this subject is provided on page 28.
Clean Water SRF Applications and Project Priority
The department solicits applications for the state’s revolving fund program 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 Nov. 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 Clean W ater SRF, all applicants anticipating the
use of other state or federal funds must complete a Missouri Water and Wastewater Review
Committee project proposal. The applicant should contact the committee for a complete project
proposal package. The committee represents the following agencies:
Denise Derks
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
2
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
Trudy Ziegelhofer
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 plan cycles.
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 list 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 Intended Use Plan are
placed on the “Fundable Carryover Projects” list for fiscal year 2015. 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 points, 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 Clean Water 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 Clean W ater SRF 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 application form. Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to obtain a
water quality review sheet or anti-degradation report from the department before initiating facility
planning activities. Facility plans submitted to the department without the appropriate water
quality review sheet or 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 21, is included with its fundable, contingency
and planning lists.
3
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Fiscal Year 2015 Intended Use Plan
I. Background
Each year as required by Title VI of the federal Clean Water Act, Missouri prepares an Intended
Use Plan to identify the projected uses and serve as a basis for distribution of the monies
available in its Clean W ater State Revolving Fund.
During fiscal year 2015, Missouri expects to be awarded the federal fiscal year 2014
capitalization grant for the Clean W ater SRF program. The grant amount is $38,868,000. The
federal funds will be matched with 20 percent state funds.
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 Clean Water SRF applicants to complete their
proposed wastewater infrastructure projects, the funding lists consider an applicant’s readiness
to proceed, in addition to their priority point ranking.
Project Lists
• Fundable Carryover Projects List – The commission shall maintain a carryover list identifying
unfunded projects approved for funding in the prior fiscal year. These projects shall maintain
their funding eligibility in the current fiscal year.
• Fundable Projects Lists – The fundable lists identify those projects the commission intends
to fund during a given fiscal year. The commission will not consider placing a proposed
project on one of the fundable lists 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 one
of the fundable lists must have submitted a substantially complete facility plan and
information indicating 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.
The Fundable Projects List is composed of three separate lists as follows:
• Outstate Missouri Fundable Projects List
• Large Metropolitan Areas and Districts Fundable Projects List
• Combined Sewer Overflow Fundable Projects List
• 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 all programmatic criteria are met.
• Contingency Projects List – The contingency project list identifies projects that 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 complete
facility plan or engineering report has been submitted for review.
4
" P l a n n i n g L i s t T h e p l a n n i n g l i s t i d e n t i f i e s a l l p o t e n t i a l l o a n p r o j e c t s n o t c o n t a i n e d o n a
f u n d a b l e p r i o r i t y l i s t . P l a n n i n g l i s t p r o j e c t s m a y a d v a n c e t o t h e c o n t i n g e n c y o r f u n d a b l e l i s t s ,
w i t h c o m m i s s i o n a p p r o v a l , a n d t h e s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e l i s t i n g c r i t e r i a : v o t e r
p a s s a g e o f b o n d i s s u e s o r a p p r o v a l o f a l t e r n a t e d e b t i n s t r u m e n t s , a n d s u b m i s s i o n o f a
s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o m p l e t e f a c i l i t y p l a n .
" P r i o r i t y W a t e r s h e d R e s e r v e T h e p r i o r i t y w a t e r s h e d 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 p a r t
o f t h e d e p a r t m e n t s O u r M i s s o u r i W a t e r s I n i t i a t i v e . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e i n i t i a t i v e
b e g i n s o n p a g e 2 4 .
" P u b l i c a n d P r i v a t e P a r t n e r s h i p D e m o n s t r a t i o n P r o j e c t s a n d P u b l i c E n t i t y a n d S a t e l l i t e
C o m m u n i t y P a r t n e r s h i p s T h e s e n e w l i s t s i n f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 1 4 w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d a s a p a r t o f
t h e d e p a r t m e n t s d e c i s i o n t o r e s e r v e a n i n c r e a s e d a m o u n t o f a d d i t i o n a l s u b s i d i z a t i o n
f u n d i n g f r o m f e d e r a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n g r a n t s . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h i s s u b j e c t b e g i n s o n
p a g e 1 2 .
" 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 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 ( s e e p a g e 2 4 ) .
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 .
I I . D e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e C l e a n W a t e r 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 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 o n a n a g r e e d u p o n c l o s i n g d a t e .
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 u p t o 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 l e a n W a t e r S R F p r o g r a m a n d o t h e r w a t e r q u a l i t y 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 .
T h e C a s h F l o w M o d e l d i a g r a m o n p a g e 7 i s p r o v i d e d t o a s s i s t i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e l o a n
p r o g r a m . 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 s u b s t a n t i a l l y c o m p l e t e d , i . e . , t h 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 l o a n
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 s e m i - a n n u a l
o r 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 o u t s i d e t h e C l e a n W a t e r 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 c o m m u n i t i e s d e b t s e r v i c e a c c o u n t w h i c h r e d u c e s t h e a m o u n t o f
i n t e r e s t t o b e p a i d b y t h e c o m m u n i t i e s .
5
Prior to state fiscal year 2010, the program leveraged through the use of a reserve fund model.
General Obligation or Revenue bonds were used to secure a borrower’s proposed debt. The
bonds were purchased and resold nationally by the Environmental Improvement and Energy
Resources Authority (EIERA). The funds generated by the sale of the bonds were deposited
with a trustee bank in the applicant’s name and were used for construction.
As construction costs were incurred, federal or recycled funds were deposited into a reserve
account in an amount equal to 70 percent of expenditures. Interest was earned on the reserve
through guaranteed investment contracts, which was then credited to the interest portion of the
debt service of the bonds thereby providing the interest subsidy to the recipient. Due to changes
in economic conditions, guaranteed investment contracts are no longer available. During fiscal
year 2011, the Clean Water SRF program transitioned to a cash flow model loan program.
The department receives federal Capitalization Grants from the Environmental Protection
Agency. There is a 20 percent state match required to receive the grants. The funds are
deposited into the State Revolving Fund (A) and utilized in accordance with applicable federal
and state program requirements. State match funds are disbursed prior to utilizing Capitalization
Grant funds.
Under the cash flow model loan program, the department purchases the debt obligations of the
participants directly. As construction progresses, funds are released from the Clean Water SRF
(A) to the recipient (B) through the trustee bank (C) so the construction costs can be paid.
Recipients of a grant receive the funds directly from the Clean Water SRF program. Upon
completion of the project, the loans are adjusted to reflect the final loan amount.
Loan recipients send their loan principal and interest payments to the trustee bank (C). At such
time as the Clean Water SRF program needs to replenish the repayment fund, the EIERA (D)
exercises their authority to sell bonds and the direct loans are pledged to retire the EIERA debt.
The proceeds of this sale are deposited into the Clean Water SRF repayment account. The
principal and interest payments on the EIERA bonds are secured through the pledge of the
direct loan principal and interest payments from previous Clean Water SRF program
participants. Any surplus principal and interest that is not needed for the EIERA debt service is
deposited into the repayment account.
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 clean water infrastructure projects well into the
future.
The department reserves the right to refinance, assign, pledge or leverage any loans originated
through the Clean Water SRF program.
All loan funds must be expended within 36 months of the loan closing. Loan funds may only be
used for the project approved by the department.
6
7
Cross-Collateralization of Funds
The U.S. Departments of Veterans 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 and the Clean W ater State
Revolving Fund. Cross-collateralization allows states to use Clean Water SRF funds as security
for bonds issued to finance Drinking Water SRF 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.
III. Goals and Objectives
Each year the department evaluates the operations and the financial structures of the Clean
Water 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: Promote coordination efforts both within and outside the agency for the purpose of
expediting the funding of projects. The Clean Water SRF program staff commits to work with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Development and the Department of Economic
Development, Community Development 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.
Goal: Initiate the Clean Water SRF state regulations review and revision process.
Goal: Pursue public and private sector partnership demonstration projects.
Goal: Provide financial assistance to public entities to provide service to distressed satellite
communities.
Short-Term Goals
Goal: Explore with stakeholders ways the Clean Water SRF Program can be used to encourage
integrated state water resource management through a watershed approach to better target
resources and provide greater environmental benefits to the State of Missouri.
Goal: Target available loan funds to high priority needs in accordance with the Intended Use
Plan priority list in order to encourage construction of the highest impact water quality
improvement projects.
Goal: Look at ways the Clean W ater 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.
8
Goal: Identify sources of allowable state match for federal capitalization grants.
IV. Modifications
After the commission adopts the Clean Water SRF priority lists, it may modify the lists or
redistribute the available 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, Clean Water SRF applications must
be postmarked or received by Nov. 15 prior to the fiscal year for which Clean Water SRF
assistance is being sought. However, to facilitate the timely and expeditious use of available
Clean W ater SRF funds, eligible applications that are not received in time to be placed on the
project lists adopted by the commission, and received prior to Sept. 1, 2014 will be evaluated
upon receipt. By amendment, the commission may place the new project on the appropriate
project list.
A. Inadequate Allocations
If the actual federal Clean W ater SRF allocations are less than the allocations
anticipated by the commission in the development of the 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 15.
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 list.
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 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 15.
3. The commission may increase the amount of funds allocated to projects on the
fundable lists or to provide increased assistance to projects that have already
received assistance.
9
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 Clean
Water SRF 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 Clean W ater SRF 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 Clean Water SRF 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 Clean W ater SRF 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 April 1, 2015. 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 Clean Water SRF assistance, or a finding
by the EIERA that the applicant is not eligible for participation in the program.
V. Use of Funds
The table on page 15 summarizes the state’s allocation of federal funds, distribution of those
resources, and the amount available for eligible construction for the fiscal year 2015 Clean
Water SRF proposed projects.
Since 1989, the Clean Water SRF has made binding commitments for project costs in excess of
$2.3 billion. In 1996 the first Clean Water SRF nonpoint source loan program was instituted;
approximately $18.2 million has been obligated to nonpoint source projects in the subsequent
years.
The fiscal year 2015 Intended Use Plan contains nonpoint source loan requests of $500
thousand.
The Clean W ater SRF project lists are found on pages 26 - 37 of this document.
Transfer of Loan Funds Between the Drinking Water SRF and the Clean Water SRF
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
10
Fund. The rules governing the transfer of funds limit the dollar amount a state can transfer to no
more than 33 percent of a Drinking W ater SRF capitalization grant.
As funding is available and as needs arise, the department can transfer loan funds with the
approval of the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission, the Missouri Clean Water
Commission and EPA.
A listing of previous transfers is contained in the table below:
Fiscal Year Clean Water SRF Drinking Water SRF
2001 ($10,475,000) $10,475,000
2011 $10,475,000 ($10,475,000)
2013 $10,000,000 ($10,000,000)
2013* $18,500,000 ($18,500,000)
*Federal capitalization grant portion.
The department, with prior approval from the Missouri Safe Drinking Water Commission, the
Missouri Clean Water Commission, and EPA, reserves the right to make additional transfers in
the future.
Repayment Fund Investment 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 to repay the 2002 series
using the investment interest earnings from the Clean W ater SRF repayment fund.
The department renegotiated this agreement with EPA to apply Clean W ater SRF investment
interest earnings to bonds issued prior to 2002, not just the 2002 series. Specifically, the Clean
Water SRF operating agreement, between the department and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, has been amended to allow for the use of repayment fund investment
interest earnings to retire the SRF’s share of the Water Pollution Control Bonds used for state
match. On Jan. 10, 2007, the commission amended the 2007 Clean W ater SRF Intended Use
Plan to allow for the use of investment interest earnings to retire the SRF’s share of the Water
Pollution Control Bonds issued prior to 2002 and used for state match at that time.
The department has analyzed the impact on the Clean Water SRF should the investment
interest earnings be used to pay interest on the SRF’s share of the Water Pollution Control
Bonds. The department intends to use approximately $3.0 million during fiscal year 2015. Staff
will continue to monitor the use of investment interest earnings in future years to ensure that the
integrity of the Clean W ater SRF fund will not be negatively impacted.
Federal Capitalization Grant Requirements
Beginning in federal fiscal year 2010, additional requirements were imposed on the state as a
condition of receiving Capitalization Grants.
A. Additional Subsidization.
A portion of the capitalization grants since 2009 are to be used to provide additional
subsidization. A summary of the amounts reserved from each capitalization grant
appears below.
11
Federal Fiscal Year Percentage Amount
2010 Not less than 14.98% $10,608,161
2011 Not more than 30.89% $12,644,571
2012 Not more than 8.25% $3,266,140
2013 Not more than 7.07% $2,614,923
2014 Not more than 8.16% $3,172,658
The federal fiscal year 2010 intent of Congress was “to target, as much as possible, the
additional subsidized monies to communities that could not otherwise afford a Clean
Water SRF loan.” The department has offered 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 percent of the median household income (MHI)
and the MHI is at or below 75 percent of the state average MHI, they may receive a
grant for up to 75 percent of their project cost and a loan for the remaining 25 percent.
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 department targeted the federal fiscal year 2010 capitalization grant funding as
follows:
• $4,249,019 to disadvantaged communities;
• $1,673,740 to the department’s Our Missouri Waters Initiative. Additional information
about the initiative begins on page 24;
• $265,644 to public entity and satellite community partnerships. This funding is
intended to assist established, publicly-owned wastewater systems in communities,
to extend service to areas outside their limits, to eliminate wastewater systems that
are failing or the residents do not have the ability to provide the necessary technical,
managerial and financial resources to keep the system operating. Grant funding
would be provided to the larger municipality, in conjunction with a regularly funded
SRF project, to connect to these satellite entities.
• $607,758 to demonstration projects that develop public and private sector
partnerships to address Clean Water SRF needs;
• $3,812,000 to green infrastructure demonstration project grants.
The department targeted the federal fiscal year 2011 capitalization grant funding as
follows:
• $1,188,000 to green infrastructure demonstration project grants;
• $5,202,089 to disadvantaged communities;
• $6,254,482 to the department’s Our Missouri Water Initiative.
The department has reserved $3,266,140 of the federal fiscal year 2012 funding for
additional subsidies in the form of grants. The full amount is being targeted to the
department’s Our Missouri Waters Initiative.
The department targeted the federal fiscal year 2013 capitalization grant funding as
follows:
• $1,000,000 to green infrastructure demonstration project grants;
• $1,107,939 to disadvantaged communities;
12
" $ 5 0 6 , 9 8 4 t o t h e d e p a r t m e n t s O u r M i s s o u r i W a t e r s I n i t i a t i v e .
T h e d e p a r t m e n t h a s r e s e r v e d $ 3 , 1 7 2 , 6 5 8 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 4 f u n d i n g f o r
a d d i t i o n a l s u b s i d i e s i n t h e f o r m o f g r a n t s . T h e f u l l a m o u n t i s b e i n g t a r g e t e d t o t h e
d e p a r t m e n t s O u r M i s s o u r i W a t e r s I n i t i a t i v e .
B e g i n n i n g i n f i s c a l y e a r 2 0 1 5 , a n y C l e a n W a t e r S t a t e R e v o l v i n g F u n d f e d e r a l
a p p r o p r i a t i o n t h a t i n c l u d e s g r a n t f u n d s , t h o s e f u n d s w i l l b e d i s t r i b u t e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g
p r i o r i t y o r d e r u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e m a n d a t e d b y t h e f e d e r a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n :
1 . I n k e e p i n g w i t h c o n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n t , g r a n t f u n d s w i l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e t o
d i s a d v a n t a g e d c o m m u n i t i e s o r t h o s e e n t i t i e s t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e b e u n a b l e t o
a f f o r d t h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t w i t h a l o a n o n l y ;
2 . T o t h o s e c o m m u n i t i e s w i l l i n g t o a c c e p t t h e w a s t e w a t e r f r o m n e i g h b o r i n g
d i s a d v a n t a g e d s y s t e m s ;
3 . F o r D N R i n i t i a t i v e s .
B . G r e e n P r o j e c t R e s e r v e .
A p o r t i o n o f c e r t a i n c a p i t a l i z a t i o n g r a n t s a r e t o b e u s e d f o r p r o j e c t s ( t o t h e e x t e n t
a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e r e c e i v e d ) t h a t a d d r e s s g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , w a t e r o r e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y
i m p r o v e m e n t s , o r o t h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y i n n o v a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . A s u m m a r y o f t h e a m o u n t s
r e s e r v e d f r o m e a c h c a p i t a l i z a t i o n g r a n t a p p e a r s b e l o w .
F e d e r a l F i s c a l Y e a r P e r c e n t a g e A m o u n t
2 0 1 0 N o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 % $ 1 1 , 2 9 6 , 6 0 0
2 0 1 1 N o t l e s s t h a n 2 0 % $ 8 , 1 8 7 , 2 0 0
2 0 1 2 N o t l e s s t h a n 1 0 % $ 3 , 9 1 7 , 9 0 0
2 0 1 3 N o t l e s s t h a n 1 0 % $ 3 , 7 0 0 , 9 0 0
2 0 1 4 N o t l e s s t h a n 1 0 % $ 3 , 8 8 6 , 8 0 0
D e p a r t m e n t s t a f f w i l l w o r k d i r e c t l y w i t h a p p l i c a n t s p r i o r t o f u n d i n g , t o i d e n t i f y p r o j e c t s o r
c o m p o n e n t s o f p r o j e c t s t h a t a d d r e s s g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , w a t e r o r e n e r g y e f f i c i e n c y
i m p r o v e m e n t s , o r o t h e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y i n n o v a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . A d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n
r e g a r d i n g g r e e n i n f r a s t r u c t u r e m a y b e f o u n d i n t h e P r o g r a m A p p l i c a t i o n F o r m s a n d
I n s t r u c t i o n s a t t h e e n d o f t h i s d o c u m e n t .
V I . C l e a n W a t e r S R F S o u r c e s o f F u n d s
T h e e s t i m a t e d s o u r c e s a n d a n t i c i p a t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n o f f u n d s c a n b e f o u n d i n t h e t a b l e o n p a g e
1 5 .
F u n d s A v a i l a b l e
S i n c e t h e p r o g r a m s a u t h o r i z a t i o n i n 1 9 8 9 , t h e M i s s o u r i C l e a n W a t e r S R F h a s r e c e i v e d o v e r
o n e b i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n f e d e r a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n g r a n t s a n d a l m o s t $ 9 8 m i l l i o n i n s t a t e m a t c h . T h e
f u n d i n g h a s b e e n u s e d t o m a k e o v e r $ 2 . 3 b i l l i o n i n l o a n s t o 5 3 9 r e c i p i e n t s . T h e l o a n s h a v e
r e s u l t e d i n i n t e r e s t s a v i n g s t o t h e c o m m u n i t i e s o f o v e r $ 7 6 5 m i l l i o n .
T h e C l e a n W a t e r S R F p r o g r a m e x p e c t s t o h a v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 3 0 5 m i l l i o n a v a i l a b l e f o r
f i n a n c i n g d u r i n g t h i s f i s c a l y e a r . T h e e s t i m a t e i n c l u d e s c a r r y - o v e r m o n i e s f r o m p r e v i o u s y e a r s ,
r e p a y m e n t s , i n t e r e s t e a r n i n g s o n i n v e s t m e n t s o f C l e a n W a t e r S R F r e s o u r c e s a n d t h e f e d e r a l
1 3
capitalization grants. The amount of funds made available through this Intended Use Plan may
be revised at any time due to current economic conditions.
The department will use the four percent program administration set aside from the federal
capitalization grants and fees charged to Clean Water SRF recipients for program
administration.
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 Dec. 31,2013.
14
Description Current Anticipated Balance
Sources:
Capitalization Grants Funds (federal portion only)
2012 749,442$
2013 29,835,839$
2014 38,868,000$
30,585,281$ 38,868,000$ 69,453,281$
Bond Refinancing Proceeds 6,067,817$ 6,067,817$
Repayment Fund (Fund 0602 and
0649)2 270,659,880$ 116,743,769$ 387,403,649$
EIERA Bond Sale 130,000,000$ 130,000,000$
Total Sources 301,245,161$ 291,679,586$ 592,924,747$
Uses:
Loan Commitments 3,330,880$ 3,330,880$
Committed for ARRA projects 11,640,580$ 11,640,580$
Committed for Direct Loans 150,092,587$ 150,092,587$
Committed for Direct Grants 8,063,112$ 8,063,112$
4% FFY12 Administration Costs 749,442$ 749,442$
4% FFY13 Administration Costs 1,480,360$ 1,480,360$
4% FFY14 Administration Costs 1,554,720$ 1,554,720$
Match Bond Debt Service3
Remaining Principal Due 7,833,500$
Interest Due through FY 2015 356,788$ 8,190,288$
Additional Match Bond Debt Service4
Due through FY 2015 1,393,710$
2010B Pledged Commitments 6,000,075$ 7,393,785$
Anticipated Direct Loans (Jan. 1 -
Sept. 30)95,584,470$ 95,584,470$
FFY 10 Additional Subsidization -$
FFY 11 Additional Subsidization 11,315,821$
FFY 12 Additional Subsidization 3,266,140$
FFY 13 Additional Subsidization 2,614,923$
FFY 14 Additional Subsidization 3,172,658$ 20,369,542$
Loan Funds Allocated to FY 15 CW IUP Projects 284,474,981$ 284,474,981$
Total Uses 180,960,659$ 411,964,088$ 592,924,747$
1 A more detailed version of this table appears on page 49.
2 Repayment Funds include the 2010B State Match Bond Proceeds.
3 Debt service for the A2012 and A2010 State Match Bond.
Fiscal Year 2015 Intended Use Plan
Sources And Distribution Of Funds1
4 Debt Service for the Match Bond Debt Service currently being funded from the Clean Water SRF
program rather than state funds.
Total Capitalization Grant Funds
15
Distribution of Loan Administration Fees
On Oct. 20, 2005 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued guidance relative to the
administration fees charged by the state to recipients of Clean W ater SRF program assistance.
Fees charged by the program are not included as principal in loans. Dependent upon the source
of the loan, as well as the timing of the receipt of the administration fee, the administration fee
may be considered as 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 Clean W ater SRF
activities, as defined in the Federal Clean Water Act, and 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 EPA to use
program income earned after the grant period for water-quality related purposes.
The department is considering the use of certain loan administration fees expenditures as
match for federal capitalization grants.
16
Program
Program Income Income Earned
Earned During After Grant Non-Program
Grant Period Period Income
Balance as of 12/31/13 830,524$ 21,376,463$ 7,356,153$
Income
Projected (01/01/14 thru
06/30/14)741,131$ 1,208,006$ 1,643,835$
Projected (07/01/14 thru
06/30/15)1,669,501$ 2,465,320$ 2,622,428$
Total Projected Income 2,410,632$ 3,673,326$ 4,266,263$
(01/01/14 thru 06/30/14)
Program Administration (289,828)$ (390,519)$ (1,250,920)$
(88,476)$ (122,055)$ (403,808)$
Program Specific Distribution
(PSD)-$ (6,430,836)$ (3,206,772)$
FY 15 Projected Expenditures
Program Administration (1,134,760)$ (55,051)$ (367,028)$
ITSD Direct Costs3 -$ -$ (694,412)$
Board Training & Operator
Certification -$ (250,000)$ -$
Abatement of Water Quality
Emergencies -$ -$ (250,000)$
Water Quality & Watershed
Initiatives -$ (1,000,000)$ -$
Rural Sewer Grants -$ (2,800,000)$ -$
Fixed Station Ambient Network
Contract -$ (465,927)$ (367,476)$
Water Quality Studies -$ -$ (100,000)$
Small Community Engineering
Assistance Program -$ (1,000,000)$ -$
State Parks Wastewater
Infrastructure -$ -$ (3,460,000)$
(1,513,064)$ (12,514,388)$ (10,100,416)$
1,728,092$ 12,535,401$ 1,522,000$
3 ITSD is the state's Information Technology Services Division.
2 Similar to the inclusion of Indirect Costs in federal grants, this represents the SRF Admin
Fees proportionate share of departmental administrative costs.
1 The distribution of loan administration fees to various department activities is subject to
change throughout the fiscal year. Actual fund uses will be shown in detail in the fiscal
year 2015 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Annual Report.
Projected Balances
Total Projected Expenditures
Source And Distribution Of Funds
Loan Administration Fees1
FY 14 Projected Expenditures
DNR Transfers & Allocations2
17
VII. State Assurances and Proposals
A. Administrative Costs
The department will use four percent of the federal fiscal year 2014 federal capitalization
grant funds for program administration.
B. Public Review and Comment
The Intended Use Plan and priority list will be reviewed and adopted through a public
review and comment process.
C. Environmental Review
The department has adopted regulation 10 CSR 20-4.050, which provides for a National
Environmental Policy Act like review for all projects receiving Clean W ater SRF loans.
D. First Use for Enforceable Requirements
EPA’s Clean Water SRF guidance requires states to have the national municipal policy
facilities either under construction or on enforceable schedules prior to using Clean
Water SRF funds for non-national municipal policy projects. Missouri satisfied this
requirement in December 1989.
E. Compliance with Title II
The Missouri Clean Water Commission assures that all Clean W ater Act Clean W ater
SRF requirements were met by the designated equivalency projects in prior Intended
Use Plans.
F. Binding Commitments
The department will enter into binding commitments (loans) for a minimum of 120
percent of each EPA grant payment into the Clean Water SRF within one year of the
receipt of each payment.
G. Expenditure of Funds
The department will expend all funds in the Clean Water SRF 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
environmental impact statement will be made on each project during review of the facility
plans.
I. Description of Assistance
For projects listed in this plan, the Clean W ater SRF assistance will be in the form of
loans with a target interest rate of 30 percent of market and an annual fee of up to 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. Additional subsidization will be
provided in accordance with federal appropriations.
J. Carry-over Projects
Unfunded projects that filed an original application by Nov. 15, 2012 were automatically
carried into the fiscal year 2015 Intended Use Plan unless the Missouri Clean Water
Commission removed the project under the provisions of sections IV.C. (Bypass) or
18
IV.D. (Removal) of this document or the proposed loan recipient has requested to be
removed.
Carry-over projects in the fiscal year 2015 Intended Use Plan are not eligible to
compete in the fiscal year 2016 Intended Use Plan unless reapplication is made by
Nov. 15, 2014.
K. Anticipated Cash Draw Ratio (Proportionality)
Missouri uses the cash flow model of the Clean Water SRF. The federal capitalization
grant is not used as security on the state match bonds. State matching funds are
deposited into the Clean Water SRF before capitalization grant funds are drawn.
VIII. Additional Recipient Requirements
A. Single Audit Act Compliance
Recipients of federal funds from any source(s) 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. Effective December 26, 2014, the threshold increases to
$750,000.
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 and grant documents will include
specific information.
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 the
Clean Water SRF, must comply with the requirements of the Missouri Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations.
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 Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Division of Labor Standards Wage and Hour Section, 3315 W. Truman Boulevard, Room
205, P.O. Box 449, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0449, Phone: 573-751-3403, or by E-mail
at: laborstandards@labor.mo.gov
C. Davis-Bacon Act
All assistance provided 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, shall include a term or condition requiring the compliance with
the requirements of section 513 of that Act (33 U.S.C. 1372) in all procurement
contracts.
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
19
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.
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.
D. Procurement of Professional Services
In accordance with Section 602(b)(14) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
a contract for program management, construction management, feasibility studies,
preliminary engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping, or architectural
related services shall be negotiated in the same manner as a contract for architectural
and engineering services is negotiated under chapter 11 of title 40, United States Code,
or an equivalent State qualifications-based requirement Sections 8.285 through 8.291,
and 327.181 RSMo have been determined to be equivalent to the federal requirements
for the procurement of architectural and engineering services. All recipients of funding
through the CWSRF that have new solicitations, significant contractual amendments,
and contract renewals initiated on or after October 1, 2014, must comply with the
elements of the procurement processes for A/E services as identified in 40 U.S.C.
1101 et. sq., or sections 8.285 through 8.291, RSMo.
20
Loan Programs
21
This page was intentionally left blank.
22
Loan Programs:
The department presently offers a direct loan program, which includes loans for nonpoint source
projects. Submittal deadline for these programs, established by state regulations, is Nov. 15th.
However, Clean Water 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 Clean Water SRF funds (Clean Water SRF 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 Clean Water SRF program offers low-interest loans for wastewater treatment
improvements. The Missouri Clean Water Commission, the department and the EIERA are
cooperating to maximize the amount of construction that can be supported by the Clean W ater
SRF. The terms of the loan program are outlined below.
• Loan Term 0 to 20 years
• Interest Rate 30 percent of market rate
• Loan Fees Up to 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.
The department is considering the use of certain loan administration fees expenditures as well
as other options, as match for federal capitalization grants.
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 Clean Water SRF Loan Program, contact
Doug Garrett at: 573-751-1192.
Nonpoint Source Loans
Financial resources from the Clean Water SRF can be made available to address any nonpoint
source pollution problem defined in the state’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan. Nonpoint
source water pollution occurs from agricultural sources, failed on-site wastewater treatment
systems, local contamination of potable water table aquifers, abandoned water wells, and many
other sources.
For information regarding the Clean Water SRF funding of nonpoint source projects, contact
Doug Garrett or Traci Newberry at 573-751-1192.
23
MASBDA Animal Waste Treatment System Loan Program
The Clean W ater SRF 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 which in turn loans the funds to livestock and dairy producers for animal waste
treatment facilities.
For information regarding the Animal Waste Treatment System Loan Program, contact
MASBDA at 573-751-2129.
Disadvantaged Community Reserve
As stated previously, federal capitalization grants require that a portion of the funding be used to
provide additional subsidization therefore the department reserved funding for additional
subsidies in the form of grants. These grants have been targeted to a variety of projects such as
on-site or decentralized wastewater treatment and green infrastructure demonstration projects.
Applicants may receive a 50 percent 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. The department has been giving preference to disadvantaged
communities as well as on-site or decentralized wastewater treatment and green infrastructure
demonstration projects.
However, any community with a population of 3,300 or less, whose user rates will be at or
above two percent of the median household income and the median household income is at or
below 75 percent of the state average, may receive a grant for up to 75 percent of their project
cost and be eligible to receive a loan for the remaining 25 percent. The availability of grant funds
is contingent upon federal appropriations
The Department’s Our Missouri Waters Initiative
The department’s Our Missouri Waters Initiative represents changes in our water management
activities for both water supply and water quality. This process is designed to address
challenges at an individual watershed level.
The department evaluates watersheds in the state using three priorities:
• Preservation - High-quality watersheds we want to protect;
• Restoration - Opportunities for targeted improvement;
• Watershed Partnerships - Success will depend on active involvement at the local level,
and current activities can leverage resources.
The department selects the watersheds after evaluating the following criteria:
• Drought Susceptibility;
• Cropland Erosion Potential;
• Groundwater Contamination Potential;
• Urbanization;
• Population Growth;
• Livestock Manure;
• Commercial Fertilizer;
• Water Supply;
• Water Supply Reliability;
• High-Quality Resources;
• Wetlands;
24
" W a t e r Q u a l i t y I m p a i r m e n t ;
" B i o l o g i c a l C o n d i t i o n s ;
" W a t e r s h e d P a r t n e r s h i p s .
O n c e w a t e r q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y i s s u e s i n o u r w a t e r s h e d s h a v e b e e n i d e n t i f i e d a n d p r i o r i t i z e d ,
t h e d e p a r t m e n t w i l l t a k e a c t i o n t o :
" I n c r e a s e p u b l i c i n v o l v e m e n t ;
" C o o r d i n a t e a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n t h e d e p a r t m e n t a n d a m o n g o t h e r a g e n c i e s ;
" D e t e r m i n e m e t h o d s t o m e a s u r e s u c c e s s .
E l e v e n a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r s h e d s w e r e a d d e d t o t h e l i s t o f t h e o r i g i n a l t h r e e p i l o t w a t e r s h e d s . T h e
w a t e r s h e d s ( a l o n g w i t h t h e i r H U C - 8 i d e n t i f y i n g n u m b e r s ) b e i n g t a r g e t e d b y t h e d e p a r t m e n t a r e :
" B i g R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 0 7 1 4 0 1 0 4 ;
" L o w e r G r a n d W a t e r s h e d 1 0 2 8 0 1 0 3 ;
" S p r i n g R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 1 1 0 7 0 2 0 7 ;
" N o r t h F o r k S a l t R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 5 ;
" S o u t h F o r k S a l t R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 6 ;
" S a l t R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 7 ;
" M e r a m e c R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 0 7 1 4 0 1 0 2 ;
" U p p e r M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r C a p e G i r a r d e a u W a t e r s h e d 0 7 1 4 0 1 0 5 ;
" S a c R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 1 0 2 9 0 1 0 6 ;
" N i a n g u a R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 1 0 2 9 0 1 1 0 ;
" M i s s o u r i R i v e r I n d e p e n d e n c e S u g a r W a t e r s h e d 1 0 2 4 0 0 1 1 ;
" L o w e r M i s s o u r i R i v e r - C r o o k e d W a t e r s h e d 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 ;
" L o w e r M i s s o u r i R i v e r M o r e a u W a t e r s h e d 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 ;
" L o w e r M i s s o u r i R i v e r W a t e r s h e d 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 .
T h i s a p p r o a c h t o w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t b u i l d s o n t h e d e p a r t m e n t s p r e v i o u s w o r k i n s p e c i f i c
w a t e r s h e d s . T h e d e p a r t m e n t h a s b e e n w o r k i n g f o r m a n y y e a r s i n t h e s e w a t e r s h e d s . M a n y o f
t h e d e p a r t m e n t s d i v i s i o n s a n d p r o g r a m s a r e a c t i v e l y e n g a g e d i n v a r i o u s a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e s e
w a t e r w a y s . B y f o c u s i n g o n t h e w a t e r s h e d , t h e O u r M i s s o u r i W a t e r s I n i t i a t i v e a i m s t o i n t e g r a t e
t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s a c r o s s d i v i s i o n a n d p r o g r a m o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i n e s .
T h e d e p a r t m e n t r e s e r v e d f u n d i n g f r o m t h e f e d e r a l c a p i t a l i z a t i o n g r a n t s t o p r o v i d e g r a n t s
t h r o u g h t h e O u r M i s s o u r i W a t e r s I n i t i a t i v e .
A s u m m a r y o f t h e a m o u n t s r e s e r v e d f r o m e a c h c a p i t a l i z a t i o n g r a n t a p p e a r s b e l o w .
F e d e r a l F i s c a l Y e a r A m o u n t
2 0 1 0 $ 1 , 6 7 3 , 7 4 0
2 0 1 1 $ 6 , 2 5 4 , 4 8 2
2 0 1 2 $ 3 , 2 6 6 , 1 4 0
2 0 1 3 $ 5 0 6 , 9 8 4
2 0 1 4 $ 3 , 1 7 2 , 6 5 8
T o t a l $ 1 4 , 8 7 4 , 0 0 4
2 5
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
Available Funds 284,474,981$
MSD - MSD Public I/I
Reduction Program – Phase II
(PW) *
C295023-36 I/I 195 1,300,000 16,000,000$ Multiple 4, 5 15-1 IIIA 16-2
St. Joseph (Blacksnake Creek
Stormwater) (PW) *C295699-03 CSO 145 76,780 53,830,000 MO-0023043 5 15-1 V 16-4
Pulaski Co. S.D. No. 1 (Weeks
Hollow WWTF) *C295320-06 TP Exp, Impr 130 19,000 6,324,307 MO-0111716 5 15-1 I 15-2
Lake Ozark *C295646-02 Coll Rehab 125 1,489 2,722,674 N/A 4, 5 15-1 IVB 15-3 EE B 2,722,674
Kirksville - WWTP (PW) *C295250-11 TP Exp, Impr 120 17,505 19,415,000 MO-0049506 5 15-1 I 16-3
Boone County RSD
(Westwood Meadows) (PW)*C295375-18 Coll 120 146 385,575 MO-0053171 4,5 15-1 IVA 15-4
Boone County RSD (Rocky
Fork Collection System) (PW)*C295375-20 Coll 110 2,283 1,146,250 MO-0137294 5 15-1 IVB 16-1
Ellington *C295689-01 TP Impr, I/I 110 987 3,091,630 MO-0022896 5 15-1 I, IIIA 16-1
Boone County RSD (Trails
West Subdivision) (PW) *C295375-22 PS, FM, Coll 110 650 1,006,450 MO-0092002 5 15-1 IVA, IVB 16-4
Boone County RSD (Twin
Lakes WWTF) (PW) *C295375-16 TP 110 200 1,091,640 MO-0101885 4,5 15-1 I, IVA 16-1
Boone County RSD (El Rey
Heights) (PW) *C295375-17 I, FM 110 139 203,490 MO-0091766 4,5 15-1 IVA 16-1
Boone County RSD (Spring
Park Int.) (PW) *C295375-11 I, I/I, Coll 105 470 417,273 Multiple 4,5 15-1 IIIA, IVA,
IVB 15-4
Belton *C295712-01 TP Impr 100 11,000 12,460,000 MO-0117412 5 15-1 I 16-2
Columbia (Upper Hinkson
Outfall Phase I) (PW) *C295361-10 I 95 12,672 7,205,000 MO-0097837 4 15-1 IVB 16-1
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
Fundable Carry-over Projects - Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
26
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmountApplicantProject #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Boone County RSD (Sunrise
Estates Int.) (PW) *C295375-10 I 95 544 648,725 MO-0090816
MO-0090824 4,5 15-1 IVB 15-3
Unionville *C295720-01 Coll Rehab 65 1,865 2,448,881 MO-0054569
MO-0026646 5 15-1 IIIA 16-1
128,396,895$ 2,722,674$
156,078,086$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.
Total Fundable Carryover Projects
Balance Forward
27
Allocation of Available Loan Funding
Loan Balance Forward from Fundable Carry-over Project Lists 156,078,086$
Outstate Missouri (1)40%62,431,234$
Large Metropolitan Areas and Districts (2)30%46,823,426$
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)15%23,411,713$
Green Project Reserve (GPR) Incentives and Department Initiatives 15%23,411,713$
(1) Service area population of less than 75,000.
(2) Service area population of 75,000 or more.
Financial Summary of the Fundable Projects Lists (loan funding only)
Green
Large Combined Projects &
Outstate Metropolitan Sewer Department
Missouri Areas & Districts Overflow Initiatives Total
Loan Allocation 62,431,234$ 46,823,426$ 23,411,713$ 23,411,713$ 156,078,086$
Total Projects (1)(104,886,272)$ (30,000,000)$ -$ (17,708,953)$ (152,595,225)$
Balance Before Transfers (42,455,038)$ 16,823,426$ 23,411,713$ 5,702,760$ 3,482,861$
Transfers 23,411,713$ (23,411,713)$ -$
16,823,426$ (16,823,426)$ -$
2,219,899$ (2,219,899)$ -$
-$
Total Transfers 42,455,038$ (16,823,426)$ (23,411,713)$ (2,219,899)$ -$
Balance Available (2)-$ -$ -$ 3,482,861$ 3,482,861$
Amount Forward to Project Tables (3)104,886,272$ 30,000,000$ -$ 21,191,814$ 156,078,086$
(1) From the Project Lists on the subsequent pages.
(2) Balance may be shifted to other categories to fund projects that are ready to proceed.
(3) Amount equals the Allocation + Total Transfers.
28
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
Available Funds 104,886,272$
Fulton (PW) *C295714-01 TP Exp, Impr 120 12,790 $ 12,980,000 MO-0103331 5 15-1 I, II, IIIA,
IIIB 15-3
Liberty (PW)C295702-01 TP, Coll 115 29,149 80,031,690 N/A 5 15-1 II, IVA, V 16-2
Carthage - WWTP Upgrades
(PW)C295809-01 TP Impr 105 14,378 6,000,000 MO-0039136 5 15-4 I 16-4
Nevada C295698-01 Coll Rehab, I/I 105 8,386 3,000,000 MO-0089109 5 15-1 IIIA, IIB 15-4
Kirksville (Phase 8) (PW)C295250-10 Coll Rehab 95 17,505 1,988,682 MO-0049506 4, 5 15-1 IIIA 15-4 EE B 1,422,000
East Lynne C295695-01 TP, I 95 303 885,900 MO-0099961 5 15-1 I, IIIA 15-4
104,886,272$ 1,422,000$
-$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
Available Funds 30,000,000$
MSD - Public I/I Reduction
Program - Phase III (PW)C295023-37 I/I 145 1,300,000 30,000,000$ Multiple 4, 5 15-1 IIIA 15-4
Balance
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
Outstate Missouri Fundable Projects - Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Total Fundable Projects
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
Large Metropolitan Areas & Districts Fundable Projects - Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
29
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmountApplicantProject #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
30,000,000$ -$
-$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
Available Funds -$
-$
-$ -$
-$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.
Balance
Total Fundable Projects
Balance
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
Combined Sewer Overflow Fundable Projects - Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Total Fundable Projects
30
Green Project Reserve and Department Initiatives Allocation of Available Loan Funding
Loan Amount Available
Priority Watershed Reserve
Public & Private Partnership Demonstration Projects
Public Entity & Satellite Community Partnerships 88,548$
Disadvantaged Community Reserve ########
Nonpoint Source Direct Loan Program 500,000$
Nonpoint Source and Green Infrastructure Demonstration Grants
Balance
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
9,824,004$ 13,401,286$
Odessa - Phase II
(PW)C295675-02 TP 180 5,100 $ 6,000,000 3,000,000$ 3,000,000$ MO-0026395 4, 5 15-1 I, II,
IVB 15-4
Aurora (PW) *C295711-01 TP Rehab 115 7,508 1,643,650 821,825 821,825 MO-0036757 5 15-1 I 15-4
Monett (PW) *C295452-02 TP, Coll
Rehab 105 8,900 4,830,000 626,361 4,203,639 MO-0021440 5 15-2 I, II, IIIA 17-2
Meadville (PW)C295801-01 TP Imp 105 512 930,056 465,028 465,028 MO-0041114 5 15-1 I 16-1
Madison (PW)C295658-01 I/I 100 554 3,140,937 1,570,468 1,570,469 MO-0096920 4, 5 15-3 I 16-3
Pierce City (PW)C295696-01 TP Impr,
Coll 90 1,385 991,375 495,687 495,688 MO-0099155 1, 4,
5 15-1
I, II,
IIIA,
IIIB
15-4
500,000$
-$
3,482,861$
21,191,814$
13,401,286$
607,757$
88,548$
3,111,362$
Amount Available From 15%
Grant
Amount
Loan
Amount
Needs CategoryInitiation of OperationsNPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrEligible
Costs
Priority Watershed Reserve
Fiscal Year 2015
Green Project Reserve
Applicant Project #DescriptionPriority PointsService Area Pop.31
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
Grant
Amount
Loan
Amount
Needs CategoryInitiation of OperationsNPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrEligible
Costs
Green Project Reserve
Applicant Project #DescriptionPriority PointsService Area Pop.Alba (PW) *C295709-01 TP, Coll
Rehab 80 594 2,494,546 1,247,273 1,247,273 MO-0089036 5 15-1
I, II,
IIIA,
IIIB
15-4
Macon C295725-01 TP Rehab 70 5,471 1,651,000 825,500 825,500 MO-0023221 1, 3 15-3 II 16-2
Duquesne (PW) *C295447-04 Coll 70 1,790 951,059 475,529 475,530 N/A 4 15-1 IVA,
IVB 15-3
Renick (PW)C295806-01 TP, Coll 70 172 592,667 296,333 296,334 MO-0104019 5 15-3 II, IVA 16-3
9,824,004$ 13,401,286$ -$
-$ -$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
607,758$ 607,757$
Windsor Place (PW)*C295721-01 TP Impr 65 332 $1,215,515 $607,758 $607,757 MO-0115495 5 15-1 I 15-4 EI C 1,215,515
607,758$ 607,757$ 1,215,515$
-$ -$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.Needs CategoryInitiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Balance
Total Fundable Projects
Amount Available From 15%
Total Fundable Projects
Balance
Public & Private Partnership Demonstration Projects
Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #DescriptionPriority PointsService Area Pop.Eligible
Costs
Grant
Amount
Loan
Amount NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - Qtr32
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
265,644$ 88,548$
Milan (PW) *C295723-01 TP Rehab 65 85 $354,192 265,644$ 88,548$ MO-0119318 1, 3 15-1 IIIB 15-4
265,644$ 88,548$ -$
-$ -$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
8,672,136$ 3,111,362$
Chamois (PW)C295703-01 TP, Coll
Rehab 125 546 1,355,898$ 1,016,924$ 338,974$ MO-0039642 4, 5 15-1 II, IIIB 15-4 EE B $ 705,684
New London (PW)C295728-01 Coll, TP
Imp 115 974 2,931,355 2,198,516 732,839 MO-0092975 5 15-4 I, IIIA 16-4
Brashear (PW) *C295669-01 TP, Impr 105 280 1,275,595 956,696 318,899 MO-0046990 4, 5,15-1 I 15-4
Rocky Mount Sewer
District C295623-01 Coll, TP 102 962 4,220,650 3,000,000 1,220,650 New 4 15-3 IIB 16-1
Wellsville C295807-01 TP Impr 75 1,217 2,000,000 1,500,000 500,000 MO-0041050
MO-0050695 1, 5 15-4 II, IIIA,
IVB 16-3
8,672,136$ 3,111,362$ 705,684$
-$ -$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.
Eligible
Costs
Public Entity & Satellite Community Partnerships
Amount Available From 15%
Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #DescriptionPriority PointsService Area Pop.Eligible
Costs
Grant
Amount
Loan
Amount NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds CategoryGreen Project Reserve
Total Fundable Projects
Balance
Disadvantaged Community Reserve
Fiscal Year 2015 Initiation of OperationsBalance Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Amount Available From 15%
Total Fundable Projects
Grant
Amount
Loan
Amount NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds CategoryApplicant Project #DescriptionPriority PointsService Area Pop.33
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
500,000$
Missouri Agriculture & Small
Business Development C295212-09 TP N/A N/A 500,000$ N/A 3 15-1 VIIB 16-1
500,000$ -$
-$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
1,000,000$
Upper White River Basin
Foundation C295611-02 NPS-
Decentralized 95 28,658 1,000,000$ N/A 4 15-1 VIII 16-1
1,000,000$ -$
-$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.
Total Fundable Projects
Clean Water SRF
Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Nonpoint Source Direct Loan Program
Amount Available From 15%
Amount Available From 15%Financing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Balance
Total Fundable Projects
Balance Forward
Nonpoint Source and Green Infrastructure Demonstration Grants
Fiscal Year 2015
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Grant Amount NPDES #Problem Code34
CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
MSD - Public I/I Reduction
Program - Phase IV (PW)C295023-38 I/I 145 1,300,000 73,000,000$ Multiple 4, 5 15-3 IIIA 16-3
73,000,000$ -$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.CategoryBusiness/ CategoricalAmount
Prairie Heights Reorganized
Common Sewer District C295717-01 Coll Exp 55 150 1,147,300$ N/A 2 15-1 IVA, IVB 15-4
1,147,300$ -$
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears on page 37.
Total Fundable Contingency Projects
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
(Complete Facility Plan Submitted and Approved Debt Instrument)
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
Fundable Contingency Projects - Fiscal Year 2015
Total Contingency Projects
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
Contingency Projects - Fiscal Year 2015
(Complete Facility Plan Submitted)
Applicant Project #Description
Priority PointsService
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem CodeFinancing Schedule FY - QtrNeeds
Category
Initiation of OperationsGreen Project Reserve
35
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears at the end of this list.
Applicant Project #Description Priority
Points
Service
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem
Code
Needs
Category
Ashland (PW) *C295710-01 TP 45 6,500 5,635,000$ MO-0106844 5 II
Auxvasse (PW) *C295547-01 PS Rehab 15 983 442,000 MO-0100986 5 IIIB
Boone County RSD
(Hallsville Connection)
(PW)
C295375-23 Coll, PS, FM 90 223 1,459,500
MO-0096415
MO-0104990
MO-0095354
MO-0126446
5 IVA
Boone County RSD
(South Route K WWTP)
(PW) *
C295375-21 TP Impr 85 2,477 3,665,190 MO-0087173 5 II, IIIA, IVA
Calvey Creek S.D.
(Phase II) (PW) *C295524-03 Coll 40 500 1,670,000 N/A 4 IVA
Center Creek
Wastewater Treatment
Board (PW)
C295446-02 TP Imp 100 15,268 1,775,500 MO-0040185 5 I
Drexel C295803-01 TP Impr 85 965 1,850,000 MO-0023663
MO-0023655 5 I
Gravois Arm Sewer
District - Johnson Bay
WWTF
C295715-02 Coll, TP, I 85 125 307,304 MO-0122203 5 IVB
Gravois Arm Sewer
District - Phase 4 *C295715-01 Coll 70 936 4,529,034 MO-0134821 5 IVA
Hawk Point C295808-01 TP, PS, Impr 40 672 1,962,835 MO-0028053 1, 5 II, IVA
Holts Summit (PW)C295192-04 PS, FM, I, Coll 75 3,400 450,000 MO-0106810 5 IVA
Hume *C295722-01 TP, Rehab 15 336 258,856 MO-0114715 4 I
Labadie Sewer District
(PW)C295727-01 TP, Coll Exp 75 595 1,708,682 MO-0114910 4 I, IVA
Lancaster C295804-01 TP Imp, Coll
Rehab 75 940 2,067,500 MO-0039691 5 II, IIIA, IIIB
Lockwood (PW)C295724-01 TP Impr 50 936 1,608,842 MO-0030473 3 II
Louisiana C295686-02 I/I 105 3,364 350,000 MO-0023124 4, 5 IIIA
Memphis C295802-01 TP, Coll 50 1,822 3,143,700 MO-0041173 5 I, IIIA, IIIB,
IVA, IVB
Miller (PW)C295726-01 TP Imp, I/I 55 699 804,121 MO-0041149 5 II, IIIA
North Cass Waste
Management Sewer
District
C295672-01 Coll Rehab &
Impr 55 75 939,100 MO-0117412 5 I, IVA
Peculiar C295612-01 TP, PS, FM,
Coll 65 4,608 8,914,524 MO-0089443 4, 5 I, IVA, IVB
Peculiar C295613-02 Stormwater 50 4,608 5,300,000 N/A 4 VI
Peculiar C295613-01 Stormwater 50 500 775,000 N/A 4 VI
Pike Creek
Reorganized Common
Sewer District *
C295716-01 Coll Exp, I/I 80 2,000 1,918,700 MO-0124427 5 IIIA, IIIB, IVA
Clean Water SRF Loan Program
Planning List - Fiscal Year 2015
36
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears at the end of this list.
Applicant Project #Description Priority
Points
Service
Area Pop.Eligible Costs NPDES #Problem
Code
Needs
Category
Pocahontas (PW)C295729-01 TP Imp, PS 45 114 649,415 MO-0130150 1, 3 I
Poplar Bluff *C295671-01 TP 80 17,023 17,298,234 MO-0043648 1, 4, 5 I
Russellville (PW) *C295718-01 TP Impr 20 813 2,730,192 MO-0106348 5 I
Shelbina (PW)C295655-01 I/I 35 1,704 6,196,067 MO-0041092 4, 5 IIIA
Sikeston Board of
Municipal Utilities C295323-02 TP, PS, FM,
I&I 95 17,000 16,000,000 MO-0035009
MO-0120863 4, 5 I, IIIA, IVB
Stella *C295719-01 TP Exp 75 158 671,403 MO-0124281 5 I
Sunrise Beach C295540-02 TP, Coll 80 431 3,164,450
MO-0082988
MO-0122262
MO-0127736
4 IVA
Taney County Regional
Sewer District C295219-07 PS, Coll, FM 95 1,443 19,128,543 MO-0108162 3 IVA
Wardsville (PW)C295800-01 TP, Coll Imp 65 1,550 517,300 MO-0109118 5 IIIB, IVA
Warrenton C295805-01 I, PS, Coll 55 8,708 10,027,150 MO-0087912 5 I, IVB
Windsor C295512-01 TP, Coll, I,
PS, FM, I/I 90 2,901 5,000,000 MO-0047317
MO-0047325 5 I, IIIA, IIIB,
IVB
Total Planning List Projects $132,918,142
Notes:
Final eligible costs will be determined as documents are submitted and the project is closer to financing.
An * indicates the project is carried over from last year’s IUP.
Carry over projects from the fiscal year 2013 list must reapply to be considered for the fiscal year 2015 list.
Disadvantaged communities are reflected in bold italic print .
V CSO I/I Inflow/Infiltration
PW Project is in an Our Missouri
Waters Initiative Priority Watershed
NPS Non Point Source
PS Pump Station
Rehab Rehabilitation
TP Treatment Plant
Financing schedule shown is for planning purposes only. Final scheduling will be determined as documents are submitted and approvals
obtained.
Impr Improvements
I Interceptor
NPDES National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System
IVA New Collection
IVB New Interceptors
VIIB NPS: Animal
VIID NPS: Urban
EI Environmentally Innovative
GI Green Infrastructure
WE Water Efficiency
Green Project Reserve
B Business Case
Coll Collection
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
Det Detention
Exp Expansion
FM Force Main
I Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IIIA I/I correction
IIIB Sewer replacement or
rehabilitation
C Categorical
EE Energy Efficiency
Codes
1 - NPDES Permit Violation
2 - Unpermitted Discharge
3 - Water Quality Stds. Violation
4 - Public Health Problems
5 - Future NPDES Violation Expected
Problem Codes Needs Codes Description Reference List
37
This page was intentionally left blank.
38
State Funded Grant and Loan Programs
39
This page was intentionally left blank.
40
40 Percent Construction Grant Program
The Clean Water Commission developed the State 40 Percent Construction Grant Program to
provide assistance to those communities that do not qualify for a leveraged loan for the total
amount of eligible project costs.
There are no additional funds for the 40 Percent Construction Grant program in Fiscal Year
2015.
For more information on the State 40 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 fiscal year 2015 there is a balance of $1,879,844 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 Dec. 31, 2013.
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 Missouri Clean Water
Commission for its approval.
41
This page was intentionally left blank.
42
List of Fiscal Year 2015 Applicants
43
APPLICANT APPLICATION
DATE
PRIORITY
POINTS
SERVICE
AREA POP.
FEDERAL
PROGRAM
Alba (PW) *11/5/2012 80 594 PW
Ashland (PW) *11/15/2012 45 6,500 P
Aurora (PW) *9/24/2012 115 7,508 PW
Auxvasse (PW) *11/15/2012 15 983 P
Belton *10/26/2012 100 11,000 C-FUND
Boone County RSD (El Rey Heights) (PW) *11/2/2012 110 139 C-FUND
Boone County RSD (Hallsville Connection) (PW)11/15/2013 90 223 P
Boone County RSD (Rocky Fork Collection System) (PW)*10/31/2012 110 2,283 C-FUND
Boone County RSD (South Route K WWTP) (PW) *11/13/2012 85 2,477 P
Boone County RSD (Spring Park Int.) (PW) *11/13/2012 105 470 C-FUND
Boone County RSD (Sunrise Estates Int.) (PW) *11/15/2012 95 544 C-FUND
Boone County RSD (Trails West Subdivision) (PW) *10/30/2012 110 650 C-FUND
Boone County RSD (Twin Lakes WWTF) (PW) *10/31/2012 110 200 C-FUND
Boone County RSD (Westwood Meadows) (PW)*11/1/2012 120 146 C-FUND
Brashear (PW) *11/15/2012 105 280 D
Calvey Creek S.D. (Phase II) (PW) *11/15/2012 40 500 P
Carthage - WWTP Upgrades (PW)5/20/2014 105 14,378 OS-FUND
Center Creek Wastewater Treatment Board (PW)11/19/2013 100 15,268 P
Chamois (PW)10/22/2013 125 546 D
Columbia (Upper Hinkson Outfall Phase I) (PW) *11/9/2012 95 12,672 C-FUND
Drexel 11/14/2013 85 965 P
Duquesne (PW) *11/15/2012 70 1,790 PW
East Lynne 11/15/2013 95 303 OS-FUND
Ellington *11/15/2012 110 987 C-FUND
Fulton (PW) *11/14/2012 120 12,790 OS-FUND
Gravois Arm Sewer District - Johnson Bay WWTF 11/15/2013 85 125 P
Gravois Arm Sewer District - Phase 4 *11/14/2012 70 936 P
Hawk Point 4/29/2014 40 672 P
Holts Summit (PW)11/15/2013 75 3,400 P
Hume *11/15/2012 15 336 P
Kirksville (Phase 8) (PW)1/16/2014 95 17,505 OS-FUND
Kirksville - WWTP (PW) *11/15/2012 120 17,505 C-FUND
Labadie Sewer District (PW)11/19/2013 75 595 P
Lake Ozark *11/1/2012 125 1,489 C-FUND
Lancaster 12/27/2013 75 940 P
Liberty (PW)11/12/2013 115 29,149 OS-FUND
Lockwood (PW)11/6/2013 50 936 P
Louisiana 6/3/2014 105 3,364 P
Macon (PW)11/18/2013 70 5,471 PW
Madison (PW)11/19/2013 100 554 PW
Meadville (PW)1/10/2014 105 512 PW
Memphis 1/8/2014 50 1,822 P
Milan (PW) *10/9/2013 65 85 PE&S
Miller (PW)11/6/2013 55 699 P
Missouri Agriculture & Small Business Development 10/25/2013 N/A N/A NPS
Monett (PW) *5/10/2013 105 8,900 PW
MSD - MSD Public I/I Reduction Program – Phase II (PW) *11/15/2012 195 1,300,000 C-FUND
MSD - Public I/I Reduction Program - Phase III (PW)11/18/2013 145 1,300,000 LM-FUND
MSD - Public I/I Reduction Program - Phase IV (PW)11/18/2013 145 1,300,000 FUND-CONT
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears at the end of the list.
List of Fiscal Year 2015 Applicants
44
APPLICANT APPLICATION
DATE
PRIORITY
POINTS
SERVICE
AREA POP.
FEDERAL
PROGRAM
Note: An explanation of the abbreviations and codes appears at the end of the list.
Nevada 6/4/2014 105 8,386 OS-FUND
New London (PW)8/8/2013 115 974 D
North Cass Waste Management Sewer District 11/19/2013 55 75 P
Odessa - Phase II (PW)4/25/2014 180 5,100 PW
Peculiar 11/19/2013 65 4,608 P
Peculiar 11/19/2013 50 4,608 P
Peculiar 11/19/2013 50 500 P
Pierce City (PW)11/14/2013 90 1,385 PW
Pike Creek Reorganized Common Sewer District *11/15/2012 80 2,000 P
Pocahontas (PW)11/20/2013 45 114 P
Poplar Bluff *10/22/2012 80 17,023 P
Prairie Heights Reorganized Common Sewer District 11/21/2013 55 150 CONT
Pulaski Co. S.D. No. 1 (Weeks Hollow WWTF) *9/19/2012 130 19,000 C-FUND
Renick (PW)3/27/2014 70 172 PW
Rocky Mount Sewer District 11/15/2013 102 962 D
Russellville (PW) *11/13/2012 20 813 P
Shelbina (PW)11/14/2013 35 1,704 P
Sikeston Board of Municipal Utilities 11/5/2013 95 17,000 P
St. Joseph (Blacksnake Creek Stormwater) (PW) *11/5/2012 145 76,780 C-FUND
Stella *11/15/2012 75 158 P
Sunrise Beach 11/15/2013 80 431 P
Taney County Regional Sewer District 11/21/2013 95 1,443 P
Unionville *11/14/2012 65 1,865 C-FUND
Upper White River Basin Foundation 10/18/2013 95 28,658 NPS-GI
Wardsville (PW)11/15/2013 65 1,550 P
Warrenton 3/10/2014 55 8,708 P
Wellsville 4/22/2014 75 1,217 D
Windsor 11/1/2013 90 2,901 P
Windsor Place (PW)*11/13/2012 65 332 P&PP
C – Carryover
Cont – Contingency
CSO – Combined Sewer Overflow P – Planning List
D – Disadvantaged Community P&PP – Public & Private Partnership
Fund – Fundable List Demonstration Project
GI – Green Infrastructure PE&S - Public Entity & Satellite Community
L – Late Application PW – Priority Watershed
LM – Large Metropolitan Areas & Districts SB – Small Borrower
Abbreviations and Codes
NPS – Nonpoint Source
OS - Outstate
45
This page was intentionally left blank.
46
Sources and Distribution of Funds Detail
47
This page was intentionally left blank.
48
Estimated Sources
FFY 2012 CW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only)749,442$
FFY 2013 CW SRF Capitalization Grant (federal portion only)29,835,839$
FFY 2014 CW SRF Capitalization Grant (not yet awarded, federal portion only)38,868,000$
Loan Repayment Fund (Balance in Fund 0602 as of 12/31/13) *269,507,044$
Balance of Fund 0649 as of 12/31/13 1,152,836$
Projected Proceeds from Bond Refinancing 6,067,817$
Estimated CWSRF portion of Fund 0602 Investment Interest (01/01/14 - 06/30/15)1,693,683$
Estimated CWSRF portion of Fund 0649 Investment Interest (01/01/14 - 06/30/15)12,871$
Reserve Release (01/01/14 - 06/30/15)80,588,859$
Direct Loans - Principal and Interest Repayments (01/01/14 - 06/30/15)34,448,356$
EIERA Bond Sale 130,000,000$
Total Estimated Sources 592,924,747$
Estimated Uses
Binding Loan Commitments (Balance of Reserve Payable 12/31/13)3,330,880$
Base Program Funds Committed for ARRA projects as of 12/31/2013 11,640,580$
Base Program Funds Committed for Direct Loans as of 12/31/2013 150,092,587$
Base Program Funds Committed for Direct Grants as of 12/31/2013 8,063,112$
4% Administrative Expenses from FFY 2012 Capitalization Grant 749,442$
4% Administrative Expenses from FFY 2013 Capitalization Grant 1,480,360$
4% Administrative Expenses from FFY 2014 Capitalization Grant 1,554,720$
Match Bond Debt Service (A2012 and A2010)
Remaining Principal Due as of 12/31/13 7,833,500$
Interest Due Through 06/30/2015 356,788$
Additional Match Bond Debt Service Due through FY 2015 **1,393,710$
2010B Pledge Commitments 6,000,075$
Anticipated Direct Loans during FY 2014 (1/1/14 - 9/30/14)95,584,470$
FFY 2010 Capitalization Grant Additional Subsidization -$
FFY 2011 Capitalization Grant Additional Subsidization 11,315,821$
FFY 2012 Capitalization Grant Additional Subsidization 3,266,140$
FFY 2013 Capitalization Grant Additional Subsidization 2,614,923$
FFY 2014 Capitalization Grant Additional Subsidization 3,172,658$
Loan Funds Allocated to FY 15 CW IUP Projects 284,474,981$
Total Estimated Uses 592,924,747$
* The Loan Repayment Fund includes the proceeds of the 2010B state match bonds.
Loan and Grant Commitments 1/1/14 through 9/30/14 Loan Grant Total
St. Joseph, City of - Eastside Wastewater Service Area Improvements 28,584,470 - 28,584,470
Odessa - Phase I 8,000,000 - 8,000,000
Joplin (PW)3,000,000 3,000,000 6,000,000
St. Joseph - WWTP Improvements (PW)56,000,000 56,000,000
Total Commitments 1/1/14 - 9/30/14 95,584,470 3,000,000 98,584,470
Sources and Distribution of Funds Detail
Capitalization Grants and Loan Repayments
(As of Dec. 31, 2013)
** Debt Service for the Match Bond Debt Service currently being funded from the Clean Water SRF program rather than
state funds.
49
This page was intentionally left blank.
50
Program
Program Income Income Earned
Earned During After Grant Non-Program
Income Grant Period Period Income
Beginning Balance as of 07/01/13 613,057$ 20,177,953$ 6,358,062$
FY 14 Income (thru 12/31/13)378,666$ 1,295,247$ 979,902$
FY 14 Interest Earnings (thru 12/31/13)2,178$ 53,607$ 18,189$
Subtotal 993,901$ 21,526,807$ 7,356,153$
Expenditures Thru 12/31/13
FY 14 Personnel Services (79,721)$ (14,361)$ -$
FY 14 Fringe (32,717)$ (6,210)$ -$
FY 14 Expenses (7,227)$ (73,786)$ -$
FY 14 PSD Expenditures -$ (21,520)$ -$
FY 14 DNR Transfers (20,492)$ (16,158)$ -$
FY 14 ITSD Transfers (16,502)$ (13,012)$ -$
FY 14 HB 13 Transfers (6,718)$ (5,297)$ -$
Subtotal (163,377)$ (150,344)$ -$
Income Less Expenditures 830,524$ 21,376,463$ 7,356,153$
Projected Income
FY 14 Income (01/01/14 - 06/30/14)734,280$ 1,143,273$ 1,630,712$
FY 14 Interest Income (01/01/14 - 06/30/14)6,851$ 64,733$ 13,123$
FY 15 Income (07/01/14 - 06/30/15)1,650,606$ 2,328,258$ 2,605,786$
FY 15 Interest Income (07/01/14 - 06/30/15)18,895$ 137,062$ 16,642$
Subtotal 2,410,632$ 3,673,326$ 4,266,263$
Projected Expenditures
FY 14 Personnel Services (182,085)$ (101,093)$ (511,178)$
FY 14 Fringe (90,070)$ (47,938)$ (239,742)$
FY 14 Expense & Equipment (17,673)$ (241,488)$ (500,000)$
FY 14 DNR Transfers2 (40,701)$ (56,300)$ (186,933)$
FY 14 ITSD Transfers2 (35,243)$ (48,258)$ (158,069)$
FY 14 HB 13 Transfers2 (12,532)$ (17,497)$ (58,806)$
FY 14 PSD Expenditures -$ (6,430,836)$ (3,206,772)$
FY 15 Personal Service, Fringe, Expenses & Indirect (1,134,760)$ (55,051)$ (367,028)$
FY 15 ITSD Direct Costs -$ -$ (694,412)$
FY 15 Board Training & Operator Certification -$ (250,000)$ -$
FY 15 Abatement of Water Quality Emergencies -$ -$ (250,000)$
FY 15 Water Quality & Watershed Initiatives -$ (1,000,000)$ -$
FY 15 Rural Sewer Grants -$ (2,800,000)$ -$
FY 15 Fixed Station Ambient Network Contract -$ (465,927)$ (367,476)$
FY 15 Water Quality Studies -$ -$ (100,000)$
FY 15 Small Community Engineering Assistance Program -$ (1,000,000)$ -$
FY 15 State Parks Wastewater Infrastructure -$ -$ (3,460,000)$
Subtotal (1,513,064)$ (12,514,388)$ (10,100,416)$
Total Actual and Projected 1,728,092$ 12,535,401$ 1,522,000$
* DNR transfers reflect the cost of departmental staff and related expenses.
* ITSD transfers reflect the IT related costs for those staff.
* HB 13 transfers reflect the cost of the related office space.
Source And Distribution Of Funds
Loan Administration Fees1
As of Dec. 31, 2013
1 The distribution of loan administration fees to various department activities is subject to change throughout the
fiscal year. Actual fund uses will be shown in detail in the fiscal year 2015 Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Annual Report.
2 Similar to the inclusion of Indirect Costs in federal grants, this represents the SRF Admin
Fees proportionate share of departmental administrative costs.
51
This page was intentionally left blank.
52
Program Application Forms and Instructions
53
This page was intentionally left blank.
54
Water Protection Program fact sheet
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Loan
Application Instructions for Form 780-1951
5/2011
PUB2284
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 800-361-4827.
Print or type the applicant information. Include a street address if available. The applicant is 1.
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://fedgov.dnb.com/webform). The authorized
representative is the person designated by the applicant to sign official documents and to
speak for the applicant on project related matters.
This contact noted on the application should be knowledgeable about the application and 2.
able to be contacted during business hours.
Include the engineering firm name and the professional engineer working on this project.3.
Show the population of the entire service area. The “population to be served” will be 4.
different from the census population if the project is to sewer, or construct improvements in,
a portion of the municipality or district.
Provide the state senate and state representative district number(s) for the project area.5.
Point source projects include those projects that directly or indirectly impact a National 6.
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.•
List the wastewater discharge permit numbers of all facilities affected by the proposed 7.
project.
2
List the non-permitted facilities to be eliminated by the proposed project.8.
Supply the cost estimates for the project. Land acquisition and easements are not eligible 9.
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.
Provide a cost breakdown by category of need. 10.
11A and 11B. Provide information on existing or proposed ballot issues. If a bond or 11.
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.
The financial information will be used to determine the applicant’s financial capability to carry 12.
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.
List any board trainings related to wastewater management that your board members have 13.
attended in the last three years.
Provide as much information as possible related to the watershed the project is located 14.
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.
Check the boxes that apply to the proposed project.15.
Provide the anticipated dates for the milestones listed. Put N/A in the space if the milestone 16.
isn’t applicable to the project.
Information required by 10 CSR 20-4.040(8) must be submitted before the application 17.
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.
3
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.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176.
For More Information
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Water Protection Program, Financial Assistance Center
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
800-361-4827or 573-751-1192
FAX: 573-751-9396
www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/srf/index.html
This page was intentionally left blank.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE RECEIVED
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE CENTER
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN APPLICATION
Submit to: P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
ATTN: Financial Assistance Center
PROJECT NUMBER
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
Ext. APPLICANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
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 AREA CODE
Ext.
CONSULTANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
4. POPULATION (CURRENT CENSUS)
POPULATION OF AREA TO BE SERVED
5. STATE SENATE DISTRICT NUMBER(S)
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
MO 780-1951 (05/11) Page 1
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 $ IIIA. Inflow/Infiltration Correction $
Land and Easements* $ IIIB. 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 $ VII. Non-Point Source $
Total Project Costs $ Total Project Costs $
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
Type of Bond
Dedicated? Yes No
Amount of Bond
$ Sunset Provision? Yes 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
D. 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 780-1951 (05/11) Page 2
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
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? 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 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 Treatment Facility (specify) Has antidegradation report been submitted? Yes No N/A
New facility
Increase capacity/increase level of treatment
Rehabilitation/process improvement
Failing or failed on-site wastewater disposal system Percentage of systems failing: %
On-site system replacement/rehabilitation
Construction of a decentralized wastewater system
New collection system
Collection system rehabilitation primarily to address inflow/infiltration
New collection system
Upgrade or expansion of existing collection system
Storm water detention
Agricultural Best Management Practice
Landfill capping, leachate collection, side slope seepage prevention and control system, and monitoring wells
The project addresses groundwater pollution by: Factors E at 10 CSR 20-4.010 (1)(A)5
Addressing problems caused by petroleum storage tanks
Addressing problems caused by a hazardous waste site participating in the department’s Voluntary Cleanup Program
Addressing water quality problems caused by inadequate landfill leachate collection systems
The project considers aquatic/riparian habitat by: Factor F at 10 CSR 20-4.010(1)(A)6
Including measures to restore aquatic/riparian habitat and/or to prevent aquatic/riparian degradation
MO 780-1951 (05/11) Page 3
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)
D. Engineering Plans and Specifications complete
E. Construction start date
F. Mandatory completion date (attach copy of compliance schedule)
17. THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS REQUIRED BY 10 CSR 20-4.040(8) AND MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THIS
APPLICATION FORM:
A project 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
The most recent financial statement
Proposed 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.
Documentation showing that an inflow/infiltration reduction program has been in place for the fast five years.
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.
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 all 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
NAME AND TITLE (PRINT OR TYPE)
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
MO 780-1951 (05/11) Page 4
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM
FACILITIES PLAN SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Submit to: P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
Attn: Financial Assistance Center
DATE RECEIVED
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
Ext.
APPLICANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
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
Ext.
CONSULTANT FAX NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
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.
USDA/RD
Applicant funded:
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 (07-11) Page 1 of 2
2
CLEARANCE LETTERS
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Natural Resources, Historic Preservation
Department of Conservation
United States Fish and Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey (lagoon collapse potential and receiving
stream determination)
Federal Assistance Clearinghouse
Division of State Parks (If infringes on federally funded parks)
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION in accordance with 10 CSR 20-4.040 (14) and 10 CSR 20-4.050 (2)(B)2
Facility Plan
User Charge
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
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
NAME AND TITLE (TYPE OR PRINT)
TELEPHONE NUMBER WITH AREA CODE
Ext.
MO 780-2041 (07-11) Page 2 of 2
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Project Facility
Plan Guidance
Water Protection Program fact sheet 3/2014
This document provides engineering consultants a comprehensive guide of the Missouri
Depar tment of Natural Resources’ recommendations and requirements for an approvable
facility plan for Clean Water State Revolving Fund, or SRF, projects. Requirements are followed
by the appropriate regulatory citation.
The facility plan must include sufficient detail to demonstrate the proposed project meets
applicable criteria. The data presented in the facility plan is the basis for the detailed design of
the construction plans and specifications.
Facility plans must be approved by the depar tment prior to the submittal of plans and
specifications, a construction permit application and associated fee(s).
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(3)(C).
The following is a sample format for the required facility plan content:
Title Page
Include the following:
• Name of the project.
• Owner of the system.
• Contact information.
• Date of the submittal.
• Missouri registered professional engineer seal, signature and date.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(3)(D).
Table of Contents
Identify the headers, figures, tables and appendices locations.
Introduction
State the purpose for the project. Describe the existing system, including an evaluation of the
existing conditions and problems needing correction. Provide a summary of existing and
previous local and regional wastewater facility planning documents, if applicable. Include any
schedules of compliance, enforcement administrative orders or agreements. See
10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)1.
Planning and Service Area
Identify the planning area, the existing and potential future service area, the site of the project,
anticipated location and alignment of proposed facilities on a map or sketch.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)2.
PUB2418
2
Population Projection and Planning Period
Base the present and predicted population on a 20 year planning period. Phased construction of
wastewater facilities shall be considered in rapid-growth areas. Sewers and other facilities with
a design life in excess of 20 years shall be designed for the extended period. See 10 CSR 20-
8.110(4)(C)3 and 10 CSR 20-8.020(3)(A)2.
Existing Facilities Evaluation
Existing Collection System:
Include a brief inventory of the collection system (e.g., the approximate miles of gravity
sewers and force mains, the number of pumping stations and related pumping station capacity).
An analysis of the existing collection system is not required if the project is for a wastewater
treatment facility only. Communities that have large collection systems need only report on the
collection system in the drainage basin in which the project is located.
If an inflow/infiltration, or I/I, analysis has been conducted, present the findings of the study along
with the recommendations for the most cost-effective I/I reductions.
Communities that experience sanitary sewer overflows, or SSOs, must propose a plan for the
reduction and eventual elimination of these overflows. The proposed project will not have to
achieve SSO elimination; however, any permit or enforcement schedules must be addressed.
Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility:
Provide a detailed descr iption of the existing wastewater treatment facility. Include an estimate of
the hydraulic and organic loading capacity for the whole facility and each process unit. The age
and condition of each process unit should be evaluated and presented. Problems with the
current wastewater treatment facility should be identified and recommendations made for correc-
tions. A sketch or process diagram of the wastewater treatment facility is desired.
A copy of the current Missouri State Operating Permit, or MSOP, should be provided.
See 10 CSR 20-8.020(3)(A)4.
Hydraulic Capacity Determination
For consistency, use the following flow definitions as a basis for the design of sewers, pumping
stations, wastewater treatment facilities, treatment units and other wastewater handling facilities.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)4.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 and industrial facilities) shall be based on the daily average flow
during the seasonal period.
• Design maximum daily flow – The design maximum daily flow is the largest volume of flow
to be received during a continuous 24 hour period expressed as a volume per unit time.
• 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.
• Design peak instantaneous flow – The design peak instantaneous flow is the instantaneous
maximum flow rate to be received.
Existing Systems
Flow projections for the design life of the system shall be made using actual flow data to the
extent possible. Evaluate the probable degree of accuracy of data and flow projections. This
reliability estimation shall include an evaluation of the accuracy of existing data, based on no
less than one year of data. Also, provide an evaluation of the reliability of estimates of flow
3
5 5
decreases anticipated due to I/I reduction or flow increases due to elimination of SSOs and
basement backups. Include critical data and methodology. Graphical displays of cr itical peak
wet weather flow data shall be included for a sustained wet weather flow period of significance to
the project. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)4.B.
If the existing wastewater treatment facility is a lagoon, install a flow measurement device at the
influent. One year of flow measurement data from this location will provide a more accurate flow
representation.
New Systems
New sewer systems and wastewater treatment facilities shall be based on an average daily
flow of 100 gallons per day, or gpd, per capita. Also, consider flow from industr ial facilities
and major institutional and commercial facilities. However, an alternate flow based on
water use data or other justification, which better estimates flow, may be provided.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)4.C.(I). Wastewater sewer systems with a design flow less than
22,500 gpd should be determined in accordance with 10 CSR 20-8.020(9)(B). Wastewater
treatment facilities with a design flow less than 22,500 gpd should be determined in accordance
with 10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(B)3.
The peaking factor, deter mined by Figure 1 in 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)4.C.(II), shall be multiplied
by the projected design average flow to determine the peak hourly flow. The peaking factor
accounts for normal infiltration for collection systems built with modern construction techniques.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)4.C.(II). A peaking factor of four shall be used for sewer systems
with a design flow less than 22,500 gpd. See 10 CSR 20-8.020(9)(B).
If the new collection system is to serve an existing development, the likelihood of I/I contributions
from existing service lines and non-wastewater connections to those service lines shall be
evaluated. Wastewater treatment facilities shall be designed accordingly to account for these
additional flows. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)4.C.(III).
Combined Sewer Interceptors
Interceptors for combined sewers shall have the capacity to receive sufficient quantity of
combined wastewater for transport to wastewater treatment facilities to ensure attainment of the
appropriate water quality standards. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)4.D.
Organic Capacity Determination
For consistency, use the following organic load definitions as a basis for the design of
wastewater treatment facilities. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)5.A.
• Biochemical Oxygen Demand – The five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, or BOD5, is
defined as the amount of oxygen required to stabilize biodegradable organic matter under
aerobic conditions within a five day period.
• Total five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, or TBOD5 – TBOD5 is equivalent to BOD5 and
is sometimes used in order to differentiate carbonaceous plus nitrogenous oxygen demand
from strictly carbonaceous oxygen demand.
• Carbonaceous five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, or CBOD5 – CBOD5 is defined as
BOD5 less the nitrogenous oxygen demand of the wastewater.
• Design average BOD – The design average BOD is 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 BOD5 for facilities having critical seasonal high loading
periods (e.g., recreational areas, campuses and industrial facilities) shall be based on the
daily average BOD5 during the seasonal period.
4
5 5
5
• Design maximum day BOD – The design maximum BOD is the largest amount of organic
load to be received during a continuous 24 hour period expressed as weight per day.
• Design peak hourly BOD5 – The design peak hourly BOD5 is the largest amount of organic
load to be received during a one hour period expressed as weight per day.
Existing Systems
Projections shall be made from actual wasteload data to the extent possible. Evaluate the
probable degree of accuracy of data and wasteload projections. Impacts of industrial sources
shall be documented. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)5.B.
New Systems
Domestic wastewater treatment design shall be based on at least 0.17 pounds of BOD per
capita per day and 0.20 pounds of suspended solids per capita per day, unless information is
submitted to justify alternate designs. Impacts of industrial sources shall be documented. Data
from similar wastewater treatment facilities may be used in the case of new systems. However,
a thorough and documented investigation to establish the reliability and applicability of data from
a similar wastewater treatment facility shall be provided. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)5.C.
Wastewater treatment facilities with a design flow less than 22,500 gpd should be determined in
accordance with 10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(B)3.
Project Alternative Analysis
The most reasonable environmentally sound and implementable waste management alternatives
must be evaluated. The requirement for cost-effectiveness may be waived by the depar tment
for projects upon showing that the project provides environmentally preferable benefits (e.g.,
sludge utilization, water reuse or reduction). See 10 CSR 20-4.040(9)(A)1. Identify two or more
alternatives, each of which is feasible and practical. See 10 CSR 20-8.020(3)(C)1.
Collection System Extensions/Rehabilitations
Discuss proposed revisions to the existing or proposed collection system including the
adequacy of por tions not being changed by the project. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.A and 10
CSR 20-8.020(3)(C)2.
Wet Weather
Proposed wastewater treatment facilities and collection systems shall provide for transportation
and treatment of all flows including wet weather flows. If bypasses have been authorized by the
depar tment, provide the appropriate documentation. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.B.
Site Evaluation
Provide the appropriate site evaluation information.
Compatibility of the treatment process with the present and planned future land use, including
noise, potential odors, air quality and anticipated sludge processing and disposal techniques,
shall be considered. Non-aerated lagoons should not be used if excessive sulfate is present in
the wastewater. Wastewater treatment facilities should be separate from habitation or any area
likely to be built up within a reasonable future period and shall be separated in accordance with
state and local requirements. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(I) and 10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(A).
Identify zoning and other land use restrictions. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(II).
Include an evaluation of the accessibility and topography of the site. See 10 CSR 20-
8.110(4)(C)8.C.(III).
Identify areas for future wastewater treatment facility expansions. See 10 CSR 20-
8.110(4)(C)8.C.(IV).
5
Identify the direction of prevailing wind(s). See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(V).
Wastewater treatment facility design must take into consideration flood protection. The facility
should remain operational and accessible during a 25 year flood. Facility structures, electrical
and mechanical equipment shall be protected from damage during a 100 year flood.
See 10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(A)1, 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(VI) and 10 CSR 20-8.140(3)(A).
Geologic information, depth to bedrock, karst features or other geologic considerations of
significance to the project shall be included. A copy of a geological site evaluation from the
depar tment’s Division of Geology and Land Survey, or DGLS, providing stream determinations
(gaining or losing) must be included for all new wastewater treatment facilities. A copy of a
geological site evaluation providing site collapse and overall potentials from DGLS must be
included for all ear then basin structures. Earthen basin structures shall not be located in areas
receiving a severe overall geological collapse potential rating. See 10 CSR 20-8.020(3)(A)7 and
10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(VII). The Request for Geohydrologic Evaluation of Liquid-Waste
Treatment Facility/Site, Form - MO 780-1688 is available online at www.dnr.mo.gov/forms/
index.html#Geolog y.
Protection of groundwater including public and private wells is of utmost impor tance.
Demonstrate adequate protection. If the proposed wastewater facilities will be near a
drinking water source or other water facility, as determined by DGLS or by the depar tment’s
Public Drinking Water Branch, address the allowable distance between the wastewater facilities
and drinking water sources and facilities. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(VIII),
10 CSR 20-8.020(3)(A)6 and 10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(A)3.
Determine soil type and suitability for construction and depth to normal and seasonal high
groundwater. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(IX).
The location, depth and discharge point of any field tile in the immediate area of the site shall be
identified. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(X).
Access to the receiving stream for the wastewater treatment facility outfall shall be discussed
and displayed. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(XII).
Include a preliminary assessment of site availability. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.C.(XIII).
Unit Sizing
Unit operation and preliminary unit process sizing and basis shall be discussed.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.D.
Flow Diagram
Provide a preliminary flow diagram of treatment facilities including all recycle flows.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.E.
Emergency Operations
Discuss emergency operation requirements in accordance with 10 CSR 20-8.130 and
10 CSR 20-8.140. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.F, 10 CSR 20-8.020(10)(B) and
10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(C)2.
No-discharge Option
Consideration shall be given to the feasibility of constructing and operating a no-discharge
wastewater treatment facility. See 10 CSR 20-6.010(4)(D)1 and 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.G.
Regionalization:
Consideration should be given to the transport of wastewater to a regional wastewater treatment
facility, when feasible. See 10 CSR 20-6.010(3)(C).
6
Decentralized Options
Consideration should be given to centralized management of on-site wastewater systems for
unsewered communities.
Technology not included in 10 CSR 20-8
Identify any innovative or new technology, for which the review process will be as stated in 10
CSR 20-8.140(5)(B). See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.H and 10 CSR 20-8.020(11)(B)2.
Deviations from 10 CSR 20-8
If this project contains known deviations from 10 CSR 20-8, submit the documentation and
justification for the deviation. Note that many deviations are common while others are reviewed
on a case-by-case basis. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)10.
Biosolids
Discuss of solids handling, disposal options and method selected. Compliance with the
requirements of 10 CSR 20-8.170 and any conditions in the applicants’ MSOP must be assured.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.I.
Treatment during Construction
Include the plan for the method and level of treatment to be achieved during construction. The
treatment during construction plan must be approved by the depar tment and implemented by
inclusion in the plans and specifications. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.J.
Operation and Maintenance
Por tions of the project that involve complex operation or maintenance requirements shall be
identified including laboratory requirements for operation, industrial sampling and self monitoring.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.K.
Communities that do not propose to employ a full-time operator, 40 hours per week, must
evaluate passive or easy-to-operate treatment alternatives before considering a mechanical
activated sludge package plant. Examples of passive or easy-to-operate treatment systems
include, but are not limited to, enhanced natural systems, submerged fixed film systems, sand
filters and recirculating pea gravel filters. See 10 CSR 20-4.040(9)(B).
Cost Estimates
Cost estimates for capital and operation and maintenance must be included for each alternative.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.L. Include the total project cost (construction, engineering, land
acquisition, legal and administrative costs) analysis and a 20 year present wor th cost estimate
for each alternative.
Water Quality Repor ts
The depar tment’s determination of probable effluent limits must be included. Proposed
wastewater treatment facilities shall provide for meeting the effluent limitations as determined
by the depar tment with the use of 10 CSR 20-7.015 and 10 CSR 20-7.031.
See 10 CSR 20-4.040(9)(A)1. Supply the Antidegradation Review Repor t in accordance with
10 CSR 20-7.031(3), the Water Quality Antidegradation Review determination by the depar tment
and any special water quality studies completed by or on behalf of the applicant. See 10 CSR
20-8.110(4)(C)8.N. More information concerning the antidegradation review process is available
online at www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/antideg-implementation.htm.
208b Plans
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). Contact the depar tment for a list of cities that have 208b management plans.
7
Projects are encouraged to use energy and water conservation technologies.
See 10 CSR 20-4.040(9)(D).
Recommended Project Alternative Summary and Justification
Identify the recommended alternative and provide justification.
Provide the following costs and an estimation of how long these costs are applicable for the
recommended project:
• Construction.
• Engineering.
• Land.
• Legal.
• Administrative costs.
• Operation and maintenance.
• Average user charge, including documentation of the basis of the estimate.
See 10 CSR 20-4.040(9)(A)2 and 10 CSR 20-4.040(17).
For the recommended alternative, include the following:
• Wastewater treatment facility design average and peak flows.
• Wastewater treatment facility design organic loading.
• For wastewater treatment facility improvement projects, indicate what treatment units are
to be upgraded or added.
• For collection system projects, indicate the average and peak hourly flow requirements
for sewers and pumping stations.
• Engineering criteria used for preliminary sizing of facilities.
Appendices
The following information shall be included in the appendices upon request of the department
depending on the complexity of the proposed project. All design data shall be considered
preliminary for review pu r poses by the depar tment. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D).
Process Facilities
Provide the criteria and basis of selection, hydraulic and organic loadings (e.g., minimum,
average and maximum) and the effect on wastewater and sludge processes, unit dimensions,
rates and velocities, detention concentrations, recycle, chemical additive control, physical
control and flow metering, removal efficiencies, effluent concentrations, energy requirements
and flexibility. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D)1.
Process Diagrams
Provide diagrams depicting process configuration, interconnecting piping, processing, flexibility,
hydraulic profile, organic loading profile, solids profile, solids control system and flow diagram
with capacities. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D)2.
Laboratory
Discuss physical and chemical tests and the frequency to control processes, time for testing,
space and equipment requirements, description of the laboratory facility, and personnel
requirements (e.g., number, type, qualifications, training, salaries and benefits).
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D)3.
8
Operation and Maintenance
Discuss routine and special maintenance duties, time requirements per duty, tools necessary,
spare par ts list, equipment, vehicles, safety, maintenance workspace and storage and personnel
requirements (e.g., number, type, qualifications, training, salaries and benefits).
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D)4.
Chemical Control
Identify processes needing chemical addition, type of chemicals, feed equipment and associated
costs. See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D)5.
Collection Systems Control
Discuss cleaning and maintenance, regulator and overflow inspection and repair, flow gauging,
industrial sampling and surveillance, ordinance enforcement, equipment requirements,
trouble-call investigations and personnel requirements (e.g., number, type, qualifications,
training, salaries and benefits). See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D)6.
Control Summary
Identify personnel, equipment, chemicals, utilities and power requirements of major units.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(D)7.
Additional Submittals for Facility Plan Approval
The information in the remainder of the document is typically submitted after the facility plan.
Provide the following information for facility plan approval by the depar tment.
Environmental Review
The depar tment will make the environmental determination. The proposed project could
demonstrate a need for a categorical exclusion, or CATEX, or a finding of no significant impact/
environmental assessment, or FONSI. Supply the depar tment with the appropriate
environmental information so that the appropriate determination may be made.
Provide documentation of compliance with planning requirements of local government agencies.
See 10 CSR 20-8.110(4)(C)8.M.
CATEX
Supply sufficient documentation of the following to the department:
• A statement indicating the project is cost-effective and the applicant is financially capable of
constructing, operating and maintaining the facilities. See 10 CSR 20-4.050(2)(A)2.
• Provide plan map(s) of the proposed project showing the location of all construction areas,
the planning area boundaries and any known environmentally sensitive areas.
See 10 CSR 20-4.050(2)(A)3.
FONSI
An environmental information document, or EID, must be submitted for applicants whose
proposed project has a FONSI environmental determination. See 10 CSR 20-4.050(2)(B).
At a minimum, the EID shall contain the following:
9
• The environmental setting of the project and the future of the environment without the project.
• The potential environmental impacts of the project as proposed including those which cannot
be avoided.
• The relationship between the short term uses of the environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long term productivity.
• Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources to the proposed project.
• Documentation of coordination with appropriate governmental agencies.
The clearance letters from the following agencies are required for a FONSI. If any of these
clearance letters are deemed unnecessary, provide justification.
Historic Preservation:
Missouri Depar tment of Natural Resources
State Historic Preservation Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
800-361-4827
www.dnr.mo.gov/shpo/index.html
Missouri Federal Assistance Clearinghouse:
Office of Administration
Missouri State Capital Building, Room 125
P.O. Box 809
Jefferson City, MO 65101
573-751-0337
www.oa.mo.gov/co/mofedasst/
Division of State Parks:
Missouri Depar tment of Natural Resources
Division of State Parks
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
800-334-6946
www.mostateparks.com
Missouri Geological Survey:
Missouri Depar tment of Natural Resources
Geological Survey
P.O. Box 250
Rolla, MO 65401
800-361-4827
www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/index.html
Missouri Department of Conservation:
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO 65102
573-522-4115
mdc.mo.gov
10
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Missouri Ecological Services Office
101 Park DeVille Drive
Suite A
Columbia, MO 65203
573-234-2132
www.fws.gov
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 online at
www.swt.usace.army.mil/address/addressPAO.cfm.
Public Participation
Public par ticipation must be held to allow the public an opportunity to provide input during the
project development. A public meeting to discuss alternative engineering solutions and a public
hearing to discuss the estimated user charge rate are required. An environmental impact public
hearing is required for applicants that the depar tment has determined necessitate a FONSI.
Most applicants elect to hold all three public meeting/hearings on the same date, for ease of
coordination. Note that the public meeting and hearings are separate events and must be opened
and closed in an official manner. If an applicant elects to adver tise for these public meeting/
hearings together, each must be addressed separately with a specific beginning time.
Alternative Engineering Solutions Public Meeting
Conduct a public meeting to discuss the alternative engineering solutions presented for the
project. See 10 CSR 20-4.040(14)(A). Provide documentation of the advertisement (e.g.,
publisher’s affidavit) and verification of the public meeting (e.g., attendance record and meeting
minutes).
At a minimum, the following information should be presented during the public meeting:
• Discuss the problems that have created the need to design and construct the proposed
project.
• Discuss the alternatives that were evaluated.
• Discuss the recommended alternative and how this project will meet the required needs.
Estimated User Charge Rate Public Hearing
Conduct a public hearing to discuss the proposed user charge rates and how they were
derived. This public hearing shall be public noticed 30 days prior to the hearing date. Provide
documentation of the public notice. The applicant shall prepare a transcript, recording or other
complete record of the public hearing for depar tment review. See 10 CSR 20-4.040(14)(B).
At a minimum, the following information should be presented during the public hearing:
• Outline how the applicant will finance the costs of the recommended project.
• Discuss what additional costs will result from the project.
• Discuss the estimated user charge rates that will be necessary to fund the project.
• Discuss when any increases will go into effect.
11
Environmental Impact Public Hearing
Conduct a public hearing to discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed project. This
public hearing shall be adver tised in a local newspaper of general circulation 30 days prior to the
hearing date. Provide the publisher’s affidavit as documentation of the public notice. A verbatim
transcript of the public hearing shall be provided for depar tment review. Any written or verbal
testimony and the applicant’s responses to the issues raised shall be recorded in the transcript.
Include with the transcript, a list of all attendees with addresses. See 10 CSR 20-4.050(2)(B)2.
At a minimum, the following information should be presented during the public hearing:
• Discuss how the project will impact wetlands, floodplains, threatened or endangered species,
cultural resources, prime farmland, public lands and parks.
• Discuss how the proposed project may impact the development pattern of the area.
• Discuss the environmental clearances requested from coordinating agencies.
• Discuss the impact on personal proper ty such as driveways, trees and easements.
• Discuss the impact on water quality and air quality.
For More Information
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Water Protection Program
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
800-361-4827 or 573-751-1300
www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp
This page was intentionally left blank.
1
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM, WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH
WATER QUALITY REVIEW ASSISTANCE/ANTIDEGRADATION 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 / FACILITY NAME MSOP NUMBER (IF APPLICABLE)
COUNTY SIC / NAICS CODE
REASON FOR REQUEST
New Discharge (See Instruction #9) Upgrade (No expansion) (See AIP) Expansion QAPP or Study Review
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY:
FACILITY INFORMATION
METHOD OF BACTERIA COMPLIANCE
Chlorine Disinfection Ultraviolet Disinfection Ozone Not Applicable
WATER QUALITY ISSUES*
*Water quality issues include: effluent limit compliance issues, notices of violation, water body beneficial uses not attained or supported, etc.
OUTFALL LOCATION (UTM OR LAT/LONG OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION) MAPPED1
(CHECK) RECEIVING WATER BODY2
1 Please attach topographic map (See: www.dnr.mo.gov/internetmapviewer/) with outfall locations clearly marked. For
additional outfalls, attach a separate form.
2 Please see general instructions for discharges to streams.
OUTFALL NEW DESIGN FLOW **
(MGD) TREATMENT TYPE EFFLUENT TYPES*
* Describe predominating character of effluent. Example: Domestic Wastewater, Municipal Wastewater, Industrial
Wastewater, Storm water, Mining Leachate, etc.
** If expansion, indicate new design flow.
See General Instructions. Additional information may be needed to complete your request. Your request may be returned if items are missing. 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.
SIGNATUR
DATE :
PRINT NAME EMAIL ADDRESS
Applicant supplied (check all that apply):
Attachment A – Significant Degradation
Attachment B – Minimal Degradation
Attachment C – Temporary degradation
Attachment D – Tier 1 Review
No Degradation Evaluation Heritage Review Determination. See Instruction #8.
Geohydrologic Evaluation. See Instruction #9.
Tier Analysis for minimal degradation (see Page 3, Tier 2 Reviews).
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Time of travel study (see Instruction #3) or model (see Instruction #2).
PHONE NUMBER:
Submit request to:
Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
Water Protection Program,
ATTN: WPCB Engineering Section
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
Phone: 573-751-1300
Fax: 573-522-9920
MO 780-1893 (4/13)
2
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
1. Please attach maps clearly showing the location of each outfall. A U.S. Geological Survey topographic map is available at
www.dnr.mo.gov/internetmapviewer/. Additional water quality information is available at www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/wpp-map-
gallery.htm.
2. Discharges to all gaining streams: Applicant must submit dissolved oxygen analysis (using Missouri Department of Natural
Resources approved models such as Streeter Phelps (www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/pwspread/pwspread.html, use
PWSPREAD.XLS and the dosag2 sheet only) or Qual2K/Qual2E (Q2K/Q2E) stream water quality study
(www.epa.gov/athens/wwqtsc/index.html) indicating the proposed BOD5 effluent limitations are protective of Missouri’s water
quality standard for dissolved oxygen. DO modeling and BOD effluent limit development guidance can be found at
www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/DO_Modeling_Administrative_Guidance_Dec_09.pdf. The department may provide more
specific procedures upon request. Note: If Q2K/Q2E is used, wasteload allocation for ammonia must be assumed. All Q2K/Q2E
studies must have department-approved Quality Assurance Project Plans
3. Discharges 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.gov/env/wpp/permits/antideg-implementation.htm). Otherwise, the applicant may determine limits based on no
decay of discharge pollutants. The department uses a Manning’s N method for time of travel determination (see Technical
Addendum #3 at www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/antideg-guidance.htm). Please include items requested in the Technical
Addendum and a map, schematic or description of flow segments with your calculations. A worksheet with instructions is
available at the above web link.
4. For all 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 Q10 low flow less than 0.1 cfs (10 CSR 20-7.031(A)4.B.(I)),
while mixing is allowed for streams with seven-day Q10 low flow greater than 0.1 cfs (10 CSR 20-7.031(A) 4.B.(II)) and (III).
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)(A)3 allows alternative limitations (i.e., lagoon or trickling filters) if a water quality impact study is conducted.
This impact study should indicate that equivalents 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. Send information to provided address or select the Heritage
Review Link. Register and supply requested information.
9. Additional requirements for new facilities:
A. Division of Geology and Land Survey Geohydrologic Evaluations must be submitted with the request.
B. Coordinates of outfalls in UTMs and 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 780-1893 (4/13)
3
ANTIDEGRADATION INSTRUCTIONS:
For more detailed instructions, the applicant should refer to Missouri’s Antidegradation Rule and Implementation Procedure
(AIP), which is available at www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/antideg-implementation.htm. All waters of the state (except
groundwater) are subject to the AIP. All applicants must submit a determination of assigned tiers of protection to water quality
for all waters of the state on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The applicant should consult AIP, 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 on a water body-by-water body basis.
As an overview, AIP requires the new or expanded discharge either:
1. Demonstrate that the loading is below the 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 Social and Economic Importance (SEI)
evaluation.
For minimally degrading activities as defined in AIP, 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 non-degrading and minimally degrading discharging options are either
impracticable, non-cost efficient, or unaffordable.
2. An evaluation of SEI 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 (POC) that qualify for Tier 1 reviews may be discharged in accordance with Water
Quality Standards without performing the alternative analysis or SEI demonstration. However, for a POC with Tier 1
designation, the applicant must provide existing receiving water quality data1, or an appropriate water quality model1, or
department Section 303(d) listings (facilities with water bodies having 305(b) listed POCs should contact the department).
Appendix 2 of the AIP demonstrates the statistical process (90 percentile value is significantly more than 95 percent of the
Water Quality Standards for the POC) that applicants must use to designate POC as Tier 1 (below, at or near Water Quality
Standard), if POC is not department Section 303(d) listed for that water body. Finally, for Tier 1 POCs, the total maximum daily
load process must be followed to maintain or improve water quality. The applicant must demonstrate the discharge will not
violate the water quality criterion for that pollutant (see Attachment D). For a list of activities that are considered not to result in
significant degradation, see AIP, Section II.A.
Tier 2 Reviews: By default, and 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 some or all POCs cause degradation,
alternative analysis and SEI demonstration is required. Worksheets for evaluating alternative to discharge (see AIP, Section
II.B) and SEI to the community (See AIP, Section II.E), as provided in 10 CSR 20-7.031, must be provided for review (see
Attachment A). For POCs with Tier 2 designation, applicant must provide the basis for determination by providing existing
water quality1 or an appropriate water quality model1. The applicant must consider the current existing water quality value in
the administrative record from previous sampling events (see AIP, Water Quality Assessment Procedures). If degradation is
minimal or temporary, no alternative analysis and socio-economic demonstration is required (Tier 2 review is not 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 10 percent of the
segment assimilative capacity as a result of all discharges combined. Minimal degradation as defined by AIP must be
supported by summary worksheet in Attachment B for facility assimilative capacity or segment assimilative capacity
demonstrating assimilative capacity of POC. A tier analysis must be provided with the review to ensure all pollutants have the
Tier 2 designation.
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 for a 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 explained in Section II.A of AIP
document. Applicant must provide information stated below for evaluation of temporary degradation (see Attachment C).
1 Quality Assurance Project Plan, or QAPP, must be provided to the department’s Water Protection Program for review in
advance (i.e., at least six months) of the proposed data collection activity and before submittal of the Antidegradation Review.
A pre-applicant conference is highly recommended. Important: Applicant must follow the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plan document, available at www.epa.gov/QUALITY/qs-docs/r5-final.pdf.
Additional information needed with the EWQ data includes: 1) Date existing water quality data was provided by the
Watershed Protection Section, 2) Approval date by the Watershed Protection Section of the QAPP, project sampling plan, and
data collected by all appropriate POCs.
MO 780-1893 (4/13)
4
ANTIDEGRADATION INSTRUCTIONS: (CONTINUED)
Applicants choosing to use new wastewater technology that is considered, “unproven technology” in their Tier 2 Reviews with
alternative analysis must comply with the requirements set forth in the New Technology Definitions and Requirements
Factsheet found at: www.dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2453.pdf.
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 (time frame is typically less than a year).
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 may be at risk.
6. Potential for any residual long-term influences on existing uses.
Summary Documentation for Public Notice: Please attach the entire antidegradation review report. In addition, the
department requests antidegradation review summaries for public notice of the major findings for each analysis. Please do not
use the phrase “See Report” to complete these forms. Attached to this request form are outlines of the requested information:
Attachment A – Form used for pollutants of concern that are Tier 2 with significant degradation. Significant degradation
requires an alternative analysis, preferred alternative outline, social and economic importance of discharge, and if necessary,
facility and segment assimilative capacity.
Attachment B – Form used for pollutants of concern that are Tier 2 with minimal degradation or maintenance or reduction of
loading demonstrations. For reduction or maintenance of loading demonstrations, submit a summary table showing the levels
of each pollutant of concern before and after the proposed discharge in the receiving water and then complete Attachment B
for the first downstream classified water body segment. Minimal degradation requires a summary of facility and segment
assimilative capacity. Tier determination analysis must be submitted with this review.
Attachment C – Submit this form if the discharge will result in temporary degradation. Temporary degradation requires
description of the nature of the impact and Tier 1 Review.
Attachment D – Form used for pollutants of concern that are Tier 1. Tier 1 Review requires determination of Tier 1 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 – Submit this form with the appropriate Construction
Permit Application if the project is determined to be non-degrading. Do not submit water quality review assistance request to
the central office as no antidegradation review is required. Note: During consultation with Water Protection Staff under the
“Other” option of no degradation, a Water Quality Review Assistance Request may be required.
Outstanding National Resource Waters -- Outstanding National Resource Waters and Outstanding State Resource Water
are listed in Tables D and E of 10 CSR 20-7.031. If the discharge’s proposed receiving water body is an Outstanding National
Resource Water, an Outstanding State Resource Water, or drainage thereto, per Section I.B.3 of the AIP, “any degradation of
water quality is prohibited in these waters unless the discharge only results in temporary degradation.” Therefore, if
degradation is significant or minimal, the Antidegradation Review will be denied.
MO 780-1893 (4/13)
1
2012 Clean Water State Revolving Fund
10% Green Project Reserve: Guidance for
Determining Project Eligibility
I. Introduction: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 Appropriation Act (P.L. 112-74) included additional
requirements affecting the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. This attachment is
included in the Procedures for Implementing Certain Provisions of EPA’s Fiscal Year
2012Appropriation Affecting the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Programs. This attachment includes the details for determining green project reserve (GPR)
eligibility for the Clean Water SRF program.
Public Law 112-74 states: “Provided, That for fiscal year 2012, to the extent there are sufficient
eligible project applications, not less than 10 percent of the funds made available under this title
to each State for Clean 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 proj ects 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 b y
reducing the volume of water lost ever y year.
III. Background: For the FY 2010 GPR Guidance, 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 EPA and received input from staff in those programs to
determine how EPA funds could be used to achieve shared goals.
The FY 2012 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 FY 2012
2
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 eligibilit y
within one of the four targeted types of GPR eligi ble projects based upon a business case that
provides clear documentation (see the Business Case Development sections in Parts A & 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.
3
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 projects 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 of a private purpose.
0.3-3 Eligible costs are limited to planning, design and building of capital water qualit y
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 of a 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 of a 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
4
be 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.
0.6 GPR projects must further the goals of the Clean Water Act.1
1 Drinking Water Utilities can apply for CWSRF funding
5
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 INFRASTRUCTURE
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 b y
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
2 The total capital cost of permeable pavement is eligible, not just the incremental additional cost
when compared to impervious pavement.
6
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. 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
1.2-8a 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
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.
7
1.4-1 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.
1.4-5 Design criteria are available at:
http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/Green-Project-Reserve.cfm
and
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/greeninfrastructure/index.cfm#tabs-1
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
2.2-1a 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://www.epa.gov/watersense/index.html).
2.2-1c 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 Retrofitting/adding AMR capabilities or leak detection equipment to existing
meters (not replacing the meter itself).
8
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 with more
efficient landscape irrigation systems, including moisture and rain sensing
equipment.
2.2-8 Retrofit or replacement of existing agricultural irrigation systems with 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 (where there currently is not one).
2.5-5 New water efficient agricultural irrigation system (where there currently is not
one).
3.0 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,
and/or produce/utilize renewable energy.
9
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:///www.epa.gov/cleanenergy). Micro-hydroelectric projects
involve capturing the energy from pipe flow.
3.2-1a POTW owned renewable energy projects can be located onsite or offsite.
3.2-1b 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 and/or there is a direct
connection.
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 process5 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 (I/I) 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
management programs, including assessments and audits is available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/pdfs/guidebook_si_energymanagement.p
df.
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.
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 2002 and adopted by the Consortium for
Energy Efficiency. Further field studies conducted by Wisconsin Focus on Energy and other
State 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.
10
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.
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/pdfs/guidebook_si_energymanagement.p
df
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.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=evaluate_performance.bus_portfoliomana
ger) or Check Up Program for Small Systems (CUPSS)
(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/cupss/) 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 pumps or pumping stations.
3.5-4 Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) correction projects that save energy from pumping and
reduced treatment costs and are cost effective.
3.5-4a 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 I/I correction projects where excessive groundwater infiltration is contaminating
the influent requiring otherwise unnecessary treatment processes (i.e. arsenic
laden groundwater) and I/I 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.
3.5-6a NEMA is a standards setting association for the electrical manufacturing
industry (http://www.nema.org/gov/energy/efficiency/premium/).
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.
3.5-9 Variable 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.
11
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 SRF‟s 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://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/basic/index.html
Climate Registry: http://www.theclimateregistry.org/
4.2-4 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).
4.2-5b 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://www.usgbc.org/
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 on 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.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_guidelines.pdf
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 man y
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
12
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 http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_2002_osdm_all.pdf
and on EPA‟s septic system website under Technology Fact Sheets.
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic/technical.cfm
4.2-6c For the purposes of the CWSRF, decentralized systems are considered to
be section 319 projects and Davis-Bacon does not apply.
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.
4.4-1a Technology or approach whose performance is expected to address water
quality but the actual performance has not been demonstrated in the state;
4.4-1b 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
13
4.5-1 Constructed wetlands projects used for municipal wastewater treatment,
polishing, and/or effluent disposal.
4.5-1a 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.
4.5-1b Projects may not (further) degrade natural wetlands.
4.5-2 Projects or components of projects that result from total/integrated 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;
http://www.wef.org/Conferences/page_webcasts_details.aspx?id=6598).
4.5-5b(i) Includes composting, class A and other sustainable biosolids
management approaches.
4.5-6 Educational activities and demonstration projects for water or energy efficiency.
4.5-7 Projects that achieve the goals/objectives of utility asset management plans
(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/pdfs/guide_smallsystems_assetmana
gement_bestpractices.pdf; http://www.epa.gov/owm/assetmanage/index.htm).
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 all 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 IV.A.a. in the
Procedures for Implementing Certain Provisions of EPA’s Fiscal Year 2012 Appropriations
Affecting the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Programs ). An
14
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 Lengt h 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.
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 http://www.srfbusinesscases.net/
Water Protection Program - Financial Assistance Center
PO Box 176 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0176
800-361-4827 www.dnr.mo.gov