SAWPA OWOW 2.0 Project Ranking Process - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

SAWPA OWOW 2.0 Project Ranking Process

December 6, 2012Slide2

Multi-Step Project Ranking Process

OWOW Steering Committee developed five criteria and weights and eight performance measures

Criteria equally weighted at 20% each (each criteria can contribute a maximum of 20% of the overall project score)

Project applicants submitted data to SAWPA

Project data initially reviewed for data entry errors by SAWPA

Scales developed and data normalized for each criteria

Data entered into Criterium Decision Plus (CDP) software and scored for each project

Results sorted into three tiers

Slide3

Criterium Decision Plus Software

CDP software developed by InfoHarvest utilized to develop initial project tiers

CDP uses a multi-attribute rating technique

Methodology involves

Defining the evaluation criteria for comparison between alternatives

Developing performance measures indicating when a criterion is achieved

Determining the relative weight of importance that each criterion has in terms of influencing the decision Slide4

Criteria 1 – Improve Water Reliability and Reduce Reliance on Imported Water

AFY yields summed for each project:

Water use efficiency

Stormwater capture and storage

Recycled water reuse

Groundwater desalination

Other

Multiplied maximum AFY by 110% - maximum bookend

Example: Maximum summed AFY = 100

Maximum scale = 110 (100 x 110%)

Minimum scale set to 0

Projects with higher values receive higher scores for Criteria 1

Resultant values entered into CDP

Slide5

Criteria 2 – Improve Water Quality and Salt Balance in the Watershed

Three categories of data contribute to criteria score:

Non-point source reduction (mgd)

Reduction of TMDLs and other pollutants (kg/year)

Salt removal (tons/year)

Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for each category

1 = worst

5 = best

Data for each category with a value greater than 0 was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the scale

Normalized data summed together by project across the three categories

Slide6

Criteria 2 – Continued

Summed data adjusted by subtracting 2 to ensure

projects

with values of 1 in each category receive an overall value of 1, resultant

values

entered into CDP

Summed values greater than 5 capped at 5

Example:

Normalized Values

Criteria Score

Salt Removal

Nonpoint Source

TMDL & Other

Sum

Project 1

1

1

1

3

1

Project 2

1

3

2

6

4

Project 3

5

5

5

15

5Slide7

Criteria 3 – Manage Flood Waters Through Preservation and Restoration of Natural Hydrology

Three performance measures with varying weights:

3a - Acres of habitat created (acres), weight 60%

3b - Natural hydrology restoration and connectivity, weight 20%

3c - LID or resource efficient land use practices, weight 20%

3a assigned weight of 60% as provides greatest benefit to criteria

When a criteria has multiple performance measures resultant data for each performance measure is entered into CDP

Slide8

Criteria 3 – Performance Measure 3a

Acres of habitat performance measure – developed using same methodology as Criteria

1

Maximum bookend = 110% of maximum data

value

Minimum bookend = 0

Slide9

Criteria 3 – Performance Measures 3b and 3c

Data for performance measures 3b and 3c consists of yes/no answers to whether the project provides the applicable benefit and a description of the benefit

1 = answer provided was no and no explanation

2 = answer provided was yes and no explanation or explanation not applicable

5 = answer provided was yes and logical explanation provided

Scale of 1 to 5 used

1 = worst

5 =

best

Slide10

Criteria

4

– Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Water Management Activities

Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for

greenhouse emissions (co

2

e metric tons)

1 = worst

5 = best

Data

> 10,000 co

2

e

metric

tons assigned a score of 5

Data

with

a value greater than

0 and less than 10,000

co

2

e metric tons

was

divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the

scale

Normalized data entered into CDP

Slide11

Criteria 5 – Cost Effectiveness

Criteria is composed of five components evaluating the cost effectiveness on a per unit basis per year for each benefit claimed:

5a - Cost per AFY of water

5b - Cost per acre of habitat

5c - Cost per tons of salt removed

5d - Cost per mgd of water treated

5e – Cost per kg of TMDL or other pollutants removed

Data normalized on scale of 1 to 5 for each

component

1 = worst

5 = best

Data for each

component

with a value greater than 0 was divided into quartiles to facilitate developing ranges for the

scale

Data for a component with a value of 0 received a score of 1

Slide12

Criteria 5 – Continued

Normalized values for each component summed together and divided by 5 to arrive at cost effectiveness score

Data entered into CDP

Normalized Values

Criteria Score

Cost per AFY of Water

Cost per Acre of habitat

Cost per Ton of Salt Removed

Cost per MGD of Water Treated

Cost per kg of TMDL or Other Pollutant Removal

Sum

Project 1

1

1

1

1

1

5

1

Project 2

4

3

3

5

4

19

4.75

Project 3

5

5

5

5

5

25

5Slide13

Results

Tiers developed using natural breaks in resultant project scores from CDP

Tier 1 - Projects closely matching the OWOW project

criteria

100% match to 22% match of the OWOW project criteria

33 projects

Tier

2 - Projects that match OWOW project criteria in some

respects

, but have deficiencies in

areas

21% match to a 5% match of the OWOW project criteria

54 projects

Tier

3 – Projects that provide lesser benefits than projects in

Tier

1 or Tier 2 or projects earlier in development phase

or

benefits cannot be determined at this

time

4% to 0% match of the OWOW project criteria

49 projectsSlide14

Results - Continued

Example

on following slide illustrates overall

contribution of each criteria

for three hypothetical projects and provides a total

score for each project

based on output from CDP

Maximum score is 1

(100%) overall and 20% for each criteriaSlide15

Results – Continued