Background
Evaluation Criteria
Table 1. Recommended criteria, point scales and weighting
Table 2a. Criteria definition #1 - Provides Flood Protection
Table 2b. Criteria definition #2 - Maintains Public Access to Critical Facilities
Table 2c. Criteria definition #3 - Protects Aquifer
Table 2d. Criteria definition #4 - Limits Impacts to Community
Table 2e. Criteria definition #5 - Satisfies Regulatory Requirements
Table 2f. Criteria definition #6 - Water Quality Benefits
Table 2g. Criteria definition #7 - Enhances or Protects Natural Habitat
Table 2h. Criteria definition #8 - Responds to Maintenance and Public Complaints

During the summer and fall of 1999, Brown and Caldwell in conjunction with the City of Florence (City) and the Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) developed projects to protect property, maintain public access to essential facilities, protect the aquifer (quantity and quality), limit impacts to the community, and satisfy regulations.  The projects were identified for the study area defined by the limits of the Urban Growth Boundary including several projects outside of the current City boundary.

The next step in the process toward completion of the City of Florence Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan is to evaluate the projects with respect to their ability to meet both technical and value-based criteria established by the consultant and the SAC.  Although the City intends to implement all of the projects, the objective of this effort is to prioritize their implementation based on the evaluation criteria.  As areas outside of the City are annexed, the improvements recommended by this plan for those areas should be evaluated relative to their implementation priority.

Evaluation Criteria

The recommended criteria to be used in ranking the projects are presented below.  The SAC developed some of the criteria while the remaining criteria were recommended by the consultant.  The recommended criteria, weights, and point scales are shown below (Table 1).  Each project will receive an overall score based on the merits of its component actions.

The SAC may choose to vary the criteria, weights, and point scales as considered necessary to achieve the overall objectives for the community.  The weights assigned to the criteria should vary based upon their perceived relative importance by the SAC.  Regardless of the weighting and point scales, the overall scores will be normalized such that the maximum possible score is 100.

Points assigned to each criterion are based on the descriptive scales shown in Table 2.  In rating the projects,  scores for each of the criteria are assigned based on a range from 0 to 4 for each criterion.  These scales minimize subjective bias and provide a measure of objectivity to the scoring process.  A weighted total of one-hundred points is possible based on the recommended weighting.  If a different weighting system is used, the scores may need to be normalized ot keep the maximum potential score at 100.

Table 1. Recommended criteria, point scales and weighting

Technical Criteria	Maximum Points	Weight	Maximum Weighted Score
1. Provides flood protection 2. Maintains public access to critical facilities 3. Protects aquifer (quantity and quality) 4. Limits impacts to community 5. Satisfies regulatory requirements 6. Provides water quality benefits 7. Enhances or protects natural habitat 8. Responds to maintenance and public complaints Maximum Weighted Total Score	4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4	5 4 5 3 2 1 2 3	20 16 20 12 8 4 8 12 100

Table 2a

	#1 Provides Flood Protection (weight = 5) (Project impact on frequency, area, extent, and duration of flooding.)
Points	Description
0	Project does not address flooding issues.
1	Project reduces flood impacts to local roads (no protection to outbuildings or homes).
2	Project reduces flood impacts to collector streets and/or <=3 homes/commercial structures.
3	Project reduces flood impacts to arterial streets and/or >3 and <=10 homes/commercial structures.
4	Project reduces flood impacts to >10 homes/commercial structures or to public facilities: hospitals, health clinics, fire and police stations, schools, water treatment and wastewater treatment facilities.
	*ranking for this criteria will not be based on detailed hydraulic or photogrammetric analyses.  (Editor's note: draft supplied by City does not indicate which criteria this footnote applies to.  Contact City Hall for correct information.)

Table 2b

	#2 Maintains Public Access to Critical Facilities (weight = 4) (Project impact on providing access to facilities.)
Points	Description
0	Project does not provide protection of public access to critical facilities (as noted below).
1	Project provides public access to commercial and retail establishments.
2	Project provides public access to schools and public transportation links.
3	Project provides public access to water and wastewater treatment facilities.
4	Project provides public access to hospitals, health clinics, fire stations, and police stations.

Table 2c

	#3 Protects Aquifer (weight = 5) (Project impact to the quality of the aquifer.)
Points	Description
0	Project does not provide any protection of aquifer.
1	Project protects quality of aquifer within UGB.
2	Project protects quality of aquifer within aquifer recharge area (up gradient from existing or proposed City wellfields or surface water sources).
3	Project protects quality of aquifer within 2,500 feet of existing or proposed City wellfields or surface water sources.
4	Project protects quality of aquifer within 1,000 feet of existing or proposed City wellfields or surface water sources.

Table 2d

	#4 Limits Impacts to Community (weight = 3) (Project impact on the community from construction activities, the operation and maintenance of the facility, or the required easement.)
Points	Description
0	Construction, maintenance, and easement acquisition for the project will provide a moderate or severe impact to the entire community.
1	Construction, maintenance, and easement acquisition will provide a severe disruption to traffic or commerce in a localized area.
2	Construction, maintenance, and easement acquisition will provide a moderate disruption to traffic or commerce in a localized area.
3	Maintenance needs of the project are minimal; construction does not require specialized equipment.  Construction, maintenance, and easement acquisition activities will provide minor, short-term disruption to traffic or commerce in a localized area.
4	Construction and maintenance of project will not impact community.  Construction, maintenance, and easement acquisition activities do not impact traffic or commerce.

Table 2e

	#5 Satisfies Regulatory Requirements (weight = 2) (Impact of Regulations on Project)
Points	Description
0	None. Project does not satisfy any existing or potential state/federal regulations (ESA, CWA, and TMDL).
1	Low. Project presents limited opportunity to achieve or advance regulatory compliance goals.
2	Good. Project presents opportunity to achieve compliance for at least one regulatory goal.
3	Very Good.  Project presents significant opportunity to achieve compliance for both CWA and ESA regulatory goals.
4	Excellent. Project maximizes opportunities to achieve compliance for current and future regulatory goals.

Table 2f

	#6 Water Quality Benefits (weight = 1) (Project Impacts on Surface Water Quality)
Points	Description
0	None.  Project does not provide any improvement to water quality of receiving waters.
1	Low. Project provides improvement for one of the six key water quality parameters.*
2	Good. Project provides improvement for two of the six key water quality parameters.*
3	Very Good.  Project provides improvement for three of the six key water quality parameters.*
4	Excellent. Project provides improvement for four or more of the six key water quality parameters.*
	* Temperature, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, and metals.

Table 2g

	#7 Enhances or Protect Natural Habitat (weight = 2) (Project Impacts on Natural Habitat)
Points	Description
0	Project actions will have no impact on riparian, instream, or wetland habitat connectivity, or channel characteristics such that fish or wildlife habitat is not improved.
1	Project actions will have little impact on riparian, instream or wetland habitat (<50 linear feet or <=1/3 acre wetland), connectivity, or channel characteristics such that fish or wildlife habitat is not measurably improved.
2	Project actions slightly improve riparian, instream, or wetland habitat (>50 linear feet riparian area or >1/3 acre wetland), connectivity or channel characteristics such that fish or wildlife habitat is likely to be improved.
3	Project actions will measurably improve riparian, instream, or wetland habitat (>100 linear feet riparian area or >1 acre wetland.) such that fish or wildlife habitat is improved.
4	Project substantially improves riparian, instream, or wetland habitat (e.g., >500 linear feet riparian area or >5 acres wetland), connectivity or channel characteristics, such that fish or wildlife habitat is substantially improved.

Table 2h

	#8 Responds to Maintenance and Public Complaints (weight = 3) (Project impact to the quality of the aquifer.)
Points	Description
0	Project does not respond to reported drainage or flooding problems.
1	Project responds to minor maintenance problems, and/or few if any public complaints.
2	Project responds to one or more moderate priority maintenance problems, and/or few but infrequently reported public complaints.
3	Project responds to several moderate priority maintenance problems, and/or frequently reported public complaints.
4	Project responds to numerous moderate or high priority maintenance problems, and/or consistently reported flooding and/or drainage related problems.

Draft Report – Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restrictions specified at the beginning of this document. *

*(Editor's note: “beginning of this document” was not provided to public on March 17, 2000 - so CFF is unable to provide the text of that document for our browsers at this time - contact City Hall for full document.)