Document Puyallup_doc_d7a671ddbd

State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Centennial Clean Water Program Clean Water Section 319 Program July 6, 2012 Publication no. 12-10-024 ---PAGE BREAK--- Publication and Contact Information This report is available on the Department of Ecology’s Web site at For more information contact: Water Quality Program P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Washington State Department of Ecology - www.ecy.wa.gov o Headquarters, Olympia [PHONE REDACTED] o Northwest Regional Office, Bellevue [PHONE REDACTED] o Southwest Regional Office, Olympia [PHONE REDACTED] o Central Regional Office, Yakima [PHONE REDACTED] o Eastern Regional Office, Spokane [PHONE REDACTED] To ask about the availability of this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Water Quality Program at [PHONE REDACTED]. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call [PHONE REDACTED]. ---PAGE BREAK--- State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Centennial Clean Water Program Clean Water Section 319 Program by Financial Management Section Water Quality Program Washington State Department of Ecology Olympia, Washington 98504-7710 ---PAGE BREAK--- This page is purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- iii Table of Contents Page 1 REVOLVING FUND 1 CENTENNIAL 2 SECTION 319 2 MISSION, GOALS, & OBJECTIVES 2 PROGRAM CHANGES 5 REVOLVING FUND – 2012 FEDERAL APPROPRIATION 5 RATE STUDY REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 6 INVESTMENT GRADE EFFICIENCY AUDITS 6 SFY 2013 FUNDING CYCLE 7 PUBLIC OUTREACH: APPLICATION WORKSHOPS AND DRAFT LIST COMMENT PERIOD 8 PUBLIC OUTREACH 8 PUBLIC MEETING AND COMMENT PERIOD 8 CRITERIA AND METHODS FOR ALLOCATING FUNDS 9 POTENTIAL CHANGES IN HOW ECOLOGY ALLOCATES FUNDS 10 DEMAND FOR FUNDS 11 AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 REVOLVING FUND AMOUNTS 12 CENTENNIAL PROGRAM FUNDING 13 SECTION 319 PROGRAM FUNDING 13 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY 14 STATEWIDE DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY 14 PUGET SOUND DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY 18 AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER THE REVOLVING FUND 18 ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS FOR THE REVOLVING FUND 19 PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT FROM EPA TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 19 REVOLVING FUND USES AND TERMS OF LOANS 20 USES 20 TERMS 20 WATER QUALITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES 21 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT COMPLIANCE 22 CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES TO THE DRAFT LIST 22 CHANGES IN FUNDING LEVELS 22 CHANGES TO PROJECT FUNDING REQUESTS 23 LIMITED DEMAND FOR FUNDING 23 LIMITED DEMAND FOR LOAN FUNDING 23 RESPONSE TO LIMITED DEMAND FOR FUNDING 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- iv APPENDIX 1 LIST OF PROJECTS CONSIDERED AND PROPOSED FOR FUNDING APPENDIX 1A LIST OF PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR REVOLVING FUND FUNDING APPENDIX 1B LIST OF PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR CENTENNIAL FUNDING APPENDIX 1C LIST OF PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR SECTION 319 FUNDING APPENDIX 2 LOCATION MAPS OF ALL PROJECTS CONSIDERED AND OFFERED FUNDING APPENDIX 3 REVOLVING FUND ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF BINDING COMMITMENTS APPENDIX 4 RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON DRAFT LIST The remainder of this page is purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 Introduction The State Fiscal Year 2013 (SFY 2013) Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan (Final List) presents the proposed distribution of water quality funding to the highest priority water quality projects for this funding cycle. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) developed this list of projects based on the rating and ranking of statewide competitive applications accepted through the annual funding cycle process. The Final List also outlines the goals and objectives for meeting statewide water quality needs and state and federal funding program requirements. The Final List proposes funding for 57 projects totaling $82.1 million. The Final List serves as the Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (Revolving Fund) Intended Use Plan (IUP) required by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The final list includes information on how Ecology will use and administer the Revolving Fund in the SFY 2013 funding cycle. It also includes information on how Ecology will use and administer funding for three major funding programs. Because Ecology uses an integrated application process, we publish one integrated document to create less confusion for clients and stakeholders. This Final List tells the public how Ecology intends to administer the three major funding programs: • Revolving Fund Program (federal and state funds). • Centennial (state funds). • Section 319 (federal funds). Appendix 1 provides a complete list of applications received in priority ranked order and identifies those projects proposed for funding. Appendices 1a, 1b, and 1c list projects separated by funding program. The following provides an overview of the funding sources for the water quality grant and loan programs. Revolving Fund The Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund was established under Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA provides states with capitalization grants each year according to Congressional appropriation and a formula established in the CWA. The Revolving Fund Program is also referred to as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund by the EPA. The CWA requires the State to match the capitalization grant with 20 percent state funds. The capitalization grant and state match are combined with principal and interest repayments from previous loans and interest earned through investments by the Washington State Treasury. Ecology loans out the combined funds to eligible public bodies and tribes, who repay the loans, with interest, after a project is completed. More money becomes available to fund water quality projects as the Revolving Fund continues to revolve and grow. Today, the majority of the fund consists of repaid principal and interest. The Revolving Fund is a complex loan program with a portfolio of over $1 billion. Ecology must manage the Revolving Fund in accordance with state and federal regulations. Guiding state regulations include Chapter 90.50A RCW, Water pollution control facilities - federal capitalization grants, and Chapter 173- 98 WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Federal regulations include requirements for: • Timely use of funds • Adherence to specific accounting principles • Fund perpetuity • Project eligibility • Assessments of the financial capability of borrowers • Implementation of state rules • Extensive public outreach and public accountability • State Environmental Review (SERP) and federal cross cutter requirements. Centennial The Centennial Clean Water Program gets its funding from the Washington State General Fund, primarily through the State Building Construction Account and the State Toxics Account. Ecology uses the Centennial Program to provide grants to local governments and tribes according to Chapter 70.146 RCW, Water Pollution Control Facilities Financing, and Chapter 173-95A WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Centennial Clean Water Program. The program provides grants for water quality infrastructure and nonpoint source pollution projects to improve water quality. Nonpoint projects include stream restoration and buffers, agricultural best management practices, on-site septic repair and replacement, stormwater activities, and other nonpoint pollution control activities. Ecology also uses the Centennial Program to fund facilities projects, primarily wastewater treatment construction projects for financially distressed communities. Under certain conditions, Ecology may use Centennial funds to make loans. Section 319 The United States Congress established the Section 319 program as part of the CWA amendments of 1987 to address nonpoint sources of water pollution. The EPA provides Section 319 grant funds to the State to implement the State’s Section 319 Plan. The State is required to provide a 40 percent match to the EPA grant. The State provides the match through nonpoint source projects funded by the Centennial Program. Ecology administers the Section 319 funds to implement the State’s nonpoint source plan and provides 60 percent of the funds in the form of grants to outside entities through a competitive application process. Ecology has no specific state rule to guide the management of the Section 319 program. Federal regulations and guidelines, as well as the Centennial administrative rule, steer much of the program. Eligible applicants include not-for-profit groups that are not eligible for other water quality funding programs administered by Ecology. Section 319 grants fund projects that address nonpoint source pollution. These projects can include watershed planning, implementation of water quality best management practices (BMPs), water quality monitoring, and outreach and education. Projects that implement BMPs must collect and report data to estimate the water quality improvements that resulted from the project (that is, load reductions of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments). The EPA requires all states to report these load reductions on an annual basis, using information provided by the grant recipients. Mission, Goals, and Objectives The overall mission of Ecology is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment, and promote the wise management of our air, land, and water. ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 In addition, the mission of Ecology’s Water Quality Program is to prevent and clean up water pollution, to help communities make sustainable choices that reduce and prevent water quality problems, and to provide our partners with technical and financial assistance for high priority water quality projects. The following goals are identified to help to achieve the overall mission of Ecology and the Water Quality Program through the water quality focused state and federal grant and loan programs. Goal: Identify and fund the highest priority water quality projects statewide. • Objectives: 1. Coordinate with internal, regional Ecology experts to identify water quality benefits on an ongoing basis. 2. Coordinate with the EPA; Puget Sound Partnership; advisory groups; and state, federal, and local governments for input in major decisions affecting water quality benefits. 3. Require that funded projects implement actions identified in the Washington State Nonpoint Plan, the Puget Sound Action Agenda, or other approved water-quality plan. 4. Coordinate and communicate effectively with the EPA. 5. Continue to develop and refine water quality performance measures. Goal: Provide financial assistance to communities statewide to help them achieve compliance with state and federal water pollution control requirements; implement nonpoint source pollution control programs; and develop and implement estuary conservation and management programs • Objectives: 1. Provide priority rating consideration for communities to meet state and federal requirements for wastewater and stormwater facilities. 2. Reduce and prevent nonpoint sources of pollution from impacting state waters using appropriate best management practices. Goal: Provide funding for high priority water quality projects through a fair, objective, and transparent process. • Objectives: 1. Continue to involve stakeholders and clients in major funding program development, including the rule development, program guidance, and application process. 2. Continue to work with advisory groups and councils, such as the Financial Assistance Advisory Council. 3. Work closely with Ecology’s Revolving Fund Executive Oversight Committee that meets on a regular basis. 4. Review the funding application and evaluation process to help ensure consistent and objective rating and ranking of project proposals. Goal: Provide the best possible funding packages to financially-distressed communities for wastewater treatment facility construction projects. • Objectives: 1. Review and maintain hardship criteria to best reflect actual client and stakeholder needs, emerging environmental conditions, and the effect of sewer user fees on the ratepayer as a percentage of medium household income. 2. Continue to provide essential information to the State legislature about wastewater needs of small, rural communities. 3. In addition to low interest rates, provide additional subsidies through the Revolving Fund in the form of forgivable principal loans as allowed by the federal Appropriations Act of 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Goal: Provide technical assistance to local governments and tribes. • Objectives: 1. Continue to be responsive to questions and information requests from local governments and tribes. 2. Continue to conduct internal Ecology facility and activity workgroup meetings to identify problems, needs, and emerging issues regarding wastewater, stormwater, and nonpoint source pollution control projects. 3. Work closely with the EPA to ensure effective coordination associated with major federal environmental prerequisites required under the Revolving Fund and the Section 319 Program. 4. Work closely with appropriate federal and state agencies to ensure effective coordination associated with major state environmental prerequisites required. 5. Provide internal and external outreach at workshops and conferences to disseminate existing and emerging information related to major state and federal requirements, including the Davis-Bacon wage requirement, the State Environmental Review Process, and other requirements. 6. Provide individual training to grant and loan recipients when requested. Goal: Provide sound financial management of the funding programs and projects. • Objectives: 1. Work closely with advisory committees, the EPA, and other state and federal funding agencies to leverage grant and loan funds with internal and external funding programs. 2. Continue to integrate the major funding programs. 3. Evaluate perpetuity of the Revolving Fund annually to ensure the long-term buying power of the fund as defined by Chapter 173-98 WAC. 4. Conduct financial capability assessments on new Revolving Fund loan recipients before signing funding agreements. 5. Refine and standardize, where possible, the current financial capability assessment method, in coordination with other federal and state agencies. 6. Coordinate with Ecology’s fiscal office on the overall financial management issues and to prevent and resolve possible audit issues. 7. Provide appropriate oversight of projects to ensure fiscal accountability. Goal: Provide public outreach to communicate major funding decisions. • Objectives: 1. Conduct annual funding workshops at four locations throughout the state. 2. Conduct at least one grant and loan recipient workshop. 3. Maintain the grant and loan funding Website. 4. Provide the opportunity for public comment on funding offers, major rules, and major funding program changes. Goal: Encourage Local governments to develop and implement projects under Green Project Reserves (GPR) under the Revolving Fund. • Objectives: 1. Provide additional Revolving Fund subsidies for water quality improvement efforts that qualify under the GPR category. Provide at least 10 percent of the Revolving Fund capitalization grant from the EPA to GPR projects as required by the federal Appropriations Act of 2012. 2. Disseminate and share GPR guidance information received from EPA with clients and stakeholders as quickly as possible to help facilitate quality GPR projects. 3. Participate in EPA-sponsored GPR Webcasts and other applicable GPR meetings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Goal: Ensure availability of Centennial grant and Revolving Fund loan funding for on-site sewage repair and replacement local loan programs. • Objectives: 1. Continue to leverage the Revolving Fund and the Centennial Program by offering grants in conjunction with Revolving Fund loans to develop and operate on-site repair and replacement programs. 2. Continue to offer reduced interest rates to local governments who target loans to financially- distressed homeowners and business owners as defined in program guidelines. 3. Review, and update if necessary, program guidance and administrative rules to reflect emerging needs. 4. Work closely with local governments who run successful local loan programs to learn about what does and does not work. Goal: Ensure availability of funding for stormwater projects. • Objectives: 1. Continue to provide essential information to the Washington State legislature regarding emerging stormwater issues that support future funding. 2. Work with the Puget Sound Partnership to identify projects that best achieve the goals of the Puget Sound Action Agenda. Goal: Ensure the availability of Centennial grant and Revolving Fund loan funding for nonpoint source pollution control projects. • Objectives: 1. Set aside at least one third of the available Centennial grant dollars to fund nonpoint pollution projects. Up to two thirds of the available Centennial grant dollars may be set aside to fund nonpoint pollution projects if demand for hardship facilities projects is low. 2. Set aside 20 percent of the available Revolving Fund to fund nonpoint pollution projects. 3. Work with the Puget Sound Partnership to identify projects that best achieve the goals of the Puget Sound Action Agenda. Program Changes Revolving Fund – 2012 federal appropriation The federal appropriation bill of 2012 provides the capitalization grant that helps fund the Revolving Fund program and includes additional requirements to administer the Revolving Fund. The appropriation includes requirements for compliance with the Davis Bacon Act (wage requirements), additional subsidies in the form of forgivable principal, and a mandate to provide funding for Green Project Reserve (GPR) projects. Ecology adopted amendments to the Revolving Fund administrative rule on September 29, 2011, to accommodate requirements for GPR projects and Forgivable Principal loans. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 The rule amendments include these changes: • Green Project Reserves Ecology must use an amount equal to a minimum of 25 percent, or an amount as specified in federal law, of the State’s capitalization grant for GPR, such as green infrastructure, water and energy efficiency projects, and environmentally innovative projects. For this funding cycle, the federal appropriation specified that 10 percent of the State’s capitalization grant be used for GPR. • Forgivable principal loans Ecology may use a portion of the Capitalization grant for forgivable principal loans for wastewater treatment construction projects that demonstrate financial hardship for ratepayers, for preconstruction projects, and for green project reserves. • Forgivable principal hardship award limits The maximum forgivable principal loan amount for each hardship recipient is $5 million. • Forgivable principal financial hardship The rule establishes the financial hardship continuum that Ecology must use to determine eligibility for a forgivable loan principal. The continuum uses the same hardship ratios as the ones used to determine hardship interest rate subsidy for wastewater treatment construction projects currently established in WAC 173-95A, Use and Limitations of the Centennial Clean Water Fund program. • Green Project Reserves award limits No more than half of the available funds in the category can go to any one applicant. Ecology can provide a maximum of 50 percent of total eligible project costs as forgivable principal loans. Rate study requirements for wastewater treatment construction projects The applicant must have a current rate study that includes the proposed project and an adopted fee ordinance before Ecology will sign a loan agreement. The utility rate proposed in the rate study must be adequate to pay for O&M, debt service, and replacement of short lived assets, and any other associated project costs. Investment grade efficiency audits Ecology may require funding recipients with wastewater treatment facilities projects to conduct an investment-grade audit (IGA). A condition in the state’s 2011-13 biennial Capital Budget requires Ecology to add a contract condition for IGAs to Centennial grants and Revolving Fund loans. House Bill 1497 of the 62nd legislature, Sec. 3024.and Sec. 3025 For the Department of Ecology reads: “For projects involving repair, replacement, or improvement of a wastewater treatment plant or other public works facility for which an investment grade audit is obtainable, the department of ecology must require as a contract condition that the project sponsor undertake an investment grade audit. The project sponsor may finance the costs of the audit as part of its centennial clean water program grant/ water pollution control revolving fund program loan”. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Water Quality Funding Cycle Process July 2012 - Jan 2013* * Estimated Dates Agreements cannot be signed and activated until the Final Offer List is published Application Submittal Rating and Ranking Issue Draft Offer List and Intended Use Plan 30-day Public Comment Period Agreement Development July 1, 2012* Feb -Mar 2012 Feb 2012 Nov 2011 – Jan 2012 Sep 1 - Nov 4 2011 Agreement Close-Out Agreement/Project Management Governor’s Proposed Budget Issue Final Offer List Intended Use Plan and Funding Letters April 10, 2012: Legislature Passes 2012 Supplemental Budget Sep 14, 15, 22, 28 Application Workshops 1-5 years Provide Legislature with List of Applications and Funding Needs Jan 2012 Current Step SFY 2013 Funding Cycle The SFY 2013 application cycle combines the three funding sources into one application process. From September 1 – November 4, 2011, Ecology accepted project proposals for its three major funding programs: Centennial, Section 319, and the Revolving Fund. A 30-day comment period for the Draft List began on February 10, 2012, and ended on March 12, 2012. Below is a diagram of the SFY 2013 funding cycle process. Figure 1 - SFY 2013 Combined Funding Cycle Process Proposed projects address issues such as: • Wastewater treatment plant upgrades to meet permit requirements including water reclamation and re-use facilities. • Sewer collection system improvements and combined sewer overflow correction. • On-site septic system surveys and repair and replacement. • Water pollution cleanup planning and implementation. • Riparian (streamside) restoration. • Implementation of water quality focused agricultural best management practices. • Stormwater management planning and implementation, including retrofit and low impact development. • Public information, outreach, and education. • Groundwater protection. • Water quality data collection and monitoring. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 Ecology must leverage available grant and loan funds to meet numerous water quality priorities across the state. Meeting these needs becomes a challenge as demand for funding increases. In an effort to maximize the use of all available funds for the highest priority projects, Ecology uses a statewide priority list of water quality projects. Ecology develops the priority list by evaluating project proposals based on the rating criteria established in statute, rule, and guidelines, and by using recommendations from stakeholders, clients, and other state and federal agencies. Public Outreach: Application Workshops and Draft List Comment Period Public outreach For the application cycle, held from September 1 – November 4, 2011, Ecology conducted a comprehensive outreach campaign that included mailing and emailing notifications to over 2,200 contacts, stakeholders, and clients. Ecology distributed to stakeholders and clients information about the funding programs, workshops, and the application period. In September 2011, Ecology held four public workshops across the state. At the workshops, staff presented information on the funding programs and the application process. The four workshops were held on: • September 14, 2011, Spokane • September 15, 2011, Ellensburg • September 22, 2011, Everett • September 28, 2011, Lacey Staff also conducted outreach at statewide conferences, meetings, technical workgroups, and information- sharing sessions whenever possible. Ecology evaluated and prioritized projects based on information provided in the applications that were received during the application cycle. A detailed description of the application and project evaluation process can be found on the Web at: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/cycles/2013/ Public meeting and comment period Ecology held one public meeting on February 27, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. to present an overview of the three funding programs and the process used to select projects for funding. The meeting took place at the Pierce County Library, PAC - Processing and Administrative Center in Tacoma. The meeting notice and other SFY 2013 funding cycle information are available at the following web page: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/funding.html At the public meeting, Ecology staff discussed the preparation of the List, answered questions, and outlined the schedule for development and publication of the SFY 2013 Final Offer List and Intended Use Plan. Ecology accepted written comments on the Draft List through March 12, 2012. Ecology received a total of 31 comments on the Draft List. Responses to written comments are provided in Appendix 4. ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 Criteria and Methods for Allocating Funds Ecology distributes funds to projects from each of the three funding programs based on project priority, project type (activity or facility), funding eligibility, and funding distribution criteria provided in statute, administrative rule, and program guidelines. The application rating and ranking criteria and points used for all projects included in this Final List are outlined below: Table 1 – Application Rating and Ranking Criteria Question • Rating Criteria Points Available Scope of Work • Complete and concise description of the project tasks and outcomes. Clear detailed description of deliverables, timelines, and purpose. • Project directly and measurably addresses a water quality problem. Up to 250 Proposed Budget • Complete project budget is consistent with the scope of work. • The cost estimate process is reasonable. • The project budget represents a good value for the work and water quality benefits achieved. Applicant identifies match sources. Up to 150 Water Quality and Public Health Improvement • How severe is the water quality problem and how well is it defined? • The project will achieve substantial water quality and public health benefits. • Project success can be measured, and proposed methods to measure success are reasonable. • The project provides long-term sustainability of water quality benefits operation and maintenance of the system, long-term on-site sewage program follow- up). Up to 250 Coordination with State and Federal Priorities • Example; how well does this project address permit requirements, enforcement orders, or implement the Puget Sound Partnership Action Agenda. Up to 100 Project team Up to 50 Project Development, Local Support, and Past Performance • A comprehensive decision making process was used to arrive at the proposed project. • Plans for long-term project success and sustainability will be considered. • The level of local support and commitment for the project. • Past performance on other water quality projects, including Ecology funded projects. Up to 75 Readiness to proceed • Project elements are in place for the project to proceed, such as technical prerequisites for planning, design, or implementation. Up to 75 Hardship • Sewer ratepayer impacts for small, financially-challenged communities. (Must meet hardship requirements). For wastewater construction projects only. 50 TOTAL Up to 1,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Ecology screened and verified eligibility of each proposal using funding program prerequisites and criteria provided by the EPA. Based on this screening, Ecology determined that four projects are ineligible for funding consideration. Ecology did not rate or rank the ineligible projects and placed them at the end of the final priority list table that follows this section. (See Appendix 1 of this report.) Two Ecology staff members with water quality technical expertise evaluated and scored each eligible proposal. Ecology used a third evaluator in cases where the two primary scores differed by more than ten percent. In those cases, the two closest scores were averaged. Finally, Ecology developed a statewide priority list of projects and used that list to distribute available funds to the highest priority projects in ranked order. (See Appendix 1 of this report.) To be eligible for funding, applications must receive at least 600 points on the entire application and 125 points on Part 2 - Question 3, Water Quality and Public Health Improvements. Nineteen otherwise eligible projects received scores below 600 points. Several projects requested funding consideration under the Green Project Reserves category but did not qualify for this funding category based on the EPA’s guidance. If two projects had the same total score, Ecology used scores for application questions on environmental benefit (Question 3) and readiness to proceed (Question 7) to break the tie. Ecology limited partial funding of projects to those where adequate levels of funding were available to meet the water quality objectives of the project. Ecology offered loans only to applicants that indicated that they would accept loan funds. The final dollar amounts and number of projects funded in this Final List have changed from those on the Draft List based on: • Comments received during the public review and comment period. • Changes in Legislative appropriation for Centennial Grants. • Changes to the amount of 319 funding available. • Difference in actual federal capitalization grant from the estimate in the Draft List. • Applicants declining funding offers. • A reduction in amount of Revolving Fund forgivable principal funding available. For details on specific changes see “Corrections and Changes to the Draft List” presented later in this document. (See page 22.) Potential changes in how Ecology allocates funds If, for any reason, additional funding is appropriated to Ecology for any of the programs in this Final List, Ecology will offer the additional funds to eligible projects on the Final List in ranked priority order. If, for any reason, the actual funding appropriated to Ecology for any of the programs listed in this Final List is decreased after the publication date of the Final List, Ecology may offer funding for fewer projects and less funding to individual projects based on ranked priority order. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Demand for Funds This Final List contains a list of all public bodies, tribes, and private non-profit organizations that applied for funding during SFY 2013 application period that ended November 4, 2011. The Final List identifies projects that are offered funding for the SFY 2013 funding cycle. Ecology is offering funding for projects based on the total amount of funds available for each fund source and fund category, and after ranking and prioritizing the eligible projects. The combined list of public bodies, tribes, and private non-profits considered for funding and those with projects offered funding are included in Appendix 1. Appendices 1a, 1b, and 1c list projects separated by funding program. Ecology received a total of 97 competitive applications, one refinance application, and has one prior funding commitment, for a total of 99 applications. The prior commitment is placed at the top of the priority list as an extended payment Centennial grant. The requests for water quality grant and loan projects totaled nearly $103.5 million. Appendix 2 shows Location Maps of All Projects Considered and Proposed for Funding. Table 2 provides a summary of applications received by project category. Table 2 – Funding Request by Category Category # of Projects Total Grant Request Total Loan Request Preconstruction 8 $0 $2,534,250 Wastewater Facility 18 $0 $50,831,783 Hardship Wastewater Facility 6 $0 $20,707,679 Nonpoint Source Activity 55 $10,421,565 $1,517,274 Onsite Sewage Repair and Replacement 2 $414,365 $174,960 Stormwater Activity 3 $261,000 $0 Stormwater Facility 7 0 $3,477,024 Refinance 1 $0 $3,251,094 Totals 99 $11,096,930 $82,494,064 Table 3 provides a summary of applications that Ecology staff determined to be eligible under the GPR categories. Table 3 – Eligible GPR Funding Request by Category Green Project Reserve Category Total number of eligible proposals received Total eligible request for funding Green Infrastructure 2 $1,388,274 Energy Efficiency 2 $4,557,000 Water Efficiency 0 $0 Environmentally Innovative 1 $174,960 Totals 5 $6,120,234 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Available Funding The following is a summary of the available funds for distribution for the SFY 2013 funding cycle, based on the 2012 Supplemental budget (Centennial and Revolving Fund) and Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012 federal appropriations for Section 319 and the Revolving Fund. Available funding is different from that shown on the Draft List due to changes in funding levels in the SFY 2012 State Supplemental Budget, the Federal Capitalization Grant, and the section 319 grant. Revolving Funds are occasionally carried over from the previous State Fiscal Year to the current State Fiscal Year. In SFY 2011, Spokane County notified Ecology that it no longer needed Revolving Fund dollars to complete the Spokane County Water Reclamation Project. Ecology signed binding commitments with Spokane County for the SFY 2010 Final IUP for $16,225,000. Spokane County was also on the SFY 2011 Final IUP for $16,225,000, for a total of $32,450,000 in funding commitments. Although Ecology has re-obligated a significant portion of these funds to other projects, Ecology has up to three years to fully obligate county funding on subsequent offer lists and is making efforts on the timely use of these funds. Revolving Fund amounts The funding levels for the Revolving Fund program for each fiscal year are based on federal appropriations, state legislative appropriations, repayments from past loans, interest on investments, and de-obligated funds. Table 4 shows how Ecology calculated the available funding for the Revolving Fund Program according to Chapter 173-98 WAC and federal requirements. Table 4 – Revolving Fund Funding Sources Revenue Category Amount Anticipated Capitalization Grant from the EPA $24,578,000 20-Percent State Match to Anticipated Federal Grant $4,915,600 Projected Principal and Interest Repayments for SFY12 $47,366,284 Projected Principal and Interest Repayments for SFY11 ($43,474,503) Actual Principal and Interest Repayments for SFY11 $42,581,597 Interest Earned on Investments for SFY11 $403,453 De-obligated Funds $0 Less 4 percent of Anticipated Federal Grant for Administration ($983,120) Total Estimated Revolving Fund Available for Projects $75,387,311 In allocating funds to Revolving Fund categories, Ecology has had to account for additional categories in the Appropriations Act of 2012. The Appropriations Act includes a requirement to fund at least ten percent of the value of the capitalization grant for Green Project Reserves (GPR). Ecology is also required to offer forgivable principal loans. Ecology must offer a minimum of approximately $1.37 million and a maximum of approximately $2.05 million in forgivable principal loans. Ecology made the maximum amount of forgivable principal funding available on this funding list. After allocating funding for the preconstruction category, Ecology divided the remaining forgivable principal dollars to facility hardship projects and GPR projects in priority order. ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Table 5 – Forgivable Principle Loan Funding Funding Category Amount Allocated Total Hardship FP GPR FP Preconstruction FP $2,048,934 $423,922 $392,887 $1,232,125 Centennial Program funding Based on an ongoing extended payment grant funding commitment, $5 million is allocated to Spokane County and the City of Spokane for their septic tank elimination program. The funding levels for the Centennial program for each fiscal year are based on splitting the biennial appropriation approximately in half and making these competitive funds available for each annual funding cycle. Table 6 shows how Ecology allocated the Centennial Program funds according to legislative direction and program policy. The total competitive funding available through Centennial is $8.52 million after funds are allotted for the Spokane extended payment grant. Table 6 – Centennial Funding Allocation Category Amount Spokane County/City Septic Tank Elimination Program (ongoing extended payment grant) $5,000,000 Hardship Facilities Projects for Residential Need $5,683,057 Nonpoint Source Pollution Projects $2,836,943 Total Centennial Funding $13,520,000 Section 319 Program funding The EPA provides Section 319 grant funds to the State and Ecology uses it to implement the State’s Nonpoint Source Plan. Table 7 shows how Ecology allocated the 319 Program funds according to federal requirements and program policy. Table 7 – Section 319 Funding Allocation Category Amount Nonpoint Source Pollution Projects $1,599,785 Total Section 319 Funding $1,599,785 ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 Funding Distribution Summary Statewide distribution summary All projects considered for and offered funding are described in Appendix 1. This ranked list of projects combines multiple lists based on multiple funding categories, funds available in the category, and project eligibility. So, some projects appear to be bypassed while other projects lower on the list are offered funding. For example, the application ranked 47 on the list is not proposed for funding while applications ranked lower on the list are. The application ranked 47 is a nonpoint source activities project that ranks too low to receive grant funding, and the applicant is unwilling to accept a loan. Several projects ranked lower than 47 are proposed for funding because they are facilities construction projects that are willing to accept loans. Funding offers are contingent on state and federal requirements and timelines; Ecology may withdraw these offers and redistribute the funds to other projects in priority order. In addition, if a funding offer is declined, Ecology may redistribute the funds to the next priority project(s). The demand for the Revolving Fund Activity Category was lower than the 20 percent allocated for that category; as a result, Ecology shifted money to the Revolving Fund Facilities Category as allowed by Chapter 173-98 WAC. Based on funding appropriated through the 2012 Supplemental Budget, Ecology is offering grant and loan funding for 57 projects totaling about $82.2 million. The projects offered funding are summarized by project type on Table 8. Table 8 – Projects Offered Funding by Project Type # of Projects Project Type Total Funding Funding Source 8 Preconstruction $2,534,250 Revolving Fund forgivable principal loans and standard loans 5* Hardship wastewater treatment facility construction projects $16,039,651 Centennial grants Revolving Fund forgivable principal loans and standard loans 16* Wastewater treatment facilities projects $47,154,367 Revolving Fund standard loans 1 Refinance - Wastewater treatment facilities projects $3,251,094 Revolving Fund standard loans 18* Nonpoint source activities projects $5,631,327 Revolving Fund standard loans Centennial grants Section 319 grants 2 Onsite sewage repair and replacement programs $347,635 Revolving Fund standard loans Centennial grants 6* Stormwater facilities projects $2,239,064 Revolving Fund standard loans 1 Extended payment grant for Spokane County/City septic tank elimination program $5,000,000 Centennial Grants 57 Total $82,197,388 * Five projects received GPR Funding; one stormwater facility, one wastewater facilities, one wastewater hardship facility, and two nonpoint source activities projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Table 9 shows the total number of GPR eligible projects including their categorical designations and those offered funding. Total proposed GPR Funding (standard loan and forgivable loan) is $5,988,236. Only the portion of the project that meets the GPR criteria, or is receiving SRF loan, is shown in the table. For example FP13066 and FP13057 both contain non GPR elements in the funded scope of work, and FP13016 also received Centennial Grant funding for categorical GPR elements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 Table 9 – GPR Projects Offered Funding Rank App Num Applicant Name Project Title GPR Categorical Designated Standard Loan Offered Forgivable Principal Offered 6 FP13066 Rock Island, City of Wastewater Treatment Plant & Side Sewers 3.2-2 $510,750 $170,250 7 FP13016 Bellingham, City of Squalicum Creek Water Quality and Biotic Integrity Improvements 1.2-7 $1,044,637 $222,637 49 FP13057 Spokane, City of Energy Generation Project 3.2-1 $3,876,000 $0 57 FP13023 Thurston Co. Public Health On-site Financial Assistance Program 4.2-6 $1,74,960 $0 63 FP13037 Tumwater, City of Somerset Hill Stormwater Outfall Retrofit 1.2-6 and 1.2-7 $121,000 $0 Total: $5,627,348 $392,887 Table 11 shows the total number of hardship projects proposed for funding. Table 10 –Hardship Projects Offered Funding Rank Application Number Applicant Name Project Title Centennial Grant Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered Revolving Fund Loan Offered Weighted Interest Rate Term in Years 1 FP13020 Granger Granger Wastewater System Improvements $1,246,140 $2,591,860 2.3% 20 2 FP13012 Mabton Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements $2,277,000 $2,123,000 2.1% 20 6 FP13066 Rock Island Wastewater Treatment Plant & Side Sewers $594,626 $170,250* $853,154* 2.1% 20 9 FP13024 Skokomish Tribe Potlatch Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) - Schedule B Collection System Construction $408,253 $794,282 2.4% 20 10 FP13026 Mason County Belfair WWTP "Get Connected" Phase 2 $1,157,038 $423,922 $3,400,126 2.7% 20 Total: $5,683,057 $594,172 $9,762,422 *The project FP13066 also included GPR elements. The forgivable principle is not provided as hardship subsidy, but as subsidy for the GPR elements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Interest rates shown above are a result of blending the hardship continuum interest rate for the existing residential population of the project at the time of application with the interest rate applied to the non- residential need portion of the project, such as flows for growth, industrial, institutional, or commercial properties. The non-residential portion of a hardship project may be eligible for funding, but not at the same subsidized interest rate as the residential portion. All of Ecology’s loans are subsidized to some extent, but the non-residential portion of a project is not eligible for the additional subsidy given to other hardship projects. For example, if the total project cost for facilities construction is $5,000,000 and the applicant demonstrates $3,000,000 in elevated hardship for existing residential need and $2,000,000 for industrial need, the weighted interest rate would be 1.6 percent. The weighted interest rate is based on the following calculation: Weighted interest rate = (($3,000,000) + ($2,000,000) /$5,000,000 = 1.6% Table 11 shows the total number of preconstruction projects proposed for funding. Table 11 –Preconstruction Category Funding Rank Application Number Applicant Name Project Title Funding Request 2009 Pop. Percent of State MHI Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered Revolving Fund Loan Offered 14 FP13007 Tekoa I & I Reduction Improvements Design $108,400 778 53% $54,200 $54,200 16 FP13049 Deer Park Lagoon Design Project $601,350 3,675 66% $300,675 $300,675 27 FP13087 Riverside Wastewater Facility Plan and Environmental Report $50,000 349 70% $25,000 $25,000 32 FP13081 Ilwaco Sahalee Sewer Improvements $44,500 936 77% $22,250 $22,250 35 FP13024 Skokomish Tribe Core Reservation WRF & Collection $700,000 478 58% $350,000 $350,000 40 FP13028 Rainier Wastewater Facility Plan $70,000 1,776 96% $0 $70,000 41 FP13029 Vader Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Design $900,000 615 74% $450,000 $450,000 64 FP13051 Deer Park Effluent Reuse Feasibility Study/General Sewers Plan Update $60,000 3,675 66% $30,000 $30,000 Total: $2,534,250 $1,232,125 $1,302,125 ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 To be eligible for preconstruction funding, an applicant must have a population of 25,000 or less and have a median household income (MHI) below the state MHI. If an applicant has a MHI below 80 percent of the state MHI, the project can receive up to half of the eligible project funding as a forgivable principal loan. The maximum that one project can receive in the Preconstruction category is 20 percent of the available funding in the category. Based on that rule, the ceiling amount is $729,295 (20% of $3,646,476). In order to maximize the amount of forgivable principal allocated to Preconstruction category projects in SFY 2013, the ceiling amount for preconstruction funding was increased to $900,000 as allowed through WAC 173-98-520. The City of Snohomish project (FP13069) qualified for preconstruction funding, but did not qualify for forgivable principle. The funding request for $2,220,000 is above the ceiling limit for this funding category. The application was funded through the Revolving Fund Facilities category because it ranked high enough on the funding list. Puget Sound distribution summary Of the 57 applicants offered funding on this Final List, 23 of them are located in the Puget Sound watershed. Table 12 shows the Puget Sound applicants offered funding sorted by project type. Table 12 – Puget Sound Projects Offered Funding by Project Type Number of Projects Project Type Total Funding Funding Source 2 Preconstruction $770,000 Revolving Fund forgivable principal loans and standard loans 2 Hardship wastewater treatment facility construction projects $5,396,642 Centennial grants Revolving Fund forgivable principal loans and standard loans 7 Wastewater treatment facilities projects $22,370,588 Revolving Fund standard loans 6 Nonpoint source activities projects $3,221,430 Revolving Fund standard loans Centennial grants Section 319 grants 1 Onsite Sewage Repair and Replacement Programs $174,960 Revolving Fund standard loans 5 Stormwater facilities projects $2,191,418 Revolving Fund standard loans 23 Total $34,125,038 Authority to Administer the Revolving Fund Title VI of the Clean Water Act provides the authority to administer the Revolving Fund and the Section 319 Grant Program. Additional authority for the Revolving Fund is found in State law under 90.50A RCW - Water Pollution Control Facilities – Federal Capitalization Grants. The following provides the framework and criteria for Ecology to administer the Revolving Fund, Centennial, and Section 319 programs: • Chapter 173-98 WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 • Chapter 173-95A WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Centennial Clean Water Program • Chapter 70.146 RCW, Water Pollution Control Facilities Financing • Program and agency policy and guidelines. • Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005) – (volumes I-V) & Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (2004). Assurances and Certifications for the Revolving Fund The necessary assurances and certifications required by the EPA and Title VI of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 have been included in the “Operating Agreement” between the state of Washington and the EPA. The following excerpt refers to the Revolving Fund program. Page five of the “Operating Agreement” states, “The Washington State Treasurer, as directed by legislative appropriation, will transfer into the Fund a matching capital contribution of either cash or a LOC, which equals 20 percent of each Federal grant payment on or before the date which Washington State receives the federal grant payment. When Washington State uses a LOC to effect its matching capital contribution, it shall deposit cash from that LOC equal to 20 percent of each cash draw from a capitalization grant payment into the Fund’s account on or before the date of the cash draw.” Note: LOC stands for letter of credit. Proposed Schedule of Payment from EPA to the State of Washington The EPA offers states capitalization grants each year according to a formula established in the Clean Water Act. The EPA funds the capitalization grant to Ecology in quarterly payments. The following table shows the FFY 2012 proposed schedule for Title VI Grant payments to the Revolving Fund program. Table 13 – Washington State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Offer List and Intended Use Plan Proposed Schedule of Payments from EPA to the State of Washington Federal Quarter Requested FFY 2012 Title VI Grant Payments 7/1/2012 $3,686,700 10/1/2012 $8,602,300 1/1/2013 $9,093,860 4/1/2013 $3,195,140 Total $24,578,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Ecology draws administrative funding equal to four percent of the capitalization grant from both federal funding and state match, at a ratio of 83.33 percent federal and 16.67 percent state match. Draws for loan funding are split between state match and federal funding at a ratio that ensures the full state match requirement is met for the overall award, including the federal/state split for administrative funding. Ecology ensures the match requirement is met by tracking the loan payments to recipients and adjusting the state/federal funding distribution as necessary. This loan funding ratio is currently 83.33 percent federal and 16.67 percent state match. Revolving Fund Uses and Terms of Loans Uses The Revolving Fund can be used to support projects in two funding categories: • Water pollution control facilities. • Nonpoint source pollution control and comprehensive estuary conservation and management. Terms Interest rates Ecology bases interest rates for non-hardship Revolving Fund projects on the average market interest rate for tax exempt municipal bonds (as published in the Bond Buyer’s Index). Based on Chapter 173-98 WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, Ecology calculated the average market rate before the opening of the application cycle, which began on September 1, 2011. The interest rate was calculated based on the daily market interest rate for the period from 60 days before the start of the application cycle to 30 days before the start of the application cycle. Ecology sets two different rates based on the length of the repayment period. The rates are a percentage of the market rate for tax-exempt municipal bonds. For SFY 2013, Ecology offers the following interest rate and repayment terms to applicants: Table 14 – Revolving Fund Interest Rates Repayment Period Interest Rate Up to five years: 1.4% Over five years but no more than 20 years: 2.7% Hardship interest rates Ecology considers recipients for financial hardship terms for the existing residential population at the time of application, if: • The proposed project has a service area population of 25,000 or below. • Financing of the project, without subsidy, would cause user charges to be two percent or more of the median household income. Table 15 is used to determine the financial hardship interest rates for hardship construction loans. If Ecology determines that financial hardship exists, it may structure base loan agreements with terms that reduce the financial impact to the rate payer. These terms could include a combination of lengthening the repayment period to 20 years and reducing the interest rate to as low as zero. ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Table 15 – Hardship Construction Loan Interest Rate Continuum Principal forgiveness for hardship construction projects Ecology uses the same method for determining hardship for interest rates to determine the amount of principal forgiveness allowed for hardship construction projects as shown in Table 16. Table 16 – Principal Forgiveness Loan Continuum Principal forgiveness and interest rates for Green Projects Reserves Ecology is proposing to provide 25 percent principal forgiveness loans for eligible project costs that meet the criteria of GPR. That portion of the loan principal not forgiven will carry the same interest rate as non- hardship loans. Water Quality Performance Measures Ecology agrees to complete and submit to EPA an environmental benefits reporting worksheet for projects that receive a loan for the SFY 2013 funding cycle. Ecology will strive to enter project information into the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Benefits Reporting database the day Ecology’s Water Quality Program Manager signs the loan agreement. Sewer User Fee divided by MHI Below 2.0% 2.0% and above, but Below 3.0% 3.0% and above, but below 5.0% 5.0% and above Hardship Designation Non-Hardship Low sewer user rates in relation to MHI (Not funded with grant dollars) Moderate Hardship Elevated Hardship Severe Hardship Very high sewer user rates in relation to median household income(MHI) Loan Hardship- Funding Continuum Loan at 60% of market rate Loan at 40% of market rate Loan at 20% of market rate Loan at 0% interest Sewer User Fee divided by MHI Below 2.0% 2.0% and above, but Below 3.0% 3.0% and above, but below 5.0% 5.0% and above Hardship Designation Non-Hardship Moderate Hardship Elevated Hardship Severe Hardship Very high sewer user rates in relation to median household income (MHI) Principal Forgiveness Loan Hardship- Funding Continuum Not eligible for principal forgiveness loan (ceiling amounts apply) 50% principal forgiveness loan (ceiling amounts apply) 75% principal forgiveness loan (ceiling amounts apply) 100% principal forgiveness loan (ceiling amounts apply) ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Growth Management Act Compliance To be eligible for grant and loan funding, certain applicants with facilities projects must be in compliance with Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA). For Ecology’s purposes, applicants must comply with the requirements for comprehensive planning and development regulations (see RCW 36.70A, Growth Management-Planning by Selected Counties and Cities, and RCW 70.146.070, Water Pollution Control Facilities Financing). Ecology may make exceptions in situations involving a public health need or a significant environmental degradation. Ecology includes the Revolving Fund in this prohibition because: • The state’s match for the federal funds comes from the Water Quality Account (source of the Centennial fund). • There is a need for consistency between the funding programs. • Ecology must comply with legislative intent and the statutory requirements of the GMA. Any public body required to comply with the GMA must certify its compliance with the applicable GMA requirements at the time a loan or grant agreement is signed, unless exceptional situations exist. The public body certifies its compliance by signing the loan or grant agreement. GMA compliance impacts the program in several ways: 1. GMA compliance status may have an impact on the priority evaluation of proposed facilities projects, because facilities projects in areas out of compliance with the GMA may not be ready to proceed. 2. Ecology coordinates with the Washington State Department of Commerce to ensure the applicants are in compliance when the financial assistance agreement is signed. Loan and grant offers are effective for six months from the publish date of the Final List. If GMA compliance is achieved during that time period, the agreement may be signed. 3. Ecology exceptions do not relieve applicants of their responsibilities to comply with the GMA requirements. However, under certain circumstances Ecology will make temporary exceptions to the GMA compliance requirement if the proposed projects are required to address a “serious public health need” or a “significant environmental degradation.” Such determinations based on designations proposed by applicants are scrutinized very carefully and determinations are made on a case-by-case basis. For details on the processes for determining these situations, see Chapter 173-98- 710 WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Water Pollution Control Fund and Chapter 173-95A-610 WAC, Uses and Limitations of Centennial Clean Water Funds. All public bodies required to plan under the GMA and proposed for funding on this Final List are in compliance with the GMA or will be before they receive funding. The GMA does not affect activity project applications, such as watershed planning, water quality monitoring, public information and education, etc. Also unaffected are facilities projects proposed by public bodies not planning under the GMA. For facilities projects proposed by special districts (such as sewer districts or public utility districts), the jurisdiction in which the facility is located must be in compliance with GMA if that jurisdiction is required to plan under the GMA. Corrections and Changes to the Draft List Changes in funding levels Funding levels on the Final List have changed in several funding categories from estimates on the Draft List. Listed below are changes in funding from the Draft List to the Final List. ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Revolving Fund Capitalization Grant • The FFY 2012 federal capitalization grant was approximately $1.5 million more than estimated on the Draft List. • This increase in the capitalization grant also increased the minimum funding Ecology was required to provide for GPR projects. The minimum amount for GPR projects is approximately $2.5 million. • The federal appropriation changed the formula to reduce the amount of the capitalization grant available as forgivable principle by approximately $0.5 million, compared to the estimate in the draft list. The range for forgivable principal loans is a minimum of $1.37 million with a maximum of $2.05 million. Revolving Fund de-obligations De-obligated funds have decreased on the Final List from $667,000 down to $0 on the final. Ecology was able to allocate all the deobligated funds to projects on the SFY12 IUP. De-obligated funds are loan funds committed to projects where the funding recipient does not use all or part of the funds after the date that the next draft list is published. Recipients do not use funds for a variety of reasons including lower than expected project costs, use of other funds, or the project not proceeding forward. Centennial The 2012 supplemental Capital Budget provided the Centennial program with $13,520,000 for FY13 funding cycle. This is an increase of $540,000 from the estimate on the Draft List. Section 319 The Section 319 funding on the Final List is $1,599,785, a decrease of $278,696 from the Draft List. The decrease is due to a decrease in the federal 319 grant from previous years. Changes to project funding requests The City of Deer Park declined funding for two design and construct projects (FP13049 and FP13050). The City asked that Ecology reduce their total funding request to just the design costs for the two projects. Ecology granted the request, withdrawing application FP13050 and reducing the funding request for FP13049. Limited Demand for Funding Limited demand for loan funding This funding cycle experienced lower than normal demand for loan funding. There is approximately $8,000,000 in available SRF loan funds shown in Table 4 that Ecology was not able to assign to projects. There was much more demand for grant and forgivable principle funding than available funding. Typically Ecology receives requests for loan funding equal to approximately twice the amount of loan funding available. It is not clear why the demand for loans was low this year, but there are several possible contributing factors, including: the generally depressed economic situation statewide, competition from the Public Works Trust fund loan program, a lack of large construction projects this year, and a continuing ripple effect from the return of $32 million in loans from Spokane County in FY2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Depressed economic conditions. The economic outlook in many parts of the state continues to be depressed, and communities are still cautious about investing in high cost public work projects. This factor will change as the economic outlook improves. Funding available from the Public Works Trust Fund loan program. The SRF loan program offers subsidized interest loans, tying our interest rates to 60% of the tax exempt municipal bond market interest rate. Ecology’s current (non hardship) interest rate on loans is 2.7%. Although this is very competitive compared to the bond market, in Washington State, the SRF program also faces competition from the Public Works Trust Fund (Trust Fund), a state funded revolving loan program created to finance water, sewer, road, bridge and solid waste projects. The Trust Fund is currently offering financing at 1% interest. Some communities have withdrawn applications, or chosen not to apply to the SRF, instead applying to the Trust Fund Program. Efforts to coordinate with the trust fund to reduce these impacts to SRF demand are underway. Lack of large construction projects. This year’s list of funded projects is also unique in that the largest (dollar value) project receiving funding is for approximately $5.5 million. Usually there is at least one large project with a construction cost estimate of $20+ million. It is not clear why this occurred. It may be because communities are postponing expensive construction projects until the economy improves. It may also be that the SRF loan program is experiencing a temporary lull in the “project pipeline”. This funding cycle includes almost twice as many planning and design projects than the SRF has funded in the previous four funding cycles. Carryover funding. In SFY 2011, Spokane County declined a binding commitment and an offer of funding on the SFY 2011 Final IUP for a total of $32,450,000. Ecology was able to allocate, or re- allocate, the funding to projects on the SFY 11 and SFY12 Final IUP. There was no carryover funding from SFY12 list to the SFY13 list. The influx of funds in SFY11 and SFY12 may have met demand for projects that would have otherwise applied for funding in SFY13. Response to limited demand for funding Because of the limited demand, Ecology reviewed the projects on the funding list that had scored below 600 points. Chapter 173-98-200 WAC directs ecology to reconsider low scoring project applications for loan funding in the event that there is inadequate demand for funding. There was one project scoring below 600 points that had requested loan funding, FP13060 for the City of Spokane. This project is offered funding in the funding list. This low demand may be a one-time fluke that will naturally correct itself in the future. However; Ecology feels that it is prudent to take steps now to increase demand for funding and address the contributing factors to the low demand. Ecology has developed the following plan to increase demand for SRF funding in future funding cycles. Coordination with the Public Works Trust Fund. Ecology has been meeting regularly with the staff of the Public Works Board to discuss and address ways to decrease conflict between our two funding programs. Discussion topics include normalizing our rate structures, coordinating our processes, and developing “co-funding” offers for projects. The Public Works Board has expressed a clear desire to work with Ecology to ensure the full utilization of SRF funds. Marketing SRF loans to traditional SRF projects. The SRF loan program has traditionally invested the majority of the loans in wastewater treatment and conveyance projects. Ecology is currently conducting the 2012 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey and is aware of a large number of potential projects in communities all across the state. Ecology NPDES permit staff work with communities statewide that are facing upgrades and modifications to treatment facilities in the near term. Our outreach efforts will focus on needs identified in the needs survey and emerging needs identified by permit writers. ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 Marketing SRF loans to non-traditional SRF projects. Historically, Ecology has had some success in providing loans to nonpoint pollution projects. In an effort to ensure that sufficient demand exists for loan funding in the future, Ecology will increase marketing efforts for nonpoint projects. Ecology has traditionally received loan applications from Cities and Counties, with Special Purpose Districts and Tribes submitting significantly fewer applications. Looking forward to FY14 Ecology intends to focus marketing efforts on Tribes, Water and Sewer Districts, Irrigation Districts, septic system local loan funds, and agricultural projects. ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 This page purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 1 List of Projects Considered and Proposed for Funding Appendix 1 contains a Final Combined Summary List of all applications for the SFY 2013 in ranked priority order. The Final Combined Summary List displays a variety of information for each application including proposed funding for each of the four funding categories. Information provided on the Final Combined Summary List includes: Field Explanation Applicant Name Name of jurisdiction applying for funding. Application Number Unique identifier number used to track application. Project Title Name of project. Project Category Categories used to identify potential funding source for applications. Categories are: Hardship Wastewater Facility, Nonpoint Source Activity, Onsite Septic Repair and Replacement, Stormwater Activity, Stormwater Facility, Wastewater Facility Rank Priority order of application by total score. Total Points Total number of points awarded based on rating and ranking criteria. County County in which project is located. Grant Funds Requested Amount of grant funding requested by applicant. Loan Funds Requested Amount of loan funding requested by applicant. Centennial Grant Funding Offered Amount of grant funding offered to applicant from the Centennial fund. Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Amount of grant funding offered to applicant from the 319 fund. Revolving Fund Loan Offered Amount of loan funding offered to applicant from the Revolving Fund. Forgivable Principal Revolving Fund Loan Offered Amount of forgivable principal funding offered to applicant from the Revolving Fund. Footnotes Explanation or comment on application or offered funding. In addition to the Combined Summary List, separate, more detailed funding lists for each funding program are provided in the following Appendices: Appendix 1a – Final Revolving Fund Summary List Appendix 1b – Final Centennial Summary List Appendix 1c – Final 319 Summary List ---PAGE BREAK--- This page is purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Spokane N/A N/A $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $0 1 Applicant Name: Project Title: Spokane Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Wastewater Facility Spokane County/City Application Number: FP13EPG Project Category: The purpose of this project is to reduce on-site sewage disposal systems (on-site septic systems) within the Spokane-Rathdum Prairie Aquifer Sensitive Area of the Spokane County's sewer service area. It is funded with a special Legislative proviso. $0 Yakima 1 950 $1,246,140 $3,838,000 $1,246,140 $0 $2,591,860 20 2.3 2, 3, 4 Applicant Name: Project Title: Granger Wastewater System Improvements Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Granger, City of Application Number: FP13020 Project Category: % The Granger WWTP is at 92% capacity and needs improvements to ensure continued service to the community. Improvements consist of 1) replacing 2,500 lf of sewer mainline, 2) relocating the headworks, 3) new anoxic selector tank, 4) new oxidation ditch, 5) new drying beds, 6) sampling building, and 7) relocating outfall. $0 Yakima 2 940 $2,277,000 $4,400,000 $2,277,000 $0 $2,123,000 20 2.1 2, 3, 4, 6 Applicant Name: Project Title: Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Mabton, Town of Application Number: FP13012 Project Category: % The project is for the design and construction of an upgrade to the City‟s existing Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) in order to meet new NPDES permit requirements, improve system reliability and redundancy, and to increase the capacity of the WWTF. $0 Snohomish 3 930 $0 $2,220,000 $0 $0 $2,220,000 20 2.7 4, 20 Applicant Name: Project Title: Everett Conveyance Project - Final Design Preconstruction Snohomish, City of Application Number: FP13069 Project Category: % The Everett Conveyance Project will transfer wastewater from the City of Snohomish to the City of Everett‟s wastewater system for treatment at Everett‟s Water Pollution Control Facility. This project includes design of modifications to the existing Snohomish WWTP, new pump station, new force main, associated permitting, and easement acquisition. $0 Spokane 4 897.5 $0 $4,968,000 $0 $0 $4,968,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 14 Applicant Name: Project Title: CSO Basin 41 Control Facility Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Spokane, City of Application Number: FP13059 Project Category: % CSO Basin 41 Control Facility will construct a control facility to reduce combined sewer overflows to the Spokane River. The facilities will consist of an underground storage tank, flow control features, cleaning system, and connecting pipe. Appendix 1, Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Spokane 5 897.5 $0 $4,521,400 $0 $0 $4,521,400 20 2.7 3, 4, 14 Applicant Name: Project Title: CSO Basin 33-2 Control Facility Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Spokane, City of Application Number: FP13058 Project Category: % CSO Basin 33-2 Control Facility will construct a control facility to reduce combined sewer overflows to the Spokane River. The facilities will consist of an underground storage tank, flow control features, cleaning system, and connecting pipe. $170,250 Douglas 6 895 $594,626 $1,023,404 $594,626 $0 $853,154 20 2.3 2, 3, 4, 5 Applicant Name: Project Title: Rock Island Wastewater Treatment Plant & Side Sewers Wastewater Facility Rock Island, City of Application Number: FP13066 Project Category: % Construction of onsite residential side sewer connections, individual septic tank decommissioning, and a new wastewater treatment plant for the City of Rock Island. No collection or wastewater treatment currently exists. This proposal addresses critical local issues, including protection of groundwater and surface water, public health, and the environment. This project meets categorical GPR requirements 3.2-2 under Energy Efficiency category. $222,637 Whatcom 7 892.5 $500,000 $1,767,274 $500,000 $0 $1,044,637 20 2.7 4, 5, 7, 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Squalicum Creek WQ and Biotic Integrity Improvements Nonpoint Source Activity Bellingham, City of Application Number: FP13016 Project Category: % This grant implements actions that exceed recommendations in the Squalicum Creek Temperature TMDL to improve water temperature, DO, ESA salmon habitat, and beneficial uses in Squalicum Creek. Actions include re-routing 3,000 feet of degraded stream to increase effective shade; supporting implementation of CMZ regulatory protection; and implementing robust educational and monitoring programs. This project is eligible under the CWA Section 319 Nonpoint Source category based on implementation of actions identified in Washington‟s Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution, Volume 3: Management Strategies (Pub # 05-10-027); Table 5.1: Actions to Manage Nonpoint Pollution in Washington State discusses actions that can be taken to restore and maintain degraded habitat (page 57). This project meets categorical GPR requirements 1.2-7 under Green Infrastructure category. Appendix 1, Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Klickitat 8 890 $0 $2,353,000 $0 $0 $2,353,000 20 2.7 3, 4 Applicant Name: Project Title: Sewer Collection System Improvements Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Goldendale, City of Application Number: FP13070 Project Category: % The City will replace aging sewer interceptors and side sewers that are located in or near the floodplain of the Little Klickitat River. The aging pipe contributes excessive amounts of infiltration and inflow into the collection system. The City will also replace the aging, undersized Mill Street Lift Station. $0 Mason 9 887.5 $408,253 $1,202,535 $408,253 $0 $794,282 20 2.4 2, 3, 4 Applicant Name: Project Title: Potlatch Reclam. Facility Collection System Construction Wastewater Facility Skokomish Indian Tribe (as fiscal agent pursuant to the Tri-Party Consortium MOU) Application Number: FP13025 Project Category: % The Tri-Party Consortium proposes to construct a 0.055 MGD Membrane Bioreactor Wastewater Reclamation Facility and collection system to provide sanitary sewer service with upland disposal to the Potlatch Bubble Area, located on lower Hood Canal. The sewer service area includes the northern portion of the Skokomish Indian Reservation and Potlatch State Park. $423,922 Mason 10 877.5 $1,580,960 $4,981,086 $1,157,038 $0 $3,400,126 20 2.7 2, 3, 4, 6 Applicant Name: Project Title: Belfair WWTP "Get Connected" Phase 2 Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Mason County Application Number: FP13026 Project Category: % An essential component of the Belfair Water Reclamation project includes design and construction of 3 pump stations, 187 lateral sewers, to provide 187 connections (1915-2200 ERUs). These additional connections will divert wastewater from an equivalent of 171 existing septic systems to the treatment facility greatly reducing contaminants to Hood Canal. $0 Spokane 11 871 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 5 1.4 3, 4 Applicant Name: Project Title: Engineering Report Wastewater Facility Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District Application Number: FP13067 Project Category: % Project to update the Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District Engineering Report to meet new TMDL and NPDES permit requirements. The report will address upgrades to the Water Reclamation Plant to meet reclaimed water standards and meet TMDL, NPDES permit, and “offset” requirements. Plant upgrade to address state of the art filtration to meet stringent Spokane River TMDL standards for dissolved oxygen. Reclaimed water system planning to include purple pipe distribution system, necessary easements, pipe sizing, pumping systems and desired locations for reuse. Project to include review of cultural impacts of plant upgrade and review of any biological impacts to receiving waters. Appendix 1, Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Walla Walla 12 869 $499,100 $0 $0 $499,100 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: CREPCostshare/Maintenance Funding Nonpoint Source Activity Walla Walla County Conservation District Application Number: FP13064 Project Category: This grant will be used to support the CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) within Walla Walla County (WRIA 32). CREP is the major program within the County that landowners use to establish riparian forested buffers. $0 Klickitat 13 867.5 $249,820 $0 $249,820 $0 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: White Salmon River Fecal Coliform Implementation Project Nonpoint Source Activity Underwood Conservation District Application Number: FP13047 Project Category: This project addresses sources of fecal coliform throughout the White Salmon River watershed by working with landowners to implement livestock management BMPs near streams. On-site septic system maintenance information will be disseminated to the public, and fecal coliform evaluation monitoring will be performed. $54,200 Whitman 14 856 $0 $108,400 $0 $0 $54,200 5 1.4 3, 4, 21 Applicant Name: Project Title: Tekoa Infiltration and Inflow Reduction Design Project Preconstruction Tekoa, City of Application Number: FP13007 Project Category: % The City of Tekoa experiences significant infiltration and inflow (I/I) into their sanitary sewer system.This project will prepare design documents to replace sections of sewer that were identified as allowing significant I/I into the system. $0 Pacific 15 853.5 $0 $794,000 $0 $0 $794,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 10 Applicant Name: Project Title: First Avenue North Sewer Improvements Wastewater Facility Ilwaco, City of Application Number: FP13080 Project Category: % This project will replace two deteriorated and leaking AC sewers in the Hwy. 101 corridor with a single gravity sewer and a tributary 8-inch sewer in Ash Street. The project will eliminate I/I and the potential for sewage exfiltration during periods of low groundwater. $300,675 Spokane 16 852.5 $300,675 $601,350 $0 $0 $300,675 5 1.4 3, 4, 21 Applicant Name: Project Title: Wastewater Storage Lagoon #1 and #2 Upgrade Step 4: Design & Construction Pre-Construction Deer Park, City of Application Number: FP13049 Project Category: % This project will replace the lagoon liners in Lagoon #1 and #2 and install leak collection/detection systems. Existing intake and control structures will be replaced, and a new level control structure will be constructed. Influent baffles and effluent structures will be replaced and a permanent disinfection system will be installed. Appendix 1, Page 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 King 17 850 $0 $4,644,790 $0 $0 $4,644,790 20 2.7 3, 4, 6 Applicant Name: Project Title: Barton CSO Beach Project (Final Design) Wastewater Facility King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division Application Number: FP13041 Project Category: % Development of final design to control combined sewer overflows (CSOs) at the Barton CSO basin with installation of rain gardens in the right-of-way along 32 to 64 half-blocks in the Sunrise Heights and Westwood neighborhoods east of 35th Avenue SW. $0 Kitsap 18 846 $285,306 $0 $285,306 $0 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Dyes Inlet Pathogen Removal Project Nonpoint Source Activity Kitsap County Health District Application Number: FP13014 Project Category: This project will implement recommendations from the Health District‟s 2005-2009 Dyes Inlet Restoration Project and tasks identified in the TMDL Implementation Plan. The project will correct sources such as failing septic systems, animal waste, boat waste, and stormwater illicit discharges. $0 King 19 842.5 $0 $2,947,050 $0 $0 $2,947,050 20 2.7 3, 4, 6 Applicant Name: Project Title: North Beach CSO Control (Final Design) Wastewater Facility King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division Application Number: FP13043 Project Category: % Development of final design to control combined sewer overflows (CSOs) at the North Beach CSO basin with construction of a new 0.23 million gallon storage pipeline located in Triton Drive NW and NW Blue Ridge Drive public right-of-way. $0 King 20 827.5 $0 $5,001,000 $0 $0 $5,001,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 6 Applicant Name: Project Title: Murray CSO Control (Final Design) Wastewater Facility King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division Application Number: FP13042 Project Category: % Development of final design to control combined sewer overflows (CSOs) at the Murray CSO basin with construction of a new 1.0-million-gallon storage tank on the east side of Beach Drive SW near Lowman Beach Park. $0 King 21 825 $0 $5,193,826 $0 $0 $5,193,826 20 2.7 3, 4, 6, 14 Applicant Name: Project Title: South Magnolia CSO Control (Final Design) Wastewater Facility King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division Application Number: FP13044 Project Category: % Development of final design to control combined sewer overflows (CSOs) at the South Magnolia CSO basin with construction of approximately 1.8 million gallon (MG) storage tank outside the basin on a site located on Port of Seattle property known as West Terminal 91. Appendix 1, Page 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Grays Harbor 22 825 $0 $1,452,379 $0 $0 $1,452,379 20 2.7 3, 4, 14 Applicant Name: Project Title: Hoquiam Wastewater Forcemain Replacement Wastewater Facility Hoquiam, City of Application Number: FP13019 Project Category: % The City of Hoquiam will construct the replacement of the top priority segment (approximately 0.5 miles) of its failing wastewater treatment plant influent forcemain that has experienced numerous leaks and breaks in the last several years. $0 Spokane 23 810 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 17 Applicant Name: Project Title: Wastewater Storage Lagoon #3 Upgrade Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Deer Park, City of Application Number: FP13050 Project Category: This project will replace the Lagoon #3 liner and a leak collection/detection system will be installed. The outlet structure will be replaced, a new level control structure will be installed between lagoons, and a variable level control structure will constructed to improve water quality at the point of land application. $0 Walla Walla 24 809 $285,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 Applicant Name: Project Title: City of Walla Walla Stormwater Master Plan Stormwater Walla Walla, City of Application Number: FP13091 Project Category: The Stormwater Master Plan will identify existing deficiencies as well as recommend capital improvement projects, policies, activities, and programs formulated to improve water quality and preserve and enhance hydrological systems. It is intended to address the existing unknown elements of the stormwater system and to guide stormwater management planning. $0 Clark 25 807 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Salmon Creek Watershed Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Clark Public Utilities Application Number: FP13076 Project Category: The Salmon Creek Watershed Restoration Project will address multiple water quality impairments through re-establishing vegetation in riparian corridors; streamside fencing to exclude livestock; removal of non-native invasive species to increase riparian plant diversity and thereby floodplain function and stabilize streambanks to decrease turbidity. $0 Walla Walla 26 806.5 $216,129 $0 $216,129 $0 $0 19, 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Creating Urban Riparian Buffers Nonpoint Source Activity Walla Walla County Conservation District Application Number: FP13039 Project Category: Creating Urban Riparian Buffers will install riparian buffers and offer public education about riparian areas, proper waste disposal, and best practices for lawn care. Riparian buffers will reduce sediment, provide shade, and filter runoff to produce measurable improvements in water quality. Appendix 1, Page 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $25,000 Okanogan 27 805 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $25,000 5 1.4 3, 4, 21 Applicant Name: Project Title: Riverside Wastewater Facility Plan and Environ. Report Preconstruction Riverside, Town of Application Number: FP13087 Project Category: % Develop a Wastewater Facility Plan (WFP) and environmental report for a new wastewater collection and treatment facility. These reports will be reviewed and approved by Ecology then adopted by the Town Council. $0 Mason 28 797.5 $0 $350,000 $0 $0 $350,000 5 1.4 3, 4, 30 Applicant Name: Project Title: Canyon Creek Improvements Design Project Stormwater Shelton, City of Application Number: FP13034 Project Category: % This project will identify alternatives, make a recommendation, and complete design documents for construction to resolve stormwater issues from Canyon Creek, a tributary to Shelton Creek. Lack of Canyon Creek flow capacity is causing flooding, has impacted Shelton Creek water quality identified in a recent TMDL publication for fecal coliform bacteria, and causes fish habitat issues. $0 Ferry 29 793 $234,375 $0 $234,375 $0 $0 14, 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Sanpoil Coordinated Implementation Project (SCIP) Nonpoint Source Activity Ferry Conservation District Application Number: FP13005 Project Category: The Sanpoil Coordinated Implementation Plan (SCIP) will restore more of the Sanpoil River watershed to proper functioning condition (PFC). Ferry Conservation District will use information on stream health reported in the Upper Sanpoil & West Fork Sanpoil River Watershed Action Plan to determine the project plans and plans of action. $0 Yakima 30 793 $177,500 $0 $0 $177,500 $0 14, 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Yakima Basin Riparian Planting Nonpoint Source Activity Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group Application Number: FP13096 Project Category: The Yakima Basin Riparian Planting project will protect water quality by converting ten acres of pasture to native riparian forest, installing backyard conservation buffers on nine residential properties, and involving 500 area schoolchildren in riparian restoration. Native trees and shrubs shade waterbodies, intercept nonpoint source pollution, and reduce sediment input. Appendix 1, Page 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Pierce 31 782.5 $215,891 $0 $215,891 $0 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Meeker Creek Riparian & Stream Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Puyallup, City of Application Number: FP13027 Project Category: The Meeker Creek Riparian and Stream Restoration Project will remove 1,000 linear feet of the 4,385-foot Meeker Creek from its trapezoidal ditch and return it to a natural, meandering stream channel. This project will restore over 100,000 square feet of riparian habitat and allow for natural expansion of the adjacent wetland. $22,250 Pacific 32 775 $0 $44,500 $0 $0 $22,250 5 1.4 3, 4, 21 Applicant Name: Project Title: Sahalee Sewer Improvements Preconstruction Ilwaco, City of Application Number: FP13081 Project Category: % The sewers and lift station in the Sahalee neighborhood were installed in the 1970s. Pulled joints in the sewer have resulted in the discharge of raw sewage. The lift station is structurally unsound and mechanically unreliable. This project will provide planning, environmental review and public participation for system replacement. $0 Whitman 33 769.5 $249,000 $0 $249,000 $0 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Rock Creek and Adams Agricultural BMP Partnership Nonpoint Source Activity Palouse Rock Lake Conservation District Application Number: FP13090 Project Category: Palouse Rock-Lake Conservation District, in partnership with Adams Conservation District, have implemented a project that will greatly improve the water quality of local streams by constructing riparian buffers along 12 miles of stream and through cost-share programs. The project will increase the use of Direct Seed systems and reduce soil erosion. $0 Pend Oreille 34 768.5 $213,747 $0 $213,747 $0 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Little Spokane River Watershed Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Pend Oreille Conservation District Application Number: FP13046 Project Category: This project will utilize partnerships with area Lake associations, local, state and federal agencies (NRCS) to address water quality concerns by implementing BMP‟s that target sources of high fecal coliform bacteria, temperature, pH, and sediment identified in the Department of Ecology‟s Little Spokane River (LSR) TMDL study. $350,000 Mason 35 765 $0 $700,000 $0 $0 $350,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 21 Applicant Name: Project Title: Core Reservation WRF & Collection (Pre-Construction) Preconstruction Skokomish Tribe (as fiscal agent to the Tri-Party Consortium MOU) Application Number: FP13024 Project Category: % The Skokomish Tribe will construct a 0.11 MGD Membrane BioReactor Wastewater Treatment Facility and collection system to provide sanitary sewer service with upland infiltration of advanced secondary effluent for the Skokomish Core Reservation community, between the mouth of the Skokomish River and US 101 on Hood Canal. Appendix 1, Page 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Kittitas 36 765 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 14, 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: West Wilson at Brooklane Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Central Washington University Application Number: FP13071 Project Category: The West Wilson at Brooklane Restoration will reduce inputs of fecal coliform and heat along 0.3 miles of an urban stream. The ditched stream will be relocated to a constructed channel meandering through 8 revegetated acres. The project will increase shade and hyporheic connectivity, while decreasing lawn and road pollution. $0 Snohomish 37 765 $238,875 $0 $0 $238,875 $0 14, 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Little Pilchuck Streamkeepers Nonpoint Source Activity Adopt A Stream Foundation Application Number: FP13092 Project Category: The Adopt A Stream Foundation (AASF) and partners will work with landowners in Dubuque and Little Pilchuck Creeks to identify practices that contribute to pollution and habitat degradation. AASF will: compile information on landowner practices and riparian conditions, educate watershed residents about how to assure healthy streams, create implementation plans, and work with willing landowners to implement at least 10 significant projects. $0 Thurston 38 762 $288,453 $384,603 $0 $0 $96,151 20 2.7 3, 4, 26 Applicant Name: Project Title: Cleveland Avenue Stormwater Outfall Retrofit Stormwater Tumwater, City of Application Number: FP13035 Project Category: % The City intends to retrofit the Cleveland Avenue stormwater outfall to address pollutant loading issues to the Deschutes River, a 303(d) listed waterbody. The retrofit will consist of daylighting the current piped outfall and constructing green infrastructure that includes a bio-filtration swale designed for the infiltration, evapotranspiration, and conveyance of stormwater runoff. $0 Asotin 39 761.5 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Straight to Implementation Riparian Enhancement Nonpoint Source Activity Asotin County Conservation District Application Number: FP13062 Project Category: The Straight to Implementation Riparian Enhancement Project will improve riparian health and water quality in Asotin County by providing financial and technical assistance to cooperators to implement projects including fencing, off-stream watering, riparian planting, stream crossings and livestock feeding BMPs. Important project components also include effectiveness monitoring and public outreach. Appendix 1, Page 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Thurston 40 755 $0 $70,000 $0 $0 $70,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 20 Applicant Name: Project Title: City of Rainier Wastewater Facility Plan Preconstruction Rainier, City of Application Number: FP13028 Project Category: % This project will develop a complete General Sewer / Facility Plan based on the City of Rainier Sewer Feasibility Study completed in March 2011. $450,000 Lewis 41 749.5 $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $450,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 21 Applicant Name: Project Title: Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Design Preconstruction Vader, City of Application Number: FP13029 Project Category: % This project will include preparation of an amendment to the City of Vader‟s Wastewater Facilities Plan to evaluate the cost effective alternative for providing wastewater treatment for the community. The project will prepare Plans and Specifications for the cost effective alternative recommended in the approved Facility Plan Amendment. $0 Pacific 42 749 $172,675 $0 $172,675 $0 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Pacific County OSS Repair Program On-Site Septic System Pacific County Application Number: FP13009 Project Category: Pacific County is proposing to establish a financial assistance program to repair deficient (sub-optimal) and failed on-site septic systems (OSS). The program will reduce sewage contamination of surface and groundwater, will ensure the County‟s shellfish industry is not impacted by contaminated waters, and will alleviate any public health issues from contaminated waters. The program will also provide an incentive for landowners by helping to reduce the financial burden of on-site septic system repairs by providing a low interest loan, and some cases, a limited grant program for low income households. $0 Spokane 43 745.5 $75,000 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Riparian Restoration in Hangman Creek Nonpoint Source Activity The Lands Council Application Number: FP13095 Project Category: By enhancing and restoring riparian buffers, completing streambank restoration projects, and conducting public education and outreach, The Lands Council will work to reduce fecal coliform bacteria, temperature, and turbidity and improve water quality and public health in the degraded Hangman Creek watershed in eastern Washington. Appendix 1, Page 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Okanogan 44 738 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Instream improvements for temperature abatement Nonpoint Source Activity Methow Conservancy Application Number: FP13079 Project Category: The project documents the reductions in stream temperature realized through restoring beavers to stream systems where they once occurred naturally. A broad education effort for multiple audiences helps users recognize the water quality benefits of riparian and wetland restoration with beavers. $0 King 45 732.5 $109,310 $0 $0 $109,310 $0 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Lower Snoqualmie Mainstem Riparian Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Sound Salmon Solutions Application Number: FP13093 Project Category: This project addresses high water temperature and fecal colliform inputs from livestock by providing a continuous riparian buffer along 1.5 miles of the Snoqualmie River and using exclusion fencing. Increased shade will help reduce water temperatures that exceed state standards to benefit listed salmonids. Vegetated buffers also reduce levels of fecal coliform bacteria improving water quality for health considerations. $0 Okanogan 46 732.5 $168,381 $0 $0 $0 $0 12, 14 Applicant Name: Project Title: Okanogan Watershed Livestock & Water Quality Nonpoint Source Activity Okanogan Conservation District Application Number: FP13010 Project Category: Okanogan Conservation District staff will conduct an education program in the project area to inform livestock producers of the impacts to water quality of unrestricted livestock access. Staff will work with interested producers to develop site specific conservation plans and implement conservation practices that eliminate livestock impacts on water quality. $0 Klickitat 47 732.5 $243,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 12, 14 Applicant Name: Project Title: WRIA 31 Implementation and Planning Nonpoint Source Activity Eastern Klickitat Conservation District Application Number: FP13078 Project Category: This project will continue activities begun with previous grants. While primarily for Rock Creek, the project will also address habitat issues on other streams in WRIA 31 shown to be lacking quality habitat with water quality issues. Agriculture BMPs will add water quantity to streams. Appendix 1, Page 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Thurston 48 732 $298,210 $397,614 $0 $0 $99,403 20 2.7 3, 4, 26 Applicant Name: Project Title: E Street Stormwater Treatment Facility Stormwater Tumwater, City of Application Number: FP13038 Project Category: % The goal of the E Street Stormwater Treatment Facility project is to provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff at an existing untreated outfall prior to entering the Deschutes River, reduce discharge velocities, and to enhance the riparian area at the outfall. $0 Spokane 49 725 $0 $4,870,000 $0 $0 $4,870,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 5, 28 Applicant Name: Project Title: Energy Generation Project Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Spokane, City of Application Number: FP13057 Project Category: % Energy Generation Project will construct a biogas power generation facility. Solids digestion generates methane gas as a byproduct and the gas will be collected and compressed for use in steam generation. A steam turbine will generate electricity for use in the treatment process at the plant. This project meets categorical GPR requirements 3.2-1 under Energy Efficiency category. $0 Whatcom 50 722 $249,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: WRIA 1 Riparian Planting Initiative Nonpoint Source Activity Whatcom Conservation District Application Number: FP13003 Project Category: This project will improve water quality by planting 52,800‟ (10 miles) of riparian buffer and installing 10,560‟ (2 miles) of livestock exclusion fencing. Benefits will include the control of invasive species, streambank stabilization, reduced water temperatures, increased dissolved oxygen, and the interception and filtering of sediments, nutrients and pathogens. $0 Yakima 51 720 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $5,000,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 6 Applicant Name: Project Title: Methane Utilization/Energy Conservation Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Yakima Wastewater Division, City of Application Number: FP13006 Project Category: % The project fully utilizes methane produced onsite, augmented with a new grease receiving station and anaerobic industrial waste process, to heat existing processes, buildings, and new class A biosolids dryer. Having sustainable energy and new processes reduce onsite electrical and fuel consumption, reduces offsite emmissions and increases existing plant capacities. Appendix 1, Page 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Grays Harbor 52 718.5 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Fecal Source Identification and Load Reduction Project Nonpoint Source Activity Grays Harbor County Environmental Health Division Application Number: FP13030 Project Category: Grays Harbor County Environmental Health Division (EHD) will use funding to develop and initiate a monitoring plan (QAPP) to better characterize nonpoint sources of fecal pollution and develop and/or expand response activities to be initiated as a result of recent downgrades to the Pacific Coast Shellfish Growing Area. The project will focus on the Moclips River and Joe Creek, both 303(d) impaired water bodies. Concurrently, the EHD will develop and initiate an outreach program to notify property owners and other beach users on the importance of water quality stewardship. $0 King 53 717.5 $0 $2,213,531 $0 $0 $2,213,531 20 2.7 3, 4 Applicant Name: Project Title: Fremont Siphon Replacement (Facilities Plan) Wastewater Facility King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division Application Number: FP13040 Project Category: % Development of the site specific Facility Plan will result in predesign of the most effective alternative for the replacement of King County‟s Fremont Siphon, which conveys wastewater to the West Point Treatment Plant from the county‟s northeastern service area (Seattle north to Snohomish County and east to Lake Sammamish). Additionally, it will include the predesign of an odor control/handling method. $0 Thurston 54 711 $500,000 $625,000 $0 $0 $156,000 20 2.7 3, 4 Applicant Name: Project Title: Tumwater Valley Regional Stormwater Facility Stormwater Tumwater, City of Application Number: FP13036 Project Category: % The goal of the Tumwater Valley Regional Stormwater Facility project is to provide water quality treatment of stormwater runoff prior to entering the Deschutes River, maintain discharge velocities, and to enhance the outfall location into an educational and pedestrian friendly environment. $0 Garfield 55 706.5 $186,435 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Alpowa Creek Tributary Restoration (Stember Creek) Nonpoint Source Activity Asotin Public Utilities District #1 Application Number: FP13097 Project Category: The Alpowa Creek Riparian Tributary Restoration Project will address multiple water quality impairments through re-establishing vegetation in riparian corridors; streamside fencing to exclude livestock; thereby protecting and restoring floodplain function and stabilizing streambanks to decrease turbidity. Appendix 1, Page 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Clark 56 706 $239,498 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Clear Choices, Clean Water Nonpoint Source Activity Clark Conservation District Application Number: FP13033 Project Category: The Clear Choices, Clean Water Project is an effort to raise awareness about nonpoint source pollution and implement water quality practices in the two most urban watersheds in Clark County, Burnt Bridge Creek and Salmon Creek. $0 Thurston 57 705 $241,690 $174,960 $0 $0 $174,960 20 2.7 4, 7, 19, 28 Applicant Name: Project Title: On-site Financial Assistance Program On-Site Septic System Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department Application Number: FP13023 Project Category: % This project will provide low interest loans and grants to help finance the repair or replacement of failing on-site sewage systems and sewage system components. The highest priorities will be to assist financially distressed septic system owners and the owners of failing systems that pose a risk to Puget Sound. This project is eligible under the CWA Section 319 Nonpoint Source category based on implementation of actions identified in Washington‟s Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution, Volume 3: Management Strategies (Pub # 05-10-027); Table 5.1: Actions to Manage Nonpoint Pollution in Washington State discusses actions that can be taken to alleviate impacts from different land uses including urban/suburban impacts from on-site sewage systems (page 55). This project meets categorical GPR requirements 4.2-6 under Environmentally Innovative category. $0 Pierce 58 704 $190,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Pierce County Water Report Card Nonpoint Source Activity Pierce County Application Number: FP13031 Project Category: Expand Pierce County‟s existing Watershed Health Report Card to include a marine waters rating component and add 10 more lakes and 70 additional macroinvertebrate samples, and 7 swimming beach sites to the existing program. $0 Whatcom 59 702.5 $22,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Fecal Coliform Source Reduction Nonpoint Source Activity Bellingham, City of Application Number: FP13015 Project Category: The fecal coliform source reduction project will implement draft TMDL Water Quality Improvement Plan actions in three creeks within the City limits. The project will help locate pollution sources, educate community members, and strive to reduce fecal loading from human sources to sensitive freshwater streams where fecal coliform concentrations exceeding 100 cfu/100 ml have been repeatedly documented. Appendix 1, Page 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Chelan 60 701.5 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: WRIA 45 BMPs and Community Involvement Nonpoint Source Activity Cascadia Conservation District Application Number: FP13045 Project Category: The proposed project WRIA 45 BMPs and Community Involvement will improve water quality in 303(d) listed streams in the Wenatchee River watershed by using the community outreach and involvement campaign, known as Picture the Wenatchee, to educate and encourage citizens throughout the watershed to take steps to reduce non-point source pollution in their homes, in their yards, with their vehicles and with their animals. For citizens who own streamside property the project will implement targeted Best Management Practices (BMPs) aimed at reducing non-point source pollution. $0 Mason 61 701 $231,510 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Prioritized Riparian Assessment and Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Mason Conservation District Application Number: FP13077 Project Category: This project will assess riparian habitats of WRIA 14 to identify areas lacking adequate riparian cover and BMPs. It will implement prioritized riparian restoration and BMP installation. These actions will result in improved water quality impacting cultural and commercial shellfishing and endangered salmon runs. $0 Lewis 62 700.5 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Centralia Clean Water, Healthy Yards Nonpoint Source Activity Lewis County Conservation District Application Number: FP13013 Project Category: The Lewis County Conservation District will partner with the City of Centralia to assist residents to reduce polluted runoff from lawns and gardens. Workshops covering a range of urban water quality issues will be held. Soil testing along with the interpretation of the results will be done for residents. $0 Thurston 63 698.5 $325,651 $434,201 $0 $0 $108,550 20 2.7 3, 4, 26, 28 Applicant Name: Project Title: Somerset Hill Stormwater Outfall Retrofit Stormwater Tumwater, City of Application Number: FP13037 Project Category: % The City intends to retrofit the Somerset Hill Drive stormwater outfalls to address pollutant loading issues to Percival Creek. The retrofit will consist of retrofitting one outfall with a Filterra system and the other with a series of rain gardens. The retrofits will provide treatment via bio-retention and bio- infiltration. This project meets categorical GPR requirements for 1.2-6 and 1.2-7 under Green Infrastructure. Appendix 1, Page 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $30,000 Spokane 64 697.5 $0 $60,000 $0 $0 $30,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 6, 21 Applicant Name: Project Title: Effluent Reuse Feasibility Study/Sewer Plan Update Preconstruction Deer Park, City of Application Number: FP13051 Project Category: % The City-selected consultant shall: evaluate the system modifications required and related construction cost opinions to expand the existing land application spray farm; evaluate the feasibility of applying wastewater effluent for golf course irrigation; complete a study-specific sewer plan update with environmental evaluation and documentation required to implement the selected alternatives. $0 Chelan 65 697 $105,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Lake Chelan Water Quality Improvement Project Nonpoint Source Activity Chelan County Natural Resource Department Application Number: FP13084 Project Category: The Lake Chelan Water Quality Improvement Project seeks to reduce DDT and PCB inputs to Lake Chelan through the implementation of BMPs which will reduce soil erosion and prevent contaminated sediments from reaching Lake Chelan and Roses Lake. The project will also educate residents of the transport mechanism for DDT and PCBs in order to prevent soil disturbance activities. $0 Island 66 676.5 $283,870 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Ebey's Prairie Water Quality Implementation Project Nonpoint Source Activity Whidbey Island Conservation District Application Number: FP13032 Project Category: Whidbey Island Conservation District will take a watershed-based approach to reducing nitrate and fecal coliform discharges within the 2,100-acre Ebey‟s Prairie watershed to improve the water quality of the basin‟s discharge to Admiralty Inlet. This project will include both prevention and treatment practices through implementation of Best Management Practices and riparian restoration. $0 Mason 67 672.5 $0 $150,391 $0 $0 $150,391 20 2.7 3, 4, 6, 11 Applicant Name: Project Title: Belfair Bio-Solids Disposal Planning Study Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Mason County Application Number: FP13098 Project Category: % Bio-solids disposal generates 23 tons of bio solids per year and excessive truck trips a week. The proposed study will investigate ways of increasing density of bio-solids liquor to solids content of 18% percent and reusing for soil amendment or sold as compost as environmentally safe and cost effective alternatives. Appendix 1, Page 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Thurston 68 671 $250,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,000 20 2.7 4, 7 Applicant Name: Project Title: Biological Recovery of the Deschutes Watershed Nonpoint Source Activity Thurston Conservation District Application Number: FP13074 Project Category: % The Deschutes River watershed drains into the southern tip of Budd Inlet, influencing a rich diversity of natural resources and culture. The health of this mixed-use watershed is at a crossroads, threatened by development and land-use practices such as agriculture, timber and stormwater in crucial portions of the system. The Deschutes River has two identified large thermal refuges in a system that consistently runs above CWA standards set for temperature. Adjacent to these critical areas are residential landuses that contribute to fecal coliform and sediment levels within the river. This project proposes a multi-pronged approach utilizing the expertise of numerous watershed partners to remedy the threats and emerging problems with the basin. Thurston Conservation District will work with landowners within the target area to design and implement riparian restoration projects along 11,300 linear feet of the river corridor that include installation of large woody debris, restoring native plant systems, and bank stabilization. This project is eligible under the CWA Section 319 Nonpoint Source category based on implementation of actions identified in Washington‟s Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution, Volume 3: Management Strategies (Pub # 05-10-027); Table 5.1: Actions to Manage Nonpoint Pollution in Washington State discusses actions that can be taken to restore and maintain degraded habitat (page 57). $0 Stevens 69 663 $248,430 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Lake Spokane Phosphorus Source Identification Nonpoint Source Activity Stevens County Conservation District Application Number: FP13068 Project Category: This project will provide surface and ground water data to identify areas of phosphorus input to Lake Spokane. This will help resource managers target areas most in need of BMPs such as installation of a sewer system. Educational activities will inform residents how to prevent pollutants from entering the lake. $0 Whatcom 70 651 $121,335 $0 $0 $0 $0 12, 19 Applicant Name: Project Title: Nooksack Tributaries Water Quality Improvement Nonpoint Source Activity Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association Application Number: FP13017 Project Category: This project will improve water quality and salmon habitat in three major tributaries of the Nooksack River by replacing two instream crossings with bridges, replacing rip rap / refuse streambank armoring with large woody debris, and revegetating riparian buffers on agricultural lands in Whatcom County. Appendix 1, Page 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Spokane 71 635.5 $168,945 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Qualchan Golf Course Bank Stabilization Nonpoint Source Activity Spokane, City of Application Number: FP13085 Project Category: The project provides bank stabilization and restores riparian area vegetation along 145 feet of Hangman/Latah Creek. The design incorporates bioengineering elements of the 2003 ISPG including vegetative soil wraps, rock barbs/rootwads and replanting riparian buffer. It addresses the 2010 Spokane River DO and the 2009 Hangman Creek Stabilization will help reduce non-point source nutrient loads to both Hangman Creek and the Spokane River, helping achieve the goals identified in the Hangman Creek, Spokane River, and Lake Spokane $0 Clark 72 632.5 $198,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Salmon Creek Knotweed Eradication Project Nonpoint Source Activity Clark Public Utilities Application Number: FP13075 Project Category: This Salmon Creek Knotweed Eradication Demonstration Project will help prevent water quality degradation by eradicating and preventing further proliferation/ expansion of Japanese knotweed in the Salmon Creek Watershed. Japanese knotweed‟s presence in the watershed has swiftly increased the past 10 years, rapidly degrading and converting otherwise intact native plant communities. $0 Benton 73 630 $0 $725,000 $0 $0 $725,000 20 2.7 3, 4, 6, 24 Applicant Name: Project Title: Kennewick Sustainability - WWTP Improvements Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Kennewick, City of Application Number: FP13052 Project Category: % This project ensures that our WWTP will be able to consistently maintain its high water quality effectiveness, and adds energy efficiency from equipment upgrades and a new renewable energy source to reduce our carbon footprint. (Note from Ecology: Original loan request was $4,970,000. We are only evaluating it as a design project at this time; construction portions are ineligible until design work is finished.) $0 Klickitat 74 614 $237,984 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: White Salmon Streambank Stabilization, Phase 1 Nonpoint Source Activity Underwood Conservation District Application Number: FP13083 Project Category: The Upper White Salmon Streambank Stabilization Phase 1 project implements riparian restoration at one of three identified sites in the upper White Salmon River Watershed. Primary objectives are to reduce stream temperature and sediment runoff and increase shade in the White Salmon River and its tributary Trout Lake Creek. Appendix 1, Page 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 King 75 609.5 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Mill Creek at James Stream Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Kent, City of Application Number: FP13022 Project Category: This project will complete the final design and permitting for the Mill Creek at James Street riparian and wetland restoration project to improve temperature and dissolved oxygen, and reduce pollution run-off into a creek by meandering of 2,100 lf of channelized creek through a 17-acre restored wetland. $0 Snohomish 76 596.5 $123,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Urban Livestock Management in Brier Nonpoint Source Activity Snohomish Conservation District Application Number: FP13055 Project Category: To improve water quality in the city of Brier, Snohomish Conservation District will use an educational program to effectively provide landowners (livestock owners) with technical assistance and farm planning needs that are related to agricultural activities and riparian protection. $0 Chelan 77 588 $69,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Regional Stormwater Pollution Education and Outreach Stormwater Douglas County Application Number: FP13089 Project Category: This project will fund education and outreach activities in the Wenatchee Valley Stormwater Management Program including outreach for stakeholders and the charity car wash program, pooper scooper stations, and environmental education programs for students. These activities will benefit residents and businesses throughout Chelan County, Douglas County, Wenatchee and East Wenatchee. $0 Whatcom 78 580.5 $56,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Whatcom Water Quality Awareness Project Nonpoint Source Activity Whatcom Conservation District Application Number: FP13002 Project Category: This project will inform and educate residents, many for the first time, of serious water quality problems in ten primary watersheds using innovative signage and other outreach materials. Local residents will be periodically updated of current fecal coliform levels in rural streams. These same streams are frequently used for recreational uses, irrigation and other uses making the elevated bacterial levels a real and immediate health threat. Appendix 1, Page 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Spokane 79 575.5 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Deadman Creek Nonpoint Source Project Nonpoint Source Activity Spokane Conservation District Application Number: FP13065 Project Category: The Deadman Creek Nonpoint Source Project will monitor and implement various livestock and agricultural BMPs in a focused effort to reduce nutrient and other parameters to meet new required TMDL load allocation reductions. The Conservation District will work closely with landowners and producers to promote awareness of water quality issues. $0 Snohomish 80 570 $131,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Japanese Gulch Stream Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Mukilteo, City of Application Number: FP13004 Project Category: This project improves water quality through riparian restoration by restoring stream flows from a man made channel constructed 40 years ago to the historic natural channel. The historic natural channel will have large woody debris, new streambed gravel placed, and stream bank planting to control temperature and silt loads. $0 Pacific 81 565 $112,919 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Willapa Watershed TMDL Implementation Nonpoint Source Activity Pacific Conservation District Application Number: FP13072 Project Category: This project installs 28,835‟ of Livestock exclusion fencing, 9,935‟ of riparian buffers, and six alternate watering facilities. Practices proposed are identified in the Willapa TMDL Implementation Plan and PCD Long Range Plan; one site is a DOE Agricultural referral. All sites will directly improve water quality in the Willapa Watershed. $0 Spokane 82 558 $225,754 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Garden Springs Creek Restoration Nonpoint Source Activity Spokane, City of Application Number: FP13061 Project Category: Garden Springs Creek Restoration project will remove flow barriers, re-channelize the stream and re-establish natural plantings along the bank to improve water quality in Hangman Creek, a tributary to the Spokane River. $0 Chelan 83 553.5 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Salmon-Safe Interior Columbia Basin Nonpoint Source Activity Washington Water Project of Trout Unlimited (TU-WWP) Application Number: FP13063 Project Category: The Salmon-Safe Interior Columbia Basin Program will improve water quality and restore fish habitat by promoting Best Management Practices and establishing riparian restoration projects using incentive-based tools, as a means to promote both conservation and economically viable agriculture. Appendix 1, Page 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Okanogan 84 542.5 $118,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Okanogan-Methow Farm Conservation Assistance Nonpoint Source Activity Okanogan Conservation District Application Number: FP13011 Project Category: Okanogan Conservation District staff will partner with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service to develop site specific conservation plans and assist agricultural producers with implementation of irrigation, nutrient, and pest management practices. District staff will also educate agricultural producers about the benefits of conservation practices that benefit water quality. $0 Kittitas 85 535 $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Kittitas County Stormwater Mapping and Planning Project Stormwater Kittitas County Application Number: FP13001 Project Category: The Kittitas County Stormwater Mapping & Planning Project will benefit surface water quality in unincorporated areas around Ellensburg. The Project will include: mapping stormwater systems and outfalls; reviewing existing County stormwater regulations and procedures; identifying stormwater program and project needs; funding analysis and implementation work; and public education and involvement. $0 Snohomish 86 525.5 $54,661 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Water Quality Improvement Plan - Stillaguamish Nonpoint Source Activity Snohomish Conservation District Application Number: FP13056 Project Category: This project will determine the feasibility of an anaerobic animal waste digester in the Stillaguamish watershed to reduce the impacts of these waste materials on water quality. This assessment will set the stage for the implementation of a digester and will identify other implementation tools that will improve water quality. $0 Douglas 87 510.5 $247,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: WRIAs 44/50 Watershed Plan Implementation Nonpoint Source Activity Foster Creek Conservation District Application Number: FP13008 Project Category: This project works to continue implementation of the Watershed Plan for Moses Coulee/Foster Creek Watersheds in WRIA 44/50. This will be accomplished through maintaining watershed monitoring, education and outreach to the public, and coordinating and facilitating the Douglas County Watershed Planning Association to address critical issues and initiate steps to improve or protect water quantity, water quality, habitat and instream flows. Appendix 1, Page 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Klickitat 88 500.5 $127,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Rock Creek Groundwater Implementation Nonpoint Source Activity Eastern Klickitat Conservation District Application Number: FP13099 Project Category: This project will continue activities begun with previous grants. It will use the information gathered from earlier studies and assessments to locate areas that will benefit from this groundwater study. Locations will be sited that have the best potential for groundwater input into Rock Creek. $0 Spokane 89 509.5 $0 $1,428,960 $0 $0 $1,428,960 20 2.7 3, 4 Applicant Name: Project Title: Hazel’s Creek Conveyance Step 4: Design & Construction Stormwater Spokane, City of Application Number: FP13060 Project Category: % The Hazel‟s Creek Conveyance involves designing and constructing a gravity piping system to convey stormwater from Hazel‟s Creek Drainage Facility in south Spokane. The conveyance system will pipe stormwater around the paleo-channel restriction for infiltration in a natural flood plain. $0 Whatcom 90 489 $56,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Triple Bottom Line of Rainwater Harvesting Stormwater Bellingham, City of Application Number: FP13018 Project Category: This project involves a study to evaluate water supply options for new development. Using the triple-bottom-line „model‟, the study considers these scenarios: 1) Municipal water as sole source, 2) Rainwater as sole source, and 3) Municipal for potable and rainwater for non-potable uses. Impacts to water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure will be included. $0 Yakima 91 476 $134,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Lower Yakima River Temperature Project - Phase 1 Nonpoint Source Activity Yakima Basin Storage Alliance Application Number: FP13082 Project Category: The Lower Yakima River Temperature Definition and Restoration Project will build on previous water quality studies in the Lower Yakima River by determining the extent and timing of cool water inflows into the river at selected locations, and correlate the locations of these with potential habitat restoration project sites. $0 Snohomish 92 456 $20,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Water Quality through Weed Management Nonpoint Source Activity Snohomish Conservation District Application Number: FP13054 Project Category: Most landowners see weeds as a problem but not a water quality problem. Weeds are of pasture and waste mismanagement that highly contribute to nutrient and sediment surface runoff. In addressing landowners‟ weed problem, SCD will assist with proper land and waste management and their resulting improvements to water quality. Appendix 1, Page 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Stevens 93 438 $193,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Daisy Station Bank Remediation Nonpoint Source Activity Stevens County Conservation District Application Number: FP13053 Project Category: Implementation of bank-stabilization and shoreline enhancement to protect the Daisy Station convenience store, marine refueling station and residence on Lake Roosevelt in Stevens County. $0 Spokane 94 329 $138,840 $0 $0 $0 $0 23 Applicant Name: Project Title: Chester Creek Riparian Management Nonpoint Source Activity Spokane Valley, City of Application Number: FP13088 Project Category: This project will address water quality concerns and environmental permitting issues of best management practices along Chester Creek within the City of Spokane Valley. It will identify current problems and seek regulatory consensus and permitting of regular management activities to protect beneficial uses and implement agreed upon riparian improvements. $0 Pacific Refi N/A $0 $3,251,094 $0 $0 $3,251,094 20 2.7 27 Applicant Name: Project Title: City of Iwaco Wastewater Plant Debt Refinance Wastewater Facility Ilwaco, City of Application Number: FP13073 Project Category: % The City of Ilwaco is pursuing a refinance of debt to obtain a lower interest rate and shorter term for loans that were originally incurred to build and then later increase the capacity to the city‟s wastewater treatment plant. $0 Kittitas Inel N/A $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 18 Applicant Name: Project Title: EWC-Coleman Creek Project Nonpoint Source Activity Kittitas County Conservation District Application Number: FP13048 Project Category: The Ellensburg Water Company Canal intersects with Coleman Creek at a site that is inadequate to control the co-mingling of irrigation water and creek water, which have differing water temperature criteria. This project will install a siphon to fully separate the creek and canal and restore the streambed. Appendix 1, Page 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Total Points Grant/ Subsidy Requested Loan Funds Requested Centennial Grant Funding Offered Section 319 Grant Funding Offered Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Final Combined Summary List County Revolving Fund Standard Loan Offered Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal Loan Offered $0 Walla Walla Inel N/A $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 25 Applicant Name: Project Title: Reservoir Dechlorination Nonpoint Source Activity Waitsburg, City of Application Number: FP13086 Project Category: The City would use the overflow water from its reservoir to power a turbine that would in turn dechlorinate the water supply by means of aeration before it enters the Touchet River, leading to lower level of chlorine, temperature and in corresponding water body. In addition the electricity generated by the turbine would either be sold back to the power utility, lowering utlity costs or used to power streets lights along Main Street. $0 Whitman Inel N/A $0 $878,600 $0 $0 $0 15 Applicant Name: Project Title: LaCrosse Wastewater Facility Improvements Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility LaCrosse, Town of Application Number: FP13094 Project Category: Town of LaCrosse Wastewater Facilities Project will provide the needed repairs to the sewer system. The repairs include: 1) rewiring the two lift stations for an emergency generator, 2) add a chlorination device and repairing lagoon 3) removing a 4” force main and replacing it with a 6” force main and meter, 4) video inspection of several service mains, and 5) new pumps, motors, and electrical for the central lift station and lift station $0 King Inel N/A $56,299 $0 $0 $0 $0 18 Applicant Name: Project Title: The Clean Water Project Nonpoint Source Activity Kent, City of Application Number: FP13021 Project Category: The Clean Water Project will develop new and utilize existing materials and currently successful programming to perform outreach and education efforts that work towards promoting residential and commercial stormwater best management practices. This project is taking a comprehensive approach to reducing the impact of residential and commercial sources of pollution. $2,048,934 Totals: $24,202,648 $66,921,502 $13,520,000 $1,599,785 $65,028,669 Appendix 1, Page 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- State Fiscal Year 2013 Final List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Proposed for Funding Footnotes Page 1 of 2 Footnotes: 1. Spokane County/City extended payment grant with funds appropriated by the Legislature beginning in the 1995-97 biennial budget and continuing for 10 biennia or 20 years at a rate of $10 million per biennia or $5 million per funding year, subject to Legislative appropriation. Extended payment grants are managed under the Water Pollution Control Financing statute, RCW 70.146.075. 2. The applicant’s project is eligible for financial hardship consideration, and if funded, may receive Centennial grant or Revolving Fund forgivable principal loan subsidy in combination with low-interest standard Revolving Fund assistance in accordance with Chapter 173.98 WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, and Chapter 173.95A WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Centennial Clean Water Fund. The maximum allowable Centennial hardship grant is $5,000,000 per project based on Chapter 173.95A WAC. Interest rates for hardship projects are calculated based on a reduced rate for existing residential need at the time of application blended with the standard rate for the portion of the project identified for growth or industrial/commercial flows. 3. In order to be eligible to sign a funding agreement with Ecology for a construction project, the applicant must be in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW, “Growth Management—Planning by Selected Counties.” 4. Projects funded with Revolving funds must meet all federal requirements for environmental review and federal cross cutters, and requirements for funding conditions including but not limited to prevailing wage rates (Davis-Bacon) and reporting requirements. 5. The project or a portion of the project is qualified under the Revolving Fund Green Project Reserves category and may be eligible for up to a 25% forgivable principal loan based on the GPR eligible portion, funding limits in rule, available funding, and contingent on EPA GPR guidelines. 6. The applicant indicated eligibility under the Revolving Fund Green Project Reserves category, however after reviewing the proposal and the EPA’s Green Project Reserves guidelines, it was determined that the project did not qualify under that category. 7. The project is designated a nonpoint activity under the Revolving Fund program based on meeting the Clean Water Act Section 319 nonpoint criteria and funded from the 20% activity loan category in accordance with Chapter 173.98 WAC. 8. Funds offered are less than requested because, by rule, an applicant cannot receive more than half of the funds available in the Revolving Fund facility category. 9. Funds offered are less than requested because this is the last priority project determined eligible that can be funded based on limited available dollars from the base Revolving Fund facility or activity category, available Centennial grant category, or available Revolving Fund category . 10. The applicant requested financial hardship funding consideration for its project; however Ecology has determined that financial hardship criteria were not met based on financial information and data submitted and funding program rules. 11. The applicant requested financial hardship consideration for its project; however design projects are not eligible for hardship consideration. 12. The applicant requested grant and/or loan funding; however after higher priority projects were proposed for funding, no funds remain available. 13. The applicant requested grant funding; however, Ecology has determined that grant funding criteria were not met, based on financial data submitted and funding program rules. ---PAGE BREAK--- State Fiscal Year 2013 Final List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Proposed for Funding Footnotes Page 2 of 2 14. The project had a tie score with an adjacent project on the priority list. The project that received a higher score on Question 3 (Water Quality Problem and Benefits) of the application, and if still tied Question 7 (Readiness to Proceed), received the higher priority position on the list. 15. The applicant’s proposed project was not rated and ranked because it was determined to be ineligible for funding consideration because the applicant did not meet the planning requirements for the Ecology funding. 16. The applicant’s proposed project was not rated and ranked because it was determined to be ineligible for funding consideration because the project occurs on state land. 17. The applicant’s proposed project was not rated and ranked because the applicant withdrew the application. 18. The applicant’s proposed project was not rated and ranked because it was determined to be ineligible for funding consideration because the project is only eligible for loan funding and the applicant requested grant funding only. 19. Applicant’s budget figures were modified by Ecology staff to correct errors and reflect eligible project costs. 20. The applicant’s project is eligible for preconstruction category consideration, and if funded, may receive standard Revolving Fund loan assistance. 21. The applicant’s project is eligible for preconstruction category consideration, and if funded, may receive Revolving Fund forgivable principal loan subsidy in combination with standard Revolving Fund assistance. 22. The project is not eligible for a grant and the applicant is not willing to accept a loan. 23. Applicant did not meet minimum scoring requirements of 600 points out of 1,000 possible to be eligible for funding. 24. Applicant applied for a design and construction project, but is only eligible for design funding. 25. The applicant’s proposed project was not rated and ranked because it was determined that it did not meet the eligibility requirements for the Ecology funding. 26. The Applicant’s project is offered grant funding on the SFY 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program Final Offer and Applicant List (Stormwater List). The funding offer shown on this Final list has been modified based on the grant amount offered on the Stormwater List. 27. Refinance applications are funded only after all other eligible applications receive funding and must meet all funding requirements for Revolving Fund projects. 28. The project or a portion of the project qualifies under the Revolving Fund Green Project Reserve (GPR) category and is eligible for up to 25% forgivable principle; however higher ranking projects received the available forgivable principle. 29. The project duration may need to be condensed to meet requirements for Clean Water Act Section 319 funding. 30. The project as described in the original application appears to be a flood control project. Flow control or water quality improvement is not clearly described in the Scope of Work. Funding for this project is contingent on clarification of the project scope and intent, and Department approval of the recipient’s final planning document, showing Department approved flow control and/or water quality improvement in the project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 1a List of Projects Proposed for Revolving Fund Funding Appendix 1a contains a final list of only projects proposed for funding from the Revolving Fund in ranked priority order. This List displays more detailed information on the type of Revolving Fund funding being offered than does the Final Combined Summary List. Information provided on the Revolving Fund list includes: Field Explanation Applicant Name Name of jurisdiction applying for funding. Application Number Unique identifier number used to track application. Project Title Name of project. Project Category Environmental Protection Agency project categories used to report Revolving Fund allocation by category. Rank Priority order of application by total score. Permit Number Permit number for wastewater treatment facility discharge permit. Effluent Limits Effluent limits for wastewater treatment facility set in discharge permit. Time Frame Project start and end dates for the project. Total Funds Requested Amount of total funding requested by applicant. Revolving Fund Total Offered Total Amount of Revolving Fund funding offered to application. Standard Loan Offered Amount of Revolving Fund standard loan offered to applicant. Forgivable Principal Offered Amount of Revolving Fund Forgivable Principal loan offered to applicant. GPR Standard Loan Offered Amount of Revolving Fund Green Project Reserves standard loan offered to applicant. Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Amount of Revolving Fund Preconstruction category Forgivable Principal loan offered to applicant. Precon Standard Loan Offered Amount of Revolving Fund Preconstruction category standard loan offered to applicant. GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Amount of Revolving Fund Green Project Reserves Forgivable Principal loan offered to applicant. Loan Term (yrs) Number of years for repayment of loan offered. Loan Term Rate Interest rate on loan offered. Footnotes Explanation or comment on application or offered funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- This page is purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $0 $2,591,860 Granger Wastewater System Improvements FP13020 Application Number: Applicant Name: Granger, City of 1 WA002269-1 30 $3,838,000 $2,591,860 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.3 30 07/01/12 04/01/12 22 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $2,123,000 Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements FP13012 Application Number: Applicant Name: Mabton, Town of 2 WA-002064-8 10 $4,400,000 $2,123,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.1 30 11/01/11 11/01/14 36 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $2,220,000 Everett Conveyance Project - Final Design FP13069 Application Number: Applicant Name: Snohomish, City of 3 $2,220,000 $2,220,000 New Collector Sewers (Category IVA) 20 2.7 03/01/12 12/31/13 21 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $4,968,000 CSO Basin 41 Control Facility FP13059 Application Number: Applicant Name: Spokane, City of 4 45 $4,968,000 $4,968,000 CSO Correction (Category V) 20 2.7 45 04/01/12 06/01/13 15 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $4,521,400 CSO Basin 33-2 Control Facility FP13058 Application Number: Applicant Name: Spokane, City of 5 45 $4,521,400 $4,521,400 CSO Correction (Category V) 20 2.7 45 04/01/12 06/01/13 15 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 Appendix 1a - Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $170,250 $342,404 Rock Island Wastewater Treatment Plant & Side Sewers FP13066 Application Number: Applicant Name: Rock Island, City of 6 $1,618,030 $1,023,404 Secondary Treatment (Category I) 20 2.3 08/01/11 08/01/12 12 Months % N/A Project Title: $510,750 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $222,637 $84,588 Squalicum Creek WQ and Biotic Integrity Improvements FP13016 Application Number: Applicant Name: Bellingham, City of 7 $1,767,274 $1,267,274 Urban (Category VII-D) 20 2.7 08/01/12 12/31/15 40 Months % N/A Project Title: $960,049 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $2,353,000 Sewer Collection System Improvements FP13070 Application Number: Applicant Name: Goldendale, City of 8 $2,353,000 $2,353,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 08/01/12 03/31/14 20 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $794,282 Potlatch Reclam. Facility Collection System Construction FP13025 Application Number: Applicant Name: Skokomish Indian Tribe (as fiscal agent pursuant to the Tri-Party Consortium MOU) 9 $1,202,535 $794,282 New Collector Sewers (Category IVA) 20 2.4 07/01/12 06/01/13 12 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $3,400,126 Belfair WWTP "Get Connected" Phase 2 FP13026 Application Number: Applicant Name: Mason County 10 $4,981,086 $3,824,048 New Collector Sewers (Category IVA) 20 2.7 07/01/12 11/01/13 17 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $423,922 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 Appendix 1a - Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $0 $100,000 Engineering Report FP13067 Application Number: Applicant Name: Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District 11 WA-0045144 10 $100,000 $100,000 Secondary Treatment (Category I) 5 1.4 10 07/01/12 01/01/13 6 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $0 Tekoa Infiltration and Inflow Reduction Design Project FP13007 Application Number: Applicant Name: Tekoa, City of 14 $108,400 $108,400 Infiltration/Inflow (Category IIIA) 5 1.4 07/01/12 09/01/12 3 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $54,200 $54,200 $0 $794,000 First Avenue North Sewer Improvements FP13080 Application Number: Applicant Name: Ilwaco, City of 15 WA-0023159 30 $794,000 $794,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 30 12/01/12 09/01/13 10 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $0 Wastewater Storage Lagoon #1 and #2 Upgrade FP13049 Application Number: Applicant Name: Deer Park, City of 16 ST 8016 45 $601,350 $601,350 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 5 1.4 45 08/01/13 11/01/14 15 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $300,675 $300,675 $0 $4,644,790 Barton CSO Beach Project (Final Design) FP13041 Application Number: Applicant Name: King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division 17 WA-002918-1 8 $4,644,790 $4,644,790 CSO Correction (Category V) 20 2.7 11 08/22/11 12/31/12 17 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 Appendix 1a - Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $0 $2,947,050 North Beach CSO Control (Final Design) FP13043 Application Number: Applicant Name: King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division 19 WA-002918-1 8 $2,947,050 $2,947,050 CSO Correction (Category V) 20 2.7 11 08/01/11 04/01/13 20 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $5,001,000 Murray CSO Control (Final Design) FP13042 Application Number: Applicant Name: King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division 20 WA-002918-1 8 $5,001,000 $5,001,000 CSO Correction (Category V) 20 2.7 11 09/01/11 12/31/12 16 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $5,193,826 South Magnolia CSO Control (Final Design) FP13044 Application Number: Applicant Name: King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division 21 8 $5,193,826 $5,193,826 CSO Correction (Category V) 20 2.7 11 08/01/11 04/01/13 20 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $1,452,379 Hoquiam Wastewater Forcemain Replacement FP13019 Application Number: Applicant Name: Hoquiam, City of 22 WA0020915 30 $1,452,379 $1,452,379 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 30 03/01/13 08/01/13 6 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $0 Riverside Wastewater Facility Plan and Environ. Report FP13087 Application Number: Applicant Name: Riverside, Town of 27 $50,000 $50,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 5 1.4 08/01/12 04/01/13 9 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $25,000 $25,000 Appendix 1a - Page 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $0 $350,000 Canyon Creek Improvements Design Project FP13034 Application Number: Applicant Name: Shelton, City of 28 $350,000 $350,000 Storm Sewers (Category VI) 5 1.4 12/01/11 07/01/13 18 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $0 Sahalee Sewer Improvements FP13081 Application Number: Applicant Name: Ilwaco, City of 32 $44,500 $44,500 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 5 1.4 07/01/12 03/01/13 9 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $22,250 $22,250 $0 $0 Core Reservation WRF & Collection (Pre-Construction) FP13024 Application Number: Applicant Name: Skokomish Tribe (as fiscal agent to the Tri-Party Consortium MOU) 35 $700,000 $700,000 Secondary Treatment (Category I) 20 2.7 07/01/12 12/01/13 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $350,000 $350,000 $0 $96,151 Cleveland Avenue Stormwater Outfall Retrofit FP13035 Application Number: Applicant Name: Tumwater, City of 38 $288,453 $96,151 Storm Sewers (Category VI) 20 2.7 07/01/12 12/31/14 30 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $0 City of Rainier Wastewater Facility Plan FP13028 Application Number: Applicant Name: Rainier, City of 40 $70,000 $70,000 Secondary Treatment (Category I) 20 2.7 08/01/12 08/01/13 12 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $70,000 $0 Appendix 1a - Page 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $0 $0 Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Design FP13029 Application Number: Applicant Name: Vader, City of 41 $900,000 $900,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 08/01/12 08/01/13 12 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $450,000 $450,000 $0 $99,403 E Street Stormwater Treatment Facility FP13038 Application Number: Applicant Name: Tumwater, City of 48 $298,210 $99,403 Storm Sewers (Category VI) 20 2.7 07/01/12 12/31/13 18 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $994,000 Energy Generation Project FP13057 Application Number: Applicant Name: Spokane, City of 49 WA-002447-3 30 $4,870,000 $4,870,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 30 07/01/12 10/31/14 28 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $3,876,000 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 Methane Utilization/Energy Conservation FP13006 Application Number: Applicant Name: Yakima Wastewater Division, City of 51 WA-002402-3 30 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 30 01/01/12 07/01/14 36 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $2,213,531 Fremont Siphon Replacement (Facilities Plan) FP13040 Application Number: Applicant Name: King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division 53 WA-002918-1 8 $2,213,531 $2,213,531 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 11 09/15/11 11/30/12 14 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 Appendix 1a - Page 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $0 $156,000 Tumwater Valley Regional Stormwater Facility FP13036 Application Number: Applicant Name: Tumwater, City of 54 $500,000 $156,000 Storm Sewers (Category VI) 20 2.7 01/01/13 12/31/14 24 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $174,960 On-site Financial Assistance Program FP13023 Application Number: Applicant Name: Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department 57 $416,650 $174,960 Individual/Decentralized Sewage Treatment (Category VII-L) 20 2.7 01/01/13 12/31/17 60 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $108,550 Somerset Hill Stormwater Outfall Retrofit FP13037 Application Number: Applicant Name: Tumwater, City of 63 $325,651 $108,550 Storm Sewers (Category VI) 20 2.7 07/01/12 12/31/14 30 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $0 Effluent Reuse Feasibility Study/Sewer Plan Update FP13051 Application Number: Applicant Name: Deer Park, City of 64 ST8016 45 $60,000 $60,000 Secondary Treatment (Category I) 20 2.7 45 07/01/12 12/31/12 6 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $30,000 $30,000 $0 $150,391 Belfair Bio-Solids Disposal Planning Study FP13098 Application Number: Applicant Name: Mason County 67 $150,391 $150,391 Advanced Treatment (Category II) 20 2.7 08/01/12 07/30/13 12 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 Appendix 1a - Page 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Precon Forgivable Principal Offered Precon Standard Loan Offered Standard Loan Offered GPR Forgivable Principal Offered Forgivable Principal Offered Revolving Fund Total Offered GPR Standard Loan Offered Effluent Limits Time Frame Rank Permit Number Total Funds Requested Loan Term (yrs) Loan Interest Rate Notes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Revolving Fund Projects Identified for Funding $0 $100,000 Biological Recovery of the Deschutes Watershed FP13074 Application Number: Applicant Name: Thurston Conservation District 68 $350,000 $100,000 Urban (Category VII-D) 20 2.7 01/01/13 12/31/15 36 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $725,000 Kennewick Sustainability - WWTP Improvements FP13052 Application Number: Applicant Name: Kennewick, City of 73 WA-004478-4 30 $725,000 $725,000 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 30 04/01/12 03/31/14 24 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $1,428,960 Hazel’s Creek Conveyance FP13060 Application Number: Applicant Name: Spokane, City of 89 $1,428,960 $1,428,960 Storm Sewers (Category VI) 20 2.7 07/01/12 10/01/13 15 Months % N/A Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 $0 $3,251,094 City of Iwaco Wastewater Plant Debt Refinance FP13073 Application Number: Applicant Name: Ilwaco, City of Refi WA-0023159 30 $3,251,094 $3,251,094 Sewer System Rehabilitation (Category IIIB) 20 2.7 30 Months mg/l mg/l BOD: TSS: % Project Title: $0 $0 Project Category: End: Start: $0 $0 Totals: $65,892,902 $67,077,603 $5,346,799 $392,887 $58,379,745 $423,922 $1,302,125 $1,232,125 Appendix 1a - Page 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 1b List of Projects Proposed for Centennial Funding Appendix 1b contains a final list of only projects proposed for Centennial funding in ranked priority order. This List displays more detailed information on the type of Centennial funding being offered than does the Final Combined Summary List. Information provided on the Final Centennial List includes: Field Explanation Applicant Name Name of jurisdiction applying for funding. Application Number Unique identifier number used to track application. Project Title Name of project. Project Category Categories used to identify potential funding source for applications. Categories are: Wastewater Facility, Hardship Wastewater Facility, Nonpoint Source Activity, and Onsite Septic Repair and Replacement. Rank Priority order of application by total score. County County in which project is located. Grant Funds Requested/Eligible Amount of total funding requested by applicant. Centennial Funding Offered Total Amount of Centennial funding offered to applicant. Footnotes Explanation or comment on application or proposed funding. References for footnotes in this table can be found at the end of Appendix 1. ---PAGE BREAK--- This page is purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Hardship Eligibility Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Centennial Grant Projects Identified for Funding County Centennial Funding Offered Grant Funds Requested/Eligible Spokane Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer $5,000,000 N/A Applicant Name: Project Title: Spokane Wastewater Facility Application Number: FP13EPG Spokane County/City $5,000,000 Project Type: Granger Wastewater System Improvements $1,246,140 1 Hardship Applicant Name: Project Title: Yakima Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Application Number: FP13020 Granger, City of $1,246,140 Project Type: Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements $2,277,000 2 Hardship Applicant Name: Project Title: Yakima Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Application Number: FP13012 Mabton, Town of $2,277,000 Project Type: Rock Island Wastewater Treatment Plant & Side Sewers $594,626 6 Hardship Applicant Name: Project Title: Douglas Wastewater Facility Application Number: FP13066 Rock Island, City of $594,626 Project Type: Squalicum Creek WQ and Biotic Integrity Improvements $500,000 7 Applicant Name: Project Title: Whatcom Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13016 Bellingham, City of $500,000 Project Type: Potlatch Reclam. Facility Collection System Construction $408,253 9 Hardship Applicant Name: Project Title: Mason Wastewater Facility Application Number: FP13025 Skokomish Indian Tribe (as fiscal agent pursuant to the Tri-Party Consortium MOU) $408,253 Project Type: Belfair WWTP "Get Connected" Phase 2 $1,157,038 10 Hardship Applicant Name: Project Title: Mason Step 4: Design & Construction Wastewater Facility Application Number: FP13026 Mason County $1,580,960 Project Type: Appendix 1b - Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Hardship Eligibility Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Centennial Grant Projects Identified for Funding County Centennial Funding Offered Grant Funds Requested/Eligible White Salmon River Fecal Coliform Implementation Project $249,820 13 Applicant Name: Project Title: Klickitat Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13047 Underwood Conservation District $249,820 Project Type: Dyes Inlet Pathogen Removal Project $285,306 18 Applicant Name: Project Title: Kitsap Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13014 Kitsap County Health District $285,306 Project Type: Salmon Creek Watershed Restoration $250,000 25 Applicant Name: Project Title: Clark Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13076 Clark Public Utilities $250,000 Project Type: Creating Urban Riparian Buffers $216,129 26 Applicant Name: Project Title: Walla Walla Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13039 Walla Walla County Conservation District $216,129 Project Type: Sanpoil Coordinated Implementation Project (SCIP) $234,375 29 Applicant Name: Project Title: Ferry Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13005 Ferry Conservation District $234,375 Project Type: Meeker Creek Riparian & Stream Restoration $215,891 31 Applicant Name: Project Title: Pierce Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13027 Puyallup, City of $215,891 Project Type: Rock Creek and Adams Agricultural BMP Partnership $249,000 33 Applicant Name: Project Title: Whitman Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13090 Palouse Rock Lake Conservation District $249,000 Project Type: Appendix 1b - Page 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Hardship Eligibility Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Centennial Grant Projects Identified for Funding County Centennial Funding Offered Grant Funds Requested/Eligible Little Spokane River Watershed Restoration $213,747 34 Applicant Name: Project Title: Pend Oreille Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13046 Pend Oreille Conservation District $213,747 Project Type: West Wilson at Brooklane Restoration $250,000 36 Applicant Name: Project Title: Kittitas Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13071 Central Washington University $250,000 Project Type: Pacific County OSS Repair Program $172,675 42 Applicant Name: Project Title: Pacific On-Site Septic System Application Number: FP13009 Pacific County $172,675 Project Type: $13,520,000 Totals: $13,943,922 Appendix 1b - Page 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 1c List of Projects proposed for Section 319 Funding Appendix 1c contains a final list of only projects proposed for Section 319 funding in ranked priority order. Information provided on the Final Section 319 List includes: Field Explanation Applicant Name Name of jurisdiction applying for funding. Application Number Unique identifier number used to track application. Project Title Name of project. Project Category Categories used to identify potential funding source for applications. Rank Priority order of application by total score. County County in which project is located. Grant Funds Requested Amount of total funding requested by applicant. Section 319 Funding Offered Total Amount of Centennial funding offered to applicant. Footnotes Explanation or comment on application or proposed funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- This page is purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank Footnotes State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Projects Identified for Funding County Section 319 Funding Offered Grant Funds Requested CREPCostshare/Maintenance Funding Project Type: $499,100 12 Applicant Name: Project Title: Walla Walla Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13064 Walla Walla County Conservation District $499,100 Yakima Basin Riparian Planting Project Type: $177,500 30 Applicant Name: Project Title: Yakima Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13096 Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group $177,500 Little Pilchuck Streamkeepers Project Type: $238,875 37 Applicant Name: Project Title: Snohomish Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13092 Adopt A Stream Foundation $238,875 Straight to Implementation Riparian Enhancement Project Type: $250,000 39 Applicant Name: Project Title: Asotin Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13062 Asotin County Conservation District $250,000 Riparian Restoration in Hangman Creek Project Type: $75,000 43 Applicant Name: Project Title: Spokane Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13095 The Lands Council $75,000 Instream improvements for temperature abatement Project Type: $250,000 44 Applicant Name: Project Title: Okanogan Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13079 Methow Conservancy $250,000 Lower Snoqualmie Mainstem Riparian Restoration Project Type: $109,310 45 Applicant Name: Project Title: King Nonpoint Source Activity Application Number: FP13093 Sound Salmon Solutions $109,310 $1,599,785 Totals: $1,599,785 Appendix 1c - Page 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 2 Location Maps of All Projects Considered and Offered Funding ---PAGE BREAK--- 80? King County Lewis County Clallam County Whatcom County Skagit County Pierce County Jefferson County Snohomish County Grays Harbor County Skamania County Pacific County Cowlitz County Thurston County San Juan County Mason County Clark County Kitsap County Island County Wahkiakum County 3 9 7 67 45 37 32 15 61 25 72 68 81 86 76 92 21 19 20 17 53 48 63 54 38 28 56 66 58 52 41 40 31 10 35 57 75 22 90 70 59 18 62 42 50 78 Refi XW ? XW ?XW ? ? XW ? XW XWXW XW XW XW XW ? ? ? ? XW XWXW XW XW XW XW XW XW XW ? ? ? XW ? XW XW ?XW ? XW XW XW XW XW State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Western Washington Water Quality Projects ® 0 20 40 10 Miles 12 Project Identified By its Rank Number ? Unfunded Projects Funded Projects XW ---PAGE BREAK--- ? XW ? Okanogan County Yakima County Grant County Chelan County Ferry County Stevens County Kittitas County Lincoln County Whitman County Adams County Klickitat County Benton County Douglas County Franklin County Walla Walla County Columbia County Garfield County Asotin County Spokane County Pend Oreille County 8 6 4 5 1 2 FP13EPG 88 55 30 43 24 33 77 94 27 71 65 74 91 44 47 36 69 11 79 12 83 39 82 89 49 93 73 64 23 16 13 34 60 26 84 46 87 14 51 29 85 ? XW XW XW ? ? XW XW XW ? XW XW XWXW XW ? XW XWXW? ? XW ? XW ? XW XW ? XW XW ? XW ? ? ? XW ? ? XW ? XW XW ? ? XW State Fiscal Year 2013 Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan Eastern Washington Water Quality Projects ® 0 20 40 10 Miles 12 Project Identified By its Rank Number ? Unfunded Projects Funded Projects XW ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 3 Revolving Fund Estimated Schedule of Binding Commitments Rank App Number Applicant Name Project Title Total Revolving Fund Offer Schedule of Binding Commitment 1 FP13020 City of Granger Granger Wastewater System Improvements $2,591,860 12/31/2012 2 FP13012 Mabton, Town of Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements $2,123,000 12/31/2012 3 FP13069 Snohomish, City of Everett Conveyance Project - Final Design $2,220,000 12/31/2012 4 FP13059 City of Spokane CSO Basin 41 Control Facility $4,968,000 12/31/2012 5 FP13058 City of Spokane CSO Basin 33-2 Control Facility $4,521,400 12/31/2012 6 FP13066 Rock Island, City of Wastewater Treatment Plant & Side Sewers $1,023,404 12/31/2012 7 FP13016 Bellingham, City of Squalicum Creek Water Quality and Biotic Integrity Improvements $1,267,274 12/31/2012 8 FP13070 Goldendale, City of Sewer Collection System Improvements $2,353,000 12/31/2012 9 FP13025 Skokomish Indian Tribe Potlatch Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF) – Schedule B Collection System Construction $794,282 12/31/2012 10 FP13026 Mason County Belfair WWTP "Get Connected" Phase 2 $3,824,265 12/31/2012 11 FP13067 Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District Engineering Report $100,000 12/31/2012 14 FP13007 Tekoa, City of 2012 Tekoa Infiltration and Inflow Reduction Improvements Design $108,400 12/31/2012 15 FP13080 Ilwaco, City of First Avenue North Sewer Improvements $794,000 12/31/2012 16 FP13049 Deer Park, City of Wastewater Storage Lagoon and #3 Design $601,350 12/31/2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank App Number Applicant Name Project Title Total Revolving Fund Offer Schedule of Binding Commitment 17 FP13041 King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division Barton CSO Beach Project (Final Design) $4,644,790 12/31/2012 19 FP13043 King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division North Beach CSO Control (Final Design) $2,947,050 12/31/2012 20 FP13042 King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division Murray CSO Control (Final Design) $5,001,000 12/31/2012 21 FP13044 King County DNRP – Wastewater Treatment Division South Magnolia CSO Control (Final Design) $5,193,826 12/31/2012 22 FP13019 City of Hoquiam Hoquiam Wastewater Forcemain Replacement $1,452,379 12/31/2012 27 FP13087 Riverside, Town of Riverside WWF Plan and Environmental Report $50,000 12/31/2012 28 FP13034 Shelton, City of Canyon Creek Improvements Design Project $350,000 12/31/2012 32 FP13081 Ilwaco, City of Sahalee Sewer Improvements $44,500 12/31/2012 35 FP13024 Skokomish Tribe (as fiscal agent to the Tri- Party Consortium MOU) Core Reservation WRF & Collection (Preconstruction) $700,000 12/31/2012 38 FP13035 Tumwater, City of Cleveland Avenue Stormwater outfall Retrofit $96,151 12/31/2012 40 FP13028 Rainier, City of City of Rainier WWF Plan $70,000 12/31/2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- Rank App Number Applicant Name Project Title Total Revolving Fund Offer Schedule of Binding Commitment 41 FP13029 Vader, City of Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade Design $900,000 12/31/2012 48 FP13038 Tumwater, City of E Street Stormwater Treatment Facility $99,403 12/31/2012 49 FP13057 Spokane, City of Energy Generation Project $4,870,000 12/31/2012 51 FP13006 City of Yakima Wastewater Division Methane Utilization/Energy Conservation $5,000,000 12/31/2012 53 FP13040 King County DNRP – WTD Fremont Siphon Replacement (Facilities Plan) $2,213,531 12/31/2012 54 FP13036 Tumwater, City of Tumwater Valley Regional Stormwater Facility $156,000 12/31/2012 57 FP13023 Thurston County Public Health and Social Services Department On-site Financial Assistance Program $174,960 12/31/2012 63 FP13037 Tumwater, City of Somerset Hill Stormwater Outfall Retrofit $108,550 12/31/2012 64 FP13051 Deer Park, City of Effluent Reuse Feasibility Study/General Sewer Plan Update $60,000 12/31/2012 67 FP13098 Mason Count Belfair Bio-Solids Disposal Planning Study $150,391 12/31/2012 68 FP13074 Thurston Conservation District Biological Recovery of the Deschutes Watershed $100,000 12/31/2012 73 FP13052 Kennewick, City of Kennewick Sustainability - WWTP Improvements $725,000 12/31/2012 88 FP13060 Spokane, City of Hazel’s Creek Conveyance $1,428,960 12/31/2012 995 FP13073 Ilwaco, City of City of Iwaco Wastewater Plant Debt Refinance $3,251,094 12/31/2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- The remainder of this page is purposely left blank ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix 4 Response to Public Comments on Draft List Written comments on the Draft List documents were accepted through March 12, 2012. Ecology also held a public meeting on February 27, 2012, at the Pierce County Library – PAC to seek input on the Draft List. Ecology received 31 written comments on the Draft List. Comments on the Draft List are summarized below, with Ecology’s responses following each comment. The full text of each comment on the Draft list can be found in a separate document posted to our web site at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/funding/cycles/2013/ Public comments 1. Accredited Green Plumbers, Greg Chick, Certified Green Plumbers Trainer, General Comment Comment: Congratulations on you (sic) project, please accept my recommendation for public Education on Water issues. With out (sic) an educated public we are going to dry up. I find more ignorance and misinformation in the water supply issue than I can tolerate. Response: Ecology appreciates your support for water quality outreach and education. 2. Sound Salmon Solutions, Brian Boehm, Program Manager Snohomish Basin, FP13093, Lower Snoqualmie Mainstem Riparian Restoration Comment: The applicant provided some additional information concerning the scoring of their application for the Lower Snoqualmie Mainstem Riparian Restoration project. Response: Ecology appreciates the additional information. 3. Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, Alex Conley, Executive Director, Multiple Applications Comment: I just skimmed the report below for our area- RFEG = 177k for riparian (horse Heaven) Sewer improvements for Mabton & Granger No $s recommended for Tuck’s odd lower Yak project $250k fo (sic) CWU work on Wilson Creek (worth checking in with them on at some point) I’m thinking a blurb on these could be something for the web page Response: Ecology publishes the Final Water Quality Funding Offer List and Intended Use Plan on our website and also prepares a news release after publication of the List. ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Herb Gerhardt, Private Citizen, FP13026, WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: Mr. Gerhardt supports any and all grants and loans for continuing the expansion of the Belfair sewer system in include more customers ASAP so that the expense of this system can be spread out to a larger number of people. Response: The project is offered a mixture of grant and reduced interest loan based on the financial impact of the project to local sewer ratepayers. 5. John Gunter, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Mr. Gunter provided a number of comments summarized below. A. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have an email exchange added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The email exchange is between Mr. Gunter and Amy Georgeson. Neither person’s role nor relationship is identified in the email exchange. Attached to the email exchange is a map sent by Ms. Georgeson that is titled Mason County Public Health, 1990s Lower Hood Canal (LHC) On-site Septic System Sanitary Survey (SS) Results – Belfair Area Parcels, February 28, 2012. The map shows parcels in the LHC area color coded by results of the sanitary survey. Mr. Gunter is commenting that the urban growth boundary should be adjusted to take in all of the parcels that are color coded as “failing” the sanitary survey. Response: Mason County did look at expanding the sewer service area into more of the north shore area and there was a proposal to form Limited Areas of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) to allow sewering the area. After studying the idea, the County decided to delay any action in the expanded service area until after the reclaimed water plant was built and the initial service area was being served. Mason County has jurisdiction over the urban growth boundary. B. Comment: How come when I go to county and city code websites and I search for Declaration of Health Hazards for the State of Washington, ONLY Mason County comes up as an actual declaration. All other references are to laws and ordinances, but no other declarations. 3A6irwkac8yqu&q=health+hazard+declaration&cof=FORID%3A11 Is this declaration of Health Hazard unique? Were human lives and health REALLY in jeopardy and are they still or was this just a tool used to get money? What were the conditions of other water contamination declarations of health hazards in Washington? What is the history of these declarations? Response: Ecology is not responsible for the information displayed on the Municipal Research Service (MSRC) website that is cited as the source for the web search preformed by Mr. Gunter. The Washington State Department of Health (Health) makes the declaration of severe public health hazard at the request of the local health departments. Inquiries into other severe health hazard declarations by Health and the history of these declarations should be directed to Health. ---PAGE BREAK--- C. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have an article titled, Atlanta water, sewer rates among nation’s highest, added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The article is included in the body of the email from Mr. Gunter and has a by-line form D.L. Bennett of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. No date is given for the article. Mr. Gunter comment: They are starting us off at $96, but we KNOW it will go up to at least $156 within a few years, but most are project (sic) $200 or more. Atlanta's rates are only a little over 100. See Red below. Section highlighted in red by Mr. Gunter in the article: East Lake resident in Atlanta who pays the average $110 city sewer bill could move one neighborhood east — into unincorporated DeKalb County — and pay about $63. Response: Ecology recognizes that the proposed sewer rates for the Belfair WWTP project are high and that high rates are being seen around the country. Because of this impact to ratepayers in the Belfair area, Mason County has been offered a mixture of grant and reduced interest loan funding for the Belfair WWTP project. D. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have a series of emails added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. Attached to the emails is a memo from Amy Georgeson of Mason County Public Health to John Gunter dated March 9, 2012. The memo provides information and history on the formation of the Belfair Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundary, sewer service to the UGA, and water quality issues for the area. Response: The Washington State Department of Health (Health) makes the declaration of severe public health hazard at the request of the local health departments. Inquiries into the severe health hazard declaration by Health and the history of the declaration should be directed to Health. E. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have a series of emails added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The email exchange is between John Gunter, and John Cunningham, P.E., Interim Solid Waste Program Manager, Mason County Utilities & Solid Waste Management Department. The emails are from February 26, 2012 to February 10, 2012. The email exchange discusses the basis and history behind the declaration of severe public health hazard. Response: The Washington State Department of Health (Health) makes the declaration of severe public health hazard. Inquiries into the severe health hazard declaration by Health and the history of the declaration should be directed to Health. F. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have a series of emails added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. Mr. Gunter includes the full text of Chapter 90.71.310 RCW, Action Agenda – Development – Elements revision and updates and Chapter 43.155.070 RCW, Eligibility, priority, limitations, and exceptions. Mr. Gunter asserts that Ecology did not follow the requirements of the attached RCW chapters when evaluating the application. Mr. Gunter further states that he feels the Department of Health (DOH) declaration of severe public health hazard is not based on sound science, that the declaration of severe public health hazard provided Mason County ---PAGE BREAK--- a loophole or shortcut to receive state funding, and that DOH issued the declaration specifically to secure funding for the Belfair sewage project. Response: For the Ecology funding programs, guiding state regulations include Chapter 90.50A RCW, Water pollution control facilities - federal capitalization grants, Chapter 173-98 WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, Chapter 70.146 RCW, Water Pollution Control Facilities Financing, and Chapter 173- 95A WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Centennial Clean Water Program. The RCWs quoted in Mr. Gunter’s emails apply to the Puget Sound Partnership and to the Public Works Board, respectively. Ecology followed the requirements and procedures of the applicable rules and statutes. The Washington State Department of Health (Health) makes the declaration of severe public health hazard. The declaration of severe public health hazard was not the sole basis for offering funding for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project, but was only one piece of evidence supporting the widespread water quality and public health problems in the area. Hood Canal and the Union River have documented environmental issues that led to Mason County spending many years in studying and planning responses. Included in the environmental documentation is a TMDL study completed by Ecology of the Union River that pointed to septic systems in the Belfair area as a contributor to the problems. After a thorough review of options, the County decided to pursue sewers and reclaimed water production for Belfair. G. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have a series of emails added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. Mr. Gunter identifies what he feels is an error in the application. Mr. Gunter asserts that by not addressing the paragraph in question, Ecology did not adequately evaluate the application, that the evaluation process was un-scientific and a “charades game”. Response: Ecology staff performed a re-review of the application based on Mr. Gunter’s comments, but found no significant issues that would affect the project rating. The statement Mr. Gunter references is from the non-scored portion of the application, question 12, where the County describes their project. Ecology agrees that the project description is poorly worded and contributes to confusion about the project. The project description includes references to both the overall Belfair sewage treatment and collection project intermixed with references to the specific “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. We note that that this problem occurred in several places in the application, presenting Ecology evaluators with the additional work required to identify the benefits specifically tied to the “Get Connected” Phase 2 project from the claimed environmental benefits of the overall project. Ecology’s evaluation process was not rendered invalid or un-scientific due to the poorly worded project description. H. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have a series of emails added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The email exchange is between John Gunter, and Jeff Nejedly, Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. The emails respond to and follow up on Mr. Gunter’s previous comment. In the email exchange Mr. Gunter asserts that, based on the inconsistency identified in his previous comment, the decision to fund this project can only be the result of either incompetence or corruption on the part of Ecology employees. ---PAGE BREAK--- Response: Ecology takes its responsibility to protect and clean up the State’s waters very seriously. Ecology staff is committed to open and accountable processes, including review of the technical merits of wastewater projects and the process for rating project applications for funding. Following Ecology’s review of the process used to rate the projects on this year’s funding list, we find no evidence of impropriety or a lack of professional responsibility on the part of the employees involved. Ecology rejects Mr. Gunter’s allegations of incompetence and/or corruption on the part of Ecology staff. I. Comment: Mr. Gunter requests to have a Word document added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The document attached is over a hundred pages long, and includes elements cut and pasted from the County’s application; sections pasted from Mr. Gunter’s previous comments; emails between Mr. Gunter, County staff and others dating back to 2008; 20 pages of what appears to be un- sourced fecal coliform data from the Hood Canal; what appears to be excerpts from County Commission meeting minutes from January 2007, and the minutes from a Planning Advisory Commission meeting dated December 2006. The document is organized to rebut specific statements made in the County’s application for funding for the Belfair WWTP Get Connected” Phase 2 project. Response: The attached document was very similar in tone and content to Mr. Gunter’s other comments. No new topics were raised in this comment. Ecology’s other responses address the issues raised in this comment. J. Comment: I wanted you do know that I likely gave inaccurate information that I wanted to correct today. In the large Word document, I stated the following: Here's the answer to the question, "Why aren't you lifting the Shellfish prohibition on Cove when DOH water samples are currently meeting DOH Shellfish standards?" The real answer is that if they removed the restriction now, then they would have to DOWNGRADE it to "restricted" when the Belfair Sewer goes on line. That's simply because Cove will be within the restricted fan of a sewage treatment plant. If you're within the fan, then "restricted" is the best you can get. Nobody mentions this. There'll be a big fanfare at the ribbon cutting when they proclaim that as a result of the new sewer, the shellfish harvest is now open. Nobody will say or notice that it's "restricted". I spoke with Steve Bloomfield today who has been doing Shellfish Harvesting since 1959 and I asked him about this. He stated that the WWTP in Belfair has large irrigation areas and would not likely affect the Hood Canal in a way that would cause a "restricted" designation. I am after the truth. I'm shooting a lot of bullets in many directions. At the time I shoot, I believe every one I give is accurate. If I find out otherwise, I want to correct it so people will consider me a reliable source of truth. I don't want to do the same to you what has been done to us: a good sales pitch. I want the information I provide for you to be based completely upon truth and if I discover errors, I will let you know. This doesn't diminish the need to "undeclare" the health hazard before the sewer goes online, but it does correct a falsehood I do not wish to promote. Response: Ecology appreciates the clarification. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Ken Van Buskirk, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Mr. Van Buskirk provided a number of comments summarized below. A. Comment: Mr. VanBuskirk requests to have a series of emails added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The email exchange is between John Gunter, Ken VanBuskirk, and John Cunningham, P.E., Interim Solid Waste Program Manager, Mason County Utilities & Solid Waste Management Department. The emails are from February 24, 2012 to March 5, 2012. Mr. Gunter and Mr. VanBuskirk are requesting information on how much consultants ESA and Grant Solutions were paid to prepare the Belfair Sewer “Get Connected” application and the Belfair Biosolids Planning Study application, what is the source of funds used to pay the consultants, and do the consultants receive a percentage of the funding if the applications are successful. Response: Ecology financial assistance application rules and policies do not prohibit local communities from hiring consultants to assist in preparation of application material. Funds provided by Ecology cannot be used to pay for the preparation of financial assistance applications. Finally, we note that the financial arrangement between Mason County and their application writer is a legitimate point of discussion between Mr. VanBuskirk and the County, but is not applicable to Ecology’s determination to provide funding for the project. B. Comment: Mr. VanBuskirk requests that his email dated March 5, 2012 to Greg Zentner, P.E., Supervisor, Municipal Operations Unit, Ecology, be entered into the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The letter from Debbie Riley to Emmett Dobey referenced in the last email correspondence below was not submitted with this comment. Original Message From: Zentner, Greg (ECY) To: Ken and Peggy Cc: Tom Moore ; John Cunningham Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:46 AM Subject: RE: Belfair sewer Hi Ken: Thanks for your note. A finding related to public health hazards or emergencies falls within the jurisdiction of the State Department of Health (or a local health officer), not the Department of Ecology. However, we have made a related determination with respect to the Union River and septic systems within the UGA – see attached. Gregory S. Zentner P.E. / Supervisor, Municipal Operations Unit / Department of Ecology / Water Quality Program / Southwest Regional Office / [PHONE REDACTED] / [EMAIL REDACTED] From: Ken and Peggy [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 3:28 AM ---PAGE BREAK--- To: Zentner, Greg (ECY) Cc: Tom Moore; John Cunningham Subject: Belfair sewer Greg per our discussion last week I came across this email I sent to Dr.Yu last year. She never got back to me. Best Ken Original Message From: Ken and Peggy To: [EMAIL REDACTED] Cc: Commissioner Sheldon Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:22 AM Subject: Belfair sewers Dr. Yu, attached is a letter that Debbie Riley submitted to Emmett Dobey and the Mason County Planning advisory committee. I highlighted a portion of her letter in where she states, "citizens should be encouraged to connect to the sewer no matter if they are inside or outside the sewer boundary." This position appears to be in contradiction to GMA. GMA is very specific that a documented public health emergency must exist to extend sewer outside of a UGA. Are you planning to declare such an emergency for the areas surrounding the Belfair UGA? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ken VanBuskirk Response: Emails included as requested, but not clear that there is any comment directed at Ecology or the funding list within the emails. C. Comment: I am a resident of the Belfair area who uses the Old Belfair highway daily. I oppose the grant application funding. In addition to the "Phase 2" residents, the North Mason community was not notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward. Two such examples are the issues of the possible formation of a citizen advisory group adjusting the UGA boundaries and that the Old Belfair Highway is the only Mason County road projected to be at a level of service, (LOS), in the immediate future. All infrastructure projects in our community need to be considered and prioritized, not just the sewer. Response: Extensive public involvement activities have been undertaken by Mason County to inform the residents of the Belfair project. The desire of the County to secure funding to offset the costs of the new treatment system has been part of the public information. Ecology is not aware of specific outreach efforts for the Phase 2 funding application, but that does not diminish the overall public involvement efforts. Ecology expects all the developed areas within the UGA to be sewered as committed to in this and prior funding applications. Ecology would not support adjusting the UGA boundaries if this falls short of previous commitments. Road projects would not be eligible for this funding. D. Comment: Mr. VanBuskirk requested that the following email be submitted as part of the public comments on the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Ken and Peggy To: Amy Georgeson; Riley, Debbie (DOHi) Cc: Nejedly, Jeffrey (ECY); Coppo, Joseph (ECY); Toteff, Sally (ECY); Sturdevant, Ted (ECY); Commissioner Bloomfield; [EMAIL REDACTED]; Bob Hager; John Cunningham Subject: Ecology comments/ anthropogenic nitrogen input to Hood Canal? Date: Sunday, March 11, 2012 5:05:44 PM Ladies, I saw a Bell 206 helicopter being trailored this afternoon. Two loaded semis in trail, presumably carrying Urea, (nitrogen) for fertilization of forested land somewhere in the Hood Canal watershed. They were headed down the Old Belfair highway towards the Tahuya Peninsula and the headwaters of the Union River. Do you know where they might be applying fertilizer and can you find out? Given all the concern surrounding the "corrupted" data for the 2002 "Declaration of Severe public health hazard" in Cove and the use of the same declaration as supporting documentation for the pending "Get Connected" sewer application it might be a way to collect some real time data. Let me know I would be happy to go with you and monitor their application! Response: Email included as requested. E. Comment: Mr. VanBuskirk requested that the following email be submitted as part of the public comments on the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. Maps referenced in the correspondence below were not submitted with this comment. Original Message From: Amy Georgeson To: John Cunningham ; John Gunter Cc: Debbie Riley ; Ken and Peggy Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 9:24 AM Subject: Re: Belfair Sewer, 1990s Lower Hood Canal Sanitary Surveys and Water Quality in Belfair's UGA Hi All- Please, disregard the embedded maps in the file that I sent last week. Apparently, when I saved my document as a .pdf, there was some data corruption in regard to those 3 embedded maps. I already had the maps individually saved as .pdfs, so, I am sending the non-corrupt, individual versions to you. Hopefully these maps will make more sense! ~Amy Response: Email included as requested. F. Comment: Mr. VanBuskirk requests to have a series of emails added to the public comments for the Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 project. The emails are from Shannon Goudy, Clerk of the Board Mason County Commissioners. They concern Mr. VanBuskirk’s request for a copy of a letter of support from the Mason County Board of Commissioner written in support of the 2002 Declaration of Severe Public Health Hazard in Cove. The emails are from March 5, 2012 to March 12, 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- Ms. Goudy replied that the retention schedule for the correspondence is only six years and that she has not found a copy of the letter. Response: Email included as requested. 7. Reid Real Estate – Belfair, Butch Boad, Managing Broker, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident of a 95 parcel community, Riverhill, which was in proposed and subsequently deleted, Phase II that is on the northern border of the Belfair UGA. This community accesses the Old Belfair Highway. I am shocked to learn that Mason County is still trying to fund sewers for this area. At a public hearing in Belfair on November 29 presided by Mason County Commissioner Tim Sheldon, the residents of Phase II, expressed unanimous opposition to being included in the plan for sewers. The reasons were loud and clear, especially from the Riverhill Community. Riverhill was developed in the early 1970s as rural acreage tracts that still exist as 1+ acre up to 7 acres with the majority in 1+ acre tracts and a platted portion with 20 lots containing approximately 13000 square feet each. This area was chosen for development because of location and ideal soils for onsite sewage systems. After all the lots in the original 20 acre Plat were developed with residences, a second plat of 24 lots of the same size was developed and residences subsequently built. There has been absolutely no significant failure of septic systems in that vicinity or evidence of negative impact on water quality or stream habitat. It was properly developed for use by onsite sewage systems. As an owner/resident in this community I do not need a sewer connection; and I believe it is a huge waste of funding to include this portion of the Belfair UGA in a sewage system just because Mason County needs the money NOW instead of properly reviewing the UGA Boundaries to identify adjacent areas for new development that would be in keeping with the intent of the GMA. Subsequently, on the December 20, 2012, meeting of the Mason County Commissioners, the Sewer Ordinance, referred to as Title 13 was presented with all reference to Phase II eliminated. Commissioner Tim Sheldon stated that the Commissioners were intending to direct the Mason County planning staff to begin a review of the Belfair UGA. The residents of the Phase II were relieved that a responsible government was finally listening to its constituents. Now that I’ve learned that a grant funding request is still in process I believe we may have been sandbagged. I am not aware of any action taken by Mason County planning staff to review the Belfair UGA Boundary. Please do not waste your precious funding on a Phantom Phase II. Response: Ecology has not been informed by the County that the Phase 2 project has been eliminated. Ecology’s offer of funding for the project is made in good faith, based on our understanding that the project is moving forward. ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Edd & Rose Kruk, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident of a 95 parcel community, Riverhill, which was in proposed and subsequently deleted, Phase II that is on the northern border of the Belfair UGA. This community accesses the Old Belfair Highway. I am shocked to learn that Mason County is still trying to fund sewers for this area. At a public hearing in Belfair on November 29 presided by Mason County Commissioner Tim Sheldon, the residents of Phase II, expressed unanimous opposition to being included in the plan for sewers. The reasons were loud and clear, especially from the Riverhill Community. Riverhill was developed in the early 1970s as rural acreage tracts that still exist as 1+ acre up to 7 acres with the majority in 1+ acre tracts and a platted portion with 20 lots containing approximately 13000 square feet each. This area was chosen for development because of location and ideal soils for onsite sewage systems. After all the lots in the original 20 acre Plat were developed with residences, a second plat of 24 lots of the same size was developed and residences subsequently built. There has been absolutely no significant failure of septic systems in that vicinity or evidence of negative impact on water quality or stream habitat. It was properly developed for use by onsite sewage systems. As an owner/resident in this community I do not need a sewer connection; and I believe it is a huge waste of funding to include this portion of the Belfair UGA in a sewage system just because Mason County needs the money NOW instead of properly reviewing the UGA Boundaries to identify adjacent areas for new development that would be in keeping with the intent of the GMA. Subsequently, on the December 20, 2012, meeting of the Mason County Commissioners, the Sewer Ordinance, referred to as Title 13 was presented with all reference to Phase II eliminated. Commissioner Tim Sheldon stated that the Commissioners were intending to direct the Mason County planning staff to begin a review of the Belfair UGA. The residents of the Phase II were relieved that a responsible government was finally listening to its constituents. Now that I've learned that a grant funding request is still in process I believe we may have been sandbagged. I am not aware of any action taken by Mason County planning staff to review the Belfair UGA Boundary. Please do not waste your precious funding on a Phantom Phase II. Response: See previous response. 9. Monna Haugen, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: Belfair Sewer. We oppose the grant application funding. Our Mason County Commissioners have postponed the completion of this Phase 2 until 2017. There are major problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving forward. One major problem is the lack of communication about only a small portion of this application actually being a "grant", while the major part is a "loan" which would have to be repaid by the residents. Three other examples are that this Phase 2 is far from the Hood Canal and it's tributary, the Union River, no baseline data has been done to show any of the residents' septic systems are failing, and as planned, wetland setbacks would have to be crossed by sewer lines. A shocking fact is that a home right by the Union River is NOT in Phase 2, even ---PAGE BREAK--- though during flooding, much of their drain field went into the river. There are several other residents, also right by the river who are also out of the Phase 2 plan, even though they are also right by the road, the Old Belfair Highway, where the sewer line will be buried. Please do not move forward with this loan and grant application until corrections can be made. Response: Ecology has attempted to provide the best funding package possible to help offset the costs of the project and impacts to rate payers. Overall, the Belfair project has received a high percentage of grant funding from the State and Federal governments. Local planning efforts developed the UGA boundaries, and Ecology agrees there are areas outside the UGA that could have been included within the UGA to eliminate even more septic systems. Septic systems have been determined to be a source of pollutants such as nitrates, which is due more to septic systems lack of ability to treat nitrates, rather than classical failures with surfacing effluent. 10. John L. Scott – Belfair, Rob Drexler, Broker/Co-Owner, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am writing to voice my opposition to any and all grant applications that Mason County is requesting regarding the Belfair Wastewater and Water Reclamation Facilities Project. I hereby rescind my letter of approval for the project that I sent March 3, 2009 under my John L. Scott - Belfair letterhead. I have just learned that that same letter has been used as justification for more grants for the project. The initial premise used as justification for the project is flawed in my opinion, the way this project has been handled is and continues to be a terrible waste of money and I think we should stop any further expansion (read: spending of new money) until the project is operational and we can actually figure out where we are, how we are going to pay for what has been done so far and see if there is any need to continue the project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need any clarification of what I have stated. Again, I rescind my letter of approval sent in March of 2009. Response: Ecology notes you have rescinded your previous letter. 11. Pat Loudin, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident inside what would be known as Phase 2 of the Belfair Sewer. I oppose the grant application funding. In addition to not being notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward. I fully support John Gunter's comments and documentation on this matter. Response: See response #6.C. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12. Michael Howard, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident inside what would be known as Phase 2 of the Belfair Sewer. I oppose the grant application funding. In addition to not being notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward. Response: See response #6.C. 13. Nancy Mottinger, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident inside what would be known as Phase 2 of the Belfair Sewer. I oppose the grant application funding. In addition to not being notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward. One of the problems is the Urban Growth Areas Maps divide properties into two pieces rather than following property lines. Response: See response #6.C. For questions on specific issues with the UGA, please direct your comments to Mason County. 14. Danial Dubiak, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident inside what would be known as Phase 2 of the Belfair Sewer. I oppose the grant application funding. In addition to not being notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward. Response: See response #6.C. 15. Bruce Landram, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident of the Belfair area who uses the Old Belfair highway daily. I oppose the grant application funding. In addition to the "Phase 2" residents, the North Mason community was not notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward: > The Mason County commissioners are currently discussing how this project may be "too much, too soon", > They are also discussing the possible formation of a citizen advisory group adjusting the UGA boundaries, and ---PAGE BREAK--- > The Old Belfair Highway is the only Mason County projected to be at a level of service, (LOS), in the immediate future. All infrastructure projects in our community need to be considered and prioritized, not just the sewer. > The basis of the need for a sewer in Belfair was, and remains, faulty. There is no "emergency" level of fecal matter in the lower Hood Canal near Belfair. This "declaration" is just that, an empty declaration. Some Mason County administrator is simply pulling "a rabbit out of his hat", and > The current (phase I) system, used by only a small percentage of total customers, has already failed...causing the smell of raw sewage to infiltrate a local grocery store for much of it's work day, and > Many businesses are closing down rather than hook up to the sewer due to it's high costs. The Belfair sewer is a classic case of a local politician taking an issue too far, too soon and too fast...making promises that could not be kept and avoiding the public process. Sewer systems are meant to have an ecological and economic purpose. The Belfair system does neither! Please deny this grant application. Response: See response #6.C. 16. Valerie Mcleod, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: I am a resident of the Belfair area who uses the Old Belfair highway frequently. I oppose the grant application funding. In addition to the "Phase 2" residents, the North Mason community was not notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward. Two such examples are the issues of the possible formation of a citizen advisory group adjusting the UGA boundaries and that the Old Belfair Highway is the only Mason County road projected to be at a level of service, (LOS), in the immediate future. All infrastructure projects in our community need to be considered and prioritized, not just the sewer. Response: See response #6.C. 17. Donald & Christine Foster, Belfair resident, FP13026, Belfair WWTP “Get Connected” Phase 2 Comment: We reside inside what would be known as Phase 2 of the Belfair Sewer. We are against the entire project. We oppose the grant application funding. In addition to not being notified properly prior to November when this application was submitted, there are many other problems and concerns that have yet to be addressed prior to moving this forward. Money could be better spent taking Phase 2 down North Shore where there are more homes and they are closer to Hood Canal, if the health of Hood Canal is actually what we are supposed to be concerned with. Response: See response #6.C.