Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem A - PH on MWMC/Metro PlanEUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend Chapter III, Section G, Public Utilities and Services Element, and Chapter IV Glossary of the Metro Plan, and Amend the Public Facilities and Services Plan (Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, File MA 04-01) Meeting Date: June 22, 2004 Agenda Item Number: A Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter www. cl. euget~e, or. us Contact Telephone Number: 682-8379 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) requests amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and Public Facilities Services Plan (PFSP) so that policies will be consistent with its plans for future service improvements. This meeting will be a joint public hearing with Lane County and City of Springfield elected officials. A more detailed explanation of the proposed amendments and issues raised during the Planning Commissions' hearings is provided in the attached memorandum. BACKGROUND MWMC provides for all operations, maintenance, administration, and capital project management for the Eugene/Springfield Water Pollution Control Facility, Biosolids Management Facility, Biocycle Farm, Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, and the regional wastewater pump stations. These proposed land use actions are but one of several separate actions the MWMC is taking to update its services. Council Action History MWMC was formed by intergovernmental agreement in 1977 to provide wastewater collection and treatment services for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. The City Council annually reviews the MWMC budget and capital improvement plan, most recently at its May 24 and June 14, 2004, meetings. Councilor Poling is Eugene's elected official representative to the MWMC. Policy Issues The proposed amendments would add policies to the Metro Plan and PFSP in support ofMWMC's updated capital improvement program. An issue was raised at earlier hearings regarding the relationship between MWMC's other planning and budgeting actions and these land use policies. As described in the attached memoranda, these proposed Metro Plan and PFSP policy amendments are the only land use decisions in all the MWMC program decisions before the council. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040622\S040622A. doc Council Goal Action Priority The proposed actions relate directly to the following 2003-2004 City Council goals: · SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A community that retains a high quality of life and a healthy economy, effectively links land use and transportation planning, and successfully manages growth and change in the urban environment · HEALTHY NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT A community that conserves and enhances the natural environment and provides an attractive and healthy place to live The following Growth Management Study policy applies: Policy 17 Protect and improve air and water quality and protect natural areas of good habitat value through a variety of means such as better enforcement of existing regulations, new or revised regulations, or other practices. Financial and/or Resource Considerations None directly. The cost implications of these policies will be decided through separate budget and capital improvement (non-land use) processes. Other Background Information Please see attached materials. Publications entered into the record during the Planning Commission open record period will be available in the Council Office at Eugene City Hall. Timing MWMC wants to begin construction of treatment facility improvements this summer. Delays in policy approval would delay construction, likely increasing the long-term capital costs and probability of permit violations, fines, and penalties. OPTIONS 1. Move to adopt ordinance. 2. Take no action on night of hearing. 3. Request more information prior to action. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Eugene Planning Commission recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. SUGGESTED MOTION No motion is suggested; this is a public hearing only. L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040622\S040622A. doc ATTACHMENTS A. Memorandum from Gregory Mott, City of Springfield, with the following attachments: · Planning Commission Staff Report, Findings and Proposed Amendments · Public Hearing Testimony and Staff Response · Table of Contents of Joint Planning Commission Record · Public Testimony Submitted After Hearing Close and Staff Response · Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660 Division 11 Public Facilities Planning · Ordinances Amending the Metro Plan and PFSP · Findings FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Kurt Yeiter, Principal Planner Telephone: 682-8379 Staff E-Mail: Kurt. M.Yeiter~ci. eugene, or.us L:\CMO\2004 Council Agendas\M040622\S040622A. doc ATTACHMENT A To: The Elected Officials of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County From: Gregory Mott,~nning Manager, Commumty Planning and Revitalization Date: June 4, 2004 Amendments to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metropolitan Plan and to Subject: the Public Facilities and Services Plan . Issue The Public Facilities Element of the Metropolitan Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a functional plan of the Metro/olitan Plan, are proposed for amendment as follows: 1. Identify each of the regional wastewater treatment facilities on appropriate maps and tables in the PFSP; 2. Define wastewater service as collection and treatment in the ~/~etro Plan and the PFSP; 3. Add a new policy in the ldetro Plan that obligates the area's conveyance and treatment systems to accommodate projected growth within the UGB and achieve compliance with all regulatory standards; 4. Add new text in the PFSP regarding the Wastewater System Condition Assessment; and $. Add a new amendment process to the P?SP. The above information does not appear in the Metro Plan or PFSP but, with the exception of the proposed amendment process, is required to be included in public facilities plans by the provisions of Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division 11 Public Facilities Planning. Background The staffs' of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission and the City of Springfield brought these amendments to the Springfield City Council on February 17, 2004 for initiation of Metro Plan and PFSP amendment, pursuant to S£ringfield Development Code, Article 7 Metro Plan Amendments. The Council was informed that several wastewater treatment facility projects were necessary to provide required capacity to meet water quality discharge, residuals disposal and reuse standards consistent with planned growth and federal and state requirements for the area's wastewater systems. These projects were not in the 2001 update of the P?SP because past practice dictated that the only components of the wastewater systems identified in the PFSP were pump stations and p~pes larger than 2 . Any expansion, improvement or additions to the main treatment plant or other treatment sites were approved through the capital improvement programming of MWlVlC. Although OAR recognize and exempt local capital improvement planning from the requirements of Division 11, there is no such exemption for the identification, location, timing and rough cost estimates of public facilities, including the "Treatment facilities system." (See OAR 660-011-0005 and 0010) Discussion The proposed amendments are primarily housekeeping in that they are necessary (read mandated) additions to the content of the PFSP. However, the importance of this amendment action should not be minimized by this term. The existing PFSP only identifies some parts of the primary collection system and nothing about the treatment facilities system. The definition of"Sanitary Sewer" in OAR 660, Division 11, is: "Treatment facilities system and Primary collection system." The inclusion of new Tables 4a, 4b and 16a, and Maps 2 and 2a are specifically intended to correct this omission in the PFSP (see Appendix B, page 1, 2 and 4 of the staff report packet, Attachment 1). The degree of detail or specificity this information is required to provide is also described in the OAR: "The public facility plan shall identi~ significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The public facility plan shall list the title of the project and describe each public facility project in terms of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity." (OAR 660-011-0020) "The governing body Of the city or county responsible for development of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the comprehensive plan: a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects." (Oar 660-011-0045) On page 3 and 4 of Appendix B (Attachment 1), the new narrative under Wastewater System Condition Assessment and the new Table 16a respond specifically to these requirements of the rule. It should be noted that the Metro Plan text, at page III-G-2, is very clear regarding the reach of the PFSP: "The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and budget processes of individual service providers." Examples of this protocol are in the record of the Planning Commissions (Attachment 3) at Documents #13 and #14. The proposed inclusion of a separate amendment process for the PFSP includes the requirements of OAR 660-011-0045 Adoption and Amendment Procedures for Public Facility Plans and maintains the categories of Type I and Type II amendments as those classes of amendments are distinguished in Chapter IV of the Metro Plan and in the development ordinances of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County. The purpose of the PFSP having its own amendment process is twofold: 1) recOgnition that the Metro Plan amendment process is a better fit with broad-based comprehensive planning issues than it is with specialty plans; and 2) the State law makes a distinction between the requirements for post-acknowledgment plan amendments (PAPA's) and some changes to a community's public facilities plans; these distinctions should be observed locally. Amendments to Chapter III, Section G of the Metro Plan are included in this proposal and are intended to address the internal consistency criteria required of Metro Plan amendments: "Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent." (Springfield Code 7.070(3) (b)) This question of consistency exists because of the relationship between functional plans (PFSP) and the Metro Plan text: "All refinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan, and should inconsistencies occur, the Metropolitan Plan is the prevailing policy document." (Chapter IV, page IV-4, Metro Plan) For these reasons, the Metro Plan text is proposed to be amended to recognize the new maps, the existence of the treatment facilities and collection systems, and the definition of "primary collection system" and "treatment facilities system." In the interests of furthering internal consistency, a single new policy is proposed for inclusion in Chapter III, Section G of the Metro Plan, and reads as follows: "Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory requirements governing beneficial reuse [or discharge] l of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals." This language makes a deliberate connection between the Metro Plan and the amendments to the Wastewater System Condition Assessment of the PFSP, and responds to the specific requirements of OAR 660-011-0020(2). Planning Commission Action and Public Testimony The Planning Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County conducted a joint public hearing on these proposed amendments on April 20, 2004. Written and oral testimony was provided by the Eugene Chamber of Commerce and the Lane County Home Builders. The latter group requested an extension of the written record until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 7, 2004. As a result of this record extension request, the Planning Commissions scheduled deliberation dates in the third and fourth weeks of May. The staff's written response to the testimony submitted at the public hearing was distributed to the Planning Commissions a Week before their respective deliberation dates. A written response to the Home Builders I The staff report Appendices Aa and Ab inadvertently omitted "or discharge" from the text of new Policy G.9, however the DLCD Notice of Proposed Amendment did include this language (See Attachment 1). testimony submitted on the May 7th deadline was not distributed until the evening of May 18th when the Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions had scheduled deliberation. Both Planning Commissions rescheduled their deliberations until June 1, 2004. The Eugene Planning Commission received all staff responses in time for their May 24th session and forwarded a recommendation of support (unanimous) of the amendments to the Eugene City Council. Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions concluded their deliberations on June 1, 2004, and forwarded similar recommendations of support to their respective elected officials, also by unanimous vote. It is fair to note that an extraordinary amount of time has been taken, in the processing of these amendments, discussing matters that, while they are, in a strict legal sense, irrelevant to the consideration of the narrow issues upon which a decision on the amendments is properly based, they nonetheless spark substantial interest. Because the elected officials may be intrigued by matters beyond the narrow conditions of approval specified in the Metro Plan and the relevant administrative rule, we comment on those matters. The concerns fall into two broad categories. The first is the relative level of specificity required for the project titles to be included in the PFSP. The Homebuilders appear to be arguing, for a level of specificity below the site level (i.e., where multiple activities are estimated to occur at a given geographical location, they appear to suggest that each of those activities is a separate and independent "project" which must be called out in the PFSP). Were this to be done, the list would clearly be at variance with other lists in the PFSP or on similar functional plans - all of which aggregate the activities at a physical location into one project title. A detailed explanation of why the listed projects have the specificity required by the rules is set forth in the memorandum dated May 6, 2004 that was submitted by the Springfield City Attorney's office (Attachment 2). ' The second concern is a claim that the cost estimates lack required precision and suggests that there has been inadequate prior public participation given the magnitude of the estimates. The required precision of the cost estimates is specifically set forth in the rules. Basically, they are only to be "rough" estimates. It is not intended that project cost estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting purposes such as those that are to be found in local facilities plan or capital improvement plans. The other aspect of the second concern is the claim that somehow there has not existed sufficient oversight over staff development of proposed capital expenditures, to the effect that the $144 million capital need described in MWMC's 2004 Facilities Plan has appeared, as if out of nowhere, without adequate review and public discussion. The historical record proves otherwise. In 1996 MWMC completed a master planning process. That-process, based on 1995 and 1996 data, identified some $20 million in needed plant improvements and upgrades. As time has passed, most of the needs identified in that document have been incorporated into the regional capital improvement program and, through the normal budgetary processes, approved by the governing bodies. Although some are already under construction, about $2 million (adjusted to 2004 dollars) remain to be programmed in the budgeting process. Later, in 1997, MWMC undertook to develop a Biosolids Management Plan. This planning effort, guided by a citizen advisory committee, resulted in a planning document that was reviewed by the governing bodies. That plan contemplated $12.5 million in capital needs. As with the previous master plan effort, most of the projects have been programmed in the ordinary budgeting processes, approved by the several governing bodies, and have been constructed. In 1998, MWMC commissioned a similar more detailed look at issues surrounding wet weather flow. This effort, likewise guided by a citizen's advisory committee, led to another planning document which was reviewed and approved by the governing bodies. After accounting for some needs identified in this latter report which had also been identified in the 1997 master plan, the WWFMP added another $33 million in capital needs to those previously identified, bringing the cumulative need to $36 million. After completion of the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, MWMc continued to fulfill its responsibility, under its founding intergovernmental agreement, to plan for needed capital improvements to maintain and expand capacity of the regional system, In 2002, MWMC directed staff to prepare a 20 year estimate of capital needs, given that the design life of the water pollution control facility would be reached in 2004. When that analysis was completed, and reviewed by MWMC as part of its ordinary budget process for FY2002-03, the capital needs were estimated at about $105 million, including the $36 million that remained from the prior planning efforts. Although this was not a formal planning effort that resulted in a comprehensive plan which the Commission would forward to the governing bodies for consideration, the magnitude of the need prompted the Commission to institute a comprehensive planning process. That process ultimately resulted in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan, which has been submitted by MWMC to the governing bodies. The MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan includes all of the project components contemplated by this $105 million in projected capital spending. In addition, it deals with issues which have arisen since the three previous efforts were completed. Most notably, this includes the impact of the 2002 NPDES discharge permit by DEQ, which adds additional limitations on discharges and maintains other limits, despite the growth (both current and anticipated) in the population served by the system. The impact of these changes drives the need for additional capital spending, including revisions to several of the project components contemplated by the earlier plans. This planning effort involved evaluation of a wide range of technologies and facility improvement options that could be implemented to provide maximum discharge permit compliance and capacity through 2025. Four final, viable alternatives were identified, ranging in cost from $144 million to $233 million (in 2004 dollars). The MWMC has approved a plan that will implement $144- $160 million, depending on ultimate approvals sought from DEQ. These rough cost estimates are reflected in the project cost estimates found in Table 16a. The Home Builders do support some of the proposed amendments though it has been their objections that have generated the most interest among the respective planning commissions. Other than the preceding comments regarding the two general areas of concern expressed by the Home Builders, this memorandum will direct your attention to Attachments 2 & 4, which include the written testimony submitted by the Home Builders on April 20, 2004 and on May 7, 2004, and the staff response. Without putting too fine a point on it, the staff does not share the opinions of the Home Builders with respect to what should or should not be included as part of the PFSP and Metro Plan regarding the collection and treatment of sanitary sewage, or with respect to the requirements of applicable state law regarding land use planning and the provision of urban services. Conclusion Based on the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rules, the policies of the Metro Plan, and the requirements of each jurisdiction's codes regulating Metro Plan amendments, the proposed amendments to the Metro Plan text and Public Facilities and Services Plan text, maps and tables, are consistent with applicable state law and the local criteria of approval. This conclusion is supported by the evidence in the record developed by the joint planning commissions and the general findings in Attachment 7. Attachments Attachment 1 - Planning Commission staff report, findings and proposed amendments Attachment 2 - Public Hearing Testimony and Staff Response Attachment 3 - Table of Contents of Joint Planning Commission Record Attachment 4 - Public Testimony Submitted After Hearing Close and Staff Response Attachment 5 - Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660 Division 11 Public Facilities Planning Attachment 6 - Ordinances Amending the Metro Plan and PFSP Attachment 7 - Findings To: The Plarming Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County From: Gregory Mort, Planning~~~'v · Date: 20, 2004 --'--- Subject: Metro Plan Text Amendments, Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments ~sue The Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services' Plan (PFSP) are proposed to be amended to: 1. clarify the relationship between the types of facilities projects included in the PFSP and projects ~.at appear in local capital improvement plans; 2. update the PFSP maps based on neW.statutory provmons; 3. reflect current conditions and planned regional wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC Facilities Plan; 4. resolve inconsistencies among metro-wide planning documents; and, 5. adopt a separate amendment process for the Public Facilities and Services Plan. Discussion The proposed amendments are considered Type I Metro Plan amendments because for the most part they are nOn-site specific amendments of the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text, which text includes functional plans such as TransPlan and the PFSP, that are non site-specific require approval by all three governing bodies to become effective (See SDC 7.070(1)(a), Eugene Code 9.7730(1)(a), and Lane COde 12.225(1)(a)(i)). The planning commissions will conduct the initial evidentiary hearing and then forward the record of this heating and a recommendation to their respective elected officials. The planning commissions may take this action collectively or independently as the circumstances warrant. The elected officials shall conduct a joint public hearing on the amendments and shall make a decision based solely on the record of evidence created before the planning commissions. Each governing body may approve, modify and approve, or deny the proposed amendment. HoweVer, all three governing bodies must adopt identical ordinances to complete the amendment process. The MWMC Proposal MWMC is proposing several changes to the Metro Plan text in Chapter HI, Secti°n G Public Facilities and Services Element and Chapter V Glossary. The changes in Section HI-G include modification of introductory text (pages III-G-1 and III-G-2) by adding the term VYastewater to the list of services to development within the urban growth boundary; modification of Policy G.2 (page HI-G-4) by adding the term capital im£rovementplans to the list of activities intended to implement projects in the PFSP; modify Finding 6 (page III-G-4) to include a reference to Map 2a; modification to Policy G.3 (page HI-G- 4) to include a reference to Map 2a; addition of text.following Policy G.8 (page HI-G-5) by inserting the heading "Services to Development within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater;" adding new findings 11 and 12 after Policy G-8 (page IH-G-5) identifying' sanitary sewer collection facilities in each city; adding new policy G.9 (page HI-G-6) that requires wastewater conveyance and treatment inside the ugh that is capable of complying with state' and/or federal regulations for reuse, discharge or disposal; subsequent renumbefing of all findings and policies in HI-G as a result of these amendments; and, modification of Chapter V Glossary by amending the definition of Wastewater under "Public Facilities Projects" (page V4) by adding a definition of Treatment Facilities System to the existing definition of Primary Collection System under the heading Wastewater.. In addition to the foregoing Changes to the Metro Plan, MWMC is proposing changes to the PFSP to make this functional plan internally consistent with the Metro Plan. This consistency will be achieved by modifying text preceding existing Table 3 (page 28) by adding references to Tables 4a and 4b and Map 2a; inserting new Tables 4a and 4b (page 28); inserting new Map 2a (page 35); modifying Chapter IV, Wastewater System Condition Assessment (page 82) with a new paragraph titled "MY/MC Waste'water ATTACHMENT 1-1 Treatment 3¥stera" and another new paragraph titled "Conv~ance;" modifying text "Long-term Service Availability within Urbanizable Areas" (page 97) by including the need to apply appropriate engineering design practices for'development.in sensitive areas, and the need for facilities improvements to address. ' dry and wet weather regulatory requirements related to pollutant loads and flows; adding Table 16a (page 101); and adding a new Chapter VI. Amendments to the Plan including descriptions of modifications to existing identified projects which require amendment to the Public Facilities and Services Plan. The preceding amendments are necessary both as information that should have been'.h~cluded when the PFSP was adopted and as a more accurate description of wastewater services that will be available a~er certain capital improvements are made. These amendments also clarify the administrative process involved in the adoption of annual capital improvements plans intended to implement the generally described projects in the PFSP without amending the PFSP to demonstrate this consistency of action. This process already exists between the metro-wide projects in the PFSP and the locally adopted CIP's of the two cities, the county and the special service providers, but without the "codification" provided by these proposed amendments.1 The proposed PFSP amendment process borrows liberally fi.om the existing Metro plan amendment . process for reasons both obvious and practical. However, unlike the Metro Plan, the PFSP is a specialty document that does not always have applicability to other land use issues addressed in the Metro Plan. For this reason a separate amendment process, designed to account for the unique perspective and requh'ements of the PFSP, is proposed. Major adjustments to the PFSP project list, either through addition of wholly new projects or significant modification of existing projects, requires an amendment to the PFSP and is subject to the same criteria and agency participation as amendments to the Metro Plan. This includes the distinction of"home city" if the proposed amendment is entirely within the city limits of one of the two cities. Adoption of CIP's by any of the identified service providers does not require amendment to the PFSP unless those CIP's contain one of the two triggers identified above. In those instances, the PFSP wOUld need to be amended before that particular CIP could be adopted. The proposed amendment process also includes a description of "modifications" that fall outside the requirement to amend the PFSP. These modifications include administrative changes to a project that does not change the location, sizing, capacity or other general characteristics of the project, or technical ' and environmental changes made to a project because of"final engineering." Conclusion All of the proposed amendmen'ts fall into one of three categories: information that should have been included with the December 2001 Public Facilities and Services Plan regarding wastewater facilities; clarification of the relationship between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement plans; and, administrative and legislative processes governing implementation and amendment of the PFSP projects list. Whether it is Chapter IH-G of the Metro Plan or the various sections of PFSP text that are amended, each of the MWMC proposals is a necessary and felicitous addition to these documents. Attachment 1 demonstrates this ~urther by identify.ing how these proposals satisfy the criteria for Plan amendment in Section 7.030(3)(a&b), Section 9.128(3)(a&b), and Section 12.225(2)(a&b) of Springfield, Eugene and Lane Codes, respectively. Attachments Attachment 1 Analysis and Findings of compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide Planning Goals. and findings demonstrating internal consistency with the Metro Plan Attachment 2 Springfield Council Agenda Item Summary Initiating this Amendment Attachment 3 Notice of proposed amendment provided to Department of Land Conservation and Development 1 As with all locally adopted CIP's, the MWMC CIP may contain expenditures not related to, or required for, projects in the PFSP projects list. 1-2 Staff Report gnd Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan and statewide Goals and Administrative Rules File LRP 2004-0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facil{ties and Services Plan Applicant: City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan WaStewater Management Commission (MWMC) Nature of the ApPlication: The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General · Plan (Metro Plan) and the.Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)~ to (1) more adequately reflect the impact that new discharge permit restrictions will have had on the capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship . between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement plans, and (3) to modify (streamline) the administrative and legislative processes that govern the ' implementation and amendment of the PFSP projects list. Background: MWMC's regional wastewater treatment facilities were designed and constructed in the late 1970's with a 20-year life expectancy. Slower that expected population growth in the 1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to evaluate the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the existing permit conditions, to identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to address seismic hazards), and to address other major issues that needed to be studied farther. In May of 2002 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatment facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of ammonia and thermal loading. As MWMC staffbegan to evaluate design needs for its wastewater facilities, it became apparent to them that the existing facilities could not meet the demands imposed by the new discharge permit restrictions. Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal/reuse needs for the next 20 years was essential, the MWMC began work on the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a comprehensive facilities plan update. The objectives of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intended to provide for adequate community growth capacity through 2025, considering policies in the Metro Plan and current planning assessments for population and development. Second, the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended t° protect community health and safety by addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance and the cost- effective use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities. See appendices A & B' respectfully.. StaffKeport and Findings Page 1 1-3 The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan .recognizes and addresses the fact that the regional : wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area does not have the capacity to meet all of the discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither' the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide PI .anning Goal 2 requires that the city, county and special district plans be consistent. In large part, the amendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the former documents. The proposed amendments provide information that shOuld have been included in the PFSP when it was adopted and present a more accurate description of wastewater services that will be available after certain capital improvement projects are completed. Phasing objectives of the 2004'Wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of several key'facility components begin by June of 2005 in order to meet federal standards that require that peak. wet weather events be managed by 2010. In order to meet this rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests for PropOsals (R.FPs) for engineering design for by October of 2004. Prior to this date, the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information. In summary, the application proposes the following changes: Metro Plan 1. Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcateg°ry of service within the Urban Growth Boundary. [Chapter III-G] 2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Ch~ipter l/I-G] 3. Amends Policy #2 to include local capital improvement plans as a means to implement policy in the PFSP. [.Chapter III--G] 4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to 'development within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter.III-G] 5. Adds a new policy G.9 that makes a commitment to providing the conveyance and treatment of wastewater to meet the needs of projected growth within the urban growth boundary and that meets regulatory requirements. [Chapter III-G] 6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V Glossary] PFSP Staff Report and Findings Page 2 1-4 1. Modifies the text on'page 28, preceding Table 3, and adds Tables 4a and 4b that ' identify MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Primary Collection System improvements, respectively. 2. Modifies Map 2, which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, and adds Map 2a that concerns Existing Wastewater Facilities. 3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition Assessment" in Chapter IV. (Page 82). 4. Modifies existing paragraphs #1 and #2 under the discussion of"Wastewater'' in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" in Chapter IV. (Page 97). 5. Adds new Table 16a (following Tab1e 16) entitled."MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and Timing Estimate." (Page 101) 6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP: Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria The proposed amendments are considered to be Type I Metro Plan amendments because they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text, which include Changes to functional plans such as TransPlan and the PFSP, and that are non-site specific require approval by all three governing bodies to become effective.2 Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code Section 7.070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code 9.128(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a & b) require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and that the amendment will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Thes_e criteria are addressed as follows: · (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted bY the Land Conservation and Development'Commission; Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opp°rtunity for citizens. to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. SDC Article 7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and SDC Article 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS prescribe the manner in which a Type I Metro Plan amendment must be noticed. Citizen involvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban growth boundary amendment requires: 1) Notice to interested parties; 2) Notice 2 See SDC 7.070(1)(a), EC 9.7730(1)(a), and LC 12.225(1)(a)(i). Staff Report and Findings Page 3 1-5 shall be'published in. a newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notice shall be. '" provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at ' least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning commission). Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was published in the Sprkngfield News and in the Register-Guard on March 31, 2004. Notice to interested parties was mailed on April 1, 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on March 4, 2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EPA as affected agencies. Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to the citizen involvement processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Articles 7 and 14; the Eugene Code, Sections 9.7735 and 9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning- To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to us~ of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body afier public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on aperiodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation ordinances. Implementation Measures - are the means used to carry out the plan. These are oft,go general types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area specific implementation measures such as permits and grants for construction, construction of public facilities or provision of services. The most recent version of the Metro Plan is being considered on May 17, 2004 for final adoption by Springfield (Ordinance No. ), by Eugene (Council Bill No. 4860) and by Lane County (Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials. The Metro Plan is the "land use" or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the "implementation measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as defined by ORS 197.015(5)3, must be coordinated with affected governmental units.4 Coordination means that comments from affected governmental units are Incorporated by reference into Goal 2. See DLCD v. Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997). Staff Report and Findings Page 4 1-6 solicited' and considered. In this regard, DLCD's Notice of Proposed Amendment ' ". form was sent to the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EPA. One aspect of the Goal 2 coord'mation requirement concerns population projections. In this respect, the prOPosed amendment to the PFSP Glossary concerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary of 297,5857 This projection is consistent with the mOst recent (1997) final forecasts provided to Lane County by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoption of this modification to the PFSP will effectively "coordinate" this population assumption. Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. This goal does not apply within adopted, acknoWledged urban growth boundaries. Goal 4 - FOrest Lands · This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban' growth boundaries. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and I-Iistoric Areas, and Natural Resources This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - To maintain and improve the quality of the air, ,rater and land resources of the state. This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended in 1977, became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The goal of this Act was to eliminate.the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS 468B.035 requires the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to implement the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The primary method of implementation of this Act is through the issuance, of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 0qPDES) permit prior to the discharge of any wastes into the waters of the state. (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants" regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances (OAR 340-041-0033). One purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the PFSP accurately reflect regional wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that "... the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population ~ Table 3 of technical memorandum entitled "Metropolitan Wastewater Management COmmission - Population Projections for Wastewater Facilities Plan_," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hill, et al (April 9, 2004) Staff Report and Findings Page 5 1-7 increases and serve.all new development at buildout." Recent analyses have determined that facility improvements are now required to address both dry and . wet weather requirements relating to pollutant loads and wasteWater flows. The section in Chapter IV of the PFSP entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the need for facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory requirements. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 8'-Recreational Needs This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 9 - Economic Development- Goal 9 provides, in part, that it is intended to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent withplan policies." The proposed amendments are consistent with this objective in that the Metro Plan, the PFSP and the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan must be consistent in order to comply with State discharge Permit conditions that will determine the improvements to the Regional WasteWater System that are necessary to address new regulatory standards. The improvements are necessary to allow adequate service and conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal capacity to serve new and existing industrial and commercial uses. Goal 10 - Housing- To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 Planning Guideline 3 states that "[P]lans should provide for the appropriate type, location and phasing of pubic facilities and services sufficient to support housing development in areas presently developed or undergoing development or redevelopment." OAR 660-008-0010 requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection." Goal 10 defines buildable lands as "...lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use." 660-008-0005(13), in part, defines land that is "suitable and available" as land "for which public facilities are planned or to which public facilities can be made available." Similar to Goal 9, adequate public facilities are necessary to accomplish the objectives of this goal and applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660, Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide the comprehensive planning framework to allow for the improvements to the regional Staff Report and Findings Page 6 1-8 wastewiter system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area. Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services - Toplan and develop a'timely, orderly ' and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal 11. OAR 660-01.1-0030(1) requires that the public facility plan identify the general location of public facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to Public Facilities and Services Plan Map 2a in Finding 6 and Policy G.3 in the propoSed amendments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the modification of the introductory narrative under "Planned Wastewater System Improvements (Page 28)," the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (Page 28), and the modification of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a, also address this requirement. OAR 660-011-0035(1) requires that the public facility plan include a rough cost estimate for sewer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In Conformity with this requirement, it is proposed that the PFSP be amended by the · insertion of Table 16a (Inserted following Page 101), which addresses rough cost estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements. OAR 660-011-0045(3) provides that modifications to projects listed within a public facility plan may be made without amendment to the public facility plan. This application proposes to add a new chapter to the'PFSP regarding amendments to that plan. Proposed Chapter VI incorporates the standards for amending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3) and adopts an amendment process. Goal 12 - Transportation' This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 13 -Energy Conservation This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 14 - Urbanization - To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments, as they do not affect the existing urban growth boundary. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway ' Staff Report and Findings Page 7 1-9 This goal is not appiicable to the proposed amendments. ' Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes, and GOal 19 Ocean Resources These goals do not apply to the EugeneiSpringfield Metropolitan Area. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconSistent. The proposed changes to the Metro Plan are essentially of a '~housekeeping', nature. They essentially recognize the role ofwastewater service provision within the t/rban growth boundary by.the addition or modification of applicable findings and add or modify policy language to clarify the relationship between the Metro Plan and the PFSP in regard to capital improvement plans and the commitment to comply with regulatory requirements. The proposed changes, as presented, will not create intemal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan. The proposed changes also amend the PFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's planned improvement projects for its wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estimates for those improvements, update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to the wasteWater treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly implement the plan modification standards contained in OAR 660-011-0045(3). The proposed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies within the PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro 'Plan. Staff Report and Findings Page 8 1-I 0 ·APPENDIX Aa PROPOSED CHANGES TO TI:[E METRO PLAN (Current version of the Metro Plan,) G. Public Facilities and Services Element This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary). The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location and de~nsity 0f future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public facilities, and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns change over time, the demand fOr urban services also increases and changes. These changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projeCtions for population and land use. The Policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. 'Consistent with the principle of compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for: future urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth boundary.- This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." On urban lands, new development must be served by at least the minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and'facilities. On rural lands within the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of facilities and Services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a hi,er per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to support a hisher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve development within the urban growth boundary. Urban facilities and services within the urban growth boundary are provided by the City . of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and special service districts. Special service districts provide schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the cities; they provide water, electric, fire service or parks and recreation service. This element provides ~uidelines for special service districts in line with the compact urban development fundamental principle of the Metro Plan. -Appendix Aa Page This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan), adopted as a ~/efinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities; As required by Goal 11, the Public Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location~ of the water, wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban growth boundary.2 The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for electrical facilities, although not required to by law. The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project phasing and'costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and budget processes of individual service providers. This element of the Metro Plan is organized by the following topics related to the provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of services, including w~tewatcr serv:'ce, may be found under any of these topics, although the first topic, Services to Development l~ithin the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories. Services to Development Within the Urban' Growth Boundary · · Planning and Coordination · Water ~ · Wastewater · Stonnwater · Electricity · Schools · Solid Waste · Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary · Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary · Financing The applicable findings and policies are contained under each of these topic headings, below. The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities. ~ The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps is determined through local processes. 2 Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In this metropolitan area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan). Appendix Aa Page 2 1-12 Goals 1.. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner. 2. Provide public facilities and services in a maxmer that encourages orderly and sequential growth. Findings and Policies . Services t° .Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and Coordination Findings. 1. Urban expansion within the urban growth boundary is accomplished through in- fill, redevelopment, and annexation of territory which can be served with a minimum level of key urban services and facilities. This permits new development to use existing facilities and services, or those which can be easily extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban facilities and services. 2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAK 660, the Public Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and contains planned facilities maps for these services. Electric system information and improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, although not required by state law. Local facility master plank and refinement plans provide more specific project information. 3. Urban services within the metropolitan urban growth boundary are provided ·by the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMC, electric'co0peratives, and special service districts. 4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city limits of Eugene and Springfield are served Or can be served in the short-term (0-5 years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South Hills. Service to these areas will be available in the long-term. Service to all areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be extended with· development. 5. With the improvements sPecified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth Appendix Aa Page 3 1-I 3 bounda/y can be served with water, wastewater', stormwater, and electric service at the time those areas are developed. In general, areas outside city limits serviceable in the long~term are located near the urban growth boundary and in urban reserves, primarily in River Road, Santa Clara, west Eugene?s Willow Creek area, south Springfield, and the ThurstOn and Jasper-Natron areas in east Springfield. 6. OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a. and 3 in the Public Facilities and Services Plan. 7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire, parks, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit) will be provided within the urban growth boundary. 8. Large institutional uses, such as universities and hospitals, present complex planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs. 9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public facilities and services. 10.. As discussed in the Public Facilities and serVices Plan, a majority of nodal development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short- term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 States, '- ''Target publicly-fiuanced infrastructure extensions to support development for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development." Policies G. i Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies. G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, .c..apital improvement plans, and ordinances as the .guide for detailed planning and project implementation. G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the Appendix Aa Page 4 l-] 4 Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3, requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for.the following: a. Modifications to a public facility Project which are minor ~ nature and do not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or c. ' Modifications to a public facility project Which are made pursuant to findings of an Environmental' Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the prOcedural provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any - federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations consistent with that act and its regulations G.4 The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public· improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of responsibility. G.5 The cities shall continue joint pla~ning coordination with major institutions, such as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities and services. G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result in a duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall be pursued in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions. G.7 service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal development. G. 8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan area to. develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address regional public facility needs. Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater Findings Appendix Aa Page 5 1-15 11. Springfield and Eugene rely On a combination of regional and local services ' ' for the provision of wasteWater services. Within each City, the local jurisdiction provides collection of wastewater through a system of sanitary sewers and pumping systems. These collection facilities connect to a regional system of similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC"), an entiW formed under an intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190. Together, these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals wNch convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial connections) constitute the primary collection system.. 12. The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system owned and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"), a biosolids facility, and a beneficial reuse facility. Policies G.9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of proiected growth inside the urban growth boundary that are capable of complying with regulator~ requirements governing beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals. ~erviees [o Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water Findings 14-3. Springfield relies on groundwater for its sole source of water. EWEB water source is the McKenzie River and EWEB is developing groundwater sources. The identification of projects on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities map does not confer rights to a groundwater sourcel -Policies G.910 Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, EWEB and Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers within the urban growth boundary. G. 1Ol Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities, county, and other service providers shall manage land use and public facilities for groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan and other wellhead protection plans. Management practices instituted to protect groundwater shall be coordinated among the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County. Appendix Aa Page 6 1-16 G.152 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth boundary include ' adequate consideration of fire flows. G. 133 SUB, EWEB, and Kainbow Water District, the water providers that currently control a water source, Shall examine the need for a metropolitan-wide water master program, recognizing that a metropolitan-wide system will require establishing standards, as well as coordinated source and delivery systems. Services to DeVelopment Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater Findings 12-4.Historically, stormwater systems in Eugene and Springfield were designed primarily to control floods. The 1987 re-authorization of the federal Clean Water Act required, for the first time, local communities to reduce stonnwater pollution within their municipal storm drainage systems. These requirements applied . initially to the City of Eugene and subsequent amendments to the Act extended these requirements to Springfield and Lane County. 135. Administration and enforcement .of the Clean Water Act stormwater provisions occur at the state level, through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements. Applicable jurisdictions are required to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and prepare a water quality plan outlining the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be taken over a five-year permit period for reducing stormwater pollutants to "the maximum extent practicable." 146. Stormwater quality improvement facilities are most efficient and effective at intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to the source of the pollutants and treat relatively small volumes of runoff. 137. The Clean Water Act requires states to assess the quality of their surface waters every three years, and to list those waters which do not meet adopted water quality standards. The Willamette River and other water bodies have been listed as not meeting the standards for temperature and bacteria. This will require the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants, and an allocation to point and non-point sources.. 168. The listing of Spring Chinook Salmon as a threatened species in the Upper Willamette River requires the application of Endangered Species Act (ESA) provisions to the salmon's habitat in the McKeuz~e and Willamette Rivers. The decline in the Chinook salmon has been attributed to such factors as destruction of habitat through channelization and revetment of river banks, non-point source pollution, alterations of natural hydrograph by increased impervious surfaces in the basin, and degradation of natural functions of riparian lands due to removal or alteration of indigenous vegetation. Appendix Aa Page 7 1-17 lg9. There are many advantages to' keeping channels open, including, at a minimum, · . natural biofiltration of stormwater pollutants; greater ability to attenuate effects of peak stormwater flows; retention of wetland, habitat, and open spac. e functions; and reduced capital costs for stormwater facilities. 4-820. An increase in impervious surfaces, without mitigation, results in higher flows during peak storm events, less opportunity for recharging of the aquifer, and a decrease in water quality. -1-921. Stormwater systems tend to be gravity-based systems that follow the slope of the land rather than political boundaries. In many cases, the natural drainageways such'as streams serve as an integral part of the storrnwater cOnveyance system. 202. In general, there are no programs for stormwater maintenance outside the Eugene and Springfield city limits, except for the Lane County roads program. State law limits county road funds for stormwater projects to those located within the public right-of-way. 2J~3. Filling in designated floodplain areas can increase flood elevations above the elevations predicted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) models, because the FEMA models are typically based only.on the extent of development at the time the modeling was conducted and do not take into account the ultimate buildout of the drainage area. This poses risks to other properties in or adjacent to floodplains and can change the hydrograph of the river.- Policies G. 134 Improve surface and ground water quality and quantity in the metropolitan area by developing regulations or instituting programs for stormwater to: a. Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individuals can employ to help correct water quality and quantity problems; b. Improve management of industrial and commercial operations to reduce negative water quality and quantity impacts; c. Regulate site planning for new development and construction to better manage pre- and post-construction storm runoff, including erosion, velocity, pollutant loading, and drainage; d. Increase storage and retention and natural filtration of storm runoff to lower and delay peak storm flows and to settle out pollutants prior to discharge into regulated waterways; Appendix Aa Page 8 1-18 e. Require on-site controls and development standards, as practical, to reduce''''. off-site impacts from Stormwater runoff; f. Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to provide treatment for potentially contaminated runoff waters; g. Reduce street-related water quality and quantity problems; h. Regulate use and require containment and/or pretreatment of toxic substances; i. Include containment measures in site review standards to minimize the effects of chemical 'and petroleum spills;and j. Consider impacts to ground water quality in the design and location of dry wells. G.145 Implement changes to stormwater facilities and management practices to reduce. the presence of pollutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. G. 156 Consider wellhead protection areas and surface water supplies when planning stonnwater facilities. G. 167 Manage or enhance waterways and open stormwater systems to.reduce water quality impacts from runoff and to improve stormwater conveyance. G. lqt8 Include measures in local land development regulations that minimize the amount of impervious surface in new development in a manner that reduces stormwater pOllution, reduces the negative affects from increases in runoff, and is compatible with Metro Plan policies. · G.189 The cities and Lane County shall adopt a strategy for the unincorporated area of the urban growth boundary to: reduce the negative effects of filling in floodplains and prevent the filling of natural drainage channels except as necessaryto ensure public operations and maintenance of these channels in a manner that preserves and/or enhances floodwater conveyance capacity and biological function. G.:l-920Maintain flood storage capacity within the floodplain, to the maximum extent practical, through measures that may include reducing impervious surface in the floodplain and adjacent areas. Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Electricity Findings Appendix Aa Page 9 1-19 224. According to local municipal utilities, efficient electrical 'service is often accomplished through mutual back-up agreements and inter-connected systems are. more efficient than isolated systems: Policies G.21)l The electric service providers will agree which provider will serve areas about to be annexed and inform the cities who the service provider will be and how the t~ansition of services, if any, will occur. Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools Findings 235. OKS 195.110 requires cities and counties to include, as an element of their · comprehensive plan, a school facility plan for high growth districts prepared by the district in cooperation with the city or county; .and for the city or county to initiate the planning activity. The law defines high growth districts as those that have an enrollment of over 5,000 students and an increase in enrollment of six percent or more during the three most recent school years. At present, there are no high growth school districts in the urban growth boundary. 246. OKS 197.296(4)(a) states that when the urban growth boundary is amended to provide needed hotaing, "As part of this process, the amendment shall include sufficient land reasonably necessary to accommodate the siting of new public school facilities. The need and inclusion of lands for new public school facilities shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the local government that has the authority to approve the urban growth boundary." 237. Enrollment projections for the five public School districts in the metropolitan area and the University of OregOn and Lane Community College (LCC) are not consistent. Bethel School District and the Univ. ersity of Oregon expect increases while Springfield and Eugene School Districts and LCC are experiencing nearly flat or declining enrollments. Enrollment is increasing fastest in the elementary and high school attendance areas near new development. 248. Short-term fluctuations in school attendance are addressed through the use of adjusted attendance area boundaries, double shifting, use of portable classrooms, and busing. School funding from the state is based on student enrollment for school districts in the State of Oregon. This funding pattern affects the~: willingness of districts to allow out-of-district transfers and to adjust district boundaries. Adjustments in district boundaries may be feasible where there is no' net loss or gain in student enrollments between districts. 249. Creating or retaining small, neighborhood schools reduces the need for busing and provides more opportunity for students to walk or bike to school. Quality smaller Appendix Aa Page 10 1-20 schools 'may allow more parents to stay in established neighborhoods and to avoid . moving out to new subdivisions on the urban fringe or to bedroom communities. However, growth patterns do not always respect school district boundaries. For example, natural cycles of growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven geographic growth patterns in the metropolitan area, causing a disparity between the location of some schools and school Children. This results in some fi-inge area schools exceeding Capacity, while some central city schools are under capacity. 2-830. Long-range enrollment forecasts determine the need to either build new schools, expand existing facilities, or close existing schools. Funding restrictions imposed by state law and some provisions in local codes may discourage the retention and redevelopment of neighborhood schools. Limits imposed by state law on the use of bOnd funds for operations and maintenance make the construction of new, lower maintenance buildings preferable to remodeling existing school buildings. In addition, if existing schools were expanded, some school sites may not meet. current local parking and other code requirements. 2-931. Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides financial benefits to the schools while enhancing benefits to the community. The Meadow View School and adjacent City of Eugene community park is an example of shared facilities. Policies (3.24-2 The cities shall initiate a process with school districts within the urban growth boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities and school districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts: a. The need for new public school facilities and sufficient land to site them; b. How open enrollment policies affect school location; c. The impact of school building height and site size on the buildable land supply; d. The use of school facilities for non-school activities and appropriate reimbursement for this use; e. The impact of building and land use codes on the development and redevelopment of school facilities; f. Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood schools; and, Appendix Aa Page 11 1-21 g. The possibilit~ of adjusting boundaxies, when practical and when total enrollment will not be affected, where a single, otherwise internally cohesive area is divided into more'than one school district. G.2~3 Support financial and other efforts to keep nei~hbOrhood schools o~en and to retain schools sites in public ownership following school closure. G.2~M Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC facilities in central City areas to increase opportunities for public transit and housing and to retain these schools' attractiveness to students and faculty. Services to .Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste Findings 302. Statewide Planning Goal·l 1 requires that, "To meet current and long-range needs, a provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be ' included in each plan." Policies G.245 The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan, as updated, shall serve as the guide for the location of solid waste sites, including sites for inert waste, to serve the metropolitan area. Industries that make significant use of the resources recovered from the Glenwood solid waste transfer facility should be encouraged to locate in that vicinity. Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary Findings 3-1-3. Providing key urban services, such as water, to areas outside the urban growth boundary increases pressure for urban development in rural areas. This can ·. encourage premature development outside the urban growth boundary at rural densities, increasing the cost of public facilities and services to all users of the systems. 334. Land application ofbiosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery waste on agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse of treated wastewater byproducts generated within the urban growth boundary is more efficient and environmentally beneficial than land filling or other means of disposal. 335. Lane County land use data show that, outside the urban growth boundary, land uses consist of: Appendix Aa Page 12 1-22 1) Those which are primarily intended for resource management; and 2) Those where development has occurred and are committed to rural development as established through the exceptions process ..specified in Statewide Planning Goal 2. Policies G.2~6 Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the urban growth boundary except to the following areas, and the cities may require consent to annex agreements as a prerequisite tO providing these services in any instance: a. The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and Education on the. Metro Plan Diagram, the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural sites used for land application ofbiosOlids and cannery byproducts. These sites serve the entire metropolitan area. b, An existing development oUtSide the urban growth boundary when it has been determined that it poses an immediate threat of public health or safety to the citizens within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth · boundary that can only be remedied by extension of the service. In addition, under prior obligations, water service shall be provided to land within th~ dissolved water districts of Hillcrest, College Crest, Bethel, and Oakway. G.267 The Eugene Airport shall be served with the necessary urban services required to operate the airport as an urban facility. Development outside the urban growth boundary in the vicinity of the airport, outside the portion of the airport boundary designated Government and Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shall not be 'provided with urban services. G.2g8 Plan for the following levels of service for rural designations outside the urban growth boundary within the Plan Boundary: a. Agriculture, Forest Land, Sand and Gravel, and Parks and Open Space,. No minimum level of service is established. b. Rural Residential, Rural Commercial, Rural Industrial, and Government and Education. On-site sewage disposal, individual water systems, rural level of fire and police protection, electric and communication service, schools, and reasonable access to solid waste disposal facility. Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary Findings, Appendix Aa Page 13 1-23 346. In accordance with statewide Planning goals and administrative rules, urban water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities may be located on agricultural land and urban water and wastewater facilities may be located on forest land outside the urban growth boundary when the facilities exclusively serve land within the urban growth boundary, pursuant to OAR 660-006 and 660-033. 357. In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, water, and wastewater facilities are allowed in the public right-of-way of public roads and highways. 368, The Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps show the location of sOme planned public facilities outside the urban growth boundary and Plan Boundary, exclusively to serve land within the urban growth boundary. The ultimate construction of these facilities will require close coordination with and permitting by Lane CoUnty and possible Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan amendments. 3g9. Statewide Planning Goal 5 and OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local jurisdictions to identify and protect riparian corridors. 3840. In accordance with OAR 660-033-0090, 660-033-0130(2), and 660-033~, 120, building schools on high value farm land outside the urban growth boundary is prohibited. Statewide planning goals prohibit locating school buildings on farm or forest land within three miles outside the urban growth boundary. Policies G.299 Consistent with local regulations, locate new urban water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities on farm land and urban water and wastewater facilities on forest land outside the urban growth boundary only when the facilities exclusively serve land inside the urban growth boundary and there is no reasonable alternative. G.2-930Locate urban water and wastewater facilities in the public right-of-way of public .. roads and highways outside the urban growth boundary, as needed to serve land within the urban growth boundary. G.301 Facility providers shall coordinate with Lane County and other local jurisdictions and obtain the necessary county land use approvals to amend the Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state law, to appropriately designate land for urban facilities located outside the urban growth boundary or the Plan Boundary. Appendix Aa Page 14 1-24 G.3~2 The citiSs shall coordinate with Lane County on responsibility and authority to address stormwater-related issues outside the Plan Boundary, including ouffalls outside the Springfield portion of the urban growth boundary. G.3~3 Measures to protect, enhance, or alter Class F Streams outside the Urban growth boundary, within the Plan Boundary shall, at a minimum, be consistent with Lane County's riparian standards. G.3~4 New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the urban growth boundary. Financing Findings, ~41. ORS 197.712(2)(e) states that the project timing and financing provisions of public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions. 402. ORS 223.297'and ORS 223.229(1) do not permit the collection of local systems development charges (SDCs) for fire and emergency medical service facilities and schools, limiting revenue options for these services. Past attempts to change this law have been unsuccessful. 4~3. Service providers in the metropOlitan area use SDCs to help fund the following facilities: · Springfield: stormwater, wastewater, and transportation; · W. illamalane Park and Recreation District: parks; · SUB, Rainbow Water District: water; · Eugene: stormwater, wastewater, parks, and transportation; and, · EWEB: water. 424. Oregon and California timber receipt revenues, a federally-funded source of county road funds, have' declined over the years and their continued decline is expected. 4-35. Regular maintenance reduces long term infrastructure costs by preventing the need for frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS 223.297 to 223.314 do not allow use of SDCs to fund operations and maintenance. 446. The assessment rates of Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County are each different, creating inequitable financing of some infrastructure improvements in the metropolitan, area. Policies Appendix Aa Page 15 1-25 0.345 Change~' to Public Facilities and Services Plan project phasing schedules or ' ' anticipated costs and financing shall be made in accordance with budgeting and capital improvement program procedures of the affected jurisdiction(s). G.3~5 Service providers will update capital improvement programming (planning, programming, and budgeting for service extension) regularly for those portions of the urban growth boundary where the full range of key urban services and facilities is not available. G.367 Require development to pay the cost, as determined by the local jurisdiction, of extending urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a development will fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan and other applicable plans determined by the local jurisdiction to be'of particular importance or concern. G.3g8 Continue to implement a system of user charges, SDCs, and other public financing tools, where appropriate, to fund operations, maintenance, and improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities or system expansion. G~389 Explore other funding mechanisms at the local level to finance operations and maintenance of public facilities. G.~)40Set wastewater and stormwater fees at a level commensurate with the level of impact on, or use of, the wastewater or stormwater service. G.~)40The cities and Lane County will Continue to cooperate in developing assessment practices for inter-jurisdictional projects that provide for equitable treatment of properties, regardless of jurisdiction. Chapter V Glossary 36. Public faciliW proiects: Public facility project lists and maps adoptedas part of the Metro Plan are defined as follows: a. Water:' Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB. b, Wastewater: Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater lines 24 inches or larger. Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) proiect, beneficial reuse proiect and residuals proiect necessary to meet wastewater treatment facilities system design capacities for average flow, peak flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended Appendix Aa Page 16 1-26 solids so as to provide service within the urban ~rowth boundar~' (UGB) for a pro_iected population in 2025 consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in compliance with MWMC's discharge permit. MWMC's Capital Improvements Plan, as amended from time to time,. shall be used as the guide for detailed planning and · implementation 0fthe WI)CF proiect, the beneficial reuse proiect and the residuals proiect.. c. Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36 inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; ouffalls; water quality projects; and waterways and open systems. d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the 'project lists and their generallocation is identified in the planned facilities maps in Chapter II of the F, ugene-$Pringfield Metropolitan Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan). Appendix Aa Page 17 1-27 · . APPENDIX Ab PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN (Version currently before the elected officials as apart of Periodic Review) G. Public Facilities and Services Element This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary). The availabi!ity of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location and density of future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the' population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns change over time, the demand for urban services also increases and changes. These changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of services in a coordinated manner, using conSistent assumptions and projections for population and land use. The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. ConSistent with the principle of compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth boundary (UGB). This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11: -Public Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development." O~i urban lands, new development-must be served by at least the . minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time develoPment is completed and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lancls within the Plan Boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of facilities and services in rural areas are spread Out geographically, resulting in a higher per-user cost for some services and, of[en, in an inadequate revenue base to support a higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve development within the UGB. .Urban facilities and services within the UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board CEWEB), the Springfield 'Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and special service districts. Special service districts provide schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric, fire service or parks and recreation service. This element provides guidelines for special service districts in line with the compact urban development fundamental principle of the Metro Plan. · Appendix Ab Pagel 1-28 This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan), adopted as a ref'mement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location~ of the water, wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve landwithin the UGB.2 The Public Facilities and Services Plan also'contains this information for electrical facilities, .although not required to by law. The project lists'and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project phasing and'costs, and decisions on timing and £mancing of projects are not part 0fthe Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and · budget processes of individual service providers. The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and services to ensure the efficient use and expanSion of these facilities. Goals 1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner. 2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and sequential growth. Find.ings and Policies The findings and policies in this element are organized by the following four topics related to the provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of urban facilities and services,...~..~.~...~,~""~"'~: ....... ...~.~..,~* ..... * .... sr...~,~'~ may be found under any of these topics, although the first topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories. · 'Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary · Planning and Coordination · Water ~ The exact location of the project~ shown on the Public Facilities.and Services Plan planned facilities maps is determined through local processes. 2 Goal 11 also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plato. In this metropolitan area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (Trans Plan). Appendix Ab Page2 1-29 · 'Wastewater Treatment · Stormwater · Electricity · . Schools · Solid Waste Treatment · Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary · Financing SerVices to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Planning and ' Coordination Findings 1. Urban expansion within the UGB is accomplished through in-fill, redevelopment, and annexation of territory which can be served'with a minimum level of key urban services and facilities. This permits new development to use existing facilities and services, or those which can be easily extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban facilities and services. 2. In accordance with Statewide Planning Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the provision of water, wastewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and contains planned facilities maps for these services. Electric system information and improvements are included in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refinement plans provide more specific projec~ information. 3. Urban Services within the metropOlitan UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMC, electric cooperatives, and special service districts. 4. The Public Facilities and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city limits of Eugene and Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5 years) with. water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service. Exceptions to this are stonnwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in Eugene's South Hills. Service to these areas will be available in the long-term. ServiCe to all areas within city limits are either in a capital improvement plan or can be extended with development. 5. With the improvements specified in the Public Facilities and Services Plan project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield UGB can be served with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service at the time those areas are developed. In general, areas outside city limits serviceable in the long- Appendix Ab Page3 1-30 term ar~'located near the UGB and in urban reserves,' primarily in River Road, Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow Creek area, south Springfield, and the Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas in east Springfield. 6. OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan project lists for water, wastewater, and stormwater. These definitions are shown in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3 in the Public Facilities and Services Plan. 7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire, park~, open space and recreation, and streets, roads and mass transit), will be provided within the UGB. 8. Large institutional uses,: such as universities and hospitals, present Complex planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility · expansion plans, and continuing housing and parking needs. 9. Duplication of services prevents the most economical distribution of public facilities and services. 10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services plan, a .majority of nodal development areas proposed in TransPlan are serviceable now or in the short- term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management Policy #15 states, "Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development." Policies G. 1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in Chapter H-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies. G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, capital improvement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation. G.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3, requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for the following: Appendix Ab Page4 1-31 a. · Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing~ capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or b. Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are made pursuant to final engineering on a project; or c. Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations ~ consistent with that act and its regulations; or · d. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to. serve land designated Urban Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve designation, which projects shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next Periodic Review of the Metro Plan. G.4 The cities and Lane County shall coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the oppommity to review and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of responsibility. G.5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination with major institutions, such as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively .large impact on local facilities and services. G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districTM and to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result ' in a duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall be pursued in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions. G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision of facilities and services to areas targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal development. G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities Surrounding the metropolitan area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address regional public facility needs. Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundarg: Wastewater Findings Appendix Ab Page5 1-32 11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination of regional and local services for the provision ofwastewater services. Within each City, the local jurisdiction provides collection ofwastewater through a system of sanitary sewers and pumping systems. These collection facilities connect to a regional s~tstem of similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC'), an entity formed under an intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190. Together, these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial connections) constitute the primary collection system. 12. The'primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system owned and operated by ~C. This system consists of an interconnected Water Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"), a biosolids facility, and a beneficial reuse facility. Policies G.9 WaStewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory requirements governing beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals. SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND POLICIES SHALL BE RENUMBER.ED ACCORDINGLY WITHIN THIS CHAPTER Chapter V. GlosSary 37. Public facility projects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted as part of the Metro Plan are defined as follows: a. Water: Source, reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). b. Wastewater: Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater lines 24 inches or larger. Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) project, beneficial reuse proiect and residuals proiect necessary to meet wastewater treatment facilities system desi~u capacities for avera.~e flow, peak. flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids so as to provide service within the urban growth Appendix Ab Page6 1-33 boundarf (UGB) for a projected pOpulation in 2025 consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in compliance with MWMC's discharge permit. MWMC's Capital Improvements Plan, as amended from time to time, shall be used as the Bide for detailed planning and .implementation of the WPCF proiect, the beneficial reuse proiect and the residuals proiect. · c. ' Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 3 6 inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; .ouffalls; water quality projects; and waterways and open systems. d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan). Appendix Ab Page7 1-34 APPENDIX B PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP) 1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows: Planned Wastewater System Improvements Planned s~'c~ ~"~ ~. t~.m. wastewater system improvement projects are listed in tables3~ and 4, 4a and 4b. The general location of these facilities is shown in Map 2: Planned Wastewater Facilities, and Map 2a: ~,cisting W'astewater COllection and Treatment Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exists as Map 6 in the Technical Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives and should be incorporated without change.] 2. Insert, following Table 4, Tables. 4a and 4b, as follows: Table 4a MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects Project Project NamefDescription Number .300 WPCF Treatment Project 301 Residuals Treatment Project 302' Beneficial Reuse Project Table 4b MWMc Primary Collection System Improvement Projects Project Project Name/Description Number 303 Willakenzie Pump Station 304 Screw Pump Station 305 Glenwood Pump Station 3. Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a. Appendix B Page 1 1-35 Existin 4. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition Assessment" (presently on page 82) to read as follows: Appendix B Page 2 1-36 Wastewater System Condition Assessment Treatment: ' MWMC Wastewater Treatment System MWMC existing infrastructure is monitored for problems that need to be addressed during operational and maintenance activities. MWMC has ongoing prOgrams to help Plan for and implement equipment replacement and mai or rehabilitation of existing systems. With these on going programs used to detect existing problems, the infrastructure can be maintained and preserved to help extend its useful life for future years. In March of 2003, MWMC hired CI-I2M HILL to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater capital improvements that will serve the Eugene/Springfield urban growth l~oundasw into year 2025. MWMC will need to implement the recommended improvements to meet regUlatory requirements based on projected pollution loads and flows. CH2M I-III.L as part of its work to evaluate and plan for regional wastewater improvements has prepared a technical memo related to "Flow and Load Projections" dated April 12, 2004~ This historical and projected information is being used to plan for needed MWMC capital improvements based on engineering evaluation methods and by.. comparing technology options. It is estimated that approximately $160 million dollars (in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC proiects to address regulatory requirements and growth through year 2025. ' Conveyance: Conveyance capacity.and inflow and infiltration (1/1) ratios are important criteria by which to assess the performance of a wastewater collection system. Conveyance capacity is a function of adequate pipe sizing and measures a system's ability, to move effluent efficiently. Inflow and infiltration ratios express the amount of stormwater entering a sewer system throu~j~ defective pipes and pipe ioints, or throuf_h the cross connection of stormwater lines, Combined sewers, catch basins, or manhole covers. Such extraneous stormwater entering the wastewater system unnecessarily burdens both conveyance and. treatment facilities. 5. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" (presently on page 97) to read as follows: Appendix B Page 3 1-37 1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to ser~e with wastewater facilities over the long-tenn (six to 20 years) assuming that public infrastructure specifications and requirements of the developing area can be addressed. Appropriate engineering design practices must be used during the development and expansion into sensitive areas that are approved for development (ex. - hillside construction, etc.).;,,,, ~ ............... ,,, ,,,., '-,-~,~-~---,-;x" Expansion of the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over this time period. 2. Based on 2003 analysis, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area treatment facilities will require facility improvements to address both dry and wet weather regulatory requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. Regional and local wastewater improvements to the collection and treatment · .. systems are being planned for and will be implemented to allow for ~owth within the UGB and for regulatory compliance. 6. Add Table 16a following Table 16, as .follows: Table 16a MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and Timing Estimate 300 WPCF Treatment Project $120,500,000 2025 301 Residuals Treatment Project $6,000,000 2018 302 Beneficial KeuSe.Project $~-$,000,000 2018 303 Willakenzie Pump Station $(5,000,000 2010 304 Screw Pump Station $2,000,000 2010 305 Olenwood Pump Station $~00,000 2012 · Co~t e~fimated in ~00~ dollar~ 7. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, to be Chapter VI., reading as follows: VI. Amendments to the Plan Appendix B Page 4 1-38 This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities and Services Plan (''the Plan")~ Flexibility of the Plan · Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement programs, environmental impact studies and changes in potential sources of funding. The Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included in the plan for which. unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject administrative and technical changesto the plan to'post-acknowledgement review or review by the Land Use Board of Appeals. For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified. A. Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan. The following modifications require amendment of the Plan: 1. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualify as administrative or technical and environmental changes, as defined below. Amendments are subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures · applicable to land use decisions. 2. Adoption of capital improvement program Project lists by any serVice provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements of subparagraph 1 above are met. B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan. ' ' The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan: 1. Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general characteristic of the project. 2. Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to "fmal engineering" on a project or those which result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Actor 1969 or any federal or state agency project development regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations. Appendix B Page 5 1-39 Process for making Changes A. Administrative and Technical or Envimnmemal Changes. Any jurisdiction may make an administrative or technical and enviromnemal change, as defined herein, 'by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council of Governments a copy of the resolution or other fmai action of the gore.ming. ' 'board of the jurisdiction' authorizing the change. B. Amendments For purposes of processing amendments, as defined herein, such amendments are · divided into two classes. a. Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project idemified herein, which project serves more than one jurisdiction. : b. Type II amendments include amendments to alist, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the amendment. C. Processing Amendments Any 0fthe adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a citizen. ~ a. Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be considered by the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be refen'ed to MPC.for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to adopt an'MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the Proposed amendment. If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt identical ordinances b. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be considered by the governing board of the initiating agency. 1-40 Ap~)endix B Pa~e 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 Meeting Type~ Work/Regular ' ' Department: Pub. Works/Dev. Serv. Staff Contact: Susie Smith/Greg Mort S P R I N G F I E L D StaffPhone No: · 726-3697/726-3774 C I T Y C O U N C I L Estimated Time: 15 ra~utes/Conseat Cal. ITEM TITLE:' COUNCIL INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) AND THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP). ACTION Review staff's request to initiate amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP during the REQUESTED: Work Session and initiate the amendment process during the Regular Session. ISSUE Amendments to the Metro Plan - Public Facilities and Services Element, and to the STATEMENT: PFSP, are needed to: 1) clarify the relationship between, and the types of facilities projects included in, the PFSP and local capital improvement plans (CIPs); 2) update the PFSP maps based on new statutes; 3) reflect current conditions and planned regional wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC Facilities Master Plan Update currently under way; and 4) resolve inconsistencies among metro-wide planning documents. ATTACI~M_ENTS None. DISCUSSION/ The PFSP includes inventories, condition assessments, project lists and policies for key . FINANCIAL urban public facilities, including wastewater collection and treatment. Since the IMPACT: inception of these metro-wide comprehensive plans, the wastewater facilities included in the project lists have been limited to pump stations and 24" or larger pipes. Capital improv.ements to the regional wastewater treatment facilities have been addressed only through the MetropOlitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) CIP process. The PFSP was updated in 2001 as part of the Metro Plan periodic review process. It contains a condition and capacity assessment of the regional wastewater treatment facilities based on the infonnation available at that time. The text references two areas of constrained capacity and the planned work to resolve them. Consistent with past practice, no wastewater treatment facility projects were included in the PFSP project list. An updated MWMC Facilities Master Plan, which will update the information in the PFSP, is nearly complete. The Facilities Master Plan identifies a list of projects that will need to be constructed over the next ten years in ordei' tO comply with the wastewater' · discharge permit issued in 2002 and with additional peak wet weather flow management requirements, as well as to provide adequate capacity through 2025. Local and regional wastewater program and planning staff, along with legal counsel, have concluded that several amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP are advisable. The amendments would result in updated wastewater system text, and clarification of the definitions of PFSP-included projects vs. projects included in local CIPs only. The amendments also would ensure that all of the meecropolitan planning documents provide a consistent and legal framework for developing both regional wastewater Facilities Master Plan projects and city infrastructure projects not currently addressed in the PFSP. The types of Metro Plan and PFSP amendments contemplated are defined by the Metro Plan as "Type II" amendments, which must be initiated by one of the three governing bodies. Expeditious review of the amendments will be critical to timely design and construction of neWly identified regional wastewater facilities, which is slated to begin in fiscal year 2004-2005. The metropolitan area Planning 'Directors reviewed this matter on January 27m and have tentatively scheduled a Joint Planning Commission public hearing for April 13, 2004, pending formal initiation. Development of the amendment language is currently under way, and will be provided to the City Council for review and comment prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. 1-41 · DE?T Oi- , MAR 0 200 , LAND OoNsEFIVATI~N C I).. NOTIC OF ?ROPO$ D AIY[Et This form lmust be received by DLCD at least 45 days prior to the fii'st evidentiary hearinE per ORS 197.610, OAR. Chapter .660 - Division 18 and Senate Bill 543 and effective on June 30, 1999. (See reveme side for submittal reauirements) J~trisdiction: City of Springfield LocalFilelqo.: None · (If'no hum'bet, usc no.e) Date 6fFirst Evidentiary·Hearing: April 20, 2004 Date of Final Hearing:Oune 30, 2004 (M~,l~ fillc, d in)/ (Must bc filled in) Date this proposal was sent or mailed: ~arch 4 t ':' ~ 0 4 · . {Dm mailed or $~nt to DLCD) Has this proposal previously been submitted to DLCD? Yes: ~. No: X Date: × Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment · ~, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment Land Use Regulation Amendment Zoning Map Amendment New Land Use Kegulation X Other: Amend P~,hltn Fnnt]f+t'mS Plan {'Pl~.~ Specify T~pe of Action) Briefly mmamarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached.". 1. Add Metropolitan treatment facilities to the condition assessment and projec.t 2. Define difference between the PFSP project list and local DIP, 3. Adopt new PFSP amendment process. 4. Adopt 'new findings. Plan Map Changed from' to add map of collection system (existing) and treatment plant site Zone Map Changed from: N/A to N/A Location: N/A Acres Involved: N/A Specified Change in Density: Current: N/A Proposed: N/A Applicable Statewide Planning Goals: noel ~ 1 Is an Exception Proposed.9 Yes: No: X Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Lane County, Eugene, Springfield, Oregon DEQ, EPA Local Contact:Greg Mott, Planning Mgr. Area Code + Phone Number:541-726-3753 Address: 225 Fifth Street (City of Springfield) Ci.ty: Springfield, Oregon Zip Code + 4: 97477 -- . 1-49 DLCD No.: 1. Modify Chapter iiI-G, of the Metro Plan, by modifying the introductory text to read as follows: Chapter III-G. Public Facilities and Services Element G. Public Facilities and Services Element .This Public Facilities and Services Element provides direction for the future provision of urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Plan boundary. The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location and density of future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development patterns change' over t~me, the demand for urban services also increases and changes. These changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assumptions and projections for population and land use. The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A: Fundamental Principles and Chapter II-B: Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively with]u the urban growth boundary. This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development" On urban lands, new development must be served by at least the minimum level of key urban services at the time development is completed and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services. On rural lands within the Plan boundary, development must be served by rural levels of service. Users of facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue base to support a higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve development .within the urban growth boundary. Urban facilities and services within the urban growth boundary are provided by the City of Eugene, the City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB), the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ~C), electric cooperatives, and special service districts. Special service districts provide schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric, fire service, or parks and recreation service. This element provides guidelines for special service districts in line with the compact urban development fundamental principle of the Metro Plan. V:kSDCkMetro Plan Amendment. doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM '1-43 This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene-Springfield '. Metropotitan.drea Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services Plan · provides guidance for public facilities and services, including plarmed water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal 11, the Public Facilities and Services Plan identifies and shows the general location3 of the water, wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban growth boundary.4 The Public Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for electrical facilities, although not required to by law. The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming and budget processes of individual service providers. This element of the Metro ·Plan is organized by the following topics related to the provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range of services, ~,~----~,~o:'~"~: ....... ,._.~...~.* ..... * ..... o.~. ,.~,~ ~....j,,,~,, be found under any of these topics, although the first topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken down into sub-categories. · Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary D planning and Coordination I [21 Water ~ Wastewater Fl Stormwater FI Electricity '5 Schools Fl Solid Waste · Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary · Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary · F~ancing The applicable findings and policies are contained under each of these topic headings below. The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental and program decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be coordinated with the'planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities. * The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and S, rvices Plan planned facilities maps ia determined through local processes. 4 Goal 11 also requires trampomtion facilities to be included in public facility plans. In this metropolitan area, transpoml~on facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter HI-F and in the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan ( TransP lan). VSSDCklVletro Plan Amendment.doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-44 2. Modify.policy G. 2, as follows: G. 2 Use thc Planned Facilities Maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide the general location of water, wastewater, stonnwater, and electrical projects in the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refinement plans, capital improvement plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project implementation. 3. Modify Finding 6 to read as follows~ 6. 660-011-005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan project lists for water, wastewater, and stonnwater. These definitions are shown in the keys of Planned Facilities Maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3 in this Public Facilities and Scrvices' " Plan. 4. Modify Policy G. 3 to read as follows: .3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in.the Public Facilities and Services Plan maps 1, 2, 2a, and 3, require amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for the following: 1) Modifications to a public facility project which are m~nor in natur~ and do not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general characteristic of the project; or 2) Technical and environmental modifications to a public facility which are made p .m~mnt to final engineering on a project; or 3) Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations consistent with that act and its regulations~ 5. Insert, following Policy G.8: . Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater Findings, 11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination of regional and local services for the provision of wastewater services. Within each City, the local jurisdiction provides collection of wastewater through a system of sanitary sewers and pumping systems. These collection facilities connect to a regional system of similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by the V:LSDCkMetro Plan Amendment. doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-45 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission ('~vIWMC"), an entity formed under an intergovernmental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190. Together, these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which convey wastewater from individual residential or commercial/industrial connections) constitute the primary collection system. . . 12. The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities system owned and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an interconnected Water Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"), a bi0solids facility and a ben.eficial reuse facility. Policies G. 9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory requirements governing beneficial reuse or discharge of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal of residuals. 6. Renumber all subsequent findings and policies accordingly. 7. Modify Chapter V. Glossary, by modifying the definition of Public Facilities Projects as follows: Public Facility_ Pro_iects Public Facility Project lists and maps adopted as part of the Metro Plan are defined as follOws: Water: SoUrce, reservoirs, pump stations, and Primary distribution systems. Primary distribution systems are tran.qrnission lines 12 inches or larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB. Wastewater: Primary Collection SyStem: Pump stations and wastewater lines 24 inches or larger. Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) project, beneficial reuse project and residuals project necessary to meet wastewater treatment facilities system design capacities for average flow, peak flow, biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids so as to provide service within the Urban growth boundary (UGB) for a. projected population in 2025 consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in compliance with MWMC's discharge permit. MWMC's Capital Improvements Plan, as amended from time to t~me, shall be used as the guide for detailed planuing and implementation of the WPCF project, the beneficial reuse project and the residuals project. V:kSDCkMetro Plan Amendment.doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-46 Stormwater: Drainage/channel improvements and/or piping systems 36 inches or ..:. l~rger;, proposed detention ponds; ouffalls; water quality projects; and waterways and open systems. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in the Project Lists and their general location is identified in the Planned Facilities Maps in Chapter II of the Eugene~pringfield Metropolitan.drea Public Facilities and Services Plan. 6. Modify the Project Lists and Planned Facilities Maps as follows: 1. Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to read as follows: Planned Wastewater System Improvements planned ~'~-~ ~ ~-~ tc.'-~ wastewater system improvement projects are listed in tables3, an~ 4, 4a and 4b. The general location of these facilities is shown in Map 2: Planned Wastewater Facilities, and'Map 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems. 2. Insert, following Table 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as follows: Table 4a MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects Project Project Name/Description Number 300 WI)CF Treatment Project 301 Resid~al s Treatment Project 302 Beneficial Reuse Project Table 4b MWMC Primary Collection System Improvement Projects Project Project Nme/Description Number 303 Willakenzie Pump Station 304 Screw pump Station 305 Glenwood Pump Station 3. Modify Map 2 to show Projects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a V:kSDCklVletro Plan Amendment. doc. Last printed Last 15rinted 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-47 -,, - ~ ....;::-!.':-'?:,'!.."-... ?'Eugen,e, sPringfieldpublic Fa¢ilitie~· ar~'d.ser~iCeS.:Pian -..' ' Planned.MWMC WastewatetPr°je~-tSites .. . - ~ . ,. :. .... Projects are descrtbedln tables a and b I ' " -. ' ' .Ph~nned Me~ro Was~t~ ~ " ' ' ,~ .. ~.. - :. ~ ~g~lP~fl~ - · .;~' ~Pu~n '. ' : ' * .~ ~ R~al Wa~ Tr~ ~ .;." . ~ ~g~l Wa~ ~ ~ ~n B~d~ ~ Urb~ Re~we~ ./ 0 I 2 ~el Notes: . ,~ 1. Faciliies shown oufside lhe UGB cannot be Ioc~ded e,s =hown without firsl obiaining Lane County land uae approval. 2. The geneml locallons d ihe farJ#Ues ere ahown on ihia tr, ap, Exad ptoject MAp 2 Iocalions are delerrrdned through Io~al /~oceaaea. :::'i..'...!!ii' :.i;.'"':.,;?:i;!i?E~O~e~:$~rin"g~iei~I I~Ubl C FaCili;de:s?ar]d s i:vices.!PI " " !i: n MWMC,Wastewater Treatment: .~o,o~, s..,o.~ .... -.,.~..,.~;:. ?~::;.? .......... ' ...... Existi g S Ba~me~ I~tdal '*::' '-~:~' '* ":" ' ' '*:' '~ . :..... :... : ..,., -... :...;-:.....:.;.;, .. ,~:;.,..;....:.~ ~.:, -. . Fa~Ul~ WasteSIte ...: .... - ..... ....,..',; ..' ..... v.. .. - , - .- : .. '-. :;~- - ..... ~ .... .~eaB~ . ' ' : Reg~nM "· .- Waste Water ' ' . o ~ 2 TreatemeM . .. , 81re Regional Waste Water ~-, Treatement -t Sites _,.. 9. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying the subdivision entitled 'fl/Vastewater System condition Assessment" (presently on page 82) to read as follows: Wastewater System Condition Assessment Treatment: MWMC Wastewater Treatment System ~C e~g i~c~e is mo~tored for problems ~a~ need ~o be ad~essed d~ng ope~o~ ~d m~te~ce ~vi6es. ~C h~ ongo~g pro~s to ~elp pl~ for ~d ~plemeat eq~pmeat replacement ~d majo~ re~ab~m~on of e~g sy~e~. Wi~ ~ese on going pro~s ~ to de~ect e~ng problem, ~e in~c~e c~ be m~ed ~d prese~ed to help e~end i~ use~l ~fe for ~e yem. h M~ch of 2003, ~C ~ed CH2M ~L m ev~mte ~d pl~ for re~on~ wmewater capi~ ~provemen~ ~t M~ se~e ~e Eugene/Sp~eld ~b~ ~o~ bo~ ~to ye~ 2025. ~C ~ n~d m ~plement ~e recomended ~provemenB m meet m~ato~ req~emenm b~ed on projected poll~on loMs ~d flows. C~M ~L ~ p~ of iB work m ev~mte ~d pl~ for re~o~ w~ewater ~provemenB ~ prepped a tec~c~ memo related m "Flow ~d LoM Projection" ~ted October 7, 2003. ~ ~ofi~ ~d projected ~o~afion is berg ~ed to pl~ for need~ ~C capi~ ~provemenB b~ed on en~e~g ev~mfion me~o~ ~d by comp~g tec~olo~ opfiom. It is e~mat~ ~t approxima~ly $I60 million do~s (~ 2004 dbHm) ~e needed for ~C proje~ m address m~atou req~emenB ~d ~o~ ~o~ y~ 2025. Conv~ance: Convey~ce capaci~ ~d inflow ~d ~on ~ ratios ~e ~pomt cfimfia by w~ch to ~sess ~e peffommce of a wmewater co~ecfion'sy~m. Convey~ce capaci~ is a ~c~on of adeqmte pipe si~ng ~d m~es a ~em's ab~ to move effluent efficiently. ~ow ~d infil~on ~os e~mss ~e mo~t of ~omwater ent~g a sew~ symm ~u~ defective pipes ~d pipe joaB, or ~ou~ ~e cross m~ecfion of ~om~ter ~es, comb~ed sewe~, catch b~, or m~ole ~ve~. Such emeo~ ~omwat~ ente~g ~e wmewmer sy~em unnecess~y b~de~ bo~ convey~ce ~d mment fac~fies. 10. Modify Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifying the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Lon- Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Area "(presently on page~97) to read as follows: V:~SDC~vletro Plan Amendment.doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-50 1. There are no'areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years).assnming that public infrastructure specifications and requirements of the developing area can be .addressed. ApprOpriate en~neering desi~ practices must be used durin~ the develOpment and expansion into sensitive areas that are approved for development (ex. - hillside construction, etc.). · ~' ......... :xpr~ns~cn ExpanSion of the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over this time period. 2. Based on 2003 analysis, the Eugene-Sprin~mCield metr6politan area treatment facilities system will require facility' improvements to address both dry and wet weather regulatory requirements relating to pollutant load, and wastewater flows. Regional and local improvements to the collection and tre_~tment swstems are planned for and will be. implemented to allow for ~owth within the UGB and for re.gmlatory compliance. Thc ..... :4-,, 1,, ..... ,-1 +% ...... · 3. The pro~dsion of long-term wast~watcr service in the Jasper-Natron area in Springfield is contingent upon construction of the ~asper Road Wastewater Line Extension ~rom Street to Brand Street. Completion oft. his sigT~ificant ;nfrastructure improvement will enable this area to be served effectively. 4. The Willamette Heights area of Springfield requires installation ofwastewater lines to replace existing septic systems. There are related problems in this area' surrounding substandard streets and inadequately surveyed rights-of-way. q~. Add Table ~Sa following Table q6, aa followa: Table 16a MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and Timing Estimate 300 WPCF Treatment Project 2025 301 Residuals Tre,tment Project $6,000,000 2018 302 Beneficial Reuse Project 2018 303 Wi_llakenzie Pump Sta~on $6,000,000 2010 304 Screw pump Sta_fion $2,000,000 2010 305 Glenwood pump Station $500,000 2012 *Cost estimated in 2004 dollars V:\SDCkMetro Plan Amendment. doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-51 12. Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan,.to be Chapter VI., reading as follows: VI. Amendments to the Plan This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or appropriate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained in the Public Facilities Services Plan ('~the Plan"). Flexibility.of the Plan Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement programs, enviromental impact studies and changes in potential sOurces of fundlng. The Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included in the plan for which unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject administrative and technical changes to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or review by the Land Use Board of Appeals. - For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications are identified. A_ Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan. The following modifications_require amendment of the Plan: 1. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes to the list, location or provider of public facility projects which si~ificantly impact a public facility project identified in the comprehensive pla=, and which do not qualify as administrative or technical and environmental, changes, as defined below. Amendments are subject to the arlm]n]strative, procedures and review and appeal procedures applicable to land use decisions. 2. Adoption of capital improvement prOgram project lists by any service provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements of subparagraph 1 above are met. B. Modifications permitted without amendment of the Plan. ' The following modifications do not require amendment of this Plan: 1. Arlmlnlstmfive changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general characteristic of the project. 2. Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to "final en~neering" on a project or those which result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations V:kSDCkMetro Plan Amendment. doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-52 implementing the procedural proVisions of the National Environmental P'olicy Act of 1996 or any federal or state agency project development regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations. Process for making Changes The following process is used to modify the Plan: A. Amendments For purposes of processing amendments, as defined herein, such amendments are divided into two classes. 1. Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan,. or to a list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves more than one jurisdiction. 2. Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of public facility projects which si~ificantly impact a public facility project identified herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the amendment. B. Processing Amendments Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a citizen. · 1. Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the pl~nnlng commissions of the respective agencies and, following their recommendation, shall be considered by the governing boards of all agencies. If a Type I amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by agencies to adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the proposed amendment. If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall adopt identical ordinances 2. Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Plannlng Commission of the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be considered by the governing board of the initiating agency V :\SDC~/Vletro Plan Amenclment. doc Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM 1-53 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY DATE: May 6, 2004 TO: Springfield .PlanningCommission Eugene Planning Commission Lane County Planning Commission FROM: Meg Kieran Springfield City Attorney SUBJECT: Metro 'Plan amendments; Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments; response to material submitted by. Home Builders Association at April 20, 2004 public hearing Home Builders Association submitted written materials into the record of the above.proceeding. MWMC submits this response. 1. Applicable stanclard~. Mr. Kloos states, without specificity, that ~[s]tate statutes apply." Certainly, this proceeding is governed, in part, state statutes, particularly, those provisions of ORS Chapter 197 that govern post-acknowledgment plan amendments. In addition, the amendments must be consistent with applicable'statewide planning goals. The LCDC administrative rules implement the statewide planning goals. In addition, the proposed plan amendments must be consistent with existing, acknowledged plan provision. 2. Planning Horizon. Home Builders states that the use of the 2025 planning horizon for the PFSP list of wastewater treatment and collection facilities is inconsistent with the_ existing Metro Plan provisions. Home Builders is incorrect. First, the existing PSFP, dated December 2001,includes projects that extend out 20 years from that time. For example, the introductory text to the project lists contained in the existing Plan states: ~Long-term projects are anticipated to be built in six tO 20 years .... "(PFSP, P.28). That horizon would extend to 2021. EWEB's list includes, as long-term projects, water system improvements 218 through 237, none of which has a date more specific than the six to 20 year reference quoted above. · ATTACHMENT 2-1 Second, the Department of Environmental Quality guidelines recommend tha~ sewer treatment facilities should be planned and. constructed for a 20-year population projection period. The planning horizon in the amendments is appropriate for the nature of the planned facilities, sewer treatment facilities should be constructed with long range planning goals. 3. The proposed PFSP ~n~ments are a project list as re~ired by State statutes and implementing regulations. Home Builders insists that the proposed PFSP amendments, particularly the proposed new tables, are not a ~project list" within the meaning of state statutes and regulations. Home Builders argument is without merit. The proposed sanitary sewer. project list is comparable to the existing project lists in the PFSP by Springfield Utility Board, EWEB.and the other participating jurisidictions' lists. The proposed list also 'complies with the LCDC's Goal 11 implementing administrative rules. OAR 660-001-0005(6) defines "public facility project" as follows: ~A public'facility project is the construction or reconstruction of a water, sewer, or transportation' facility within a public facility system that is funded' or utilized by members of the public."~ Public facility system, as it relates to sanitary sewers, are limited to the following: a) treatment facility system; and/or b) primary collection system. (OAR 660-011-0005(7)). Proposed Table 16a lists six treatment facility'system projects: WPCF Treatment Project; Residual Treatment Project; and Beneficial Reuse Project. It also includes three pump stations (i.e., collection system projects): Willakenzie Pump Station, Screw Pump Station and Glenwood Pump Station. This list complies with both the statute and the administrative rule definition of ~project list." In their oral testimony Home Builders stated that a more appropriate list of projects for ?FSP purposes would be MWMC's 20-year project list that is included in MWMC's 2004 Facilities Plan. MWMC adopted the 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year project list to satisfy DEQ requirements for facilities planning and to comply with the requirements of ORS 223.309(1) that.a facilities plan and list of proposed capital improvements be adopted prior to the establishment of a system development charge. 2-2 ORS 223.314· provides: ~The establishment, modification or implementation of a *** a~ plan or list adopted pursuant to ORS 223.309, or any modificatioh of a plan or list, is not a land use decision pursuant to ORS Chapter 195 and 197." Therefore, requiring the inclusion of MWMC's 20-year'project list in the PFSP would be inappropriate. 4~ The proposed amendments comply with a~plicable a~m~nistrative rules; both the Metro Plan and PFSP, with ~he proposed changes, satisfy all' planning requirements. A. PubliC'Facility Plan. Home Builders' recitation of various Oregon Administrative Rules that govern public facilities plans assumes that the proposed amendments are the complete plan. They are not. The complete plan is the entire Metro Plan Chapter III, Section G and the complete PFSP; Read in context, the Metro Plan and the PFSP include all the reqUirements recited by Home Builders from OAR 660-011-0010. The existing PFSP was enacted and acknowledged as 'in compliance with the statewide planning goals in 2002 as part of the region's comprehensive plan periodic review process. Even without the proposed amendments., the PFSP has been found, by virtue of being acknowledged, in compliance with Goal 11. The proposed amendments only bolster and augment the existing plan, they do not remove any critical elements of the plan· The complete inventory required by subsection (1) (a) is found in the existing PFSP. The plan includes a project list. The proposed amendments, read in the context of the existing plan, include a "list of significant public facility projects." Any contention that it does not is merely a restatement of Home-Builders' earlier argument that the proposed project list is not a ~project list," as they would define it. The plan includes cost estimates. The required ~rough cost estimates" are defined as ,approximate costs expressed in current-year (year closest to the period of public facility plan development) dollars. It is not intended that project cost' estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting purposes." OAR 660-011-0005(2). The cost estimates.provided are sufficient to satisfy the rule. Again, by looking at the entire PFSP as amended, the remainder of the r~quirements cited by Home Builders are also present: maps of 2-3 the projects; an estimate of When each Project will be needed; and a discussion of the possible funding mechanisms for each project. · B, Inventory. The PFSP as amended by the proposed amendments includes a complete inventory of the region's sanitary, sewer system. Again, Home Builders attempts to restate its "project list" is not a "project list" argument. ·Clearly, the existing list, which passed muster prior to the proposed amendments without the addition of the new projects, satisfied LCDC's definition of ~project list." It is hard to imagine how the addition of projects somehow makes an already sufficiently descriptive list no longer sufficient within the meaning of the rule. C. Timing. Home Builders argument here is not really about timing, but about the definition of ~project list:" ~Where, as here, the proposal is to approve categories of projects, rather than a list of projects, it is not possible to comply with the rule." (Home Builders letter, p.5). MWMC has responded to that argument above. D. Rough Cost Estimates. As explained above, the cost estimates provided in proposed Table 16a satisfy the rule's definition of rough cost estimates. E. Elements of the co~rehensiveplan. Home Builders.again re-state their unsupported ~project list" argument: ~Again, a project listing is required, not a description of categories of projects." 'The Metro Plan and PFSP, as amended,'satisfy OAR 660-011-0045. Conclusion. The proposed amendments comply with state statutes, statewide planning goals, and the administrative rules that implement Goal .11. The proposed amendments to Chapter III, Section G, and Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are necessary additions concerning proposed improvement and capacity to the conveyance and treatment facilities. This information should have been included with the recently adopted amendments to Chapter III that occurred as a requirement of Periodic Review. The amendments to the PFSP are also a compilation of information that should have been included with the adoption of the PFS? in 2001. Such additional information has no effect on policies of the Plan either specific 2-4 to public facilities or other chapters other than to demonstrate that these urban facilities will be constructed to accommodate planned build-out within Eugene's and Springfield's urban growth boundary. These amendments therefore satisfy the Metro Plan amendment criteria of approval that 'requires internal consistency. N: \CIT¥\MWMC\Hesponse to Home Builders..wpd 2-5 LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS~ PC . OREGON LAND USE LAW'. ... 576 OLIVE STREET, SUITE 300 EUGENE, OR 97401 PO BOX 11906 EUGENE, OR 97440 TEL (541) 343-8596 FAX (541) 343-8702 E-MAIL BILLKLOOS@LANDUSEOREGON.COM April 2.0, 2004 Metro Area Planning Commissions c/o Lane Council of Governments 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene, OK 97401 Re: Metro'Plan Text Amendments; Public Facilities and Services Plan Amendments April 20, 2004 Joint Public Hearing Dear Commission Members: Please accept this letter on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Lane County and its subsidiary, the Home Builders Construction Company.i 1. What standards apply. The standards that apply to these proposed plan amendments are foUnd in 'several locations: · State statutes apply. Statutes always apply to local governments' land use decisions. .McKa¥ Creek l"allev,4ssoc, v. g~ashington Count_, 18 Or LUBA 71, 75 (1989) (acknowledgment of plan and code leaves statutes directly applicable). · Statewide Planning Goals, ORS 197.175(2)(a). · LCDC Rules implementing the statutes and the goals' apply, for the same reasons that the statutes and goals apply. · Acknowledged, mended plan provisions apply to plan amendments, because plans have to be internally consistent. South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Bd. of Corot's of Clackamas County, 280 Or 3, 13 (1977); ORS 197.015(5). 2. Planning Period: The 2025 planning horizon for the Wastewater PHmary Collection System is inconsistent with and not coordinated with the planning period for the balance of the Metro Plan. ' Both the Metro Plan and the Public Facilities and Services Plan ('PFSP) amendments propose a 1 The proposed amendments, if adopted, will be post-ackn0wledgmem plan amendments (PAPAs). My clients request notice of the ~ decision of each local government on this matter, as required by ORS 197.615. ~. ~ ~.~ ~ 2-6 Metro Area Planning Commissions April 20, 2004 Page 2 of 8 .. '. 2025 plan horizon for the Planning for treatment facilities; With these amendments the eomprehesive plan will not be integrated and, in fact, will have inconsistencieS. That's because /he exiting plans have a 2015 planning horizon. A comprehensive plan, by definition, must be coordinated, integrated, and internally consistent. The definition of "comprehensive plan" in ORS 197.015(5) is: "Comprehensive plan" means a generalized, coordinated land use map and policy ' statement of the goveming body of a local government that interrelates all functional and natural systems and activities relating to the use of lands, including but not limited to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational facilities, 'and natural resources and air and water quality management programs. "Comprehensive" means all-inclusive, both in terms of the geographic area covered and functional and natural activities and systems occurring in the area covered by the plan. "General nature'' means a summary of policies and proposals in broad categories and does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. A plan is "coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and' private agencies and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accommodated as much as possible. "Land" includes water, both surface and Subsurface, .and the air.'" A comprehensive plan really can't be "coordinated" in the meaning of the definition if different functional parts of the plan have conflicting planning t/me frames. 3. State statutes regarding public facilities planning, ORS 197.712(2)(e), requires a project list, which is not in the proposed amendments. The statute that sets the stage for public facility plans is ORS 197.712(2)(e). It provides : "A cityor county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. - The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for public projects needed to provide sewer, water and transportation for the land uses contemplated in the comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Project firn~ng and financing provisions of public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions." It is worth noting that the statute anticipates a list of projects. The proposed amendments do not include a list of project. Instead, the amendments would include categories of baskets of projects. Presumably, the individual projects would be worked out administratively. 4. LCDC Rules rela.ting to public facili~ planning. The public facilities· statute and Statewide Planning Goal 11 are implemented through the LCDC's Division 11 Kule - OAK 660-011-0000. 2-7 Metro Area Planning Commissions · April 20, 2004 Page 3 of 8 : (a) . Contents of"public facility plan." OAR 660-011-0010 defines the contents'of a public facility plan. The definition is: "(1) The public facility plan Shall contain the following items: ,,. (a) An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all the significant public facility systems which support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; · Co) A list. of the significant public facility projects' which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Public facility project descriptions or specifications of these projects as necessary; (c) Rough cost estimates of each public facility project; (d) A map or written description of each public facility project's general loCation or service area; ' (e) Policy statement(s) or urban growth management agreement identifying the provider of each public facility system. If'there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility ' plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated; (f) An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; and (g) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and Possible new mechanisms 'to fund the development of each public facility project or system." The proposal is to bolster the existing PFSP to include the required components for the area's wastewater treatment system. The amendments made should be double cheCked against the required' list of contents above. At first glance, it would appear that the proposed amendments fall short of meeting the'minimum required contents in the following respects: 1. The amendments need to include an inventory and general assessment of the Condition of all the significant aspeCts of the wastewater treatment system. The required evaluative information is missing. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(a). 2. A "list of significant public facility projects" needed to support the land uses designated in the Metro Plan is needed. OAR 660-011-0010(1)CO). No project list is proposed for the plan. Instead, categories of projects are proposed. This obfuscates the ultimate policy choices that Goal 2 and Goal 11 require to be reflected in the plan. Furthermore, the projects are to support the land use designations in the plan. Those designations have a 2015 planning horizon. The proposal is to designate projects for a longer timeframe, which would violate this rule. 3. Cost est/mates need to be byproject, not by categories of projects. OAR 660-011- 0010(1)(c). · 2-8 Metro Area Planning Commissions April 20, 2004 Page 4 of 8 .. ..- 4. Each project needs to be mapped. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(d). Without a project listing, the mapping requirement can't be met. " 5. An estimate is needed of when each project will be needed. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(f). Absent a project list, this requirement can't be complied with. 6. A discussion of the funding mechanisms and prOSPects for funding for each project. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(g). Again, a project list is the Starting point for this discussion. (b) Need'for inventory of existing facilities and need for future projects. OAR 660-011-0020 requires establishes inventory requirements and the need foi: a list of future projects. The Rule provides: "(1) The public facility plan shall include an inventory of significant public facility systems. Where the acknowledged comprehensive plan, background document or one or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR 660-011- 0010(3) contains such an inventory, that inventory may be incorporated by reference. The inventory shall include: (a) Mapped location of the facility or service area; Co) Facility capacity or size; and (c) General assessment of condition of the facility (e.g., very good, good, fair, poor, very poor). (2) The public facility plan shall identify significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The public facility plan shall list the title of the project and describe each public facility project in terms of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity. · '(3) Project descriptions 'within the facility plan may require modifications based on subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility maste? plans, capital improvement programs, or site availability. The public facility plan shouldanticipate these changes as SPecified in OAK 660-011-0045." ~n inventory of eXisting facilities is needed, in terms of mapped location, capacity, and condition. OAR 660-011-0020(1). This inventory would provide the baseline for planning. It does not appear to be within the scope of the proposed amendments. The plan must include a list of specific proposed projects. OAR 660-011-0020(2). There is no list. of projects proposed. Approval of categories of projects would mean that the governing bodies are not making ultimate policy choices. Rather, they would be writing quasi-blank checks. Metro Area Planning Commissions April 20, 2004 Page 5 of 8 (c) Timing of required projects. OAK 660-011-0025 requires that the plan include a general estimate of timing of projects. The Rule states: "(1) The public facilities plan shall include a general estimate of the timing for the planned public facility projects. This timing component of the public facilities plan can be met in several ways depending on whether the project is anticipated in the short term or long term. The timing of projects may be related directly to population growth, e.g., the expansion or new construction of water treatment facilities. Other facility projects can be related to a measure of the facility's sentiee level being met or exceeded, e.g.., a major arterial or intersection reaching a maximum vehicle-per, day standard. Development of other projects may be more long term and fled neither to specific population levels nor measures of service levels, e.g., sewer projects to correct infiltration and inflow problems. These projects can take place over a long period of time and may be fled to the availability of long-term funding. The timing of projects may also be fled to specific years. "(2) Given the different methods used to estimate the timing of public facilities, the public facility plan shall identify projects as occurring in either the short term or I°ng term, based on those factors which are related to project 'development. For those projects designated for development in the short term,' the public facility plan shall identify an approximate year for development. For those projects designated for development over the long term, the public facility plan shall provide a general estimate as to when the need forprojeet development would.exist, e.g., population level, service level standards, etc. Timing provisions for public facility projects shall be consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan's projected growth estimates. The public facility plan shall consider the relationships between facilities in providing for development. · ' ' ' . "(3) Anticipated timing provisions for public facilities are not Considered land use decisions as specified in ORS.712(2)(e), and, therefore, cannot be the basis of appeal under ORS 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4)." Although the timing analysis does not have to be precise under the Rule, it. does have to be specific to projects. Where, as here, the proposal is to approve categories of projects, rather than a list of projects, it is not possible to comply with.the rule. (d) Need for rough cost estimates of specific projects. 2-10 Metro Area planning Commissions April 20, 2004 . Page 6 of 8 OAR 660-011-0030 requires the plan to include rough cost estimates for projects listed in the plan, .The Rule provides: "(1) The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for those sewer,' water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan. The intent of these rough cost estimates is to: (a) Provide an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land use designations in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and (b) For use by the facility provider in reviewing the provider's existing funding mechanisms (e.g., general funds, general obligation and revenue bonds, local improvement district, system development charges, etc.) and possible alternative funding mechanisms. In addition tO including rough cost estimates for each project, the facility plan shall include a discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each public facility project or system. These funding mechanisms may also be described in terms of general guidelines or local policies. "(2) Anticipated financing provisions are not considered land use decisions as specified in ORS 197.712(2)(e) and, therefore, cannot be the basis of apPeal under ORS' 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4)." Again, the failure of the proposed plan amendments to list individual projects in the plan precludes compliance with this rule. The rule only requires "rough" cOst estimates, but the estimates have to be by project, not large groups of projects. (e) Required elements of the comprehensive plan. OAR 660-011-0045 requires that certain elements of the public facilities plan be made apart of the plan itself. The Rule requires: "(1) The governing body of the city or county respOnSible for development of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdietion's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the comprehensive plan: (a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects; (b) A map or written description of the public facility projects' locations or service areas as specified in sections (2) and (3) ofth/s rule; and (c) The policy(ies) or urban growth management agreement designating the provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated." 2-11 Metro Area Planning Commissions April 20, 2004 Page 7 of 8 .. The minimum requirement for inclusion in the comprehensive plan is the list of project titles and a map of the projects' location or service areas. Again, a project listing is required, not a description of categories of projects In summary, it appears that the proposed amendments conflict with the structure of the Metro Plan because they are for a d~fferent, longer time frame. As such, they can't be'demonstrated to consist of the projects needed to implement the land use designations in the plan. They implement something more than what the plan provides for. More significantlY, it appears that' the amendments are too skinny. The target for the amendments should be to provide, as a part of the PFSP and the Metro Plan the information that the LCDC Rules require be a part of any element of a public facilities plan. The essential information that is missing is baseline information on the existing irr~astmcture, its location, and its condition, and a listing of specific projects proposed, their location, their rough cost, and their approximate timing. As a starting point, the Planning Commissions might ask staffto analyze their proposed amendments in light of the requirements of the LCDC Rule. Thank you for your consideration. / cc: Roxie Cuellar 2-12 Table of Contents ' · Testimony Submitted into the Record of Hearing LRP 2004-00001 Amendments to the Eugene-Spring, eld Metropolitan ~4rea General Plan, Chapter 111, Section G. t~ublic Facilities and Services, and Chapter IV Glossary; and Amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). Tlfis testimony was received between April 20t~ and May 7t~, 2004. Submittal deadline was 5:00 p.m., May 7, 2004. 1. Memo froTM Meg Kieran; Springfield City Attorney, responding to evidence entered into the record during the April 20, 2004 joint planning commission public hearing 2. Staff.report and appendices (Aa, Ab, B) as corrected during the April 20, 2004 joint planning commission public heating 3. Letter from Lane County Home Builders, date May 6, 2004 4. Conditional Use Permit - 1982 for construction of the Regional Treatment Plant 5. Drat~ MWMC Facilities plan- April 2004 6. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General plan- 1987 Update 7. Public Facilities Plan- 1999 8. Public Facilities and Services Plan-2001 9. TransPlan- 2001 10. Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for Beneficial Reuse Project (Poplar Farm) 11. GUideline for the preparation of Facilities Plans and Environmental Reports for Community Wastewater Project - NOvember, 1999 12. SUB 8 year Capital Improvement Plan implementing projects on Tables 2 and 14 of the PFSP 2001 13. EWEB project development list implementing project 110 of Table 13, PFSP 2001 14. Eugene Public Works CIP (02) implementing stormwater projects in Table 17, PFSP 2001 15. Biosolids Management Plan-June 1997 16. Wet Weather Flow Management Plan- February 2001 ATTACHMENT 3--1 17. MWMC Agenda Pack~s- Jan 03 - May 04 . - 18. MWMc Resolution 02-05 - Awarding contract to CI-I2MHill to update MWMC Facilities Plan and develop predesign work 19. 208 Plan-April 1977 (Facilities Plan) 20. June, 1982 confirmation ~om Lane County demonstrating compliance with the comprehensive Plan, statewide goals and Lane Code for the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility (precursor to modem-day LUCS) 21. February, 1986 confirmatiOn from Lane County demonstrating compliance with the comprehensive plan for a sludge facility as a permitted use on exclusive farm land 22. Public Notice ads for MWMC Facilities Plan and 20-year project list, Systems Development Charges, Metro Plan and PFSP amendments; MWMC planning workshop; MWMC Facilities Planning Open House; MWMC SDC Eugene City Council Public Hearing 23. Intergovernmental Agreement 1998 Service Agreements. By-Laws' 1995 3-2 MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY . DATE: Nay 17, 2004 TO: Springfield Plannin9 Commission Eugene Planning Commission Lane County Planning Commission FROM: Meg Kieran Springfield City Attorney SUBJECT: Staff response to material submitted into the record.by Home Builders Association on May 6, 2004 On May 6, 2004, Home Builders Association submitted written materials into the record. MWMC submits this brief outline of issues in response. A. MWMC'S Poplar Farm Project. (Homebuilders' letter at pp 2-3) 1. The 596 acre Poplar Farm site has been in farm use for more than 20 years; 2. The Poplar Farm is a Permitted use in an EFU zone. 0RS215.213(1) (bb) & 215.283(1) (y); 3.. The Poplar Farm is a permitted use in Eugene"s industrial zone. EC9.2450 4. Lane County's Notic'e of Land Use Decision that the Poplar Farm complies with land use requirements was April 14, 20oo. 5. DEQ issued a permit for the operation of the Poplar Farm on the 596 acre site on June 27, 2000; 6. Construction is on schedule and the poplar trees have been planted by MWMC's contractor. B. Liquid Effluent Dry and Wet Weather Capacity and Biosolids Loading. (Homebuilders' letter at pp 9 - 18) 1. MWMC adopted its 2004 Facilities Plan after a public hearing on May 6, 2004; ATTACHMENT 4-1 2. HBA made the same arguments found at pages 9 through 18 in its written testimony to the MWMC at its May 6, 2004 Facilities Plan public hearing; 3. MWMC's consultant,~CH2M Hill, resPonded in writing, to each of HBA's capacity and biosolids loading arguments; the responses were inserted in the HBA testimony in red text (a copy of the Homebuilder's letter containing ~he CH2M Hill response is attached hereto as Attachment 1. C. Goal 6. (Homebuilders' letter at p 3) 1. Statewide Planning. Goal 6 is ~to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state." Goal 6 requires that ~all waste and process discharges from future development * * * shall not threaten to violate, or 'violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards." The Goal 6 guidelines state that ~all plans and programs affecting waste and process discharges should be coordinated within the applicable air sheds'and river basins described or included in state environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and. implementation plan." In addition,, plans "should buffer and separate'those land uses which create or lead to conflicting requirements and impacts upon the air, water and land 'resources." 2. The treatment facilities and collection system improvements included in the proposed PFSP amendments are responsive to the requirements Of MWMC's NPDES permit. A copy of MWMC's NPDES permit, setting forth the federal and state water treatment requirements is attached as Attachment 2. D. Miscellaneous Issues: Timing of Projects; Definition of Wastewater Other issues raised by Home Builders have been addressed by MWMC in our memo dated May 6, 2004 or are resolved by the plain language of the proposed amendments, existing Metro Plan language and administrative rules that implement Goal 11. These include challenges to the Completeness of the project list; the timing, cost estimates and possible financing methods for the projects; and the definition of wastewater. Some of these issues were raised and discussed at the May 6, 2004 MWMC public hearing on the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and 20-year project list. A.copy of the minutes of that meeting is attached as Attachment 3. 4-2 ATTACHMENT I CH2M HILL's RESPONSE TO HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION MAY 3, 2004, LETTER 4-3 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes This dOcument is the written testimony submitted by the Home Builders Association, with responses by CH2M HILL integrated into the text in bold/italic print in brackets. This document was reviewed by the Commission at the May 6, 2004, meeting. May 3, 2004 MWMC Commission President Inge MWMC Commissioners 225 5th Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Re: MWMC Facilities Plan Dear Commissioners: The Home Builders submit the following comments on the proposed MWMC facility plan. The remarks are incomplete because I just became aware on Wednesday of last week that there is actually a Draft Facilities Plan Document, p,4/ednesday of last week was April 28. The Draft Facility Plan was discussed in the MWMC Commissioners meeting on April 22. Ail of the Commissioners had copies of the Plan at that April 22nd meeting.] and not just the spread sheets I had been working from. I also learned on Thursday that DEQ had done an evaluation of the MWMC facility.[DEO did not do a capacity evaluation as part of the permit · reneWal process. MWMC staffsubmitted materials from the 1997 Master Plan that was currently under development to DEQ on December 31, 1996 (over 7 years ago) as part of their permit renewal application. DEQ did not · end up renewing the permit until 2002. However. their fact sheet used the information that MWMC staff had submitted back in 1996.] I needed to spend time reading and absorbing those documents as well as preparing my written remarks. I have put together what I could in the short time available. I apologize in advance if my comments conclude abruptly or the remarks I do make do not flow cohesively. I think in any evaluation of the facility plan, it is important to ask three questions. First, how much capacity do we have9. Second, how much capacity do we need? Lastly, how much capacity are we building? I will attempt to explore each of those questions, but I anticipate in advance that I will not make it to the end. I also have issues with some of the performance and percentage allotments assigned to SDCs that are included with the facility plan. I will address those first and then discuss the three questions I have raised above. Attachment 4 Page 1 of 17 4-4 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes 1. The facilities plan project list allocates 38% of the cost of the headworks to growth. This is based on the generic application of percentages provided in' the SDC methodology. [This statement is incorrect. The 38% is not based on a generic application of the percentage provided in the SDC methodology. Per the SDC methodology for determining the improvement fee*cost basis, Steps I-2 and !-4 are explicitly prescribed in the methodology while Steps I- 1 and I-3 are case specific depending on which project in the 20.year project is being addressed.] According to the population projections on page 2-32 of the Facilities Plan, there is an expected population increase of just under 30% projected between 2005 and 2025. [The Facilities Plan and the SDC Methodology is based on population growth from existing (defined as 2002) to 2025. These values are 217,737 and 297,585, respectively, which result in a 36.7 percent increase.] According the discussion of the headworks on page 7-5, "the new facilities would be constructed to accommodate 160 mgd of dry weather capacity even though less capacity is required for total wet weather flows [The Headworks Expansion has been sized large enough so that the existing headworks will not have to be brought on and off line on a frequent basis in the dry season. This was done to avoid excessive operation and maintenance costs.] ." According to the SDC methodology, the maximum amount of additional dry weather capacity needed to serve growth through the year 2025 is 10 mgds (page C-1 of the methodology). Under the generic methodology allocation, preliminary treatment is allocated 25% to average flow and 75% to peak flow. It is also designated 100% to capacity· The methodology says that growth pays 100% of average flow and 29% of peak flow (which is another issue). If 25% of the headwork capacity is for average flow and the total capacity is 160 mgds, then growth would pay for 40 mgds of the dry weather capacity [This is incorrect for two reasons. First, only 50% of the total project cost for new headworks facilities are allocated to Preliminary Treatment. The other 50% are allocated to Peak Flow Management before the costs are allocated to average and peak flow. So the percentage of total project cost allocated to growth via average flow is 12.5% (50% to Preliminary Treatment * 25% to Average Flow). There is no cost allocation to growth via average flow for the other 50% of the project attributed to' Peak Flow Management. Second, aPPlying a system capacity parameter percentage allocation to some flow amount is irrelevant. The purpose of the SDC methodology is to equitably allocate the costs of projects between growth and existing users not to determine capacity. And even if that were correct the average flow allocation percentage (whether it be 25% or 12.5 %) could not be applied to the 160 mgd value because the 160 mgd value is not in average flow Units.], even though the methodology clearly indicates that the most dry weather capacity needed to serve growth during the planning period is 10 mgds. · The amount of peak flow needed to serve growth is identified as 30 mgds. We are allocated 29% of peak flow capacity. 75% of the headworks capacity is for peak flow under the methodology - 20 mgds. [This 75% is incorrect. As indicated above, 50% of the total project cost for new headworks facilities are allocated to preliminary treatment and 50% are allocated to peak flow management before the costs are allocated to average and peak flow. The percentage of Attachment 4 Page 2 of 17 4-5 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes the total project allocated to peak flow is 87.5% and is determined as follows: 50% to Preliminary Treatment * 75% to Peak Flow = 37.5% plus 50% to Peak Flow Management * 100% to peak flow = 50% for a total allocation to peak flow of 87.5% (37.5 + 50%) not 75%. The application of an allocation percentage to the amount of required peak flow capacity is irrelevant. Again, purpose of the SDC methodology is to equitably allocate the costs of projects .between growth and existing users not to determine capacity. The 29% allocated to growth would be 35 mgds - five more needed to serve growth during the planning period. [This is an incorrect application of the 29% (which was derived for the SDC methodology by dividing the 30 mgd (growth's share of the required peak flow capacity through 2025) by the ~02 mgd (the total amount of additional peak flow capacity required through 2025). The correct application of the 29% (actually 29.4%) is to multiply it by the portion of a project cost that is allocated to peak flow within the "Capacity" portion. For the headworks expansion project this is calculated as follows: 50% to Preliminary Treatment * 75% to peak flow * ~00% to "Capacity" *29.4 % = ~% and 50% to Peak Flow Management * ~00% to peak flow * ~00% to "Capacity"* 29.4 % = ~4.7 % for a subtotal of 25.7%. Therefore, the total allocation for growth for the Headworks expansion is 38.2 % (IZ5 % from average flow and 25.7% from peak flow).] In total, wc arc being charged for 35 mgds more than the methodology identifies as being needed to serve growth.[This is incorrect based on discussion above.] According to the methodology, growth needs 10 mgds of dry weather (average flow) and 30 mgds of peak flow. That is a total of 25% .[This is incorrect. These numbers do not have any meaning and even if they did it is not correct to add together average flow and peak flow. The SDC methodology is not intended to be used to compute capacity, it is intended to allocate costs.], of thc cost, not thc 35% that is allocated. The difference in cost is $1,664,000. [This number is invalid based on the discussed reasons presented above.] This problem exists throughout the allocation process and our objection is the same to each of the allocation where-this problem exists. You can't charge growth for more than the capacity needed to serve growth during' the planning period. In thc case of the headworks, even under the proposed methodology, you can't charge more than 25% of the cost of the headworks to growth. [This 25% value is invalid for the reasons presented above. A reality check confirms the equity of the 38% allocation to growth. Typically a "Capacity" project would be allocated ~00% to growth. However, since there is a peak flow capacity deficit only 29.4 % of the peak flow capacity is allocated to growth - the remaining 70.6 % of the peak flow parameter is allocated to existing users. For the Headworks Expansion project ~2.5% is allocated to average flow and 87.5 is allocated to peak flow. Since ~00% of this ~2.5 % (average flow portion) is allocated to growth and 29.4 % of the 87.5 % (peak flow portion) is allocated to growth it makes sense that the final resulting allocation to growth is between 25% and 50% of the total project costs. The 38 percent allocation Attachment 4 Page 3 of 17 4-6 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05,06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes' to growth also seems right as it is slightly higher than the population increase over the study period (36. 7%). The second major issue I have is the 29% allocation of peak flow to growth. The 2001 Wet Weather Study, prepared by CH2MHill, provided the following information: Peak flow estimates for conditions associated with the 5-year storm event are used to size and plan future system improvements at the treatment plan! and in the collection system. Through system modeling, the 5-year peak was estimated at 264 mgd. Peak flows are attributed to high infiltration and inflow (VI) rates in many areas of the collection system. III occurs from extraneous water getting into the system from illegal roof drain connections,' sewer pipe cracks, and other sources. VI is often associated with older pipes in the system which have deteriorated. Sanitary pipes in older areas are also more likely to be subject to . improper storm drainage (inflow) connections when construction inspection practices were more lenient and / or such connections were allowed, creating a combined flow system. Newer pipe systems reflect improvements in construction techniques, materials, and inspection and typically exhibit far less VI. In Eugene, 11 percent of the pipes are at least 50 years old. In Springfield, the percentage of pipes at least 50 years old is 15 percent. Because the primary sources of I/I are in the existing system and limited III is anticipated from system expansion, growth in the system does not contribute significantly to projected system deficiencies. ' The 5-year peak is estimated at 298 mfd. Of this peak, only 4 percent or 12 mgd, is estimated to be the result of VI from future pipes. In a response to a question from Chris Clemow on the CAC, I believe that CH2MHill increased the 4% to 4.7%, which I have no objection to. [The current SDC methodology attributes 5.2% of the peal( flow I/I to growth: 14.5mgd / 277mgd. This 5.2% is in line with the previous 4.7'% and is slightly higher primarily because the updated collection system modeling is now estimating a slightly reduced peak flow of 27'7 mgd. Future total peak flows are estimated to be less due to I/I reduction practices in the existing system, therefore, the percentage due to growth increases] The Point is that we are not responsible for 29% of peak flow management costs [29% is growth's share of the peak flow capacity needed through 2025 30 mgd divided by ~02 mgd] Peak flow is made up of the average flow (currently less than 30 mgds) [This is incorrect. Current maximum month dry weather flows] and the rest is III. We are already allocated 100% of the average flow costs under the methodology and pay that separately. Let's assume that average flow in 2005 will be 49 mgds. Our portion of peak flow costs would be 4.7% of 249 mgds or 11.7 mgds. [bio, incorrect. The portion of the peak flow is 30 mgd divided by ~02 mgd. The 4.7' % value is a percentage of l/I only. If growth's allocation is going to be based on I/I only and not peak flow, then we have to be consistent and allocate to existing users based on I/! only as well- whereas the average flow would have to be subtracted out of the remaining peak flow which is 7'2 mgd (~02 mgd less 30 mgd)] I am willing to accept the 14 mgds of I/I that CH2MHill suggested Attachment 4 Page 4 of 17 4-7 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes was growth's contribution t° 298 mgds of peak flow which would include all of the average flow that we are paying for under average flow. [glo, incorrect. Once project costs are allocated to average flow they are no longer available to be allocated to peak flow and vice versa.] Thc 29% cun'ently allocated to growth for peak flow isn't supported by the data. [The 29% or 30 mgd of 102 mgd is derived in Table C-2 of the SDC methodology and is supported by data. The I/I assumed to be generated by growth is less than 30% of the !/I generated by existing MWMC users. Some communities in the Willamette Valley corridor are using 35%.] I. How Much Capacity Do We Have? General Facility Capacity Information: The MWMC treatment facility was designed in 1977 and became operational twenty years ago, in 1984. It was designed to serve a population of 277,100 persons and it was estimated in 1977 that number of persons served by the facility would be reached in 2005. The current number of persons served by MWMC in 2004 is 217,690 persons, so · the initial 1977 population projection that the facility would reach its service capacity next year was substantially in err. Based solely on population to be served, the facility would currently be used at 72.5% of its capacity [This assumption only works if ' you assume that the level of treatment required in 1977 is the same as the level of treatment required in 2025 which is not a correct assumption] is is based solely on the original design. "Design of the original WPCF (Water Pollution Control Facility) was based on demographic and population data established in the mid-1970's. The facility was designed to provide adequate sewerage capacity through the year 2005 for a projected population of 277,100. This projection was made for the sewer service area that existed in the 1970s. However, the growth rate during the 1980s was significantly less than projected. This trend in the growth rate was common throughout much of Oregon because of depressed economic conditions during the mid-1980s (April, 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan, page 1-6). In addition, LCOG population projections for the 1990s were higher than the actual numbers provided by the 2000 US Census. Another factor significantly affected the projected use of the facility's capacity- water conservation efforts. A substantial part of our wastewater, both dry weather flows and wet weather flows, is just What the name suggests - water. I am not referring now to inflow and infiltration (I/I), but rather the composition of the wastewater that is released from homes, businesses, and industrial plants. Whether the wastewater originates from the shower we take in the morning, the dishwashers at a restaurant, or a car wash, the vast majority of our wastewater is simply water. The amount ofwastewater sent from homes and businesses to the sanitary sewer pipes correlates so closely to our actual water usage that our winter water consumption is the basis upon which our MWMC sewer bill is Attachment 4 Page 5 of 17 4-8 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes calculated. Every year since the mid ~)r late 80s, because of water conservation efforts, our per capita consumption of water has declined. We flush our toilets with less water and use more efficient shower heads. Because of past drought years, we mm off the water while brushing our teeth rather than leaving the tap running, as was customary in the 70s. The Register Guard recently ran an article reporting that while the state population had grown by 17% (I believe since 1990), water consumption had increased by only 2% in the same period. Some of the water conservation results in water savings that do not impact our wastewater flows, better means of watering our lawns, for example; however, much of the conservation has occurred inside homes and businesses. The result is that the MWMC facility can actually serve a larger population than the 277,100 persons originally projected in the rrdd-7Os.[Under the same conditions and treatment levels established in 1977, there may be a small impact and a slight increase in population served. However, reduced water usage in homes does not translate to reduced organic loadings at treatment plants, which define capacity of some unit processes. Under required treatment levels established now and anticipated for 2025, this statement is absolutely incorrect. Seasonal variations in climate and I/I into the system have a much more significant impact on wastewater flows than do water conservation practices. There are three sources that we can use to determine how much facility capacity, still exists: The 1997 MWMC Master Plan prepared by CH2MI-Iill;['l'his plan is not based on the current NPDES permit and cannot be used to assess current capacity] the 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan prepared by CH2MHill; and the 2002 'Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation prepared by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).[This fact sheet was developed from information MWMC staff provided DEO in ~96 while applying for a permit .renewal The information was taken from the ~7 Master Plan. DEO took 5 years to respond to the permit renewal request and turned the application for permit renewal into a fact sheet in 2002 without updating the information.] The facility has many components but reference is frequently made to four more generic categories of capacity: (1) Liquid effluent dry weather flow, (2) liquid effluent wet weather flow, (3) BOD and TSS dry weather capacity, and (4) biosolids processing. It is important to look at each of the larger category's capacity individually. Liquid Effluent Dry Weather Capacity.: DEQ defines the dry season as May 1 through October 31, although the 2002 permit appears to extend the emergency overflow criteria for a storm event greater than the one- in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm through May 21 rather than May 1, and allows that same criteria to extend to June 1 if there is no increase in risk to beneficial uses. The facility has two important effluent dry weather design capacities. The average monthly dry weather flow capacity is 49 million gallons per day (mgds). The average monthly capacity most closely reflects the base flow from residences, businesses, and industrial Attachment 4 Page 6 of 17 4-9 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes plants. [Since' the NPDES permit is based on this flow and associated loads, the actual maximum month dry season flow must meet all the criteria associated with the ADWF, and thus is the proper standard for comparison of maximum month flow] It contains some I/I, but the amount is minimal. The other important design capacity is that of dry weather maximum month, which is'66 mgds. [This is not correct. This is not the current rating of the plant for dry season maximum month. This value was obtained from the 1997 Master Plan, in which the effluent requirements were different at the time of that rating. The current maximum month rating is the ADWF of 49 mgd stated in the current NPDES permit.] Some of the months classified as "dry" by DEQ, especially May, can in fact be very wet and contain substantial amounts of I/I. Therefore, the design capacity for the dry season maximum months flows is higher than that of average monthly flows to reflect the presence of the I/I. [This is incorrect. The presence of l/I into the system during critical months does not allow the plant to treat more flow just because it is slightly more dilute.' Other issues such as nitrification, mixed liquor concentrations, and secondary clarification control facility capacity under these conditions. The facility still must meet all the same criteria during this period as outlined by the ADWF permit conditions. Because of this, mass limits under these higher flow conditions pose more stringent effluent requirements than the normal concentration limits. The existing facilities would likely not achieve the 'required 30-day average effluent requirements for wastewater flows in excess of the ADWF stated in the permit.] The difference between the specific design capacity and the actual corresponding flows represents the capacity available to meet future needs. The 1997 MWMC Master Plan examined the amount of dry season average monthly flows as well as the dry season maximum monthly flows to determine the amount of capacity that was being used by current users. It also projected the available years of capacity remaining in that part of the facility. It identified the dry weather average mohth capacity as 49 mgds and the actual average monthly flow as 26 mgds (Table 3-3, page 455). It also identified the dry weather maximum month design capacity as 66 mgds (page 456).[These capacity assessments were based on NPDES permit requirements at the time of the study, no provisions for ammonia, recent SSO regulation, and thermal load limits] It reported that'"average dry weather flows were 53 percent of plant design capacity . (page 440). It estimated that there were 30 years remaining dry weather monthly average capacity and 27 remaining years of dry weather maximum month capacity - taking us to the years 2027 and 2024 respectively (Table 3-5 Remaining Life of E/SWPCF, page 457). It concluded the dry weather capacity analysis as follows: "Ample dry weather capacity remains well beyond the current LCOG planning horizon (page 456)" Attachment 4 Page 7 of 17 4-10 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes The 2004 Draft'MWMC FaCilities Plan, also prepared by CH2MI-Iill, also identifies the ' dry weather average month design capacity as 49 mgds. However, the amount of monthly flow, either average month or maximum month is dependent upon population estimates. There is a serious discrepancy in the population estimates that CH2MHill provided on March 26, 2004, for the Draft System Development Charge Methodology, in which CH2MHill estimated the current population served in 2002 as 217,690, and the estimated 2005 population estimate of 229,145 found in the draft facilities plan. [This is incorrect. There is no discrepancy. One number is 2002 population and one is the estimated 2005 population. This represents roughly an additional 3,800 people served per year which is consistent with the population projections being used for this Facilities Plan.] Based on the latter 2005 population, CH2MHill estimates actual dry season average flows of 29.6 mgds and dry season maximum monthly flows of 46 mgds (page 4-13). That means we would be using 60.4% of our dry season average monthly capacity and 69.7% of our dry season maximum monthly capacity, Using the design capacities of 49 mgds and 66 mgds respectively./66 mgd is not the current maximum month rating of the plant, so these numbers have no value] CH2MHill identifies the projected 2025 dry season average floW at 38.4 mgds, still substantially below the 49 mgd average flow design capacity, and the 2025 dry weather maximum month flow at 59.3, also below the design capacity of 66 mgds. [66 mgd is not the current maximum month rating of the plant, so these numbers have no value] DEQ also provided an evaluation of the MWMC treatment facility in 2002 in conjunction with the renewal of our NPDES wastewater discharge permit. It noted: The design Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for the facility is 49 million gallons per day (MGD). The ADWF is the estimated maximum flow during May 1 to October 31 (expressed as average daily flow), at which the design engineer expects the treatment facility can still meet all effluent limits. [The definition here states the point at hand. Th'e ADWF is the maximum flow at which the design engineer expects the facility can still meet all the effluent limits. This is 49 mgd under the current NPDES permit] The dry weather flOws do not contain the high levels of infiltration and inflow that are associated with the winter in Oregon. Therefore,' the design dry weather flows are used mostly to estimate how much treatment capacity there is for organic loads. The current actual dry weather flow for May 1 to October 31, for the past two years, is 28.6 MGD, [This was based on information supplied.in 1996, and does not reflect the last 7.5 years of data and the new NPDES permit] On the basis of the current flows, this facility is at approximately 60% of organic treatment capacity. Based on the current low flows compared to the design flows, and the lack of effluent violations, no expansion of the facility is needed at this time (page 2). Attachment 4 Page 8 of 17 4-11 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes To summarize flue availability of dry weather effluent capacity, seven years ago, the MWMC Master Plan estimated that we were using 53% of our dry weather capacity. Five years later, in 2002, DEQ dismissed the importance of even discussing the liquid effluent dry weather capacity and noted that thereal issue was the amount of capacity for treatment of organic loads (such as BOD and TSS) [This is incorrect. With the new NPDES permit, nitrification and secondary clarification control secondary treatment capacity.] and estimated that capacity at approximately 60%. Two years [This was actually 7.5 years later, as the fact sheet was based on information supplied in 1996, as the date of the fact sheet implies] later, using the numbers provided by CH2MHill in the draft facilities plan, the estimated the dry weather average month capacity would be just over 60% and the dry season maximum month at just under 70%. However, CH2MHill is also estimating that UI will be reduced by approximately 17% during the planning period, which would make more dry season maximum capacity available [This is incorrect, the reduction of wet season I/I will not make more capacity available for dry season] (Draft System Development Charge Methodology (page C-2). All three of the sources indicate that we have substantial dry weather capacity remaining in the facility, which is what we would expect, given the reduced population projections and the effect of water conservation efforts on plant flows. [As stated earlier, the sources obtained there information from the same source - a capacity assessment done over 7 years ago done under a different NPDES permit (i.e. no ammonia limit). Also, Water conservation efforts do not reduce organic loading.] However, CH2MHill does contend in the proposed System Development Charge Methodology that the available dry weather capacity is substantially less than that provided by the other sources. In that document, CH2MHill claims that we are Currently using 89% of our liquid effluent dry weather capacity. CH2MHill arrives at that conclusion by calculating the available capacity differently than they did in the Master Plan or than DEQ does in its evaluation of the plant capacity. [As stated earlier, DEQ never did any evaluation. They took what was given to them in ~9~}6 and included it in the 2002 permit fact sheet. DEQ is currently requiring MWMC /CH2M HILL to use maximum month when assessing capacity.] In the Master Plan CH2MHill arrived at the dry weather capacity by comparing the dry season maximum month design capacity of 66 mgds with the dry season maximum month flows (apples to apples). DEQ compared the dry season average month design capacity of 49 mgds with the dry season average flows (apples to apples). [DEO has requested that this be the apprOach taken.] In the system development charge methodology, CH2MHill compares the dry season average flow design (49 mgds) with the dry season maximum monthly flow (apples to oranges). The design capacity used does not include any significant I/I, but the maximum monthly flow does. Needless to say, the available capacity evaporates immediately, and we go from having 40% of the dry season capacity available to meet future needs to having only 11% of the dry season capacity available. That is an incredible difference. While I haven't seen any place in the facility plan where Attachment 4 Page 9 of 17 4-12 .ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes current dry season capacity'is identified, [see Table 3.2.2-3 on page 3-11] CH2MHill suggests that the same comparison would be used. The existing average dry weather design flow for the WPCF, as stated in the current NPDES permit is 49 mgd. This is defined as the average day flow calculated from May 1 through October 31. Although stated as an average dry weather capacity, the facility must meet the effluent requirements on a 30-day average flow (monthly basis). Because any 30-day period, including the maximum 30-day flow period (or maximum month flow) during the dry season, must meet the NPDES effluent fl°w and load requirements stipulated for the average dry season flow, it is prudent to compare the actual dry season maximum month flow (DSMM) to the average dry weather'design flow in order to assess treatment capacity. This method was reviewed by DEQ staff and verified as the appropriate method. When I had talked with Mark Hamlin at DEQ on previous occasions, I was assured that DEQ only looks at output and results and that DEQ does not tell jurisdictions how to calculate capacity.[The NPDES permit defines effluent limits, which inherently define how capacity is determined] I called Mark Hamlin last Thursday after reading in the draft facilities plan that DEQ staffhad said the apples to oranges comparison was the appropriate method to calculate the dry weather capacity. Mark then told me that he had evaluated the MWMC dry weather capacity at 60% in the Fact Sheet and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation. [The information in this fact sheet was developed in ~996 before there was an ammonia limit and thermal load limit placed into the NPDES permit and is therefore no longer valid ] Furthermore, it is clear in that evaluation that DEQ did not use the method being . proposed by CH2MHill. Instead, DEQ compared the average flow capacity of 49 mgds with the average flows of 28.6 mgds. IfDEQ preferred the method being proposed by CH2MHill, why wouldn't they use it themselves? [They are now saying to use maximum month.J And why would we voluntarily dismiss 29% of our current capacity as unavailable for future needs when DEQ estimates our remaining dry weather capacity at 40%, and says that "Based on the current low flows compared to the design flows, and the lack of effluent violations, no expansion of the facility is needed at this time? Liquid Effluent Wet Weather Capacity..: Wet weather capacity applies to the facility's capacity from November 1 to April 30. Just as dry weather capacity comes in two design capacities, so does wet weather capacity. One is the average monthly wet weather capacity/md the second, and probably the more important one, is peak flow capacity. The wet weather average monthly flow is similar to dry season average monthly flow. It contains a significant amount of I/I just because it is measured in the wet months, but the plant has sufficient capacity to handle the flow.[The current peak flows to the facility exceed the capacity of the facility] The Master Plan identifies the average Attachment 4 Page 10 of 17 4-13 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes wet weather design capacity at 70 mgds and the average wet weather flow at 41.8 mgds (Table 3-3, page 455). DEQ, in its evaluation in 2002, said the average wet weather flow design is 75 mgds and the current average wet weather flows were 56.4 mgds. The draft facilities plan notes the average wet weather flow to be 52.5 mgds'(page 4-!3) and the design capacity to be 75 mgds [The 2005 maximum month wet weather flow is estimated at 85.7 mgd, a condition exceeding the current plant capacity] (footnote to Table 5.1.1-1, page 5-3). The draft facilities plan projects that the average wet weather flows in 2025 will be 68.2 mgds - below the 75 mgd design capacity./The 2025 maximum month flow is estimated at 1 ~ 0.8, significantly exceeding the current available capacity] The Master Plan projected that we had 18 years of remaining average wet weather flow capacity, or capacity until the year 2015. If the design capacity of 75 mgds had been used rather than the 70 mgds, the remaining years of capacity Would be further extended. The critical capacity issue involves peak wet weather flows. We have a serious FI problem. In January, 2001, CH2MHill and MWMC staff released the Wet Weather Flow Management Plan, which described the problem: The treatment plant was designed in the 1970s to provide adequate capacity through 2005. From a base flow and loading standpoint, the treatment plant performs well within its capacity (49 million gallons per day [mgd]) in dry- weather months. However, winter rainfall creates flows to the treatment plant that exceed the plant's peak capacity (175 mgd) on average several times per year and exceed full (secondary) treatment capacity (104 mgd) more frequently... Peak flow estimates for conditions associated with the 5-year storm event are used to size and plan future system improvements at the. treatment plant and in the collection system. Through system modeling, the 5-year peak was estimated at 264 mgd. Peak flows are attributed to high infiltration and inflow (FI) rates in many areas of the collection system. FI occurs from extraneous water getting into the system from illegal roof drain connections, sewer pipe cracks, and other sources. FI is often associated with older pipes in the system which have deteriorated. Sanitary pipes in older areas are also more likely robe subject to improper storm drainage (inflow) connections when construction inspection practices were more lenient and / or such connections were allowed, creating a combined flow system. Newer pipe systems reflect improvements in construction techniques, materials, and inspection and typically exhibit far less FI. In Eugene, 11 percent of the pipes are at least 50 years old. In Springfield, the percentage of pipes at least 50 years old is 15 percent... Because the primary sources of FI are in the existing system and limited FI is anticipated from system expansion, growth in the system does not contribute significantly to projected system deficiencies. The 5-year peak is estimated at 298 mfd. Of this peak, only 4 percent or 12 mgd, is estimated to be the result of FI from future pipes. Estimates made at the time of design of the treatment plant, relative to the amount of rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (RDII) that could be cost-effectively Attachment 4 Page 11 of 17 4-14 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes removed; were overly optimistic. This has resulted in insufficient capacity to manage peak flows at the treatment plant and has increased the risk of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) at a nUmber of locations in the collection system. Example problems include basement and street flooding and discharges to stormwater facilities and receiving waters. Although the magnitude' of wet weather flows differs greatly, they are significantly diluted because the source of the majority of the flow is rainwater, not sanitary sewage. Treatment plant flow · data indicates that wet weather flow is diluted such that the concentration of typical Pollutants in wet weather flow is 50 percent to 60 percent of that in dry weather flow (Executive Summary, page 1465). The Master Plan also talks of the lack of peak flow capacity. Peak flows have approached or exceeded the'hydraulic design capacity of the plan in seven instances, but no NPDES permit violations have occurred - mass limits have been suspended in those instances. Flows greater than the peak design capacity have been pumped by relying on redundant, spare pumps. The frequency · of peak flow exceedances will increase as the base, average wastewater flow increases. This could potentially lead to NPDES permit violations caused by sanitary sewer overflows or exceedance of effluent quality permit limits. All of the documents agree that the peak flow design capacity is 175 mgd. Everyone also agrees that under our permit we are required to have enough capacity during the wet weather months to treat the wastewater flow that would occur during a storm event described as "the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm" and that we do not have sufficient capacity to do so. Effluent Biosolid Loads.: BOD (now often seen as CBOD) and TSS can be measured in either lbs/day or dry tons. In the reports, you will see both used. Sometimes you may wish to compare data from different reports that are expressed in different measurements (lbs/day or tons/year). To convert lbs / day to dry tons ! year, multiply the lbs / day by 0.1825. To convert dry tons per year to lbs / day, multiply by 5.4795. Under our permit, we are required to remove at least 85% of the monthly average for BOD and TSS. The existing capacity for BOD is 66,000 lbs per day and for TSS is 71,600 lbs per day (Master Plan, page 455; System Development Charge Methodology, page C-l). The Master Plan identifies the aVerage dry weather BOD load as 28,682 lbs/day and that of TSS as 31,056 lbs/day (Table 3-3, page 455).[Yhese were average dry season values, not the 30-day maximum that the plant experiences in the dry season and which permit compliance is based on] It cst~atcs that there is a remaining life BOD average month capacity in thc facility of 40 years and maximum month remaining capacity of 33 years. TSS has a remaining average month capacity of 35 years and a maximum month capacity of 29 years (Table 3-5, page 457).[These values are based on prior NPDES permits. For purposes of the Attachment 4 Page 12 of 17 4-15 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes facility plan, Current maximum month values are used as surrogate parameters for ammonia] The Master Plan concludes: "For BOD, the E/SWPCF has substantial remaining capacity to about 2030 as a result of lower than design per capita loadings and historical growth rates (page 462). It also speaks to TSS. "The results of remaining capacity, as measured by TSS, are also substantial, to about 2026 (page 462). DEQ, in its 2002 Fact Sheet [Again, these are based on 1996 values and were not updated to reflect the new NPDE$ permit] and evaluation discusses the different summer (dry season) and winter (wet season) BOD and TSS permit requirements. It concludes: "A review of recent monitoring data indicates the permittees should generally be able to comply with the permit limits. No changes from the.previous permit are proposed... An 85 percent removal efficiency limit is included in the proposed permit to comply with federal requirements.[ This requirement added significant difficulty to comply with the permit as a result of the dilute wet weather flows. For example, if influent concentrations of TSS are 100 mg/L due to high I/I volumes of l/I, then the plant must meet 85% removal, which translates to an effluent concentration of approximately 15 mg/L. This is significantly lower than the concentration limit of 30 mg/L required on a monthly basis.] An examinatiOn of the DMR data indicates the permittee will be able to meet the limit with the current facilities (page 10). The Draft Facilities Plan indicates that our permit has a Maximum Week TSS permit limit / removal requirements of 28,000 lbs / day and that CBOD has a Maximum Week requirement of 24,000 lbs/day. Actually, the permit does not refer to Maximum Week requirements. The permit chart refers to Monthly Average lbs/day, Weekly Average lbs/day, and Daily Maximum pounds. [This is correct, but the effluent limits must be met for the average of all 7-day periods, including the maximum 7- day average period (or maximum week)] CH2MHill chose to convert the requirement into Maximum week terms rather than use the measurements provided by DEQ in the permit. [lhe weekly permit requirements do not change, they are set for any ?-day period, whether you call it weekly average, or maximum week] The answer would appear to be the same as why we lost all of our dry weather capacity under the System Development Charge Methodology. Rather than using the Monthly Average measurement provided in the permit to compare to the Monthly Average capacity of 49 mgds (apples to apples), the decision was made to convert the data to Maximum Week lb/day and compare that number to the average flow design capacity of 49 mgd (apples to oranges). Dry season mass limitations for both CBOD and TSS outlined in the NPDES permit are based on the current dry season flow of 49 mgd. The mass limit requirements must be met for the highest 30-day flow period in the dry season Attachment 4 Page 13 of 17 4-16 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes (maximum month basis). Even if the constant concentration limits for CBOD and TSS are met, the mass limits imply a lower concentration requirement if the wastewater flows exceed the current dry weather design capacity or if the future dry weather design capacity of the facility is increased. Concentration limits was well as percent removal requirements are also specified in the NPDES permit... Permit removal limits apply; however, they are not a factor during the dry season because the mass and concentration limits are significantly more stringent (page 5-4). The question arises again. Why measure things differently than DEQ does? DEQ, in the permit, provides three different means to measure the CBOD and TSS in both the dry season and the wet weather seasons. Why convert to a fourth measurement that is not proVided by DEQ? Since DEQ refers to the average monthly dry weather design Capacity of the facility of 49 mgds and provides a limit for monthly average flow, why not use monthly average flow to arrive at your capacity (apples to apples)? By converting to Maximum Week, I/I is again included in the flow but not in the design capacity, which is · automatically going to skewer the measurement and result in a significant loss of facility capacity. As a result, CH2MHill determined in the System Development Charge Methodology that the facility is now operating at 83% of our BOD capacity and at 90.4% of our TSS capacity. Seven years ago, when CH2MHill prepared the Master Plan, they concluded that we had a great deal of effluent BOD and TSS capacity. "The remaining treatment capacity of the E/SWPCF is substantial for average dry and wet weather flow conditions and conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS) (page 450). DEQ, as you will recall, placed the capacity used for effluent organic loads at 60%. It also said: "The current permit contains CBOD and TSS removal efficiency limits of 85 percent. The facility has been able to comply with the permit limits and has not had any violations even during the extremely wet months (page 4 of the Fact Sheet and evaluation)." As you recall,.DEQ also concluded that Our current facilities would allow us to continue to remain in compliance with our permit. A second decision made by CH2MHill and .MWMC staff also affected the amount of BOD and TSS capacity reportedly available. When calculating BOD capacity, for example, CH2MHill used the following formula for the System Development Charge Methodology: cUrrent BOD = (0.!9 x 217,690 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 54~800 lbs/day where 0.19 r, 0.185 us the correct nurnberJ is the selected pounds per capita per day based on dry season values from 1990 to 2002 217,690 is the population served in 2002 Attachment 4 Page 14 of 17 4-17 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes 1.3 is the selected peaking to convert average dry season load to DSMM (dry season maximum month) load (based on 1990 to 2002 data) The key piece is the selected pounds per capita per day. Per capita loads, according to · the Master Plan, have been lower than the design capacity and the Master Plan identified the per capita load for BeD as 0.17. On two different occasions (the last time at the second public forum), Matt Noeson from CH2MHill assured me that the change in the per capita pounds per day from the 0.17 they had used in the Master Plan to the 0.19 being used now was not based upon any new data or any change in how the capacity should be calculated. [This is incorrect. The change was made based on an additional 7.5 years of flow and load data since the 1997 Master Plan] The .change in per capita load was done solely for the purpose of further reducing our chances of having a permit violation during a wet May. [This is incorrect. BOO would not be an issue even in a wet May. TSS would be the controlling factor] However, the effect on the amount of BOD.capacity is significant. The used capacity drops to 50,500 lbs per day. Changing the per capita load results in an additional 8.5% loss of BeD capacity. If we substitute the population figures that are used in the Draft facility plan for those used above, we have the following formula: (0.19 x 229,145 x 1.3) + 2,402 = 59,000 lbs per day [This. is not how the SDC values were calculated. This equation is using 2005 values for population. The SDC values were calculated based on 2002 population] that we are using of our 66,000 lbs/day capacity, we are now using 89.5% of our BeD capacity. This is the dilemma that we face. According the Master Plan prepared by CH2MHill seven years ago, we were using about 46% of our BeD capacity. According to DEQ, five years later, we are using approximately 60% of our capacity and our current facility would allow us to comply with our new permit requirements. However, according to CH2MHill and MWMC staff in the Draft Facility Plan, the sky is falling. As a ratepayer, I would feel most comfortable going with the more moderate assessment of DEQ and assume that we are using 60% of our BeD and TSS capacities and have 40% available for future use. The same argument applies to TSS capacity. According the Master Plan, we were using 46% of our TSS capacity seven years ago. According to DEQ in 2002, we were using. approximately 60% of our capacity. Using the population numbers in the facility plan and the formula provided by CH2MHill in the System Development Charge Methodology, we are generating the following amount of TS S: (0.21 x 229,145 x 1.4) + 2,224 = 69,593 lbs/day of TSS. [This is not how the $D¢ values were calculated. This equation is using 2005 values for population. The SDC values were calculated based on 2002 population] Our capacity is 71,600, so accdrding CH2MHill and MWMC staff, we are currently using 97% of our Attachment 4 Page 15 of 17 4-18 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes TSS capacity. As in the BOD calculation, We are now using a different per capita load of . · .21 rather than the. 19 used in the Master Plan. Why Such a large difference. I believe it is the combination in the draft facility plan of comparing dry weather average flow design capacity with maximum rather'than average flows and the change in the peaking factor (for calculation dry weather flow, which I did not discuss) and per capita loads for calculating the capacity of BOD and TSS. I don't know what peaking factors and pounds per capita that DEQ used. I do know that they did not compare maximum flows with average flow design capacity to calculate capacity. DEQ seems to have taken the most moderate approach compared to either the Master Plan or the Draft Facilities Plan and for that reason would appear to be more reliable in their capacity evaluations, (As an interesting Side note. In February of this year, CH2MHill and MWMC staff were actually using larger per capita loads for BOD and TSS - .20 and .22 respectively. If we were to use the February 0.22 pounds per capita and plug it into the TSS formula using the population estimates in the draft facility plan, we would be generating 72,800 lbs per day of TSS, which would actually exceed the design capacity of 71,600. The following month, the pounds per capita for both BOD and TSS were reduced by .01.) · Another indication of the difference in how CH2MHill and MWMC staff are calculating current biosolid loadings is in the tons currently being generated by the facility. In Table' C-3 of the Draft System Development Charge Methodology (page C-6), MWMC staff and CH2MHill indicate that we have a current loading of 5,927 tons per year.. DEQ, in · its 2002 evaluation of the facility, indicated that "The MWMC wastewater treatment facility generated 4,240 dry metric tons during the reporting period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000 (page 3)." I have not yet determined if the 5,927 tons ofbiosolids reported by CH2MHill is in metric tons or not, but even if you convert the DEQ number from metric tons to tons, the numbers aren't close. The mere passage of three years can not explain a 21% or 28% difference between DEQ's and MWMC's numbers. In short, my concern in the assumptions behind the facilities plan is the dramatic loss of capacity resulting from the new manner in which CH2MHill and MWiVIC is calculating capacity. To have a facility go from having a great deal of capacity to almost none in seven years is troubling. To indicate that this new method of calculating capacity is sanctioned by DEQ would seem to be unsupported by DEQ's own actions, given that DEQ used the more conventional method of calculating capacity in its 2002 evaluation of the MWMC facilities. How Much Capacity Do We Need? Maybe I should change this section to What Should We Build? I just got offthe phone with John Gasik, at the Medford DEQ. He told me that he was in the process of reviewing the MWMC facilities plan. Being ignorant of DEQ processes, I asked him why we didn't wait'and approve the facilities plan after he had had a chance to review it. He told me that he couldn't really review the plan until the jurisdiction had selected Attachment 4 Page 16 of 17 4-19 ATTACHMENT 4 To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes which of the required options it prefers. He said that the community may choose to d° something much different. We talked about a $144 million cost after only 20 years. He told me that the treatment facilities only have a lifetime of about 20 years before you have to start replacing things. That bothers me somewhat because almost all of $144 million, is for new capacity. There is some rehabilitation costs, but it is relatively minor. Twenty years from now, are we looking at putting out $300 million to replace the eight secondary clarifiers, etc?.[The existing secondary clarifiers have been in service for 20 years. The facility plan assumes that they will be in service for an additional 20 years, or 40 years total. · There condition will be assessed at the end of the next 20 years to determine their suitability for future treatment. Facilities do not have an infinite life.] Eugene Planning Commissioner Rusch mentioned at the meeting of the joint planning commiSsions that he would like to have a discussion about the type of facilities we build. He said that we are using a design that comes from the sixteenth century, but that revolutionary changes have been made in the last twenty years. I mentioned that to John Gasik and he agreed. [This is incorrect. The technology proposed for MWMC is some of the most recent technology available for all facilities (fine screening, washing, compacting, thickening outside primary clarifiers, step feed plug flow process with anoxic selectors, sodium hypochlorite disinfection, and peak flow management). The step feed plug flow process with anoxic selectors is an innovative process that has seen extensive use and has proven itself over the past lO years. It has been proposed and accepted for treatment at some of the largest and most advanced wastewater facilities in the world (Singapore Facility).] If our current plant really is close to the end of its functional life, why are we not considering the new techniques, especially if we are putting out $144 million to basically add similar capacity to a facility that is becoming obsolete? Why are the new sanitary techniques part of the option discussion? $144 million will always seem like a lot of money to me, but if we end up having to shell that out and then a lot more to rehabilitate the current facility, why not have a discussion about the new technology? [Many new technologies were discussed, considered, and adopted in the facilities plan.] (By the way, it was John Gasik who approved of the way the capacity is being calculated ager it was explained to him, although he did say that he thought it was to address a technical issue. The impact on the actual capacity was evidently not the issue. I think it needs to be an issue when you are talking about that much capacity.) Sincerely, Roxie Cuellar Director of Government Affairs Attachment 4 Page 17 of 17 4-20 ATTACHMENT 2 MWMC's NPDES-PERMIT ~ 4-21 Oregon ' ' Department of Environmental Quality Western Region - Salem Office · - 750 Front St. NE, Ste. 120 John A. Ki~zhaber, M D, Governor ; Sitlell%, OR 97301-1039 _ ~ .r~ ~:... I':, ~ (503) 378-8240 April I 1, 2002 ! 1:2- ;.~ · · .t ~: Il ~" ...',.. (503) 378-3684 TrY ,..' .' !..i . i Peter Ruffler Metropolitan W. astewater Management Commission 225 Fifth Street Springfield OK 97477 RE: Issuance NPDES Permit NumMr 102486 ' File Number: 55999 Facility: MWMC-Eugene/Springfield STP, 410 River Ave~ Eugene Lane County Dear Mr. Ruffler: The Depa .r~ment has completed its review of your application for a National Pollutant ]:)ischarge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the comments received during the Public Notice and comment period for the draft permit regarding the preliminary draft permit. Your NPDES permit is enclosed and will become effective on May 1, 2002.. This permit will be considered the final action on pe.rmit app!!¢a?..n, number 992653. You are urged to carefully read the permit and take- all possible steps to comply with conditions established to help protect Oregon's enyironment against pollution. If you are dissatisfied with the conditions or limitations of this l~ermit, you have 20 days.ti) request a heating before the Environmental Quali.ty commission or its authorized representative. Any such request shall be made in writing to the Di['ector and shall clearly state the grounds for the. request.. Questions regarding Discharge Monitoring Reports, inspection.s and other technical questions may be addressed to Raghu Namburi in the Salem Office, at 503-378-8240. Questions regarding the permit may be addressed to Robert Dicksa, Salem Office, 503-378-8240 ext. 246. Sincerely, Water Quality Manager Western Regidn Enclosure GWM:der cc: Robert Dicksa, DEQ - Salem OffiCe EPA Region X, Seattle, WA. Source File HQ-WQ mQ/wvg40~ s-~ 4~,~3 4-24 Expiration Date: December 31, 2006 Permit Number: 102486 · File Number: 55999 Page I of 26 Pages NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM WASTE DISCHARGE PERM1T · · Department of Environmental Quality Western Region - Salem Office · 750 Front Street NE, Suite 120, Salem, OR 97301-1039 · Telephone: (503) 378-8240 Issued pursuant to ORS 468B.050 and The Federal Clean Water Act. ISSUED TO: SOURCES COVERED BY TF[IS PERMIT: 'Metropolitan Wastewater Management _ Commission, City of Eugene, and City of ' ' · . Ouffall Ouffall 2S~rlngfield · _-Type of W 'a'3te - Number Location 5 5th Street Springfield, Oregon 97477 Treated Wastewater 001 ' 1LM. 178 Treated Wastewater (Ba~ Outfall) 00 IA 1LM. 178 · Reclaimed Water Reuse 101 Level II Reclaimed Water Use Reclaimed Water Reuse 102 Level : Reclaimed Water 'Use Emergency Overflows: Emergency Overflow 002 R.M. 178 Willamette River Willakenzie Pump Station 003 Willamette River Tei'r7 Street Pump Station 004 A-3 Channel · West Irwin Pump Station 005 A-2 Chanffel · Fillmore Pump Station 006 Willamette River · .. Skipper Pump Station ' 007 Draina~ di.te..h · south of Beltline · Enid Pump Statiod 008 Drainage ditch · i .. west of Hwy. 99 009 Q Street Channel Willamette River '" Beverly Park Old Springfield WWTP Pump 010 · Station TG~ler and 10th 011 Willamette River enwood Pump Station 012 Willamette RiVer Barger/Greenhill Pump Station 013 ' A-2 Channel North Santa Clara Pump Station 014 Spring Creek FACKiTY TYPE AND LOCATION: RECEl%rl~. G STREAM INFO~TION: Activated Sludge Basin: Willamette · MWMC Sub-Basin: Upper Willamette 410 River Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97404 Eugene.and Springfield Receiving Stream: _Will.am__ _e_tte_River · Hydro C&le: 22---WII~ 175 ~ ~reatment System Class: Level IV County: Lane Collection System Class: Level IV ' EPA REFERENCE NO: OR-003122-4 'ssued in response to Application No. 992653 received December 31, 1996. This permit is issued based on the land use findings in the permit record. ~~ May 1, 2002 Gary MessY, ~ater Quality Manager Effective Date 4-25 West%Re n - _ .. File Number: 55999 Page 2 of 26 Pag~ PERMITTED ACTIVITIES · :'.Until this permik~xpires or is modifiedor revoked; the permittee is authorized to construct, instal-I, modify, Or operate a wastewater colleetion,.treatment, control and di.sposal System and discharge to public waters adequately treated wastewater o.nl¥ from the author.'¥ed disehargepoifit or points e.stablished in Schedule A and only in conformance with all me requirements, limitations, andconditions set forth in the att$.ched schedules as follows: . Page- Schedule A - Waste Disch. ar~¢ Lunitations not to be Exceeded ...................... :. ......... 3 Schedule B - Minimum Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ............................. 6 Schedule C, Compliance Conditions and Schedules .......................................... , ..... 11 Schedule D - Special Conditions ........................ [ ..................................... ~ ............ ~ .... 12 Schedule E - Pretreatment Activities ................................................................... , ...... 16 Schedule F - General Conditions ................................................................................ 18 ~ess spec.!fiea!!y au. tho.riz,.ed b.y ,th. is, permi, t, by anothe_r.lqPDES or WPCF permit, orby Oregon Administrative . .tcUm,~any .o~er a~recr or mdir. ect c~xscnarge To waters of the state is prohibited,'.ineluding, disci~arge to an underground injection controt system.. · . ' . · . 4-26 File Number: 55999 Page 3 of 26 Pages' SCl:mD~ A ' 1. Waste Discharge Limitations not to be exceeded after permit issuance. a. Treated Effluent Outfall O01and O01A* CNastewater Treatment Piant Discharge) ;....' (1) ,,M..,a) 1 - October 31: CBOD~ 10 mg/L 15 mg/L 4100 6100 8200 (See Note 1) TSS ' 10 m~ffL 15 mg/L 4100 6100 8200 (2) No,~,nber 1 - April.30: Average Effluent "Mofithly** 'Weekly**'!:.':.' Dailf' .. .... ..... ;.. COncentrations : Averagef.~' .~.'.A. ve.rage,.~ :.:Maximum;:' CBODs 25 mg/L 40 mg/L .16,000 24,000 32,000 (See Note 1) TSS 30 mg/L 45 mg/L 19~000 28,000 38~000 · * Nc~ discharge from Outfal100lA from May 22 through October 31 unless approved by the Department. ** Average dry weather des_isn flow. to .the fac ity e. qu.,a s 49 MGD. Summer load limits based upon average dry weather aesign now to me facility. Winter mass'load li_$nits. based Upon average wet weather design flowto the facility equaling 75 MGD. The daily mass load limit is suspended On any. day in whichthe flowto the treatment.facility exceeds 98 MGD (twice the d. esign .average dry weather flow). E. ¢oli Bacteria Shall not exceed 126 organisms per 100 ml monthly geomelric mean. No single sample shall exceed 406 ' 100 mi. the range PH 3) TSS not be less than 85% monthly average for CBODs and 85% monthly for TSS. act exceed a monthly average concentration of 0.05 mg/l or a daily average concentration of 0.12 mg/l Thermal Loading: ;' weekly~ May 1 - October 31 '(Summer) 3.1 Billion BTUs per day ( See Note Ammonia: not exc~ May 1 - October 31 (Summer) maximum and 12 mg/l monthly average. (4) The allowable mixing zone is that portion of the Willamette Privet from 20 feet upstream of the diffuser to 200 feet downstream bfthe diffuser. In addition, the Zone of Immediate Dilution (ZID) shall include that portion of the Willamette river within 50 fee~ downstream 4-27 of the diffuser. File Number: 55999 Page 4 of 26 page~ This p~rmit contains'either technology or water quality based effluent limits for those parameters "i discharged by the permittee that the Department has determined require effluent limitations to comply With the water quality standards found m OAK 340-4~-445 outside the above mixing {ones. The limits · were established on the basis of the information provided by the permittee'and following the · Department's rules, including OAR 340-41-026. Other Parameters. also were identified in the permittee's application for which the Department.did not e'stablisl'/effluent limitations. The D~partment has · determined that those paNmeters do not present a reasonable potential to violate applicable water quality standards. The permittee is required to notify the department if changes occur in its processes or influent stream which could signifidantly change the effluent stream for/my of those parameters. b. Reclaimed Wastewater Outfall 101 and Outfall 102 (See Note 8) (1) No discharge to state waters is permitted. Ail reclaimed water reuse shall prevent: a: Prolonged ponding of treated reclaimed water on the ground surface; ' · . . b. Surface runoff0r subsurface drainage.throughdrainage tile; · . c. The creation of odors, fly and.mosquito breeding or other nuisance conditions; .... d. The overloading of land with nutrients, organics, or other pollutant parameters; and, e. Impairment of existing or reasonabl, y probable'beneficial uses of groundwater. :. (2)' oUffall 101 . Prior to reuse of the reclaimed, water, it shall receive at least Level II treatment as defined in OAK 340-55 to: Reduce Total Coliform to 240 Organisms per 100 mi in two consecutive ' .. samples, and a 7-day mediah of 23 organisms per 100 nfl. (3) Outfal1102 Prior to rede of the reclaimed water, it shall receive at least · Level m' t/eatrn~nt as defined in OAK 340-55 to: : Reduce Total Coliform to a 7-day median of 2.2 orgakisms per 100 mL and maximum of 23 organisms per 100 nfl. (4) .Irrigation shall conform to the irrigation, management plan approved by the Department in accordance with OAK 340-55 for agricultural, commercial or inddstrial use. e. Emergency (5verfiow Outfalls 002 through 014: (1) No wastes shall be discharged from these ouffalls and no activities shall be conducted which violate water quality standards as adopted in OAR 340-41,0445, unless the cause of the discharge is due to storm events as allowed under OAK 340-41-120 (13) or (14) as follows: (2) Riw sewage.diseh.arges are prohibited to waters of the State f~m November 1 through May 21, except dur_i.'ng a .~torm event greater than the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm, and from May 22 through October 31, except during a storm event greater than the one-in- ten-year, 24-hour duration storm. If an overflow occurs between May 22 and June 1, and if the permittee demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that no increase in risk to beneficial uses occurred because of the overflow, no violation shall be triggered if the storm associated with the overflow was greater than the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm. 4-28 File Numben 55999 Page 5 of 26 Pages d. Groundwater ' ' · (1) All wastewffter and process related residuals shall be managed and disposed of in a manner that will prevent: A violation of the Department's Groundwater QUality .'.,.. Protection Rtiles (OAR 340-040); and A violation of any permit-specific groundwater concentration limits, established pursuant to OAK 340-040-0030, which have been'; 'subsequently incorporated into this .permit. (2) The Department may reopen this permit, if ne. ce. ssary; t.o inc. lud,e,group, dw.a, ter p .ar. am, et, e~, concentration limits, and'compliance points that are aeterm~nea oasea on uae rewsea aa~a analysis report required by Schedule C. NOTES: 1. 'The CBOiJs concentration limits are considered equivalent to the minimum design criteri~for BeDs specified in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAK) 340-41. These limits and CBOD5 mass limits may be adjusted (up or down) by permit action if more acc.u, rate information reg~rdi/ag. CBOD~BOD5 becomes available. - 2. If a single sample 'exceeds 406 organisms per 1.00 rnl, then five consecutive re-sampIes may.b~ taken at four- hour intervals beginning within 28 hours after the original sample was taken. If the log mean of the five re- samples is less than or equal to 126 organisms per 100 ml, a violation shall not be triggered. '~. If continuous monitoring for pH is conduCted, pH values shall .not be outside the range 6.0 to 9.0 for more than a total of 7 hours and 26 minutes in any calendar m. onth; and no individual excursion fxom thisrange shall exceed 60 minutes. ' ~ 4. ' Upon review and approval of the engineering studies specified in Schedule D, Conditioh 8., and at the request of the permittee, the Department intends t.o modify this permit and include revised permit limits.. ,~nozn~ ~,.~ l'4~;ranu;re~th uermitteetoorovia~wnu=n.¢locumcnmuonwtmu~=mv. Y . ~ ~.. .......... '~-----:++-- ~^-,,,~-ntation will nrovlde a detailed explanation for tbe excursion. . permittee ~z~ show that the excursion did not result m a stream condition which exc~ds the water quality standard for chlorine, then the excursion shall not be considered a violation of this penuit. Continuous monitoring of the effluent Total Residual Chlorine using.~, alytica, l methods ,not appr.o.,ve.d, ~n 40 C~i~FR. Part 136 may be used for process control, but will not be usea mr verifying compliance wua mis perm 6. The excess thermal lo~d limit was calculated using the average dry weather design flow and tiae 7-day moving average maximum effluent temperature. The excess thermal load limit applies only during the summer discharge season between May 1 and October 31, when the Willamette River is water quality limited for temperature. The excess thermal load limit was calculated using the average dry weather design flow and the degrees Fahrenheit that the maximum 7-day-moving average effluent temperature exceeds the applicable stream temperature standard, as follows: 49 DADWF (MGD). x 1,000,000 x g.34 lbs/gallon x (71.6 maximum effluent temperature in °F - 64 applicable standard in °F) =3.1 Billion BTUs/day (rounded to two significant figures). The weekly average excess thermal load (BTUs/day)'will be calculated as follows: ' Weekly average flow (MGD) x 1,000,000 x 8.34 (lbs/gallon) x (weekly average of daily maximum effluent temperature in OF - 64 OF). "' 7. The permit limitations for ammonia are based upon the current Ore~on Water Quality Standards, OAR 340- 041 Table 20. This permit may be re-opened and the limits modified upon adoption a new Oregon standard fo, mon,,o n 40 CFR Part 136 may be used for process control, but wm not Ge usea mr venq, m~ uoml~ permit. 4-29 File Number:. 55999 Page 6 of 26 Pageg $CIeW. DULE B 1. Minimum Monitoring and Reportin,~ Requirements (unless otherwise approved ha writing by the' Department). The permittee shall monitor the parameters as specified below at the locations indicated. The laboratory used by the permittee to analyze samples shall have a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) programto verify the accuracy of sample analysis. IfQA/QC requirements are not met for any analysis, the results shall be included in the report, but not used ha calculations required by this permit. When possible, the permittee shall re-sample in a timely manner for paramet, er~ .failing the QA/QC requirements, analyze the samples, and report the results. a. Irffluent The facility infiu~nt sampling locations are the following: The.plant headworks followingthe bar screens a.nd prior to grit removal. ':.Ite~bi~;;parameter-:'. Minimum-iF~equenc~- . :%:: · !.~!..T. ype.Of:Sample ..... To~l Flow (MGD):..' i Daily ' Measurement Flow Meter Calibration' ' Semi-annually Verification CBODS' 3/Week' 24-hour Composite' TSS 3/Week 24-hour Composite pr' [ Daily Grab or Continuous b. Treated Effluent Outfal1001 and 00lA The facility effluent sarnplhag locations are the following: The plant effluent channel followi~, g dechlorination. i . Total Flow (MGD) [ Daily Measurement Flow Meter Calibration Semi-annually Verification CBOD5 3/Week 24-hour Composite TSS 3/Week 24-hour Composite ~H Daily Grab or Continuous Temperature (Daily Max) Daily (May- October) Record E. coli 3/Week Grab (See Note 1) Quantity Chlorine Used Daily Measurement Total Chlorine Residual Daily Grab Pounds Discharged (CBOD~ 3/Week Calculation and TSS) Average Percent Removed Monthly Calculation (CBODs and TSS) . Ammonia (NH3-N) 3/Week 24-hour.Composite Nutrients TKN, NO2+NO3-N, Total 1/Week CMay-Oct) 24-hour Composite Phosphorus _ Bioassay (See Note 2) Quarterly Acute.& Chronic 4-30 File Number: 55999 Page 7 of 26 Pageg c. Prctreatment Program Meals (Ag, As, Cd, Cu, Cz, Hg, Mo, ~fluent Mon~ly 2~hour Cgmpo~ite · Ni. Pb, Se, & Zn) me~ured ~ to~l " .... : ~ u~micro~ per lite0. ~'~ ~ ' E~uent (Ouffalls Mon~ly 2~hour Composite 001 and 00lA) BiosolidS Q~erly Grab . Total ~ide (See Note 3) Influent Mon~ly 2~hour Composite Effluent (Ouffalls Mon~ly 24-hour Composite 001 and 00lA): Pfiofi~ Pollut~t Org~ics (See ~flue~t ~nual 2~hour Composite. Note 4) E~uent (Ouffalls ~l. 2~hour Composite 001 and 00lA) Biosolids ~nual G~b (Sludge Hold~g ~T~.k) " Toxics Removal ~: Metals, ~ual ~culation (s~ Note Cy~ide, ~d Pfiofi~ Orgmie Pollu~ , d. Biosoli~ M~gement S~~u:; .... appl~ng ' ' ' repr~en'five ~f ,e ,induct to · - ( ~ ) . ' be l~a applie& (SeeNo~ ~ Biosolids ~ogen fort ~-N; NO~-N; & ~ Pomsim (% d~ ~.)- Sludge metals con~nt for: A~~, B~on~ly when lind Com~si~ ~mple ~ be C~ Cr, Cu, H~ Mo, Nh Pb, Se & appl~g ~p~enmfive of~e pr~uet to ~ m~d ~ ~ ~.m~g be ~d applied. '(S~ Note ~ Reco~ of lo~fions Whe~ biosoli~ ~ch Oce~ence Da~, volume & lo~tiom where ~e appli~ on each DEQ ~proved sludges were applied r~orded site. (Si~ lo,on m~s to be _ on a~ l~on m~. ~~ at ~ament faeiliW ~br ~view upon reque~ by DEQ) K~ord of% vola~e sohds r~ucfion Mon~ly * CMculafion (See Note ~ a~mplished ff~ou~ ~bili~fion · R~ord of ~g~fion ~ys (m~ ~ Money * ~on (See Note 8) reside~e Da~y Sludge Temperate for ~ch D~y * Grab digestor ~ operation from digestor ore,ow. 4-31 · Monitorin~ freauen~ shall be ~ indictS. However. r~ul~ shall be reuo~ed in the Biosolids File Number:. 55999 Page 8 of 26 Pages e. Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse: · Outfall 101 ...'. :.,~,:.~.~It~m, or~paramet~r:.. · .,i.:¢~: ~.::.~..;[~;<-;',Minii'num iFreqtiency:...';1::'~..-' :..~ype of:Sample.: .... QUantity Reused (inches/acre when Daily ' Calculation irrigated) Flow Meter Calibration Annually Verification Quantity Chlorine Used Daily Measurement Chlorine Residual· Daily Grab pH 2/Week Grab To~l Coliform 1/Week ...... Grab Nutrients (TKN, NO2+NOa-N, NI-I3, Quarterly Grab Total Phosphorus) OutfalI 102 .. ...... Quimtity.Irrigated (inches/act;e When' ' 'Daily ' ' ' M~asurement · irrigated) · ' Flow Meter Calibration ' ' Annually.: .... Vefificati0n ....... ',Quar/tity Chl0fine Used " 'Daily ". Measurement '" Chlo'fine'Residual Daily ...... '" Grab pH ' 2/We~k ' ...... Grab 'TotalColifonn "' ' .... 3/Week" " Grab ........ NutrientS (TKN, NC~+NO3-N, NI-Ia, Quarterly Grab Total Phospho. rus) . £ Emergency Overflow Ot~falis 002 through 014: ! Flow ' ' ' I Daily (dm-lng each occurrence)' I Estimate duration and volume g. Groundwater Minimum Monitoring and Reporting Requirements (1) Groundwater monitoring shall be conducted in aecor'danee with the Department approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan tiffed, Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan, by Geofechnical Cons.ultants, Inc., dated May 1991. (2) Reporting Requirements (A) Quarterly Reporting: Analytical results of groundwater monitoring for the parameters listed above and for any other parameters identified in the approved. Groundwater Monitoring Plan, shall be reported quarterly in a Department approved format. At a minimum, the report shall contain the quarterly reporting · informati6n identified in the approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan. Reports are due to the Department by the 30th day of the month following the sampling event. (B) Annual Data Analysis and Reporting: An annual groundwater data analysis report shall be submitted to the Depa~tai~ent by April 1 of the following year. The annual report shall contain the annual data analysis and reporting information identified in the approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan. (3) Groundwater Monitoring Resampling Requirements (A) If monitoring indicates that a concentration limit has been exceeded at a complianc~_32 rmint, the ~ermittee shall noti~ the Department within 10 days and shall File Number. 55999 Page 9 of 26 Pageg immediately resample the monitoring well for the exceeding parameter and other parameters deemed necessary by the Department. The results of both sampling events shall be reported ti~ the Department within 10 days of receipt of the laboratory data. (13) If monitoring indicates a stati~cally significant increase (increase or decrease'for pi-I) in the value of a parameter monitored, the permittee shall immedia.tely'/~..sample the monitoring well for the increased or decreased parameter and other parameters deemed necessary by the Depa~a~ient. If the re, sampling confirms a change.in water quality, the permittee shall: (I) Keport the results to the Depaxtment within 10 days of receipt of · laboratory data; and (2) Prepare and submit to the Department within 30 days a plan for developing a preliminary assessment unless another time schedule is .approved by the Department. h. Willamette River (Monitored only during May 1 - October 3 I)' . Temperature monitoring of the Willamette River shall be conducted in accordance with the · D~partment approved Temperature Mana.gement Plan, .dated October :2001.' .. 2. .~ep°rting Proeedur~ . . a. "' Monitoring results shall be reported on'appro,~'ed forms. The reporting period is the calenda~month. ' Reports must be submitted to the appropriate Depa/tment office by the 15th day o~'.the follo~aag . month. b. State monitori~a~ reports shall identify the name, certificate classification and _grade level .of each principal operatTx designated by tl}.~ pern].ittee as .m. spons!bl,e fo[ su..pe .r.vising the~_ _,w~_ _,e,w_,a~r.. collection and treatment systems dflring the reportmg perioa., lvmmtormg repons s~.u each system classification as found on page one of this permit. ' ' . c. A recOrd of the quantity and method of use of all sludge ~emoved from the Biosolids Management facility and a record of all applicable equipment breakdowns and bypassing shall be included in Biosolids Annual report and submitted in accordance with 3(b) below. 3. Report Submittals each year which details sewer collection maintenance acuvmes mat reauce msiow The report shall state those activities that have been done in the previous fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) and those activities planned for the following fiscal year. b. For any year in which biosolids are land applied, a report shall be submitted to the Department by. February 19 of the followir/g year that describes solids handling activities for the previous year and includes, but is not limited to, the required information outlined in OAK 340-50-035(6)(a)-(e). 4-33 File N~mber:. 55999 Page 10 of 26 Pages NOTES: ' - . 1. E: .ocli monitoring must be conducted accord!nE tO any 9fthe'following te~ procedures as specified in Standard'Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th Edition, or according to any test procedure that has been authorized and approved in writing by the Director or his authorized representative: mTEC agar, MF ' Standard Methods, 19th Edition 9-28 9213 D NA-MUG, MF Standard Methods, 19th Edition 9-63 9222 G Chromogenic Substrate, MPN Standard Methods, 19th Edition 9-65 9223 B Colilert QT Idexx Laboratories, Inc. ' 2. Beginning no later than July 1 2002, the permittee shall conduct bioassay testing for a period of one (1) year. in accord.~ce with the frequency specified above. If the bioassay tests show that the effluent, sarriples are not acutely toxic at the. dilution determined to occur at the Zone of Immediate Dilution and chronically toxic .:. at.the Mix'rog Zone, no further bioassay testing w~ll be.required during this permit cycle..Bioassay results required w. iththe next NPDES permit renewal application are as follows: At a minimum, quarterly testing for a..12-m..onth period within the past one: Year, .or the results fi-om four tests performed at:least annually in the four and one half years prior to the application, using the spedes.listed in Schedule D, · . 3. For influent and effluent cyanide sampleS, at least six (6)discrete gra. b samples shall be collected over the ..- 0perating. day. Each.aliquot shall be not. less than 100 ml and shall be collected and. composited into a larger container.wfiich has been preserved with sodium hyck. oxide fo.r cyanide samples to protect sample .integrity. 4. The pe..rmittee shall perform chemical .analysis. of its influerit, effluent and biosolids to be beneficially used for the. to .m;' c organic pollutants listed in Tables II ofAppendix D of 40 CFR Part'122 in accordance ~ith the · . sampling, frequeney in Schedule B. The influent and effluent samples shall be 24-hour dally composites, except where sampling volatile comlJounds. In this ease, six (6) discrete samples (not less than 100 nfl) coll.ect.ed, over the operating day are acceptable. The permittee shall take special precautions in compositing the. '.m,d~v~d. ual..grab samples for the volatile organics to insure sample integrity (i.e.n.o exposure to the outsme air), .A!temately, the discrete samples collected for volatiles'may be analyzed separately and averaged. :For biosolids analyses, a grab s~nple fi-om the sludge holding tank overflow shall be used. The results o.fthe Priority Pollutant Scan analysis s.hall be submitted with'the annual pretreatment report.. 5. Daily 24-hour composite samples'shall be analyzed and reported separately. Toxic monitoring results and' toxics removal efficiency calculations shall be tabulated and submitted with the Pretreatment Program Annual Keport as required in Schedule E. Submittal of toxic.monitoring results with the monthly Discharge Monitoring Keport is not required. .. 6. Composite samples fi;om the sludge lagoons shall consist of blending equal volumes of grab Samples taken fi.om the center of 9 or more like-size units resulting fi-om an imaginary grid placed over each lagoon. The grab samples shall include the entire depth of sludge in the area sampled. Composite samples from the air drying beds shall consist of blending equal volumes of grab samples taken 'from each air drying bed in use. Samples shall be representative of the sludge being land applied. Inorganic poll .utant monitoring must be conducted according to Test Methods for Evaiuatine Solid Waste. Physical/Chemical Methods, Second Edition (1982) with Updates I and II and third Edition (1986) with Revision I. Fecal Coliform monitoring must be conducted according to Fecal Col~orm, Part 9221 E. or part 9222D., "standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", 18~ Edition, 1992, American public Health Association, 1015 15~ Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. 7. Calculation of the % volatile solids reduction for the anaerobic digesters is to be based on comparison cfa representative grab sample of total and volatile solids entering the digestion process and a representative composite sample of sludge solids exiting the sludge holding tanks. 8. The days of digestion shall be calculated by dividing the digester liquid volume by the average daily volume of sludge production. 4-34 File Number. 55999 Page I 1 of 26 Pages SCHEDULE C Compliance Schedules and Conditions -.,. 1. By no later than July 9, 2002, the permittee shall submit to the DeParmaent a revised water quglity dam analysis report for the Biosolids Management Facility. At a minimum, the report shall include: a.. Identification of.'background and Compliance wells, b. Determination of background groundwater quality, c. Analysis of existing Water quality data and existing impacts, and d. Analysis ofpotentiaHmpacts'from facility agtivities. . Based on'the Water quality &ta analy.~is report,'the pei-mittee shall: Propose permit specific concentration limits pursuant to OAK 340-40-030(3) for the Department's ..: consideration, and/or submit to the Department an application for a concentration limk variance pursuant to OAK 34040-030(4), 2. The permittee is expecteit to meet the Compliance dates which have been established in this schedule. Either prior to or no later than 1'4 days following any lapsed compliance date,.the permittee shall submit to the Department a notice of compliance or noncompliance with the established schedule. The Directo.r may revise a schedule of compliance if he determines good and valid cause resulting from events over which the permitte~ has little or no control. 4-35 File Number:. 55999 Page 12 of 26 Pages SCHEDULE D · ' Special Conditions I. Prior to increasing thermal load beyond the current pei'mit limitations, the Permittee shall notify the Deparmaent and apply for and be issued a permit modification allowing the inereas6. 2. Effluent temperature shall be managed in accordance with the Temperature Management Plan frMP)' (submitted October 2001) approved by the Department by this permitting action· Implementation of~hort and long term activities initiated in the'approved Temperature Management Plan shall not necessarily ' constitute a permit modification'. 3. All biosolicls shall'be managed in.accordance with the current, DEQ approved biosolids management · plan, and the site. authorization letters issued by the 'DEQ:.'Any changes, insolids management activities that significantly differ from operations specified' under the approved plan require'the.p.rior written approval'of the DEQ. ... All new biosolids application'sites shall meet the site selection criteria set forth in OAK 340-50- 0070. All .currently approved sites are located' in Oregon. No new public notice is'required for the continued use of these currently approved sites. Property.owners adjacent to any newly approved application sites shall be notified, in writing or by any method approved byDEQ, of the proposed activity prior to the start of application. For.proi~osed new. application sites .that are deemed by .. the DE.Q to be sensitive with respect to residential housing, runoff:potential'or threat to groundwater, an opportunity for public comment shall be.provided in accordance With OAK 340- 50-0030. ' ' 4.. This permit may. be modified to incorporate any applicable standard for biosolids use or disposal promulgated under section 405(d) oftbe Clean Water Act, i~the standard for biosolids USe or disposal is mgre'stringent than-any requiremen~ for biosolids use or disposal in the permit, or ~ontrols a pollutant or practice not limited in this permit. .. 5. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing a. The permitte~ shall conduct whole effluent toxicity te~ts as specifi~l in Schedule B ofthi~ permit. b. Bioassay tests may be dual end-point tests, in which both acute and chronic end-points can be. determined from the results cfa single.chronic test (the acute end-point shall be based upon a 48- hour time period). · c. Acute Toxici.ty Testing - Organisms and Protocols (1) The permittee shall conduct 48-hour static renewal tests with.the Ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea) and the Pitne£halesprornelc~ (fathead minnow). (2) The presence, of acute toxicity will be determined as specified in Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms, Fo .u~th Edition, EPA/600/4-90/O27F, August 1993. (3) An acute bioassay t6st shall be considered to show toxicity if there is a statistically significant difference in survival between the control and 100 percent effluent, unless the permit specifically provides.for a Zone of Immediate Dilution (ZID) for biotoxicity. If the permit specifies such a ZID, acute toxicity shall.be indicated.when a statistically significant difference in survival occurs at dilutions greater than that Which is found to occur at the edge of the ZID. d. Chronic Toxicity Testing - Organisms and Protocols (1) The permittee shall conduct tests with: Ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea) for reproduction and survival test endpoint, Pimeph.alespromelas (fathead minnow) for growth and 4-36 File Number: 55999 Page 13 ~f26 Pages survival test endpoint, and Raphidocelis subcapitata (green alga formerly kno.wn as · · . Selanastrum capricornutum) for.growth test endpolnt. · (2) The prasence of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in Short-term MethOds for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving War. ers to Freshwater Organisms, Third Edition, EPAI600/4-91/O02, July 1994. (3) A chronic bioassay test. shall be considered to show .toxicity if a statistically significant difference, in survival, growth, or reproduction occurs at dilutions greater than that which is known to occur at the edge of the mixing zone. e. Quality Assurance · il) Quality assurance criteria, statistical analyses and data reporting for the bioassays shall be in accordance with the EPA documents stated in this condition and the Department's Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Guidance Document, January 1993. f. Evaluation of Causes and Exceedances '.:' (1) If toxicity is shown, as defined in sections c.(3) or d.(3) of this pear.it condition, another toxicity test using the same species and Dep. artment approved moth ~dology shall be conducted within two weeks, unless othervase approved by the.Del; artment. If the second test also indicates toxicity, the Eermittee shall follow the procedure described in section f.(2)'ofthis permit condition. (2) .If two consecutive bioassay test results indicate acute and/or chroni: toxicity, as defined in sections c.(3) or d.(3) of this permit condition, the permittee shalt evalaate4m-se~3rce of '~ ' the toxicity and submit a plan and time schedule for demonstrating ~ompliance with water quality standards. Upon approval by the Department, the permittee shall implement the · 'plan.until compliance has been achieved.. Evaluations shall be co= pleted and plans submitted to the Depaxaa~nt within 6 months unless otherwise appl.'oved in writing by the, .. Department. ~ g. Repor~ng (1) Along with.the test results, the permittee shall include: 1. the dates of sample collection and initiation of each toxicity test; and 2. the flow rate at the time Of sample collection. Effluent at the time of sampling for bioassay testing sh.ould inc. l. ud~ samples Of required param.eters stated under Schedule B, Condition. !' of th,s perm,, ~ . (2) The permit-tee shall make'available to the Department, on request, Me written standard operating procedures they, or the laboratory performing the bioassays, are using for all toxicity tests required by the Department. I h. Keopener,I (1) Ifbioassay testing indicates acute and/or chronic toxicity, the Dep~anent mayreopen and modify this permit't6 include new limitations and/or conditions as determined bYthe Department to be appropriate, and in accordance with procedures ~utl~ed in Oregon Administxative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 45. 6. The permittee shall comply with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAK), Chapter 340, Division 49, "Regulations Pertaining To Certification of Wastewater System Operator Personnel" and accordingly: a. The permittee shall have its wastewater system supervised by one or more operators who are certified in a classification and grade level (equal to or greater) that corre?cmct~ with the 4-37 cl?,.,s.'fficatio.n. (collection and/or tr~amaent) of the system to be supervised as specified on page one File Number. 55999 Page 14 of 26 Pages Note: A "supervisor" is.defined as the person exercising authority, for establishing and executing the spec'fflc practice and procedures of operating the system in accordance, with .the policies of the permittee and requirements of the waste discharge permit. "Supervise" means responsible for the technical, opera .tion of a system, which may affect its performance or the quality, of the effluent produced. Supe '.rvis0rs are not required to be on-site at all times. b. The permittee's wastewater system may not'be without supervision (as required by SpeCial Condition 6.a. above) for more than thirty (30) days. During this period, and at any time that the supervisor is not available to respond bn-site (i.e. vacation, sicl~ leave or off'-call)~ the permittee must. make avaitat~le another person who is.certified at no less than one grade lower then the system classifi~tion. c.If the wastewater system has more than one daily shift, the perrnittee shall have the shift supervisor, if any, certified at no less than one grade lower than the system classification. .. .d.. The permittee is responsible for ensuring the wastewater system has a properly certified supervisor .... available at all times to respond on-site at the request: of the permittee and to any other operator. · . :...e.:. The perrnittee shall notify.the Department ot:Envirc;nmental.Quality in.writing Within-thirty (30) · days~fr~p~acem¢nt~rredesignati~n~fce~d~perat~rsresp~nsib~ef~rsupervisingwastewater .....:. .... system operation. The notice shall be filed with the Water Quality Division, Operator Certification ,' Program, 811 SW 6th Aye, Portland,'OK 9.7204. :This requirement is irt addition to.the reporting requirements contained under Schedule B of this permit. · f...,. Upon written request, the Department may grant the permittee.reasonable time, not to exceed I20 days, to obtain the services ora qualified person to supervise the wastewater system. The written request must include justification for the time needed, a schedule'for recruiting and hiring, the date · .' the system supervisor availa.bility ceased and the name of'the alternate system supervisor(s).as required by 6.b. above. 7. Management and Maintenance of Ground~,ater Monitoring Wells a. The permitt~e shall protect and maintain ~ach groundwater monitoring well so that samples collected are representative of actual conditions. b. Ali mbnitoring well abandonments, replacements, repairs, and installations must be conducted in accor .dance with the Water Kesources Department Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 690, Division 240, and with the Department's guidance "Groundwater Monitoring Well Drilling, Consm~ction~ and Decommissioning", dated August 22, 1992. Ail monitoring well abandonments, replacements, repairs, and installations must be documented in a report prepared by an Oregon registered geologist. c. If a monitoring well becomes damaged Or inoperable, the permittee shall notify the Department in writing within 14 days of when the.permittee becomes aware of'the circumstances. The written report shalldescribe: what problem has occurred, the remedial measures that have been or will be taken to correct the problem, and the measures taken to prevent the recurrence of'damage or inoperation. The Departme.nt may require the replacement of'inoperable monitoring wells. d. Prior to installation of'new or replacement monitoring wells, the placement or desi~ must be approved in writing by the Department. Well logs and a well completion report shall be submitted to the Department within 30 days of'installation of the well· The report shall include a survey drawing showing the location of ail monitoring wells, disposal sites, and water bodies. e, Prior to abandonment of existing wells deemed unsuitable for groundwater monitoring, an abandonment plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval. 8. The permittee may qualify for a lower percentage removal of CBOD and TSS than shown in Schedule A of this permit, pursuant to 40 CFR 133.103(d), provided the permittee can adequately demonstrate that the 4-38 File Number: 55999 Page 15 of 26 Pages conditions for a lesser percentage removal exiSt or w~ll exist in the design lire'of the treatment facility. If'the permittee wishes to make this demonstration, the p.ermittee must conduct engineering studies to demonstrate that flows to the.treatment facility are not the result of excessive infiltration and inflow, and conduct an engineering evaluation of the attainable percentage removal for BOD and TSS at the peak month design flow (using two-year high month precipitation amount) and the highest monthly flow at which 85% removal can be achieved, and include the following information and evaluations: ' a. The entire system muSt be flow mapped, by subbasin, and all .sewer syStem overflow points identified· · b. Unless othenvise approved in wri~ang by the'Depa~anent, alt inflow sources mns~'be identified. c. The treatment facility shall be.evaluated to determine the maXimum monthly flow at which 85 % removal of BOD and TSS can be achieved. In addition, the permit~ee shall evaluatelwhat · percentage reduction of BOD and TSS is achievable at peak design monthly flows consistent with a two-year high month precipitation event. For both of these evaluations, projected flows after inflow removal a~ required in Condition 9, of this schedule are. to be used.' · 9. The Department hereby approves the MWlVlC Wet Weather Flow Management_P. lan dated ,Au.guSt 27, 2001. -.' The permittee shall implement the Plan as approved· Unless otherwise approved in writing Dy me Department, all inflow sources identified during implementation of the Plan are to be permanently .- disconnected from the sanitary sewer syStem.. 10. The permittee shall meet the requirements for use of' reclaimed water under Division 55, including the following: a. All reclaimed water shall be managed in accordance with the approved Reclaimed Water Use Plan. No substantial changes .shall be made in the. approved plan withotit written approval of the Department.. q ' b. No reclaimed water shall be released by the permittee to another person, as defined in Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 468.005, for use unless there is a valid contract between the pemu'ttee and that Person that meets the requirements of OAR 340-55-015(9). c. The permittee shill ~otify the Department within 24 hours if it !s determined that the treated effluent is being'used in a manner not in compliance with OAK 340-55. When the Depament offices are .not open, the permittee shall report the incident of noncompliance ta the Oregon Emergency .. Response System (Telephone N.um~r 1-800-452-0311). d. No reclaimed Wate~ shall be made available to a person proposing to recycle unless that person certification sh~ll be kept on file by the sewage treatment system owner ana t~e mac~e avaname To me Department for inspection. 11. The permittee shail notify the DEQ'Western R~gio~ ~- ~alem Office (phone: (503) 378-82~0) in accordance with the response times noted in the General Conditions of this permit, of any malfunction so that corrective action can be coordinated between the perrnittee and the Department. 4-39 File Number: 55999 Page 16 of 26 Pages SCHEDULE E ' ' Pretreatment Activities : .The permittee shall implement the following pretreatment activities: ' 1. The permittee shall· conduct.and enforce its Pretreatment Program, as approved by the Department, and comply .with the General Pretreatment Regulations' (40 CFR Part 403). The permittee shall secure and maintain sufficient resources and qualified personnel to carry out the program implementation procedt~res described in this permit. ' 2. '-THY p~rn~.~ff-sha-ll ~i,doP't .all }?gal author[t},_ necessary td fully implement l~s 'app~ove~l' pr~e~'atr~'~n'i' ' .... ..program and to compty wire an.applicable State .and Federal pretreatment regulations: The-permittee' must also establish~ where necessary, contracts or agreements with contributing jurisdictions to ensure compliance with.pretreatment requirements by industrial.users within these jurisdictions. These'contracts or agreements .shall identify the agency responsible for hlI implementation and enforcenient activities to' · be perfo.rmed in the con~ibuting.jurisdictions... Regardless .of jurisdictional situation, .the permittee is respon..sible for ens .uring that aH aspects of.the pretreatment program aec fully implemented and enforced. 3. The permittee shall update its inventory of industrial-users at a frequency and diligence adequate to.- " '..ensure proper identification of industrial ~ers subject t° pretreatment.standards, but no less than once per year. The permit-tee shall notify .these indtistrial users of applicable pretreatment standards in accordance with 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(2)(iii). 4. The permittee shall enforce categorical pretreatment standards promUlgated pursuant to Section 307(b) and (c) of the Act, prohibited discharge' standards as set forth in. 40 CFR'i}. 403.5(a) and (b), or local limitations developed 'by.the permittee in accordance with 40. CFR, §' 403.5(c), which.ever are' more stringent, or are applicable to non-domestic users discharging wastewater-to the. collection system. Locally derived discharge Iimitations shall be defined as pretrea.tment standards under Section 307(d) of. the Act. 'A technical evalUation of the need to revise local- limits shall be performed at least once during the .t&rm of ,tl}.is.lPermit.and .mu_st be submitted~to the Department as part of the permittee's NPDES permit ap. pncauon, unless me Department reqmre~ in writing that it-be submitted sooner. Limits :development wall be in accordance with the procedures established by the Department. · 5. The permittee shall issue individual diseharge permits to 'all Significant Industrial Users in a timely manner. The permittee shall also reissile and/or modifg, permits, where necessary, in'a timely manner. Discharge permits must contain~ at a minimum, the conditions identified in 40 CFR § 403.8(f)(1)(iii). Unless a more stringent definition has been adopted by the permittee, the d. efinition of Significant Industrial User shall.be ~ stated in 40 CFR § 403.3(t). 6. The permktee shall randomly sample and analyze in~lustrial user effluents at a frequency commensurate ~ith.,the ch_a~cter., consistency, volume of discharge. At a minimum, the permittee shall sample all ~.~gm.n..eant,ln.d, ustnal, Use..rs_.for .all regulated pollutants twice per. year.- Alternatively, at a minimum, 'the p.ermt=ee snail sampie, all siguiticant' Industrial Users for all regulated pollutants once per year, if the p6rmittee, has pretreatment program criteria in its approved procedures for determining appropriate sampling levels for industrial users, and provided the sampling criteria indicate once per year sampling is adequate. At a.minimum, the permittee shall conduct a complete facility inspection once per year. Additionally, at least once every two years the permittee shall evaluate the need for each Significant Industrial User to develop a slug control plan. Where a plan is deemed necessary, it shall conform to' the requirements of 40 CFR {} 403.8(f)(2)(v). o - Where the permittee elects to conduct all industrial user monitoring in lieu of requiring self-monitoring by user, the permittee shall gather all information which would otherwise have been submitted by the user. The permittee shall also perform the sampling 'and analyses in accordance with the protocols established for the user. Sample collection and analysis, and the gathering of other compliance data, shall be performed with sufficient care to produce evidence admissible in enforcement proceedings or in judicial actions. 4-40 File Number: 55999 Page 17 of 26 P~,ggs 7. The permittee shall review repo'rts submitted by industrial users and identify all violations of the user's permit or the permktee's local ordina/~ce. 8. The permittee shall investigate 'all instances of industrial user noncompliance and shall take al! necessary steps to return users to compliance. The permittee's enforcement actions shall Wack its approved Enforcement R~sponse Plan, developed in accordance with 40 CFK§ 403.8(0(5). If the pe..rmittee has not developed an approved Enforcement .Response Plan, it shall develop and submit a draft to the ._ _De.p_a~_.~.nt for review within 90 days oft he issuance of this permit. ................. . .... . ........ 9. · The permittee shall publish, at least annually in the largest daily newspaper published in the permittee's service area, a list of all industrial users which, at any time in the previous. 12 months, were in. Significant Noneompliaide with applicable pretreatment requirements. For the purposes of this requirement, an industrial user is in. Significant Noncompliance if it meets one or more of the criteria listed in 40 CFR 403.S(f)(2)(vii). 10. The permittee must develop and maintain a.data management system designed to track the status of the industrial user inventory, discharge characteristics, and compliance. In accordance .with 40 CFR § 403.12(o), the permittee shall retain all records relating to pretreatment program activities for a minimum of three years, and shall make such records available to the Department and USEPA upon'request. The permittee shall also provide publicaccess to information ~onsidered effluent data under 40 CFK Part 2. 11. The permittec shall submit b~ March I of each year, a report that describes thc.~ermittee's pretreatment program dtiring the previous calendar year. The content and format of this report shall be as e. stablished by the Department. 12. The perm~ttee shall submit~ in writing to the Departme_nt a statement of the basis for any.pr~pose~ modification of its approved program and a description of the proposed modification in accoraance wire 40 CFR § 403:1'8(b). /qo substantial program modifk'ations may be implemented by ~e permittee prior to receivi~.g written authorization from the Department. 4-41 File Number: 55999 ' Page 18 of 26 Pages · NPDES GENERAL CONDITIONS ' SECTION A. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Duty to Comply .The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 468B.025 and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, stispension, or modification; or. for denial ora permit renewal applicatiorL 2. Penalties for Water Pollution and Pen:nit Condition Violations · Oregon Law (ORS 468.140).allows the Director to impos~ civil penalties'up to $10,000 per day forvi°lation ora te.rm, condition,, or requirement ora permit. .'....h..addition,. a pe~so.ia who unlawfully pollutes water as specified in ORS.468;943 or ORS 468.946 is subject to criminal prose, cufion. 3. Duty to M!tlgate ..... .. The.permittee Shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood'of adversely affecting human health or the envirofiment. .In addition, upon request of the. Department, the permittee shall correct any adverse impact on the environment or human health resulting from noncompliance with this permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 4. Duty to Reapply If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit aler the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and h~ve the permit r.e.n, ewed.' The application shall be submitted at · least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit.. The Director may grant permission to submit an application less than 180 days in advance but no later than the permit expiration date. 5. Permit Actions This permit may be n~od~fled, suspended, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause including, but not limited to, the following: a. Violation of any term, condition, or requirement'of this permit, a rule, or a statute; b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all material facts; or e. A change in any condition.that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge. The filing cfa request by the permittee for a permit modification or a not~flcation.ofplanned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permk condition. 6. Toxic pollutants The permktee shall comply with any applicable effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. 4-42 File Number: 55999 Page 19 of 26 Pages 7;" Property_ Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege. 8. Permit References .. Except for efflugnt standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of'the Clean Water Act for ' toxic pollutants and standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act, ali rules and statutes referred to in this permit are those in effect on the date this permit is issued. SECTION B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLIJTION CONTROLS 1. l~mper Operation an~i Maintenance The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with · the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls, and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems that are installed by a permittee only when the. operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit 2. Duty to I~It or Reduce Activity. :' For industrial or commercial facilities, upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, Ihe pennittee shall, to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control production or all discharges or · both until the facility is reacted or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies, for example, when the primary source of power of the treatment facility fails or is reduced or lost It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an.enforcement action that it would have. been necessary, to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain ~ompliance with the conditions of this permit. 3. Bypass of TreatmentFaeilities · a. Definitions "' (1') "Bypass" means intentional diVersion of waste streams fi:om any portion of the treatment facility. The term "bypass" does not include nonuse of singular or multiple.units or ProcesSes of a treatment works when the nonnse is insi~ificant to the quality and/or quantity of the effluent produced by the treatment works. The term "bypass" does not app? if the diversion does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, provided the diversion to allow essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. (2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities or treatment processes which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and pe .tm .anent loss Of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in Production. b. Prohibition of bypass. (1) Bypass is prohibited unless: (a) Bypass was necessary to prevent loss of life,.personal injury, or severe property. damage; 4-43 (b) 'There were no feasible alternatives to th~ bypass, such as the use of auxiliary File Number:. 55999 P.age 20 of 26 Pag~es periods of equipment downtime, This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment should have beeninstalIed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of eqUipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and (c) The permittee submitted notices and requests as required under General Condition B.3.c. (2) .The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects and any ,ltern,flve.q tn hypa~ln~, whe_n_ the D~_~or dete__m~_J_neg that i_,_ .,~. '.!! mcet-t.he th_we conditions listed above in General Condition B.3.b.(1). c. Notice and request for bypass. · .- (1) .Anticipated bypass. If the permittee.knows in advance of-the need-for a bypassi it shail. - submit prior .written notice, if possible at.least ten days before the date ofthebypass. ~ .(2) Unanticipated. bypass. The permitte, shall submit noticei0fan unanticipated bypass as' required in General Condition D.5. , · - 4. Upset a. Definition. "Upset'.' means an.exceptiona! incident in whic.h there is'unint.entional and temporary · noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations b. ecause of factors beyond tho .reasonable eontrgl of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the' extent mused by operation error, imgroperly desi. gned treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation. ~ · b.' 'Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an a~rmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such.technology bas~ permit effluent lirrdtatioris if the requirements of General Condition B.4.c are met. No d~termination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review. c. Conditions. necessar7 for a demonstration of upset. A permittee Who wishes to e.~blish the ' affirmative defens.e of ups. et shall demonstrate, .thOugh p.roperly signed, con?mporaneous operating logs, or othir relevant evidence th_at: (1} An u~set occurred.and that the permittee can identify the muses(s) of thc upset; (2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; (3) The permittee submitted notice of the .upset as required in General Condition D.5, hereof (24-hour notice); and (4).. The pe.rmittce complied with an7 remedial measures reqlaired under General Condition A.3 hereof. d. Burden of proof. In any enforcem.ent, proceeding the permitte¢ seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. 5. Treatment of Sinele Operational Event For purposes of this permit, A Single Operational l~vent which leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant parameter shall be treated as a single violation. A single operational event is an exceptional incident which causes simultaneous, unintentional, unknowing (not the result cfa knowing ac.*. or omission),4-44 File Number: 55999 Page 21 of 26 Pages temporary noncompliance with more than one 'Clean Water Act effluent discharge pollutant parameter. ~ single operational event does not include Clean Water Act violations involving discharge without a bi?DES permit or noncompliance to'the extent caused by improperly designed or inadequate treatment facilities. Each day cfa single operational, event is a violation. 6. Overflows ~om Wastewater Conveyance Systems and Associated Pump Stations : a. Definitions · · (1) "Overflow" means the diversion and discharge of waste streams from any portion of the wastewater conveyance system including pump stations, through a designed overflow device. or structure, other than discharges to the was. t. ewatee treatment 'facility. (2) "Se{ere'property damage" means substantial physical damage io property, damage to the . conveyance system or pump station which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasomably be expected to occur in the absence of an overflow. .' ':.' (3) "Uncontrolled overflow" means the diversion of'waste streams other than th~fagh a designed overflow device or structure, for example to overflowing manholes or overflowing · into residences, commercial establishments, or '.industries that may be ¢ormected to a conveyance system. b. ?iohibition of overflows. Overflows are prohibited unless: ., (1.) Overflows were unavoidable to prevent an uncontrolled overflow, loss oftige, personat injury, or severe property damage; (2).,: There were no feasible alternatives to the overflows, such a~ the use ofauxiIia?y pumping or :.:.. conveys, ce systems, or realization 0fconveyance system storage; and . ... (3) The overflows are the result of an upset as defined in General Condition B.4. and meeting all requirements of this condition. e. Uncontrolled overflows are prohibited where w?ewater is likely to escape or be carried into the waters of the State by any means. d. Rep6rting reqffu-ed. UnIess othenvise specified in writing by the Departr~ent, all overflows and uncontrolled Overflows must be reported orally to the Department within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the overflow. Reporting procedures are described in more detail in General Condition D.5. 7. Public Notification ofF. ffluent Violation or Overflow ffeffluent limitations specified in this. permit are exceeded or an overflow occurs, upon requestby the Department, the permittee shall tak~ such steps as are necessary to alert the public about the extent and nature of the discharge. Such steps may include, but are not lin~?d to., l~. st4.n.g of the river at access points and other places, news releases, and paid announcements on radio and televxsxon. . 8. Removed Substances Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other'pollutants removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in such a manner as to prevent any pollutant from such materials from entering public waters, causing nuisance conditions, or creating a public health hazard. 4-45 File Numben 55999 Page 22 of 26 Pages SECTION C. MONITORING AND REcoRDS ' Representative Sampling Sampling and measurements taken as i'equired herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge: All samples shall be taken at.the monitoring points specified in thi~ permit and shall · be taken, unless otherwise specified, before the'effluent joins or. is diluted by any other.'waste stream, body of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not be changed without notification to and the approval of the Director. 2. Flow Measurements Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods.consistent.with accepted Scientific practices shall, be ..... : selected and used.to ensure the accuracy and reliability of-measurements of the volume of monitored · discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained.to insure that the accuracy of the · me.asfirements is consistent with the accepted eapabiI-i.ty, of that. type of device. Devices selected shall be · capable of measuring flows with a maximum deviation oflessthan ~. 10'percent from tree discharge rates throughout the range of expected discharge volumes. 3. Monitoring Procedures .. Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approv, ed.unde, r 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures hav. e been specified in'this permit. 4. Penalties of Tampering The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, o.r knowingly renders inadcurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shaH, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both. Ifa conviction cfa person is for a violation committed atter a first conviction of such'person, punishment is a fine not more than $20,000 per day ofviolation, or bY imprisonment of not more than four years or both. 5. Reporting of Monitoring Results Moni/oring results shall be summarized each month on a Discharge Monitoring Keport form approved by the Department. The reports shall be submitted monthly and are to be mailed, delivered or otherwise transmitted by the 15th day of the following month unless specifically approved otherwise in Schedule B of Additional Monitoring by the permittee If the permit~ee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFK 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the Discharge Monitoring Keport. Such increased frequency shall also be indicat~xi. For a pollutant parameter that may be sampled more than once per day · (e.g., Total Chlorine Kesidual), only the average daily value shall be recorded unless othen~ise specified in this permit. 7. Avera~in~ of Measurements Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean, except for bacteria which shall be averaged as SpeCified in this permit. 4-46 File Number:. 55999 Page 23 of 26 Pages 8. Retention of Records Except for records of monitoring inforrriation required by this permit related to the permittee's sewage sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five years (or longer as .. required by 40 CFR part 503), the permittee shall'retain records of all monitoring information, in.eluding all calibration and .maintenance records of all original strip chart recordings for continuous mtnitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete the .' application for this.permit, for a period of at. least 3 years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application.' Thi~ period may he exte-nde~ by ~que~ ofthe-Di~~ time. 9. Records Contents . Records of monitoring information shall include: a. The date, exact place, time and methods of sampling or measurements; b. The indiv, id. ual(S) who perf~imed the sampling or measurements; c. The date(s) analyses were performed;' ' d. The individual(s) wh6 performed the analyses; 'e. Th6 analytical techniques or methods Used; and f.' The results of such analyses. I O. Inspectioti' and Entry .The pomi_i.tte~ shall allow the..Direct'or, or an authorized representative upon the presentation of credentials to: .. a. Enter upon the permittce's premises where a rtgUlated facility or activity is located or.conducted, Or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit; b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit; c. Inspect at reastnable times any facilitie, s, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit, and d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by state law, any substances or parameters at any location. SECTION D. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. Planned Changes The permittee shall comply with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340, Division 52, "Review of Plans and Specifications". Except where exempted under OAR. 340-52, no construction, installation, or modification involving disposal systems, treatment works, sewerage systems, or common sewers shall be commenced until the plans and specifications are submitted to and approved by the Department. The permittee shall give notice to the Department as soon as possible of any planne.d physical alternations or additions to the pe .rmitted facility. 4-47 File Number: 55999 Page :24 ot26 Pages 2. Antici. pated N0,ncom~liance .... The permittee shall,give a&tance notice to the Director of'any planned changes, in the permitted facility or activity that may result in n~nCompliance with permit requirements. . . 3. Transfers This permit may be transferred to a new permittee provided the transferee acquires a property interest in permitted activity and agrees in writing to fully comply with all the terms and conditions of the permit and 'the rules of the Commission. No permit.shall be transferred to a third Party without prior written approval from the Director. The permittee shall notify the Deparanent when a transfer of property interest takes place. 4. Compliance Schedule · Reports of compliance or floneompliance with, or any progress reports on'interim and final requirements ...... . contained in any compliance scheduie °fthis permit shall be submitted no later; than..14 days following each schedule date. Any reports of noncompliance shall include the cause of noncOmpliance; any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirements. - 5. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting The permittee shall report any noncompli~ce that may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally Coy telephone) within 24 hours, unless otherwise specified in this permit, from the time the permittee becomes away. e of the circumstances.. During normal business hours, the Department's Regignal office shall be called. Outside of normal business hours, the Department shall be contacted at 1-800-452-0311 (Oregon Emergency Response System). A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circ~ces. If the pennittee is establis ,hing an affirmative defense of upset Or bypass, to any offense under ORS 468.922 to 468.946, and in which ea.4e if the original reporting notice was oral, delivered written notice must be made to the Department or other a'~.ncy with reg~. latoryjurisdiction within 4 (four).ca]endar days.. Thc written submission shall contain: a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause; b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; c. ' ' The estimated fi~ne noncompliance is expec, ted to continue if it has not been corrected; d. Steps taken or planned to reduce~ eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance; and e. Public notification steps taken, pursuant to General Condition B.7. The following shall be included as information that must be reported within 24 hours under this paragraph: a. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in this permit. b. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in this permit. c. Violation of maximum daily discharge limitation for any of'the pollu~nts listed by the Director in this permit. The Department may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis if'the oral report has been received within 24 hours. 4-48 File Number:. 55999 Page 25 of 26 Pages o. Other Non/5ompliance ...... The p~nhittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under General Condition D.4 or D.5, at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain: a. A descn.'ption of the noncompliance and its Cause; b. The period ofno.ncompliance, including exact dates and times; 'i; . c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected; and d. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and pre~'ent reoccurrence of the noncompliarice. -7. Duty to"Prov!de Information The permi~tee shall furnish t'o the Department, within a reasonable time, any information that the Departmeht may request to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish -to the '"'. Department, upon request, copies of records required to be keptby this permit Other Information: When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit .application, or submitted.incorrect information in a permit application or any report to the Department, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.. · o Signatory l~equirements All applications, reports or information submitted to the Department shall be signed and ce/t~.~ed in ~ accordance with 40 CFK 122.22. 9. Falsification of'Information' '' · . A person who supplies the Department wig false information, or omits material or reqUired .information, as specified in ORS 468.953 is subject to criminal prosecution. 10. Changes to Indirect Dischargers - [Applicable to Publicly Owned Treatment Wgrks (POTW) on~] Thepermittee must provide adequate notice to the Department of the following: a. Any new introduction o.fpollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to section 301 'or 306 of the Clean Water Act if it were directly discharging those pollutants and; b. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pellutants being introduced into the POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit. c. For the purposes of this pat3. graph, adequate notice shall include information on (i) the quality and quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (ii) any anticipated impact ofthe~hange on the quantity or quality of effluent to be disch.a~ed from the POTW.' ~ 1. Changes to Discharges of Toxic Pollutant - [Applicable to existing manufacturing, eoinmereial~ mining, and silvicultural dischargers only] The permittee must notify the Department as soon as they know or have reason to believe of the following: a. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed 4-49 th~. hi~,he.qt nfthe follnwln~, "nntification levels: File Number: 55999 ·. Page 26 of 26 Pages (1) One hundred micrograms per liter (I00 ~/g/L); (2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 lxg/L) for acrolein and aerylonitfile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ~g/L) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyI4,64initrophenol; and one milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony; (3) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit ' application in accordance with 40 CFR I22.21(g~)(~; or (4) . The level established by the Department in aeeordanee with 40 CFR 122.44(/). · .b. That any activity has occurred or will occur ~vhich would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent'basis, cfa toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the following"notifieation levels": (1) - ' Five hun&ed micrograms per liter (500 ~g/L); (2) One milligram per liter (1 rog/L) for antimony; ' (3) Ten (10) times the ma~mum concentration value reported for. that pollutant, in the permit · application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or (4) The level established by the Depa~nent in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(/). SECTION E. DEFINITIONS · · 1. B0D means five-day biochemical oxygen demand. 2. TSS means total suspended solids: ~ 3. mg/L meam milligrams per liter. 4. · k//means kilograms. 5. m~/d means cubic meters per day. 6. MGD means million gallons per day. 7. Composite sample means a sample formed by collecting and mixing discrete samples taken periodic,ally and. based on time or flow. 8. "FC means fecal eolifermbaeteria. 9. Technology based permit effluent limitations means technology-based treatment requirements as del'meal in 40 CFR 125.3, and concentration and mass load effluent limitations that are based on.minimum design criteria specified in OAR'3404 1. 10. CBOD means five day carbonaceous biecbemieal'oxygen demand. . 11. Grab sample means an individual discrete sample collected over a period of nme not to exceed 15 minutes. 12. Quarter means Sanuary'through March, April through June,/luly through Septembe. r, or October through December. '. 13. Month means calendar month. 14. Week means a calendar week of Sunday through Saturday. 15. Total residual chlorine means e°mbined chlorine forms plus free residual chlorine. 16. The term "bacteria" includes but is not limited, to fecal coliform bacteria, total coliform bacteria, and E. co!i bacteria. 17. POTW means a publicly owned treatment works. Updated 2-5-02 PN 107381 der 4-50 ATTACHMENT 3 MWMC DRAFT 05-06-04 MEETING MINUTES 4-51 Metropo!itan Wastewater Management Commission' partners in wastewater management ~C Thursday, 7:30 a.m., May Springfield Library eom Mil MEMBERS Anne Ballew Geo~ Morrison PRESENT: Deborah Evans Bill .inge Keeler Walt Meyer, by cor ' call unti ~.' STAFF IN Dave Breitenstein Susie Smith ATTENDANCE: Dan Brown Templin Gary Colwell Sprick Bob Vanderford Dol Tonja Kiing )or ~th Perkins Len Goodwin Barnes ,Vey Bill Bennett GUESTS: & gineers Weather Flow Management Plan CAC Development Charge CAC SDC CAC Roxie Builders Association Terry ~lly, Eugene Chamber of Commerce Philip gton, PeaceHealth I. CONSENT CALENDAR a. MWMC 04-22-04 Meeting Minutes b. Contract Award for Financial Advisor Services, Resolution 04-08 Item 1 .b. was remove~d from the Consent Calendar in order to allow discussion. Commissioner Morrison asked what was the houdy rate of the Financial Advisor Services selected. Ms. Smith indicated the figure was not readily available but staff would have the answer before the 4-53 end of the meeting. 'Commissioner Mordson also asked if funds were budgeted in.the current budget. Ms. Smith indicated there were no monies in the current fiscal year specifically bu~lgeted for these services. However, in the Regional Wastewater portion of the Finance Department's budget there is about $7,000 budgeted in Contrectual Services that will be used to start the consultant's services. In the FY 04-05 proposed budget, there is $40,000 budgeted. The services of the consultants will be to prepare for a bond issuance July 1,2005. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSION KEELER TO APPROVE T~PRIL 22, 2004, MWMC MEETING MINUTES. TRE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMM~ER EVANS. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. · There was no Public comment. Roxie Cue#ar., Director of Govel:nt Affairs, Jers Association of Lane County (HBA), 2053 Laure St., Springfield. rough comment letter she submitted on May 3rd and indicated she more ~nity to review the Facilities Plan and had additional issues on the )mmer the Facilities Plan also includes the list for the Systems Developm ~r percentages are allocated to growth for each of the of ff improvement fees cannot be used for replacement ree :he Facilities Plan. One is the digestion improveme] that ~llocated to growth and yet the description in the Facilities Plan at it is repl the system for the existing three digesters with a pump mixing said like of that is replacement cost and yet 66% of that cost is Ms. Cuellar said that the Facilities Plan to accommodate 160 million gallons a day (mgd) h less ca is needed for total wet weather flow--in other over bL the Plan, she said the Plan states that the facilities operated so with which the existing pretreatment facility would have to ht on and off Ii season is minimized. Ms. Cuellar stated that this is over bu (the plant) headworks with the existing headworks as a back up and to a this Continuir .r said that, regarding odor control, the Plan mentioned new 14' bioscrubber vessE the implementation of the bioscrubber vessels, the existing biofilters can be pha of service and the new bioscrubbers will handle the existing odor control needs in additic Io the new needs. Ms. Cuellar said this is replacement again, to a certain extent, and improvement fees cannot be charged to the extent that (MWMC) is simply replacing existing capacity. The HBA has an issue with that. Another issue, Ms. Cuellar said, is that sometimes HBA feels not enough credit is being given for performance versus capacity. She quoted an example as the gravity belt thickener, which is listed as 100% capacity and yet in the description of the project driver, it states nitrification 4'54 required by the NPDES permit and increasing wastewater flows and loads generates more solids. Ms. Cuellar said this is performance because of the ammonia requirement and would be billed differently because of that. NOTE: At this point, Commissioner Meyer was connected to the meeting via conference call. Ms. Cuellar stated she had one more issue and that is that she had no clue the Facilities document (Plan) existed until she met with Eugene staff the previous and she called to' request a copy of the Plan. However, when she called, there were available for the public and. staff had not decided how they would make copies or ich to charge. She stated she is grateful for the copy she got in a few hours for $60. Her there was a hearing the previous week and these documents needed to be avail~ ,lic and the public needs to know these documents exist long before the public hea Terry Connoll¥, Eugene Chamber 1 Willamette ~gene. Mr. Connolly expressed appreciation to the staff for presentation at the C ;r of Commerce regarding the Facilities Plan. He on the of the associated with the Plan and said there is a finite amount of to these needs. He added that the Plan is complicated and I the public really doesn't have the knowledge of what the Plan entails how much to cost. He said it is difficult to decide if the Plan is doing the or is the threshold that would satisfy all the necessary requirements and are all .Plan that DEQ says needs to be done. Mr. Connolly commented that, . ~ities should be prepared that this is a major price tag and at governments are considering or problems should be mindful that this will be a challenge. rdson E e Chamber of Commerce felt about the responses bmitted ,uslY as far as fully addressing the questions that Were asked. Mr. did address the questions and there were some to be made clear to the public by saying "here is hasn't been ined to the public yet and here are the steps bein Plan and define the purpose." ~missioner Mo was not excited about the answers to the questions and that not clear eno~ could understand them. Her overall concern is that the average not clue about what is going to hit them in July in regards to the fee increases, no~ the stated that staff is suppose to be outreaching to the community but "stuffers" in the utility bills are allowed only twice a year and nothing had been regarding the pending fee increases. She said she is concerned about edl of the public. Camilla Pratt: 120 Westbrook Way, Eugene, member of the WWFMP CAC. Ms. Pratt said she questioned how much the public is willing to be educated and this Plan is very basic, public service. She urged the Commission to accept the staff's recommendation. She stated she had a tremendous amount of respectfor all the People that put in time on this project and hoped the Commission approved the Plan as it beats being sued into submission. 4-55 Philip Farffn.qfon, Director, Land Use Planning and Development, PeaceHealth Oregon Region. Mr. Fardngton stated that PeaceHealth is interested in insuring that adequate infrastructure will be available to meet current needs and future demands for planned health care facilities and that the community's environmental stewardship objectives are met as well. He commented that PeaceHealth will be paying a significant amount in SDCs and. are also major contributors towards the standard rate structure and will be paying towards improvements one way or the other. He stated that the 2003 increase to the SDC resulted in neady a 50% increase in SDCs and the proposal now proPosed would result in yet another SDC increase He commented on DEQ's evaluation of MVVMC's NPDES permit which identified [ ti' operated at 60% design capacity in dry weather, 42% during wet weather period Public Facilities Plan was adopted as part of the Metro Plan under consistent with the previously approved MWMC Facilities Plan, that there is in the regional wastewater plant to meet projected growth through the pi aid it appeared that much of the basis for the projects that are 'proposed in Plan address thermal loading and peak flows dudng wet weather. Mr. Fa said the wet wei is addressed by reducing inflow and infiltration ~rmal loading is a new dver outfall. He stated that his concern is that osed s describe a burden to new development to address both of the in~ [ existing sewer pipes and connections should have the by all system users and ratepayers, and not a disproportionate by new Mr. Farrington indicated PeaceH First, can the Commission authorize an interpretation on the gross square footage of occupiable space that g services? He heard previously from staff that s are ~re footage in the broadest' sense for any use. For' spiral ~is has s cost implications and doesn't stand to reas, )r exam SDCs be assessed against mechanical space? He said ~ fourth the hospital is mechanical space that serves surgical suites and well a., .~r ancillary services within the first three floors. He would like to direct staff to appropriately direct dis~ Ipened to the capacity identified in previously adopted plans? He e information he had a hard time following it. He asked if there had beer growth since the 2001 Metro Public Facilities Plan? He also asked what ~s there were and how are they determined. Another question he asked wa., local SDI match up with other communities or how would the rates compare SDCs. Mr. Farrington asked about SDC rates increasing re or if this is the last time these rates are going to be increased through this He said it is not clear to him the basis for the percentages that are allocated to growth i Facilities Plan 20-Year Project List. Regarding the Project List, Mr. Fardngton said a n bank site outfall is identified and 38% of that is described as new growth, but he asked if a new outfall that is established to address issues of mixing in receiving waters and allow for potential reuse be appropriately described as being as responsibility of all ratepayers. He didn't feel the outfall was a consequence of growth, doesn't directly relate to capacity or peak flow reduction or perhaps not to a 38% proportion. · Mr. Farrington stated that PeaceHealth support the reuse concept and are looking to accept reclaimed wastewater at the Cottage Grove Community Hospital site and they would be a willing customer if that opportunity arose in this area. 4-56 Mr. Farfington' said that, While MWMC should reduce the risk of sewage overflows; ill may be a contributor and new growth represents a nominal part of that problem. Therefore, ' new development is shouldering a disproportionate financial burden for addressing this I/I. He said PeaceHealth is going to be paying large sums to this community towards the improvements that are needed and they acknowledge the improvements that all applicable requirements and laws are met and the infrastructure is going to be available to support current needs and future development. PeaceHealth appreciates the work put forth by MWMC consultants, and citizen volunteers who worked on this important project. Joshua Skov, Member of SDC CAc. Mr. Skor said that osed Facilities Plan protects quality of life. MWMC has fulfilled its res ,nts with responsive, thorough and transparent public process; and the SDCs and Facilities Plan are Iow by any reasonable standard or He sai plan will address growth in Lane County and rising uirements, quality issues are increasingly becoming a concern in ~g a quality of life. HE that the Facilities Plan is vital to addressing the needs )mmunity. Mr. Skor commented that MVVMC has done engaging a wide variety of constituencies and they have been der r. He stated that the SDCs are Iow. Every comparable community Oregon has higher SDCs. He said that the SDCs associated with the seem hi to the SDCs of the past, but those SDCs--in historical Iow f¢ reasons and therefore a poor frame of reference for current staff and consultants for their excellent work. President Ballew ring. Ms. Smith in( some :re received by the deadline and CH2M Hill has reviewed and res issioners were given a copy of the Home Bull( ~luded. Regarding the public process aspect ;mith indicated.~ hearings and meetings were widely the the public hearing was in the April 16~ and 17~ papers and the were on April 16u~. The reason extra copies of the Facilities Plan made is be . cost at Kinkos was over $90 a book and based on the City's i: r copy chargi cost $210. Staffs first objective was to put the Plan on a CD so it be inexpensive rate. It took a While to get the new technology for laser fiche t¢at however, a copy was provided in a fairly quick manner and settled on a $6( considerably under MWMC's cost. Continuing on, Ms. Smith stated that flyers Jirectly to an ongoing list of interested parties. Ms. Smith introd Matt Noesen and Shawn Clark from CH2M Hill who would be responding to the.comments received. Commissioner Morrison requested a copy of the list of people that received notices. Mr. Noesen covered two topics. One was in response to Commissioner Mordson's request for additional data analysis and the second one was to look at and respond to the submitted written comments. 4-57 V..\F:NVIRC)~J~CC3MMISH\MINII rTF:R\i3.~.i3t~.clJ. 13~3~ ~ ~A~,, ~ Regarding Commissioner. Mordson'S question on What frequency does the historical data bump up against the dry season 49 mgd and wet season 75 mgd, Mr. Noesen said that the information was mailed to the Commissioners earlier in the week. A statistical analysis was done to look at what percent of the time the historical flows were above the 49 mgd rating and 43.8 is the current utilized capacity in the SDC methodologY. When you 10ok at that, 2.1% of the time the historical data was above the 49 mgd and looking at the number used for the current utilized capacity, 12.5% of the time historical data was above. Looking at the wet season; which is 75 mgd, 21.1 % of the time the historical data was above that value. Com~ on CBOD (carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand), Mr. Noesen said this r of fluid strength coming into the treatment facility. It does not capture ammonia, another parameter pollutant that is now in the NPDES permit and which does use bit of existing and available capacity. Looking at Total Suspends Solids capacity is 2.5% of the time of the historical period is greater than the rated the time in the current rated capacity. Commissioner Inge asked if "cOntrol'' tnt would never have Mr. 'Noesen said the draft Facilities Plan is not 3o that the never exceedances. This is a topic being discussed with percent of exceedances would be acceptable. Commissioner Meyer larding fi. e standard in Oregon for summer is one in 10-year storm, and if the storrr than of ;ry 10 years, it is considered an unusual condition. In the winter, it is one standard in the Water Regulations for the State. Mr. Noesen agf a letter stating that the capacity of the based on maximum flows and not based on Mr. Ruffler ded that ti' form the basis for the permit limit and established at by are based on Federal guidance that basically targets a one chronic toxicity criteria. The Federal standards an eve three years, which equates to .09% rate on to the ~ments submitted, Mr. Noesen indicated that one letter was an en. ment of the SDCs. The second letter had a series of issues and questic ed. Mr. address some of those issues brought up in the letter from the 3uilders (cc ~ letter and comments attached). He said a key issue brought up by HBA was Lring the Master Plan capacity assessment to the capacity assessment associated witt Facilities Plan and SDC methodology. Other issues HB^ mentioned were and the alternatives evaluation and what technologies_were looked at. Regarding the comparison of the 1997 Master Plan and the 2004 Facilities Plan, Mr. Noesen said there are significant differences in the two analyses. For dry season flow, there is an 11% difference in population as well as a 9% decrease in per capita values that go into projecting flows. Mr. Noesen also commented on the use of maximum month instead of average in assessing capacity. The DEQ letter (attached) states that maximum flows (monthly, weekly, and daily) need to be looked at when assessing capacity, which is what has been done in the 2004 4-58 Facilities Plan and the SDC methodology. Mr. Noesen said the caPacity assessment that is in the NPDES fact sheet was from 1996 when the staff submitted the permit renewal application to DEQ. Staff took information from the 1997 Master Plan, which was under development at the time. It · took a number of years for DEQ to re-issue the permit and DEQ kept that 1996 data sheet and never re-evaluated it. There is a 12% increase in the maximum peaking faCtor between the 1997 data and today. Mr. Noesen said a critical point is CBOD and TSS are now surrogates for ammonia. Ammonia and thermal load are now in the permit and ~rameters were not in the permit in 1996, when the capacity assessment was done for the laster Plan. When the · SDC methodology was being evaluated, ammonia and not be capacity parameters. Mr. Noesen said the reason these could not for all the users (industrial, residential, and commercial) is because the to be able to implement SDCs and monthly user rates for these To pound of ammonia versus remOving one pound of CBOD is icant impact to ca thiS is captured in the current data but was not lyses, or' ~e permit, in Referring to the DEQ letter and statement, C Morrison asked when DEQ changed their policy to req to use flows instead of average flows when looking at capacity. Mr. Noesen pc changed in 1991, and in 1996 DEQ refined the change to that policy. 3at the Master Plan is in error and incorrectly assessed capacity. The Plan s month flows (in' his ' opinion) compared to the 4 ~ermal load and ammonia in the permit. Commission, Iow their own policy and Mr. Noesen agreed. Ms. Smith that ~n was not submitted to DEQ for review, because it was not like the 2004 Facilities plan. The 2004 Facilities ~ccordance with DEQ guidelines since the 208 Pla~ qoesen rewE projections that formed the base for the 2004 Facilities Pll ~e SDC data and growth rates were evaluated and used to pre' populatio ~e basis used for the Facility Plan. It reflects an antici [ced rate of I: lation growth. He said if the argument is used that the population' numbers are gh or too when it comes down to determining SDC rates and monthly sewer rates, ti' a big impact. Mr. Noesen the dry season maximum month flow historical and projected data. He said DEQ statistical method to arrive at the 10-year dry season and five-year wet season'data and staff is in ongoing discussions with DEQ to use the Plan's projections, which are conservative, instead of DEQ's numbers, which Would be even more conservative. He commented that the 2004 Facilities Plan is based on projections that are reasonable, lower than what was developed in 1997, and significantly lower than what DEQ would like to be used. 4-59 Commissioner.lnge asked what the impact would be for facilities that needed to be. bUilt if the projections were r~ised or lowered. Mr. Noesen said one of things that could be impacted would be the phasing of the tertiary filters. It wouldn't'necessarily enable the Commission to get dd of, or have more 'filters, but would impact when they would need to be built, and may not impact what needs to be built at ali. Regarding the allocations, Mr. Noesen said that the allocations that have been developed are a combination of what is in Chapter 8 of the Facilities Plan, plus w~ in the SDC methodology. The actual allocation of the 20-Year Project List will ~ the cost of those projects between growth and existing users. The development o~in Chapter 8 of the Facilities Plan and some of the numbers that are used in applyi~me from the SDC Mr. Noesen ~hen addressed the headworks exp~l~ referenced i~'s le~er. This is a $12.8 million proje~ to expand prelimina~ treatmen1 ~sang r~io~~ Looking at the application of the SDC me~odology to this p~ ~is 12~~h~r~ec~allocated to average floTM and 87.5% is alloCated to peak' ~is po~~~-has to~aluated as rehabilitation, ~paci~, or pe~o~ance~ The ~ ' c~aci~,' a~100% of average flow is allocated to gro~h, and only 29.4% is allocated to gro~h. This results in 38% of the total project cost to Ioesen said the population gro~h over the study period is around 37%. the proj~ allocated to average flow. The headworks is not only sewing peak se~ing e flow, and the allocation is a li~le higher than the a~ual population Noesen added that for this project, and all the other proje~s on the process is followed applying the SDC ch proj ~e process be~een existing users and future users. In addressing. ~ems HBA the the best/advanced technology might not have been evaluated, Mr. Irocess. He stated many alternatives and new technologies were showed that m-using the existing infrastructu cost-effective solution to do for the rate )mmissioner could divert to new, different technology in a few years Mr. Noesen in( ,lities Plan is a "roadmap" and is designed to be flexible, and thi; change in th IT BY MEYER TO APPROVE THE MWMC FACILITIES PLAN AND LIST. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EVANS. Ms. Smith aske( if the motion could reflect approval of Resolution 04-04. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 04-04. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EVANS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH 6 VOTING FOR THE MOTION AND ONE (COMMISSIONER MORRISON) OPPOSED. 4-60 Commissioner. Poling stated that he believed staff, the consultants and the assistants involved in this project have put in a lot of time. He said this is an extremely technical information and his pdmary reason for voting in favor of the Resolution is to move forward, He said he was not totally convinced that MWMC is going down the dght road but MWMC is not absolutely "married" to this master plan. With different population growths and advancement in technology, it can be changed if necessary. He added that he is voting yes but he is not totally convinced that this is the right path at this time. He said MWMC did an excellent job in getting the word out to people. The people receive it, but they don't pay attention to it until it is up for a fina,~e. At this point,. Commissioner Meyer had to terminate the conferen,~. He said he appreciated the hard work done by staff. The very best consultants were h~e an extensive look at this project and he was confident that CH2M Hill did good work ?~~g the right thing. · Ms. smith made some comments on the next ~ id where ~es from here. She reminded the Commissioners that the preferred~i'., 91ected by the~ least cost system-wide set of improvements. As the Plan ~'6rwa 'd and is approve~ elected officials of the governing bodies, it will also be ! rough a review process possible that DEQ will require additional improvements. ~ Commissioner Keeler ~at his only the Plan, which would not change his vote, is that such a good e in layin! ~ltemative 4 that we doiYt want that to become something that is so wel it is )EQ to try and hold MWMC to that standard. He requests that staff kee ~ey go forward with the Plan. Ms. Smith added thl FY 04-(~ lis essentially going forward with the projects that ca ent Plan (WVVFMP), which is primarily pre-design ~nd elected officials, on an annual basis, will be able to check on thi lore ~n come.~ of the design process. The Public Hearing for Project List was closed. 8:45 left the g. IV~ ~ROVEMENT PROGRAM lVb. SEWER GE RATES Ms informed missioners that the Public Hearings for the FY 04-05 Budget/Capi ram and for the FY 04-05 Sewer User Rates were being combined as or that for the purposes of preparing the draft FY 04-05 budget, staff selected the scenario. Gary Colwell, Services Manager, made the staff presentation. He re-iterated that the proposed budget was based On the 24% scenario so it the Commission selected a different scenario, the changes will be made for the final document. President Ballew opened the Public Hearing for the FY 04-05 Budget and User Rates/Septage Rates. 4-61 .V:\ENVIR©SV~COMMISH~MINUTES\05-06-~4.D©C .~ M~v ~ ~nn,~ No one responded and President Ballew closed the Public Hearing. .. Commissioner Keeler indicated that, because he was not at the previous CommiSsion meeting, he didn't have an understanding where each Commissioner wanted to go as far as the user rate was concerned. President Ballew answered that the Commission was wavering' between the 24% and 38% increase. Ms. Smith told Commissioner Keeler that she did state that the 12% increase was preferred by him so that it would be in the record. At this point, President Ballew polled the Commissioners regarding their preference. After further dis( lion, the Commission members present settled on the 24% increase option. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO APl MWMC BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY UMENTED CURRENTLY AND ADOPT THE 24% USER RATE INCR ICENARIO D, IN RESOLUTIONS 04-05 AND 04-06. THE MOTION MISSIONER POLING. Mr. Colwell interjected that the septage ~ren't in the motio~ recommended an increase to $.102 per gallon for ave COMMISSIONER KEELER ED HIS INCLUDE AN INCREASE IN SEPTAGE RATES TO $0.102 PER RECOM ,ED BY STAFF. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONE Commissioner Inge asked if separate motions. He was in favor of the sewer but Commissioner Inge said the septage haulers a users will be paying. If residential, commerci ;d 24%, the same should be done to the septage haulers. Ms. Smith sugg as one action and the rates as a second action. TO SEPARATE THE TWO MOTIONS FOR RI 'IONS 04-05 E MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER POLl ~USLY. first moti, lid not include consideration of the septage rates, it now stood as stated. Corr ,ner died for a vote on the motion made by Commissioner Keeler, seconded by C ing, to approve the MWMC Budget and Capital Improvement Program for FY 2( documented currently and adopt the 24% user rate increase, which is scenado D, in Re., ~ 04-05 and 04-06. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Discussion followed on septage rates. IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER INGE TO INCREASE THE SEPTAGE HAULER RATE CONSISTENT WITH THE INCREASES IN THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL INCREASES (24%) UNDER SCENARIO D. 4-62 ~J~,, ~ Ms. Smith requested that part of the motion make clear that the Commission is waiving a previously established Commission policy guiding septage rates. COMMISSIONER INGE: AGREED TO THE INCLUSION IN THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EVANS. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Colwell indicated that the schedule attached to Resolution 04-06'needed to have the' septage rate removed from Exhibit A of the Resolution. This rate didn't need to be on the schedule since the cities do not implement the rate, only the treatment plant. He.~icated the rate would be approximately $1.10 per gallon under the Scenario D increase. CommiSsioner Inge also clarified that his motion Was int,~mean that the septage hauler rate will continue to increase consistent with the other~. ~ssioner Evans indicated that was her underStanding as well. . ~.-- Ms. Smith in'dicated that staff wili bring back a'I ~d. policy to the Comm~ssion. President Ballew called for discussion. Seein( i ~di_.cated that the SDC methodology was adopted on April 1, 2,,~ and the' ! ties Plan and 20-Year Project list were approved earlier in the meeting. IT WAS.MOVED BY COMMISSI£ APPI:~THE FY 04-05 SDC CHARGES AND ADOPT RESOLUTION W)~ECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KEELE[ PAS Commissioner expres for all the work and effort that went in to this by the Citizens also that the public comments helped the Commission to add~ · IV, MANAGER~ AND WASTEWATER ional Financial Advisor (Item 1 .b. removed from the ;onsent commented that Commissioner Morrison had requested 3ourly rate fo Advisor Contract and said it was $165 per hour. She that receive the services of two partners and the intent of using these is to the amount of the work that can be done internally, seeking the provide. IT WAS M E~Y COMMISSIONER POLING TO APPROVE ITEM 1.b. THE MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. b. Mr. Ruffler informed the Commissioners that on May 1st the plant was made aware of a leak from the force main at the Irving Station. The flow was controlled and channeled into a manhole in the sanitary system so there was no exposure to the public. DEQ has been notified and concurred that the plant could take more time to work out a plan to 4-63 ~./-~I:::NI\/II~I'b.~\AC.I'3MMIRH\MINI ITF.~\i3.~.f'iR-f'14.r3(3~ t t May 6. 2004 deal with this. The leak was in an area that is complicated with a lot of utilities,..difficult tc get to, plus 'part of it is 'in the County and part in the City. Mr. Ruffler didn't feel this would be recorded as a violation to the permit. Mr. Breitenstein, Wastewater Plant Manager, added that by acting responsibly, it is not considered a violation and the plant has not been issued a Notice of Noncompliance in regards to reported overflows. c. Mr. Ruffler said the first phase of the poplars have been Ms. Smith added her appreCiation to Steve Templin, Biocycle Farm Project who has worked- extremely hard on this project. Commissioner Poling mentioned he had talked rding the poplar farm property and he wanted to share that rs. Ms. Smith indicated there were previous .~rty the Commission wanted to initially plant, re within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and 'issue was~ also brought' before the City Manac. Administrator (SEL meeting) and the resu the site is abOut 70% wetlands with a lack of serv' the site ; wetland mitigation that is required, development was ble. The p can be farmed and poplars can be grown. The agricultural use UGB on an interim basis. Ms. Smith went on to say that, the Farm Bureau and restricting urbar ility to d on exclusive farm uSed zoned proper ar ~lt thal was a good 'risk managemE President ~11 park of how much money MVVMC will make on the on the list of things to do, but a marketing ~s e wood product. There are preliminary more work as' market for poplar wood is firming up. Ms. aisc lot been accounted for in the projected revenue stream ten years out. r she recently read information regarding pdor converted ~nd. If she information, she will forward it to staff. Ms. Smith made a cot and ind staff is not working under prior converted land' but under farmed wetlal d. Mr. Ruffler ted the Commission about the Wastewater Division being accepted into EPA's Performance Track Program and commented that he attended a meeting of the program participants. He will bdng information to the Commission at a future date. e. Ms. Smith indicated that an updated Governing Bodies calendar was given to the Commissioners. She said she would be contacting some of the Commissioners to see if they could acce. mpany staff to some of the scheduled meetings with the other agencies. 4-64 The Facilities Plan is now the Commission's Plan. The calendar will continually be updated. f. In light of ali the activities going on, Commissioner Inge inquired on the status of filling the Public InformAtion and Education Specialist position vacated, by Rachael Dillman. How is MWMC going to get the education and information to the public during the intedm search for a replacement? Ms. Smith said the position was currently being advertised. It will not be filled in time for the adoption process, but as the In process proceeds and before any type of dirt tuming occurs, the position will Commissioner Inge asked how much notice the publ the rate increases. Mr. Ruffler indicated the City of Eugene will send and flyer with information on the rate and there will be a publi indicated that Eugene Citizens will get more advanced of the put information in an EWEB bill. She indicated she was nto whether or lgfield could get earlier billing information sent out with bills and the answer ). Public hearing notices are posted and Ms. that a ad could n the newspaper, She also added that staff i., media to coverage on the adopted plans. g. Commissioner Evans ~ billing and costs were discussed in the past and wanted to know 'if th ~ming b the Commission. Ms. Smith indicated the results of a comp. brot.to the Commission and there wasn't sufficient benefit to Ci to change the vendors. On ~ld .side, from SUB for increases this cui:rent' hay staff to p this up to the City Council for 'iew and h. Cc all the Ii ood and hard work that has been done bY · the staff an( He said "today was a culmination of a THE Next meeting: Thursdoy, June Z4, 2004 7:30 Springfield Librory Me,ting Room 4-65 Dept. of Land Conservaiion and Development_560_011 Page 1. of 11. ~ · ". OREGON SECRETARY OF STAT~ · .~ The 'Oregon Adm~is~ative Rules eo~ta~n O~s ~ed through.Febru~ 13, 2004 LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DMSION 11 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING. 660-011-0000 Purpose The purpose of this division is to aid in achieving the requirements of Goal 11, Public'Facilities and Services, OAK 660-015- 0000(11), interpret Goal 11 requirements regarding public facilities and services on rural lands, and implement ORS 197..712 (2)(e), which requires that a city or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. The purpose of the plan is to help assure that urban development in such urban growth boundaries is guided and supported by types and levels of urban facilities and services appropriate for the needs and requkements of the urban areas to be serviced, and that those facilities and services are provided in a timely, or&fly and efficient arrangement, as required by Goal 11. The division contains definitions relating to a public facility plan, procedures and standards for developing, adopting, and amending such a plan, the date for submittal of the plan to the Commission and standards for Department review of the plan. ' " [ED. NOTE: The goal referred to or incorporated by reference in this rule is available from the agency.] Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & OAR 197 Stats. Implemented: OKS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-84; LCDD 4-1998, f. 8/cert. cf. 7-28-98 ! 660-011-0005 Definitions (1) "Public Facilities Plan": A. public fadiiity plan isa support document or documents to a comprehensive plan. The facility plan descnq~es thc water, sewer and u-ansportation facilities which are to support the land nses designated in the appropriate acknowledged comprehensive plans within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500. Certain elements of the public facility plan also shall be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, as specified in OAR 660-11-045. in current-year (year closest to the period ff U -- · (2) Ko gn Cost Estimates": Rough cost estimates are approximate costs expressed of public facility plan development) dollars. It is not intended that project cost estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting purposes. ATTACHMENT 5-1 Dept. of Land Conservation and DeVelopment_660_011 Page 2 of 11 (3) 'jShort Term": The short term is the period from year one through year five of.the facility plan. (4) "Long Term": The long-term is th~ period from year six through the remainder of the planning period. · (5) "Public Facility": A public facility includes water, sewer, and transportation facilities, but does not include buiidings, structures or equipment incidental to the direct operation of those facilities. '. - (6) "Public Facility Project":'A public facility project is the Construction or reconstruction of a water, sewer, or transportation facility within a public facility system that is funded or utilized~by members of the general public. (7) "Public Facility Systems": Public facility systems are those facilities ora particular type that combine to provide water, sewer or transportation services. For purposes of this division, public facility systems are limited to the following: (a) Water. (A) Sources of water, (B) Treatment system; (C) Storage system; (D) Pumping system; (E) Primary distribution system. (b) Sanitary sewer. (A) Treatment facilities system; (B) Primary collection system. (e) Storm sewen (A) Major drainagew, ays (major trunk lines, streams, ditches, pump stations and retention basins);, (B) Outfall locations. (d) Transportation: (A) Freeway system, if planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; ~B) Arterial system; (C) .Significant collector system; (D) Bridge system (those on the Federal Bridge Inventory); (E) Mass transit facilities if planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan, including purchase of new buses if total fleet is less than 200 buses, rail lines or transit stations associated with providing transit service to major transportation corridors and park and ride station; (F) Airport facilities as identified in the current airport master plans; 5.2 , .~ __ ~-, ~ 'n O ~nn/~ A 0 ~A~/AAfl fll 1 btm] Dept. of Land Conservation and Development_660_011 Page 3 of 11 (G) Bicycle paths if planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. (8) "Land Use Decisions :-In accordance with ORS 197.712(2)(e), project timing and financing provisions of public, facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions as specified under ORS 197.01500). (9) "Urban Growth Management Agreement": In accordance with OAR 660-003-0010(2)(c), ~d urban growth management agreement is a written statement, agreement or set of agreements setting forth the means by which a plan for management of the unincorporated area within the urban growth boundary will be completed and by which.the urban growth boundary may be modified (unless the same information is incorporated in other acknowledged documents). (l 0) Other Definitions: For the' purposes of this divisi°n, the definitions .in ORs 197..015 shall apply except as provided f°r in section (8) of this rule regarding the definition in ORS 197..015(10). Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197..712 · Hist.: LCDC 4-1984,.f. & cf. 10-18-84 660=011-0010 The Public Facility Plan (1) The public facility plan shall contain the following items: (a) An inventory and general assessment of the condition of all the significant public facility systems which' support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; . . Co) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in the ae. knowledged comprehensive plan. Public.facility project descriptions or specifications of these, projects as necessary; (c) Rough cost estimates of each public facility project; (d) A map or written description of each public facility projects general location or service area; (e) Policy statement(s) or urban growth management agreement identifying the provider of each public facility sYstem. If there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the·area covered by the publi.c facility plan, . then the provider of each project shall be designated; (f) An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; and (g) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms to f-~md the development of each public facility project or system. (2) Those public facilities to be addressed in the plan shall include, but need not be limited to those specified in OAR 660~ 011-0005(5). Facilities included in the public facility plan other than those included in OAR 660-011-0005(5) will not be reviewed for colnpliance with this rule. (3) It is not the pUrpOS~ of this division to cause duplication of or to supplant existing applicable facility plans and programs. Where all or part of an acknowledged Comprehensive plan, facility master plan either of the local jurisdiction or appropriate special district, capital imprOvement program, regional functional plan, similar plan or any combination of such plans meets all or some of the requirements of this division, those plans, or programs may be incorporated by reference into the public facility plan required by this division. 'OnlY those referenced portions of such documents shall be considered to be a part of the public facility plan and shall be subject to the administrative procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & et'. 10-18-84 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development_660_011 Page 4 of 11 660-011-0015 Responsibility for Public'~F.acility Plan Preparation : (1) Respons~ility for the preparation, adoption and amendment of the public facility plan shall be specified within the urban growth management agreement. If the urban growth management agreement does not make provision for this responsibility, the agreement shall be amended to do so prior to the preparation of the public facility plan. In the .case where an unincorporated area exists within the Portland Metropolitan'Urban Growth Boundary which is no[ contained within the boundary of an approved urban planning area agreement with the County, the County shall be the responsible agency for. preparation of the facility plan for that unincorporated area. Th~ urban growth management agreement shall be submitted with the public facility plan as specified in OAR 660-011-0040. (2) The jurisdiction respons~le for the preparation of the public facility plan shall provide for the coordination of such preparation with the city, county, special district~ and, as necessary, state and federal agencies arnd private providers of public facilities. The Metropolitan Service District is responsible for public facility plans coordination within the District consistent with ORS 197.190 and 268.390. (3) Special districts, including port districts, shall assist in the development of the public facility plan for those facilities they provide. Special districts may object to that portion of the facilities plan adopted as part of the comprehensive plan during review by the Commission only ffthey have completed a special district agreement as specified under ORS 197.185 and · 197.254(3) and (4) and participated in'the development of such portion of the public facility plan. (4) Those state agencies providing funding for or making expenditures on public facility systems shall participate in the development of the public facility plan in accordance with their state agency, coordination agreement under ORS 197.1.80 and 197.712(2)(f). Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 19.7.. Stats. Implemented: ORS 197...712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & el. 10-18-84 660-011-0020 Public Facility Inventory and Determination of Future Facility Projects (1) The public facility plan shall include an inventory of significant public facility systems. Where the acknowledged comprehensive plan, background document or one or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR 660-011-00.10(3_) contains such an inventory, that inventory may be incorporated by reference. The inventory shall include:. (a) Mapped location of the facility or service area; (b) Facility capacity or size; and (c) General assessment of condition of the facility (e.g., very good, good, fair, poor, very poor). (2) The public facility plan shall identify significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The public facility plan shall list the title of the project and descn~be each public facility projec~ in terms of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity. (3) Project descriptions within the facility plan may require modifications based on subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility master plans, capital improvement prob,'ams, or site availability. The public facility plan should ~ anticipate these changes as specified in OAR 660-011-0045. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & el. 10-18-84 5-4 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development_660_011 Page 5 of 11 660-011-0025 '- Timing of Required Public Facilities (1) The public facilities plan shall include a general estimate of the timing for the Planned public'.facility projects. This timing component of the public facilities plan can be met in seyeral ways depending on whether the project is anticipated in the short term or long term. The th'ning of projects may be related direcOy to population growth, e.g., the expansion or new construction of water treatment facilities. Other facility projects can be related to a measure of the facility's service level being met or exceeded, e.g., a major arterial or intersection reaching a maximum vehicle-per-day standard. Development of other projects may be more long term and tied neither to specific population levels nor measures of service levels, e.g., sewer projects to correct infiltration and inflow problems. These projects can take place over a long period of time and may be tied to the availability of long-term funding. The timing ofprojects may also be tied to specific years. (2) Given the different.methods used to estimate the timing of public facilities, the public facility plan shall identify projects as occurring in either'the short term or long term, based on those factors which are related to project development. For those projects designated for development in the short term, the piablic facility plan shall identify an approximate year for development. For those projects designated for development over the long term, the public facility plan shall provide a general estimate as to when the need for project development would exist, e.g., population level, service level standards, etc. Timing provisions for public facility projects shall be consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan's projected growth estimates. The public facility plan shall consider the relationships between facilities in providing for development. (3) Anticipated timing provisions for public facilities are not considered land use decisions as specified in ORS 197..712(2) (e), and, therefore, cannot be the basis of appeal under ORS 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4). Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197. Stats. Implemented: ORS 19.7..712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-84 660-011-0030 Location of Public Facility Projects (1) The public facility plan shall identify the general location of the public facility project in specificity appropriate for the · facility. Locations of projects anticipated to be carried out in the short term can be specified more,precisely than the locations of projects anticipated for development in the long term. (2) Anticipated locations for public facilities may require modifications based on subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility master plans, capital improvement p~ograms, or land availability. The public facility plan should anticipate those changes as specified in OAR 660-011-0045. Stat. Auth.: ORS. 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197...712 .'. Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-84 660-011-0035 Determination of Rough Cost Estimates for Public Facility Projects and Local Review of Funding Mechanisms for Public Facility Systems (1) The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for those sewer, water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan. The intent of these rough cost estimates is to: 5-5 ,. , , ,^,~'~^^~ ~,~t~/~th I'111 latml · DePt. of Land Conservation and Development_660_011 Page 6 of 11 (a) Provide an estimate'of the fiscal requirements tO support the land USe designations in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and . (b) For use by the facility provider in reviewing the Providers existing funding mechanisms (e.g., general funds, genffal obligation and revenue bonds, local improvement district, system development charges, etc.) and poss~le alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates for each project, the facility plan shall include a discussion of the providers existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mechanisms t'o .fund 'the development of each public facility project or system. These funding mechanisms may also be described in terms 'of general guidelines or local policies. ~ (2) Anticipated financing provisions are not considered land use decisions as specified in OKS 197.712(2)(e) and, therefore, cannot be the basis of appeal under ORS 197.610(1 ) and (2) or 197.835(4). Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197. Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712. Hist.: LCDC 4-1984~ f. & el. 10-18-84 660-011-0040 Date Of Submittal of Public Facility Plans The public facility plan shall be completed, adopted, and submitted by the time of the respons~le jurisdictiQn's periodic' review. The public facility plan shall be reviewed under OAR Chapter 660, Division 25, 'Periodic Review' with the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and land use regulations. Portions of public facilit~ plans adopted as part of comprehensive plans prior to the respons~le jurisdicfion's periodic review will be reviewed pursuant to OAR Chapter 660, Division 18, "Post Acknowledgment Procedures'. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 8: ORS 197. Stats. Implemented: ORS 197..712 . Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-84 660-011-0045 ' Adoption and Amendment Procedures for Public Facility Plans (1) The governing body of the city or count~ re§pons~le for development of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the comprehensive plan: (a) The list of public facility PrOject tifles,'excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects; (b) A map or written description of the public facility projects' locations or service areas as specified in sections (2) and (3) of this rule; and (c) The policy(les) or urban growth management agreement designating the provider of each public facility system. If there is more than one provider with the authority to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility plan; then the provider of each project shall be designated. (2) Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement programs, environmental impact studies, and changes in potential sources of funding. It is not the intent of this division to: 5-6 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development__660_Ol 1 . Page ? of l 1 (a) Either prohibit'projects not included in the public facility plans for which unanticipated funding has been obtained; (b) Preclude project specification and location decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act; 0f (c) Subject administrative and technical changes to the facility plan to OKS 197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4). (3) The public facility plan may allow for the following modifications to projects without amendn~., ent to the public facility plan: (a) Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; (b) Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to "final engineering" on a project or those that result from the findings of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 cFR. Parts 1500-1508)or any federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations consistent' with that Act and its r~gulations. " (c) Public facility project changes made pursuant to subsection (3)(b) of this rule are subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal provisions of the regulations controlling the study (40 CFR Parts 1500-15O8 or similar regulations) and are not subject tO the administrative procedures or review or appeal provisions of ORS Chapter 197, or OAK Chapter 660 D~vision 18. (4) Land use amendments are those modifications or amendments to the list, location or provider of, public facility projects, . which significantly impact a public facility project identified in the comprehensive plan and which do not qualify under subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this rule. Amendments made pursuant to this subsection are subject to the adm'inistrative procedures and review and appeal provisions accorded "land use decisions" in ORS Chapter 197 and those set forth in OAR Chapter 660 Division 18. Stat Auth.: ORS 183 & OKS 197. Stats. Implemented: OKS 197..712 Hist: LCDC 4-1984, f. & cf. 10-18-$4 660-011-0050 Standards for Review by the Department The Department of Land Conservation and Development shall evaluate the following, ~ further defined in this division, when reviewing public facility plans submitted under this division: (1) Those items as specified in OAK 660-011-0o10(1); (2) Whether the plan contains a copy of all agreements required under OAK 660-011-0010 and 660-011-0015; and (3) Whether the public facility plan is consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan. Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & el. 10-18-84 660-011-0060 5-7 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development_660_.011 Page 8 of 11 Sewer Service to Rural Lands ' (1) As used in this role, ur~ess the context, requires otherwise: - (a) "Establishment of a sewer system" means the creation of a new sewage system, including systems provided by public or private entities; " (b) "Extension of a Sewer System" shall have the same meaning as stated in Goal 11; (c) "No practicable alternative to a sewer system" means a determination by DEQ or the Oregon Health Division,'pursuant to criteria in OAR 340, Division 071, and other applicable rules and laws, that an existing public health hazard cannot be adequately abated by the repair or maintenance of existing sewer systems or on-site systems or by the installation of new on- site systems as defined, in OAR 340-07 I-0100; (d) "PubLic health hazard" means a condition whereby it is probable that the public is exposed to disease-caused physical suffering or illness dUe to the presence of inadequately treated sewage; (e) "Sewage" means the water-can'ied human,.animal, vegetable, or industrial waste from residences, buildings, industrial establishments or other places, together with such ground water infiltration and surface water as may be present; (f) "Sewer system" means a system that serves more than one lot or parcel, or more than one condominium unit or more than one unit within a planned unit development, and includes pipelines or conduits, pump stations, force mains, and all other structures, devices, appurtenances and facilities used for treating or disposing of sewage or for collecting or conducting sewage to an ultimate point for treatment and disposal. The following are not considered a "sewer system"-for purposes of this rule: (A) A system provided solely for the collectisn, transfer and/or disposal of storm water runo~ (B) A system provided solely for the collection, troffer and/or disposal of animal waste from a farm use as defined in ORS. 215..303. (2) Except as provided in sections .(3) and (4) of this rule, and consistent with Goal 11, a local government shall not allow: (a) The establishment of n'ew sewer Systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries; (b) The extension of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries in order to serve uses on land"outside those boundaries; ,. (c) The extension of sewer systems that currentiy serve land outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated eornmunity boundaries in order to serve uses that are outside such boundaries and are not servedby the system on the date of this rule. (3) Components of a sewer system that serve lands inside an urban growth boundary (UGB) may be placed on lands outside the boundary provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section are met, as follows: (a) Such placement is necessary to: (A) Serve lands inside the UGB more efficiently by traversing lands outside the boundary; (B) Serve lands inside a nearby UGB or unincorporated community;, (C) Connect to components of the sewer system lawfully located on rural lands, such as outfall or treatment facilities; or (D) Transport leachate from a landfill on rural land to a sewer system inside a UGB; and (b) The local government. 5-8 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development_660_.011 Page 9 of 11 (A) Adopts land use regulations to 'ensure the sewer sys. tem shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries, except as authorized under section (4) of this rule; and (B) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 21.~.296(1) or (2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for system~ located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way. (4) A local government may allow the establishment of a new sewer system, or the extension o'f an existing sewer system, to serve land outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in order to mitigate a public health of this section are met, as follows: hazard, provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and (b), (a) The Oregon'Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) or the Oregon Health Division initially: (A) Determines that a public health hazard exists in the area; (B) Determines that the health hazard is caused by sewage from deveIopment that existed in the area on the date of this rule; (C) Describes the physical location of the identified sources ~fthe sewage iontributing to the health hazard; and (ID) Determines that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system in order to abate the public health hazard; and (b) The lOCal govemment~ in response to the determination in subsection (a) of this section, and based on recommendations by DEQ and the Oregon Health Division where appropriate: (A) Determines the type of sewer system and service to be provided, pursuant to section (5) of this rnle; (B) Determines the boundaries Of the sewer system service area, pursuant to seetio.n (6) of this rule; (C) Adopts land use regulations that ensure the sewer system is designed and constructed so that its capacity does not exceed the minimum necessary to serve the area within the bofindaries descn"oed under paragraph (B) of this subsection, except for urban reserve areas' as provided under OAR 660-021-0040(6); " (D) Adopts land use regulations to prohibit the sewer system from serving any uses other than those existing or allowed in the identified service area on the date the sewer system is approved; .. (E) Adopts plan and zone amendments to ensure that only rural land uses are allowed on rural lands in'the area to be served by the sewer system, consistent with Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018, unless a Goal 14 exception has been acknowledged; · (F) Ensures that land use regulations do not authorize a higher density of residential development than would be authorized without the presence of the sewer system; and (G) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 215.296(1) or' (2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for systems located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way. (5) Where the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) determines that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system, the local government, based on recommendations from DEQ, shall determine the most practicable sewer system to abate the health hazard considering the following: (a) The system must be sufficient to abate the public .health hazard pursuant to DEQ requirements applicable to such systems; and (b) New or expanded sewer systems serving ~nly the health hazard area shall be generally preferred oVer the extension of a sewer system from an urban growth boundary. However, if the health hazard area is within the service area ora sanit~y authority or district, the sewer system operated by. the authority or district, if available and sufficient,.shall be preferred over other sewer system options. (6) The local government, based on recommendations from DEQ and, where appropriate, the Oregon Health Division, shall 5-9 Dept. of Land Conservation and Development_.660_011 Page 10 of 11 determine the area tO be served by a sewer system necessary to abate a health hazard. The area shall include only the following: (a) Lots and.parcels that contain the identified sources of the sewage contn'buting to the health hazard; (b) Lots and parcels that are surrounded by or abut the parcels descn'bed in subsection (a) of thin section, provided the local government demonstrates that, due to soils, insufficient lot size, or other conditions, there is a rea.sonably clear probability that onsite systems installed to serve uses on such lots or parcels will fail and further contribute to'the health hazard. (7) The local government or agency responsible for the determinations pursuant to sections (4) through (6) of this rule shall provide notice to all affected local governments and special districts regarding opportunities to participate in such determinations. (8) Applicable provisions of this rule, rather than conflicting pa:ovisions of local acknowledged zoning ordinances, shall immediately apply to local land use decisions filed subsequent to the effective date of this rule. [ED. NOTE: The goal~ referred to or incorporated by reference in this rule are available from the agency.] Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197, Stats. Implemented: ORS 197,.712 Hist.: LCDD 4-1998, f. & cert. cf. 7-28-98 660-011-0065 Water Service to Rural Lands (1) As used in this rule, unless the context requkes otherwise: (a) "Establishment" means the creation of a new water system and all associated physical components, including systems provided by public or private entities; (b) "Extension of a water system" means the extension of a pipe, conduit, pipeline, main, ~)r other physical component from or to an existing water system in order to provide service to a use that was not served by the system on the applicable date of ~ rule, regardless of whether the use is inside the servi~e boundaries of the public or private service provider. (e) "Water system" shall have the same meaning as provided in Goal 11, and includes all pipe, conduit, pipeline, mains, or other physical components of such a system. ,. (2) Consistent with Goal 11, local land use regulations applicable to lands that are outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries shall not: (a) Allow an increase in a base density in a residential zone due to the availability of service from a water system; (b) Allow a higher density for residential development served b~ a water system than would be authorized without such service; or (c) Allow an increase in the allowable density of residential development due to the presence, estab1~shment, or extension of a water system. (3) Applicable provisions Of this' rule, rather than conflicting provisions of local acknowledged zoning ordinances, shall immediately apply to local land use decisions filed subsequent to the effective date of this rule. [ED. NOTE: The goal referred to or incorporated by reference in this rule is available from the agency.] Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197 Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712 5-10 6111 hfml Dept. of Land Conservation and Development_660._011 Page 11 of 11 Hist.: LCDD 4-1998, f. & cert. cf. 7-28-98 The official copy of an Oregon Administrativ~ Rule is contained in the Administrative Order filed at the Archives Division, 800 S~mmer St. NE, Salem, Oregon 97310. Any discrepancies with the published v~rsion are satisfied in favor of the Administrative Order. The Oregon Administrative Rules and the Oregon Bulletin are copyrighted by the Oregon Segretar7 of State. Terms and Conditions of Use ^Iphabetical Index by Agency Name Numerical lndex by OAR Chapter Number Search the Text of the OARs Questions about Administrative Rules.* Link. to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Return to Oregon State Archives Home Page 5-11 . . ,~ , .,-,,-, ~-tar~tr~ A r~ tf~Cs/~th th1 1 'hl~r~] '.. ... ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER 121I, SECTION G. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT AND CHAPTER V GLOSSARY; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Springfield are implemented by the provisions of Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2004, the Springfield City Council initiated proceedings for a Metro Plan text and Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, following an April 20, 2004 joint public hearing with the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions, the Springfield Planning Commission, on June 1, 2004, recommended Public Facilities and Services Plan and Metro Plan text amendments to Chapter llI, Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element to include "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the UGB; to amend Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a to the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP); to amend Policy #2 to include local capital improvement plans as a means to . implement policy in the PFSP; to insert two new findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to development within the UGB; to add a new Policy #G.9 that commits the wastewater conveyance and treatment systems for this area to accommodate projected growth and regulatory requirements; and to modify defu-fition #36 in Chapter V Glossary to include Treatment Facilities System, the exact language for each of the preceding amendments being contained in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2004, the Eugene Planing Commission and on June 1, 2004, the Lane County Board of Commissioners recommended .Public Facilities and Services Plan and Metro Plan amendments; and; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment on June 22, 2004, with the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners, and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code, and applicable state and local law as described in findings attached as Exhibit B, and which are adopted in support of this Ordinance. ATTACHMENT 6-1 NOW,' THEREFOP,-E, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does .... ordain as follows: Section 1: The Metro Plan Chapter llI Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element, and Chapter V Glossary, are hereby amended as described in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance. Section 2: Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit B in support of this action. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion °fthe Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such h/)lding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 °fthe Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date that all of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been acknowledged as provided by ORS 197.625; Co) at least 30 days have passed since the date the ordinance was approved; and (c) both the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions · to those described in Section 1 of this Ordinance. Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield .this day of July, 2004 by a vote of in favor and against. Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this day of July, 2004. Mayor ATTEST: City Recorder REVIEWED & APPROVED OFFICE O)~ GII'¥'AYTQ"RNEY" 6-2 .. ORDINANCE NO. __ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP) BY ADDING i'4BW TABLES AND MAPS IDENTIFYING WASTBWATBR TREATMENT FACILITIES AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV WASTBWATBR SYSTEM CONDITION ASSESSMENT; ADDING A NEW CHAPTER VI AMENDMENTS TO THE PFSP; AND ADOPTING A SEVBRABILITY CLAUSE. WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, and by extension, amendment of refinement and functional plans that supplement the Metro Plan, which for Springfield are implemented by the provisions of Article 7 of the Springfield Development Code; and WHEREAS, on February 17, 2004, the.SPringfield City Council initiated proceedings for a Public Facilities and Services Plan amendment and related Metro Plan text amendments; and WHEREAS, following an April 20, 2004 joint public hearing with the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions, the Springfield Planning Commissi°n, on June 1, 2004, recommended the related Metro Plan text amendments and Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments to include new tables identifying wastewater treatment system and primary collection system improvement projects; to include new maps showing existing wastewater treatment systems and planned wastewater project sites; to revise the wastewater system condition assessment by describing and distinguishing treatment system and conveyance; to include an expanded discussion ofwastewater service within the urbanizable area; to include project titles, rough cost estimates and completion dates forthe wastewater treatment and collection system improvements; and to add a new Public Facilities and Services Plan amendment process, the exact language for each of the preceding amendments being contained in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2004, the Eugene Planning Commission and on June 1; 2004, the Lane County Planning Commission recommended the Metro Plan text amendments and Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing on th.is amendment on June 22, 2004, with the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of CommissiOners, and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and evidence and testimony already in the record as Well as the evidence and testimony presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the proposal meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code, and 6-3 applicable state..and local law as described in findings attached as Exhibit B, and which are adopted in support of thi's Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, the Common Council of the City of Springfield does ordain as follows: '. Section 1: The Public Facilities and Services Plan is hereby amended as described in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance. Section 2: A. lthough not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit B in support of this action. Section 3.'. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided by Section 2.110 of the Springfield MuniciPal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date that all of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been acknowledged as provided by ORS 197.625; (b) at least 30 days have passed since the date the ordinance was approved; and (c) both the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containing identical provisions to those described in Section 1 of this Ordinance. Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this day of July, 2004 by a vote of in favor and against. Approved by.the Mayor of the City of Springfield this day of July, 2004 Mayor ATTEST: City Recorder bATE: ~ 6-4 Findings of Compliance. with the Metro Plan and Statewide Goals and Administrative Rules File LRP 2004-0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services Plan Applicant: City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (~vnv~c) Nature of the Application: The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)~ to (1) more adequately reflect the impact that new discharge permit restrictions will have had on the capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship between the PFSP project list and locally adopted capital improvement plans, and (3) to modify (streamline) the administrative and legislative processes that govern the implementation and amendment of the PFSP projects list. Background: MWMC's regional wastewater treatment facilities were designed and constructed in the late 1970's with a 20-year life expectancy. Slower that expected population growth in the 1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to evaluate the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the existing permit conditions, to' identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to 'address seismic hazards), and to address other major issues that needed to be studied further. In May of 2002 the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treamaent facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of ammonia and thermal loading. As MWMC staffbegan to evaluate design needs for its wastewater facilities, it became apparent to ~em that the existing facilities could not meet the demands imposed by the new discharge permit restrictions. Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater collection, treatment and disposal/reuse needs for the next 20 years was essential, the MWMC began work on the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a comprehensive facilities plan update. The objectives of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intended to provide for adequate community growth capacity through 2025, considering policies in the Metro Plan and current planning assessments for population and development. Second, the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended to protect community health and safety by addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance and the cost- effective use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities. See appendices A & B, respectfully. Staff Report and Findings Page 1 ATTACHMENT 7-1 The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses the fact that the regional wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area does not have the capacity to meet all of the discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither ' the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Goal 2 requires that the city, county and special district plans be consistent. In large part, the amendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the former docUments. The proposed amendments provide information that should have been included in the PFSP when it was adopted and present a more accurate'description of wastewater services that will be available after certain capital improvement projects are completed. Phasing objectives of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of several key facility components begin by June of 2005 in order to meet federal standards that require that peak wet weather events be managed by 2010. In order to meet this rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests for ProPosals (RFPs) for engineering design for by October of 2004. Prior to this date, the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information. In summary, the application proposes the following changes: Metro Plan 1. Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the Urban ' Growth Boundary. [Chapter III-G] 2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing Wastewater Collection and Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Chapter Ill-43] 3. Amends Policy #2 to include local capital improvement plans as a means to implement policy in the PFSP. [Chapter III-G] 4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater serVices to development within the urban growth boundary. [Chapter III-G] 5. Adds a new policy G.9 that makes a commitment to providing the conveyance and treatment of wastewater to meet the needs of projected growth within the urban growth boundary and that meets regulatory requirements. [Chapter III-G] 6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V Glossary] · PFSP Staff Report and Findings Page 2 7-2 1. Modifies the text on page 28, preceding Table 3, and adds Tables 4a and 4b that .identify MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Primary Collection System improvements, respectively. 2. Modifies Map 2, which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, and adds Map 2a that concerns Existing Wastewater Facilities. 3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition Assessment" in Chapter IV. (Page 82) 4. Modifies existing paragraphs #1 and #2 under the discussion of"Wastewater" in the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" in Chapter IV. (Page 97). 5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and Timing Estimate." (Page 101) 6. Adds new Chapter VI regarding amendments to the PFSP. Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria The proposed amendments are considered to be Type I Metro Plan amendments because they are non-site specific amendments tO the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text, which include changes to functional plans such as TransPlan and the PFSP, and that are non-site specific require approval by ail three governing bodies to become effective? Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code Section 7.070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code 9.128(3) (a & b),' and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a & b) require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and that the amendment will n°t make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria are addressed as follows: (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission; Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. SDC Article 7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and SDC Article 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS prescribe the manner in which a Type I Metro Plan amendment must be noticed. Citizen involvement for a Type I Metro Plan amendment not related to an urban growth boundary amendment requires: 1) Notice to interested parties; 2) Notice 2 see SDC 7.070(1)(a), EC 9.7730(1)(a), and LC 12.225(I)(a)(i). Staff Report and Findings Page 3 7-3 · shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notice shall be provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning commission). Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was pUblished in the Springfield News and in the Register-Guard on March 31, 2004. Notice to interested parties was mailed on April l, 2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided to DLCD on March 4, 2004. The notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EpA as affected agencies. Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to the citizen involvement processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield Development Code, Articles 7 and 14; the Eugene Code, Sections 9.7735 and 9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning - To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions. All land-use plans and implementation ordinances shall be adopted by the governing body afier public, hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed, revised on aperiodic cycle to take into account changing public policies and circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities shall be provided for review and comment by citizens and affected governmental units during preparationl review and revision of plans and implementation " ordinances. Implementation Measures - are the means used to carry out the plan. These are of two geheral types: (1) management implementation measures such as ordinances, regulations or project plans, and (2) site or area specific' implementation measures such as permits and grants for construction, construction of public facilities or provision of services. The most recent version of the Metro Plan is being considered on May 17, 2004 for final adoption by Springfield (Ordinance No. ), by Eugene (Council Bill No. 4860) and by Lane County (Ordinance No. 1197) aider numerous public meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Officials. The Metro Plan is the "land use" or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the "implementation measures" required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as defined by ORS 197.015(5)3, must be coordinated with affected governmental units.4 Coordination means that comments from affected governmental units are Incorporated by reference into Goal 2. See DLCD v. Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216, 221 (1997). Staff Report and Findings Page 4 7-4 solicited'and considered. In this regard, DLCD's Notice of Proposed Amendment form was sent to the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ and EPA.' One aspect of the Goal 2 coordination requirement concerns population projections. In this respect, the proposed amendment to the PFSP Glossary · concerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary of 297,585.5 This projection is consistent with the most recent (1997) final forecasts provided to Lane County by the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoption ~ of this modification to the PFSP will effectively "coordinate" this population assumption. Goal3 - Agricultural Lands This goal does not applywithin adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. Goal 4 - Forest Lands This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and NatUral Resources This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. ~ Goal 6 - Air~ Water and Land Resources Quality - To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500, as amended in 1977, became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The goal of this Act was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS 468B.035 requires the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to implement the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The primary method of implementation of this Act is through the issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the discharge of any wastes into the waters of the state. (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants" regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances (OAR 340-041-0033). One purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the PFSP accurately reflect regional wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that "... the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population s Table 3 of technical memorandum entitled "Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission- Population Projections for Wastewater Facilities Plan," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2M Hill, et al (April 9, 2004) Staff Report and Findings Page 5 7-5 increases and serve all new development at buildout." Recent analyses have determined that facility improvements are now required to address both dry and wet weather requirements relating to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. The section in Chapter IV of the PFSP entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the'.need for facility improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory requirements. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and HaZards This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal' 8 - Recreational Needs This goal is nOt applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 9 - Economic Development- Goal 9 provides, in part, that it is intended to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies." The proposed amendments are consistent with this objective in that the-Metro Plan, the PFSP and the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan must be consistent in order to comply with State discharge permit conditions that will determine the improvements to the Regional Wastewater System· that are necessary to address new regulatory standards. The improvements are necessary to allow adequate service and conVeyance, treatment, reuse and disposal capacity to serve new and existing industrial and commercial uses. Goal 10 - Housing- To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 Planning Guideline 3 states that "[P]lans shouM provide for the' appropriate type, location andPhasing of pubic facilities and services sufficient to support housing development in areas presently developed or undergoing development or redevelopment." OAR 660--008-0010 requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated on the COmprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density range as determined in the housing needs projection." Goal 10 defines buildable lands as "...lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available and necessary for residential use." 660-008-0005(13), in part, defines land that is "suitable and available" as land "for which public facilities are planned or to which public facilities can be made available." Similar to Goal 9, adequate public facilities are necessary to accomplish the objectives of this goal and applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660, Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to provide the comprehensive planning framework to allow for the improVements to the regional Staff Report and Findings Page 6 7-6 wastewater system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield · metropolitan area. Goal 11 -Public Facilities and Services- To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve aS a framework for urban and rural development. OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal 11. OAR 660-011-0030(1) requires that the public facility plan identify the general loCation of public facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to'Public Facilities and Services Plan Map 2a in Finding 6 and Policy G.3 in the Proposed amendments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the modification of the introductory narrative under "Planned Wastewater System Improvements (Page 28)," the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (Page 28), and the modification of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a, also address this requirement. OAR 660-011-0035(1) requires that the public facility plan include a rough cost estimate for seWer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In conformity with this requirement, it is proposed that the PFSP be amended by the insertion of Table 16a (Inserted following Page 101), which addresses rough cost ' estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements. The rough cost estimates in Table 16a are based on costs set forth in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and Project list. This v 2004 Plan was the result of an exhaustive study that examined alternatives ranging from $144M to $233M (See Attachment 3). The preferred alternative, found in Table 16a, was selected because, among other reasons, it provides the least expensive means to c°mply with federal requirements and maximizes MWMC's existing investments. OAR 660-011-0045(3) provides that modifications to projects listed within a public facility plan may be made without amendment to the public facility plan. This application proposes to add a new chapter to the PFSP regarding amendments to that plan.-Proposed Chapter VI incorporates the standards for amending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3) and adopts an amendment process. Goal 12 - Transportation This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. Goal 14 - Urbanization - To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. Staff Report and Findings Page 7 7-7 This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments, as they do not affect the existing urban growth boundary. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.. Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal 18 Beaches and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources These goals do not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area. (b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsisten~ The proposed changes to the Metro Plan are essentially of a "housekeeping" nature. They essentially recognize the role of wastewater service provision within the urban growth boundary by the addition or modification of applicable findings and add or modify policy language to clarify the relationship between the Metro Plan and the PFSP in regard.to capital improvement plans and the commitment to comply with regulatory requirements. The proposed changes, as presented, will not create internal inconsistencies within the Metro Plan. The proposed changes alsoamend the PFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's planned improvement projects for its wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estimates for those improvements, update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to the wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly implement the plan modification standards contained in OAR 660-011-0045(3). The proposed changes to the PFSP do not creme any inconsistencies within the PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro Plan. · Staff Report and Findings Page 8 7-8 SPRINGFIELD AGENDA The Joint Elected Officials of Spring:field, Eugene and Lane County SUBJECT OF THE MEETING: Proposed amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element and Chapter V Glossary; and amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan. WHERE: Springfield City Hall, Library Meeting Room 225 Fifth Street, Springfield, OR 97477 TIME AND DATE: 6:00 p.m. Work Session - 7:00 p.m. Public Heating - June 22, 2004 (Dinner for the elected officials will be available at 5:30) Work Session - 6:00 p.m. Introduction of the Elected Officials Mayor James Torrey Mayor Sid Leiken Board Chair Bobby Green Bonny Bettman Tammy Fitch Bill Dwyer George Poling Anne Ballew Don Hampton David Kelly Christine Lundberg Anna Morrison Scott Meisner Dave Ralston Pete Sorenson Nancy Nathanson John Woodrow Gary Pap6 Jennifer Solomon Betty Taylor Discussion of proposed amendments to the Public Facilities Element and Glossary of the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) and proposed amendments to the Eugene- Springfield Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP). The PFSP is a functional Regular Session - 7:00 p.m. 1) Recognition of ACTSO Medal Winners from Lane County Schools (Bobby Green, Chair, Lane County Board of Commissioners) 2) Public Hearing - 7:15 p.m. Proposed amendments to Chapter III, Section G. Public Facilities Element and Chapter V Glossary of the Metro Plan, and amending the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a functional plan of the Metro Plan, to identify each of the regional wastewater treatment facilities and collections systems on appropriate maps and tables in the PFSP; define wastewater services as collection and treatment in the Metro Plan and PFSP; add a new policy in the Metro Plan that obligates the area's conveyance and treatment systems to accommodate projected growth with the UGB and achieve compliance with all regulatory standards; add new text in the PFSP regarding the Wastewater System Condition Assessment; and add a new amendment process to the PFSP. Order of Proceedings: The Mayors and Commission Chair will make required announcements, including reading by title only ordinances which, if approved, would adopt the proposed amendments. Each jurisdiction will open the public heating. The staff will present the proposal and include a summary of the proceedings to date. Public testimony in support of the proposals, in opposition to the proposals and neutral to the proposals, will be accepted. The public hearing will be closed. The elected officials may, at their discretion, discuss the proposals, the evidence and testimony, and may have questions for staff. Also at the discretion of the jurisdictions an extension of the record for additional written testimony may be granted. Prior to adjournment, each jurisdiction will announce the date when they will deliberate this matter and vote on these proposals. The meeting will be adjourned by each jurisdiction. The meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing-impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for this service, call 726-3700.