HomeMy WebLinkAboutMWMC September Agenda Packet
THE FULL PACKET IS POSTED ON THE WEBSITE
www.mwmcpartners.org
MWMC MEETING AGENDA
Friday, September 10th, 2021 7:30 AM – 9:30 AM (PDT)
Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic and Oregon Executive Order 20-16, the MWMC Meeting will be held
remotely via computer or phone.
To join the meeting by phone dial: 877 853 5247; Access Code: 844 0964 2820; Passcode: 047757
7:30 – 7:35 I. ROLL CALL
7:35 – 7:40 II. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 7/9/21 Minutes
Action Requested: By motion, approve the Consent Calendar
7:40 – 7:45 III. PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment can be submitted by email to
jbrennan@springfield-or.gov or by phone 541-726-3694 by 5 PM September 9th, 2021
or made at the meeting. All public comments need to include your full name, address, if
you are representing yourself or an organization (name of organization), and topic.
7:45 – 8:05 IV. FY2021-22 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET #1…………………..….…………Valerie Warner
Action Requested: Approve, by motion, Resolution 21-09
8:05 – 8:35 V. FY19-20 GHG EMMISSIONS INVENTORY………………….…………James McClendon
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
8:35 – 9:10 VI. PLANNING PROJECT UPDATES…………………….…………………………Todd Miller
Action Requested: Informational and Discussion
9:10 – 9:30 VII. BUSINESS FROM COMMISSION, GENERAL MANAGER, & WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
9:30 VIII. ADJOURNMENT
MWMC MEETING MINUTES
Friday, July 9, 2021 at 7:30 a.m.
The MWMC Meeting was held remotely via computer, phone, and in-person.
Meeting was video recorded.
Commissioner Yeh opened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. Roll call was taken by Josi Brennan.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present Remotely: Pat Farr, Bill Inge, Walt Meyer, Jennifer Yeh
Commissioner Present In-Person: Doug Keeler
Commissioners Absent: Joe Pishioneri, Peter Ruffier
Staff Present Remotely: Meg Allocco, Katherine Bishop, Dave Breitenstein, Mark Van Eeckhout, Carrie
Holmes, Barry Mays, Troy McAllister, James McClendon, Mike McGillivray, April Miller, Todd Miller, Brooke
Mossefin, Bryan Robinson, Loralyn Spiro, Matt Stouder, Valerie Warner, and Greg Watkins
Staff Present In-Person: Lou Allocco, Josi Brennan, Matt Stouder
Legal Counsel Present Remotely: K.C. Huffman (Thorp, Purdy, Jewett, Urness, & Wilkinson, PC)
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. MWMC 6/11/21 Minutes
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER FARR WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0, WITH
COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER EXCUSED
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
ADMINISTRATIVE & OPERATIONS BUILDING UPGRADES P80104 UPDATE
Mark Van Eeckhout, Civil Engineer, provided an update on the Administrative/Operation Building
(P80104) upgrades and requested the approval of Resolution 21-05. This Resolution pertains to a
contract with Jacobs Engineering for the beginning phases of the project.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 2 of 14
The Operations Building was originally constructed in the early 1980s. In 2017 staff constructed plans to
expand, renovate, and design the remodel to withstand an earthquake, but not necessarily be an
essential facility. The bids came in considerably above the engineers estimate, and the Administrative
Operations Building portion of that project was bid as a deductive alternate. With the two bids above
the engineers estimates, a decision was made, and direction was given by the Commission to deduct the
Administrative & Operations Building work and defer it to a later time. Carollo Engineers carried out a
resiliency plan and found the administrative and operations portion of the facility needed to be an
essential facility. The building needed to be structurally and mechanically sound after an earthquake, so
delaying that portion of the work turned out to be a good thing.
A Request for Proposal was put out for consultants to start the process in reviewing the Carollo study,
past work done by MWA Architects, and work with plant staff to create three alternatives. After these
alternatives are decided on, staff will come back to the Commission for approval to move into design
early next winter. The project scope is to improve, update, harden and replace potentially the
Administrative and Operations Building.
Mr. Van Eeckhout requested the approval to move forward with the planning through a 30% design
phase for Jacobs Engineering. As a result of the request for proposal (RFP) staff obtained proposals from
MWA Architects, Pivot Architecture and Jacobs Engineering. Jacobs Engineering won as the proposer
and was given a Notice of Intent to Award. Once approved by the Commission they will move forward
through the 30% design. After three alternatives are selected, staff will present to the Commission a
recommendation to move forward with one of the three options, along with choices to move into the
design phase. Once factors are decided on, staff will amend the contract and perform and evaluate on
whether or not to harden the building in place, move the operations off site for a year and a half or take
the building down rebuild it.
Schedule
Release of RFP - March 2021
Deadline for submission of Proposals - April 2021
Evaluation and scoring of Proposals - May 2021
Contract Negotiation (Professional Services) - May-June 2021
Commission Approval of MWMC Consultant Contract - July 2021
Planning Schedule
Assume 6 months & update the Commission - Estimate: Jul. 2021 to Feb. 2022
Design Schedule
Assume 10 -12 months - Estimate: Feb. 2022 to Dec. 2022
Bidding & Construction Schedule
Assume 16 months - Estimate: Jan. 2023 to Apr. 2024
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 21-06. THE MOTION
WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER INGE. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0,
WITH COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER EXCUSED
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 3 of 14
BIOCYCLE FARM MU3 HARVEST CONTRACTING
Todd Miller, Environmental Services Supervisor, updated the Commission on the MU3 harvest. Under the
several layers of land use, rules, regulations, and definitions of what agricultural use is, the information
firmly indicates staff have up until year 12 to harvest within that agricultural timeframe. Others who
grow poplar for longer periods are not falling under those agricultural land use restrictions. The driving
needs for harvest this year is rooted in the 12-year agricultural rotation age for the poplar, that was
planted 12 years ago.
Staff navigated around issues of receiving no bids after the invitation to bid was released and economic
barriers from potential logging operations. The wood product industry is at a high demand and loggers
are busy. With an overall labor shortage, it is hard to fill those gaps and bring in more people to do the
work. The wildfire last year, heavy logging from the local timber base as well as the national lumber
demand has put large demand on mills and other logging operations. These situations make bidding
very competitive for projects such as the poplar project. The value of poplar wood chips from the wood
chip glut is also particularly low. All these factors were a deterrent for the original bidding.
Moving into the emergency procurement under procurement rules, staff have the authority to directly
negotiate contracts under a declared emergency, in that the poplar needs to be harvested by year 12
and staff received no bids. The no bid condition is part of the reasonable and appropriate competition
clause of the rules, which has been met. Staff is negotiating directly with CTS Incorporated and Lane
Forest Products to harvest this year, and now have a harvest strategy. Both companies had slightly
different approaches on costing, yet their overall costs and proposed markets for pulp logs were similar.
Both companies did express potential constraints and concerns about obtaining equipment and labor to
do the work. Staff formulated a strategy to split the job into the North and South Unit, using both
contractors. This will provide a number of assets and certainty the job will get done this year. If one of
the contractors has a disruption to their crew or equipment and the other does not, the harvesting will
continue. This particular situation (harvest and market disruptions) has been experienced in the past and
impacts harvest even under better economic conditions. The two mills also provide an opportunity for
each contractor to sell to either identified market.
Lane Forest Products is best suited to complete the final cleanup of grinding slash material and is
responsible for the whole site. CTS will clean up their operation, leave the slash piles, and then Lane
Forest Products will take that material and grind it for MWMC’s use. Northwest Youth Corps would prune
the trees that regrow directly from the stumps. Developing pilot projects to get the boards milled and
distributed to local building contractors along with the production of biochar, creates valuable
partnerships for future management and marketing. There are a few items to consider regarding the
cost being requested. 100 green tons per acre (GT/acre) is an estimated maximum based on other poplar
yields and yields harvested in the past. The most productive trees and growth produced were about 100
green tons per acre, and on the low end 50 green tons per acre. Those numbers impact the overall cost,
and projecting a high yield ensures staff has enough cost coverage in the contract, allowing for
reasonable expectations for the quantity of material sold. Staff expects the final average yield to be
around 73 tons per acre, with commensurate billings based on the final yield.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 4 of 14
Requested contract authorizations based on the maximum acreage of the North and South unit:
Table 1: Contract Basis with CTS, Inc. for MU3-North Harvest
Contract Item Unit Basis Rate Max. Units Not-to-Exceed Cost
Tree felling/processing acre 2,100$ 60 126,000$
Log loading/trucking green ton 24$ 100/acre 144,000$
270,000$
Pulp log sales (low yield)green ton 26$ 2,750 71,500$
Pulp log sales (hugh yield)green ton 26$ 6,000 156,000$
Total Contract Not-to-Exceed Cost
Potential market sales
Table 2: Contract Basis with Lane Forest Products for MU3-South Harvest
Contract Item Unit Basis Rate Max. Units Not-to-Exceed Cost
Tree felling/processing acre 2,500$ 57 142,500$
Log loading/trucking green ton 34$ 100/acre 193,800$
Slash piling/cleanup hour 160$ 450 72,000$
Slash grinding hour 600$ 140 84,000$
Equipment mobilizations hour 145$ 16 2,320$
494,620$
Pulp log sales (low yield)green ton 32$ 2,600 83,200$
Pulp log sales (hugh yield)green ton 32$ 5,700 182,400$
Total Contract Not-to-Exceed Cost
Potential market sales
Mr. Miller put together an analysis on historical harvest costs and adjusted the costs based on the
inflation rates from 2014 - 2017. Although not exact because the contracts and conditions were different,
the ballpark of 2021 harvest costs are on par with costs from the previous harvests. Stump management
was a significant part of the cost over the years, but this harvest will not include stump management.
Staff plans to leave the stumps in place and not spray them with herbicides, allowing the stumps to
grow out. This strategy will save on costs overall. In terms of poplar yield, growing out to year 12
provides more volume and potentially higher revenues. Year 12 is projected to experience the best
yields, but the pulp markets are about 40% to 50% of the value of past markets from the economic
situation.
The marketing strategy with the board mill contract includes many key players. MIG provided assistance
as a communications consultant, updated the website, produced infographics, and helped with the
outreach in the past years produce. MIG aided the production of the poplar harvest video, to further
promote the product. Urban Lumber presented a quote to produce boards for the project. BRING
Recycling is interested in reselling the poplar boards, and in turn, will directly connect with local builders,
contractors, woodworkers, and designers to help promote the material. This will provide outreach and
demonstration collateral for staff to build future markets. There is potential to sell wood to Collins Wood
Products located in Portland, OR. In the past, Collins sold poplar wood grown in Boardman, OR and are
currently looking for new sources of poplar. 9Wood has an ample supply of poplar from previous Collins
harvests, and will not need any off of this harvest, yet it could be a future arrangement.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 5 of 14
Urban Lumber responded to the quote and became a sole qualified bidder. Other mills expressed
interest but were not qualified for that volume or could not produce the drying and other specifications.
Boards produced are approximately 1x6, and the planks are live edge planks. BRING has shown interest
in purchasing these planks. A mill in Springfield might cut planks for the project, and pending whether a
good relationship develops, staff will carry out a small contract with them. The current total cost to
produce up to 60 MBF board feet is $99,000 and 40 MBF was the target staff identified for a decent pilot
with BRING Recycling. If the product is sold to Collins, another full truckload would be about 20 MBF.
Concerning the biochar pilot, staff has been networking and consulting with regional partners for a
number of years. Biochar is basically charcoal and has been gaining interest. The goal is finding a better
value in the hog fuel material, along with other slash coming off the harvest operations. Modern
research reveals properly produced biochar has soil benefits in terms of adding soil carbon, microbial
productivity, soil nutrient retention, and the further breakdown and capture of pollutants. Biochar takes
carbon and sequesters it in the ground for hundreds if not thousands of years. This is beneficial because
it reduces pollutants, enriches soil and acts as a substitute for lime. Lime controls the pH and reduces soil
acidity but is an extensive cost for the project. The MWMC would like to partner with Long Tom
Watershed Council that owns several kilns, and the Northwest Youth Corps to manage the burns to
produce an estimated 100 cubic yards of biochar. The amount is significant enough to share with
partners, and pilot the biochar for a cost of $30,000.
The MWMC Capital Improvement Program adopted budget includes a fiscal year FY21-22 budget of
$600,000 and an FY22-23 budget of $60,000 for Poplar Harvest Management services. An additional
unspent FY20-21 budget from postponed harvest activities of approximately $130,000 is planned to be
added to the FY21-22 budget via Supplemental Budget 1. The total unspent budget for Poplar Harvest
Management Services without additional budget amendments is $790,000.
The maximum value of harvest contracts, with a customary 15% amendment authority for additional
work may be deemed essential for project delivery, equaling $879,313. The actual costs are projected to
be significantly lower, and staff anticipates total contract cost around $650,000. The minimum projected
market value of poplar from harvest sales is $154,700, the maximum value is projected to be $338,400.
Therefore, the projected net harvest costs to the MWMC are $425,000. The overall CIP is adequately
funded to support the full obligations of the contracts. Accounting for up to $130,000 in pilot board and
biochar production costs, staff projects the total 2021 harvest and marketing cost just over $700,000.
That brings the number within the projected $790,000. Remaining project work to complete the MU3
harvest cycle includes replanting. To save costs on stump management and replanting, staff arranged to
keep stumps in place after MU3 harvest and regrow trees from the stumps. This practice was adopted by
other poplar growers and requires labor to prune back regrowth to a single lead stem. However, it
avoids costs of cutting procurement, planting, and establishment of new trees. Staff is coordinating with
the Northwest Youth Corps to provide the tree pruning services to re-establish MU3 in 2022. Therefore,
staff projects the entire harvest and replanting of MU3 will be completed within the adopted CIP budget
via reapportionment of FY 20-21, 21-22, and 22-23 budgets without need for additional funding.
Mr. Miller requested the approval of Resolution 21-07 and 21-08.
Resolution 21-07 to enter into contracts with Lane Forest Products and CTS, Inc. under Emergency
Procurement authority for a combined not-to-exceed value of $764,620 with a 15% amendment
authority of $114,693 for a total potential value of $879,313.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 6 of 14
Resolution 21-08 to enter into contract with Urban Lumber under Intermediate Procurement
authority for a not-to-exceed value of $99,000 with a 15% amendment authority of $14,850 for a
total potential value of $113,850.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler appreciated the hard work in pulling something together with no
bids. Regarding the char pilot, is there any air permitting required for that operation? Mr. Miller said yes
there is, it could be a complexity. Bryan Robinson is checking on that. The MWMC has partners at ODF
and other local agencies that have tried to do biochar. We are determining if biochar will fit under a
smaller temporary burn operation and not a large, permitted operation.
Commissioner Keeler asked about the reestablishment of trees from existing stumps that has been
previously discussed. What is the thinking on why we did not pursue that path in the past, and now we
do? Mr. Miller said after evaluating how the City of Woodburn managed their stump regrowth (coppice)
staff did not go that route in the beginning. Woodburn harvests around 100 acres of poplar trees and
found the coppice growth was very labor intensive. They felt staff time was better spent pulling the
stamps and replanting them to start from a clean slate. The decision to proceed now is based on the
expense to either grind, pull, or treat stumps. The MWMC has developed a great relationship with
Northwest Youth Corps that has reduced the overall cost. When stumps are left in place it is difficult to
work around them, especially when tilling up the soil and maintaining weed control. If the stumps are
left in place to grow up, we are not trying to establish a new cutting. The stumps will have elevation on
the surrounding weeds that allows Youth Corps to maintain weed control effectively without harming
the cutting. For MU1, we pulled the stumps or ground them in place, MU2 we cut and treated with
herbicide, and MU3 we plan to leave in place. These practices created a portfolio to examine and find the
best solution.
Commissioner Meyer inquired about the projected harvest sales. Is there money in that sales contract
related to selling of the boards that we are milling? Mr. Miller said no, the sales of the boards was not
accounted for. If we sell to Collins, a truck load would net the project about $10,000. There is not an
agreement worked out with BRING yet, but we have had promising conversations and good faith
promises to work with each other.
Commissioner Inge asked why are you projecting the harvest cost to be so low? Is this from not
removing the stumps or the herbicide, or is there some other factor? Mr. Miller said we are looking at a
projected harvest cost of $650,000, with a total contract value of just under a million dollars, is that your
question? Commissioner Inge said yes, the harvest cost contract in the presentation is $879,000. Mr.
Miller explained the total harvest contract includes a 15% amendment authority that staff is not
expecting to have. When projecting the actual costs, 70 GT/acre was used as opposed to 100 GT/acre
which impacts log loading and the final trucking cost. To ensure we are covered in the contract, staff
established the contract authority saying if the MU3 yields 100 GT/acre we are budgeted for it. Staff is
expecting around 70 GT/acre, reducing the projected cost to 70% of that number.
Commissioner Inge asked if the confidence level in that predicted cost is high or a little bit on the razor's
edge? Mr. Miller said he has fairly high confidence. The variables to consider are what the yield will be,
how many acres have productive trees, the trees too small in diameter might not be worthy of pulp logs,
and the amount moisture is important. Commissioner Inge said in the event you are off by 15%, we are
still at $810,000 versus $790,000 in the budget and within $20,000 of the adjusted budgeted amount.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 7 of 14
Mr. Miller said that is correct and raises a good point. Based on these projections we do not know how
things will settle out, and staff can return to the Commission for a budget transfer if we need more
authority to finish out the coppicing. Within the reserve is an estimated $125,000 for coppicing. We are
confident in handling all of the harvest costs but might need more in 2022 if overall net harvest costs
end up being more than expected.
Commissioner Inge asked are you leaving the stump in place to regrow, as opposed to planting a little
sprig in the ground? Mr. Miller said that is correct. Staff would be growing back exactly the same tree
varietals we have at MU3 right now. The MU1 project provided certain tree varietals that did not do well.
When MU3 came around, staff experimented with varietals that did well overall, so we are regrowing
those.
Commissioner Yeh thanked Mr. Miller for being creative and finding a solution. The partnership
opportunity is exciting because it is a great opportunity for more folks in our community to learn about
what we are doing through them.
Commissioner Meyer said with the cost of harvesting based upon the dollars per acre, what is the basis
for payment and how will you decide how many acres are harvested? Mr. Miller said he expects it will be
the full acres unless there is clearly an area we cannot harvest, but that survey has not been completed
yet. As of now it is 60 acres to the north and 57 acres to the south. There is cleanup that needs to take
place that will be rolled into the hours of slash cleanup.
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 21-07, TO ENTER INTO
A CONTRACT WITH LANE FOREST PRODUCTS AND CTS UNDER THE EMERGENCY
PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR A TOTAL VALUE OF $879,313.00. THE MOTION WAS
SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0, WITH
COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER EXCUSED
MOTION: IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 21-08, TO ENTER INTO
A CONTRACT WITH URBAN LUMBER UNDER THE INTERMEDIATE PROCUREMENT
AUTHORITY, NOT TO EXCEED THE VALUE OF $113,850.00. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED
BY COMMISSIONER KEELER. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5/0, WITH
COMMISSIONER PISHIONERI AND COMMISSIONER RUFFIER EXCUSED
DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION: Commissioner Farr said there is a great deal of curiosity about the Biocycle
Farm. It would be valuable to have a few sentences illustrating the actual value of the overall benefit of
the farm, and at some point, organize a way to get the word out to the public.
Commissioner Inge inquired on how Commissioner Meyer did both these resolutions, and said the
potential value is $879,000 as opposed to $764,620 and $99,000 with the 15% amendment. Does that
matter? Mr. Millington said the resolution itself is for the full authority requested, which is based upon
that maximum amount, 100 versus the 70 units, whatever the units were. The resolution itself is for the
maximum amount.
Mr. Stouder informed the Commission staff would look into marketing and innovative ideas for the
Biocycle Farm. There used to be a sign off Highway 99, but MWMC was not allowed to keep it up due to
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 8 of 14
ODOT rules and had to take it down. Staff can reexplore that avenue, but at the time there were
significant permitting requirements. Commissioner Keeler acknowledged Commissioner Inge on being
a champion in this idea for many years, as it is a worthwhile thing to promote. Commissioner Inge said
there has to be a way to get more information out to the public. Harvesting the products, in this process,
in these very creative ways of handling wastewater, and not being able to get that message out is a
travesty. Commissioner Farr said there are displays at the airport that a lot of people see. Displaying a
sign there is a good idea, perhaps a display made out of the poplar wood. Commissioner Inge suggested
using a billboard along highway 99 to advertise the Poplar Farm. Although it would cost money, it is
money well spent. Commissioner Keeler suggested to put this topic on the follow-up list. Mr. Stouder
said promoting the poplar is a good idea. When it comes to biosolid applications, we need to be careful
in how we raise awareness to the actual biosolids applications, versus the sustainability of the poplar and
its benefits. Mr. Miller said the communication packet would share the outreach and marketing strategy
MIG outlined for us, with the caveat it is on a very low budget. Mr. Stouder said the communications
team is working on promotional videos, marketing items, and strategies on this issue to get the public
out on tours.
CREDIT PROGRAM MANAGER CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Todd Miller discussed the Credit Program Manager Contract and Freshwater Trust, which deals with
Riparian Shade Credits in the water quality trade credit production. MWMC has existing authority that
goes into amendment with the Freshwater Trust and intended to update the Commission on what is
being proposed to gather input and direction.
The Credit Program Manager Contract started in 2019 and the Freshwater Trust was identified and
selected to be MWMC’s credit program manager. This credit program is set to work through the
emerging partnership with Pure Water Partners, and for implementation of the credit development
program for permit compliance. As a collaborating team, the Freshwater Trust and MWMC is part of Pure
Water Partners. Freshwater Trust overseas the development of shade projects with funding from MWMC,
and Pure Water Partners is part of that shade project implementation. As a result, the Pure Water
Partners with the Freshwater Trust oversight results in documentation of those trading credits, and the
Freshwater Trust ensures those are banked in MWMC’s name.
Two phases were authorized with two separate resolutions. Phase one pertained to Pure Water Partners
and the Water Quality Trading Credit Plan coordination. Before staff launched the developing projects,
they researched how the money would be spent, who would be doing what, if there are
reimbursements, what is the most efficient way to complete the work, and would the credits produced
under Pure Water Partners be valid for the permit. That trading plan is included in the draft but has not
been presented to DEQ yet, because the document is under consultation. Phase two of the contract is
for the groundwork.
Scaling of the program is important because it is essential for Freshwater Trust to know how many
kilocalories need to be generated, what the landscape capacity is, what dates to look at for measuring,
and how that impacts the cost for supply and demand. The amount of sites available and how many
landowners will be recruited are also factors. Under the MWMC permit, staff has not heard from DEQ yet
on how they intend to calculate what the thermal load will be. In the next five-year permit, staff will
consider pre TMDL conditions and projections based on historical conditions to be around 400 million
kilocalories per day in late October. The amount of thermal load impacted is climate and seasonal
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 9 of 14
dependent and depends on the conditions. Shading is variable in scale and based on sun angles,
duration of the day, direction of shade being cast, and how wide a river is. The sun duration is longer in
the months of April and May and moves directly overhead on the solstice in June.
Staff aimed to meet half the projected peak shade or thermal load mitigation value of 400 million
kilocalories per day, with the credit production of 200 million kilocalories per day. The MWMC doubled
the amount of shade production, which ended up at 400 million kilocalories of actual shade on the
ground. As a safety factor, 10% was added for sites that were not recruited to ensure compliance was
met. The MWMC maintains pilot projects that preceded the current pilot projects under this contract.
Three sponsorship pilot projects were previously implemented and ended up on the Mill Race and Cedar
Creek. Those projects are implemented and ongoing for a 20-year life cycle with the Freshwater Trust
contract for a total investment of $650,000.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer said when the projected thermal load mitigation need is 400 million
kilocalories, that is the amount of kilocalories we will need to have certified. It is important to talk in
context of that number so when anybody does a project for us to provide shading, the certified amount
reflects the two to one ratio. When we need 400 million kilocalories of mitigation, we need to buy 400
million kilo calories of mitigation. The shading associated with that is going to be twice as much, but
when the certification is completed it will recognize that trading ratio. We need to buy a certification for
400 million kilocalories. In terms of presentation, that trading ratio should be behind the scenes because
we need to buy 400 million kilocalories of offsets. The same things pertain to the next slide as there may
be 20 million kilocalories of calculated shade, but the actual credit available from that is half or 10 million
kilocalories. This makes it easier for us in the long term, to talk in terms of actual mitigation needed and
actual certified credits received. Has Willamette Partners completed that certification for the projects we
purchased on the two pilots? Mr. Miller said yes, the sponsorship pilots is accredited. Commissioner
Meyer asked if our name shows up on that registry. Mr. Miller said yes it does. Commissioner Meyer
asked if there is any reason to believe DEQ, when issuing the next permit, would not allow us to show
those on our permit as offsets? Mr. Miller said there is no reason to believe DEQ would not, based on
conversations with DEQ staff. The MWMC is aware of potential challenges, and it is not 100% certain yet.
Commissioner Meyer said that is true, but the Northwest Environmental Advocates challenged
Medford’s credits when they submitted their plan, but ultimately DEQ went ahead with what was
certified in the Willamette Partnership certification. Mr. Miller said we certainly hope for that, and
thanked Commission Meyer for bringing that up. The accreditation we get from the Willamette
Partnership is based on shade production, and the credit value we get is translated based on our water
quality training plan agreement with DEQ. The MWMC does not have an exact number of how those
credits translate yet. Two to one is a very fair and expected ratio, however, we are going to be seeking a
better ratio with the DEQ, which is part of the Water Quality Trading Permit negotiation. DEQ has
verbally shown support in providing better ratios for projects that give complimentary environmental
benefits, and most projects expected to be put in the Pure Water Partners zone will be complementing
environmental restoration projects. Shooting for roughly half of the projected mitigation need, was a
decision made by staff to be conservative in the amount of shade credits we invested in. It is unknown
what DEQ will prescribe in our permit, what is required in the compliance scheduled, and how recycled
water and other complimentary thermal load mitigation options may be beneficial.
Commissioner Meyer asked if the calculation of the required thermal load mitigation is based upon
actual flows or design flows? Mr. Miller said it is based on actual river flows over the last 10 years.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 10 of 14
Commissioner Meyer asked if it includes any offsets related to the recycled water. Mr. Miller said no, it
does not.
Mr. Miller returned to his presentation and explained the Pure Water Partners Pilot. Last year the MWMC
authorized Freshwater Trust to start implementing projects in the McKenzie and Pure Water Partners
area, while not launching the full program. MWMC provided money for their startup to get needed
information out of piloting. This collaboration turned out to be successful and the team found sites that
were highly productive and efficient. Freshwater Trust planted three acres and expected it to consume
all funds for the ground prep, lease payments, lease with the landowner, and establishment of the trees.
Freshwater Trust has spent around $150,000 on this project so far, producing about 30 million
kilocalories of shade uplift. This translates to around 15 million kilocalories per day, per credit, on a two
to one ratio.
In regard to the second Pilot Project, Freshwater Trust found two sites that are ready to move forward
with MWMC. This project did have more area to plant but was curtailed to an acre with two additional
acres of land to plant. It was recommended to proceed and amend the contracts, providing additional
funding available under the current authority. This would extend the two acres and get projects on the
ground this fall, and ready for accreditation next spring. It is predicted all pilot project seed money will
run out in the Spring of 2022. Staff expects to launch the full credit program with a new permit and
compliance schedule firmly in place by this fall and be able to fully fund the projects then. Pilot Site #2 is
located at White Water Ranch on the McKenzie River and was heavily impacted by the Holiday Farm Fire.
Many standing trees are at risk of falling over immediately or in the near term. This gave the Freshwater
Trust an opportunity to start replanting aggressively with natives before invasive species started to take
over. Waiting another year, the land would have been overgrown with weeds. There was no land
clearing permit process with Lane County, which saved time and costs.
The contract status for Resolution 19-03 is for authorization of phase one work, and Resolution 20-03 is
for the beginning of phase two on groundwork. Under those existing authorities, staff does not need
additional approvals from the Commission. The MWMC has remaining unspent authority of
approximately $32,000 for phase one work and $136,000 available for Task 2A. Freshwater Trust, under
both of those existing authorities can provide additional water quality trading plan support for staff.
Even though Freshwater Trust has provided the MWMC with a draft Water Quality Trading Plan, it has
not been fully vetted out with DEQ for final approval. Staff expects to complete this when the permit is
finalized in the fall. The Freshwater Trust has completed multiple analyses on shade-credit production
potential, site recruitment potential, and cost projections for the MWMC’s program. They also scoped
out that 200 Mkcal/day credit cost about $9 million.
Recommendation
Amend Phase 1 scope and budget for up to $32,022.67 for assistance and support on the MWMC’s
final Water Quality Trading Plan.
Amend Phase 2 scope and budget for up to $135,898.46 to expand Pure Water Partners pilot project
site #2 by up to 2 acres.
Defer program to rescale/recost an effort (reduced shad credit production program cost) until final
permit limits and compliance schedule are known.
Defer scoping/costing of in-stream restoration credit project potential as part of compliance
schedule tasks during full Phase 2 implementation.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 11 of 14
Mr. Miller informed the Commissioners that staff is moving forward with these plans but wanted them to
have an opportunity to share input and direction.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Meyer asked if the $9 million is a loaded cost, that includes maintenance
and lease costs? Mr. Miller said yes, it is the full 20-year cost of the program and actually 20 plus years.
Commissioner Meyer said that is a good deal compared to the Recycled Water Project cost. Mr. Miller
said it is more expensive than what we were looking at a few years ago, but still looking good compared
to recycle water. It is projected once we get recycled water up and running, the cost of expanding that
program might become competitive with riparian shade. Staff is proposing with DEQ our compliance
schedule and the ability to further analyze and evaluate before we embark on a particular strategy
beyond year 5.
NPDES PERMIT UPDATE
Bryan Robinson, Environmental Management Analyst, updated the Commission on the permit
development schedule, completed milestones, plan updates, expected completion timelines, pending
issues and final steps.
The DEQ permit development schedule previously shared with the Commission has not changed,
however, it could change in the future. Communications began in April with the MWMC team leads
Michelle Miranda and Todd Miller and assigned DEQ permit writers of Jeff Navarro and Geoff Rabinowitz.
In May, the initial kickoff meeting was held and preceded by a series of emails clarifying permitting
topics of permit prep timelines, permit renewal application update, RPA reviews, temperature
compliance schedules, pretreatment ordinances, local limits, recycled water, updated plan needs, and
sampling data submittals. In June, discussions took place between DEQ and MWMC that included the
DEQ draft RPAs for ammonia, chlorine, and pH and toxics. Staff used outside consultant assistance to
review the DEQ drafts that positioned MWMC for negotiations to help understand agency reasoning in
data use and analysis. This information potentially could affect the permit requirements.
Critical communications between DEQ and MWMC have taken place for several months and will
continue. On July 19th, the MWMC expects to have an applicant draft review for the required two-week,
review period. This review is simultaneous with EPA draft review and could potentially change the
permit date. On June 24th, the MWMC requested DEQ give the MWMC a three-week applicant review,
which is allowed under the OAR. This makes the MWMC applicant draft review tentatively from July 19th
through August 6th. Since this is the first renewal in 20 years, staff wanted adequate time for review and
correspondence between team members, leadership, technical experts, and legal counsel. Todd Miller
clarified staff is waiting to confirm DEQ is still on that schedule. DEQ implied July 19th would be the
earliest, and sometime that week the MWMC would probably see the applicant review. Mr. Robinson
stated the schedule does not include a public hearing. If a public hearing is made, a month could be
added to the timeline.
Once staff identified MWMC was on the permit issuance plan for the fourth quarter of 2021, systematic
steps were made to dissect the permit template schedule requirements and associated internal
management directives. The follow up to DEQ’s request for gap analysis of toxics monitoring data, and
the sharing of their RPA results gave staff good indicators, but there are still conversations to be had.
Consultant assistance was requested under the new Facilities Planning Engineering Services contract,
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 12 of 14
because time to adequately investigate the DEQ draft RPA’s and complete RPA analysis for MWMC was
not realistic. The RPA parameters investigated are ammonia, cyanide, zinc, and four pesticides. The DEQ
permit requirements are still being determined.
On June 30th, updated versions of the Biosolids Management Plan and Class D Recycled Water Plan were
submitted to DEQ. The Emergency Response Management Plan and Ground Water Management Plan is
due within six months after the permit is issued, using consultant assistance as needed. Mercury
Minimization Plan development is in progress, and DEQ is formalizing a template to help staff meet the
requirement. Staff has two full years to complete the Mercury Minimization Plan.
Pending issues prior to applicant review draft
Permit timeline confirmation
Applicants review period extension
RPA data verification
Final ammonia/toxics and temperature
RPA’s
Temperature compliance schedule
Final Steps
Continued MWMC team lead communication
with DEQ
Scheduling of draft applicant review
Local Limits/Model Ordinance adoption after
permit re-issuance
Completion of required plans and plan updates
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Keeler asked if there are any other major NPDES permits issued recently by
DEQ? If so, what is the reaction as part of the public involvement for media, members of the public, and
activist groups? Is the communications group positioning itself to respond to any reaction we might get
around September? Mr. Robinson said there are a few unknowns with that. Staff expects if there is input
from the public, our communications team would be made aware immediately. Mr. Miller said so far,
today, we are not aware of any kind of outside scrutiny but are cautious of a few elements. The Recycled
Water Use Plan for our existing Class D Program and the updated Biosolids Management Plan, are both
for practices we currently have in place. These plans are not new, only updates. Both are due for public
review and renewal, which is why DEQ wants them now to approve and get out with the permit. For
certain members of the public, this might seem new or something that might invite comment,
particularly ones more recently alerted to biosolids. The positioning of MWMC to be a proactive
protector of the Willamette River and taking compliance environmental stewardship beyond that,
compliments anything we might have in terms of interfacing with the public. Mr. Stouder added the
DEQ recently put the City of Gresham’s permit out for public comment and MWMC staff is tracking that.
Commissioner Keeler said it sounds like we might be early in the queue of this push by DEQ to begin
reissuing permits, is that true? Mr. Miller said we are not at the cutting edge. There has been a number
of permits rolling out for the past year now, including large permits. We are the second or third
significant Willamette Valley discharger, which might add some clout to the MWMC permit to get
scrutiny. Staff is not aware of any specific scrutiny in the permit but is aware of third-party organizations
that have an open channel to DEQ. Commissioner Keeler thought we have a very good story to tell and
need to be confident that we are ready to tell it.
Commissioner Farr stated to be able to say we are proactive protectors of the Willamette River is a
powerful statement, everything this agency does is protecting the Willamette River and other
watersheds. Regarding the scrutiny of the permit, if the permit process was scrutinized it would be
positive for the proactive protection of the Willamette River. Any public process we can engage in
should shine a very positive light on the work being done by the MWMC. Regarding the length of the
process for a public hearing, does that add one month to the process? Mr. Miller said yes, that is
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 13 of 14
approximately correct. A 30-day public review process is built into the schedule, and during that time if a
certain criterion is met there can be a public hearing requested and held. Commissioner Farr said we are
demonstrating to the public proactive protection of the Willamette River and more people can have
confidence in that. This process can be a demonstration to people who might not understand we are
protectors of the river, not polluters of the river. The addition of 30 days could be beneficial to people
understanding in greater detail how far this Commission goes to protect the water. Mr. Miller said a
complement to the protection of the Willamette River, is we are also protectors of the public finances.
Much of the negotiations done with DEQ on the permit is not pushing back on permit limits or water
quality, it is unnecessary spending on the use of funds and resources. Brian Millington said another
aspect is, the MWMC is currently treating wastewater and discharging it in accordance with an expired
permit. That expired permit has prevented the Commission from moving forward with some projects
that benefit the river and operations. Part of the messaging can include this is not something new being
introduced to the river. The reassurance of this permit makes it up to date so programs and Capital
improvements can be caught up to where they should have been, if we had a permit reissued when the
MWMC first applied for one.
MWMC PARTNERSHIP VIDEO
April Miller and Mike McGillivray, Communications Coordinators for the City of Springfield shared the
MWMC partnership video and explained the background of the product. The creation of the Partnership
Video was identified as a potential communications tactic during the Strategic Communications
Planning Phase 2, in 2019 and 2020. With the Commission expressing support for the tactic, it was
incorporated into the 2021 MWMC Communications Plan. The video focuses on the importance of clean
water and how the community is connected to water. The video touches on the MWMC successes, why
the MWMC continues to be a strong partnership, and the overarching purpose of the MWMC. The intent
of this video is to support Key Outcome #5: achieving and maintaining public awareness and
understanding of the MWMC, Regional Wastewater System and MWMC’s objectives of maintaining
water quality. This will be a flagship video for years to come.
The video produced is based on the Communications Plan and input from staff members, as well as the
Commission during the Planning Phase 2. Staff made a list of key messages and identified 15 community
leaders to interview, which created different perspectives on the importance of clean water. This ranged
from government leaders, drinking water utilities, environmental groups, businesses, and agricultural
communities. The interviewees included three elected Commissioners, and several staff members. After
conducting those interviews, staff selected quotes to best support key messaging and put together a
draft script. Mr. McGillivray served as the videographer and editor and shot over multiple days in
multiple locations to obtain the proper footage. Staff made a list of graphics and selected music for the
video, and Mr. McGillivray edited it Adobe Premiere Pro. This was a team effort with help from Loralyn
Spiro and Brooke Mossefin, as well as other staff members.
Mr. McGillivray explained the Partnership Video is still in draft, but close to finalization. After the nine-
minute video played, Ms. Miller and Mr. McGillivray said they are planning to incorporate additional
shots into the video and make final adjustments based on feedback from Commissioners and staff. Once
the video is finalized it will be shared with Commissioners, staff, community partners, City of Springfield,
City of Eugene, and Lane County and distributed digitally through the MWMC YouTube channel,
website, social media accounts, Water Wisdoms Newsletter, and other channels as available.
July 9, 2021 MWMC Minutes
Page 14 of 14
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Inge thanked Ms. Miller, Mr. McGillivray and the team for a great
presentation and thought it was a terrific representation of the MWMC, and the partnerships that exist.
Commissioner Yeh said it was nice to see Mr. Stouder and Mr. Breitenstein on the video and thought
they both did an awesome job of representing the MWMC. The historic photos were also great to see.
Mr. Stouder said he was proud of how the video turned out, and it will be distributed to the Commission
for feedback. Ms. Miller, Mr. McGillivray, and the rest of the communications team did an excellent job.
This is a great resource for the MWMC moving forward and a good demonstration of our partnership.
BUSINESS FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER
Matt Stouder said Oregon has become the second state to require “Do not Flush” labeling on disposable
wipes, through House Bill 2344. This bill was signed into law in June and becomes effective in July. Wipes
marketed as flushable wipes in the past, will now be labeled as non-flushable. The MWMC submitted
multiple comments and public testimony in support of this bill.
The ACWA conference is virtual this year. The conference is a one day, five-hour event on July 28th and
includes Congressmen De Fazio, individuals from EPA and many others. If Commissioners are interested
in attending, staff can help get them signed up.
David Breitenstein and Matt Stouder are presenting to the Twin Rivers Rotary in August on MWMC. That
presentation is in response to a meeting with a member of Springfield utility board, who showed
interest in learning more about WMMC.
The MWMC meeting today was longer than normal. In August there will be a recess and staff plan to
reconvene in September. Commissioners will be given a communication packet update with specific
items in August. The plan for September is to be back in the Library meeting room for an in-person
meeting, provided everything continues to move in the right direction. Ideally, the majority of folks will
be in the Library Meeting room with only a few people on Zoom.
BUSINESS FROM THE WASTEWATER DIRECTOR
Dave Breitenstein shared information on the chlorine supply issue. Since the problem occurred staff
received three orders, all being full volume and on schedule. With another order scheduled for next
Wednesday, there is currently a 25-day supply on hand. Other utility companies have shared the supply
issue is not affecting them because they generated their own chlorine. When the facilities plan was
evaluated, staff looked into generating chlorine on site with a base chemical and UV light disinfection.
The UV light disinfection proved to be costly and made Capital costs $16 million versus $4 million. For
staff to generate their own chlorine, the cost would be around $2.5 million dollars more, and that only
treats the annual average flow. The plant currently contains a wide range of flows that range from 9
million to 230 million gallons a day in the Winter. At the time the Facilities Plan is updated, staff will look
into technologies available and associated costs.
Commissioner Yeh adjourned the meeting at 9:45 am
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 2, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Valerie Warner, MWMC Accountant
SUBJECT: FY 2021-22 Supplemental Budget #1
ACTION
REQUESTED: Approve Resolution 21-09
ISSUE
The purpose of this memo is to request approval of Resolution 21-09 authorizing proposed
supplemental budget requests for FY 2021-22. This is the first of three supplemental budgets
processed each year to adjust for corrections and new information.
DISCUSSION
Fiscal year 2021-22 wastewater rates and budget amounts were based upon estimates derived
from FY 2020-21 estimated expenditures, inflationary factors, projected debt and other
considerations identified during the FY 2021-22 budget development process.
Actual amounts often differ from estimates used during the budget process, principally because
the budget development process takes place mid-year. Consequently, estimates for the future
year are based on approximately six months actual experience. As a result, certain adjustments
are necessary at the beginning of a new fiscal year in order to reconcile actual prior year ending
balances with budgeted beginning balances for the subsequent year.
Staff now has final capital project costs and ending cash amounts for FY 2020-21. When ending
cash is more than estimated, we record an increase to the subsequent year beginning cash. This
amount must be offset with a corresponding increase to the appropriate subsequent year
reserves unless some of the additional funds are requested to be carried over or used to fund
new spending requests. In the event that ending cash is less than estimated, we record a
decrease to the subsequent year beginning cash. This amount must be offset with a
corresponding decrease to either a reserve or an expenditure line in the subsequent year. Staff is
requesting that a portion of the additional capital cash carryover from FY 2020-21 be allocated
among carryover requests for existing projects with a portion funding new capital requests and
the remaining amount recorded as additions to reserves.
AGENDA ITEM IV
Memo: FY 2021-22 Supplemental Budget #1
September 2, 2021
Page 2 of 4
For the operating fund, staff is requesting that a portion of the additional operating cash
carryover be allocated to the operating reserve, with a portion funding carryover for Eugene
Capital Outlay and a portion funding the Small Home subsidy.
Operating Fund:
The Commission is requested to approve an increase to the Operating Fund Beginning Cash
of $2,452,034. This transfer will align the FY 2021-22 Budgeted Beginning Cash balance with
the actual cash balance at June 30, 2021.
The Commission is requested to approve the carryover of $51,008 in Environmental Services
for Small Home SDCs. This request represents the unspent amount of the original $100,000
appropriation.
The Commission is requested to approve the carryover of $70,000 in Eugene Capital Outlay
for Fall Prevention at the Pretreatment Facility, a project that was not started in FY 2021.
The Commission is requested to approve an increase to the Operating Reserve of $2,331,026.
Capital Funds:
The Commission is requested to approve an increase to Beginning Cash of $6,284,824. This
action will align the FY 2021-22 Beginning Cash balance with the actual cash balance at June
30, 2021.
The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $2,766,723 from FY 2020-21 Capital
Projects funding, which will result in a net increase to the FY 2021-22 capital budget. These
carryover items include:
Description Proposed Carryforward
Class A Disinfection Facilities 874,162$
Aeration Basin Improvements 846,691
Administration Building Improvements 352,063
Glenwood Pump Station 248,574
Resiliency Follow-up 205,908
Poplar Harvesting 128,267
Facilities Plan Engineering Services 80,892
Riparian Shade Credit Program 70,102
Comprehensive Facility Plan Update 38,558
Recycled Water Demonstration 25,242
Biogas/Renewable Energy (RNG)(103,737)
2,766,723$
Memo: FY 2021-22 Supplemental Budget #1
September 2, 2021
Page 3 of 4
Additional capital project funding of $250,000 is being requested at this time for the
Biogas/Renewable Energy (RNG) Project.
The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $1,385,700 from FY 2020-21
Equipment Replacement funding, which will result in a net increase to the FY 2021-22
Equipment Replacement budget. This carryover includes the following items:
The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $254,300 from FY 2020-21 Major
Rehab funding, which will result in an increase in the FY 2021-22 Major Rehab budget. This
carryover includes the following items:
The Commission is requested to approve a carryover of $370,000 from FY 2020-21 Major
Capital Outlay funding, which will result in an increase in the FY 2021-22 Major Capital Outlay
budget. This carryover includes the following items:
No new funding is being requested at this time for any Equipment Replacement, Major Rehab
or Major Capital Outlay work planned for FY2021-22.
Description Proposed Carryforward
Programable Logic Ctlrs (PLC) Upgrades, BMF 1,017,000$
Automatic Transfer Switch (ATS), Irvington PS 125,500
Biosolids Spreaders (x3) 90,000
Centrifugal Blowers, Final 70,000
Irrigation Well Pump, BRS 48,200
Polymer Feeder, BDF/BMF 20,000
Computer File Servers (cesrv300, 301), Plant 15,000
1,385,700$
Description Proposed Carryforward
Roadways Resurfacing, BMF 170,000$
Asphalt Maintenance (not Bike Path) 25,000
Screw Pumps Wet Well Concrete Rehab 59,300
254,300$
Description Proposed Carryforward
Laboratory LIMS Software 370,000$
Memo: FY 2021-22 Supplemental Budget #1
September 2, 2021
Page 4 of 4
The Commission is requested to approve adjustments to the ending capital reserves as follows:
Taken together, individual actions requested above accomplish the following objectives:
Modification of FY 2021-22 beginning cash balances to reflect actual FY 2020-21 operating
results in compliance with State Budget Law.
Carryover of funds into the current fiscal year associated with specific capital projects and
operations items that were budgeted in FY 2020-21, but will actually be expended in FY 2021-
22.
Funding for additional capital items.
Establishment of reserves as appropriate to balance increases and decreases in the FY 2021-
22 operating and capital budgets.
ACTION REQUESTED
Approve, by motion, Resolution 21-09 authorizing the budget actions requested in this
memorandum.
ATTACHMENT
1. Resolution 21-09
2. Attachment A – summary of changes
Capital Reserve 119,526$
Equipment Replacement Reserve (149,393)
SDC Improvement Reserve 63,295
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 1,224,673
1,258,101$
Page 1 of 2
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION 21-09 ) IN THE MATTER OF APPROVAL OF
) FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 SUPPLEMENTAL
) BUDGET #1
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC) approved the FY
2021-22 Budget on April 9, 2021 pursuant to Resolution 21-03;
WHEREAS, sewer rates and budget amounts for the FY 2021-22 budget were based upon certain
estimates;
WHEREAS, additional information from actual experience regarding the FY 2020-21 budget is
now available and actual prior fiscal year ending balances can be reconciled with the beginning budgeted
balances for the FY 2021-22 Budget;
WHEREAS, an increase in the budget for Beginning Cash for Operations, in the amount of
$2,452,034, will align the FY 2021-22 Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash balance as of June
30, 2021;
WHEREAS, the carryover of $51,008 to Springfield Operations from unexpended FY2020-21
operations funding is appropriate because that amount remains unspent from the original appropriation
to fund small home SDC costs;
WHEREAS, the carryover of $70,000 to Springfield Operations from unexpended FY2020-21
operations funding is appropriate because that amount remains unspent from the original appropriation
to fund Eugene Capital Outlay costs;
WHEREAS, an increase to the Operating Reserve of $2,331,026 is appropriate as the net of
increased Beginning Cash, carryovers and new funding requests;
WHEREAS, the increase of $6,284,824 to Beginning Cash for Capital, will align the FY 2021-22
Budget for Beginning Cash with the actual cash balance as of June 30, 2021;
WHEREAS, the carryover of $2,766,723 from FY 2020-21 Capital Project funding is appropriate
because capital projects are fully budgeted in the year the contracts are awarded even though capital
projects often span more than the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded and certain projects are
ongoing;
WHEREAS, an increase to Capital Project funding in the amount of $250,000 is appropriate to establish
the budget for the Biogas/Renewable Energy (RNG) project for FY2021-22;
Attachment 1 - Resolution 21-09
METROPOLITAIN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Resolution 21-09
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, the carryover of capital outlay $370,000, major rehabilitation $254,300, and equipment
replacement $1,385,700 funding is appropriate because items that were budgeted for FY 2020-21 will not
be incurred until FY 2021-22;
WHEREAS, an increase to the Capital Reserve of $119,526 is appropriate as the net of increased
Beginning Cash, carryovers and new funding requests;
WHEREAS, a decrease to the Equipment Replacement Reserve of $149,393 is appropriate as the
net of increased Beginning Cash and carryover requests;
WHEREAS, an increase to the SDC Reimbursement Reserve of $1,224,673 is appropriate as a
portion of increased Beginning Cash;
WHEREAS, an increase to the SDC Improvement Reserve of $63,295 is appropriate as a portion of
increased Beginning Cash;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION:
The FY 2021-22 Supplemental Budget #1 as presented to the MWMC on September 10, 2021, is
hereby approved.
ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS LOCAL PUBLIC CONTRACT REVIEW AUTHORITY ON THE
10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021.
_____________________________________________
Jennifer Yeh, MWMC President
Approved as to form: _______________________________
KC Huffman, MWMC Legal Counsel
Attest: ____________________________________________
Josi Brennan, MWMC Secretary
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Digital Signature:
Attachment 1 - Resolution 21-09
Attachment A – Summary of Changes
FY 2021-22
MWMC - Supplemental Budget #1 Summary
CAPITAL OPERATING TOTAL
BEG CASH ADJUSTMENT 6,284,824$ 2,452,034$ 8,736,858$
REQUESTED CARRYFORWARDS (4,776,723) (121,008) (4,897,731)
NEW SPENDING REQUESTS (250,000) (250,000)
-
-
-
NET CHANGE TO RESERVES 1,258,101$ 2,331,026$ 3,589,127$
Capital Reserve 119,526$
Equipment Replacement Reserve (149,393)
SDC Improvement Reserve 63,295
SDC Reimbursement Reserve 1,224,673
1,258,101$
Attachment 2 - Summary of Changes
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 2, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: James McClendon, Acting Finance and Administrative Manager
SUBJECT: MWMC Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report for FY 2019-20
ACTION REQUESTED: Informational and Discussion
ISSUE
In August 2021, staff completed an MWMC FY 2019-20 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Report,
attached to this memo (Attachment 1). The inventory included data gathering and analysis of the
emissions from activity at MWMC owned facilities and pump stations. This report documents the FY
2019-20 inventory results.
BACKGROUND
Previous GHG inventories were conducted on MWMC facilities for calendar years 2010, 2012, 2014,
and for fiscal years FY 2015-16 and FY 2017-18. After the 2014 report, the inventory timeline was
switched to fiscal years to align with the City of Eugene’s operational GHG inventory, which most
recently is the FY 2019 report that was shared publicly in December 2020.
One significant change worth noting for the FY 2019-20 GHG emissions report is that the data for
electricity usage (Scope 2 emissions) were calculated using the market-based emissions factor and not
the location-based emissions factor, which had been used for calculating the emissions from
purchased electricity in all prior inventories. Oregon DEQ had recommended using the location-based
factor up until 2018 and has since promoted the use of the market-based factor for GHG emissions
from purchased electricity. As a result, the emissions figures shown for electricity usage, indicated in
Metric Tons CO2 equivalent (MTCO2 e) will appear to be much lower than in prior reports. For
comparisons between FY 2019-20 and prior reporting year emissions, the data have had the market-
based emissions factor applied retroactively back to the first MWMC emissions inventory conducted in
2010.
In general, the purpose of conducting the biennial GHG inventory and producing the report is to assist
the MWMC with:
Sustaining the commitment to “achieve and maintain high environmental standards” (Key Outcome
#1 in the MWMC budget document)
Referencing to a vetted longitudinal study on GHG emissions from which to assess operational
and environmental performance
AGENDA ITEM V
Memo: MWMC Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report for FY 2019-20
September 2, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Addressing potential future regulatory reporting requirements
Continuing to identify opportunities to reduce GHG emissions
Inviting discussion on incorporating GHG emissions reduction strategies into future project
planning
As a partner of the Community Climate Action Plan (CAP), the MWMC provided information to the City
of Eugene in 2018 about innovative projects that would align with the goals and intent of Eugene’s
CAP, now referred to as the CAP 2.0. Made public in summer 2020, Action B16 in Eugene’s CAP 2.0
refers specifically to the Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) system at the treatment plant which will
become operational this fall. Ongoing resiliency planning and associated project work is also indirectly
referred to as a region-wide effort in the CAP 2.0 document. Furthermore, the GHG emissions
inventory report on MWMC facilities provides ancillary support on specific GHG emissions when
reporting to Lane Regional Air Protection Authority (LRAPA) in accordance with the
Eugene/Springfield (MWMC) Water Pollution Control Facility Air Contaminant Discharge Permit.
DISCUSSION
The FY 2019-20 GHG Inventory Report on MWMC facilities provides the following:
Comparisons of current emissions to the emissions reported in previous inventory years
The offset of GHG emissions (benefits) from displaced grid electricity, carbon sequestration by
poplar trees, and other MWMC activities
Recent and upcoming community involvement in GHG emissions reduction action items
An appendix including detailed explanations on the data gathering and methodology used in this
GHG inventory report
The grand total FY 2019-20 GHG emissions from anthropogenic activity at MWMC facilities (10,676 MT
CO2e) were approximately 21.7% lower than the FY 2017-18 emissions (13,640 MT CO2e). Listed below
is a brief summary of the results from the FY 2019-20 inventory:
The largest overall source of GHG emissions in all reporting years is from the purchase of goods
and services for operating and capital construction projects, which is categorized as indirect
emissions (Scope 3). Total Scope 3 emissions decreased a total of 43.3% Year over Year (YoY),
which included a decrease in capital and operating construction supply chain emissions (-68.5%
and -10.8% respectively) but an increase from solid waste disposal (+17.4% YoY)
The greatest benefit from MWMC activity specific to GHG emissions reduction was from carbon
sequestration due to the growth in biomass of poplar trees at the Biocycle Farm (-6,005 MT CO2e
YoY, from a cumulative total sequestration of -23,979 MT CO2e since 2004).
The next GHG emissions inventory is scheduled to be completed in the summer of 2023 and will be
conducted for the FY 2021-22 timeframe.
ACTION REQUESTED
Informational only – no action requested.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report for FY 2019-20
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report for FY 2019-20
August 2021
Attachment 1 - Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report for FY2019-20
FY 2019-20 GHG Emissions Report | Page 1
Introduction
This report presents the results of an inventory conducted to quantify the Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emissions for FY 2019-20 from the regional wastewater treatment plant, Biosolids Management
Facility (BMF), and regional pump stations serving the Eugene-Springfield Metro Area in Lane County,
Oregon — facilities that are operated and managed through partnership in the MWMC (Metropolitan
Wastewater Management Commission). The inventory also includes emissions data for wastewater
pump stations that are owned independently by the cities of Eugene and Springfield.
The data gathering and analytical framework
applied by staff to produce this report
quantifies the GHG emissions resulting from
MWMC activities in FY 2019-20 that contribute
to increasing global CO2 levels. The framework
also quantified the MWMC activities that are
beneficial to our environment—those which
reduce, sequester, or offset GHG emissions.
Page 4 of the report outlines MWMC’s
contribution of information towards
community action planning for local and
regional GHG emissions reduction. The
Appendix to the report describes the GHG
methodology, illustrates the GHG emissions
totals, and provides more detailed support to
explain the FY 2019-20 results. Not included in
the report is an evaluation of MWMC’s
progress toward GHG emissions reduction as
targets and goals have yet to be established. Significant Changes in the FY 2019-20 Report Starting with the FY 2019-20 GHG emissions report for MWMC facilities, the Market Based emissions factor for electricity is used instead of the Location Based emissions factor, which for the State of Oregon is the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP), an average value for emissions intensity from all energy producers in the states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and major portions of Nevada, Utah, Northern California and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta. The Market Based emissions factor is a value for emissions intensity specific to only the utilities serving the MWMC facilities, which includes the contractual agreements between the local utilities (e.g., EWEB, SUB, EPUD, Blachly-Lane, et al.) and their specific energy producers (e.g., Seneca Sustainable Energy, Wheatridge Renewable Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, et al.). For comparisons in this report to the prior GHG emission reporting years, the market-based emissions factor has been applied retroactively to the data for all previous GHG emissions inventories, going back to the first inventory conducted for MWMC facilities in 2010.
Recorded Change in Global CO2 Levels
Global CO2 Measurement: 417 ppm (June 2021)
Data Source: NOAA reconstruction from ice cores
Retrieved From: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) on July 23, 2021 at
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
FY 2019-20 GHG Emissions Report | Page 2
GHG EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Greenhouse gas inventories have been conducted for MWMC facilities every other year beginning
with calendar year 2010. Starting in 2017 the GHG inventories have been reported based on fiscal year
(FY) timing versus calendar year (CY) to align with the City of Eugene’s GHG inventory year.
Figure 1 – GHG Emissions1
FY 2019-20 total emissions were
the third highest since reporting
began in 2010 but 21.7% lower
than in FY 17-18. Compared to
prior inventory results, emissions
from capital projects were
significantly lower, while
operating related emissions were
the highest of all prior reporting
years. The higher operating
emissions were largely due to
higher supply-chain demand and
costs in 2019-2020. Higher
operating emissions were also
due to fleet expenses and Major
Rehabilitation projects.
Figure 2 – Benefits of GHG Emissions
The benefits that resulted from
MWMC activities as CO2
displacement or sequestration
was a total of -9,486 MT CO2e in
FY 2019-20, which is more than
in FY 2017-18. The Biocycle Farm
lost poplar-tree biomass due to
the ice storm in December 2016
and early harvesting in 2017.
Due to replanting and biomass
growth after the storm, Biocycle
Farm provided the largest
benefit in FY 2019-20, by
sequestration of -6,005 MT
CO2e. Please note, however, that the cumulative total of CO2 sequestration at Biocycle Farm has gone
down since the initial planting in 2004, largely due to the losses from the December 2016 storm.
1 Emissions data and methodology detail provided in the Appendix.
FY 2019-20 GHG Emissions Report | Page 3
CLIMATE BENEFITS FROM MWMC ACTIVITIES
While wastewater treatment activities generally contribute to GHG emissions, some activities have
reduced GHG emissions. The beneficial activities at MWMC facilities with the greatest effect were from
displacing GHG emissions (e.g., electricity generated from the biogas-fueled generator) and by carbon
sequestration (e.g., emissions captured by trees at the Biocycle Farm).
The GHG inventory protocol (methodology) used to calculate the FY 2019-20 emissions from MWMC
facilities does not subtract from the total the amount of MT CO2e that was displaced and sequestered.
The following benefits of MWMC operational activities are explained for reference only.
Carbon Sequestration
Carbon Sequestration by Biocycle Poplar Trees ( -6,005 MT CO2e)
The Biocycle farm has been in operation since 2004 when Management Unit #1 (MU1) was planted
with 35,000 trees. Two subsequent units were planted for a total of 88,000 trees. MU1 was
harvested in stages between the years 2013-2015 and then replanted in 2017. In December 2016
an ice storm severely damaged MU2 and some of MU3. This resulted in the early harvesting of
MU2 and parts of MU3 in 2017. Harvested portions of the Biocycle Farm are not counted as
sequestration in GHG emissions accounting. Also, MU1 has smaller trees due to more recent
replanting, and many studies indicate that younger trees sequester less carbon than more mature
ones.
The FY 2017-18 GHG inventory reported an estimated -17,974 MT CO2e total sequestration (i.e.,
2004 to June 2018) as growth in biomass occurred only from the trees that remained standing and
un-harvested after the ice storm, and the year over year (YoY) change was not calculated. From
2004 to June 2020, the total sequestration at Biocycle Farm is -23,979 MT CO2e and the YoY
change is -6,005 MT CO2e as a benefit from biomass growth. Due to the planned harvesting of
MU3 in 2021, the current projection is that total MT CO2e sequestration from growth in biomass at
the Biocycle Farm will be lower for the next reporting period, scheduled for 2023 (i.e., the FY 2021-
22 report).
Soil Carbon Sequestration ( -551 MT CO2e)
When biosolids are applied to soil, a proportion of the organic carbon remains trapped and
therefore increases the health and sequestration potential of the existing soil.
Displaced GHG Emissions
Displaced Grid Electricity ( -1,560 MT CO2e)
Biogas-generated electricity, which is considered renewable and the emissions largely biogenic,
displaces grid electricity2 that has significantly higher anthropogenic carbon intensity. The
renewability of biogas-generated electricity is accounted for with Renewable Energy Certificates, or
RECs (1 kWh of electricity = 1 REC).
2 Starting in the FY 2019-20 GHG emissions report for MWMC facilities, the Market Based emissions factor for electricity is
used instead of the Location Based emissions factor, which for the State of Oregon is the Northwest Power Pool (PWPP).
For more information, see https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/
FY 2019-20 GHG Emissions Report | Page 4
Displaced grid electricity more than doubled in FY 2019-20 over FY 2017-18 as the digestion
capacity and boiler replacement projects had been completed, resulting in optimal uptime from
the 800KW heat-and-power engine generator. Displaced grid electricity was -740 MT CO2e in FY
2017-18, which increased by 111% going into FY 2019-20. That is, most of the digester gas
produced during this time fueled the engine generator and was not directly flared through the
waste gas burner.
MWMC sells 100% of the RECs generated at the treatment plant to EWEB and therefore cannot
claim any of the associated environmental benefits calculated within any of the GHG emissions
inventories on MWMC facilities. For FY 2019-20, MWMC Facilities received $2,250 for RECs, which
is significantly more than what REC revenue received in FY 2017-18, as the market value of RECs is
subject to major swings from year to year.
Solar-generated electricity from the photovoltaic (PV) panel array at the treatment plant also
displaced the need for grid electricity during the FY 2019-20 reporting period and has been
calculated by Good Company at -2.2 MT CO2e by applying the market-based emissions factor
(-13.1 MT CO2e for location-based). The electricity generated from the PV array is consumed on
site through a net-metering agreement with EWEB, and the additional electricity needed to run
equipment powered by the PV array is then billed on the monthly invoices.
Displaced Conventional Natural Gas ( -1,267 MT CO2e)
The wastewater treatment plant displaces the use of natural gas with biogas by capturing the heat
generated from the plant’s 800KW engine generator for process heating.
Displaced Conventional Fertilizer ( -104 MT CO2e)
Substituting biosolids for conventional fertilizer displaces the emissions that would have otherwise
been created in the production of conventional fertilizers.
RECENT AND UPCOMING GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACTION ITEMS
The following GHG emissions reduction related activities are currently underway or being discussed
for future action.
MWMC is currently contributing innovative and significant climate action projects on a regional scale
that align with the goals and intent of the City of Eugene Community Climate Action Plan, referred to
as CAP 2.0:
Implementation of the Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) Program. The RNG facility will condition
nearly 100% of the biogas generated at the wastewater treatment plant for transmission and
distribution by NWNatural as fuel.
Current operational activity in support of GHG reduction:
Ongoing adherence to the ISO 14001 standard for Environmental Management System (EMS)
compliance. The longstanding goal of the EMS program is to reduce energy use, reduce the
volume of solid waste, and rely less on non-renewable vehicle fuels, and the objectives met in
2020 toward the goal included the installation of electric vehicle charging stations at the
treatment plant, and implementation of a fats, oils, and grease program (FOG) to reduce
impact on the sanitary sewer system, thereby reducing energy use for treatment.
FY 2019-20 GHG Emissions Report | Page 5
Community Partners: Lane County and City of Eugene
MWMC’s community partners have publicly stated their intent to reduce GHG emissions within their
respective organizations and issued the following directives:
Incorporate energy efficient technologies and green building design into new capital
construction and refurbishment of buildings (e.g., energy efficient HVAC systems, repurposed
road paving materials, etc.).
Contract from local service and material providers when possible.
Reduce vehicle miles traveled by promoting teleconferencing (e.g., webinars, conference calls,
online seminars) or utilize bus, bike or other low-carbon transportation options.
Expand urban tree canopy cover through new and replacement tree planting.
Replace gasoline and diesel fleet vehicles with electric, hybrid-electric, and/or renewable
natural gas (RNG) fleet vehicles.
Establish a climate recovery ordinance (CRO) with emissions reduction targets.
CONTACT INFORMATION & ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
City of Eugene staff James McClendon, Ivan Campbell, and Sharon Olson conducted the FY 2019-20
inventory of MWMC’s GHG emissions. Technical support on the FY 2019-20 GHG inventory was
provided by Aaron Toneys and Claudia Denton at Good Company, a leading provider of professional
consultation and services for sustainability planning in the public and private sectors.
For more information, call or email:
James McClendon, 541-682-8608 JMcclendon@eugene-or.gov
Ivan Campbell, 541-682-8620 ICampbell@eugene-or.gov
Sharon Olson, 541-682-8625 SOlson@eugene-or.gov
Appendix | Page 1
Appendix
GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING: EMISSIONS SCOPES
The main sources of emissions from MWMC facilities include wastewater treatment process emissions,
electricity usage, and supply chain purchases.
GHG emissions are categorized into three Scopes according to the protocol, defined as follows:
Scope 1 emissions are direct emissions which originate from equipment and facilities owned and
operated by MWMC—primarily from fossil fuel combustion and wastewater treatment processes.
Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions from purchased electricity.
Scope 3 emissions are all other indirect emissions that result from the activities of the MWMC
Facilities, but where the direct sources are controlled by other entities or service providers, such as
construction of capital projects, supply-chain related transport, solid waste disposal, employee
commute and business travel, and energy transmission and distribution losses.
In the most current City of Eugene GHG emissions inventory and report (FY 2018-19), the cumulative
total of MWMC facility emissions (i.e., all three scopes) are included as Scope 3 emissions for Eugene.
GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING: METHODOLOGY
The inventory used for this FY 2019-20 GHG report follows the Local Government Operations Protocol
(LGOP), which was developed jointly by The Climate Registry and affiliated organizations.3 The LGOP
protocol only requires the reporting of emissions in Scopes 1 and 2 as defined by the World
Resources Institute. Therefore, this inventory has been expanded to include several additional Scope 1
process emission sources specific to biosolids management as well as shared emission categories from
Scope 3. The use of these tools to measure additional emissions sources has enabled a more accurate
inventory of GHG emissions from MWMC facilities.
The protocols and methods used to account for the additional Scope 1 and Scope 3 emissions sources
are documented in Good Company’s Carbon Calculator (G3C) and the G3C-WW (Wastewater) module
used to calculate emissions for this inventory. The additional Scope 1 emissions sources were
estimated using either the LGOP (for emissions associated with denitrification and discharge of
effluent) or the Canadian Ministers of the Environment’s Biosolids Emissions Assessment Model (BEAM)
for emissions associated with biosolids storage, drying and land application.
Displaced emissions from grid electricity and conventional natural gas are calculated to be the same
as an equal quantity of grid-purchased electricity or natural gas. BEAM was used to estimate benefits
associated with displaced conventional fertilizer and soil carbon sequestration from land application of
biosolids. Carbon sequestration by poplar trees at the Biocycle Farm was calculated using the
methodology specified by the Climate Action Reserve’s Urban Forest Protocol.4
3 The Local Government Operations (LGO) Protocol was developed in collaboration among The Climate Registry (TCR), the
California Air Resources Board (CARB), the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR, now the Climate Action Reserve), and
ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability. The LGO Protocol follows the same format as The Climate Registry’s General
Reporting Protocol (GRP).
4 Climate Action Reserve (CAR) Urban Forest Protocol can be found at
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/urban-forest/
Appendix | Page 2
GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING: SUMMARY OF INVENTORY DETAILS
Scope 1 emissions include process related emissions from wastewater treatment and biosolids
processing, which for MWMC facilities in FY 2019-20 amounted to 4,817 MT CO2e and was very similar
to the amount of emissions in previous reporting years, an increase of 8.3% as shown in Figure 1.
Scope 2 emissions are the result of consuming electricity and are the lowest emissions of the three
scopes for FY 2019-20 and in all reporting years. Scope 2 emissions were 791 MT CO2e, an increase
from FY 2017-18. Noted that the FY 2019-20 emissions report has been calculated according to the
Market Based emissions factor for Scope 2 electricity (i.e., local utilities in Oregon) instead of the
Location Based emissions factor (i.e., NWPP average for the greater region). More information on
emissions factors for electricity will be explained in the following sections of this report.
Figure 1 - MWMC Facilities Emissions by Scope
Scope 3 emissions result from the
purchase of goods and services for
capital projects, travel, solid waste
disposal, and upstream energy
production. Scope 3 emissions
were 5,068 MT CO2e for FY 2019-
20, a decrease of 43.4% from FY
2017-18. Supply chain emissions
for FY 2017-18 were largely due to
intensive construction activity at
the MWMC facilities for the new
digester and expansion of the
maintenance building, whereas the Scope 3 emissions for FY 2019-20 included much less CIP-related
construction other than completion of the ESB/Laboratory building.
However, just as in FY 2017-18 and in all other reporting years, the largest category of emissions from
the MWMC facilities for FY 2019-20 is Scope 3 supply-chain related emissions, mostly due to a 17.4%
increase in solid waste disposal, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2 - Overview of the MWMC Facilities’ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
* Other category represents emissions from refrigerants, natural gas, and non-fleet fuels.
Appendix | Page 3
Scope 1 – Direct Emissions Details
Wastewater Treatment and Biosolids Process Emissions
GHG inventory protocol for the accounting of greenhouse gas emissions distinguishes human-caused
emissions (anthropogenic) from the greenhouse gases stemming from natural processes (biogenic).
Anthropogenic GHG emissions are those emissions associated with human activities dependent on the
combustion of fossil fuels such as the burning of oil, coal and gas and process emissions from
industrial activities, such as the methane and nitrous oxide released from the treatment of wastewater.
Biogenic emissions are part of the natural biogeochemical cycling of carbon. Biogenic emissions are
carbon dioxide from the combustion of non-fossilized, biologically based materials such as biogas and
biofuels (e.g., biodiesel) and natural processes such as the decomposition of organic materials.
For FY 2019-20, wastewater treatment and biosolids process emissions accounted for 94% of
anthropogenic Scope 1 emissions. As shown in Figure 3, methane is the largest source of
anthropogenic GHG emissions from the biosolids lagoon process5.
Figure 3 - MWMC Facilities Anthropogenic Emissions for FY 2019-20
5 Wastewater lagoons in the US are significant contributors of methane emissions, contributing approximately 2,300,000
metric tons per year. See Harper, L.A. "Methane emissions from an anaerobic swine lagoon." Journal of Atmospheric
Environment. Retrieved 2 November 2011.
Appendix | Page 4
Scope 2 – Indirect Emissions Details, Electricity
Electricity Emissions
Scope 2 emissions resulting from the consumption of electricity increased by 129.6% between the FY
2017-18 inventory and the FY 2019-20 inventory period. The Market Based emissions factor was
applied to all inventories from 2010 to 2020 for point-by-point comparisons between years.
The market-based approach is weighted according to which utility company is contracted to supply
electricity and any power purchasing agreements associated with the contract. The market-based
emissions factor for this report is Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) and Springfield Utility
Board (SUB), which distributes electricity primarily from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),
whose electricity is almost entirely generated from low-carbon sources such as hydropower and wind.
Electricity Use Emission Factors
Several assumptions are factored in to estimate GHG emissions from the sources included in the GHG
inventory. The most significant assumption regards which emissions factor is used to calculate
emissions from electricity use. An emissions factor is a representation of the carbon intensity per unit
of electricity (e.g., MT CO2e per megawatt-hour).
Important to note here that both EWEB and SUB emissions factors increased significantly from 2018 to
2019, as shown in Table 1. Emissions factors change from year to year because they are largely
influenced by the water year and related hydroelectricity available from Bonneville Power
Administration and utility-owned generation resources. During the FY 2019-20 reporting year, EWEB
and SUB hydroelectric generation facilities were offline for periods of time, requiring more market
purchases of electricity, and as a result the emissions factors increased.
Table 1 – Market Based Emissions Factors for EWEB and SUB
EWEB
MT CO2e / MWh
SUB
MT CO2e / MWh
MWMC Facilities
Total Consumption in MWh
CY 2010 0.029 0.058 19,457
CY 2012 0.013 0.015 19,023
CY 2014 0.014 0.017 18,407
FY 15-16 0.010 0.012 17,122
FY 17-18 0.015 0.012 16,384
FY 19-20 0.055 0.020 15,557
While there was a notable decrease in electricity usage at MWMC facilities evident in FY 2019-20, even
with the expansion of square footage of buildings at the treatment plant6, the end result is that total
electricity usage (Scope 2) shows an increase in FY 2019-20 because the market-based emissions
factor for EWEB and SUB increased during the same period of time.
Reducing Electricity Usage
Efforts to reduce electricity usage over the years have included large- and small-scale energy
efficiency projects. MWMC projects have included the implementation of an air-compressor
6 MWMC capital projects that increased the square footage of facilities included the additional wing of the maintenance
building, the addition of the Environmental Services Building (ESB)/Laboratories, and the addition of the fourth digester – all
of which have increased the demand for electricity.
Appendix | Page 5
management program, installation of a passive grit collection system, replacement of pump station
equipment with more efficient variable frequency drive pumps, efficiency improvements to odorous
air controls, and upgrading to a more efficient aeration blower in the Secondary treatment area. In
July 2018, a photovoltaic panel array (solar panels) was installed at the treatment plant in association
with construction of the maintenance complex, yielding FY 2019-20 benefit of -2.2 MT CO2e. As shown
in Figure 4 below, the regional treatment plant location continues to be the largest source of Scope 2
emissions among all MWMC facilities.
Figure 4 - Emissions from Electricity Consumption – Scope 2
Location-Based Versus Market-Based Electricity Accounting
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Scope 2 Guidance system, the global standard for public agencies,
includes two separate methodologies for calculating Scope 2 electricity emissions. The location-based
methodology is calculated according to a defined geographic boundary, or regional grid, and is
weighted toward collective consumer demand and maintaining grid integrity. The location-based
emissions factor is the Northwest Power Pool (NWPP). Figure 5 highlights the differences between the
two accounting methodologies for electricity by comparing all of the GHG inventory reporting years
back to 2010.
Figure 5 - Market- and Location-Based Comparison for MWMC Facilities
Activity data are based on FY 2019-20
electricity consumption. The location based
NWPP emissions factor is from eGRID 2018,
which is the most current factor available. The
market based utility-specific factor (i.e., EWEB,
SUB, and other local utilities) is based on the
2018 emissions factor report by Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).
Appendix | Page 6
Scope 3 – Indirect Emissions Details, Supply Chain
Scope 3 emissions are from the purchase of goods and services for capital construction projects,
travel, solid waste disposal, and upstream energy production. Scope 3 emissions were 5,080 MT CO2e
in FY 2019-20, a decrease of 43.3% from the 8,963 MT CO2e in FY 2017-18. The decrease in emissions
was mainly due to the completion of capital construction activity that included the fourth digester, the
expansion of the maintenance building, and construction of the Environmental Services Building (ESB).
The primary emissions categories for Scope 3 are capital construction supply chain, operations supply
chain, and upstream energy production, as shown in Figure 7. These are the emissions resulting from
the production, delivery, and use of building materials, fuels and energy products, and all other
supplied goods and services. Scope 3 emissions also include emissions from business travel in non-
MWMC vehicles and the landfilling of solid waste, which for FY 2019-20 showed a 17.4% increase.
Figure 7 - Categories of Indirect Emissions – Scope 3
The capital construction category includes all capital construction emissions during the reporting
period FY 2019-20. Construction activities that utilize concrete, steel, and other building materials
produce a substantial GHG emissions footprint. Other emissions are produced mainly from purchases
related to maintenance of buildings, facilities, and equipment.
Upstream energy production includes emissions from MWMC’s supply chain purchases of energy
products. Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions account for ‘tailpipe’ emissions from combusting fossil fuels.
Scope 3 emissions from upstream energy production include the energy use and process emissions
resulting from the extraction, transportation, refinement, and distribution of energy products used in
MWMC-owned equipment or used in the generation of electricity consumed by MWMC facilities and
equipment. For example, methane leakage during natural gas extraction and transport falls under the
category of upstream energy production within Scope 3.
The operations supply chain category includes chemicals used in the treatment processes at MWMC
facilities. Chemicals comprise a large proportion of the materials and supplies emissions as are
replacement parts and components. Purchases of vehicles, heavy equipment, laboratory supplies, and
professional services are also accounted for in operations supply chain emissions.
______________________________________________________________________________
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 2, 2021
TO: Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC)
FROM: Todd Miller, Environmental Services Supervisor
SUBJECT: Planning Projects Update
ACTION
REQUESTED: Informational and Discussion
ISSUE
Several MWMC projects that have been in the planning and development phase for the past several
years are reaching milestones in 2021. Progress is being made on the MWMC’s Riparian Shade Credits,
Poplar Harvest Management, and Recycled Water Demonstration projects that warrants updates to the
Commission. This memo provides an overview of the status of these projects. Staff will present more
information on these milestones at the September 10, 2021 Commission meeting.
BACKGROUND
MWMC capital projects typically follow a planning, design, and construction/implementation pathway.
Several significant MWMC programs which bridge this pathway have been under development for the
past decade. In the past two years, the MWMC has authorized contracts to support the development of
the Riparian Shade Credit Program, Poplar Harvest Management Services, and Class A Recycled Water
Disinfection Facilities and Demonstration.
Riparian Shade Credit Program (MWMC Project P80080)
This project was launched in 2012 with the three pilot shade credit projects (two on Cedar Creek and one
on the Springfield Mill Race) under a contract with The Freshwater Trust. In 2019, the MWMC procured
The Freshwater Trust as the MWMC’s “Credit Program Manager” to develop the framework and eventual
implementation of the MWMC’s thermal load credit program for National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance through the MWMC’s emerging involvement with the
regional Pure Water Partners collaboration. In 2020, the MWMC authorized The Freshwater Trust to
implement two pilot projects under the newly established Pure Water Partners working agreements. In
July 2021, the Commission approved staff’s recommendation to amend The Freshwater Trust to expand
acreage on one of the pilot sites. Through these efforts, staff is working with The Freshwater Trust to
launch the MWMC’s Water Quality Trading Plan for the upcoming NPDES permit renewal.
AGENDA ITEM VI
Memo: Planning Projects Updates
September 2, 2021
Page 2 of 3
Poplar Harvest Management Services (MWMC Project P80083)
This project was launched in 2013 to oversee the initial harvests, replanting, and marketing of the
Biocycle Farm’s three management units of hybrid poplar trees. In July 2021, the Commission authorized
contracts for harvesting of Management Unit 3 (MU3). Prior to this harvest, the MWMC contracted with
the marketing consulting firm MIG to assist with an outreach strategy to develop interest in Biocycle
Farm poplar harvests. Upon completion of MU3 replanting, long-term management recommendations
will steer the direction of the Biocycle Farm’s operations.
Class A Recycled Water Facilities/Demonstration (MWMC Projects P80098 and P80099)
The MWMC underwent a three-phase planning study for recycled water and thermal load mitigation
strategy development that started in 2011. The ultimate outcome of that study was recommendation to
develop and demonstrate Class A recycled water use with key community partners as a critical step
toward building a long-term recycled water program. In October 2020, the MWMC authorized a design
contract with Kennedy Jenks Consultants under Project P80098 for Class A Disinfection Facilities. Staff is
seeking grant funding for the construction phase of that project and to support implementation of
demonstration projects under Project P80099. MWMC has contracted with MIG to assist with outreach
and marketing to build community support for long-term recycled water use.
DISCUSSION
Key current status and updated highlights are discussed below for each project.
Riparian Shade Credit Program
Staff has amended The Freshwater Trust contract to expand riparian shade restoration acreage on the
second Pure Water Partners pilot site. The amendment also addresses ongoing support from The
Freshwater Trust in final adoption and implementation of the MWMC’s water quality trading plan. The
current Credit Program Manager contract with The Freshwater Trust is nearing a close with these final
efforts. A full status of the objectives, project deliverables, and outcomes of this work is presented as
Attachment 1: Credit Program Manager Task Status.
The Freshwater Trust developed a draft water quality trading plan for the MWMC in 2020 in anticipation
of a 2021 NPDES permit renewal. In May 2021, The Freshwater Trust produced a costing evaluation and
proposal for the MWMC’s regulatory compliance program based on parameters developed with staff
and on knowledge gained from the Pure Water Partners implementation. The Freshwater Trust’s cost
evaluation is presented as Attachment 2: Phase 2 Program Price Proposal. Staff will discuss the cost
proposal at the September meeting.
To date, the three early pilot projects have been verified with credits recorded and attributed to the
MWMC. The Pure Water Partners pilot projects will be verified and recorded by spring 2022. Staff will
demonstrate viewing of the credits via the HIS Markit online database at the September meeting.
Poplar Harvest Management Services
Per MWMC authorizations at the July 2021 MWMC meeting, staff negotiated final contracts with CTS,
Inc., Lane Forest Products, and Urban Lumber for the harvest, processing, and milling of MU3 trees. As of
the date of this memo, harvest of MU3 is 50% complete. All tree felling is projected to be completed by
October 1, 2021 and all post-harvest clean-up activities should be finished by November 1, 2021.
Memo: Planning Projects Updates
September 2, 2021
Page 3 of 3
Staff will present updates on the harvest status and current marketing and end use of the harvested
poplar. MIG’s recommendations to the MWMC for ongoing outreach and marketing of poplar is
presented as Attachment 3: Poplar Marketing Implementation Matrix.
Recycled Water Demonstration
Kennedy Jenks recently completed the 60% design phase of the Class A Disinfection Facilities project
with updated construction cost estimates. Staff will discuss key milestones of the 60% design and cost
estimate and projected implementation timeline. The Class A 60% Design Cost Estimate is presented as
Attachment 4: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost.
As a demonstration project, staff is seeking grant funding to partially finance the design, construction,
and implementation of the project. The MWMC’s Class A recycled water resource is a key community
asset for potential drought mitigation. Currently, three grant opportunities have been identified and
have been applied for or are in the process of application submittal.
Oregon Water Resources Department, Water Projects Grants and Loan program
State Hazard Mitigation Office, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
US Bureau of Reclamation, WaterSMART - Drought Resiliency Projects grant program
At the September meeting, staff will discuss the alignment of these grant opportunities and MIG’s
outreach support for demonstration project implementation.
ACTION REQUESTED
This topic is presented as an information update. No action is requested.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Credit Program Manager Task Status
Attachment 2: Phase 2 Program Price Proposal
Attachment 3: Poplar Marketing Implementation Matrix
Attachment 4: Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
Credit Program Manager Task Status as of July 1, 2021
MWMC Project P80080
Page 1
Objective Contract Deliverables Work Products Status
Task 1A: Credit Program
Framework Building
Original Budget:
$58,780
Spent to Date:
$66,623
Amended Budget:
$66,780
Objective 1A-1:
McKenzie Watershed
Conservation Fund
Structure Assistance
Recommend Fund
architecture that best
facilitates the tracking and
payments for credit
project implementation.
• Summary of TFT Suggestions for
Differentiating the Pure Water
Partners Program & MWMC’s Water
Quality Trading Program (Report,
8/7/19)
• Review and input on PWP program
evaluation metrics (Word Doc
Comments, 3/18/20)
• Input on funding process and project
implementation (Email, 5/1/20)
100% complete.
Outcome: MWMC funds shade credit
restoration directly via TFT. TFT works
within PWP frameworks to reimburse
partners for credit program efforts.
Objective 1A-2: PWP
Shade Credit
Implementation
Protocols Assistance
Recommend the
process/protocols to be
followed for implementing
shade credit projects via
PWP to best leverage
partnership efficiency and
mutual goals.
• Alternative/recompiled PWP MOA
(Document, 4/10/19)
• Review and comments on PWP MOA
(Word Doc Comments, 4/30/19 and
7/10/19)
• Possible Contracting & Compensation
Structures between TFT and
Implementers in the MWMC Thermal
Credit Program (Document, 11/27/19)
• EWEB-TFT Partnership Agreement
(Document, 1/29/21)
100% complete
• PWP MOA Adoption Agreement
signed by MWMC on 12/17/20.
Outcome: TFT oversees site selection,
landowner agreements, credit cycle
documentation & tracking, and completes
some monitoring. PWP Implementers
recruit landowners, conduct
implementation, and complete some
monitoring.
Objective 1A-3: Shade
Credit Site Identification
Guidance
Develop guidelines for
strategizing the targeting,
identification,
recruitment, and
enrollment of shade credit
sites for the MWMC.
• Identifying and Screening Shade Credit
sites (Presentation, 7/27/19)
• Priority Shade Taxlots Identification
(Spreadsheet and GIS Map, 1/13/20)
• (McKenzie) Riparian Planting Program
(Outreach Brochure, 2/6/20)
• PWP Landowner Outreach Meeting
(Virtual Presentation, 5/6/20)
100% complete.
Outcome: Upper 30th percentile shade
production sites in MWMC trading area
are targeted for recruitment. PWP
implementers are trained in credit site
implementation. Under Task 2A, TFT will
also produce Program Implementation
Guidance reference materials for PWP
Implementers.
Attachment 1 - Credit Program Manager Task Status
Credit Program Manager Task Status as of July 1, 2021
MWMC Project P80080
Page 2
Objective Contract Deliverables Work Products Status
Task 1B: Stakeholder/
PWP Engagement
Original Budget:
$40,308
Spent to Date:
$23,519
Amended Budget:
$25,308
Objective 1B-1: Project
Strategy Meetings
As needed project
management
coordination.
• Participated in monthly and as needed
phone, virtual, and in-person meetings
to coordinate on project strategy,
directions, and adaptations.
100% complete
Outcome: Reallocation of task budgets
and additional funding to adapt to focus
on Water Quality Trading Plan and pilot
site implementation.
Objective 1B-2: PWP
Meeting Participation
Up to 12 monthly
meetings of PWP to
provide input and
recommendations related
to shade credit needs.
• Attended in-person and virtual
monthly meetings from April 2019
through June 2021 and provided email
input for agenda and follow ups (Initial
12 meetings and additional year of
meetings).
100% complete
Outcome: Fully incorporated
understanding of drivers and protocols for
MWMC shade credit projects as part of
the Pure Water Partners program.
Objective 1B-3: MWCF
Workshop Participation
Up to 3 workshops to
provide guidance on
behalf of the MWMC’s
shade credit program
funding needs
• Attended 2 workshops (3/14/19 and
10/9/19) and provided email
comments and recommendations.
100% complete
• PWP Program Handbook v1.0 adopted
March 2020
Outcome: MWMC roles of Committee
Member and Funder and TFT role of
Project Implementer defined in context of
PWP program.
Credit Program Manager Task Status as of July 1, 2021
MWMC Project P80080
Page 3
Objective Contract Deliverables Work Products Status
Task 1C: WQT Plan &
Permit Support
Original Budget:
$65,100
Spent to Date:
$52,098
Amended Budget:
$79,000
Objective 1C-1:
Background Information
Compilation
Support water-quality
trading plan
understanding and
decision-making.
• Regulatory Background Supporting
Trading in Oregon (preface to
Proposed Water Quality Plan, 1/6/20,
revised 5/21/20)
100% complete
Outcome: Defined basis for MWMC’s
trading eligibility, trading baseline, trading
area, and regulatory compliance.
Objective 1C-2: Draft
MWMC Water Quality
Trading Plan
Develop a draft water-
quality trading plan to
meet NPDES permit
compliance and PWP
objectives based on the
MWMC’s initial credit
production target.
• MWMC Proposed Water Quality
Trading Plan (Draft Document,
1/6/20)
• MWMC Proposed Water Quality
Trading Plan Summary (Info Sheet,
1/22/20)
100% complete
Outcome: All structural elements for the
MWMC’s future Water Quality Trading
Plan are defined for lower McKenzie,
Middle Fork Willamette, and Coast Fork
Willamette tributaries with protocols for
credit validation and ratios.
Objective 1C-3: Pre-
Permit Implementation
Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA)
Assist the MWMC with
development of an
agreement with DEQ to
provide the highest
achievable level of
regulatory certainty for
the MWMC to proceed
with implementing water
quality trading credit
projects.
• Example product: City of Ashland
Water Quality Trading Plan and
Performance Standards for Riparian
Restoration (March 7, 2018) as
approved by DEQ pre-permit shared
out to MWMC pre-contract
(Documents, 11/30/18).
100% complete
Outcome: Given MWMC’s position on the
DEQ’s 2021 Permit Issuance Plan and the
early implementation of the two pilot PWP
shade credit projects in 2020, a pre-permit
MOA was not pursued. Regulatory goals
under this objective are addressed
through approval of the MWMC’s Water
Quality Trading Plan.
Credit Program Manager Task Status as of July 1, 2021
MWMC Project P80080
Page 4
Objective Contract Deliverables Work Products Status
Objective 1C-4:
Temporal Evaluation of
PWP Shade Credit
Outcomes
Develop an understanding
of the change in daily
kilocalories of thermal
load benefit produced by a
theoretical full
implementation of the
MWMC’s target shade
credit on PWP sites, at a
minimum of monthly
increments and daily for
October 22-31.
• Example Shade Credits by Date (Chart,
4/23/19)
• Compilation of MWMC DMRs for
temperature exceedance assessment
(Data, 4/26/19)
• Thermal Benefit Modeling Options &
Sensitivity Analysis (Report, 12/23/19)
• Year-Round Shade Program Potential
(Memo & Workbooks, 12/17/20)
100% complete
Outcome: Mainstem McKenzie River sites
in upper 30th percentile are most effective
for spring and fall needs. Models for low-
leaf density from Nov. 1 to Mar. 31
indicates shade values drop significantly
starting Nov. 1; therefore, the key
modeling date for shade credit production
optimization was re-set to Oct. 31.
Objective 1C-5: Final
MWMC Water Quality
Trading Plan
Adopt final revisions to
the draft MWMC trading
plan developed under
Objective 1C-2 to reflect
DEQ
negotiations/requirement
s and PWP considerations.
• MWMC Proposed Water Quality
Trading Plan with Instream Credits
Protocols (Revised Document,
5/21/20)
• Draft WQT Plan discussion of MWMC
comments and directions (Meeting,
8/27/20)
• Scoping an Instream Program for
Water Quality Trading Credit
(Proposal, 10/2/20)
50% complete
Outcome: TFT recommendations for the
MWMC Water Quality Trading Plan have
been accepted by staff. Additional funding
for TFT support in vetting the plan through
DEQ pre-permit and through final public
review and adoption is warranted. In-
stream/floodplain restoration credits are
included under the proposed plan but will
not be pursued by the MWMC until after
the initial shade credit program is
implemented.
Credit Program Manager Task Status as of July 1, 2021
MWMC Project P80080
Page 5
Objective Contract Deliverables Work Products Status
Task 1D: Prep Phase 2
Cost & Approach
Original Budget:
$28,875
Spent to Date:
$47,760
Amended Budget:
$50,875
1D-1: Pre-DEQ MOA
Pilot implementation
strategy
Develop interim guidelines
and cost proposal to
benefit the MWMC
through early landowner
PWP participation to
include shade credit
project implementation.
• Shade Project Timeline - proposed
(Excel chart, 1/23/20)
• Cost estimate for pilot site
implementation (Email, 1/29/20)
• PWP Pilot Site Task 2A draft timeline
(Chart, 2/12/20)
• Task 2A shade pilot proposal (email,
2/12/20)
• MWMC pilot site activity timeline –
draft (Chart, 2/12/20)
100% complete
• Task 2A contract amendment
executed April 3, 2020.
Outcome: MWMC authorization to enroll
two sites for early implementation
through planting phase via Task 2A.
1D-2: Phase 2 cost
estimate scenario
Prepare the cost basis for
the long-term agreement
for CPM fulfillment of
MWMC shade credit
implementation based on
multiple scenarios.
• Disaster Mitigation & Remediation
Grant Funding Analysis (Word doc and
email, 9/27/20)
• Phase 2 Program Price Proposal
(Document, 5/24/21)
100% complete.
Outcome: MWMC program target set to
200 Mkcal/day of credits based on
October 31 model date over 5-year
implementation period. Cost range for
pre-payment versus credit reimbursement
range is $9,289,206 to $12,407,537.
1D-3: Credit site long-
term maintenance
proposal
Develop the long-term
strategy including roles,
responsibilities, costs,
funding, and guarantees
for maintaining the
MWMC’s shade credit
sites
• Phase 2 Program Price Proposal
(Document, 5/24/21)
100% complete.
Outcome: For pilot sites initiated prior to
the final adopted credit-cost contract
proposed under Objective 1D-2, MWMC
would pay for full 20-year credit
maintenance at the credit cost less any
previously incurred costs paid to TFT.
Credit Program Manager Task Status as of July 1, 2021
MWMC Project P80080
Page 6
Objective Contract Deliverables Work Products Status
Task 2A: New Credit
Implementation -
PWP Pilot Sites
Original Budget:
$247,850
Spent to Date:
$151,602
Amended Budget:
$287,500
2A-1: Site Selection Select one or more sites
from the PWP landowner
pool that meet the
geographic needs of the
MWMC’s proposed water
quality trading area
• Pilot Site #1 RM 24 identified (Email
notification, 1/22/20)
• Pilot Site #2 identified (Email
notification, 10/12/20)
100% complete
Outcome: TFT vetted 5 sites and
proceeded with 2: McKenzie RM 24 and
McKenzie RM 32.
2A-2: Enroll Sites Enter into binding and
durable riparian shade
restoration agreements
with one or more
landowners of the
selected sites.
• EWEB-TFT partnership agreement
(draft) (Document, 4/16/20)
• Riparian Land Lease Agreement for
McKenzie RM 24 (Document,
8/5/2020)
• EWEB-TFT Partnership Agreement
(final) (Document, 1/29/21)
• Riparian Land Lease Agreement for
McKenzie RM 32 (Document,
3/22/2021)
100% complete
• McKenzie RM 24 site agreement
signed 8/5/20
• EWEB-TFT Partnership Agreement
executed Feb. 2021
• McKenzie RM 32 site agreement
signed 3/22/21
Outcome: EWEB designated TFT as
MWMC’s Credit Production Manager to
oversee all shade credit site
implementation work under EWEB’s PWP
agreements. For sites without existing
PWP agreements, TFT develops a lease
directly with the landowner.
Credit Program Manager Task Status as of July 1, 2021
MWMC Project P80080
Page 7
Objective Contract Deliverables Work Products Status
2A-3: Restore Sites Consistent with the
partnership arrangements
under the current draft
PWP Memorandum of
Agreement and Handbook
and protocols as outlined
in the proposed MWMC
water quality trading plan,
coordinate site restoration
plans, ground preparation,
planting, and Year 1
maintenance and
monitoring, and credit
verification/registration
activities with PWP
implementers and other
sub-contractors, as
necessary.
• MWMC Pilot Site Activity Timeline
(Chart, 2/12/20)
50% complete
Outcome: McKenzie RM 24 and McKenzie
RM 32 fully planted. Year 1 maintenance
and monitoring of these sites as well as
planting of new project (McKenzie RM
31.8) added via this amendment. Program
Implementation Guidance report is in draft
stage and will be updated with lessons
learned from pilot implementation. Final
credit verification/registration is deferred
as a requirement from this scope of work
given timelines to complete prior to June
30, 2022.
2A-4: Credit Verification
& Registration
Follow shade credit site
design, implementation,
and verification protocols
as outlined in the
proposed MWMC water
quality trading plan to
verify and record site
credits in MWMC’s name
using the Counting on the
Environment protocols.
• No formal submittals to date 10% complete
Outcome: Verification protocols are as
documented in the draft Water Quality
Trading Plan accepted by MWMC from
TFT. “As-Built” Verification documentation
for McKenzie RM 24 and McKenzie RM 32
sites in progress, to be followed by full
credit registration. As-Built Verification of
McKenzie RM 31.8 to be completed under
later contract.
1
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
700 SW Taylor Street, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97205
www.thefreshwatertrust.org
Phase 2 Program Price Proposal
May 24, 2021
INTRODUCTION
The Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (the MWMC) is developing a water quality
trading (WQT) program to help it achieve temperature compliance under its upcoming permit renewal.
The MWMC will likely implement several elements of a temperature compliance portfolio. This memo
addresses only the portion of the MWMC’s temperature exceedance that will be met by The Freshwater
Trust (TFT) via a riparian shading WQT program. Over the last two years, TFT worked with potential
implementation partners within the MWMC’s proposed trading area to outline and test partner roles and
responsibilities and to refresh estimated prices for the portfolios of projects that will be needed to meet
the MWMC’s target thermal reduction need. TFT used these inputs as well as the MWMC’s specific
priorities and constraints to produce a Phase 2 program price for three contracting scenarios of primary
interest to the MWMC.1 The results of this analysis are intended to support the MWMC and TFT in
finalizing a contract amendment for a specific quantity of shade credits.
PHASE I TARGET THERMAL REDUCTION NEED
The MWMC expects that the Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will renew its National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in 2021. However, DEQ is also required to
redevelop the Willamette basin TMDL by 2025, which will likely impact the size of the MWMC’s thermal
exceedance. Given this uncertainty, the MWMC desires to contract with TFT for a 25-year shade credit
program to be implemented in a five-year permit period starting with its upcoming permit renewal
(program duration includes five years of project implementation plus 20-year credit lives2 at projects).
The MWMC has advised TFT it wishes to procure 440 million (M) kilocalories (kcals)/day in October 31st
thermal benefits.3 For the remainder of the document, this need is referred to as the “Phase I target
thermal reduction need.” The MWMC expects that this target thermal reduction need may satisfy
approximately half of its obligation under its likely 10-year thermal compliance schedule. TFT will not
address the MWMC’s full projected thermal exceedance amount via this initial contract (“Phase I Credit
Contract”) so that the MWMC has a chance to see how DEQ’s TMDL recalibration effort affects its
exceedance, and to assess other alternatives for cost effectively addressing the remaining exceedance
amount.
1 TFT’s current contract with the MWMC has two phases. In Phase 1, TFT established the credit program framework. This memo
addresses Phase 2, credit program implementation.
2 Credit project life is typically 20 years. Until the MWMC’s Water Quality Trading Plan is finalized, it is unknown whether DEQ will
consider that lifespan to start from original thermal benefit registration date or from the date the permit is renewed. The effects of
the DEQ’s decision on project costs will be addressed in a subsequent contract.
3 The Phase I target thermal reduction need of 440 million (M) kcals/day covers a base exceedance of 200 million (M) kcals/day.
Target thermal reduction need is typically calculated as base exceedance plus 10% of base exceedance to cover margin of safety;
this total is then doubled as DEQ has traditionally set aside half of the thermal benefits produced by shade projects to account for
the temporal lag experienced after the installation of shade-producing riparian trees, meaning that twice the excess thermal load
kilocalories are needed from shade projects to meet the compliance obligation.
Attachment 2 - Phase 2 Program Price Proposal
2
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
MODELING DATE USED FOR PROGRAM PRICE ESTIMATE
The MWMC directed TFT to use October 31st as the shade benefit modeling date because a review of its
thermal exceedance data indicates that the facility’s period of maximum exceedance occurs in late fall.4
This date is somewhat later than that used for the earlier program price estimate, which was based on a
monthly mean of thermal benefits produced in October.5 Because thermal benefits produced by riparian
reforestation projects decrease in efficiency as deciduous trees lose their leaves and the sun angle declines
(project costs are the same but fewer kcals are produced), modeling thermal benefits for dates later in the
fall generally increases the price per kcal.
PROGRAM PRICE METHODOLOGY
TFT developed a program price based on an analysis of the target thermal reduction need, project-specific
kcal potential and costs within the trading area, and program-level costs. TFT then assembled these
elements into a risk-adjusted program price that it tests with thousands of simulations. As part of an earlier
analysis completed in 2016, TFT identified 842 acres (341 hectares) of potential riparian planting area
within 783 potential projects6 along approximately 120 miles (200 kilometers) of stream within McKenzie,
Coast Fork Willamette, and Middle Fork Willamette subbasins. TFT then estimated per-acre and per-site
costs for each potential project over its 20-year project life as well as program-level costs and risks. To
increase precision and accuracy over our previous Class V price analysis, TFT expanded the project cost
basis to include actual costs gathered from previous and new pilot projects and interviews with local
restoration experts as well as cross-checks with actual costs incurred by comparable WQT programs. TFT
also considered how program costs and risks would change because of the MWMC’s unique placement
within the Pure Water Partners (PWP) program and worked closely with local PWP implementers to further
tailor program design to the geography. TFT then entered all potential projects within the proposed trading
area into a mathematical optimization algorithm. This algorithm calculates the project portion of program
price for thousands of simulations that each represent a portfolio of projects that meet the target thermal
reduction need within user-defined constraints. To account for risk, TFT then chose the project price that is
one standard deviation above the average of those simulations and combined it with programmatic costs
and inflation to ultimately arrive at a single program price.
A. Key Input Cost Categories
The program price estimates represent the sum of several major cost categories (using 2021 dollars),
which are described below, along with the decisions TFT made to inform these input costs and lessons
learned through pilot projects. The cost basis was weighted to more strongly reflect conditions within the
geographies where the largest number of thermal benefits are available. For example, the proportion of
projects likely to need a livestock exclusion fence was weighted more heavily on land use along the
McKenzie River mainstem than on Mosby Creek because the kcals available along the McKenzie River are
far greater than smaller streams.
4 Although the MWMC’s exceedance data suggest that there may be a slightly higher exceedance in the first week of November,
that uptick may be attributed to noise in the data, or, if it persists after further data QAQC, may be addressed by operational
changes or other non-shade measures.
5 “Credit Cost and Opportunities: Task 2 Deliverable”, Feb. 2 2016.
6 Note that this acreage reflects the likely areas that can be planted (i.e., a 60-foot average buffer width), not the full size of parcels,
which would be much larger. For the purposes of this analysis, projects are defined by taxlot boundaries.
3
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
Landowner Recruitment Costs
Landowner recruitment costs include labor necessary to conduct landowner outreach, complete project
design, and obtain 20-year leases (the minimum term for these projects). Program viability declines as
recruitment success drops below 15-20%. Landowner recruitment is therefore key to program success and
must be adequately funded if program objectives are to be achieved. Landowner recruitment costs increase
as target thermal reduction need increases because more projects must be recruited to meet that need.
TFT worked with local implementation partners to define a preferred approach to landowner recruitment
where local partners lead on recruitment by leveraging existing relationships and interactions with
landowners. Landowners will most likely prefer to engage with a single local contact they trust. However,
projects suitable for thermal benefits have not been a focus of recent recruitment efforts. This means that
in addition to maintaining existing relationships, local partners will need to actively pursue potential shade
project landowners. TFT will use its expertise to identify and help vet potential project feasibility and will
support with targeted brochures and mailings but will mostly be behind the scenes. TFT will also use its
legal expertise to develop and execute lease agreements while local partners facilitate negotiations with
the landowner; this approach provides an opportunity for relationship development between the
landowner and TFT. TFT is better suited to lead on development of credit cycle documentation and
coordination with third-party verifiers that accompanies project design, while local partners confirm that
documentation captures project conditions and facilitate on-site verifier visits. While the partnership
between TFT and local restoration implementers is mutually beneficial in many ways, it requires developing
trust-based relationships with excellent communication. Because local partners will be managing many
other projects in addition to thermal benefit projects, TFT expects effort to be needed to ensure that
sufficient partner time and attention is being invested in thermal benefit project recruitment and
stewardship.
During pilot project recruitment under the current contract, TFT and local partners completed outreach
that secured two new thermal benefit projects, bringing the total to five pilot projects that have already
been implemented for the MWMC. Additionally, 18 sites were pursued and found to have landowners that
were not interested in the program or were not viable for other reasons. As an outcome of these efforts
during the pilot phase, TFT added a zoning review as a step in preliminary recruitment. Specifically, parcels
zoned for forestry are not well suited for thermal benefits because state-required tree stocking rates
interfere with the “baseline” additionality principle of credit projects.
Failed Landowner Recruitment Costs
In addition to costs incurred for project lands that are successfully leased, labor and materials expenses are
also invested in pursuit of projects that are not successfully recruited. Based on nearly a decade of
experience implementing comparable shade credit programs, TFT has observed that recruitment costs are
incurred for at least twice as many projects as are successfully signed.
Landowner Payments
Payments are made to landowners for leased acreage over the 20-year life of leases. Payments are key to
recruitment success and to project protection. Leased acreage typically includes the planting area as well
as a small buffer to ensure protection for growing tree canopy at the planting area margins. Landowner
payments must be somewhat higher in the Willamette Valley and Cascade Mountain foothills than in
other regions given the high value of land and the need to secure high-performance projects. Payments
4
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
are higher than local USDA NRCS CREP payments,7 and are intended to be adjusted on a project-specific
basis to offer incentives to landowners for early enrollment, ambassadorship, etc. that are important for
generating program momentum. Payments must be high enough to generate economic interest but will
not be high enough to replace economic value of lands converted from agricultural production;
recruitment of agricultural landowners is therefore most likely to be successful if landowners are already
open to converting riparian frontage to forest for non-economic reasons such as bank retention or
preemptive wildfire resiliency.
Direct Implementation Costs
Implementation costs include permitting, site preparation, plant materials, installation labor, and project
management. Site preparation primarily includes weed control, which is expected to be intensive upfront
because reed canary grass and Himalayan blackberry are abundant in most places that are suitable for a
shade project. Intensive site prep is often cost-effective in the long run as it can reduce weed control
expenses in the stewardship phase. Weed control in the riparian zone requires a county permit. Based on
experience with the pilots, the permitting process is expected to be relatively straightforward with low
costs per project for the permits themselves. However, very long lead times are required for county review.
At the McKenzie RM 24 project, the permit application for weed control was submitted in early spring but
was not reviewed and approved until October. The result was that only one instance of site preparation
was possible before planting at that project (compared to two or three instances desired), which in turn is
expected to increase post-planting weed control costs. To date, the county has not been amenable to
considering programmatic permits such as are used in other programs; programmatic permits would be
more cost-effective and avoid implementation delays. The result is that projects may not always be able to
move from the landowner recruitment phase through site prep within the same year.
Direct implementation costs also include plant materials and items necessary to protect the project from
surrounding land uses, such as browse protection cages for target tree species on all projects, livestock
fencing and off-channel watering, and elk exclusion fencing for projects that may be recruited higher up in
the watershed. In general, restoration practitioners in the Willamette Valley tend to prefer to invest in
planting at relatively high densities and expect plants to thin from initial mortality. This approach may be
more environmentally friendly and cost-effective than planting at lower densities and expending greater
resources on interplanting and maintenance.
The climate of the MWMC’s draft trading area is generally favorable for establishing native riparian forests
and, overall, implementation tends to be less expensive than in more arid climates because components
such as moisture-retaining mulch and irrigation systems are unlikely to be needed at many projects.
However, meeting the MWMC’s target thermal benefit need will require recruiting some projects that are
not well connected to the floodplain or groundwater, and these projects will need supplementary
irrigation. Therefore, TFT has embedded budget for three years of irrigation at a small portion of projects.
Budget is also included for emergency hand-watering at a small portion of projects; emergency watering is
expected to increasingly be needed to protect shade project investments at risk from climate-change
induced heat and drought. TFT has already seen expenses for comparable WQT programs increase due to
climate-change related shifts in precipitation amount and timing.
Costs include a 10% contingency variable to account for unforeseen implementation scenarios. For
example, each project inevitably must be field-fit to on-the-ground circumstances. Accommodating the
7 The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) sponsors an agricultural conservation program known as the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP is a voluntary program that offers financial incentives to private
landowners to enhance and protect water quality for drinking by filtering runoff, stabilizing streambanks and shading stream
channels.
5
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
unique project-specific conditions that sometimes arise during implementation typically requires the
largest adjustment to the labor budget, which makes up about half of the implementation costs. In TFT’s
experience, the modest contingency ensures that “base” expenses are covered, but also accounts for the
customization that often occurs and that cannot be accurately scoped in advance.
Project Stewardship
Stewardship includes 20 years of maintenance and monitoring to assure that the modeled thermal
benefits materialize and are sustained over the life of the program.
Maintenance. Maintenance is expected to occur frequently for all projects until they reach
“establishment,” generally within five years after planting. By project year 5, any supplemental watering
should have ceased and weed control needs should be lower as plantings are expected to have grown tall
enough to out-compete weeds. Plantings should have also grown above browse height by this time.
Thereafter, maintenance effort and frequency will likely decrease as projects become more stable.
Maintenance costs include labor (both seasonal and supervisory) and materials (e.g., irrigation system
repair, browse cage upsizing, mowing equipment, etc.).
Monitoring. The project monitoring approach and schedule is consistent with the Willamette
Partnership’s 2016 riparian addendum to its General Crediting Protocol.8 Monitoring objectives for the
MWMC’s shade credit projects would be as follows:
• Years 0 – “Free to Grow” (assumed Y0-Y4): 1) provide early warning that a project may not meet
performance standards; and 2) provide sufficient information on project trajectory in year 5 to
inform discussions and next steps in the event that standards are not met.
• Five-year cycles (Y5, Y10, Y15, Y20): confirm with a high level of certainty whether or not project
performance standards are met.
• Interim years past “Free to Grow” (assumed Y6-9, Y11-14, Y16-19): 1) remain informed of general
project status, including major changes in trajectory, as informed by remote or qualitative
monitoring; and 2) provide information in a way that can be summarized to depict status and
trends across the program with gaps no greater than two years.
To achieve these objectives, TFT would apply a combination of quantitative, qualitative, and remote
monitoring. Monitoring costs assume that local restoration professionals will complete qualitative
monitoring; the ability of local partners to take on a monitoring role results in material savings in travel
time and expenses. Monitoring costs also assume that remote monitoring will be completed by acquiring
free, publicly available data; and that reporting time will decrease from historical effort as reports become
partially automated.
Performance Tracking
The Oregon water quality trading rules require that an entity using trading verify and document that best
management practices (BMPs) conform to quality standards, and that credits are tracked and made
available for the public.9 To be consistent with the Oregon trading rule, TFT has included verification cost
8 Willamette Partnership, Performance Standards for Riparian Vegetation (2016), available at http://willamettepartnership.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/06/Performance-Stds-for-Rip-Reveg_2016-02-16.pdf.
9 “Credits may be used for compliance with NPDES permit requirements … once implementation of BMPs has been verified as
consistent with applicable BMP quality standards according to OAR 340-039-0025(5)(h).”OAR 340-039-0040(5). “(5) A trading plan
must include all of the following elements and a description of how the elements were derived or calculated: … (h) Trading Plan
Performance Verification: A description of how the entity will verify and document for each trading project that BMPs are
conforming to applicable quality standards and credits are generated as planned; and (i) Tracking and Reporting: A description of
6
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
assumptions consistent with the Counting on the Environment’s standards for verification10. TFT has also
included the cost of using a web-based registry system to track and report on progress toward achieving
the target thermal reduction, as well as to confirm that projects are in place and meeting quality
standards for implementation.
Credit Cycle and Program Administration
These costs account for labor for registering project credits and publishing required supporting
documentation to a publicly available website per trading rules. Costs also cover program management,
including client communications; dynamic reprioritization as new projects are added to or removed from
the target list or program design elements evolve; relationship building and maintenance with project
partners and stakeholders; maintaining project quality control and consistency; program budgeting,
tracking, reporting, and invoicing; policy and legal analysis; and adaptive management.
Inflation
Inflation over a 25-year program adds up. For example, since submitting our Class V riparian shade WQT
program price estimate for the MWMC in 2016, there has been 13% cumulative inflation on labor, supplies,
and material costs.11 TFT has embedded a 1.5% inflation driver into the overall program price. Inflation was
included in the prior estimate, but because the program is slated to start five years after that estimate was
submitted and the base costs have increased, the overall impact of inflation has increased since the
previous estimate.
Classifying Cost Categories
In addition to identifying and quantifying key input cost categories, TFT must classify costs as per unit, per
acre, per site, or programmatic costs so that they scale up accurately. Some of the costs above, such as
program administration, are incurred on a program level and are added as a lump sum element to the
program price. Other costs are incurred per site, for example the labor required to write a monitoring
report. Such costs increase in direct proportion to the number of sites required to meet a program’s target
thermal reduction need. Per-acre cost examples include plant materials and labor to install them, or time
needed to monitor along transects to document project performance. However, costs that are calculated to
scale with acreage nearly always have a set minimum: costs scale with acreage only after a minimum cost
threshold is met. For example, monitoring time spent in the field scales with acreage but only after time is
spent planning and traveling to the project and that effort is expended regardless of project size. How these
cost classifications are used in program price simulations is described below.
B. Simulation of Program Price within Defined Constraints
TFT calculates program price by entering all potential projects within the proposed trading area into a
mathematical optimization algorithm. This algorithm uses a Monte Carlo method to run repeated
simulations to identify feasible project combinations and an associated price. The steps to complete
simulations and calculate program price are as follows:
(1) Per-acre costs, such as many implementation, maintenance, and monitoring costs, tend to be
underestimated for small sites for the reasons described earlier. This presents a risk of underpricing
how credit generation, acquisition and usage will be tracked and how this information will be made available to the public.” OAR
340-039-0025(5)(h)-(i).
10 Willamette Partnership. (2013.) Ecosystem Credit Accounting System General Crediting Protocol v 2.0. Nov. 1, 2013. Updated
Jan. 2017. The Ecosystem Credit Accounting System and associated quantification methods and tools was developed by the
Counting on the Environment process and coordinating team.
11 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator, https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (used February 2016
as base period, and April 2021 as current period).
7
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
the program if the ultimate population of selected sites is made up of many below average-sized
sites. This risk is asymmetrical, in that costs typically scale up more accurately than down due to the
entangled fixed costs in these cost categories. To handle this, TFT uses a piece-wise function with a
minimum site size of one acre for calculating per-acre costs. This means that for sites that are
smaller than one acre, we substitute the site acreage with one acre. We take this approach in lieu
of outright eliminating small sites from the data set of potential projects. While small sites are
generally not cost-effective, there are certainly exceptions and it would inappropriately skew
simulation results if all small sites were eliminated from the analysis.
(2) The algorithm then draws a random selection from the population of all potential projects. Random
selection reflects that fact that there is no guarantee that landowners with the best sites will be
willing to participate in the program as landowner interest is typically independent of site quality.
(3) The algorithm selects the most optimal (cost-effective) projects from the random sample until the
thermal benefit target is met; selected projects are analogous to “recruited” projects. This
optimization step reflects that, during actual program implementation, TFT will target the most
efficient thermal benefit-producing projects available because doing so is the most cost-effective
way to achieve the Phase I target thermal reduction need. The simulation constrains project
recruitment to match real-world rates of landowner recruitment success of 15-25%.12 An
assumption implicit in this optimization step is that all optimal projects drawn in the random
sample are available for recruitment.
(4) The algorithm calculates the price associated with “recruited” projects for that simulation. Because
the most optimal projects are chosen for each simulation, the price represents a least-cost
scenario. TFT runs 10,000 simulations to model the range of optimal program price outcomes and
support a robust understanding of their probability. A new random selection of projects is
“recruited” for each simulation.
(5) Program-level expenses are added to project-level expenses and then the total is adjusted for
inflation to arrive at a least-cost program price for each simulation.
(6) TFT then chooses a program price that is one standard-deviation above the mean of the 10,000
simulations of least-cost program price. There are two reasons for this choice: (1) As noted, each
simulation of program price represents a least-cost scenario where the “recruited” project portfolio
is extremely cost-efficient compared to the average project in the trading area. In actual program
implementation, however, it is TFT’s experience that some or many of the optimal projects are not
available for implementation, meaning that simulation results tend to represent overly optimistic
cost efficiencies that are difficult to achieve in application. (2) Setting the program price one
standard-deviation above the mean of the program price distribution is a better reflection of the
12 It is highly unlikely that all “ideal” shade credit projects will be available for implementation. A landowner may not be willing to
host a riparian revegetation project, or a project may have on-the-ground characteristics that would make it unsuitable (e.g., soil
unsuitable for planting, contamination, existing conservation program or utility easement, local land use law restriction, etc.). TFT
therefore constrained recruitment success within reasonable bounds of 15-25% as has been observed in similar programs. To
simulate the scenario where 15% of the projects in the program area are available to participate, TFT randomly assigned a value
from 0 to 1 to each potential project. All projects with a value less than or equal to 0.15 were added to the pool of “recruitable”
projects. These steps were repeated to represent scenarios where up to 25% of projects were recruitable. Information on
recruitment that was gathered during the pilot phase was also integrated into all simulations. Specifically, the five shade credit pilot
projects already implemented for the MWMC were assigned a recruitment likelihood of 100% and were included in all simulated
project portfolios. Other projects that were already known to be ineligible for the program or excluded for other reasons were
assigned a recruitment likelihood of 0% and were omitted from all simulations.
8
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
delivery, performance, and deployment risks expected in program implementation, including those
associated with climate change and its uncertain impact over the 25-year program duration.
CONTRACTING SCENARIOS
TFT worked with the MWMC to identify several contracting scenarios that represent different constraints
in program price design. Scenarios 1 and 2 are both per-credit price models where the MWMC would
purchase fully verified credits for a fixed and all-inclusive per kcal price. Scenario 1 has no annual caps on
the number of credits that can be sold to the MWMC whereas Scenario 2 includes an annual cap on
available MWMC funding for credit purchases. Scenario 3 represents a more traditional “pay-for-effort”
model where labor and credit project expenses are reimbursed as they are incurred. 13 To support
comparison across scenarios, TFT calculated a fully loaded price for each scenario, which can then be
divided by the Phase I target thermal reduction need to arrive at a $/kcal price. Each scenario and how it
was modeled are described further below.
Scenario 1: Fully loaded price per credit with all funds available
Under this scenario, all implemented credits would be invoiced upon registration without annual caps on
the amount of funds available to TFT. This scenario is expected to maximize efficiency because the pace of
implementation could proceed according to the natural momentum observed in other programs. Priority
projects could be pursued according to the pace at which landowner relationships evolve without the risk
of potentially jeopardizing a project with a willing landowner by putting it on hold until new funding
becomes available, and without the need to manage stop-start inefficiencies. Price was modeled under this
scenario assuming that TFT would need low-cost financing to carry project expenses until reimbursement.
Scenario 2: Fully loaded price credit with set annual fund disbursement
The second scenario assumes that the MWMC has annual funding caps for each year of the program. As
noted under Scenario 1, landowner recruitment and project implementation momentum does not tend to
be evenly parsed among years, but rather implementation activity and associated costs tend to be lower in
the beginning and end of the program and implementation tends to be higher in program mid-life. The
second scenario models program price when funding availability may be constrained. This mismatch of
project implementation schedules with the funding release schedule can create a risk of under-recruiting
and not meeting the permit compliance schedule, or over-recruiting and bearing costs for the year until
reimbursed. However, these risks can be reduced if two important assumptions are met:
• In early years where disbursed funds are expected to be greater than costs, TFT is permitted to
carry forward the balance to apply in years where funds available are expected to be less than
costs.
• Credits for the five pilot projects are paid out upon execution of the Phase I Credit Contract,
thereby creating funds upfront that allow TFT flexibility to manage some of the recruitment risk.
The program price estimate for the scenario with set annual fund disbursement assumes both of the above
criteria are met. Not meeting these criteria will change the price estimate reported below. Nonetheless,
capped annual fund disbursement is likely to require additional management of landowner relationships:
13 A fourth scenario was originally defined that would provide up-front funds necessary for landowner outreach and recruitment
that often occurs a year or more in advance of credit registry. However, TFT did not model a program price specific to this scenario
because other funds could be leveraged to create flexibility to pursue recruitment. Specifically, if the MWMC chooses to pay out
credits for the five pilot projects upon execution of the contract for Phase 2 Credit Program Implementation, those funds could be
used to support outreach and recruitment needed to secure additional credit projects until new projects could be completed and
invoiced.
9
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
landowner payments are increased relative to other scenarios to encourage patience with projects that
may be put on pause until more funds are made available. The cost of financing to TFT was also increased
under the assumption that TFT would need to carry a higher financial burden for longer periods in years
when annual project costs outpaced annual funds available (as has happened in TFT’s City of Medford WQT
program).
Scenario 3: Reimbursement by credit
The reimbursement by credit scenario is similar to the model the MWMC used to fund three pilot projects
under the State Revolving Fund (SRF). Because this scenario requires detailed cost tracking and invoicing,
administrative expenses were modeled at an increased level by increasing program management time and
by using consulting labor rates (while the other two scenarios used cost rates for labor). The funding
availability is well-matched to the pace of implementation in this scenario and so there is no need to
include financing costs. However, this model does not provide the opportunities for efficiency that are
available in other scenarios.
SIMULATION RESULTS AND PROGRAM PRICE PROPOSAL
The simulation results reported below are intended to support the MWMC and TFT in finalizing a Phase I
Credit Contract for a shade program that meets the Phase I target thermal reduction need of 440 million
(M) kcals/day in October 31st thermal benefits. Table 1 compares program price, price per kilocalorie, and
program characteristics (simulated number of acres and projects) for Scenarios 1-3. As noted above, the
program price is risk-adjusted, meaning that it is one standard-deviation above the mean of the 10,000
simulations. The distribution of simulated program prices for each scenario is illustrated in Figure 1. All
simulations started with the same population of potential projects and so produced similarly shaped
distributions of price across contracting scenarios; likewise, selected project portfolios for each scenario
had similar planted acreage and numbers of projects. Differences in program price among scenarios
therefore primarily reflect differences in the way price was modeled in response to contracting constraints.
Very few simulations resulted in an infeasible solution where the target thermal reduction need was not
met under the assumptions described earlier (Table 1).
Table 1: Program price and simulated program characteristics for each of the Phase I Credit Contract scenarios,
based on a Phase I target thermal reduction need of 440 million (M) kcals/day in October 31 thermal benefits.
Contracting scenario Program
price
Price
per kcal
Simulated
planted acres
(# projects)a
#
Optimal
solutions
#
Infeasible
solutions
Total #
simulations
Scenario 1: Fully loaded price
per credit with all funds
available
$9,289,206 $0.0211 39 (22) 9,983 17 10,000
Scenario 2: Fully loaded price
credit with set annual fund
disbursement
$9,560,580 $0.0217 39 (22) 9,988 12 10,000
Scenario 3: Reimbursement
by credit $12,407,537 $0.0282 39 (22) 9,986 14 10,000
a Simulated results reported in the table are one standard deviation about the mean. The simulated mean for all scenarios was 30
planted acres and 16 projects.
10
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
Figure 2: Distribution of simulated program price for each Phase I Credit Contract scenario, based on a Phase I
target thermal reduction need of 440 million (M) kcals/day in October 31 thermal benefits and expected recruitment
success of 15-25%.
11
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
Figure 3 (continued): Distribution of simulated program price for each Phase I Credit Contract scenario, based on a
Phase I target thermal reduction need of 440 million (M) kcals/day in October 31 thermal benefits and expected
recruitment success of 15-25%.
CREDIT PRICE AS APPLIED TO FIVE EXISTING PILOT PROJECTS
The program price for each scenario above includes all program elements necessary to verify 440 million
(M) kcals/day of credits for the 25-year duration of the program. By the end of 2021, however, the MWMC
will have already funded TFT to recruit, implement, and register credits in the MWMC’s name for five pilot
projects (Table 2).14
14 As noted above, DEQ has traditionally set aside half of the thermal benefits produced by shade projects to account for the
temporal lag experienced after the installation of shade-producing riparian trees. A more favorable ratio may be negotiable for
existing pilot projects since they have a shorter temporal lag until they produce shade. Trading ratios will be set in the MWMC’s
Water Quality Trading Plan. Favorable ratios would mean that fewer thermal benefits produced by existing pilot projects would
need to be set aside and pilot projects would produce more credits toward the MWMC’s compliance obligation.
12
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
Table 2: Existing shade credit pilot projects funded by the MWMC.
Project name MWMC funding
source
As-built
verification
year
Planted
acres
Shade credits (kcals/day;
Oct. 31st modeling date)
Mill Race RM 2 SRF sponsorship
pilot project 2013 1.7 2,452,618
Cedar Creek RM 2.5 SRF sponsorship
pilot project 2015 2.0 12,821,403
Cedar Creek RM 4 SRF sponsorship
pilot project 2016 2.1 4,835,877
McKenzie RM 24a CPM Task 2A
pilot
Summer 2021
(planned) ~3 ~17,000,000 - 24,000,000
McKenzie RM 32 a CPM Task 2A
pilot
Summer 2021
(planned) ~1 ~3,000,000 - 5,000,000
TOTAL ~9.8 ~40,110,000 – 49,110,000
a Project acres and thermal benefits scheduled to be verified in June 2021 and credit registered by December 2021.
As suggested by the MWMC, TFT proposes that the program prices above be reduced to account for the
funds already invested in producing thermal benefits from the five pilot projects. Specifically, TFT proposes
applying the $/kcal price from the chosen scenario above to these projects as follows:
(1) Calculate the total price for each existing pilot project based on the $/kcal from the MWMC’s
preferred contracting scenario but subtract costs already incurred and reimbursed by the MWMC.
Pay out that remainder for these five pilot projects upon initiation of the Phase I Thermal Benefit
Contract.
(2) Use simple $/kcal price for all new projects implemented after the Phase I Credit Contract is signed.
In addition to unifying all MWMC projects under a single contract—which removes complexity of which
project elements were already paid versus not—this approach would provide cash flow for TFT to
comfortably carry forward with program kickoff without having to worry about upfront “seed” funding.
INFLATION RISK IN PRICING
As noted above, TFT has embedded an annual 1.5% inflation driver into the overall program price. The
risk of inflation has been highlighted recently in the form of considerably higher supply/material costs
and labor shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic. To the extent that atypical macroeconomic changes
result in considerably higher input costs over the course of this 25-year contract, TFT proposes a
contractual inflation adjustment mechanism. As proposed, an adjustment would be triggered if the
cumulative impact of inflation, as tracked by the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) price
index for the West Region15, materially deviates from the program assumption of 1.5% annual inflation.
15 https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/consumerpriceindex_west.htm
13
Phase 2 Program Price Estimate
NEXT STEPS
This document outlines a proposal for shade credit program implementation for the MWMC that addresses
a target thermal reduction need of 440 million kcals/day in October 31st thermal benefits. This proposal is
founded on work completed for the MWMC over the last two years to help develop the PWP framework
and an advantageous role for the MWMC within it, work with the PWP and other partners within the
trading area to scope out and trial partner roles and responsibilities, and refresh the program cost basis to
include actual costs and lessons learned from the pilot projects. The results of this analysis are intended to
support the MWMC and TFT in finalizing a contract amendment to support implementation of a shade
credit program. This program would serve to reflect the MWMC’s commitment to stewardship of the upper
Willamette River basin while cost-effectively meeting the MWMC’s compliance needs.
Please direct questions, comments and additions to:
Olivia Duren
Environmental Quality Program Manager
503‐222‐9091 x51
olivia@thefreshwatertrust.org
POPLAR MARKETING IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
This Implementation Matrix outlines key tactics to support the promotion and ongoing marketing of Poplar wood products
generated by the MWMC Biocycle Farm. The key goal is to build demand for sustainably-farmed poplar among the local and regional
building community. Our approach to effective marketing involves dual phases, each directed toward a specific audience:
Phase 1: Establish thought leadership through partnerships with the Research/Educator community
Creating partnerships with Oregon colleges and universities (along with other institutions and non-profits) can elevate MWMC’s
presence and help establish the Biocycle Farm as an innovator in the field.
Phase 2: Generate leads, build interest, and (eventually) create demand for poplar among the Architect/Builder community
Building awareness of poplar products and promoting the benefits of sustainably-farmed poplar will support ongoing marketing
efforts, and can assist with lead generation—identifying a robust customer base for poplar products.
This Implementation Matrix is paired with a list of specific contacts in each area.
AUDIENCE OBJECTIVES TACTICS SUPPORTING
MATERIALS
TIMING
Researcher/Educator
● Universities
● Institutes
● Advocacy Groups
Build Awareness
Form Partnerships
Create Opportunities
Expand Reach
Establish relationships with the
appropriate contacts
List of research contacts Ongoing
Meet with faculty/admins to discuss
opportunities
List of research contacts 6-12 months
Sponsor design contests using provided
Poplar products
Student-directed
promotional materials
Write ups/photos of
projects
Year 2
Identify opportunities to speak to
classes/groups/clubs
Promotional materials
Presentation
Year 1-2
Conduct research/co-author papers on
Poplar farm products
N/A Year 2
Promote newsworthy activities through
social media and in press
Social media posts; press
releases
Year 2
Attachment 3 - Poplar Marketing Implementation Matrix
AUDIENCE OBJECTIVES TACTICS SUPPORTING
MATERIALS
TIMING
Architect/Builder
● Architecture
● Green Building
Generate Leads
Market Poplar
Form Partnerships
Establish Thought Leadership
Invite industry professionals to tour the
Farm (virtually or in-person)
List of industry contacts 6-12 months
Co-market with building suppliers
(Ninewood)
Button to place on partner
website; co-branded poster;
in-store POP displays
9-18 months
Create a marketing brochure/leave-
behind promoting the benefits of Poplar
N/A 9-18 months
Partner with environmental groups and
non-profit green building advocacy
organizations to promote Poplar
Co-branded digital
collateral; shared social
media; etc.
Ongoing
Place digital/print ads in industry
websites and print publications
List of industry press Year 2
Provide presentations for associations
and industry groups
N/A 9-18 months
Develop promotional collateral
(brochures) for green architect and
builders to distribute to their clients
N/A Year 2
Local Governments Generate Leads
Form Partnerships
Meet with local governments to discuss
Poplar promotion
List of government contacts 6-12 months
Identify opportunities to integrate poplar
in LEED building construction for
municipal buildings
9-18 months
AUDIENCE OBJECTIVES TACTICS SUPPORTING
MATERIALS
TIMING
Trade Press
(Local/Regional and
National)
Build Recognition
Increase Reach
Build Positive Buzz
Create a one page fact sheet to help
explain Poplar and the Biocycle Farm
Fact sheet 6-12 months
Create a list of potential topics that could
be turned into contributed articles
6 months
Reach out to publications and inquire
about contributing an article/s on the
topics developed
List of press contacts
Pitch letter/email with
topics of interest
Ongoing
For announcements, write a press release
and send to publications inquiring about
their interest in covering the topic
Press release Ongoing
Follow submission guidelines for journals
when a research paper is complete
Research paper Ongoing
Harvester/Planter Form Partnerships
Leverage Channels
Explore opportunities for co-marketing Year 1-2
Distribute RFI Yearly
Miller/Processor Form Partnerships
Leverage Channels
Explore opportunities for co-marketing Year 1-2
Submit articles to trade press List of industry press Ongoing
Distribute RFI Yearly
OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS
Project:MWMC Class A Recycled Water Facilities Prepared By:JLH
Date Prepared:3-Aug-21
Building:Total Project (1.3 MGD Capacity)K/J Proj. No.:2176050*00
MWMC Proj. No.:P80098
Estimate
Type: Construction Current at ENR 11,849
Escalated to ENR
Mos. to Midpoint 20
SUMMARY BY DIVISION 0
Item No. ITEM DESCRIPTION MATERIALS INSTALLATION
SUB-
CONTRACTOR
(NON
ELECTRICAL)
SUB-
CONTRACTOR
(E&I/C) TOTAL
1 Site Work and Yard Piping 426,886 355,558 112,060 894,504
2 Tertiary Filter Pump Station 71,679 46,820 2,000 114,132 234,631
3 UV Disinfection 542,907 174,057 2,000 85,550 804,514
4 Hypo Disinfection Improvments 9,188 3,912 500 10,000 23,600
5 Recycled Water Pumping Station 152,646 77,267 4,000 31,800 265,713
6 Hydropnematic Tank 47,725 15,912 14,666 7,166 85,469
7 Truck Fill Station 63,134 14,011 0 9,860 87,005
8 Electrical Building 36,389 35,064 81,956 13,468 166,877
9 Electrical & Instrumentation 438,540 438,540
10 Seismic Retrofit of HRCCB 450,000 0 450,000
Subtotals 1,350,554 722,601 667,182 710,515 3,450,852
Contractor Indirects 10% 135,055 72,260 66,718 71,052 391,269
Subtotals 1,485,609 794,861 733,900 781,567 3,842,121
Taxes - Materials @ 0.00%0 0
Subtotals 1,485,609 794,861 733,900 781,567 3,842,121
Taxes - Labor @ 0.00%0 0
Subtotals 1,485,609 794,861 733,900 781,567 3,842,121
Contractor OH&P @ 15%222,841 119,229 110,085 117,235 569,391
Subtotals 1,708,451 914,090 843,986 898,802 4,411,511
Estimate Contingency @ 15%661,727
Subtotal 5,073,238
Bonds and Insurance @ 2.5%126,831
Subtotal 5,200,069
Escalation to Mid-Pt of
Construction 5.0%433,339
Estimated Bid Price 5,633,408
Market Conditions Contingency 10.0%563,341
Estimated Bid Price 6,196,749
Total Estimate 6,200,000
+15% -5%
+15% Total Est. -5%
$7,130,000 $6,200,000 $5,890,000
Estimated Range of Probable Cost
Conceptual
Preliminary (w/o plans) Change Order
Design Development @ 60% Complete
Estimate Accuracy
File: MWMC Class A RW OPCC_60.xlsm
Tab: SUMMARY (60)
Attachment 4 - Opinion of Probable Construction Cost