HomeMy WebLinkAboutAIS PLANNER 6/22/2004
."
,..... ~. ,".i-"
' ;,' ')'t:' .
.:~: r \ ..~ _
'~' .
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: June 22, 2004
Meeting Type: Joint Elected Officials '
Department: Development'Services
Staff Contact: Gregory MO~'~
S P R I N G FIE L D Staff Phone No: 726.3774 '
C I T Y C 0 U N C I L Estimated Time: 90 Minutes
ITEM TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN), CHAPTER Ill, SECTION G, PUBLIC
, '
FACILITIES AND SERVICES, CHAPTER V GLOSSARY; AND
AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN, A
FUNCTIONAL PLAN OF THE METRO PLAN (lO, NO, LRP 2004-00001),
METROPOLITAN W ASTEW A TER MANAGEMENT COMMISSION,
APPLICANT
ACTION
REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
, Conduct a first reading and joint public hearing with Eugene and Lane County
elected officials on the following Ordinances:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER III, SECTION G,
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT AND CHAPTER V
GLOSSARY; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN ARE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
, BY ADDING NEW TABLES AND MAPS IDENTIFYING W ASTEW A TER
TREATMENT FACILITIES AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS; AMENDING
CHAPTER IV W ASTEW A TER SYSTEM CONDITION ASSESSMENT;
ADDING A NEW CHAPTER VI AMENDMENTS TO THE PFSP; AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE (.,
The City Council initiated these amendments on February 17,2004, on.behalf of'
'MWMC" to address omissions in the Metro Plan and PFSP regarding existing and
proposed treatment and conveyance systems and compliance with state and federal
laws,
A TT ACHMENTS: The Council packet includes a briefing memorandum highlighting the proposed
amendments and a list of 7 attachnlents, including the original Planning
Commission staff report, public testimony paired with staff res'ponses, the exact
text, tables and maps comprising the proposed amendments, the ordinances titled
above, and findings in support of this action,
)
.>
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The proposed amendments are necessary additions to the Metro Plan and PFSP,
Not only are they requirements of the law, but they are integral to the
implementation of public policy through the capital improvements planning process
, undertaken by the cities and MWMC. Please refer to the attached Council Briefing
Memorandum for additional information on these amendments,
DctG neteiv~u
JUN 2 2 I ot
/Planner: BJ
.;:/
\..~
~ \!.
'~
'~
c\
Date Received
JUN 22rU{
Planner: BJ
~( I
,:~.;. ",.., ..-.., :-~'~: . Jj 'I . ,,-,',.
.!. . ,
,~L
'~..
\
.
"
I,r
To: I The Elected Of~cials .of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County
From: I Gregory Mott1!>a';;;;ing Manager, Con;inunity Planning and Revitalization ~
~ '
Date: June 4, 2004
Amendments to the Public Facilities and Services Element of the Metropolitan Plan and to
the Public Facilities and Services Plan '
Subject:
Issue
The Public Facilities Element of the Metropolitan Plan and the Public Faciliti~s and Ser::ices Plan, a
functional plan of the Metropolitan Plan, are proposed for amendment as follows:
I. Identify each of the regional wastewater treatmerit facilities on appropriate maps and tables in the PFSP;
, '
',2, Defme wastewater service as collection and treat~ent in the MetraPlan and the PFSP;
3, Add a ne~ policy in the Metro Plan that obligate~ the area's conveyance and treatment systems to
accomm<idate'projected growth within the UGB and.achieve compliance with all regulatory standards;
4, Add new text in the PFSP regarding the Wastewater System Condition Assessment; and
" '
5, Add a new amendment process to the PFSP,
'The above informatiol) does not appear in the Metro Plan or PFSP but, with the exception of the proposed
amendment process, is required to be included in public facilities plans by the provisions <if Oregon, '
Administrative Rules Chapter 660 Division II Public Facilities Planning,
, Background
The staffs' of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission and the City of Springfield brought'
these amendments to the Springfield City Council on February 17,2004 for initiation of Metro Plan and
PFSP amendment, pursuant to Springfield Development Code, Article 7 Metro Plan Amendments, The
Council was iriformed that several wastewater treatment facility projects were necessary to provide required
capacity to meet water quality discharge, residuals disposal and reuse standards consistent with planned
,gro,wth and federal and state requirements for the area's wastewater systems, These projects were not in the
2001 update ofthe'PFSP bec~use past practice dictated that the only components of the wastewater systems
identified in the PFSP were pump stations and pipes larger than 24", Any expansion, improvement or
, additions to the main treatment plant or other treatment 'sites were approved through the "capital improvement
programmingofMWMC. ,Although OAR recognize and exeinpt local capital improvement planning from
the requirements of Division II, there is no such exemption for the identification, location, timing and rough
cost estimates of public facilities, including the "Treatment facilities system," (See OAR 660-011-0005 and
0010)
Discussion
The proposed amendments are primarily "housekeeping" in that they are necessary (read mandated)
additions to the content of the PFSP, However, the importance of this amendment action should not be
minimized by this term, The existing PFSP only identifies some parts of the primary collection system and
nothil)g about the treatment facilities system, 'The definition of "Sanitary Sewer" in OAR 660, Division 11,
is: "Treatment faciliiies system and Primary colle~tion system," The inclusion of new Tables 4a, 4b and
16a, and Maps 2 and 2a are specifically intended to correct this omission in the PFSP (see Appendix B, page
1,2 and 4 of the staff report packet, Attachment I), The degree of detail or specificity this information is
'r~ql!ir~djto provide,is,.also described in the OAR: ','The public facility plan shall identify significant public
.. ' . 1 ,'. _~ 'I. .....,......! , '.. lI, , '
facility pj-o~~CtSIWhii:h 'are to support the land uses desigriated in the acblOwledged c'Oa\et{~~~iWd
~. :: ,..1! ! . ..
JUN 22 100/
1 -.1'
:..,(r': ..
, , ~ 1:11" .
~ ,.j~ .;,,; : .:/q ~4.
Planner: BJ
~,
,
, ,~..
','
\~(
.....
I "l'li "'; 'i"l:"
. ~ ;, ~. fl 't,
Date Received
JUN Z 2l 6~
, Planner: BJ
1l l' J. ',,_ ,:~. . ~_,',' ;. '"
-'~It ."." "I" ,>'"
~., ,.,~'(.J;:-'!4 {}~,:,(l~1
. ;-. j ~ .;;', Id.,,"~ _"
~"":I,;(..;,,'),ii1"~"iil['-:1, '
.. " ';I~" I, .. ~' ",.
~. ' "' ,(
La,
"
".
"k _
,,r
"
public facility plan shall list the title ofthe project and describe each public facility project in terms of the
type of facility. service area, and facility capacity," (OAR 660"011-0020)
, '
, '
"The governing body of the city or county responsible for development of the public facility plan shall adopt
the plan as a supporting document to the jurisdictio'D' s comprehen~ive plan and shall also adopt as part of the
comprehensive plan: a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding (if the jurisdiction so chooses) the
, descriptions or specifications of those projects," (Oar 660"011"0045) On page 3 and 4 of Appendix B
, (Attachment 1), the new narrative under Wastewater Svstem Condition Assessment and the new Table 16a
respond specifically to these requirements of the rule,
It should be noted that the Metro Plan text, at pagelII-G-2, is very clear regarding the reach of the PFSP:
"The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan,
,Information in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project phasing and costs, and decisions on timing
and financing ofprojects are not part of the Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement
programming and budget processes of individual service providers," Examples ofthis protocol are in the
record of the Planning Commissions (Attachment 3) at Documents #13 and #14,
The proposed inclusion of a separate amendment process for the PFSP includes the requirements of OAR
660-011-0045 Adontionand Amendment Procedures for Public Facilitv Plans and maintains the categories
of Type I and Type II amendments as those classes of amendments are distinguished in Chapter IV of the,
Metro Plan and in the development ordinances of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County, The purpose of the
,'PFSP having its own amendment process is twofold: I) recognition that the Metro Plan amendment process
is a better fit with broad-based comprehensive planning issues than it is with specialty planS; and 2) the State,
law makes a distinction between the requirements for post-acknowledgment plan amendments (pAPA's) and
some changes to a community's public facilities plans; these distinctions should be observed locally~
Amendments to Chapter III, Section G of the Metro Plan are included in this proposal and are intended to
address the interiml consistency criteria required of Metro Plan amendments: "Adoption of the amendment
must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent." (Springfield Code 7,070(3) (b)) This question of
, ,consistency exists because of the relationship between functional plans (PFSP) and the Metro Plan'text:
"Allrefinement and functional plans must be consistent with the Metropolitan Plan, and should
inconsistencies occur, the Metropolitan Plan is the prevailing policy document." (Chapter IV, page IV-4,'
Metro Plan) For these reasons, the Metro Plan text is proposed to be amended to recognize the new maps,
the existence of the treatment facilities and collection systems, and the definition of "primary collection
system" and "treatment facilities system," , '
In the interests of furthering internal consistency, a single new policy is proposed for inclusion in Chapter III, ,
Section G of the Metro Plan, and reads as follows: "Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided,
to meet the needs of projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory
requirements governing beneficial reuse [or discharge] I of effluent and beneficial reuse or disposal of
residuals," This language makes a deliberate connection between the Metro Plan and the amendments to the
Wastewater System 'Condition Assessment of the fFSP, and responds to the specific requirements of OAR"
660-011-0020(2),
Planning Commission Action and Public TestiI,!ony
The Planning Commissions of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County conducted a joint public hearing on
these proposed amendments on April 20, 2004, Written and oral testimony was provided by the Eugene
Chamber of Commerce and ,the 'Lane County Home Builders, The latter group requested an extension of the
written record until 5:00 p,m, on Friday, May 7,2004, As a result of this record extension request, the
Planning Commissions scheduled deliberation dates in the third and fourth weeks of May, The staffs
written response to the testimony submitted ai the public hearing was distributed to the Planning
Commissions a week before their respective deliberation dates, A written response to the Home Builders
:'),r:"I~.tl~~;~tr'11'-'\~_1 r""-t"'4f1' " ", . -
. 'f,;: ." 'L.."c,,, !j~'511l ~', ~ .,;t~.. ~ t,.' . .
, ',.' ! The staff report Appendices Aa and Ab inadvertently omitted "or discharge" from the text ofne~oli:u,;; G,~oweve" d
' ,'., tj1e DLCD Notice ofproposed Amendment did include this language (See Attachment I), Uale MecelVe
,
".
'I.
JUN 2210~
Planner: BJ
'~",.
- I
\,
., t
.'
~ . ':' Vi' .
.' ~ ';+; I I I,
.. . . V",
. DatJ:N~~~ived
Pianner BJ
. . '-f-: ,";~i:'.;""> i\
, '~;\f;t~".~~";u:}~~t'::(r: .;';.,,-
. '.. ,,;' .. ,~ . '>. ,-.r.' llt,ll \.
/,"
. ,'" .'.~~ 1 .; (,':',
d.;..,~ '.;" ~ /0" c,- "I'
.. . .1' j" l' .
~., '
r~
"
'.
. -
,.(,
.
.
testimony submitted on the May 7'h deadline was not distributed uniil the evening of May 18'" when the
Springfield and Lane County Planning Commissions had scheduled deliberation. Both Planning .
Commissions rescheduled their deliberations until June 1,2004. The Eugene Planning Commission received
all staff responses in time for their May 24'h session and forwarded a recommendation of support
(unanimous) of the amendments to the Eugene CitY'Council. Springfield and Lane County Planning
Commissions concluded their deliberations on June, 1, 2004, and forwarded similar recommendations of
support to their respective elected officials, also by unanimous vote.
It is fair to note that an extraordinary amount of time has be~n taken, iil the processing of these amendments, '
discussing matters that, while they are, in a strict legal sense, irrelevant to the consideration of the narrow
issues upon which a decision on the amendments is properly based, they nonetheless spark substantial
interest. Because the elected officials may be intrigued by matters beyond the narrow conditions of approval
sp~cified in the Metro Plan and the relevant admini~trative rule, we comment on those matters.
The concerns fall into two broad categories. The fir~t is the relative level of specificity required for the
project titles to be included in the PFSP. The Homebuilders appear to be arguing for a.level of specificity
below the site level (i.e., where multiple activities are estimated to occur at a given geographical location,
they appear to suggest that each of those activities is a separate and independent "project" which must be
called out in the PFSP). Were this to be'done, the list would clearly be at variance with other lists in the
PFSP or on sinlilar functional plans':' all of which aggregate the activities at a physical location into one
project title. A detailed explanation of why the listed projects have the specificity required by the rules is set
forth in tl1e memorandum dated May 6, 2004 that was submitted by the Springfield City Attorney's office
(Attachment 2). . '
The second concern is a claim that the cost estinlates lack required precision and suggests that there has been
. inadequate prior public participation given the magnitude of the estinlates. The required precision of the cost
estimates is specifically set forth in the rules. Basically, they are only to be "rough;' estimates, It is not'
intended that project cost estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting pUrposes such as those that are to
be found in local facilities plan or capital inlprovement plans. .
. ,
The other aspect of the second concern is the claim. that somehow there has not existed sufficient oversight
over staff d.evelopment of proposed capital expenditures, to the effect that the $144 million capital need
described in MWMC's,2004 Facilities Plan has appeared, as if out of nowhere, without adequate review and
public discussion. The historical record proves otherwise. .
In 1996 MWMC completed a master planning process. That process, based on 1995 and 1996 data, identified
some $20 millio~ in needed plant inlprovements and upgrades. As time has passed, most of the needs
identified in that document have been incorporated into the regional capital improvement program and,
through the normal budgetary processes, approved by the governing bodies, Although some are already'
under construction, aliout $2 million (adjusted to 2904 dollars) remain to be programmed in the budgeting
process.
Later, in 1997, MWMC undertook to develop a Biosolids Management Plan. This planning effort, guided by
a citizen advisory committee; resulted in a planning document that was reviewed by the,governing bodies.
That plan contemplated $12.5 million in capital needs. As with the previous master plan effort, most of the
projects have been programmed in the ordinary budgeting processes, approved by the several governing
bodies, and have been constructed,
In 1998, MWMC commissioned a.similar more detailed look at issues ,surrounding wet weather flow. This
. effort, likewise guided by a citizen's advisory committee, led to another planning docul)1ent which was
reviewed and approved by the governing bodies. After accounting for some needs identified in this latter
report which had also been identified in the 1997 master plan, the WWFMP added another$33 million in
capital needs to those previously identified, bringing the cumulative need to $36 millio~. .
.'!::kii'~i'~~ili'~i~ti6~~fih~ Wet Weather Flow Managemept Plan, MWMC co~tinued to fulfill its responsibility, .
, , "under it~ ,fquI)-.d.i~g intergo,:,ernnlental agreement, to plan fo~ needed capital improvements t~n~ceived
. ,~x~and capacity of the regIOnal system. In 2002, MWMC directed staff to prepare a 20 Year~~ Jtiv ,
~~.. .~. - ,_ . ,;, f .. \ ~ .
. :i' (..i..~f ~~"1,~.i};L;' .'. t. -
JUN 221 01
Planner: BJ
.
.,
:-,; I, ~ -;~~:~~J~,;lr ~~Y;~V'~'
, ^ . "11
,; ,: Vir'"
i! c.., ,;:;- r'! r{=:~ l' ~~:'.
',"/; , ,! -' 'r,l;.-'1~' 1,
,
\,
,"t f
.'
.,
Date Received.
JUN 22 I c~ l
Planner: BJ
I.
i.i
'.
, -
, (
.
capital needs, given that the design life ofthe water pollution control facility would be reached in 2004.
,When that analysis was completed, and reviewed by MWMCas part of its. ordinary budget process for '
FY2002-03, the capital needs were estimated at abollt $105 million, including the $36 million that remained' .
from the prior planning efforts, Although this was not a formal planning effort that resulted in a .
comprehensive plan which the Commission would forward to the governing bodies for consideration, the
magnitud~ of the need prompted the Commission to. institute a comprehensive planning process. That process
ultimately resulted in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan, which has be~n submitted'by MWMC to the'
governing bodies.
The MWMC 2004 Facilities Plim includes all of the project compOlients contemplated by this $105 million
in projected capital spending. In addition, it deals with issues which have arisen since the:threeprevious
efforts were completed. Most notably, this includes the impact of the 2002 NPDES discharge permit by
: DEQ, which adds additional limitations on discharges and maintains other limits, despite the growth (both
current and anticipated) in the population served by the system. The impact of these changes drives the need
for additional capital spending, including revisions to several of the project components contemplated by the
earlier plims. '
This planning effort involved evaluation of a wide range of technologies and facility improvement options
that could be implemented to provide maximum discharge permit. compliance and capacity through 2025.
Fourfmal, viable alternatives were identified, ranging in cost from $144 million to $233 million (in 2004
dollars). The MWMC has approved a plan that will implement $144- $160 million, depending on ultimate
approvals sought from DEQ.These rough cost estimates are reflected in the project cost estinlates found in
Table 16a.
The Home Builders do support some of the proposed amendments though it has been their objections that
have generated the most interest among the respective plamling commissions. Other than the preceding.
comments regarding the two general areas of concem expressed by the Home Builders, this memorandum
will direct your attention to Attachments 2 & 4, which include the' written testimony submitted by the Home'
Builders on April 20, 2004 and on May 7,2004, and the staff response. Without putting too fine a point on
it, the staff does not share the opinions ,of the Home Builders with respect to what should or should not be
included as part of the PFSP and Metro Plan regarding the collection and treatment'of sanitary sewage, or
with respect to the requirements of applicable state)aw regarding land use planning and the provision of
urban services. "
Conclusion
Based on the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rules, the policies of the Metro Plan, and the
requirements of each jurisdiction's codes regulating Metro Plan amendments,-the proposed amendments to
the Metro Plan text and Public Facilities and Services Plan text, maps and tables, are consistent with '
applicable state law and the local criteria of approval. This conclusion is supported by the evidence in the
record developed by the joint 'planning commissions and the general findings in Attachment 7,
Attachments
Attachm.ent .1 '_ Planning Commission staff report, ,findings and proposed amendments
Attachment 2 - Public Hearing Testimony and Staff Response .
Attachment 3 - Table of Contents of Joint Planning Commission Record
Attachnlent 4 - Public Testimony Submitted After Hearing Close and Staff Response
Attachment 5 - Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660 Division i I Public Facilities Planning
Attachment 6 - Ordinances Amending the Metro Plan and PFSP
. , . ... l~ r ...
.' ~~",'\~I:"':Attaslphe~t't7~findings
. .' ...... -, ". .. .
.;
f'11"l-::
','. t- ,.,
Date Received
.~':'i .-i'_!~.. ~ '.:;~;;:~,':~::1,';,:~j";~I.
;
JUN 22 I of
Planner: SJ
, '
~1,H,~r~("","""''''~'" l-.j..R....!;."~
.i" . l,'il~"'( Ii ~.)l',t~~\.-~:'
"';, t;\}." ~~t' 'i~;"':1 . .~ P'~ r~
. ,'., ~'. I"h.l. ,
I; ~
"
',Ii, ~';' " - {~" {:"':'I'
;.,.jr 1""'\,.'" ......j
. -,i Il .....' I'
," '1"
..' .1
,
.~ '.
Date Received
JUN 22 r D~
Planner: B J
'..
,.I'
,
(,
'.
I'
. ,.
The Planning CommiSsions ofSpringfleld, Eugene and Lane County
From: Gregory Mott, Planning Manger ~
,Date: April 20, 2004
subje~t: I Metro Plan Text Amendments, Pubiic Facilities and Services Plan Amendments
,',
"
..,.
Issne ,
. .
The Metro Plan and the ,Public Facilities and Services .Plan (PFSP) are proposed to be amended to: 1. .
clarify the relationship between the types offacilities projects included in the PFSP and projects that,
appear in loca1 capital improvement plans; 2. update the PFSP maps based on new statutory provisions;
, 3. reflect c!1rren~ conditions'and planned regional:,wastewater facilities consistent with the MWMC '
Facilities Plan; 4. resolve inconsistencies among metro-wide planning documents; and, 5. adopt a
separate amendment process for the Public Facilities, and'Sef.'ices Plan.' .
Discus~ioD ' "
!~
The proposed amendments are conside~ed TyPe I Metro Plimamendments because for the most part'they
are non-site specific amendments of the Plan text. Amendments to the, Plan text, which text includes
functional pians such as TransPlan and the PFSP, that are non site-specific require approval byaU three
governing bodies to become effective (See SDC 7.070(1)(a), Eugene Code 9.7730(1)(a), and Lane Code
12.i25(1)(a)(i)). The planning commissions wiJI conduct the initial evidentiary hearing and then forward
the record of this hearing and a recommendation to their respective elected officials. The planning
commissions may take this action collectively or independently as the circUmstances warrant.. The
elected officials shall conduct a joint public hearing on the amendments and shall make a decision based
, solely 'on the record of evidence created before the planning commissions. Each governing body may
approve, modify and approve"or deny the proposed amendment. However, all three governing bodies
must adopt identical ordinances to complete the"amendment process.
The MWMC Proposal , ' , , '
MWMC is proposing several changes to the Metro Plan text in Chapter ill, Section GPublic :Facilities
and Services Element and Chapter V Glossary. The changes in Section ill-G include modification of
introductory text (pages ill"G-land Ill-G-2) by'adding the term Wastewater to theli~t of serVices to
development within the urban growth boundary; modification of Policy G.2 (page ill-G-4) by adding the
term capitalimprovement plans to the list of ac!ivities intended to implement projects, in the PFSP; , .'
modify Finding 6 (page IlI-G-4) to include a reference to Map 2a; modification toPolicyG.3 (page Ill-G-
4) to include a reference to Map 2a; addition oftextfollowing Policy G.8 <page ill-G-5) by inserting the
heading "Services to Development within the Urban Growth Bounqary: Wastewater;" adding new
" fmdings 11 and 12 after Policy G-? (page Ill-G-5) identifying,sanitary sewer collection facilities in each
city; adding new policy G.9 (page IlI-G-6) thatrequires wastewater conveyance and treatment inside the
ugb that is capable of complying with state and/or federal regulations for reuse, discharge or disposal;
subsequent renumbering of all fmdings and policies.in Ill-G as a,result of these amendments; and,
modification of Chapter V Glossary by amending the definition of Wastewater under "Public Facilities
Projects" (page V-4) by adding a defmition of Treatment FacilitiesSystem to the existing definition of
Priniary Collection System under the heading Wastewater. , '
, ' " '.In addition to the foregoing changes to the Metro Plan, MWMC'is proposing changes to the PFSP to ,
! 'j~jV~~~:,~i;s~~~tignal p~an int.en:ally consistentwith the Me~o Plan. This consistency wiJI be achieved by
, 'modd'Ymgtext,precedmg eXlstmg Table 3 (page 28) by addmg references to Tables,4a and 4b and Map
, 2a; .insertirlg new Tlibles 4a and'4b (page 28); inserting I)-ew Map 2a (page 35); modifying Chapter IV, '
.,,,;~.~~!<::wkie~System Condition Assessment (page 82) with a new paragraph iitled "~ft9eeived
,
\,:l
11_. 'i:'
, '
::,1"-: !
.'
JUN22 I D~
PATTACHME~-JH
I~nner: I:':)
,
\.,
,. "
toO I
,6", .
.Treatment System" and alIother new paragraph titled "Conveyance;" modifying text "Long-term Service
Availability within Urballizable Areas" (page 97) by including the need to apply appropriate engineering
design pra,ctices for development in sensitive areas, and the need for facilities imjJrovem~nts to address,' '
dry and wet weather regulatory requiremenis related to pollutant loads and flows; adding Table16a (page
10 I); and adding a new Chapter VI. Amendments to the Plan including descriptions of modifications to
existing identified projects which require amendment to the Public Facilities,and Services Plan. . '
". .' -, .
The preceding amendments are necessary both as information that should have be~nincluded when the
PFSP was adopted and as a more accurate description of wastewater services that will be available after
certain capital improvements are made. These amendments also'c1arify the administrative process'
. involved in the adoption of annual capital'inlprovements plans intended to ~plement the generally
descri,bed projects in the PFSP withoutamending the PFSP to demonstrate this consistency of action.
This process already exists between the metro-wide projects in tl1e PFSP and .the locally adopted ClP's of
the two cities, tile county and the 'special serVice providers, but without the "codification" provided by
these propbsed amendInents.1 " " ':' I
The proposed PFSP'amendment prOcess borrows liberally from the existing Metro Plan amendment '
process for reasons both obvious and practical. However, unlike the Metro Plan, the PFSP is a specialty'
document that does not always have, applicability to other land use issues addressed in the Metro Plan.
For this reason a separate amendment process, designed to account for the unique'perspective and . ,\
requirements of the PFSP, is proposed. Major adjustments to the PFSP project list, either through, " '.'
addition'ofwholly new projects or significant modification'ofexisting projects, requires an amendment to
the PFSP and is subject to the same criteria and agency participation as amendments to the Metro Plan.
This includes the distinction of "home city" if the proposed amendment is entirely within'the City limits of
one of the two cities. Adoption ofCIP's by any of the identified service providers does not require ,
amendm'ent to the PFSP unless those ClP's contain one of. the' two triggers identified above. In th.os~
instances, the PFSP ,":ould need to be amended b,efore that particular,ClP could b~ adopted.
,The proposed amendment process also includes a description of"modifications~' that fall'outside the
requirementto amend the PFSP. These modifications include administrative chahgesto a project that
does not change the location, sizing, capacity or other general characteristics of the project, or technical '
and environmental changes made to aproject,be,cause of"fma,l engineenng.';' .
'Conclusion
, All of the proposed 'amendments.fall into one of three ,categories: information'that should h~ve been
included with the December 2001 Public Facilities and Servi~es Plan regarding wastewater facilities;
clarification of the relationship between the PFSP project list andJocally adopted capital improvement
plans; and, adIninistrative and legislative processes governing implementation lind, amendment of the
PFSP projects list. 'Whetherit is Chapter ill-G of the Metro Plan or the various sectionsofPFSP text that
, are amended, each of the MWMeproposals is a necessary, and felicitous addition to these documents.,
Attachment I demonstrates this further by identifying how these proposals satisfy the criteria for Plan
amendment in Section 7.030(3)(a&b), Section 9.128(3)(a&b), and Section 12.225(2)(a&b) of Springfield,
Eugene and Lane Codes, respectively, .
Attachments
Attachm ent 2
Attachment 3
Analysis and Findings of compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide Planning Goals,
and fmdings demonstrating internal consistency with the Metro Plan '
Springfield Council Agenda Item Summary.Initiating thisAine~dment
,t ..
, Notice of proposed amendment provided to Department of Land Conservati,?n and
Development '. ' ./
"
"Attachment 1
l
, '
. "~''il;/"l'A,;St;With,r,;,ilJocall~adopted CJP's:'the MWMC ~IP may con~h; expenditures not relaDa:terSere,ived
'. ." '.,~;r~:~cts,)inthePFSpprOjectslisl' , . "'. "JUN 22( O~ '
, .\ v1 I. I t., '
. Planner~ BJ
'-2
.-
'-'; "'t~ ~-', ,':;.,~~..- I'in
;_,__1,1 ~, .' f[..;., '. lj
! "
"
.J" I
,.,1 ..'
Staff Report arid Findings of Compliance with the Metro Plan and Statewide'
Goals arid AdrninistrativeRules
File LRP 2004-0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities imd Services
Plan .
Applicant:, . ' .
City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC)
Nature of tbe Application: .
The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
, Plan (Metro Plan) and the~ublic Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP)I to (I) more '
adequately reflect the impact that new discharge permit restrictions will have had on'the '
capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship
between the PFSP project,list and locally adopted capital improvement plans, and (3) to'
modify (streamline) the administrative and legislative processes that govern the '
implementation and amendment of the PFSP projects list..
Background:
MWMC's regional, wastewater treatment facilities were designed and constructed in the
late 1970's with a 20-year life expectancy. Slower that expected population growth in the
1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to
. . evalu~te the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the
existing permit conditions, to identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to address
seismic hazards), and to address other major issues that needed to be studied further.,
In May of2002 the Oregon Department of Env-h-onmental Quality (DEQ) imposed new
and more stringent discharge permit standards on the regional wastewater treatment
facilities, particularly in regard to the treatment of ammonia and thermalloadiJig. As
MWMC staff began to evaluate design needs for its wastewater facilities, it became
, apparent to them that the existing facilities could not meet the demands imposed by the
hew discharge permit restrictions.
Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater collection, treatment and
, disposlll/reuse needs for the next 20 years was essential, the MWMC began work on the
, 2004 WaStewater Facilities Plan, a comprehensive facilities plan update. The objectives
of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intended to provide for
adequate community growth capacitY through 2025, considering policies in the Metro
,Plan and current planning assessments for population and development. Second, the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended to protect community health and safety by
addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance and the cost-
...; 1.';\\,/'('''''11.:. ~,f;r1c,!i;,~;use of existing facilities and the efficient design of new facilities. . . A
-.,' t-i. c:.-\;",.:,",'.l' .,", ~e'ce"Neu
. ~~.r.~CI~. .1 ,\
" ,,:V!(' oa\e. . , ,
cSee appendices A & B, respectfully. . .I\)t-I 'l. '}. I O~
_:',j/<~ f'('i'!) t': "":/ " . . eJ
Staff Report and Findings Page 1 ' p\a.nner',..,3
,
'.'
,1 '
.'
The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses the fact that th~ regional
wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area does not have the
capacity to meet all of the discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither
the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Gol\l2
, requires that the citY, county and special district plans be consistent. In large part, the
, amendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the '
Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the
former documents. The proposed amendments provide information that should have been
, included in the PFSP when it was adopted and present a more accurate description of "
wastewater services that willbe available after certain capital improvement,projects are
completed. "
Phasing objectives of the 2004' Wastewater Facilities Plan necessitate that construction of
several key facility components begin by June of 2005 in order to meet federal standards
that require that peak wet weather events be managed by 20 I O. In order to meet this
rigorous construction schedule, MWMC must have released Requests for Proposals
(RFPs)'for engineering design for by October of2004. Prior to this date, the 2004 ,
Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and
the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect current information. " '
In summary, the application proposes the following changes:
Metro Plan
1. Specifically recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of service within the Urban
Growth Boundary. [Chapter III-G] ,
2. Amends Finding #6 and Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing
Wastew!lter Collection and Treatment Systems" to the PFSP. [Chapter III-G]
, ' .
3. Amends Policy #2 to mcludelocal capital improvement plans as a means to ,
implement policy in the PFSP. [ChapterIII-G]
4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to
development within the urban growth boundary. [ChapterIII-G] "
5. Adds ariew policy G.9 that make~ a commitment to providing the" conveyance"
and treatment of wastewater to meet the needs of projected growth within the
urban growth boundary and that meets regulatory requirements. [Chapter III-G]
6. ' Modifies definition 37. Wastewater: Public Facilities Projects. [Chapter V
Glossary]
,
','/ ./"',PFSP
, . ~ ,,",' --;:--;-;-.'
"..(1"). -I
-;"{f
, :-f '.,p:.,
, , ."i\ I.,. I ,-'/tlf ,1
',''''1'''4''''
" Ii
Staff Report and Findings Page 2
Date Received
JUN 22 ( b~
Planner: B~ "
" " '14
'.:.M'~>( ,
I.;f.,; "I;-~,,, I
.., '-'
.?,,,", I., '{
...... 'l. ~;u
T.. i
I.Jl ',.'
. I. . .
1. Modifie's the text onpage 28; preceding Table 3, and adds Tables 4a and 4b that
identify MWMCeWastewater Treatment and Primary Collection System
improvements, respectively.
2. Modifies Map 2; which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities"and adds Map 2a
that concerns Existing Wastewater Facilities. '
'3. Modifies the existing narrative on "Wastewater System Condition' Assessment" in
ChapterIV. (Page 82) . , :
4. Modifies existing paragfaphs #1 and #2 under ,the discussion of "Wastewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Long-'- Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable
Areas" in ChapterN. (page 97). '
5. Adds new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitlede"MWMC Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost Estimate, and
Timing Estimate." (page 101)
, ,
6., ' Adds new Chapter VI regarding ~endments to the'PFSP.
Met~opoiitan AreaGener~1 Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed amendments are considered to be Type IMetro Plan amendments because
they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text,
which include changes to functional plans such as TransPlan and the PFSP, and that are
non-sitespecificrequire approval by all three governing bodies to become effective.2
" Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment ,
criteria into ,their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code
, ,Section 7.070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code,~.I28(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a &
b) require that the amendment be consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and
that the amendment will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. Thes_e criteria
are addressed as follows: . ,- , '
(a), The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
adopted, by the Land Conservation and I)evelopmentCommission;
. "
:....(
Goall,-Citizen Involvement, ,,', ' ,
,To develop a citizen involvement program thatinsure~ the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process. . '
The two cities and the county have acknowledged land use codes that are intended
to serve as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. SDC Article
7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and SDCArticle 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS
prescribe the manner in which a Type I Metro Plan amendment must ben:oticed.
, , ' " " ; , '.Citizen involvement for a Type IMetro Plan amendment not relate~ io an urban
yH': "'.:/'1" ", '-'r"':' ;" -: "', 'r""(gfowth boundary amendment requires: I) Notice to interested partie1i) Notice
" "",,'j: "', ",>" '. " ' '" ,uate Received
, '; ,;, ~,se'e SDC 7.070(I)(a), EC 9.7730(1)(a), and LC 12.225(l)(a)(i), ' , '
JUN 2 2 11J~
Pianner:f1rJ
';':.~";:C;:"I'.'I':C .'
. 11'._1, '.F '.' '),
Staff Report and Findings Page)
, ~
,
\.'
T'
,
,. .
shall be published ilia newspaper of general circulation; 3) Notic;e shall be,'
provided to the DepartriJ.ent ofLand Conservation and Development (DLCD) at "
least 45 days before the initial evidentiary hearing (planning coriunission).
Notice of the JOInt planningcommissio~ heari~~was published in the Springfield
, News and in the Register-Guard on March 3 I; 2004. Notice to interested parties
was mailed on April 1,2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided
to DLCD on March 4,-2004. The,notice to DLCD identified the City of Eugene,
Lane County,DEQ and EPA as affected agencies. . '
'Requirements under Goal 1 are met by adherence to, the citizen'involvemerit
,processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the Springfield
Development Code, Articles 7 and 1'4; the Eugene Code, Sections 9.7735 and '
9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240.
GoaI'2-:- Land Use Planning- To establish 'a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decisionscmd actions related to use of land
and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions ani:! a2tions. '
. " - . - -.,
All land-use plans and implementation ;rdinancesshall be adopted by' the '
governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, b needed,
revised on a periodic cycle to take into account chcmging publiC:policies and
, circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities "
shall be'providedfor review cmd commentby citizens and affected governmental-
, units during preparation, review and revision of plans and implementation '
ordinances. ' '
, ,
Implementation Measures - are the means used to carry out the plan. These are
of two general types: (1) management impl,~mentation measures,such as
'ordinances, regulations or project plans, and-'(2) site or area specific
implementation measUres such, as perinits'andgrantsjor construction,
construction of public facilities Or provision 'of services.
The most recent version ofthe Metro Plan is being considered'on May 17,2004
for final adoption by Springfield (Ordinance No.~, by Eugene (Council Bill
No. 4860) and by Lane County (Ordinance No. i 197) after numerouS public
meetings, public workshops and j oint hearings of the Springfieid, Eugene and
, Lane County Planning Commissions and Elected Qfficials.
The Metro Plan is the "land use;' or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the
SpriI)-gfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the
"implementationmeasures'~ required by this goal. Comprehensive plans, as
defined by ORS 197.015(5)3., must be:coordinated with affected governmental
". units.4 Coordination means that comments from affected ,governmental units are
" ":l.,',;~...1; ;~';'~"i\'i .' ,', ',' " , ' Date Receivud
. .. . .- ";'" ;-"Incorporated by reference mto Goal 2.
. 4 '~felLCD v, Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216; 221 (1997)., JUN 2 2 ,6~ "
;. ,:\. 1f~L'.;.." .
Planner: EU
.'
"d;ri'
".- ,
.' ,- ~ ';:~~J
Staff Report and Findings Page 4
",
.. -~,
''- I.
,:.1 . /
, '
solicited and considered. In this regard, DLCD's Notice of Proposed Amencim~nt ' '
. formwas sent to the City of Euge;1e,Lane County, PEQ and EPA.,
, , ,
One aspect of the Goat 2 coordination requirement concerns population
projections. In this respect, the proposed amendment to the PFSP Glossary
concerning Waste",ater incorporates a projected year 2025 populationJor the
Eugene-Springfield Urban' Growth Boundary of297,585.5 This projection is
consistent with the most recent (1997) fmal forecasts provided to Larle County by
the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoption
of this modification to the PFSP will effectiveiy "coordinate" this population
assumption,
Goal3 ~ Agricultural Lands . ' ..
, This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban gro~ boundaries.
Goal 4 - Forest Lands
This goal does riot apply within a?-opted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
GoalS - 'Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural R~sources
, This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. ,
"
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - To maintain and improve
. th~ quality of the air, water and land resources ojthe state.
,""
This goal is primarily concerned with compliance with federal and state,
environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as
development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources.
" II ' " '
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500; as amended in 1977,
became known as the Clean Water Act (33U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The goal of this
Act was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters. ORS'
468B.035-requiresthe Oregon.Environmental Quality Commission CEQC) to
implement the Federal Water, Pollution Control Act. The primary method of
implementation of this Act is through the issuance of a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to the discharge of any
wastes into the waters of the state. (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants"
regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-0~ 1-0028) and toxic substances
(OAR 34:0-041 ~0033). .
'One purpose of the proposed amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the
PFSP accurately reflect regional wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal
, and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that"... the Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population
., .: ,1. .," " ,-',j,t ,-,r,;-:-:
! .:4l1'{"'\1-" .,.-)(.._.",.i(_lJ:!1 .;.r'~ll""""l'
:' X'-~ .:' 1:. ,'_' ~. .!~ 't~ .~ )',. 1. . ';: I
Staff Report and Findings Page 5 .
d 11
\" J
"
increases and serve all new development at buildout." Recent analyses have
determined that facility improvements are now required to address both ~ and "
wet weather requirements 'relating to pollutant loads and wastew~ter flows. The
section in ChapterIV of the PFSP entitled "Long-Term Service Availability
Within Urb"anizable Areas"is proposed to be modified to reflect the need for
facili~y improvements necessary to address dry and wet weather regulatory
requirements. ' .
Goal 7 ...: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters an'd Hazards
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs, '
I,.'
This goal is not applicable to. the proposed aniendments.
. .
Goal9 -=-Economic Development - Goal 9 provides, in part, th~t it is intended
to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,
locations, and service levelsfor a variety of industrial-and commercial uses,
consistent with plan policies. " ' The proposed amendments are consistent with
this objective in that the Metro Plan, the PFSP and the 2004 Wastewater Facilities,
Plan must be consistent ,in order to comply with State discharge permit conditions'
. iliat will determine the improvements tothe Regional Wastewater System that are
necessary to address new regulatory standards. The improvements are necessary
to 8.!low adequate service and conveyance, treatment, reuse and disposal capacity
to serve new and existing industrial andcomrilercial uses. . , '
, Goal 10 - Housing - To provide for the housing needs of citizens 'of the, state.
Goal 10 Planriing Guideline 3 states that "[P]lans shouidprovidefor the
'approprii1tetype, location and phasing of pubic facilities and services sufficient to
support houSing development in areas presently developed or undergoing
developmentor redevelop,,!ent. "
OAR 660C'-008-0010 requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type ,and density .
Jange as determined in the housing needs projection." Goal 10 defmes buildable
lands as ". ..1andsin urban and urbanizable areas fl.tat,are suitable, available and
necessary for residential use." 660-008-0005(13), in part, defines land that is '
"suitabkand available" as land "for which public facilities are planned or to
,which public facilitiescan be made available."
Similar to Goal 9, adequate publicJacilities are necessary to accomplish the
objectives of this goal arid applicable administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660,
" Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to proN.ll.~ 'C~ ' d
, ,.,,,.; , comprehensive pla.nniTIg framework to allow for the improvementWlt}e~Ge'Ve
.~,..,\' "'~"~~~"""I"'! . 'ii'j?~f . , .~. ' "
, -),.. "'-"', - .,~\ ' " ' "~
.' . .' . ) t ',,"."'It' r ~.. I . -' ,
, '" ' . . JUN 22 0 .
. . ' ,
, '\~ ~~\!!, . ,
,t
.: "_\ ~/r: c~ C
I';:',"
; ':
Staff Report and Findings Page 6
Planner: B~-8
.
, ,
.,,'
,'_7;
,
'.'
. '
, '
, '
wastewater system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield
, metropolitan area. '
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly
and. efjicient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework
for urban and rural development,
. ~.
OAR Chapter 660, Division 011,impleinents goal I 1. OAR 660-011-0030(1) .
requires that the public facility plan identify the general location of public '
facilities projects. III regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to Public Facilities,
and Services Phin Map 2a in Finding 6 and Policy OJ in the proposed
amendments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the modification
" of the introductory narrative under "Planned Wastewater System Improvements'
(page is),'' the insertion of new Tabies 4a,and 4b (page 2S), and the modification
of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a, also address this requirement. .
. "
OAR 66Q-.:.OII-0035(1) requires that the public facility plan include a rough cost
estimate for sewer public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In
conformity With this requirement, it 'is proposed that the PFSP be amended by the
. insertion of Table 16a (Inserted follQwing Page 10 I), which addresses rough cost
estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wastewater Trea~ent and
Collection Systern Improvements.
. 'OAR 660-011-0045(3) provides that modifications to projects listed within a
public facility plan may be IDadewithout amendment to the public facility plan. ,
, This application proposes to add a new chapter to the PFSP regarding
amendments to that plan. Proposed Chapter VI incorporates the standards for
amending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3) and adopts an
amendment process. .
Goal 12 - Transportation
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Goal 13 :... Energy Conservation
This goal is not applicable to the. proposed amendments.
Goal 14 - Urbanization - To providefor an orderly and efjicient'iransitionfrom '
rural to urban land use.
. This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments, as they do not affect the
'" " ,', existing urban growth boundary.
'~, \I,fl'_~' ~''';\~I i "'1'( ,
.. . I.' ~~. 1 I, .""", rf,. I ,.
""" ,il,r: i '>Goal:15 - Willamette River Greenway Date Rece,'ved
.' ~?;, ir!Ul?' ;~ .
, .,.
:,;(
. y, . _ ~, i,....'" ,..~..: ( r
. ~ ..J. 1, r I: ~,I' -. J
: '~f' . ~ ....~ '; " '
,'. ,~:...: ~'
, Staff Report and Findings Page 7
JUN 2 2, o~
. Planner: BJg
,
'.'
1 '
,
, , ,
This goal is not applicable to 'the proposed amendments;
Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 Coastal Shorelands, Goal IS Beaches
and Dunes, and Goal 19 Ocean Resources '
These goals do. not apply to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area.
(bJ Adoption of the amendment musfnot make the Metro Plan internally' ,
inconsistent.
,The proposed changes to' the Metro Plan are essentially of a ';housekeeping"
nature. They essentially 'recognize the role of wastewater service,provision within
the urban.growth boundary by the addition or modification of applicable findings
and add or modify policy language to clarify the relationship between the Metro
. Plan and the PFSP in regard to capital improvement plans and the commitmentto
. comply with regulatory requirements. The proposed changes, as presented, will
not create internal inconsistenci.es within the Metro Plan.
The proposed changes also amend the PFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's
'planned improvement projects for its wasteVfater treatment system and primary
collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estimates for those
improvements, update narrative information regarding necessary improvements to
the wastewater treatment system and primary collection'system, and more clearly
implement the planmodification'standards contained in OAR 660-011-'0045(3).,
The proposed changes to the PFSP do not create any inconsistencies within the
PFSP nor do tjley create any inconsistenCies between the PFSP and the Metro
'Plan: '
I
<~ ~'
t. ,,~, f-'~
: - ~,; ,- 'f- ,r ' ,. .jl ...~
. <."" 'u . .
Staff Report and Findings Page 8
,Date Received
JUN 22)6~-
,Planner: BJ
1-10
, .-.
, ;'i.-'~" ~,.h.':~f~;"'_~ :'~'!7Q,l;;",
. 111", )-_~(;.I. ~ '~I.{<.~.\\!I,.1
,.~ " l<1l"
. ..~, I}' _ ~ t;'.
" r
,
'.'
APPENDIX Aa
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
. (Current version of the Metro Plan)
, .."
" '
,',
G. Public Facilities and Services Element
This Public Facilities and Services Element provides d,irection for the future provision of
urban facilities and services' to planned land uses within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(plan Boundary). '.. ' ' . "
The availability of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location '
and dep.sityof future development. The public's investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the '
population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases anq land development patterns
change over time, the demand for urban services also increases imd changes. ' These
changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision of
services in a coordinated marmer, using consistent assumptions and projections for
population and land use.
The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. 'Consistent with,the principle of
compact urban growth prescribed in Chapter II, the policies in this element call for future
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusivi:1y within the urban growth
'boundary.' This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal II : Public
Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement
of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban imd rural
development." On urban lands, new de~elopment must be s'ervedby at least the
minimum level of key urban services and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lands within
the Plan Boundary, development must be serVed by rural levels of service. Users of
, facilities and services in rural areas are spread out,geographically, resulting in a higher
per-user cost for some services and, often, in an madequate revenue base to support a
higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve
, development within the urban growth boundary. ' '
Urban facilities and services within the Urban growth boundary are provided by the City
of Eugene, theCity of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board
(EWEB);the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater
Management' Commission (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and special service districts.
Special service districts provide schools and bus service,-and, in some areas outside the
cities;,they provide water, electric; fire service or parks and recreation service. This
,,_c;lementprovides guidelines forspecial service districts in line with the cOl;npact urban'
, , ',' ,~evd9P'~ent fundamental principle of the Metro Plein. Date Rec'el'ved
, "'-~' I ,c ,,,......1,.,...\' '-.1 [11 '.I. 0, , ' '
h' . '..... .' .~\";..,.) ....' :1..-" , '
. I ...1
1 ,J I
- ..; . ,\I.(l"'
l. ',rl'\'j' ,. "\.':"
l,.,:J, I:. It '1. ;'
Appendix Aa Page 1
JUN,22,Dq
Planner: BJ
"
"...'t- ,~
. ~~~ :s' -: ~'U~
.. "
, "
,
'.'
1, "
This element incorporates the findings ,and policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities cmd Services Plan (public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance '[or public facilities and services, including planned water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal II, the Public
Facilities and SerVices Plan.identifies and shows the general location' of the water,
, wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban growth
boundary.' The Public 'Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for
electrical facilities, although not required to by law.
The project lists and maps in the Public Facilities and Services Plan are adopted as part
, of the Metro Plan. Information. in the Public Facilities and Services Plan on project
'phasing and costs, and deCisions on timing andfmancing of projects are not part of the
.. Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital gnprovement programming and,
" budget processes of individualservice'providers. ' .
This element of the Metro Plan is organized by the,folloWiUg topics related to the
provision of urban facilities and services. Policy drrection for the'fu11 range of services,
,includinG wastewater se!'\1ee, may be found under any of these topics, although the first
topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken
down into sub-categories.
Services to Development.. Within the Urban Growth Boundary
. , Planning and Coordination
. Water"
. Wastewater
. ' Stormwater
. Electricity ,
. ' Schoo Is
. Solid Waste.
. SerVices to Are~ Outside the Urban Growth Boundary ,
. Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth Boundary' ..
~ " Financing ,
The applicable findings and policies are cont.ained under each of these topic headings, '
'below. ..
The policies listed provide direction for public and private developmental ~d program
decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
servi~esto ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities. ' '
I The'exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities,
, ',,~, ".'",-.,., " ,1l2~ps iSA~l~rp1ined through local processes. , "
" , ~ ,~:-., '\Y, Go'aJ 1'1 'also requires transportation facilities to be included in public facilities plans. In~lGlOiAel'vec I
area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter IIl-F and in the Eugene-~!11rHflI;JU:;v
'If :'rr'ti'lJportation'System Plan (Trans Plan). , ,JUN 22 ([)~
:j't .'~',L_,.1;~~r;f(-;IAPpendixA~page2 Planner: 8j2
,',:""
.~ .
,..\'1-'
.-""
{!-
','
:oJ '
-.
~
~. .
'h.'
, "" ,~
.
, /
Goals
, ,
1.
Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficie~t and
environnientally responsible manner.' .
2.
Provide public facilities and servipes in a manner that encourages orderly aild '
sequential growth.
, FindinQs and PoliCies
I,
, '
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Bound~ry: Planning and
Coordination .' , '.
Findin!!s
1. Urban expansion within the urban growth bo~dafy is accomplished through in-
, fill, redevelopment, and annexation of territory which can be served with a
minimum level ofkey urban serviCes and facilities. This permits new.'
development to use existing facilities and services, or those which can be easily
extended, minimizing the public cost of extending urban facilities and services.
2. Inaccordahce with Statewide Planrung Goal II and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the
provision of water; wastewater aild stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, and stormwater facilities, and
controns plaimed facilities maps for these services. Electric system information
and improvements are included ill the Public Facilities and SerVicesPli:m,
although not required by state law: Local facility master plans and refinement
plans provide more specific project infoimation.
3. Urban services within the metropolitan urban growth boundary are provided by
the City of Eugene, ,the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the
MWMC, electric cooperatives, and special serVice disUjcts.
:';':l
The Public Pac/lilies and Services Plan finds that almost all areas within the city
limits of Etigeneand Springfield are served or can be served in the short-term (0-5
'years) with water, wastewater, stormwater, and dectric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow Creek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service ,at some higher elevations' ill Eugene's South
Hills. Service to these areas wili be available ill the long-term. Service to all
areas withiri, city limits are eitherin a capital improvement plan or can be '
. extended with development. '
" '
.' . '
;~~:s." ;,,",With the improvements specified in the Public F~cilities andServiceDate Received
::,;:,;i ' ,", project lists, all urbanizable areas within the Eugene-Springfield urban growth,
';,; . .,. '- JUN 22, o~
4.
"
W"'1,
,"'"
.....
.!;!
'5:-'
.~
,
';':,
:l
~jr\
..'
.-
.~
~ . '.
"
Appendix Aa Page' 3
Planner: Bd
boundary can be served with water, wastewater~ stormwater, and electric serVice
at the time those areas are developed. In general; areas outside citY limits
, serviceable in the long-term are located near the urban growth bdundary andin '
, , urban reserves, primarily ill River Road, Santa CliU'a, west Eugene~s Willow "
9reek area, south Springfield, and the Thurston and Jasper-Natron areas'in east
Springfield., ..
6. OAR660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan
'project lists for water, wastewater, and storri1\vater. These definitions are,sh~wn
in the keys of planned facilities Maps 1, 2, ~ and 3 in the Public Facilities and '
Services Plan. . ' ' ,', ",',' " ',.,'
7.
. '." .~ 4 - , , ,'''. .
In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
special service districts iU'e required to e,nter into coordiIiation agreement.s that .
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire"
parks; open space and recreation, and streets, roads and maSs transit) will be '
provided within the urban growth boundary.
... . .', -,
... -'.
Policies,
. G.I Extend the minimUm level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other, Metro Plan policies.
G2 . Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Servipes Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in "0
, the metr9politan area., Use local facility ll1aster pl~s, refinement plans, caoital ~
imorovement o1ans. and ordinaIlces as the guide for detailed planning and proje"Ci)
, 'implementation. ,.,," (,)
, . m
, , ;., G.3,' Modifications and additions to or deletions' from the project lists in the Public a:::
, ;,''',;:g;)t~:H ~:;;Yf-;''F~cilities and Services Plan for water, waste,water, and stormwater public facium
, ,'. ' projects or significant changes to project location, from that described in the . m
f,_~ VI')"'" , '. :" , . ~
. ~\.. ~<' " , t L.,;,I
. -,
, '" " "" (' ';'I,'r '.(,1', (;'i .
~. ":."A II ~' ,". j .""'\
.r~ . r,. 't' .., I ,~. .,', '
Appendix Aa Page 4
,
,
, ,
,
\ "
J
!D
,'~ ..
, b..
CD
E'
m
a:
C'l
C'l,
2:
=>
-.,
, 1-' 4
I
,
./
I'"
Public Facilities and ServicesPlan planned facilities'Maps 1, 2, 2a. and 3, ,
requires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, ,
, except for the folloWing:
a. ' Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do '
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
,capacity"or other, general char1!cteristic of the project; or -
, b. T eclmical anei' environmerttal modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to final enginee~g on a project; or
c. Modifications to a publicfacility project which are made pursuant to
'. findings 9f an Environmental Assessrnent or'Environmentallrnpact
'Statement conducted under regulations implernenting the pi-ocedural
provisions of the national Environmental Policy Act of 1969 or any
, federal or State of Oregon agency project development regUlations
consistent with that act and its regUlations
G.4The cities and Lane County shall ,coordinate with EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to',
review, and comment on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public,
improvement projects or changes,thereto iliat may affect one another's area,of
responsibility.
G.5 The cities shall continue joint planning coordination withmajor institutions, such'
as universities and hospitals, due-to their, relatively large impact on local facilities
and services. .
'r'
G.6 Efforts shall be made',to reduce tlie number of unnecessary special service districts
and:.to revise confusing or illogical service boundaries, including those that result
iri a duplication of effort or overlap 'of service: When possible,- these efforts shall
be pursued in cooperation with the affected jurisdictions',
, ,
, G.7 'SeiVice providers shall coordinate the provision offacilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher &nsities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal
development,
G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan '
, area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will addre'ss
, , regional publicfacility needs. '
: :.ri If
"r'-
SerViees to Develooment Within the Urban Growth Boundarv: Wastewater
il "1"1': ''J)'', '1,Find, inl2s1',~
I ,'1'~" It. ' "'", ,-,...
. \;~, ~ ,... fl', t ,i' . ~ ) ',,'". 'j-\"~'
Appendix Aa Page 5
Date Received
JUN 2 2 f o~
Planner: ~~5
. ~ ,,: .;11 jl,
~., . . -
. "
"tr."'!',
",0' ;"'i'~\I;'"
,I 1 :'~! < ""1 ~ I
,
\,
, "
, ,
1 L- Sorimmeld and Eu\!ene relv on a combination ofre\!ional and local services
for the provision of wastewater services. Within each City, the local
iurisdiction orovides collection of wastewater throUlzh a system of sanitary
sewers and oumoin\! systems. These collection facilities connect to a recional
'svstem of similar sewer collection facilities owned and ooerated bv the,
Metropolitan Wastewater Managernent Commission ("MWMC"). an entitv_
formed under an inter\!overnmental allieemerit created pursuant toORS 190,
To\!ether, these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which
convey wastewater from individual residentIal or commercial/industrial
connections) constitute the orimm collectionsvstem:'
12, Theorimarv collection system COnVeyS wastewater to a treatment facilities system '
. owned and ooerated bv MWMC. This system consists ofan interconnected Water
Pollution Control Facilitv ("WPCF"1. a biosolidsfacilitv, and a beneficiaI reuse
facilitv., '.
Policies
G.9 Wastewater convevance and treatment shall be orovided to meet the needs of
pro1ected Ql'owth inside the urban Ql'owlh boundary that are caoable of complving
,With rel!Ulatorv reauirements llovernin\! beneficial reuse Of effluent and beneficial
," reuse or disposal of residuals.
.<,
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Water
Findinl!:s .
"
H3.Springfield relies on groundwater for its sole source of water. EWEB water
source is the McKenzie River and EWEB is developing groimdwater SOllrces.
The identification of projects on the Public Facilities and,Services Plan planned
. facilities map does not confer rights to a groundwater source:
, Policies
, G,910Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches; EWEBand
.' Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall ultimately be the water service providers
-within the urban growth boundary.' , ,
G, 1 9 1 Continue to take positive steps to protect groundwater supplies. The cities,
county, and other service providers shall manage land use and public facilitieS'for,
groundwater-related benefits through the implementation of the Springfield
Drinking Water Protection Plan and other wellhead protection plans. '
Management practices instituted to protect, groundwater shall be coordinated ,
li;){;'(\~ ;,' ';\J.;',;~-/t~~~g the City of Springfield, City of Eugene, and Lane County, Date Receive d
': .,...,-'l,
'-:1,'
, '" ,', ";'<,'J'\
.,.- '\ ~ ' lit
:<.,~t h" i' .~~~j, "
Appendix Aa Page 6 '
JUN 2 2 r bY ,
Planner: Bj
1- 6
'..
../" ,VnAJ
"
. !
G.l ~2 Ensure that water main extensions within the urban growth boundary include
adequate consideration of flIe flo;\Vs.
I,
G.123 SUB, EWEB, and Rainbow Water District, the water providers that currently
control a water source, shallexan;Iine the need for a metropolitan-wide water
master program, recognizing thai a metropolitan-wide system will require
establishing standards, as well as coordinated source and-delivery systems.
'Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Stormwater
,Findings
124. ,Historically, stormwater ~ystems'in Eugene and Springfield were desig'ned
primarily to control floods. The 1987 ,re-authorizationof the federal Clean Water
Act required, for the flIst time, local communities to reduce storInwaterpollution
, within their municipal storm draillage systems. These requirements applied '
initially to the City of Eugene and subsequent amendments to the Act e:xtended
these requirements to Springfield. and Lane County.
'1;),5. Administration and enforcement 9fthe Cleap Water Act stormwate~ provisions
occur at the state level, through National Pollutant Discharge Pliminotion System
(NPDES) permitting requirernents. Applicable jurisdictions are required to obtain
an NPDES stormwater permit from the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ),and prepare a water quality plan outlining the Best Management
Practices (B:MPs) to be taken oyer a five-year permi~ period for reducing ,
, stormwater pollutants to' "the maximum extent practicable."
,,146. Stormwater quality improvement facilities are most efficient and effective at
intercepting and removing pollutants when they are close to, the source of the
pollutants and treat relatively 'small volumes of runOff.
1~7.' The, Clean Water Act requiTes stites to assess the quality of their surface waters
every three ' years, and to list those waters which 90 not meet adopted water,
quality standards. The WilIamette River and other, water bodies have been listed
as not meetgig the standards for temperature and bacteria. This will require the
development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants, and'
an allocation to point and non-point sources. ' ,
168. The listing of-Spring Chiriook SaJrnon as a threatened species in the Upper
WiIlamette River requires the application of Endangered Species Act (ESA)
, 'provisionsto the salmon's habitat in the McKenzie and Willamette Rivers. The
decline in the Chinook Salmop has been attributed to such factors as destruction
of habitat through channelization and r,evetrnent of river banks, non-point source
, "': ,: .,:, ,', :' pollgtion, alterations of natural hydrogTaph byincreasedimpervious surfaces in, '
. 'fiR ":'~;dhl' ';nn~;ba~in, an? d~?I'adation of n~tural functions of riparian lands due ~~cel've' d
' , ' " j alteratIOn of mdigenous vegetatIOn. ,nt: ,
'.t.,' "iiJi
'. .\. ,.
~ '.\
-,':",;.
I: . . :~;..-;r~
-;i .
)fL;'
.," ....,
Appendix Aa Page 7
JUN 2 2, b~
P'anner:B-~
" ,
,
1,..
, .
1:79. There are many advantages to. keeping channels apen, including, at a minimum, ,
natural. biafiltratian af starmwater pallutants; greater ability to. attenuate effects af
peak starmwater flaws; n\tei1tion afwetland, habitat, and apen space functians;
and reduced capital costs far, starmwater facilitie~. , ' '
+&20. , An. increase in impervious surfaces, without mitigatian, results ill higher flaws
during peak starm events, less appartunity far recharging af the aquifer, and a
decrease ill water quality.' ' ,
W2l. Starmwater systems tend to. be gravity-based systems that fallaw the slope afthe
land rather than palitical baundaries. In many cases, the natural drainageways '
. such as streamssetveas an integral part afthestaimwater conveyance system.
. "
2\}2. '.Ill general, there are no. prOgrams far starmwater maintenance autside the Eugene
and Springfield city limitS, except far the Lane Caunty roads pr6grani: State law
limits county road funds Iar stormwater projects to. thase lacated within the public
, right-af-way. .
2+3. Filling in designated floodplain areas can increase flood elevatians above the
'elevatians predicted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
'madels, because the,FEMA models are tYPically based anlyan the extent of
develapment at the time the madeling was canducted and do. not take into. account
the ultimate buildaut of the drainage area. This pases risks,to ather praperties in
or adjacent to. floadplains and'can change the hydragraph afthe river.-
, Policies
, '
G.134 Improve surface and ground water quality arid quantity in the me:trapalitan area
. by develaping regulatians ar instituting programs for stormwater to.:'
Increase public awareness of techniques and practices private individUals
can employ to. help carrect water quality and quantityprablems;
a. '
c.
" Imprave managementofindllstJial and cammercial aperatians to. reduce
negative water quality and quimtityimpacts; .
, Regulate site piimning for new development and ca~structianta better
manage pre; and past-construction starin runaff, including erasian,
velacity, pallutant laading, and drainage;
b.
d:
IncreaSe starage and retention arid natural filtratianaf starm runoff to.
'lawer and deJa,!' peak- starm flaws and to. settle aut pallutants priar to.
, discharge into. regulated waterways;
; ,'-'.' " --,..;.' 'I"'
\ . ,,'. "()l '; ','I' ",,: 1'-'11
, '~".. '. ~ . ',; .~" I '(I _ft',)" t
AppendixAa rage 8
Date Received
JUN2 2/ D~
~Ianner:' ~J 8
'._ . .~'"' ,,: _'" ;,'" ..:... ,jJ;li..i"
r;,~~,~' ...:~"n.'''''~~-.l 1~~'jJ>: '"'1~ :
. Il.......\ t.'1 1',.,'\.>,0
~;i :;n 1\
,
'1
e. R.equire en-site contrels and develepment standafds, as pray tical, to reduce'
cff-site impactsfrorn stermwater runoff; .'
f. Use natural and simple mechanical treatment systems to. previde treatment
fcr petentially centaminated runeff waters;
g. Reduce street-related water quality and quantity preblems; ,
h. Regulate use and require containment and/cr pretreatment ef texic
substances; ,
1. Include containment measures in site review standiirds to. minimize the
effectsef chemical and petrcleum spills; and
j. ,Consider impacts to. groU1ld water quality in the design and lecaticn ef dry
wells.
G,145 Implement chan~es to. stermwate~ facilities and managernent practices' to. reduce,
, the presence cf pellutants regulated under the Clean Water Act and to address the
requirements of the Endangered Species Act. .
G.1~ Censider wellhead pretecticn areas and surface water supplies when planning
stermwater facilities. '
G.1e7 Mariage er enhance waterways and epen stermwater systems tereduc,e water
,quality impacts frem runcff and to.' impreve steimwater ccnveyance..
G.l n ,Include measures in'lecal land develepment regulatiensthat minimize the amcunt
ef impervieus surface in new develepment in a maimer that reduces stormwater
pclluticn; reduces the negative affects frem.increases in runeff, and is ccmpatible
with Me'tro Plan pclicies:
, G, 1 &9 The cities and Lane Ccunty shall a:cjept a strategy fer theunincerpcrated area ef
the urban grewth bcundary to.: reduce the negative effects ef filling in flecdplains
and prevent the filling cf natural drainage channels except as necessary,te ensure
, public operaticns'and maintenance cfthese channels in a manner that preserves
, and/er enhances fleedwater ccnveyance capacity and bielegicalfunction.
G.-l-920Maintain flecd sterage capacity within the flecdplain, to. the maximum extent
practical, thrcugh measures that may include reducing impervicus surface in the
floedplain and adjacent areas.
Services to. DevelQpment Within' the Urban GrQwth BQundary: Electricity
. '.,' , ^
.: ~~ ;"~...\,~ '-,::,y..,\",~,,;>,.\,I;~1'I"':'!.",:
~. '.' .'. '; . ..,...i.~~ Ir. 'j ~ ,. .,,~, 11, -r.,
.J '. ,,' .,r.- - ~.'~;' .!. ..:' ",,;,.... I '
Appendix Aa Page 9
.: . Date Received
JUN 22( D~
. Planner:, ij_~
. ;"'I__"'~ ',,~''':-.-~~':';'...l' .,(~:;
,;""'1',.... ;';:Jhl,,~,'Fmdm2's
. . ". ' -: -,'~
. J .'~: ';, t~i '1 ' ; ;-
:\ .\.'Vh....t .'
,
'.'
2M. According to local municipal utilities; efficient electrical service is often
accomplished through mutual back-up agreements and inter-connected systems.
are more efficient than isolated systems; . ,
Policies '
. G.20l The:electric service provid~rs will agree which provider will serve areas about to
be annexed and inform the cities who the service provider will be and how the '
transition of services, if ariy, will occur.
Services to Develop~ent Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Schools,
FindiDl!:s
2J5. ,ORS 195.1I0tequires cities and counties to include, as an element of their
, comprehensive plan, a ~chool facility plan for high growth districts prepared by
the district in cooperation with the city or county; and for the city or county to
initiate the planning activity. The law defines high growth districts as those that
have an enrollment of over 5,000 students 'and an increase in enrollrilent of six
percent or more during the three most recent school years. At present, there are no
high growth school districts in the urban growth boundary. '
.' 246.0RS 19.7.296(4)(a) states that when the urban growth boundary is amended to
provide needed houSing, "As part of this process, the amendment shall include
. sufficient land reasonably necessary to accoIDmodate the siting of new public
schooHacilities. The neecl and inclusion oflands for new public,school facilitie~
shall be a coordinated process between the affected public school districts and the
local government that has the. authority to approve the urban growth boundary.'"
, '
2ft7.' Enrollment projections for the'five public school districts in the'metropolitan area
and the University of Oregon and Lane Community College (LCC) are not '
conSistent. Bethel School District and the University of Oregon expect increases
, while SpringfieJd and Eugene School Districts and LCC are experiencing nearly . '
. flat or declining eIlIollments. EnrolJrn'ent is increasing'fastes~ in'theeleinentary
and high school attendance areas near new development. .
. "
us. -Short-term fluctuations in school attendance are addressed through the use of
adjusted attendance area boundaries, double shiftin'g, use of portable .classrooms,
and busing. School funding from the state is based on student enrollment for,
scl:)ool districts in the State of Oregon. This funding patteriiaffects the-,
willingness of districts to allow out-of-district transfers and to adjust district
boundaries. Adjustments in dismctboundaries may be feasible where there is no
. net loss or gain in student enrollments between districts.
,', i'~ ,;'::\ lj;i::~9.n~:GI~ting or retaining small, neighborhood schools reduces the need forQateaReceiv 3d
:,:, , ". provides more opportUnity for students to walk or bike to schooL Quality smaller,!
,:\,~l)l>, " , . ,JUN 22 (Or
PlaDner:1ijJ
, I
,
I,} ",
',.., ": ..,-"', ~~'-}
r..: " I', \1 jr-..... H ' ~'
'. . ~, , . ','~ .:1., .
Appendix Aa Page',! 0
,
'1
, .
, ,
, . . .
, '
schools 'may allow more parents to stay in established neighborh.oods and to avoid" '
moving out to new subdivisions on the urban fringe or to bedroom communities:
However, growth patterns do not "always respect school district boundaries. For:
example, natural cycles of growth and neighborhood maturation result in uneven
geographic growth patterns in the metropolitan area, causing a disparity between
the location of some schools and school children.: This results in some fringe area
schools exceeding capacity, while some central city schools are under capacity.
~30. Long-range enrollment forecasts determine the need to either build new schools,
expand existing facilities, or close existing schools. Funding restrictions imposed
by state law and'some provisions'in local codes may discourage the retention and '
redevelopment of neighborhood schools. Limits. iInposed by state law on the use
of bond funds for operations and maintenance make the construction of new,
lower maintenance buildings preferable to remodeling existing school bUildings.
In addition, if existing schools were expanded, some school sites may not meet
current local parking'and other code requirements.
, '
~31. Combining educational facilities with local park and recreation facilities provides
fmancial benefits to the schools Vfhile enhancing benefits to the community. The
MeadowView School and adjacent City of Eugene community park is an
. example of shared facilities. .
Policies
G.2-t-2 The cities shall initiate a process ~th schooi districts within the urban growth
boundary for coordinating land use and school planning activities. The cities and
school districts shall examine the following in their coordination efforts:
./. a.
The need for new public s~hool facilities and sufficient land to site, them;
How open enrollment pol,icies ,affect school location;
b.
c.
d.
e.
The impact of building and land use codes on the development and
redevelopment of school facilities; , "
Systems development charge adjustments related to neighborhood
. schools; and, '. ,Date Received
JUN 22 I {)~
Planner: BJ
f.
..ll.,;ti;'i\,':, ';r+_; ;;' .:;'i,'''~ '
....'I',.....'li...~..~,_.,Ji.",;;:';<I'l:.,I.
..... . .:','. ,J ..q;~~f~...~!.l .'
'r j '!"
, ,', ," ,) J'
. '! ~. ~.~ .',::: ' " ...
i~ ").'"
')':('1(::
~>."""'<.
,.
. ,," r ,.- .~'/ -"~-:~b ,t'il .,.
'1''''~'f,..1; 'I t',~,~,,~,.
.. :.',,.".!;" ~"""-~: ~~?.1 . tr 'j
Appendix Aa Page 11
~ ,
HI
,
\'
. . . : " ,
g. The'possibility of adjusting boundaries, whehpraCtical and when total
enrollment will not be affected, where a single, otherwise internally
cohesive area is divided into'more'than one school district.
. '
, ,
G .2~3' Support financial and other efforts to k~ep neighborh~od schools open and to
retain schools sites in public ,ownership following school closure, '
G.2;4 Support the retention of University of Oregon and LCC faCilities in central city
areas to increase opportunities for public transit and housing and to retain these,
schools' attractiveness to students and faculty. ' ,
, ,
. . . ,
Services. to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Solid Waste
.
Findinl!s
3l12. Statewide Planning Goall1 requites that, "To rneetctirrentand longcrange needs,
a' provision for solid waste disposal sites, including sites for inert waste, shall be ,
,included in each plan." , ,
Policies'
G.245 The Lane County Solid Waste Management Plan, as updated, shall serve as the ,
, guide for the location of solid waste sites, including sites for inert waste, to serve
'the metropolitan area Iridustries that make significant use of the resources
recovered from the Glenwood solid waste transfer facility should be encouraged
to locate in that vicinity. .' ' ,
Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
. ( 4' , .
, Findings
",-
3-B. Providing key urbllIl services, such as w~ter, to,areas outside the urban growth
boundary increases pressure for urban development in rural areas. This can
,encourage premature development outside the urban growth bouridilI)' at rural
densities, increasing the cost of public facilities and semces to all users of the
systems.
3;M. Land application ofbiosolids, treated wastewater, or cannery waste on
agricultural sites outside the urban growth boundary for beneficial reuse of treated
wastewater byproducts generated within the urban growth boundary is more
efficient; and environmentally beneficiaJ than land filling or other'means of
disposal. ' ,
'," ,h\, ~1,.-.,.- ('i1 ) L""~&,;~Jt . , "".' r
',:.1> ".' t,,; ~"... _.1 I -.tl' \' ' . - . . . . _ , -
-., " . ' . '3~,5. ,Lane Cou,ntyland use data show that, outside the urban grOwthbo~mJ.~eceived
:~}! ?tll, uses,conslst of: ' " "UC1l~ n,
JUN 2 2 rof
Planner:f:l~J2
I
'0 :'
TI'..;-
'';'. ;,-:1
~ '"I""'''; "I (J;
',.-:. J, ,"l'l 1,
~ . " :' 'I' I)" 1 r I
" .} .'
Appendix Aa Page 12
, I
1) Those which are primarily.intended for resource management; and
2) Those where development haS occurred and are committed to rural
development as established through the exceptions process specified in
Statewide Planning Goal 2: . .
Policies
, '
G.2,)6 Wastewater and water service shall not be provided outside the urban growth .
boundary exc'ept to the following areas, and the cities may require consent to
annex agreements as a'prerequisite to providing these services in aily instance: ' ,
a. The area of the Eugene Airport designated Government and Education on
the Metro Plan Diagram, 'the Seasonal Industrial Waste Facility, the
Regional Wastewater Biosolids Management Facility, and agricultural '
sites used for land application ofbios61ids and cannery byproducts. These
sites serve the entire metropolitan area
b, 'An existing dev~lopmentoutside the urban growth boundary when it has
been determined that it p<?ses an immediate threat of public health or ,
safety to the citizens within the Eugerie-Springfi;:ld urban growth
boundary that can only be, remedied by extension of the service,
In addition, under prior obligations, ,Water service shall be provided'to land within
the. dissolved water districts of Hillcrest, College Crest, Bethel, and Oakway.
G.2e7 The Eugene Airport shall be served with the necessary urban services required to'
operate the airport as an urban facility. Development outside the urban growth
boundary in the vicinity of the airport, outside the portion of the airport boundary .
designated Govermnentand Education in the Metro Plan diagram, shall not be '
, provided with urban services.'
G .2+8 Plan for the followiIig levels of service for rural designations outside the urban ,
growth boundary within the Plail Boundary:
a. Arnculture. Forest Land. Sand and Gravel. and Parks and Open Spac~"
No'minimum level of service is established. '
Rural ResidentiaLRural CommerciaL Rural Industrial. and Govemment
and Education. On-site sewage disposal, individual water systems,rural
level' of fire and police protection, electric and communication service,
schools, _and reasonable access to solid waste disposal facility.
,; .1,' t. !"~. ,_ . . ..' ,
';~Lb'i~t{~l~n'd.:~a:naging Public Faciliti~s Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
b.
~ . 4
Appendix Aa Page 13
Date ReceiVed'
JUN 2 2. IO~
Planner: 8~
.
n ,; ";1
FindiMs ,'/II,
1
~ ..>-.~';
"
',~.. ~ :, "~'. ~ Ii"':""
, . ~'J.r \, I ",-, i"" '11;:- .
",' - ~- , , ., i'. ~li -,
"
, 346.
In accordance with statewide planning goals and administrative rules, urban
water, waStewater, and stormwater facilities may be located on ~griculturalland '
and urban water and wastewater facilities may be located on forestland outside
the urban growth boundary when the facilities exclusively serve land within the
urban growth boundary, pursuant to OAR660-006 and 660-033.
"
3~7. In accordance with statewide planning goals andadininistrative rule;, water, and
wastewater facilities are allowed ipthe public right"of-way of public roads and '
, highways.
368; The Public Facilities and Services Plan planned facilities maps show the location
of some planned public facilities, outside the urban:growth boundary and Plan .
. Boundary, exclusively to serve land within the ]JIban growth boundary. The
ultimate construction of these facilities will require close coordination with and
permitting by Lane County and possible Lane County Rural. Comprehensive Plan
amendments. ' , .
3+9: '. Statewide Planning Goal Sand OAR 660-023-0090 require state and local
, jurisdictions to identi~ and protect riparian corridors.
3S40. In accordance with OAR 660-033c0090, 660-03H130(2); arid 660"0~120,
" building schools on high value farm land outside the urban growth boundary is
, prohibited. StateWide planning goals prohibit locating school buildings on farm
or forest land within three miles outside the urban growth boundary: .
PoliCies ,
G.2&9, Consistent with lo~al regulations, iocate new urban water, wastewater, and
,stormwater facilities on farm land,andurbanwater and wastewater facilities on
forest land outside the urban growth boundary only when the facilities exclusively
serve land inside the urban growth boundary and there is no reasonable
, alternative.
.G.;!930Locate urban: water arid wastewater facilities in the public right-of-way of public,
, roads and highways outside the urban groWth boundary;'as needed to'serve land
within the urban growth boundary. ' . ,
G.3G 1, Facility providers shall coordinate with Lane County and other local jurisdictions
and obtain the necessary county land use approvals to amend the Lane County
Rural Comprehensive Plan, or the Metro Plan, as needed and consistent with state
law, to appropriately designate land for urban facilities located outside the urban
growth boundary or the Plan Boundary. Rece"fed
, . " Date
JUN 22 ( 04
Planner: BJ
"', .. 'r '
. ;' ',' ,;.~..-, .~'I "J!;;') ,"'t..~. .-
. .'.' . .;.,.' ;',:.;/ 'J :\..-.t;~\.
""\' .
~1 ,) . .; I" - .
.,). "" ~. _, i
, ,
"f "-"'<'. '..- I\I<-!.-
!;:",), "1 f' . . I
AppendixAa Page i4
~,
,
1-:~4
r~.
>
<:\..j
.....;\.;
, 1",
"--,
j.:
~
'~
, ;
'i
.,,~ J
v
,~
c::'
, '
. . .
0.3f2 The cities shall coordinate with Lane Gounty on responsibility and ~uthorityto
adqress stormwater-related issues. outside the Plan Boundary, including outfalls .
outside the Springfi~ldportion of the urban growth boundary. '
0.3~3 MeaSures to 'protect, enhance, or alter Class F Streams outside ,the urban growth
boundary, within the Plan Boundary shall, at a rninimum, be consistent willi Lane
County's riparian standards. ' '
, ..
0.3M New schools within the Plan Boundary shall be built inside the urban growth
boundary. '
. Fina'ncing ,
Findinl!s
3941. ORS I 97.712(2)(e) states that the project timing imd financing provisions of
public facility plans shall not be considered land use decisions.
4~2. ORS 223,297and ORS 223.229(1) do not permit the collectionoflocal systems
development charges (SDCs) forrfire and emergency medical service facilities and
schools, .limiting revenue options for these services. Past atterp.pts to change this
law have been unsuccessful. '
. ", , .
4l3. Service providers in the metropolitan area use SDCs to help fund the followmg
facilitIes:
. ,Springfield: stormwater, wastewater, and transportation;
. WiIlamalane Park and Recreation District: parks; ,
. SUB, Rainbow Water. District: water; , /
. Eugene: ',stormwater, ,wastewater,parks, and transportation; and, '
. EWEB: water.
:'"""C
~
li'!l"
::>>
~~..
~,:'
".1'
~i;
<r,
~. Oregon and California timber reteipt revenues, a federally-funded source of
county road funds, have declined over the years and their continued decline is
expected. ' 'l '
4;5. Regular maintenance reduces lo~g term infrastructure costs by preventing the
need for frequent replacement and rehabilitation. ORS 223.297 to 223.314 do not
allow use of SDCs to fund operations and maintenance.
446. The assessment rates of Eugene, 'Springfield, and Lane County,are each different,
, creating ineqUitable fmancing of some infrastructure improvements in the
rr;etropolitan area.
" j'
"....'
~::)'
-"
~
"
Date Received
JUN 2 2 I 0 ~
Planner: BaJ25
,Policies:'
....
Appendix Aa Page IS
G.345 Changes'to Public Facilities and Se~icesPlanproject phasing schedules or "
anticiPated costs and financing shall be made in accordance with budgeting and '
capital improvement program procedures,of,the affected jurisdiCtion(s).
'G.3~ Service providers will update capital improvernent programming (planiUng,
programming, and budgeting for service extension) reguiarly for those portions of
the urban growth boundary where the full range of key urban services arid
facilities is not available, ,
G.3e7 Require development to pay the' cost, as determmed by the local jurisdiction, of
extending urban services and facilities. This does not preclude subsidy, where a
development will fulfill goals and recommendations of the Metro Plan arid other
applicable plans determined by the. local jurisdiction to be of particular
importance or concern, ,
G.3+.8 Continue to implemehta system of User charges, SDCs; and other public
financing tools, where appropriate; to fund operations, maintenance, and
, improvement or replacement of obsolete facilities or system expansion, ,
, G:3&9 ,Explore other funding mechanisms at the local level to fmance 6peratiClnsand
, 'maintenance of public facilities,
, '
G.~OSet wastewater and stormwater fees at alevel commensurate with the level of
"impact on, or Use of, the :wastewater or stormwater service,
. G.~OThe cities and Lane County will continue to cooperate in developing assessment
practices for, inter-jurisdictional projects that provide for, equitable treatment of
properties, regardless of jurisdiction.
, Chapter V Glossary. , ,
"
36., Public facilitvnroiects: Public facility project lists and maps adopted'as part of
the,Metro Plan are defined as fo]lows:
a. Water: Source, reserVoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution
systems. Primary distribution systems are transmission lines 12 inches or
larger for SUB and 24 inches or larger for EWEB. '
"
b.Wastewafer:
"C
, , CJ)
Pump stations' andwastewatet~ '?;-
U
CJ) <N
Treatrnr:nt Faciljtks Svstem: Water Pollution Control' ,0: .....
Facilitv (WPCF) nroiect. benefiCial reuse.nroiect and CJ) , 5
residuals nroied neCeSSl1IY to meet wastewater trea~ent m -,
facilities system desiIID caDacities for averaQe flow: neak 0
flow. biochernical oxvQendemand and total susnended
Primarv Collection Svstem:
, lines 24 inches or larger.
I ,'. ,,; i .~. , ~ ,r. ;..- .: ";:' " '~'.!
.~ '.{ "-'1.' ~'''''Ip 4-'\1 ~t "
. \I '. '. '. 1!,' i..- .\ .'~
." \.i\" '
. . f!." I J..,
. ."
-.
,"', ,""',', t:f.tT
#.' ,
.,
ApjJendix Aa ,Page 16
\'
""")
m
. .
....
Q)
C
c::
CO
,-
Q"
1-:,6
,)
<.~. . ,
'~i=--
._~'
:~!:}l
';.;:c'
.":i!i,.
."1..;,....,
'- ''!''J'
"!Ili. _,
:;;~, .
}, ~
"";~~.' .
"J.i;
~-:"":
. Oate Received
JUN 22, 04
Planner: BJ
1-27
solids so as to nrovide service within the urban !!rowth
boundary/11GB) for a nroiected nonulation in 2025
consistent \villi the nonulation assumed in this Plan. in
comnliance with MWMC's dischar!!e nermit. M\VMC's
Canital Imnrovements Plan. as amended from time to time.
, shall be used as the rnide for detailed nlannin!! and
, 'imnlementation of the WPCF nroiect. the beneficial reuse
proiect and the residuals nroiect.
c. Stormwater: Drainage/cliarinel improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water quality ,
, , projects; and waterways ~d open systems. '
,d. Sp~cifi6 projects adopted as part of the Metro Pian are described in the
project lists and their general location is identified in the planned facilities
maps in Chapter II oftlieEugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public
Facilities and Services Nan (P1:Iblic Facilities and Services Plan).
.n!
.... /';:.-... !..t7~~ t -t' .
~r"\ I/~J. ~~"'" '\~':I I ;\~
~ k~~:f,\.:';t.M~.':r'. ";J)'p~.'..~t.
" "IJI
..'),,\ .!{ .
" ,
~. ',.., '.\ -1' '\If 11 II '~ll~:~ltf.."'li
',:i~~'~'\' .j:"-_lfi 'j .;~'.."
Appendix Aa Page 17
"
, . APPENDIX Ab
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE METRO PLAN
(Version currently before the elected ofjicials as a part of Periodic Review)
"
G. Public Facilities and SerVices Element
, This Public Facilities and Services Elernent prov'ides direction for the future provision of
urban fa9ilities and services to planned land use~ within the Metro Plan Plan Boundary
(plan BOI~dary). . ' "
The availability of public facilities ~dservices is a k~y factor'influencing the locatio~
and~ensity ({future development. The public's investment in, and s~heduling of, public
facilities illld services are a major means 'of imple!llenting the !vIetro Plan. As the'.
population of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and laiid development patterns
change over time, the demand for urbari services also increases and changes. These
changes' require that service providers; ~oth public and private; plan for the provision of
services. in a coordinated manner, using conSistent assumptions and projections for
population and land use.' .,
The policies in this element complement Metro Plan Chapter II-A, Fundamental
Principles, and Chapter II-C, Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of .
compact urban growth prescribed in <:;hapter II, the policies ill this element call for futUre
urban water and wastewater services to be pro;vided ex~lusively within the urban growth
boundary (UGB). This policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal!!:
,Public Facilities and Services, "To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient,
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development." On urban lands, new develoj:lIilent must be served by at least the '
,minimum level of key urban services, and facilities at the time development is completed
and, ultimately, by a full range of key urban services and facilities. On rural lands within
the.Plan Boundary:development muSt be served by iural.1evels of service. Users of
.facilities and services in rural areas are spread out geographically, resulting in a higher
'jler_hser cost for some services and, often, in an madequaterevenUtibase to support a
higher level of service in the future. Some urban facilities may be located or managed.
outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only to serve,
, development within the UGB. '
,Urban facilities and services within the UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, the City
of Springfield, L!l!1e County, Eugene Water & Eh:ctric Board (EWE B), the Springfield .
Utilit~ Board (Sl!B), the Metr~politw: Wa:>te,,:ater Man~geme~t c:o~ssion ~WMC):-g
, electric cooperatIves; and special service dlStnCtS. Special service distncts prOVide >
schools and bus service, and, in some areas outside the cities, they provide water, electric:Ci5'
':1l~2 ,,'(_;:-,J#;::~~i:::i~!~r p~ks. and ~ecreation service. This element pr?vides guideline.s f?r sp~cial g "
. , . , 's~~;~eldlstncts mime Wlththe compact urban development fundamentalpnn;lple of thea:
y;getr8?!lan. ' Date ReceIved .,~ ,'.
, . cr.-
JUN 22 (b~ 0
Planner: BJ
~.. .
~"
.,
',#. '-'\1' 1."; ~ ~,;.. I 1; .~
.__ i I ~..., j
?~''''
Appendix AbPage)
H8
,.'.'./
"
>1.."'-
~.."~.!, ,.
, "
~,-'}
~
--.,
..,i
.....').
~.~;,
J:,!,:.
-::..<.;.,
'f/;
.j
,. ..~
}:......
,-,
"~.' .
~~,
~,
~~-'
Jj,
."', '
'~""-
,'1""1'.
<.....,;.,
'.....,
. ~"",~'.'
'~:":.i
.-.
C:;. ::,."l
~,M.'" ~_
",,"P
':1" "
:.'~_i~ -.
,-,.,;:,;-
, , ,
, ,
This element mcorporates the findings aI).d policjes in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
Plan), adopted as a refmement to the Metro Plan. The Public Facilities and Services
Plan provides guidance for public facilities and services, including planned water,
wastewater, stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goal I!, thePublic
Facilities and Services Plan identifies arid shows the generallocationl of the water,
wastewater, and stormwater projects needed to serve land within the UGB.' The Public
Facilities and Services Pian also contains this information for electrical facilities,
although not required to bylaw, " " , ','
The project lists and maps ni the Public Facilities and Services PI~n are ad'opted as part
of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities and services Plan on project
. phasing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of projects are not part of the
Metro Plan and are controlled solely by the capital improvement programming mid
, budget processes of individual service providers,
The policies listed provide direction for public ,and private developmental and program
decision-making regarding urban facilititis and services. Development should be .
coordinated with the planning, financing, and construction of key urban facilities and
services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities.
, ,
Goals
I, Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and
environmentally responsible manner. ' '
,2, Pro~ide publidacilities and services in amanner that encourages orderly and
sequential gro~, ,.
Findings and Policies
. 'r. " - .
The fmdings and policies in this element are 'organized by the following foi.rr topics
related to the provision of urban facilities and services. Policy direction for the full range
'of urban facilities and services, ~'31:di::;; .....astewater serrice, may be fowid under any of'
these topics, although the first topic, SerVices to Development Within the, Urban Growth
. Boundary, is further broken down into s~b-categories.,
. . Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary
. Planning and Coordination
o , Water
i The exact location of the projects shown on the Public Facilities and Services P1anplaniied facilities
, maps is determined through local processes,' , ',,:' n",i' .
, Goal II ~lsor~quires:~sportation facilit,ies to be included in public facil~ties plans. lnthis ,~er~ ecelved
'area, transportatIOn faclhhes are addressed ill Metro Plan Chapter III-F and ill the Eugene-Sprmgfield '
Transpartation System.Plan (Trans Polan). ' JUN 2 2/0 l{
P,annec1SJ,."
- .,.',
"/,: "
"
, .
" '
Appendix Ab Page2
,-..,........
0' Wastewater Treatment
. Stormwater
. Electricity
., Schools
o SoJ!d Waste Treatmen!
0' Services to Areas Outside the Urban Growth Boundary
o Locating and Managing Public Facilities Outside the Urban Growth,Boundary
. Financing , ' ,
SerVices to Develoninent Within the Urban Growth Boundarv: Plamlinl! and '
Coordination
Findings
1. ' Urban expansion within theUGB is accomplished through in~fill, redevelopment,
,and annexation of territory which can be served with a minimum level of key
urban services and facilities. This permits new development to use existing
facilities and services, or those which can ,be easily extended, minimizing the
,public c~st of extendiIlil urban facilities and services'.
, , '
r ..' .
2. ITI accordance with Statewide Planniiig Goal 11 and OAR 660, the Public
Facilities and Services Plan identifies jurisdictional responsibility for the .
provision of water, waStewater and stormwater, describes respective service areas
and existing and planned water, wastewater, ap.d stonnwater facilities, and
contains planned facilities maps for these services. Electric system information
and improvements are included in the Public Facilitie's and Services Plan,
although not required by state law. Local facility master plans and refmement
plans provide more specific project infoITIlation. '
, , '
, ' '
3. Urban serVices witlllD. the metropolitan UGB are provided by the City of Eugene, ,
the City of Springfield, Lane County, EWEB, SUB, the MWMC, electric
, cooperatives, and special service districts. .' '
4.
, The Piiblic Facilities and Services Plan finds that a1ID.ost all areas within the city
, 'limits ot-Eugene and Springfield are served'or can be served ill the short-term (0-5
years) with water, wastewater, stormwater,'and electric service. Exceptions to
this are stormwater service to portions of the Willow' Creek area and southeast
Springfield and full water service at some higher elevations in,Eugene's South
Hills. Service to these areas wilJ'be av'ailable in the longcterm. Service to all
areas within city limits' are either in a capital improvement plan or can be
extended with development. '
. ,
. _.-\J.~
.
,5: ,With the improvements specified in the Public facilities and Services Plan
'.' " " , .(~;d:iroject lists, all urbanizable areas withiIi the Eugene-Springfield UGB can be ,
'i~ i:~\('f :';'::F~:'~~rved with water, wastewater, stormwater, and electric service at the'tiine those
. ;- :.' ~.1; JL areas are developed. In general, areas olitsid~ city limits serviceable in the long-
, "
r.",
.,' ..-,.~r {~1
. }--.
IJ"',~ i'l~-<\
.:"1, .J
Appendix Ab Page3
"
\,
.
"D
(I)
>
'''CD
(,)
Q)
a:
Q)
a;
o
"""J
m
'-'-
~
"
. .
:....
Q)
C
c:
ttS
-
CL
C'I
""
, :z
1-,;0
t! .
term are'located near the UGB and in urban reserves, primarily in River Road,
Santa Clara, west Eugene's Willow Creek area, south Springfield, and the
, Thurston and Jasper-Natron areaS in east, Springfield. '
I "
6. OAR 660-011-0005 defines projects that must be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewatei-, and stormwater. These definitions are shown
, in, the keys of planned facilities Maps I, 2, 2a. and 3 in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan. .
7. In accordance with ORS 195.020 to 080, Eugene, Springfield, Lane County and
'special service districts are required to enter into coordination agreements that
define how planning coordination and urban services (water, wastewater, fire,
parkS, open space and recreation,' and streets, roads and mass transit) Will be
provided within the UGB.
8. ,Large'institutional uses; such as Universities and hospitals; present complex
, planning problems for the metropolitan area due to their location, facility
expansionplans, and continuing housing and parking needs.
9.' , Duplication of services prevents ,the most economical distribution of public
facilities and services. '
'. .' . 4. .'
~ 10. As discussed in the Public Facilities and Services Plan, a majority of nodal
development areas proposed in TransPlan are se,rviceable now'or in the short-
term. The City of Eugene's adopted Growth Management'Policy #15 states,
, "Target publicly-financed infrastructure extensions to support development for
. higher densities, in-fill, mixed uses, and nodal development." '
Policies
G.1 Extend the minimum level and full range of key urban facilities and services in an
orderly and efficient manner consistent with the growth management policies in
Chapter II-C, relevant policies in this chapter, and other Metro Plan policies. ,
G.2 Use the planned facilities maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location ofwatei, wastewater, stormwater, and electrical projects in '
the metropolitan area. Use local facility master plans, refmement plans, caoital
imorovement olans. and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning and project
implementation. ' . '
.-
G:3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project lists in the Public
Facilities and Services Plan for -\vater,wastewater, and stormwater public facility
, projects or'significant changes to projeCt location, from that described in the
: "-Hi,;.~t.C: t.,;.,~P!lblic Facilities and Services Plan pHmned facilities Maps I, 2,~ an~!..i - R .' d
' "~~ ,. 'c7"h. ,;:'(', .)' ('~hiquires amending the Pubic Facilities and Services Plan and the Metr!lJfMe ecelve
;.:, ,-:; r ;.1Ut,' except for the following:
JUN 22 I D1
.,
-v( 1
- ii(-"i1r "I :,\,L,.
~. ...."', Ii I ~
Appe'lldix AbPage4
Pi~nner: IBJ
\'
i.
a
Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do
not significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing,
capacity, or other general characteristic of the project; or ".
Technical and envirorunental modifications to a public facility which are
made pursuant to"final engineering on a project; or
Modifications to a public facilityprojectwhich are made pursuant to
. fmdings of an Envirorunental' Assessment o~ Envirorunental Impact '
Statement conducted under regulations iinplemeritingthe procedural
provisions of the national Envirorunental Policy Act of 1969 or any
federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulatio,ns '
consistent with that act and its regulations; or '
b.
c.
!i'
. Public facility projects included in the PFSP to serve land designated
, ,
Urban Reserve prior to the removal of the Urban Reserve designation,
which projects .shall be removed from the PFSP at the time of the next
, Periodic Review of the Metro Plan.
G.4 " The cities and Lane County shall c~cirdU;~te With EWEB, SUB, and special
service districts operating in the metropolitan area, to provide the opportunity to
review and' co=ent on proposed public facilities, plans, programs, and public
improvement projects or changes thereto that may affect one another's area of
." responsibility.' " ,
G.5The cities shall continue J oint planning coordination with major institutions, such
'as universities and hospitals, due to their relatively large impact on local facilities
and servic~s. '
G.6 Efforts shall be made to reduce the number of unnecessary special service districts'
and to revise confusing orillogical service boundaries, includi,ngthose that result '
, in a duplication of effort or overlap of service. When possible, these efforts shall
, . be pursued il1- cooperation with the affected jurisdictions.
G.7 Service providers shall coordinate the provision ofJacilities and services to areas
targeted by the cities for higher densities, infill, mixed uses, and nodal
development.
G.8 The cities and county shall coordinate with cities surrounding the metropolitan
area to develop a growth management strategy. This strategy will address .
" regional public facility needs. .
, . . ", .Services to Develonment Within the 'lJrban Growth Boundarv:
,'" "''', ,,-' ",1-' ;\,.,', ',"1""': ::
., :-'It I:~' ,'~,~ I) . ~~.. \._
, .. Findings .
i''; lIi\Il. .
.' ".,-
. ,-'''', . ''''tf; :'~
. ,;!~ .c !!!1 ' '-.. t; 1:-..:,
Appendix Ab.Page5,
wastew:oate ReceivEid
. JUN 2 2 r~
Planner: ~~
I
, J
" ,
I!. SbrinlZfield and EUlZene relv on a,combinationofrelZional and local services for'
the orovision of wastewater services. Within each City. the local iurisdiction
oroyides collection of wastewater through a System of sanitary sewers and
pumnini! Systems: These collection facilities connect to a relZional System of
~imilar sewer collection facilities owned and onerated by the Metronolitan
Wastewater ManalZement Commission ("MWMC"), an entity formed under an
interlZOyernmental a!ITeement created nUIsuant'to ORS 190. Together. these
collection facilities (which 'exclude nriyate laterals which convey wastewater from
individual residential or commercial/industrial connections)constitute the nrimarv
collection svstem.
ii"
12. Theorirriarv collection system conyevs wastewater to a treatment facilities svstem,
owned and onerated by MWMC. This System consists of an interconnected Water
J'ollution Control Faciliiv ("WPCF"), a biosolids facility. and a beneficial reuse
. facility.
Policies
, ,(}9 W~5t~water conyeyance and treatment shall be iJroyided to rneet the needs of
projected !ITowth inside the UGB that are canable of comnlvinlZ with relZulatorv
reouirements lZOyerninlZ beneficial reuse of effluent and beneficial reuse or
disoosal of resi~uaIs:
, ,
SUBSEQUENT FINDINGS AND POLICIES SHALL BE RENUMBERED
ACCORDINGLY WITHIN THIS CHAPTER -
Chaptei"V Glossary
, ' ,
37. Public facility nroiects: Public facility project. lists and maps adopted as part of
the Metro Plan are defined as follows: '
, '
a. Water: Source; reservoirs, pump stations, and primary distribution,
systems. Primary distribution systems are transnllssion lines 12 inches or
larger for Springfield Utility Board (SUB) and 24 inches or larger for
Eugene Water & Electric, Board (EWEB).-
b. Wastewater:
'". i "",,~,'~:C~,~',
'i,~:,,;r;'l~I!Jl/\i:.i...:,'\.' ;," "':'JjH:~~"~, ..~.
,~.' ~tf...{f.'_. ~..!~,....J :;~r)',l
..' .. ~ . .j, ~...:..~ 7, .",' U , ,'. "
. ,." ~ i,' \. i! .
".\.'1\' i-'!.J,l. .
... .
':.r~;~~~~'
-.' i--,i I'
. r \(, _ ,...,.,(-V!l....q
.."t-L':C,.,..li-I""r\I' 1'"'''1' --.j"
'.. l! 'k '.' ~. "I.. ~ ':-', '. "
PrimarY Collection Svstem:
lines 24 inches or larger.
,Pump stations and wastewater
"'0
Q)
Treatment Facilities Svstem:' Water Pollution Control >
Facility (WPCF) nroiect. beneficial reuse nroiect and .~,
residuals nroiect necessarY to meet wastewater treatment Q) c<l
facilities system desilZll canacities for ayeralZe flow. oeak- a:: :
flow. biochemical OXVlZen demand and total susnended' Q) :::J
solids so as to nroyide service Within the urban !ITowth ~-,
o
Appendix Ab Page6
""')
OJ
"'::r-'
<:>
. .
L-
a.>
b
C
,C1j
~.
-0..'
1-33 '
"
",,-.-..-01
. .,J
.,:"[D
.~,;.,
_ '~~.~;,l
.J,,)
:.;j
'-,' . ~tL)
.':;Ej'
~:..:
;'#).."
~'i#,
boundarY (uGBHor a oroiected DODulation in 2025
consistent with the nODulation asslJP'led in this piiln. in
comoliance with MWMC's dischanre'Derinit. MWMC's
CaDital Imorovements Plan_ as amended from time to time,
shall be used as the l!Uide for detailed DlanninQ: and
YnDlementation of the WPCF oroi ect. the beneficial reuse
oroiect and theresidUaIs Droiect.
,c. . Stormwater: Drairiageic1i!ffiIlei improvements and/or piping systems 36
inches or larger; proposed detention ponds; outfalls; water, quality ,
'projects; and waterways and open systems. '
d. Specific projects adopted as part of the Metro Plan are described in ,the
.' project lists and their genefiu,iocation is identified in the planneq facilities,
maps in Chapter II of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Public '
, Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services Plan).
.-
. ':
~."., .
\,
~
~CR~~d'
,;~:.LV~, ~2, {;t.f
Planner: BJ
1-34
I.
,
/;.:il
Appendix 'Ab Page7
"
'1
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED CHANGES to THE PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP)
1. 'Modify the text preceding existing Table 3 to rea4 as follows:
, ,
Planned Wastewater System Improvements
Planned slwFI ITE- bat; tCnR waste~ate~ system improvement projects are listed in'
tables3,-aOO 4, 4a and 4b. The general location of these facilities is,shown in Map 2:
Planned Wastewater Facilities, and Map 2a: Existing Wilstewater Collection alld '
TreatmelZt Systems. [NOTE: This map presently exjsts as Map 6 in the Technical.
Background Report: Existing Conditions and Alternatives and should be
incorporated without change.]
,-'-,.
2,' IDsert, following Table 4, T~bles 4a and 4b,as follows:
, Table 4a . ,
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Improvement Projects
Project , Project Name/Description
Number
"
I 300 WPCF Treatme~t Project I
I 301 Residuals Treatment Project I
I 302 Beneficial Reuse Project I
Table 4b
MWM<:; priffiary Collection System Improvement Projects
'.j'
I Project I Project NamelDes~ription I
Number
I 303 I Willakenzie Pump Station I
I 304 I Screw Pump Station I
I 305 I Glenwood Pump Station I
-, , ,:, ~:i-~;!:Eb:.~:4~~'1~' i:;~iyI6dify Map:? to show Projects 300 th;~ugh 305, ~nd insert Map Gate Received
"',"H;.I 'JUN 221 r4
Appendix B Page I
Planner: BJ'
H5
..:'~'~,.~ .'~":o~,'.".>~,;.\...,~ " \t,,_,1
~" '
:.~. .
::l'"
";;;;~{~;J:',<
,
'j.
'-L
.'1
',:;---.:
J
\'
/~i
:::~;'t-.:.,.;...;....... _........
- '
,.::..{h...........;..w.~_-~~.....-Oia;;....
.~~.
.,,",.:'~J~Ji~~Jr~1~~
, ~ 'l" <;"<~~~1~~
~:~j ~~ '~I"-" E:-:'~'::1::~~
_" -"<.: '. ~< -'t: , . :;#~. ;>>->..
. ~, :r; '.' ~ '1,.-~'i.'';X _:<1:
, .. ~ -;; .'. -. ~;'::: -45.
--.--
"
:;;;;.'
':,1
"
....."., ,_:,"_ ':,~_:, :. -':<::'-'--.:-,, ;"-.:<":";'.-':;,;~~:~;:~~:~;"-ii:1}:'
'.!=U9,~~e:_~p~j1l9field_:)?~.bl,ic..~,acil!fie~': a'ri'd;~e,rirc~;;:R~'~~?;~;'~
" 'ExislingMwMC'Wastewat.;'Ti..trrient:Systeriis,\k
. "..,'~.". ":~~~i~;,~ ' H'
-'.' .,~'<" '<':";' ~<. . .":;" . "'~,....;-. ,:. '
.~,:'~.:>;...-;;:',. . _. --- ~
';, (;;~'?~i:':":rftt!~,~~~
't.
,
'-::; ,~,\";,-::~S;
..........;:;.,. ...-.
-'....-......-
-
---
,
:l;,":,'j,\',;:"'M..,~{~4'f;'.;}t::'Modify Chapter IV. Qfthe Public Facilities and Services Plan, ~ 5?d~g,
. .. ,~J,..",A' ,I '~:I. ')the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition AssessnWftlte HeCelVed
::'~ WI,II,." (presently on page 82) to read as follows: JUN 2 2 I 64
r'
~
, '1,-
,"'. ("":;~~; It'",,'l.~I'J.l..I:
'k "l, ,'I' ) I "
. '....., ,_t..' , \!
Appendix. B Page 2
Planner: BJ
. 1':<6
, ,
,
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
" '
, CalH:eyaHee eajlaeity aHd iHfl3-,~' :1--Ill! bm~ratiaH (IiI) r~f.JS are imjlertaHt eriteria
lly whieh ia assess the jlerLruumie af a wastewater ealleetiaH system. CaHyeyaIiee
eajlaeiYj is:: :~'1lHeti8H af adequate ~ijlesizmg aHd measures a system's ahility ta
maye effluent effiele!ltly. IHila'.',' and iHfHtratiaH ra;:.;, ~..:press 1h" eaiJunt af
slor=,"",,;er eatermg a sew~~- -,y:bli t}Jn;abh ~~feeti';e pijles aH~ ~iF j3iHtS, ar
thr8u!;;h the crass caHHectiilH af stsrmvratcr liBcs, eamllmed sewers, ea1zh !nsias, *-
=,,;,:.,,:~ ea';ers. Sueh extraneallS starmwater eHtem!;; the wastewater'system '
BBBeee~Jf.l'lI:;'l;udens heth eeilYeyoHee ll-HEl treatment faeilities.
Treatmellt: ' MWMC Wastewater Treatment System "
MWMC existin!! infrastnictUre is morut6ted for oroblems that need to be addressed'
durin!! ooerational and maintenance activities. MWMC has6ng6ing oroii-ams to helo,
nl,~:n for and imolemeTlt eouipment reolacement and maior rehabilitation ofexistim! .
~vstems. With these on goin!! nrOlITams used to detect existing oroblerns, the .
infrastructure can be maintained and oreserved to helo extend its useful life for future
vears.
In March of2003. MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and nlan forrecional
wastewater,canital imorovements that will serVe the Eugene/Sorin'gfield' urban ii-owth'
Iloundarv into vear 2025. MWMC will need to imnlement the recommended
imnrovemimts to meet reqtilatorv reouirements based on oroiected nollution loads and
flows. CH2M HILL as Dart of its work to evaluate and ulan for recional wastewater
imnroverrients has nrenared a technical merno related to "Flow and Load Proiections"
datedAoril12.2004. This historical and nroiected information is being used to plan for
needed MWMC canital imorovements bilsed on encineering evaluation methods and bv
"comnarin!! technolo!!v ontions, It is estimated that auoroximatelv $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMCoroiects to address rel!1llatorv reouirements and,
!!Towth through vear 2025. '
Convevance:
. .. . . '.
Conv'evance canacitvand inflow and infiltration (1m ratios are imnortant criteria bv, ,
which to assess the nerformance of a wastewater collection svstem. Conveyance canacitv
is a function of adeouate nine siziil!! and measures a system' sabilitv to,move effluent,
efficiently. Inflow and infiltration ratiosexoress the amount of stormwater enterin!! a,
sewer svstem throu!!h defective nines and oioe ioints, or'throul1h the cross 'connection of
stormwater lines_ combined sewers. catch basins, or manhole covers: Such extraneous ~
storm water entering the wastewater system unnecessarily burdens both convevance and ~
treatment facilities, oij)
, ..;',iL: . U
~';,,:i-;r!!':1: 1!,~2~ '\c,;,{?~I\1o~ify Chapter IV. Of'the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by modifyin~
, ~' , ",' ",' """th'e'discussion of wastewater, iit the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service 3
;::' .il:i' Availability Within UrbaniZable Areas" (pr,esently on page 97) to read as 2 -,
follows: " ~
i~'~i,~~ it" .... '>:i.f.,-':~;r'J,,~~~~~F
:1
Appendix B Page 3
~'
.' J
CO
!:::,.,
'"
"-
IN
(N ,
o 0
b"" ,
Q)
b
C
(oj
::1';'":,."",
li-'
1I=\b
1-37
~ '
}
I. There are no areas within the metropolit~ UGB that Will be difficult to serve With
wastewater facilities over the long-term (six to 20 years) assuming that oublic
infrastrilcture soecifications and reouirements ofthe'develooin!!area-can be
'addressed. Au~wu.;ate enlrineerin!! desi!!Il oractices niustbe used durin!! the
develooment and exoansion int6 'sensitive areas that are aooroved for,
,develooment (ex. - hillside construction. etc.): ; however, :"pa.'lsi:fi Expansioll of
the existing collection system will be necessary to meet demands of growth over
this time period. '
2. Based on 2003 analysis; the Eu!!ene-Snrin!!field metr6noiitan area treatment ,
facilities will reouire facilitv irnorovements to address both drv and wet weather
.' re!!Ulatorv reouirements relatin!! to oollutant loads and wastewater flows.
Re!!ional and local wastewater imorovements to the collection and treatment
'systems are bein!! olanned for and will be imolemented to allow for !!I'owth within
the UGB and for rel!U!atorv comnliance:The Eugene SpriRgfie~:'. m3tnpsl~"-'l
~:area Regisn~ \1.'astewater T_____on~ Plct}is S"ffieieBt elesigneapaeity te
aeeemmetlate ps;::'2ft!.:2-': :::.:reE.!::s 2::1 serye all new developmo:t =.t 'zu:l~,
However, peak wet weather eondhbis L~'~ the treatm:ntFk-1~freFE. aehie'lmg its
desigRei "'"F=.:ity. Wet, weather related L.proTomdLtS 2::: fl'Jedetl at th31'bn~-
, an:'. '-'j'Li-f: 1n-reir.:::<!ll :s1b~4zn sys~eFE.to extend th: FI2li~.!.s-we~ -:::Y..h*,'
,iJy:ei~' ,beyond 1:: y:u:OO+,' ,
6. Add Table 16a followiiig Table 16, as Jollows:
Table 16a :
MWMc'Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough Cost,
. ' Estimate, and Timing Estimate
300 WPCF Treatment Project $120,500,000 I 2025
\ 301 Residuals Treatment Project I $6,000,000 " 2018
I 302 Beneficial Reuse Project 'I $25,000,000 2018. I
I 303 WilIakenzie Pump Station $6,000,000 .2010 I
I 304 Screw Pumo Station I ' $2;000,000 2010 I
I 305 Glenwood PumP Station I' $500,000 2012 Jd I
" *Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
.
:..:.:7;-
'.:11
:~'7
'..;;' .
'g,
..
"....,l.,'
''''f.':- ::;j;.,
:.. ..:" .~::-"
..-:-:
Add a new chapter to the Public Facilities and Services Plan, ,to be Chapter
, VI., reading as follows:
'.' '~: ~....
'.'t .~<'.'i
"':f' ;:J
Appe.ndix B Page 4
Date Receive( i
JUN 2 2( ay
Planner: B\fi'
, , 1-;8
('
, .1.
::>l VI. Amendments to the Plan
-~.
....'1
..
/' '~'"
~'H1
':
This chapter describes the method to be used in the event it becomes necessary or
app,up,:ate to modify the text, tables or the maps contained'in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan ("the Plan''):
Flexibility of the Plan'
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or serVice atea designations will
necessarily change as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement
programs, environmental impact studies and changes,in potential sources .offunding. The
Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not included ill the plan for which,
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act, or subject '
administrative and technical changes:to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or
review by the Land Use Boatd of Appeals. '
. - '
For the purposes of this 'p~an, two types of modifications ate identified.
A. Modifications requiring amendment of the Plan.
The following modifications require, amendment of the Plan':
1. Amendments, which include those modifications or changes (as
represented by Table 16a) to the location or provider of public facility
projects which significantly impact a public facility project identified in '
,the comprehensive plan, and which do not qualify as administrative or
technical and environmental changes, ,as defined below. Amendments ate
subject to the administrative procedures and review and appeal procedures
,applicable to land use decisions. ' ,
2. Adoption of capital improvemen,t program project lists by any service
provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
of subpatagraph 1 above ate met.
-B. Modifications permitted withciutamendment of the Plan. .
The 'following modifications do no~require amendment of this Plan:
1.
Adrniriistrative changes ate those modifications to a public facility project
, ,
which ate minor in nature and do not significantly impact the project's
general description; location, sizing, capacity or other general
chatacteristic of the project.
Technical and environmental changes ate those modifications to a public ~
facility project which ate made pursuant to "fmal engimiering" on a project>
or those which result from the fmdings of an Envuonmental Assessment "03
or Environmental Impact Statement.conducted under regulations ~.
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental a:
Policy Act.of 1969 or any federal or state agency project development , Q)
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations. b:j
Q
J
00
2.
. . ;ij
~
c<>'
cq
:z:
:::>'
-,
. 'U
b
Cli
b
... ~"1'
,', ......'(...,11 . -"~fo?"\r-'
. "'lor".l-:~.. .
c.~
~
. ".,
~- """"
,hIt
,
Li"
,,~' ~i ,...... ~. .-
.... '.
Appendix B Page 5
1-39
>
-~ ,
!
c...J
ill
-'
-~
,"
y.~
) ,....,
~,
,( )
':,:-~:
, "
.....
Process for making Cha~ges "
A. Administrative and Technical or Environmental Change~. Any jurisdiction may
make an administrative or technical and environmental change, as defined herein,
by forwarding to each jurisdiction covered by this Plan, and to the Lane Council
of Governments a copy of the resolution or other fmal action of the governing,
. board of the jurisdiction authorizing the change.' . '
B. . Amendments
For purposes of processing amendments, as defmed herein, such amendm~nts are '
divided into two Classes. " ' '.
a. Type I Amendments include amendments to the text of the Plan, or to a
list, location or provider of public facility projects which significantly
impact a publ1cfacility projectidentified herein, which project serves
. more than one jurisdiction.' . '
, b. . Type II amendments include amendments to a list, location or provider of
public facility projects which significantly impact a public facilityproject
identified herein, which project serves only the jurisdiction proposing the
amendment. '
C. ',Processing Amendments
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate
an amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalf of a
citizen:
a. Type I amendments shall be forwarded to the planning commissions of the "
respeCtive agencies and, following their recomrilendation, shalf be
considered by the governlli.g boaras'of all agencies. If a Type I
amendment is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be
referred to MPC for coilflict resolution., Subsequent failure by agencies to
adopt anMPC-negotiated proposal shalL defeat the proposed amendment.
, If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shaIl adopt identical ordinances
b. , Type II amendments shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission of
the initiating agency and, following their recommendation, shall be
'considered by the governing board of the initiating agency.
~)
))
-
Date Receive( I
JUN 2 2 ,bY
Plannt~Ir" ('"
1-10
Appendix B Page 6
"
.
"
ACTION
. REQUESTED:
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Meeting Date: February 17, 2004
Meeting Type: WorklRegular
Department: Pub. WorkslDev. Servo
. ,Staff Contact: Susie Smith/Greg Matt
.'!
S P R I N G FIE L'D ' Staff Phone No: 726-3,6971726-3774
C I T y, CO UN C I L Estimated Time: 15 mlllUtes/Consent Cal.
ITEM TITLE:' COUNCIL INITIATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA 'GENERAL PLAN (METRO PLAN) AND THE PUBLIC
'FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP):
Review staffs request to initiate amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP,during the .
Work Session and initiate the amendment process during the Regular Session.
Amendments to the Metro Plan - Public Facilities and'Servi~es Element, and to tl1e
'PFSP, are needed to: I) clarify the relationship between, and the types of facilities
projects included in, the PFSP and local capital inlprovement plans (CIPs); 2) update the
PFSP maps based on new statut6s; 3) reflect current conditions and planned regional
wastewater facilities consistent with tl1e MWMC Facilities Master Plan Update currently
. under way; and 4) resolve incOlisistencies among metro-wide planning documents.
ATTACHMENTS None.
DISCUSSION! The PFSP includes inventories, condition assessments, project lists and policies for key'
FINANCIAL urban public facilities, 'including wastewater collection 'and treatment. Since the
IMPACT:, inception of these metro-wide comprehensive plans, tl1e wastewater facilities included in
the project lists have been limited to pump stations and 24" or larger pipes, Capital
inlprovements to the regional wastewater treatment facilities have been addressed only
through the Metropolitan W~tewater Management Conimission (MWMC) CIP process,
AGENDA ITEM' SUMMARY
"i,'
ThePFSP was updated in 2001 as part'oftl1e Metro Plan periodic review proce~s. It
contains a condition and capadty assessment of the regional wastewater treatment '
facilities basedon the information available at that time. The text references two areas
of constrained capacity and the planned work to resolve them. Consistent witl1 past
practice, no wastewater treatment facility projects were included in the PFSP project list.
An updated MWMC Facilities Master Plan, which;\rjJl update the information in tl1e .
PFSP, is nearly complete. The Facilities Master Plan identifies a list of projects that will
need,to be constructed over tl1e next ten years in order to comply with the wastewater'
, discharge permit,issued in 2002and,witl1 additional peak wet weatl1er flow management
requirements, as well as to provide adequate capacity through 2025. __
Local and regional wastewater program and planning staff, along with legal counsel,
have concluded that several amendments to the Metro Plan and PFSP are advisable. The
amenmn:ents would result in updated wastewater system text, and clarification of the
definitions ofPFSP-included projects vs. projects included in local ClPs only. The
amendments also would ensure that all of tl1e metropolitan planning documents provide
a consistent and legal framework for developing both regio~al wastewater Facilities ::0
Master Plan projects and city infrastructure projects not currently addressed in the PFSP Q)
, " " ,>
The types of Metro Plan and PFSP amendments contemplated are defmed by the Metro'CD' ~
'" ,"'..." " ,", Plan as "Type II" aniendments,.which must be initiated by one of the three governing (.) ~
,1:: :'\('l;! .,; ~,(}tj' :;::<FJ';';{ ;:', bodies. Expeditiol\s review of the amendments will be critical to timely design and , j# <:'l
, " construction of newly identified regional wastewater facilities, which is slated to begin trf"" , :z:
, ~~, ,HUt:' fiscal year 2004-2005. The metropolitan area PlanningDirectors reviewed this matter. o~ '~'
. . January 27th and have tentatively scheduled a Joint Planning Commission public hearingCtS
-f ") "';~.,n,:\,"-'foj;i' ': ,"for April 13, 2004, pending formal initiation. Development of the amendment languagO ,
-", r .",," is currently Under way, and will be provided to the City Council for review and comment
prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. . ,
, ,
"'")
CO
. .
"-
Q)
C
c
en
~i:
LL
1-41
,DEPTUI-
FORM 1
.' .
MAR 0 4 2004
, .. , ' . '. LAND CONSERVATIOt I.
n LCD NOTICE OF PROPOSEDAMENBmmENT
This form must be received,.by DLeD fit lead 45'dav~ orinr to the first evidentiarv heari"na .
per ORS 197.610, OAR Chapter 660- Division 18
and Senate Bill 543 and effective on June 30. 1999.
(See reve~e side for ~uhmitta.l reouirement.'i\)
JUrisdiction:
City, of Springfield
Local File No.:
N,one
(lfna number,;use none)
" .
Date 6fFirst Evidentiary Hearing: April 20.. 2004
(M"W>5 fil1~d i!)l /
Date this proposal was sent or mailed: Ma r~,h 4 ',' 2-004
. ',(0"" mailed or scntto OLeO) ,
, Date of Final Hearing: June 30, 2004
(Must be filled in)
Has this proposal jlreviously been subrnitted to DLCD? ,Yes: --:-. No: ~ Date:
,;..l,. Comjmihensive Plan Map Amendment
_ Zoning Map Amendment
~ Other:A~~nrl Pllnlir: F.::!rdli+.;'cc P'~""
(please 'Specify TyPe of Action)
Brie;fly summarize the proposal., Do not ll!'e technical terms. Do ~ot write "See Attached."
1. . Add Metropolitan treatment fac:i1ities to the c:ondition assessment and projec:t
list.' ,
.....x.Compreheni;ivePlan 'rext Amendirient
, -"- LaridlJse Regulation Amendment
_ New Land Use Regulation,
2. Define differenc:e between the PFSP project ,list and,loc:al CIP.
3.' Adopt new PFSPamendment process.
4. , Adopt new findinos.
Zone Map Changed ,from:
N/A
N/A
- to add, map of collection system
, (eXisting) and treatment plant
to , .N/A
site
, Plan Map Changed from: .
Location; , ,
Acres Involved: N/A
.
, "!",
Specified Cll.ange in Density: Current:
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals:
',,)s an Exception Proposed? Yes:_ No:-L.
~" .
'.. ,
,~:Affected State Of' Federal Agencies, Local Governments or Special Districts: Lane County, '
N/A
Prop'osed:
N/A
Goal '11
"
.'
,'~-. Eugene. Springfield, Oregon DEQ.. EPA
1'/. ,_ _ .
'. .~.~
~ ';: ,
',-
-"'"
':, Local Contact: Greg Mott. Plannino Mqr.
....-.:...
,'JAddress:' 225 Fifth Street (City of
'... .
. City: , Springfield .o.~egon
,
II
=====================================~=================~========~=======
DLCD No,:
1-'2
.
-j
1. Modify Chapter III-G. of the Metro Plan, by modifying the introductory
text to read as follows: .
ChapterID-G. Pub~c Facilities and Services Element
, G. Public Facilities and Services Element
, ,
This Pllblic Facilities and Services Elementprovides direction for the future provision of
urban facilities and services to planned land uses within the Plan boundary'. The
availability, of public facilities and services is a key factor influencing the location arid '
density of future development The publi~'s,investment in, and scheduling of, public
facilities and services are a major means of implementing the Metro Plan. As the
popul"!tion of the Eugene-Springfield area increases and land development pattems'
change over time, the demand for urban serVices also increases "and changes. Th,ese
changes require that service providers, both public and private, plan for the provision' of
services in a coordinated manner, using consistent assinnptions and projections for
population and land use. '
The policies in this element complementMetro Plan Chapter II-A: Fundamental
Principles and Chapter II-B: Growth Management. Consistent with the principle of'
compaCt urban growth prescribed in Chapter n, the policies in this element call for future'
urban water and wastewater services to be provided exclusively within the urban growth '
boundary. ~s policy direction is consistent with Statewide Planning Goalll, "To plan
and develop a timely, orderly, and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services
to serve as a framework for urban and ru:la1 development" On urban lands, new
development must be serVed by at least the minimum lev'e1'ofkey urban services at the
,time development is completed and, tiltimately, by a full range of key urban services. On
rural lands within the Plan boundary, deyelopment must be served by rural levels of
. service. Users of facilities and services iii rural areas are'spread out geographically,
'resulting in a higher per-user cost for some services and, often, in an inadequate revenue
base to support a higher level of service in the future.' Some urban facilities may be .
located or managed outside the urban growth boundary, as allowed by state law, but only
to serve development within the urban growth boundary: ,
Urban facilities and services within the urban growth boundary are provided by the City
of Eugene, th.e City of Springfield, Lane County, Eugene Water & Electric Board
(EWEB), the Springfield Utility Board (SUB), the Metropolitan Wastewater .
Management Commission (MWMC), electric cooperatives, and special service districts.~
Special service districts provide schools ,and bus service, and, in some areas outside the ,::::
, .. cities, they provide water, electric, fire service, or parks and recreation service. This Q) .
element provides, guidelines for special service districts in line with the compact urban . ~
" !~:::;~lIH;'Nql, :[ ;;;1rJp.lopment ,fun~ental principle of the Metro Plan~' a:::
, ' Q)
tti
(;)
""")
ro
i~
'"
"
'N
I:<>
,2
:::>
-,
. .
~
Q)
C
c:
m
-
f:l..
,~ J L'l
~'1
;,"
,- .','. ! "'";"
, V:\SDC\Metro Plan Amendment.doc
.. L~-printedLast printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM
1-43
'I:
\'. .
'--
\'
"
This element incorporates the findings and policies in the Eugene~Sptinifteld '
, Metropolitan Area Public Facilities and Services Plan (Public Facilities and Services
. ,Plan), adopted as a refinement tci the Metro Plan. The Public Facilitie; and Services Plan
, provides gUidance for public facilities and services, including planned water, Wastewater,
stormwater, and electrical facilities. As required by Goalll, the Public Facilities and
Services Plan identifies and,shows the generallocation3 of the water, wastewater, and
Stormwater projects needed to serve land within the urban groWth boundary.4 The Public
, Facilities and Services Plan also contains this information for electrical facilities,
although not reqUired to bylaw. The project lists arid maps in the Public Facilities and
Services Plan are adopted as part of the Metro Plan. Information in the Public Facilities
and Services Plan on project rhMing and costs, and decisions on timing and financing of
projects are not part of the Metro Plan 'and are controlled solely by the capital ,
improvementprogromming and bud~et processes. of individual service provioers.
1bis element of the Metro Plan is organizep. by the following topics related to the
proyision of urban facilities arid services. Policy direction forthe full range of services,
ffieffiii::;;'7:ES~e.;..ater s::"ijz:,-may be found under any of these 'topics, although the first
topic, Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary, is further broken'
down irito sub-categories.' ' .
"
o Services to Development Within the Urban Gro'Wlh Boundary
o . Plannirig and Coordination
'0 Warer ' r
o Wastewater.
o . Stormwater
o 'Electricity
o Schools
o Scilid Waste,
o Serviyes to Areas Outside the Ur1?an Gro'Wlh Boundary ,
. Locating and Managing Public Facilities, Outside the, Urban, GroWth Boundary
o Financing',
The applicable'findings and policies are contained under each oftllese topic headings
~~. ~. ~ ".
The policies listed' provide direction for publi<; and private developmental and progrnro
, decision-making regarding urban facilities and services. Development should be
coordinated with the planning, financing, imd construction ofkey urban facilities and
, services to ensure the efficient use and expansion of these facilities. ' '
,
. ;~~~f"
.:' .~..
. ;~.
. ~.:
,.~"'3'
. ,.;11".-.-.
". :-t<';
:: I
\~J
,,-c:
;J;~, 3 The exact location of the projects shown OIi the Public Facilities and S~jcesPIan planned facilities
, -JI." maps is determined through local processes. " ' , n",+^ 'R ' d
;::-.~'; " Goal!! also requires transpoitation facilities to be included in public facility plans. In this me1hfGWi eCetve
, fi( area, transportation facilities are addressed in Metro Plan Chapter III-F and in the Eugene-Spri,!gfieId '. {
,...-... Transportation System Plan (TransPIan). JUN 2 2 eM
. I ~, , I
, V:\SDC\Metro Plan Amendment.doc ' P" . D.
Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM " anner,i, PrJJ
";<'
:.'
.,:-"'1
,
.~..
...,,'.
..~ \
.!
2. ModifyPolicy G. 2, as follows:
G. 2, Use the Planned Facilit,ies Maps of the Public Facilities and Services Plan to guide
the general location of water, wastewater~ stormwater, and electrical projects in the
metropolitan area. Use local facility D?-a.ster plans, refi.i1ement plans, capital improvement
plans, and ordinances as the guide for detailed planning aild project implementation. .
3. ' "Modify Finding 6 to read as follows:
6. 660-011-005 de:fiD.es projects that must be included in public facility plan
project lists for water, wastewater, and stbrinwater. These definitions are shown in the'
keys of Planned Facilities Maps 1,2, 2a,and 3 in this Public Facilities and ServiCes
Plan. ' '
4. Modify Policy G. 3 to read as follows:
. " I
.3 Modifications and additions to or deletions from the project,lists in the
Public Facilities and Services Plan for water, wastewater, and stormwater public facility
~ \,. . .
projects or si@ificant changes to project.location, from that described in the Public
Facilities andServices Plan maps 1,2, 2a, and 3, require amending the Public Facilities'
and Services Plan and the Metro Plan, except for the following: . ,
, '
I) Modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not'
'significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity or other
general characteristic of the project; or ' ,
. 2)Technical and environmental m()difications to a public facility which are made
pursuant to fina1 engineering on aproject;or
, 3) Modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to findings of
, an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement conducted under
regulations implementing the procedUra1 provi~ions of the National EnvironmentalPolicy
Act of 1969 or any federal or State ofofegon agency project development regulations
consistent \Vith that act and its regulations. -
5. Insert, following Policy G.B:
Services to Development Within the Urban Growth Boundary: Wastewater,
, .. .
Findine:s "C
~
11. Springfield and Eugene rely on a combination 'of regional and local services . '(i),
for the pro';ision of wastewater services. Within each City, the local g
'. ,I,' ' jurisdiction provides collection of wastewater through a system of sanitary 0:
, . J ,;~,j "i"~'inHH !c,~t~l.l sewers and pumping systems. These collectiol!- facilities connect to a regional Q)
, system of similar sewer collection facilities owned and operated by them
"'f.t.:'~1\,\I.' 01
," __', V:\SDC\Metro Plan Amendmentdoc
, ,'\;,;:' :!:';;'r~.t{~Last'pciilted Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM
""")
1"::;- CO
'\): DD
"- b..
cq Q)
...... C
z c:
=>
-, (i',$
~
n.
1-45
[~.
'.
, '
-,.
.-
,
......L.-.'
;.Jf,"
~..~
'~'J
(RL
.:'i~
....,;,..
~,
,
:'
. ,
Metrppolitan Wastewater Management Commission ("MWMC"), ail. entity
formed under an intergove=ental agreement created pursuant to ORS 190.,
'Together, these collection facilities (which exclude private laterals which
convey wastewater from individuitl residential or co=ercial/industrial
connections) constitute the primary collection system. '
,12. ' The primary collection system conveys wastewater to a treatment facilities
system owned and operated by MWMC. This system consists of an
interconnected Water Pollution Control Facility ("WPCF"), a biosolids
facility and a ben~ficial reuse facility. ",.
Policies ,
G. 9 Wastewater conveyance and treatment shall be provided to meet the needs of
projected growth inside the UGB that are capable of complying with regulatory
requiremeIlts governJng beneficial.reuse or discharge of effluent and beneficial reuse or
, disPosal of residUals.
, . '
6, Renumber allsubsequen! findings and policies accordingly.
. '
,7. Modify c:hapter V. Glossary, by modifying the definition of Public
Facilities Projects as follows: .
Public Facilitv Proiects '
, Public Facility Project lists and maps adopted as part of the Metro Plan are de~ed as
follows:"'"
Water:
Source, reservoirs, p).lIilp stations, ail.d primary distribution systems.
Primary distribution'systemsdare ~sipn futes 12 inches orlarger for
SUB and 24 inches or larger for.J::wER
Wastewater.
Primary Collection System: Pump stations and wastewater liries 24 inches
or larger. ' " "
Treatment Facilities System: Water Pollution Control FacilIty' (WPCF)
project, beneficial reuse project and residuals project necessary to meet
wastewater treatment facilities system design capilCities for average flow,
peak flow, biochemica1 oxygen demand and total suspended solids so as to
provide service within the urban growth boundary (UGB) for a.projected
population in 2025 consistent with the population assumed in this Plan, in
compliance with MWMC's dischaIge permit MWMC's Capital '
.lJ:nprovements Plan, as amended froin time to time, shall be used as the
guide for detailed plancing and impleme!itation of the WPCF wec~ the', .
beneficial reuse project and the residil!lls project ',' . uate RecelVl!d
JUN 22/~
Planner:, ~~
.
.~
{~,
~'
""I
~~'-"
"'~\;-'~ .
j] .
. "-.,
V~\sDQ\MetroPlan Aniendment.doc
Last printed Lastprinted3/2J2004 4:54:00 PM
~: I
'~f
.~:
, ".J
. "
..
",
.~.'
~,:','
~.~
,=","
, .
, '
~,
I
.,;t'-",' ,
,!
, ~. .
Stermwater: Drainage/channel imprevements and/er piping systemS 36 inches .or
larger; 'prepesed detentien'pends;eutfalls; water quality projects; and
waterways and .open systems.
Specific projects adepted as part of the Metre Plan are described in the Project Lists and
theirgenerallecatien is identified in the Planned Facilities Maps in Chapter II .of the
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area PuPlic Facilities and Services Plan.
" 'I .
, '
6. Modify'the Project Lists and Planned Facilities Maps as follows:
,- !,
1. Medify the text preceding exiStirig Table 3 te read as follews:
Planned ,Wastewater System Iniprovements
. . J '.
Planned :1;.3;1 :m.4 bag tmm wastewateisystem imprevement prejects are listed in
. tables3,-eHE14, 4a and 4b. The generallecatien .of these facilities,is shewn in Map 2:
Planned Wastewater Facilities, (mdMap 2a: Existing Wastewater Collection and '
Treatment Systems. '
,
2. Insert, fellewingTable 4, Tables 4a and 4b, as fellews:
Table4a
MWMC Wastewater Treatment System Imprevement Prejects ,
I Project " I Project NamelDes~ription I
Number
I 300' WPCF Treatment Project 1
I 301 Residuals Treatment Project " 1
I 302 Beneficial Reuse Preject 1
. Table 4b
MWMC Primary Cellectien System Imprevement'Preje~ts '
. ,
Project
Number
303
304
305
Project Name/Description
, ,
Willakenzie Puoi.p Statien
Screw Pum1? Statien, '
GJenweod PumP Statien
1
]
(r'
'.".
3.
Medify Map 2 to'shew Prejects 300 through 305, and insert Map 2a
'.
:,.l'
..
'r:
.\,,:,..
"..,-<1
......
Date Received
JUN 2 21 ~
.Planner: 6J
1-47
~',~! "
\~
t..-"
:1' "
Y:r' . -'~'
. '~, V:\SDC\Metre Plan Amendment.doc
. ,Last printed Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM
. :~7-
.......
'0,
I
"\...-..
\,
(
..>
NoIss:
.~
)
....t"">.
,~"
-
......\-
...-~
"""
.."
",.,.,.
,
~ ""," ':';;:~
. :-"';.
~';-', .
r
\
~
r~'--'
n,',
s-
""...........
..EugElne:,SpringfieIdPu bl c Fa9ilities~ndSer\fic~s Plan ..',..' .
.' . .' . PI arinedMWMC Wastewater'ProjectSites
. ......,.. ..'.:....' .. ' .; . - - '. ',' ,c. ','.' :-'-".' ~ ,-.',.' : '.~ - " ,..,. :--': ,: : .- . ,-' -.': __ ,;:-'. ..:--: _' .:";, _',: ,','
. . ,:'ProJects' a/e:described In tabiesa and,b:.
" -"" . ". . . .' .".' "-.
. . ~nOd ~~y{astMater SItes, .', .
. rn :~glo.n.IPUmpstatlorl-:::: .'.:..... "
'. :-::b!o Scr8WPUrr.>'~,',: .,.:,-' '.'
. .e. Reglo!laiWaStoWater. Trealmsnt Site
. 6) Reg~1\8l Wa5l.owaterTroatmOnt SIte
'C Motro Plan Boundary. , '
. . E:I Metro Urban Grov.th Boundary
lW.\\ii Urban ReselVe.
. . NOt..: Urban Re.serw.s tll'e now btJing aludlsd'
~ pBrl d Ih. MelropoJil1Ul Urban ResSfY. Analyai"
1=fJriodk:Rov.wSludy. . :J' ".
, ,
1
1 ",..
..
'-
--------.
.--......:
--.-.~
+
1. Feci/it". "hoWn Qul"ldsl"" UGB cannot b. locetsd a.t "town
wi/hoot fv.st oblsining Lan. cOunty /JJnd U,t8ltJpprovaJ.
2. The ganera/ /aCallons 0/ lho fecllJlir>> are M10Wll on Ihh ".tip. bad proJIICI
beellons wo dalerlrJlIOd l<<ough Jo(;aI piDco3ll8l",
'"1Jale Necelved
~
~
d:>
l
I I
MAP 2
M~h.2004
JUN22 oil
. I "
Planner: BJ
-
'.
..~~
to'
. .,."",
'1",,"'\,'
. ",
"~'.~, "..
: ,- EUge~'~~S~;ingfie;dPLJbIiC FaCiii~;~;'-and'~,e~ice~PI~~'/:'
,; '. Existing MWMC Wastewater Treatment Systems ":
.-,......-'
" f'"i \':~
-:,'~ ::. ., ? -.r,;- r
"" \'--"-
- ".
~-;;; (':t;:, ' Management
\<\;f~~ .
~f~J
~
'-..:.
,
~
"
. --\.".
Blosollds
'rf'
.\"."
..-, ',.,..
:,Ai~ . :'ExIsU~~W~siewat6rT~~alme'ntFacll1~S '
"_' ',::' er:IsUng W8~t8 Pipes 24M & larger' "
. "'''''''----'-':-.8MAlrportWasteUnes._
_____ Study Mea Boundary
. . '. 'mm1; .:: Urban Resorves - ....
. '., I'~_.'-",;.I ~etro Uctia"n Growth BOundary.:.
-"',-.,."
",'
~ I
.,r"
)~l
,'_0
"
2 MIIu-
";C.
J
._~1
"
..,'
",
"
'----
',/'--
'---..:.
~
"
-,
t;
~~':
(
+
ThJs rr.ap d"p/cfs appItJ)(lm.t.Ir:Oflt/Qn~ 01 "Kl.tllng
publiCl wast_aleT lacilifiai This ",ap is iI/uiJlralivo .
and $houJd be_ lIud for ffJlBfenca only.
f
MAP2a
~'
I
....
<0
Date Received
JUN 221 ocr
Planner: BJ
March, 2004
: '
, ,
, 9.. ModifY Chapter IV. Of the Public Facilities and Services Plan, by
modifyirig .the subdivision entitled "Wastewater System condition
Assessmenf' (presently on page 82) to read as follows: .
Wastewater System Condition Assessment
Treatment: MWMC Wastewater TreatmelltSystem
8mnmlH'ir.e ir.j-8R1'lfliielll1llil e811etU-sieHS Irem CH1M Hit! Technical Menle ell Flew
flntl1:efla Pr{jje:J:S;, imil ilU:i.o.it:: t!lflt thi "Rc;;ienfl[ Wastew/lter Trea81wnt System'
GmlitiE:; I'...ssessme-r..t" is ts !Je :-cplaeed by t!u Teellllica/. Mall::, ::;::::'1'",...",1 there/n
by refcrence. ' ,
MWMC existing infrastructure is monitored for problems that need to be addressed
, during operational and maintenance activities. MWMC has ongoing programs to help
plan for and implement equipment replacement arid major rehabilitation of existing
systems. With these on going programs Used to ddect existing problems, the "
infrastructure can be maintaiJiedand pr,eserV'ed to help extend its useful life for future
years. "
In March of 2003, MWMC hired CH2M HILL to evaluate and plan for regional
wastewater capital improvements that will serve the Eugene/Springfield urban groWth
boundary into year2025. MWMC will ,need to implement the recommended .
improvements to meet regulatory requirements based on projected pollution loads and
flows. CH2M HILL as part of its work to evaluate. and plan for regional wastewater
improvements has prepared a technical memo related to "Flow and Loadfrojections"
dated October 7, 2003. This,historical and projected information is being used to plan for
needed MWMC capital improvements based on'engineering evaluation methods and by
comparing techllology options. Ii is estimated that approximately $160 million dollars
(in 2004 dollars) are needed for MWMC projects to address.regulatory requirements-and'
growth through year: 2025.
. Conveyance:
, Conveyance capacity and inflow arid infiltration (III) ratios are important criteria by
which to assess the performance of a wastewater collection system: Conveyance'capacity
" . is a function of adequate pipe sizing and measures a,system's <)-bility to move effluent
efficiently. Inflow arid infiltration ratios express the 'amount of stormwater entering a
sewer system through defective pipes and pipe joints, or through the cross connection of
stormwater lines, combined sewers, catch basins, or manhole covers. Such extraneous
stormwater entering the wastewater system unnecessarily burdens'both conveyance and
. treatment facilities. -'
r:-':";
,'t".
"i,;
f~";
r)ji
~'r
'.." oj
-'
~..:..-..
-:;('i
~.-
.......\
,.,.....,
~J~~
C;<J t:--r'u
1.4'~.-'~'
'10. M~dify Chapter IV. Of the Public'Fa~i1ities and Services Pllm,' by
modifying the discussion of wastewater, in the subdivision entitled "Lon-
. Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable Areas" (presentl~on fage 97) ,
. to read as follows: ' . '.. ,Dale Recelvec I
:
. ~::::~i> .
r='~~". .
....;;..' .
(;;
~~~.
":!'..~:
.-
...
'..".~:.
':i~/:'
Y:\SDC\Metro Plan Amendment.doc
tastprinted Last.printed 3/2/20044:54:00 PM
JUN 2 2 ( t?~
Planner: a~,iO
.':>1':;
, .
,.!
1. There are no areas within the metropolitan UGB that will be difficult to serve with
wastewater facilities over thdong-term (six to 20 yearstassumillll: thatoublic
infrastnlcture soecificatiOlls and reouirements, of the develooine: area can, be ~ddressed~
Aoorooriate encineerine: desi!m oracticesmust be used durinlr the develooment and,
exoansion into sensitive areas that are aoproved for develooment (ex. - hillside
construction: etc.). : Rewove:, :l:;:e:aJiefl-ExoanSion of the existing collection system will
be necessary to meet demands of growth over this ,time period.
2. Based on 2003 analysis_ the Eui!ene-Sorinirlield metrooolitan areatreatment facilities
system will require facility improvements to address both drv and wet wea~1:~! t~<:ulato~
,requirements relating to oollutant loads and wastewater flows, :R,~V(1)al and local
imorovements to the collection and treatment s"stems are Dlanned for and will be '
imolemented to allow for QIowth within the ,UGB and for relrulatorv comoliance. ' ~
c=- "-....:.....-<:-l~ ra-.fr~'-- ---~ n,-~-n~' 'H~--"'ater Treatn'--+ rl--.1.M
~I..I_t:...1:'""",cA-3 ..._..::rp=.:.l.-~_.....1;'_OI...::d: .._..... ........c~ .............-ttt:t:::J
-.ffo,l'o-. desi '-.leity toaeeoIDmeda'- ~----'a+:o- ,~~~--- o-~ =, - ~11 n',...
.:l.~ .._ ___" b""" c....p ~... .1"'.....1:'- .t.....f".. .u.._......~_,J.......J:t. .,.....L.~...::d. ...,. '.
SeveI- ...___: :1: builEiolit. Hewe'lqr, flea\( ;:;ot wcather ceadit.:,;n:, l:m;, i:,,, <rc<;hn~::j ;:l::mt
ff3FE. ::s'::d:':iBg its aesigaed ::'j'.c.::t:;. W:'E, -:122ther relatd :m.;:;:w:::.a:ab~: n::::ded'at
.1. - -l--"--=~ n~'1.:- .1._ regional eollec.:c-:.y...,-- t= --'.-E~:he flI3'O.'" \..,. '''cather
m.....1:' _....-=.:1 llt'.:Q......... ~_ 0 _ .:J....~., "'..-....... ... ":'...~.... d . ..,;, . -.. y, ..
capacity beyond the year 2007. '
3. The provision oflong~term wastewater service in the Jasper-Natron area in Springfield
is contingent upon construction of the Jasper Road Wastewater Line Extension from 42nd
Street to Brand Street Completion of this significant infrastructure improvement will
enable this area to be 'served effectively. '
, '
4. The Willamette Heights area of Springfield requires installation of wastewater lines to
replace existing septic systems. There are related problems in this area surrounding
substandard streets and inadequately surveyed rights-of-way. '
11.Add Table 16a'following Table 16, as foll()ws:
Table 16a'.
MWMC Wastewater Treatmentand Collection System Improv-ements, Rough Cost
Estimate, and Timing Estimate,
I
I
I
I
I 305-' Glenwood PumP Station
*Cost estimated in 2004 dollars
300
301.
302
303 "
304
WPCF Treatment Proiect
Residuals Treatment Project.
Beneficial Retise Proiect
Willakenzie'pump Station
Screw Pump Station
$120,500,000
$6,000,000
$25;000,000
$6,000,000
$2,000,000
. $500,000
2025
2018
2018
2010
2010
2012
.. ~ ,'"- ._,
'~"':~-~-\.V'~~~: ig,,,,1i. '~.~ ;~'~IJf!;.(?t
.!I.-.-.;1Jr1, "ill-"\' ,,,
j"'T .' \-
,r;: . };I' t
V:\SDC\M:etro Plim Amendmentdoc
..,",!,.;;; ," ::";' ~,;;,,~~ppnted Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM
Date Received
JUN 22 10<-{
, Plannen-SJ
, '
: '
, ,
12. Add a new chapter to 'the Public Facilities and Services Plan,to be
Chapter VL; reading as follows: ' . .,'
'VI. Amendments to the Plan
1bis chapter describes the method to be used in theeveJ?-t' it becomes necessary or
appropriate to modify the text, 'tables or the..,maps contained in the Public Facilities,
Services Plan ("the Plan"),
Flexibility.ofthe Plan.
I j. '.,
Certain public facility project descriptions, location or service area designations will'
necessarily chaJige as a result of subsequent design studies, capital improvement ' ,
, ,programs, environmental impact studies and charigesin potential sources offunding.:The'
Plan is not designed to either prohibit projects not, included in the plan for which, "
unanticipated funding has been obtained, preclude project specification and location
decisions made according to the 1':-Tational Environmental ];!olicy Act, or subject
~rt,.,.,;n; strative and technical changes to the plan to post-acknowledgement review or
review by the Land Use Board of Appeals.,' , . '
For the purposes of this Plan, two types of modifications'are identified.
'A. Modifications requiringamendmerit'ofthe Plan.,
, The following modifications, require airiendment oithe Plan:
1., Amendments, which include those.modifications or changes to the 'lii
location or provider of public facility projects which significantlY impact a
public facility project identified in the comprehensive plan, and which do
not qualify as ~rlministrative or technical and environmental changes, as
defined below. Amendments are subject to the ~rlministrativeprocedures
and review and appeal procedures applicable to land use decisions.
2. Adoption of 'Capital improvement program project lists by ari.y service
provider do not require modification of this Plan unless the requirements
~f subparagraph I above are met, ,.'
~. Modifications permitted without amendment oithe Plan. '
The following modifications do notrequire amendment of this Plan: "
~ . ,
..
" L"P
"
1. Administrative changes are those modifications to a,public facility project
which are minor in natUre and do not significantly impact the project's
general description, location, sizing, capacity or other general
charactenstic of the project., '
2. Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public
facility project which are made pursuant to '''final engineering" on a project , .
or thos~ which result from the findings. of an Environmental ;uBatetRecelVied
or EnVlIonmental Impaq Statement conducted. under regulations '
, , JUN, 2, 2/1
" V:\SDCI,MetIo pian Amendment.doc
'I!f;., ~;:t:Ed1:tprinted Last printed 3/212004'4:54:00 PM Plannen-!~J
" I
.: :\' ;~UL
, ,: . 'I "'/"'1
l"- \ " ~ 'iI"" ',...il : y(~, >,
-,t::H~I\>',I. ~;:--~:,! .1 :':'}!:"~'~t"
. '
':
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1996 or any federal or state agency project development
regulations consistent with that Act and its regulations., .
Process for making Changes
The following process is used to modify the Plan:
A Amendm:ents
For purposes of processing amendm:ents, as defined herein, such amendm:ents are
divided into two classes; .
1. Type I Amendm:ents include amendm:ents to the text of the Plan, "
or to a list, location or provider of public facility projects which
significantly impact a public facili,ty project identified herein,
which project serves more than one jurisdiction. '
2. Type II amendm:ents include amendments to a list, location or
, provider of public facility projects which significantly impact a
. public facility project identified herein, which project serves only'
the jurisdiction proposing the amendment. '
B. Processing Amendm:ents
Any of the adopting agencies (Lane County, Eugene, or Springfield) may initiate an.
amendment to this plan at any time on their own motion or on behalfof a citizen.
1. ' Type I amendments shall be fonyarded to the planning ~ommissions of ,
the respective agencies and, following their reco=endation, shall be
considered by the governing boards of all agencies. IfaType I
amendm:ent is not adopted by all agencies, the amendment shall be
referred to MPC for conflict resolution. Subsequent failure by
agencies to adopt an MPC-negotiated proposal shall defeat the
proposed amendment..If an amendment is adopted, all agencies shall
ado!!-t,identical ordinances ' ,', .
2. ,ype II amendments shall be forwarded to the Pbnning Commission
of the initiating agency and,'following their reco=endation, shall be
. considered by the governing board of the initiating agency
.~~
:.L. ~(\{~f..:%'V:.j.t,.;" t. ~'I'f'~r I~
~ . '....... \ /,1' ' '.A,I -1.\
..:. .., f:: r:'~~(j';Y ~
Date Received
JUN 22, {)ll
Planner: BJ
1-53
. ,:{~, _.;' I,-.~'{.r '_ 'f:'; t,_',1 .:' .
,.r "" ")V:\SDC\Metro Plan AmeIidm:ent.doc
,'" .., . ,Last ppri,ted Last printed 3/2/2004 4:54:00 PM
':..;\)~.z J~.' f ~-'. ;:' ~,'. ~ .. ~
: '
'f"
r;..
"'1,.
, ,
.' " ""
I .. , ';', . 'l~;\! ~..C ~ I "'~V'~r- ~
I _"', '# ~...~~. iji~f'-\~ ~~J ~,~l__
'-,
Date Receivec'
JUN2 2 '
10L(-
, Planner: B~
1-:.4 \,
'I "l'l
I ~'. h !f! I-
. I.-I '
"I ,," ( . t",", -r-l, .0. ,., 'I'~.~'
1__,,:",,",::- ~-"": f '! Ir~ ~.t~ -, ~ -,'
. '
':
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF CITY A TIORNEY
I
DATE:
May 6, 2004
TO:
Springfield .PlanningCommission
Eugene Planning, Commission
Lane County ,Planning Commission"
FROM:
Meg Kieran
Springfield City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Metro 'Pliw amendments;. Public ,Facilities and
Services Plan amendments; response to material
submitted by Home Builders Association at'~pril
'20, 2004 public,hearing
Home Builders Association subm~tted written materials into the
record of the above,proceeding. MWMC submits ,this response.
1. Applicable standards.
.oi
Mr. Kloos states, without specificity, that "[s]tate statutes
?pply." Certainly, this prqceeding is governed, in part, by,
state statutes, particularly, those provisions of ORS Chapter 197
,that govern post-acknowledgme~~ pla~ amendments. In addition,
the amendments must be consistent with 'applicable statewide '"
planning goals. The LCDC admInistrative rules implement the
statewide planning goals. In addition, the proposed plan
amendments must be consi~tent :~iih existing, acknowledged plan
provision.
2. Planning Horizon.
Home Builders states that the use of the 2025 plann.ing horizon
for the PFSP"list of wastewater treatment and collection'
facilities is inconsistent with the, existing Metro Plan
provisions. Home, Builders is incorrect.
First, the 'existing PSFP, dated December 2001, includes projec~
that ,extend out 20 years from ,that time: For example, the 0)'
introctuctorytext to the,project lists contained in the exist~
,P~,anst,ates: "Long-term projects are anti~ipated to be built i~
'S1.xto' 20 years...." (PFSP; P.28),. That hor1.zon would extend to 0)
, ", 2021. EWEB's list includes, as long-term projects, water systea:
. ~~":'tib<Uripiov~m~nts 218 through 237, none of which ha" a date more '0)
, . ~~7,t~,1t~:~~an ,the six to 20 year reference quoted above. ~
""":)
CO
1:>-
"'"
..... '
C">
C">
:z:
=>
-,
o .
L..
CD
C.
c:
CCS
-
Q.,'
I '
,,': " 1"'"1-
'I i' ti;! " k :', \: 't~~"-7;
ATTACHMENT '2-1
. '
,....:. ...~
""
.'~,~C
'I.;
..'
';:'"
.'
...t',
,~,
._';~I
- ~'t.- .
<"
,
"",
~ " ')
Second, the Department of, Environmental Quality'guidelines
recommend that sewer treatment facilities should, be planned and, '
constructed for a 20-year population projection period.'
The planning horizon in the amendments is appropriate for the
nature of the planned facilities. ,Sewer treatment facilities;
,should be constructed with long range planning goals~
3.,The proposed PFSP amendments are a project list as required by
state statutes and implementing regulations.
Home Builders insists that the proposed PFSP amendments,
particularly the, proposed new tables, are not a "project list"
wi thihthe 'meaning of ,state statutes :and regulat.ions. Home
Bliilders argument is' without merit. ,The proposed sanitary sewer,
project list ,is comparable to the existing project lists in the
PFSP by Springfield Utility Board, EWEBand,the' other ,
participating jurisidictions' lists. The proposed list also'
complies with the LCDC's Goal 11 implementing administrative
rules. '
OAR 660-001-0005 (6) defines "public facility project" as follow::;:
~A publicfaciiity project is the construction or
reconstruction of a water, sewer" or transportation
facility within a public facility 'syste.m that is funded'
or utilized by members of the public."
Public facility system, as it relates to sanitary sewers, ,are
limited,to the following,: a)' treatment facility' system; ,~nd/or b)
primary. collection system. (OAR 660-011-0005 (7) ) .
Proposed Table 16a :lists six treatment facility system projects:
WPCF ,Treatment, Project; Residual Treatment Project; and, ",.
Beneficial Reuse Project. It also includes three pump stations
(i.e." collection system projects): Willakenzie Pump Station,
Screw Pump Station and.Glenwood Pump Station. This, l~st complies
with bothdthe statute and the. administrative rule definition,of
"proj ect list."
7.;
i;"'i~
; In' their oral testimony Home Builders ,stated that a more
i€ppropriate list of'projects for PFSP purposes would. be MWMC's
:':2'O-yearproject list that is :included in MWMC's 2004 Facilities
",'1"" ' .
,~Plan.MWMC' adopted the 2004, Facilities Plan and 20-year .project
<<;,l:ist' to"satisfy DEQ requirements for facilities planning, and to .
~C::9mply with the requirements of ORS, 223.309 (1) that a facilities . '
,plan ~r-d.list of proposed capital improvements be adoOat&flecelVe j
\.(0 ,the, establishment of a" system development charge .' "
"f~,' JUN 2 2 ,I
'. to"!
Planner: BfJ;,J
~
,"-
~~ '
. '
,)
ORS 223.314 ' provides:
"The establ,ishm~nt, modification or implementation'of a *** a
plan or list adopted pursuant to'ORS 223.309, or any modifica~ioh,'
of a plan or list, is not a land use decision pursuarit to ORS'
Chapter 195 and 197."
Therefore; .' requiring the inclusion of
in the PFSP,would be inappropr~ate.
4. The proposed amendments comP~y with app~icabie
administrative ru~es; both the Metro Plan and PFSP,
with the proposed chang~s, satisfy all planning'
requirements.
, '
MWMC's 20-year 'project list
A. Pub~icFaci~ity P~an.
Home Builders' recitation 'of v~rious Oregon Administrative Rules
that govern public facilities plans assumes that the proposed
amendments are the complete plan. ,They are not. The complete
plap is the entire Metro Plan Chapter III, Section G'and'the
, complete' PF'SP~: Read in context,. the Metro Plan and the PFSP
include all the requirements ~ecited by Home Builders from OAR
660-011-00l0. The existing 'PFSP was enacted and a:cknowledged as
incompliance with the statewide planning goals in 2002 as part
of the region's comprehensive plan periodic review process. : Even
without'the proposed amendment~, thePFSP has been found, by .
'virtue of being acknowledged, 'in compliance with Goal 11. The
proposed amendments only bolster and augment the existing plan,
they do not remove any c~itical elements of the plan.
, '
"
The complete inventory requi;ed by subsection (1) (a) ,is found in ,
the existing PFSP.
, ,
The plan includes a projE>ct' list. ,The proposed amendments; read
in the, context of the existing plan, ,include a "list'of
. significant public facility projects." Any contention that it
does not is merely a restatement of.Home 'Builders' earlier
argument that the proposed project list is not a "project list,"
as they would define it.
The, plan includes cost estimates. The required "rough cost
estimates" are defined as ~approximate costs expressed in
current-year (year closest to the period of public facility plan
development) dollars. It is not intended that project cost
estimates be as exact as is required for budgeting purposes."
OAR 660-0ll~0005(2). The cost estimates provided are sufficient
, . ' to, "satisfy the rule.'
,:~:..\/rt;'J:'"t!j~f.~:( ~;.::-~:,:t~!?:~~~; :~ "
Again,'by looking at' the 'entire PFSP as amended, the remainder
fne!1~'equirements cited by Home Builders are also present: ma'ps
"0
Q)
>\
./"-
'CD. \).
(,) \.
Q) e<l
a:,C<I.
z
Q) :::>
- -,
of ctS
of 0
m
- C
Ji. '. ',' .,..,"',.,',',< ""'r./''\",L.t,-~,',,,
'~,.,;~"'- .~~..~ - - - -
2-'-3
: '
, ,
t~e projects; an estimate of when each project 'will be needed;
and a discussion of the possible fundihg mechanisinsfor each
project.
B; 'Inventory.
ThePFSPas amended by the proposed amendments includes a'
complete inventory of the region's sanitary sewer system. Again,
Horne Builders attempts to restate its "project ,list" is ,not a
"project list'~ argument. 'Clearly" the existing list, which
passed muster prior to the proposed amenctments'without'the
addition of the new projects, satisfied LCDC's'definition of
"project list." It is hard to imagine how the addition of
projects somehow makes ah already sufficiently, descriptive list
n? longer sufficient within 'the meaning of the rule.
C. Timing'.
, Horne Builders' argument here is, not really about timing , but about
the definition of "project list:" "Where, as ,here, the proposal
, is to approve categories of proj ects, 'rather t_han a list of
projects, it is, not !,ossible to comply with the rule." (Horne'
Builders letter, 1'.5). MWMC"has responded to that argument,
above.
D. Rough Cost Estimates,.
A~ explained above, the cost estimates provided in proposed Table
l6a satisfy the rule's definition of rough cost estimates.
'E. Elements of the comprehensive J;>lan.
Horne Builders again re-state their un~upported "project list" "
argument: "Again, a project listing is required, not a
'description of categories' of proj ects'." " The Metro Plan and PFSP,'
as amended, satisfy' OAR 660-011-00.45.
, Conclusion'.
, .~.;;:
" ,~-.:.
, Jhe proposed amendments comply with state statutes, statewide.
. planning goals, and the administrative rules that implement Goal
,j~ 11. The p~oposed amendments to Chapter III, Section G, and
;:\, Chapter IV of the Metro Plan are 'necessary additions concerning
':;;, proposed improvement and ca.pacity to'the conveyance and treatment
. ~J ~
',. ';,',;,f,~~ facilities.' This information should have been included with the
-,-, -i'. recently, adopted amendments to Chapter III that 'occurred as, a
~' requirement of Periodic Review. The amendments to the~~~_~~_ '
,~.:' also a compilation o~information that should have beeVCt&H~eIVHd.
,:''., ,with the adoption' of. the PFSPin 2001. Such additional
, information has no effect on policies of the Plan either
s~i?f'lc6.J
Planner: ~f~T'-
, '
"
, .~
, ,
to public facilities. or other chapters othe~ than to demonstrate, ·
that these urban' facilities will be constructed to acCommodate
planned build-out within Eugene's and Springfield's urban growth
boundary. These amendments therefore satisfy the Metro Plan
amendment criteria of 'approval,thatrequires internal
consistency.
I: .
N:\CITY\MWMC\R~sponse_ to Home Build~rs..wpd
"
";1
" "
i! ,
"j ,; "H']
'_\1''1 t. ,'I..
.. -.. !' '.~'''-
"'C J
,~ OJ
(]) '~ , ,
U '\;) I-
"- Q)
(]) <N
a: <N C
:z: C
(]) ::::>
h1 -, <<S
-
0 a.
2-5
, " I
,"'''' --j ".
J. "If"! '.. ..~;"-;' ,-' ; "'f.~"t
. ~ j :) <,};:/j:I.'!-~~::':~~; :Y~ .'
. . , e~l~,:~: ;.... ~:/~: ~.;:~, \S \~~~._'.:;
,t',
, .
LAW OFFlCE OF BILL KLOOS, PC '
, ,
. 576 QLM: STREET, SUITE 30e
EUGENE, .oR 97401 '
PQ BQX 11906
EUGENE, .oR 97440
TEL (541) 343-8596
, . FAX (541) 343-8702
E-MAIL BILLKLQOS@l.ANDUSEQREGQN.CQM
OREGONLANp USE;LAW.
April 20, 2004.
Metra Area Planning Camniissians
c/a LaneCauncil afGavernments
99 Ellst Braadway,Suite 400
Eugene, OR 97401
, ~'
Re: Metro'pian Text Amendments; Public Facilitiesand'Services Plan Amendments
April 20, 2004 Joint Public Hearing . , ' .
Dear Camniissian Members:
, Please accept this l~tter an behalf .of the Harne Builders Assaciatian .of Lane CaUnty and its'
subsidiary, the Harne Builders Canstructian Campany.!' .
1. What stl\ndlirds apply. '
The stimdard~, that apply tathese prapas~d plan amendments are .faund in several lacatians:
· 'State statutes apply, Statutes always-apply ta.lacal gavernments' land use decisians.
McKav Creek VallevAssoc. v,Washimnon Countv,18 OiLDEA 71, 75'(1989) . ,
(acknawledgment afplan and cade leaves statutes directly applicable).,
. Statewide Planning Gaals; ORSI97.175(2)(a).
· LCDC Rules implementing the statutes and the gaals apply, far the same reasans that the
statutes and gaals apply.
· Acknawledged, unamended plan pravisians apply ta plan amendments, because plans
have ta be internally cansistent. South of Sunnyside Neighborhood League v. Bd. of
Comr's of Clackamas County, 280 Or 3, 13, (1977); ORS 197.015(5).
"':','
illC',
J
u . _
If1t. Planning Periad: The 2025 planning'horizon for,'the Wastewater Primary Collection' .
:~~ystem is inconsistent with and not caordinated with the planning periad far the balance of .
, Jthe Metro Pllm.
:.....
'",-"' .' " ,.
~:: ' >;Both the Metro Pl~n and the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP) amendments propose a .
~:;;, :>~ . ".>:.~.\ ' '.' Date Received
1 Th.~p'-roposedamei:lllments, if adopted, will be post-acknowledgment plan amendments (pAP As), My clients 're~u~st n~~7e '
of.thefuial decision ~f each local ~ove'7'~;,nt on this matter, as required by ORS 197,61~. ,~~ (>.::e ~~ ~ ' .
, ,~lanner~i~fB~J6
,;.:.J......
)~. '\
'"
. 0
,n
.!
~.
.
";.~
,"
.~/.}
I .~ .
.
, Metro Area Planning Commissions
Apri120, 2004 '
Page 2 ofS
2025 plan horizon for the planning for treatment facilities. With these amendments the
comprehesive plan will not be integrated anq, in fact, will have inconsistencies. That's because,
the exiting plans have a 2015 planning horizon. A comprehenSive plan, by,de:iinition, must be
coordinated, integrated, and internally consistent. The definition of "Cvmp'"hensive plan" in
ORS 197.015(5) is: ' . ',,' ,
, ,
"Comprehensive plan" means a generalized, coorcfuiated land use"map and policy
statement of the governing body of a local government that iriterrelates all functional
and natural systems and activities relating to the uSe oflands, including ,but not liprited
to sewer and water systems, transportation systems, educational facilities, recreational
facilities, and natural resources and,air and water qualitY management programs., '
"Comprehensive" means all-inclusive/both in terms of the ' geographic ar~a covered and
functional and natural activities and SyStems occurring in the area covered by the plan.
o. . . ~. _ ' .,. _ .'
"General nature" means a summary of policies and proposals inJ~road categories and,
, does not necessarily indicate specific locations of any area, activity or use. Aplan is'
"coordinated" when the needs of all levels of governments, semipublic and private,'
agencies 'and the citizens of Oregon have been considered and accornmodatedas much
as possible. "Land" ~cll.ldes water, both surface and subsurface,and the air."
A cVll'.I'."hensive plan really can'tbe "coordinated" in the meaning of the definition if
different functional parts of the plan have conflicting pl:uming time frames. '
3. State statutes regarding public facilities 'planning, ORS 197.712(2)(e), requires a '
project list, which is not in the proposed amendments." ,
The statute that sets the stage for public facilityplarls is ORS 197.712(2)(e): It'provides:
, ,
, ,
"A city or county shall develop and adoptapublicfacility'plan for areas within
an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500 persons. '
, The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for public projects
needed to provide sewer, water and trarisportation for the land uses '
contemplated in the comprehensive plan andlai:td uSe regulations. Projecttiming
and financing provisions of publIC facility plans shall not be co~idered\ land use,
decisions." " , ,
It is worth noting that the statute anticipates 'it list of projects, The proposed amendme;ts do
not include a listofproject. Instead, the amendments would include categories of baskets-of
projects. Prestimably, the individual projects ",ould be worked out admiriistratively.
4. LCDC Rules relating to public'facility pIlmning.
,'! ;:S)~g~bl1~1;f~jii~~s':statute and Statewide PI~g ;Oalll are implemented throuQate Received
'LCDCsDiyi~ion II Rule - OAR 660-011-0000." ' 'JUN 22 f tJtf
"
. r'
. l' ~ '. < (, ~,
.; "; \;i' ~\.:~~~:: .!.
Planner: ~~
.
"
.
Metro Area Planning Commissions'
" April20, 2004 '
Page3 of 8
(aX 'Contents of "public facility plal1'"
OAR 660-011-0010 defines the contents of a public i~cility plan. The definition is: '
"(1) The public facility plan shall contain the Jollowing items:
,(a) An inveritc:lIY and general assessment of the condition of all the sigriificant "
public facility systems which support the land uses designated in the '--,
,acknowledged comprehensive plan;, 0 - 0 ' 0 '
(b) A list of the significant public facility projects which, are to support ihe laIid
uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plim: Public facility project
descriptions or speCifications of these projects as necessary;
(c) Rough cost estimates of each public facility project; ,
(d)'A map or written description of each' public facility project's general location 0
or service area; , _ ,: 0 ' 0 ,
'(e) Policy stat~ment(s)or urban growth management agreement identifying the
provider of each public facility system. Ifthereismore than 'One proVider with ,
the authority to provide the sy~tem within the area covered by the public facility
, plan; then,the provjder of each project shall.be designated;' . ,
(f) An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; and
(g) A discussion of the provider's existing funding mechanisms md the ability
of these and possible new mechanisms to fund the development of each public
" facility proj ect or system:;' 0' " - " ' ,
, ,
The proposal is to bolster the existingPFSP to inclupe the required, components for the area's , "
wastewater treatment system. The amendments made should be double checked against the ,
o required list of contents above. At first glance, it would appear that the proposed amendments
fall short of meeting the miniIDum required contents in the follo~g respects:
' ,
1.' The amendme'u:ts need to include an inventory and general assessment of the condition
, of all the significant asPects of the wastewater treatlnentsystem.The required
evaluative information is missing. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(a).
, ' ,
'. "1
;;' .
;,
2. A "list of significant public facility projects" needed to support the land uses
designated. in ,the Metro Plan is needed. OAR'660~'01l-001O(1)(b). No project list is ,
proposed f~r the plan. Instead, categories of projects are proposed. 'This obfuscates
the ultimate policy choices that Goal 2 aIid Goal 11 require to be re.flected in the plan.
Furthermore, the projects are to support the land use cte:signations in the plan. Those
designations have a 2015 planning horizon. The proposal is to designate projects for a
" l~n;~er"tUpeframe, which would violate this rule.' ' ", Date Received
,,~-"'.:': .u~n11 t;,'j,~t,' "0 ."""., . '
o ? ,C9stestunates need to be by project, not bycategones of projects. OAR 660j9Nl'2 2 ( ex-{
\" :;.\ I0010(1)(c).
";,"<1,
~. ..; .
, -it .'; :: ' .,:: :-_~~ t;",.:
-:'-c1,:I'I/Ji.:, 'Ii '."
Planner: B,J
2 -8
" .
.
Metro Area Planning Commissions "
April 20, 2004
Page 4 of8
4. Each project needs to be mapped. OAR 660-011-00 I 0(1)( d). With~ut a project
listing, the mapping requirement can~t be met.
5. . An estimate is needed of when each project wilI b~ needed. OAR 660-011-0010(1)(f).
Absent a project list, this requirement can't be complied with.
6. A discussio~ of the funding mechanisms and proSpects for funding for each project.
OAR 660-011-QOlO(I)(g). Again, a project list is the starting point for this discussion.
,(b) Needior inventory.of existing facilities and need for future projects.,
OAR 660-011-0020 requires establishes inventory requirements and the need for a list of
future projects. . The, Rule provides: " '
, ,
. ~ '.' .
, '
,,'."(1) The publi~ facility plan shall include an inventoryofsignificantpublic
facility systems. ,Where the acknowledged comprehensive plan, background
document or one or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR 660-011-'
0010(3) contains such an inventory, that inventory may be incorporated by
reference. The inventory shall include: '
" (a) Mapped location of the facility or,service area;
, (b) Facility capacity or size; and ,~ ,
(c) General aSsessment of condition of the facility-( e.g.',very good, good, fair, '
poor, very poor). , ' , '.
, i
(2) The p~blic,facility plan shall identify significant public facility projects
, which are to support the land uses,designated in the acknowledged
comprehensive plan. The public facility plan shalllistthe ,title of the project and
'. describe each public facility project in terms of the type offacility, service area,
and facility capacity. :' " ,
(3) Project descriptions within thefacility plan may ~equire modifications based'
on subsequent environmental impact studies, design studies, facility master '
plans, capital improvement programs, or site availability. The public facility
plan should'anticipate these chaIlgesas,:specified in OAR 660-011,-0045."
. \ .
An inventory of existing facilities is needed; U;terms of m.apped location,capacity, and
condition. OAR 660-011-0020(1). This inventory would provide the baseline for planning. It
does not appear to be within the scope of the proposed amendments. '
,The plan mu~t .incl~de.~ iis~ of specific proposed projects. OAR 660-011-0020(2). There is no
liSt' of:p'rojiccisipr9~~~d: Approval of categories of projects'would mean that the governing
bodies are n~~ ;n,~g ultimate policy choices. 'Rather, they would be writing quas~ R ' '. d
checks. ,.:~ _'''i11.L ' " ' 'Ual~ ecelve
.~ ~ ~. n c.-
t",. .::' .~~:'~~JI!"':r~':,lr~;~lt"
JUN 2 2 I mf .
Planner: aJ
I .),
.
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page 5 ef8
(c) Timing of'required projects. '
OAR 66b~b 11-0025 requires that the plan, include a general estimate .of timing .of projects. Tbe
Rule states:' , "
,~'(l) The public facilities plan shall include a general estimate of the timing for'
the planned public facility projects. This timing cempenentofthe public '
facilities plan can be met. in several ways depending on whether thepreject is'
anticipated in .the shert term or long term.' The tiniing .of projects may be related'
directly to pepulation growth; e.g., the expansion .or new constructio~ of water
treatment.facilities. pther facility projects cail be related te a measUre of the '
, ,facility's service level being met or exceeded, e.g.,'a majer arterial or.'
intersection reaching a maxiinum vehicle-per"day standard. Develepment .of
"other projects may be more leng term and tied neither to specific population
levels nor measures .of service levels, e.g., sewer projects to correct infiltratian
and inflow problems. These prajects can take place over a lang period 'ofiime
and may be tied to the availability oflang-term funding. The timing .of p'rojects
may also be tied to specific years.
"(2) Given the different methods used ta estimate the timing efpublicfacilities,
the public facility plan shall identify prajects as occuningin either the short
term .or lang term, based on those factars which are related ta project', " , ,
development. For those projects designat~d far develapment in the shert term,'
the public facility plan shall identify an, appraximate year far develapment:' For
thase projects designated for development aver,the lang term, the public
. facility plan shall provide.a general estimate as ta when the need farpraject.
develapment would exist, e.g., papulatian level,service.level standards, etc.
Timing provisions for public facility projects shall be'consistent with the '
acknawledged cemprehensivy plan's prajectedgrawth estimates. The public .
facility plan shall cansider therelati'enships iJetween facilities in praviding far"
develepment. ", ' ,
, '.'
"(3) Anticipated timing provisians far public facilities are nat considered land
use decisions as specified in ORS.7l2(2)(e), and, therefare; cannat be the basis
afappealunder ORS 197.610(1) and (2)or 197.835(4)." ,
, .' ",(d) " rfeedforrough cost estimates ofspecific projects.
. ...~.. ..... "~Ll';r..' r::!~"''''.ll. ;. ....
,~ ,."~,''l;1io ~t, ~ ,II d..~,'ll^,',\",.,' ': . ...
'.' '..
, ,
, Although the timing analysis daes nat have ta be precis.e under the Rule, it. dees have te be
specific ta prajects. Where,as here, the propasal is to approve categeries .of prejects~ rather
than a list .of prajects,.it isnat pessible ta cemply with the rule: Date Received
JUN 22 \ 6Lf
Planner: BJ-
, ";,, "Ill' ;
, '.'_ ", VI \ .
~ i
.
r~
" " 'l,-i'
'~lr .,i(:~ .......t,:;,r.,~;
:.\ .}. 1".1..1.....1' j
2-10
. ", -'. ~
"
.
, .
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page 6 of8
OAR 660-011-0030 requires the plan to inchide rough cost estimates for projects .listed in the
,plan.The Rule provides:
"(I ) The public facility plan shall include rough cost estimates for those sewer,
water, and transportation public facility projects identified in the facility plan.
,The intent of these rough cost estim'ates is to: '
(a) Provide an ,estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land use,
' designations in the acknowledged comprehensive plan; and,
, (b) For use by the facilityproviderinr~viewing the provider's existing funding
mechanisms (e.g., general funds, general obligation and revenue bonds, local
improvement district, system development charges, etc.) and possible '.
' ,alternative funding mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates
for each project, the, facility plan shall include a discussion of the provider's
existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new
rnechanismsto fund the development Of each public facility project or system.
These funding mechanisms may also be described in terms of general
guidelines or local policies, ,,' .
, "(2) Anticipateq financing provisions are not considered land use decisions as, '
specified in ORS 197.712(2)(e) and, th~refore, cannot be the basis of appeal '
under ORS 197.610(1)and (2) or 197.835(4)."
Agam, the failure of the proposed plan amendments to list individual projects in the plan
precludes compliance with this rule. The rule only requires "rough" cost estimates, but the
estimates have to be by project, not large groups of projects., "
(e),' ,Required elements of the comprehensive plan. .
, OAR 660-011-0045 requires that certain elementS of the public facilities plan be made a part.
of the plan itself. The Rule requires: " ,
"( 1) The governing body of the city or county responsible for development
of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a supporting document to
the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the
comprehensive plan:' "
(a) The list of public facility project titles, excluding {if the jurisdiction so
chooses) the descriptions or specifications of those projects; , .'
(b) A map or written description of the public facility projects' locationS or
service areas as specified in sections (2) and (3) of this rule; and
. .. " (c) T,he policy(ies) or urban growth m'\Pagement agreement designating the
'..c, 1!';;I'I\;:"%~i~~fJ~~~~~:~~o~~~i~:~~~~~~~~~ ~;n;::~o~;:; :;:der, , Date Received
" jniblicfacility plan, then the provider of each project shall be designated."
....'
l:~'
'. ' ,,' ," ,;. U--"-I '
'o"t;lh I, '1"-,-
1 "r '" I
.JUN 2 2 I b1
, , Planner:2~J
..::
"
Metro Area Planning Commissions
April 20, 2004
Page 70f8
The minimum requirement for inclusion in,the comprehensive plan is the list of project titles .
and a map of the projects' location or service areas. Again, a project li~ting is required, not a
description of c~tegories of projects. . ,
In summary, i(appears that the proposed amendmentsconflict.withthe structure of the Meti--o . '
Plan because they are for a dlfferent;!onger time frame: As such, they can't be demonstrated
to consist oithe proj ects needed to implej!lent the land use designati()ns in the plan. They '_
implement 'something more than: what the plan provi~es,for.
, ,
More significaritly;it app.ears that the amendments are too skinny. The target for.the
amendments should be to provide, as apart ofthePFSP and the Metro Plan the information
that theLCDC Rules require be a part of anyelemertt of a public facilities plan. , The essential
information that' is missing is baseline, information on the existing infrastructure, its location,
and its condition, and it listing of specific 'proj ects proposed, their location, their rough cost,.
and t1ieir'approximate timing. '. , '.' '
As a starting point, the Planning Connnissidns might ask staff to analyze their proposed
amendments in light ~fthe requirements of the LCDC Rule.
Thank you foryour consideration.
~-
cc: Roxie Cuellar
.''f" (I!llt,
D,ate Received'
JUN 2 2 ( of
Planner:' B~I
. . . .
,':':1. ~.. '1."'1. I "'I J I,' ~J\I'I...q'"
~b.I'l'd' -", ~!-".\,......tt ''''''''')'''\
. . '-'j . "'-.' ;1n .i .. ,II," "'-
, ,
, ,
'.!-,;.':
. ::;.,
.<.( 'r '-. t;id ,,'
It, 'i;;' I' ;. ~ .; 1,1 '''1
2-'12
I
.z.
, .
:
, .~
. ,!
Table of Contents
Testimony Submitted into the Record of Hearing LRP 2004-00001 Amendments to the '
Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan, Chapter III, Section G. Public
Facilities and Services, and Chapter IV Glossary; and Amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Public Facilities,and Services Plan (PFSP). This testimony was received
between April20~and May 7fu, 2004. Submittal deadliriewas 5:00 p.m., May 7, 2004.
1. Metrio from Meg Kieran, Springfield City Attorney, responding to evid~nce entered
into the record during the April 20, 2004 joint planning commission public hearing, .
2. Staff,reportand appendices (Ali, Ab, B) as corrected during the April 20, 2004 joint
planning commission public hearing . '
3. Letter.from Lane ,County Home Builders, date May 6, 2004 '
, .
" 4. COhditional Use Permit - 1982 for construction of the Regional Treatment P1aiJ.t
5. 'Draft MWMC Facilities Plan - April 2004
6., Eugene-SpriD.gfield Metropolitan Area General Plim -: 1987 Update .
7. Public Facilities Plan - 1999
8. Public Facilities and Services Plan -'2001
9. TransPlan-2001
10., Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) for Beneficial Reuse Project (poplar
Farm) , ,
. ~ . . ,.
II. GUideline for the preparation of Fl1l)ilities Plans and Environmental Reports for
Co=unity Wastewater Project - November, 1999 '
12. SUB 8 year Capitill Improvement Plan implementing projects on Tables 2 and 14 of.
thePFSP 2001 .
13. EWEB project development list implementing project 110 ofTable 13, PFSP 2001
14. Eugene Public Works CIP (02) implementing storm water projects in Table 17, PFSP
2001 .
15. Biosolids Management Plan - June 1997
.,1,
,,'. j~ ,- ' ,'- ~. . - .'
. O:""I6.:,Wet"Weather Flow Management Plan- February 2001
~. ...".~.. .,\ ," , .
Date Received
JUN 22/tlf
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 3,-1
:\0,,1"
H I
"'"," i;':._;,
.:'
"
'.
17. MWMC Agenda Packets - Jan 03 ~ May 04
18. MWMC Resolution 02-05 - Awarding .contract to CH2MHill to update MWMC '
Facilit~es Plan and develop predesign work '
19. 268 Plan - April 1977 (Facilities Plan) ,
20. June, 1982. confumation from Lane County demonstrating compliance With the
comprehensive pIlm, statewide goals and Lane Code for the Seasonal Industrial Waste
Facility (precursor to modem-day LUeS) , ' .
,21. February, 1986 confirmation from Lane CountY demonstrating compliance with the
comprehensive plan for a sludge facility as a permitted ~ on exc1usivefann land -
22. Public Notice adS for MWMC Facilities Plan and 20cyear project list, Systems ,
DevelopmentCbarges, Metro Plan and PFSPamendments; MWMC planning 'workshop;
MWMCFacilities plHnning Open House; MWMC SpC Eugene ,City Council Public .
~~ ..
, '
23. Intergovernmental Agreement 1998 Service Agreements By-Laws 1995
. '"
"
" " . ,,'; , . -':"',' , ',. 'I .~.~ -..:.:1-' rl
,">","""'1-l..\~" , "{'\ '
';/':~~'I ,} ~'r .-~"r,~;1 " :-:'1" .\21 '-~
, , . ,A' \.
K~ VI; I.
Date Recf.;h~''''f~
JUN 2, 'l ( cx1
PlannE1"
3-2
.. p:'.- ".~.,
I '.t '.' ,':' .,1; ~~~ ~i' .
t._ I{ t II ~.. q \
to. ';. ,:' " .' ~
'.",
,
"j,'
, ,
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OFCnYATTORNEY,
I
DATE: May 17, 2004
TO:
Springfield Planning Commission
,Eugene'Plannin~ Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
FROM:
Meg Kieran
springfield City Attorney
..
SUBJECT: ,:' ,
Staff response to material submitted into the
record by Home Builders Association on May 6,
2004
On May 6; 2004, Home Builders 'Association submitted wr~tten
materials into the record. MWMC submits this ,brief outline of
issues in response.
A. MWMC I S POl?lar Farm Proj ect., (Homebu'ilders' lett'er' at pp 2 -3)
1. The 596 acre Poplar Farm sit'e has been'in farm use for
more than 20 years;
2. The Poplar Farm is a permitted use in an EFU zone.
ORS215. 213 (1) (bb) & 2i5. 283 (l)(y) ;
3. The' Poplar Farm is a permitted ,use in Eugene "5 industrial
, zone. EC9. 2450
4. Lane County's Notic'e of Land Use Decision that the Poplar,
Farm complies with land use requirements 'was April 14,
2000.
5. DEQ issued 'a permit for the operation of t'he Poplar Farm
'on the 596 acre site ,on June 27, 2000;
6. Construction is on schedule' and the poplar ,trees have been
planted by MWMC I S contractor,'
B" Liquid Effluent Dry ,and.-Wet 'Weather Capacity and
. " ,Biosolids '
'~. . 'i'. - ....:' , 'j - ,
. ',',' Lo,a,d;ipg. (Homebuilders' letter at pp 9 - ,18)
Date Received
JUN 22
. rl~:, MWM<:: adopted ,its 2004 Fclcilities
public hearing on May 6',2004;
f," 1 _~J "\;::-~:':'<'f~
plan after a
Planner: BJ
ATTACHMENT 4~1
. '".\'C,."nflt)('I.;;:,^~"...~l...., tll....\VI_.. '0.................. ,...l-TRJ. M<lV nd. rtf'
>,
"
. .
.
"
2. RBA made the same arguments found at pages ,9 through 18 in
its written testimony to the MWMC at its May 6; 2004
Facilities Polan public hearing;'
3. MWMC's consultant, CH2M Hill, responded in, writing to each
. of HBA I S capacity and biosolids 'loading arguments; the
responses were inserted in theHBA testimony in red text
. ,..,
(a copy of the Homebuilder's letter containing the CH2M
Hill response is attached hereto as Attachmen~ 1",
C. Goal 6,(Homebuilders' letter at p3)
1. Statewide Planning Goal 6is"to maintain and improve the
'. quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.'"
Goal. 6 requires that "all waste and pro,cess discharge's trom'
future development * * * shall not threaten to violate, or
violate applicable state or federal 'environmental quality
statutes,! rules and standards." The Goal 6 guidelines state
,that uall plans and programs' affecting waste and process
discharges should be coordinated within the applicable air
sheds'andriver basins described or included in state
environmental quality statutes, rules, ,standards and,
, implementation plan." In ,addition" plans "should buffer and
separate .thoseland uses which create or lead to conflicting
requirements' and impacts upon the air, water and land
'resources."
, ,
2. The treatment facilities.and collection system improvements
included in the proposed- PFSP amendments' are responsive to
the requirements of MWMC's NPDES permit. A copy of MWMC's
NPDES.permit, setting forth the federal and state water
treatment requirements is attached as Attachment 2.
D. Miscellaneous Issues:"Timing of Projects; Definition of
Wastewater,
Other issues, raised by Horne Builders have been addressed by MWMC
in our memo dated May 6, 2004 or are resolved by the plain'
language of the proposed,amendments, existing'Metro Plan
language and administrative rules that implement Goal 11: These
include challenges to the completeness of the project list; the
timing, cost estimatestnd possible financing 'methods for the
, :; ~i ,,-,"u,c 'f2rf:~,:~,t,s; 'and the definition of wastewater " Some of t9-ese .
. , ,t._ ,.li'ssues,.were raised and discussed at the May 6, 2004 MWM<;: publ~c" .'
,'Jh~f\f.ing on the ,MWMC 20~4 Facilit~es Plan, ~nd ~o.-yea~~ReCE:.),\f('!i
, _ hst, A, copy of the m~nutes, of that meet~ng ~s atta'c11~a"'as -" ,
~, ,~7?,:;j~~ent 3.,' , _' . '." ,:' ,: 'JUN 2'l f ,u..f '
. Plann8\"'
4,,2;..'
1.1.\C'l./,,\1T'Df"IC;:''''C'",";1;.., Dl.....\V:........ '0-.............. t",~A M",v (\d. rtf .
";,,~' . ~
~ '
.
A II ACHMENT 1
. . CH2MHILL's RESPONSE TO '..
HOME .BUILDERS ASSOCIATION
, MAY 3, 2004, LETTER
i! ' . .
"
, "
,"
<, .
, ,
c
, .-
,,"' .'" "1"'\\' ..,'
. ". ,,\. I .J'.x .,.;.,l..
. ' . . .b.I""r ~~ ;:
.,
Date Heceived .
JUN ~ 2 , D~
. Planner: BJ '
,1,:i
. . . .
. ""- . -..'>. ~~ .'
,.', ,,; L ' " '
4-3
,
~
'..'
/.
ATIACHMENT4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Mimites
This document is the written testimony submitted by the
Home Builders Association, with responses by CH2M HILL
integrated into the text in bold/italic. print in brackets, ,
This document was reviewed by the Commission at the May
6,' 2004, meeting.. .
"
May 3, 2004
MWMC Commission President Inge
MWMC Commissioners
225 5th street ,
Springfield, Oregon 97477
, ,
Re: MWMC Facilities Plan
Dear Commissioners: "
The Home Builders submit the following comments on the proposed MWMC facility
plan. The remarks are incomplete because Ijusfbecame awaie,on Wednesday oflast
week that there is actually a Draft Facilities Plan Document, [Wednesday of last,
week was April 28. The Draft Facility Plan lNas discussed in the MWMC
Commissioners meeting on April 22. All of the Commissioners had copies
of the Plan at that April 2t'd meeting.] and not just the spread sheets I had been
workingfroin. I also leamedOli Thursday that DEQ had done an evaluation of the
MWMC facility.[DEQ did not do a capacity evaluation as part of the permit
. renewal process. MWMC staff submitted materials from the 1997 Master "
Plan that was currently under development to DEQ on December 31, 1996
(over 7 years ago) as pari of their permit renewal application. DEQ did not
end up renewing the permit until 2002. However, their fact sheet used the
information that MWMC staff had submitted backin 1996.] I needed to spend
tinie reading and absorbing those documents as well as preparing my written remarks. '1
have put together what I could in the short time available. I apologize in advance ifmy
comrrients conclude abruptly or the remarks I do make do not flow cohesively.
, ,
'I'
" ''::
I think in any evaluation of the facility plan, it is important to ask three questions. First,
how much capacity do we have? Second, how much capacity do we need? Lastly, how
much capacity are we building?, I will attempt to explore each of those questions, but I
anticipate in advance that I will not make it 19 the end.
, I also have issues with some of the performance and percentage allotments assigned to
.,.' ;''';';)!:-)''i~?~~~~pa,t are ~ncluded with,the facility plan.. I will address those first and then discuss
, ", . the three questions I have flnsedabove., . , D t'R "" '".'.,
. i.:'~i\jl a e eceN~u
,',. ;!,'.
JUN 22tO.{
, ~r ~ -< ~:r\)~ .~: ;::'::J~;t:,
Attachment 4
Page I of 17
Plann""'r' \.': [;
. . P';: if ~..,~h,..!'
., 4..4
"
\
"
AITACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
1. The facilities plan projedlist allocates 38% of the cOst of the headworks to growth.
This is based on tlie generic application of percentages' provided in the ~DC
rnethodology. [This statement i~ incorrect. The 38% is not based on a
generic application of the percentage provided in the SPC methodology.
Per the SDC methodology for determining the iinprovementfeecost ba!?is,
Steps 1-2 and 1-4 are explicitly prescribed in the methodology while Steps i- '
1 and 1-3 ,are case specific depending on which project in the 20-year
project is being addressed.] According to the population ,projections on page 2-32 ,
of the Facilities Plan, there is an expected population increase of just under 30%.
projected between 2005 and 2025. [The Facilities f'/an and.the SDGMethodology
is based on population growth from existing (clefined as 2002) to 2025. '
These values are 217,737 and 297,585, respectively/which result in a 36.7
percent increase.] According the discussion of the headworks on page 7-5, "the new'
facilities would be constructed to accommodate 160 mgd of dry weath~r capacity even
though less capacity is required for total wet weather flows [The -Headwor~s
Expansion has been sized large enpugh so that the existing headworks will
not have to be brought on and off line on a frequent basis in the dry
season. This was done to avoid excessive operation' and maintenance ,
! costs.]." According to the SDC methodology, the maximurn amouritofadditional dry
weather capacity needeq to ~erve growth through the year' 2025 is 10 mgds (page C-'l of
the methodology). Under the generic methodology alloca,tion, preliminary treatment is
, allocated 25% to average now and 75% to peak flow. It is also designated 100% to .
capacity. The methodology says that growth pays 100% of average flow and 29% of
peak flow (which is another issue). 1f25% of the headwork capacity is for average flow
and the total capacity is, 160 mgds, then growth would pay for 40mgds oftlie dry weather
capacity [This is incorrect for two reasons. First, only 50% of the total '
project cost for new headworks facilities, are allo~ated to Preliminary
Treatment. The other 50% are allocated to Peak Flow Management before
the costs are allocated to average and peak flow. So the percentage of
total project cost allocated to growth via average flow is 12.5% (50% to
Preliminary Treatment' 25% to Average Flow). There is no cost allocation
to growth via average flow for the ()ther 50% of the project attributed to'
\, ..
Peak Flow Management. Second, applying a system capacity parameter
percentage aliocation to 'some flow amount is irrelevant. The purpose of
the SDC methodology, is to equitably allocate the costs of projects between
. growth and existing users not to determine capacitY. And even if that were
correct the,average flow allocation percentage (whether it be 2'5% or 12.5
%) could not be applied to the 160 mgd value because the 160mgdvalue is
not in average flow units.], even though the methodology clearly indicates that the '
most dry weather capacityneeded to serve growth du~ng 0e planning period is 10 mii
. The amount of peak flow needed to serve growth IS Identified as 30 mgds. We are >', 1\,'
,allocated 29% of peak flow capacity. 75% of the headworks capacity is for peak flow~Q) ft
under the methodology- 20 mgds. [This 75% is incorrect. As indicated above, (.) c:::.
, 50%. o~ the total project .cost for new headworks facilities are allocated to~ ""
, ' '.,., preliminary treatment and 50% are allocated to peak flow management S
. ~".jfill' }~.'l~.~er%~(!~e:costs are allocated to average and peak flow. The percentage ~ . -,
.'. I" ~-.".riAl:';. . 0
..
""")
OJ
. .
~
Q)
C
C
<<S
..-
n..
,."",!,",
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 17
4-5
. "" ,.';,
'j '.
, '
ATTACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
the total proj~ct allocated to peak flow is 87.5% and is determined as
follows: 50% to Preliminary Tr.eatment;" 75%.toPeak Flow = 37.5% plus
50% t.o Peak Flow Management * 100% to peak flow = 50% for a total
, allocation to p'eak flow 6f 87.5% (37.5 + 50%) not 75%. The appiication of ari
allocation percentage to the amount of required peak flow capacity is '
irrelevant. A,gain, purpose of the SDCmethodology is to equitably allocate
the costs of projeCts between growth and existing users not to determine
capacity. ,The 29% allocated to growth would be 35 fugds - five more needed to serve
growth during 'the planning period. [This is an incorrect application ofthe 29%
(which was derived for the SDC methodology by dividing the 30,mgd,
(growth's share of the required peak flow capacity through 2025) by the 102
mgd (the, totar-amount of additional peak flow capacity required through
2025). The correct application of the 29% (actually 29.4%) is to multiply it'
by the portion ofa project cost that is allocated to peak, flow within the
"Capacity" portion. For the headworks expansion project thisls calculated
,as follows: 50% to Preliminary Treatment * 75% to peak flow,* 100% to
"Capacity" ";'29.4 % = 11% and 50% to PeakFfow Management * 100% to
peak flow *,100% to "Capacity"* 29.4 % = 14.7 % fora subtotal of 25.7%.
Therefore, the total 'allocation for growth' for the Headworks expansion is
38.2 % (12.5 % from average flow and 25.7% from peak flow).] In total, we are'
being charged for 35 mgds more than the 'methodology identifies as being needed to serve
growth.[This is incorrect based on discussion above.] Accordingta the
methodology, growth needs 10 mgds of dry,weather (average flow) and '30 nigds of peak
flow. That is a total'of25%.[This is incorrect. These numbers do not have any
meaning and even if they did it is not correct to, add together average flow
and peak flow. The SDC methodology is nofintended to be used t6 , '
compute capaCity, iUs ifJtended to allocate costs,]. of the cost, not the 38% that
is allocated. The difference in cost is $1',664,000. [This number is invalid based on
the discussed reasons presented above.]
.:r'-.
This 'problenf exists thioughout the allocation process ana: our objection is the same to
eacl;1 of the allocation where this problem exists.' You can't charge growth for more than
the capaCity needed to serve growth during the planning period. In the case of the
headworks, eyen under the proposed rnethodalogy, you can't charge more than 25% of
the cost of the headworks to growth. [This 25% value is invalid for the reasons
presented above. A reality check confirms the equity of the 38% allocation
to growth Typically a "Capacity"project would be allocated 1,00% to '
growth. However, since there is a peak flow capacity deficit oilly 29.4 % of.
the peak flow capacity is alloc'ated to growth - the remaining 70.6% of the
"Beak flow parameter is allocated to existing users: For the Headworks
, ';E;;pansionproj~ct 12.5% is allocated to av.erage flow and 87.5 is allocated
" :}to peak flow. Since 100% of this 12.5 % (average flow portion) is'allocated
, :~ "li!p growth and 29.4 % of the 87.5 % (peak flow portion) is allocated to
,,.. ,::,growth it makes sense that the final resulting allocation to growth-is
, ~".: between 25% and 50%ofthe total project costs. Th, e 38 percent allocation , "I
:!JJ' " " ". 'Date Rece\\fe( I
JUN ?2.1 ot.{
. 841
, 'l'ViV.JI~'.' 1:6
PI::;..",:,:",. "",'"
",,",,
'. ,..-
. 1~~~~' ~
. -. ~
:.:~, .
{<
.~,
;)./
Attachment 4
Page 3'of 17
, ,
'.' ,t
,
ATI::ACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes'
to growth also'seems right as it is ~lightly higher than the population
, increase over the study pefiod (36.7%).
The second major issue I l1aveis the 29% allocation of peak flow to growth: The 2001
Wet Weather Study, prepared by CH2MHill, provided the following information:
" I
Peak flow estimates for conditions associated with the 5-year storm event are used
to size and plan future system improvements at the treatment plant and in the
, , collection system, Through system modeling, the 5-year peak was estimated at
, 264 mgd. Peak flows are attribut~d to high infiltration and inflow (III) rates in
many areas of the collection system, III occurs from extraneous water getting into
the system from illegal roof drain connections, sewer pipe cracks, and other
sources. VI is often associated with older pipes in the system which,have
deteriorated. Sanitary pipes in older areas are also more likely to be subject to
improper storm drainage (inflow).connections when construction inspection
, .practices were more lenient and I or such .connections were allowed, creating a
cornbined flow'system. Newer,pipe systems reflect improvements in construction
. 'techniques, materials, and inspection and typically exhibit Jar less III.' In Eugene, .
11 percent of the pipes are at least'50 years old. In Springfield, the percentage of
'pipes at least 50 years old is 15 percent. Because the primary sources ofI/I are in '
the' existing system lind limited VI is anticipated from systein expansion, growth
. ' iri the system does not contribute significantly to projected system deficiencies. -
The 5-year peak is estirnilted lit 298 rnfd. Of this ,peak, only 4 percent or q mgd,
is estimated to be the result of III from futuie pipes.
In a response to a question from Chris Cleinow on the CAC, I believe that CH2MHill
, increased the 4% t04.7%, which I have no objection to. [The current SDC
methodology attributes 5.2% of the peak flow III to growth: 14.5mgd I .
277mgd. This 5.2% is in line with the previous 4.7% and is slightly higher
primari/ybecause the updated collection system modeling is now '
estimating a slightly reduced peak .flow of 277 mgd. Fu~ure total peak flows
are estimated to be less due to III reduction practices in the existing
system, therefore, the percentage due to gro....,th increases) The point is that
we are not responsible for 29% of peak flow managernent costs [29% is growth's
share of the peak flow capacity needed through 2025 -,30 mg,d divided by
102 mgd) Peak flow is made up of the average flow (currently less than 30 mgds)
[This is incorrect. Current maximum month diy weather flows) and the rest is
VI. We are already allocated, 100% of the average flow costs under the methodology and
pay that sep'arately. Let's assume that average flow in 2005 will be 49 mgds, Our " '"0
'portion of peak flow costs would be 4.7% of249 mgds or 11.7 mgds. [No, incorrect. ~
The portion of the peak flow is 30 mgd divided by 102 mgd., The 4.7 % om
value is a percentage of/II only. /f,'growth's, allocation i~ 'going to be basedO
on III only and not peak flow, then we have to be consistent and allocate toO>
;, ".J';'(., \' 1",/ ~)(!Nfng users based on III only as well-'- whereas the average flow would a:
'" ," ~ ". "',,1 I have'to be subtracted but of the remaining peak flow which is 72 mgd (102p.>
, ,I, . ;", 'v,m?d less"30 mgd)J I am willing to acgept the 14 mgds of VI that CH2MHill suggest~
.~..: "f
,,,') , !
~' l",
;;L,: ~'.Ii"~i
Attachment 4
Page 4 of 17
'I-
"
',>..
t)
~
CN,
Z
=>
-,
'J
CD
. .
....
<l>
c::
C
.Cd
---
0..,
4~7
.:-- ~,
.'.'"
, "
, ...1
" '
.~
. .....'
<,j".,
, ~-
""
,
, , \..
, .
A IT ACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
was growth's contribution to 298 rilgds of peak flow which would include,all of the
,average flow that we are paying for under average flow. [No, incorrect. Once
project costs are allocated to average flow they are no longer available to
be allocated to peak flow.and vice versa.) The 29% c1.ip'eritly allocated to growth
for peak flow isn't supported by the data. [The 29% or 30 mgd 0'102 mgd is' ,
derived in Table C-2 of the SDC methodology and is supported by data.
The 1/1 assumed to be generated by growth is less than 30% of the 1/1
generated by existing MWMC users. Some communities in the Willamette
Valley corridor ani using 35%.)
. "
1. How Much, CapaCity Do We Have?
General Facility Capacity Information: ,
The MWMC treatment facilitywasdesigned,m 197.7 and became operational twenty
years ago, in 1.984. It was designed to serve a population of 27,7,100 persons and it was
" 'estimated in 1977 that number'ofpersons served by the facility ,:\,ould be reached in'
2005. The current number of persons served by MWMC in 2004 is 217,690 persons, so '
the initial' I 977 populatiori projection thf!t the facility would reach its service capacity'
next year was substantially in err. Based solely on populatiqn to be served, the facility
would currently be used at 72.5% of its capacity [This, assumption only works if
you'assume that the leveloftreatment required in 1977 is the same as the
" level oftreatrrient required in 2025 which isnot a correct assumption) is is
based,solely'on the originaI' design." , ' , ' , ,
~' , . ,. ~ <
"Design of the original WPCF (Water pollution Control Facility) was based on,
demographic and population data established in the mid-1970's. The facility was
, designed to provide adequate sewerage capacity through the year 2005 for a projected
population of277,100. This projectiOll was,maddor the sewer serviCe areathat.exi,sted
in the 1970s. However, the growth rate during the 1980s was significantly less than
projected. This trend in the growth rate was common throughout much of Oregon
because of depressed economic conditions during the mid-l 980s,,(April, 2004 Draft
. MWMC Facilities Plan, page 1-6).' '
In addition, LCOGpopulatiori projections for,the'1990s were higher than the actual
numbers provided by the 2000 US Census.
Another factor significantly affected the projecteCl use ofthe facility's capacity - water
~'conservation efforts. A substantial part of our wastewater, both ,dry weather'flows and", '
':a:; wet weather flows, is just what the name suggests - water. I am,not referring now to
~'inflow arid infiltration (VI), but rather the composition ofthe~astewater that i,s released
':." from homes, businesses, and industrial plants. Whether the wastewater originates from
,~J,theshower we take in the morning, the dishwashers at a restaurant, or'a car wash, the vast
,,: :~;inajorifJ:' of our wastewat~r is simply ,,:,"ater. The amount of wastewater sentfroilJ1o~es R" '"'fed
,,:., i::;;;and busmesses to the sanitary sewer pipes correlates so closely to our actual watbJih& eCel,
\!]that our winterwater consumption is the' basis upon which our MWMC sewer bill is J N ' DJ
,'~ , ,',,", U 2,2, ~
<;.:~
Attachment 4
Page 5 0[17
Planner: BJ
4-8
I.' "
,
ATIACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
calculated. Every year since the mid or l~te 80s, because of water conservation efforts,
,our per capita consumption of-water has declined.' We flush our toilets with less w\lter
,and use more efficient shower heads. Because of past drought years, wetum off the
water while brushing our teeth rather than. leaving the tap running, as was customary in
th~ 70s. '
The Register Guard recently ran an article reporting that while the state population had
grown by 17% (1 believe since 1990), water consumption had increased by only 2% in
, the same period. Some of the water conservation results in water savings that do not
impact our wastewater flows, better means of watering our 'lawns, for example; however, ,
rnuch of the conservation has'occurred inside homes and businesses. The result is that
the MWMC facility can actually serve a larger population than the 277, I 00 persons'
, originally projected in the mid-70s.[Under the same conditions and treatment
levels established in 1977, there may be a small impact and a slight
increase in population served. However, reduced water usage in homes
does not translate to reduced organic loadings at treatment plants, which
define capacity of some unit processes.' Under required treatment levels
established now and anticipated for 2025, this statement is' absolutely.
incorrect. Seasonal variations in climate and 1/1 into the system have a
much more significant impact on wastewater flows than do water
, conservation practices.
.,-'
There are three sources that we can use to determine how much Jacility capacity still
exists: The 1997 MWMC Master Plan prepared by CH2MHill;[Thfs plan is not
based on the current NPDES permit and cannot be used to assess current
capacity] the 2004 Draft MWMC Fa~ilities Plan prepared by CH2MHill; and the 2002
FactSheet'and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation prepared by the
DepartinenfofEnvironmental Quality (~EQ).[This fact sheet was developed from
information MWMC staff providedDEQ in 1996 while applying for a permit
renewal. The information was taken from the 1997 Master Plan. DEQ took 5
years to respond to the permit renewal request and turned tlie application
'for permit renewal into a fact sheet in 2002 without updating the ,
information.] The facility has many components but reference is frequentIy made to
four more generic categories of capacity: (I ) Liquid effluent dry weather flow, (2) liquid
effluent wet weather flow, (3) BOD and TSS dry weather capacity, and (4) biosolids
processing. It is importantto look at each of the larger category's capacity individually. '
. . . #
LiouidEffluent Drv Weather Caoacity:
. - "0
, , DEQ defines the dry season as ,May j'through October 31, although the 2002 permit Q)
appears to extend the'emergency overflow criteria for a storm event greater than the one: .=:::
in-five-~ea~; 24-hou,r duration sto.rm thro~gh ~ay 21 r~the: than May I,. and allows that .~
same cntena to extend to June ,I If there'ls no uicrease 10 nsk to beneficial uses. The Q)
'< ,)' ,,,I,~ '~-H-: f~r,W,fY,has two import~t~ffluent, d~ weather design capacities. The average monthly CC
, ' '-''' I 'dry-weather flow capacity IS 49 mllhon gallons per day (mgds). The average monthly' Q)
,;:', "lc~pacity most closely reflects the base flow frorn residences, businesses, and industrial, <<S
, "C
. ..-"
: i ,'t, I . ..:. ,."~-~ ~,~.~ lO::j/l I., ::"~~Y 11 "}'
Attachment 4
Page 6 of 17
'""';)
m
"~ . .
II.-
N Q)
.... c:
z c:
=>
-., ca
-
0:,
4-9
f '\.'
, .
ATTACHMENT 4"
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
plants. [Since the NPDES permit is based on this flow and associated loads,
the actual maximum month dry season flow must meet all the criteria " '
associated with the ADWF, and thus is the proper standard for comparison
of maximum month flowJIt'contains some III, but the amount is minimal. ,The other
important design capacity is that of dry weather maxirnum month, which.is66 mgds., '
[This is not correct. This is not the current rating of the plant for dry
season maximum month. This value was obtained from the 1997 Master
Plan, in which the effluent requirements, were different at the time of. that
rating. The current maximum month rating is the ADWF of 49 mgd stated
in the current NPDES permit.} ,Some of the months classified 'as "dry" by DEQ, .
espe~ially May, can in fact be very wet and contain substantial amounts,of III. Therefore,
the design capacity for,the dry season maximurn months flows is higher than that of
average monthly flows to reflect the presence of the VI. [This is incorrect. The
presence of 1/1 into the system during critical months does not allow the
plant to treat more flow just because it is 'slightly more dilute." Other issues
suet! as nitrification, mixed liquor concentrations, 'and secondary
clarification control facility capacity under these conditions. Th.e facility
still must meet all the same criteria during this period as outlined by the
ADWF perinitconditions. Because of this, mass limits unger these higher
. flow conditions pose more stringent effluent requirements than the normal
concentration limits. The existing facilities would likely not achieve the
, required 3D-day average effluent requirements for wastewater flows in
exc,ess of the ADWF stated in the permit.} The difference between the specific
design capacity and the actual correspondingflows,represents the capacity available to
meet future needs.' '
The 1997 MWMC Master Plan examined the amount of dry season average rnonthly'
flows as'well as the dry season maximinn monthly flows to detennine the amount of
capacity that was being used by current users.'. It also project~d the available years of
capacity remaining in that part' of the facility.' .
It ide~tified the dry weather average month capacity, as 49 mgds and the actual average
monthly flow as'26 mgds (Table 3"3, page 455). It also identified the dry weather
maximum month design capacity as 66mgds (page 456).[These capacity
assessments were based i::mNPDES permit requirements at the time of the
study, no provisions for ammonia, recent SSO regulation, and thermal load
limits) ,
. ". ~
,'i-
.7_;'
~'w
'r. ':" It reported that "average dry weather flows were 53 percent of plant design capacity
" " (page" 440). It estimated that there were 30 years remaining dry weather rnonthly average
'?;,~' capacity and 27 remaining years of dry weather rnaximum rnonth capacity -taking us to
/.,; the years 2027 and 2024 respectively (Table 3-5 Remaining Life ofE/SWPCF, page '
'~>, ' 457). It concluded the drY weather capacity analysis as follows: "Ample dry weather
::: . i: ,capacity remains well beyondthe current LCOG planning horizon.(Page 456)" Date Recei\fed
"'1O;"".b
:;,- .
" ~"
,"
":t'o "
,.
{J..-.
Jf~
:'t'".)'"'.
"..
Attachment 4
Page 7 of) 7
JUN 22{co{
Planner: BJ
4-10
'.~) , '
: '
ATTACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
The 2004 Draft MWMC Facilities Plan, '\1so prepared by CH2MHiIl,also identifies the
dry weather average month design capacity as 49 mgds. However, the amount of
monthly'flow, either average month or maximum month is dependent upon population
estimates. ' There is a serious discrepancy In the population estimates that CH2MHiIl
provided on March 26, 2004, for the Draft System Development Charge Methodology, in
which CH2MHill estimated the current population served.in 2002 as 217,690, and the
estimated 2005 population estimate of229,145 found in the draft facilities plan. [This is
incorrect. There is no discrepancy. One number is 2002 population and
one is the estimated 2005 population. This representsroughty an additional
3,800 people served per year which is consistent, with the population
projections being.used for this Facilities Plan.].B,!sed on the latter 2005
population, CH2MHill estimates actual dry season average flows of29.6 mgds and dry
season maximum monthly flows of46 mgds (page 4-13). That means we would be using
60.4% of-our dry season average monthly capacity and 69.7% of our dry season
rnaximum-monthly capacity, using the design capacities of 49 mgds:and 66 mgds
respectively.[66 mgd is not the current maximum month rati!lg of the plant,
so these numbers have no value]
CH2MHiIl identifies the projected 2025 dry season average flow at 38.4 mgds,still
substantially below the 49 mgd average flow design capacity; and the 2025 dry weather
rnaximum month flow at 59.3, also below the design capacity of 66mgds. [66 mgd is
not the current maximum month rating of the plant, so these numbers have
~~~, < '
DEQ also provided an evaluation of the MWMC' treatment facility in 2002 in conjunction
with the renewal of our NPDES wastewater discharge permit. It noted: '
'The design Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) for the facility is 49 million
gallons per day (MGD). The ADWF is the estimated maximum flow during May
I to October 31 (expressed as average daily flow), at which the design engineer
expects the treatment facility can ,still meet all effluent limits. [The definition
here states the point at hand. Th'e ADWF is the'maximum flow
at which the design engineer expects the facility can still meet all the
effluent limits. This is, 49 mgd under the current NPDES permit] The
dry weather flows do not contain ,the high levels of infiltration and inflow that are
associated with the winter in Oregon. Therefore, the design dry weather flows are
used mostly to estimate how much treatment capacity there is for organic loads.
, ,The current actual dry weather flow for May I to October 31, for the past two
year~, is 28.6 MGD, [This was ,based o'n information supplied in 1996,
and does not reflect the last 7.5 years of data and the new NPDES
permit] On the basis of the current flows, this facility is at approximately 60% of
organic treatment capacity. Based on the current low flows compared to the
, design flows, and the lack of effluent violations; no expansion of the facility is
" : \ ';'r:;'" ,(", '..i ,'_ ';f~C ' needed at this time (page 2). . ,
1 J,Y.,~. ',' .1" .'~~'''' 1 '~", '-, .
;t.. 't1t(:
,'. <~ ,'. . c.,,; :" "';. \'~.\i
",,:,;;~ ,~ .,. ':~ 'I J . 'f ;:1. "!jl
_'?'.J-'.'., 'l. I.
Attachment 4
Page 8 of 17
"C J
CI) m
.>
Q) '~ . .
(,) b,
Q) ~ CD
a: "" C
:z: C
CD :::>
ro -, ct$
-
0 tL
4-11
~
~
F". .
,
"j..tI,.
,
,J:
c,' ./~~.
" -r
.
.;..\".
~-+"
.:~;
.w."
,
,:r:
~ '-:... ~
ATTACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
, To summarize the availability 'of dry weather effluerit'capacity, seven years ago, the
MWMC Master Plan estimated that we w'ere using 53% of our dry weather capacity.
Five years later, in Z002, DEQ dismissed the irnportance of even discuSsing the liquid
effluent dry ~eathercapacity and noted that thereal issue was the amount of, capacity for
treatment of organic loads (such as BOD and TSS) [This is incorrect. With the new
NPDES -permit, nitrification and secondary clarification control-secondary'
treatment capacity.} ahd estimated that capacity at approximately 60%. Two years
, [This, was actually 7.5 years later, as the factsheetwas based on
informaticmsupplied in 1996, as the date of the fact sheet implies} later;
using the numbers provided by CHZMHill in the draft facilities plan, the estimated the
. dry weather' average month capacity would be just over 60% and the dry season
maximum month at just.under 70%. However, CHZMHill is also estimating that III will
be reduced by approximately 17% during the planning period, which would make more
dry season maximum capacity available [This is incorrect, the reduction of wet
season III will no~ make more capacity available for dry season} (Draft .
System,DeVeloprnent Charge Methodology (page C-Z), '
, '
All three of the sou~ces indicate that we have substantial dry weather capaCity remainirig
, in the facility, which is what we would expect, given the reduced population projections
and the effect of water conservation efforts on plant flows. [As stated earlier, th.e
sources obtained there informationfrom the same"source - a capacity'
assessment done over 7 years ago done under a different NPDES permit
(i.e. no ammonia limit). Also, water conservation efforts do not reduce
. organic loading.} .
, .....~.
".4<~
\:r
':4
However; CHZMHiIl does contend in the proposed Systern Development, Charge ,
Methodology that the available dry weather capacity is substantially less than that
provided by the other sources, In that document, CHZMHill'claims that weare currently'
using 89% of our liquid effluent dry weather capacity. CHZMHill arrives at that
conclusion by calculating the available capacity:differently than they did in the Master
Plan or than DEQ does in its eyaluation oftpe plant capacity. [As stated earlier, DEQ'
never did any evaluation. . They took what was given to them in 1996 and
included iUn the 2002 permit fact sheet. DEQ is currently requiring MWMC
ICH2M HILL to us~ maximum month whim assessing capacity.} In the Master
Plan CHZMHill arrived at the dry weather capacity by comparing the dry season
maximum month design capacity of 66 mgds with the dry season maXimum month flows
(apples to. apples). DEQ compared the dry' season average month design capacity of 49
mgds with the dry s~asonaverage flows (apples to apples). [DEQ has requested that
'this be the. apprOach taken.} In the systemdeveloprhent charge methodology,
CHZMHill compares the dry season average flow design (49,mgds) with the dry season
maximum monthly flow (apples to oranges). The design capacity used does not include
any significant III, but the maximum monthly flow does. Needless to say, the available
capacity evaporates immediately, and we go frorhhaving 40% of the dry season <R'~sity' '- '
available to meet future needs to having only II %,ofthe dry season capacity avallllilKe Received
That is an incredible difference. While I haven't seen any place iri the facility plan where "
. .' JUN 2 2( 01
.".-.
......
...~-
"
:......
r..'.
'"
. Attachment 4
Page 9 of 17
Planner: BJ
4-12
Wet weather capacity applies to the facility's capacity from November I to April 30. Just
as dry weather capacity comes in two design capacities,' so does wet weather capacity,
One is the average monthly wet weather capacity imd the second, and probably the morec
important one, is pealdlow capacity. ~
,-
'" \, "i' ,. Tq~,~e\weather average monthly flow is similar to dry season' average rnonthly-flow. It ~
,(,,"h~-)\:."(Jd ~o'ntains a significant amount of III just because it is measured in the wet month~, but the Q)
. , ,P~aIiihas sufficient capacity to handle the flow.[The current peak flows to the a:
, .:' " '!!fdcility exceed the capacity of the facility} The Master Plan identifies the average ~
<<S
o
.
,J, i'
.- ,
~',~'
! l-
,
..f'...~ '
ATTACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
current dry season capacity is identified, [see Table 3.2.2-3 on page 3-11}
CH2MHill suggests that the same comparison would be used.
, '
The existing average dry weather design flow for the WPCF, as stated in the
current NPDES permit is 49 mgd; This is defined as the average day flow ,
calculated from May I through October 31. Although stated as an average dry
weather capacity, the facility must meet the effluent requirements on a 3D-day
. '
average flow (monthly basis). Because any 3D-day period, including the ' '
maxirnum 3D-day flow period (or maxirnum month flow) during the dry season, ,
must meet the NPDES effluent flow and load requirements stipulated for the
average dry season'flow, it is prudent to compare the actual dry season maximum
morith flow tDSMM) to the average dry weather design flow in order to assess
treatinent capacity. This method was reviewed by DEQ staff and verified as the
appropriate method.
, When I had talked with Mark Hamlin at DEQ on previous occasions, I was assurecj that
, . DEQ only looks at output and results and that DEQ does not tell jurisdictions how to
calculate capacity.[The NPDES permit defines effluent limits, which inherently
define how capacity is determined} I called Mark Hamlin last Thursday after
reading in the draft facilities plan that DEQ staff had said the apples to oranges
comparison was',the appropriate method to calculate the dry weather capacity. Mark then'
told me that he had evaluated the MWM8 dry weather capacity at 60% in the Pact Sheet
and NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit Evaluation. [The information in this fact
sheet was developed in 1996 before there was an ammonia limit and
thermal load limit placed into the NPDES permit and is therefore no longer'
valid} Furthermore, it is clear in that evaluation that DEQ did not use the method being
,proposed by CH2MHilL Instead, DEQ compared the average flow capacity of 49 mgds
with the average flows of28.6 mgds. IfDEQ preferred the method being proposed by
CH2MHill, why wouldn't they use it themselves? [They are now saying to use .
maximum month.lAnd why would we voluntarily dismiss 29% of our current
capacity as lJnava'ilable forIuture needs whenDEQ estimatesourremaining dry weather
capacity at 40%, and says that "Based on the current low flows compared to the design
. flows, and the lack of effluent violations, no expansion of the facility is needed at this
time?'
Liauid Effluent Wet Weather CaDacity:
.',_ ,'" I r,' "
j, .,,'. ., ; I~
" 'I I' 'h'-1
: I >' ;,. '.:J-.." '
Attacmnent 4
Page 10 of 17
'-j.
-,
to
'~
'0'
C'l""
C'l
:z
~
.....,
. .
'-
Q)
C
c
as
-
0-
4-13
" .
..
......~
..
..'
'J
,:.::.
'....
,~:"i.
,L.,.
:,J
\~
...... J to~...
~.,
. i:=..
-4'
""'.-.
.....
"'"
'1'-'
,,-.'
...,.
:J::
'.-.....
.' "
,,""'-.
::.I....
-.,,,
f \
'--
.:' ,
~;, ~lGI. '
('I ,
ATTACHMENT 4
To, 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
wet weather design capacity at 70'mgds and the average wet weather flow at 41.8 mgds '
(Table 3-3, page 455). DEQ, in its evaluation in2002, said the average wet weather flow
design is 75 mgds and the current average wet weather flows were 56.4 mgds. The draft '
facilities plan notes the average wet weather flow to ,be 52.5 mgds(pageA-J3) and the
design capacity to be 75 mgds [The 2005 maximum month wet weather flow is
estimated at 85.7 mgd, a condition exceeding the current plant capacity} .
(footnote to Table 5.1.I-i, page 5-3). The draft facilities pl~ projects that the average
, .'
wet weather flows in2025 ~iIl be 68.2 mgds - below. the 75 mgd design capacity,[The
2025 maximum month flow is estimated at 110.8, significantly exceeding
the current available capacity} The Master Plan projected, that we ,had 18 years of
remaining average wet weather flow capacity, or capacity until the year 2015. If the
design capacity of75 mgds had been used nither than the 70 mgds,the remaining years
of capacity would be further extended. (
The critical capacity issue involves peak wetweather flows. We have a serious III '
problein. In Jarimiry, 2001, CH2MHiIl andMWMC s~affreleased the Wet Weather Flow
Management Plan, which described the problem:
The treatment plant was designed in the 1970s to provide adequate capacity
through 2005. From a base flow and loading standpoint, the treatment,plant
,performs well within its capacitY (49 million gallons per day [mgd]) in dry.
weather months. However, winter rainfall creates flows to the treatmerit plant that
exceed the plant's peak capacity (175 mgd) on average several times per year and
exceed full (secondary) treatment capacity (104 mgd) more frequently...
Peak flow estimates for conditions associated with the 5-year stoimevent are used
to size and plan future system improvements at the,'treatment plant and in the
'collection system. Through system modeling, the 5-year'peak was estimated at
264 mgd. Peak flows are attributed to high infiltration and inflow (III)rates in
many areas 'of the collection systeTn. III occurs from extraneous water getting into
the system from illegal roof drain connections, sewer pipe cracks, and other
,sources'. III is often associated with older pipes in the system which have
deteriorated; Sanitary pipes in older areas are also more likely to be subject to
, improper storm drainage (inflow) connections when construction inspection '
practices were more lenient and / or such connections were allowed, creating a
combined flow system. Newer pipe syst~s reflec;t improvements in construction
techiuques, materials, arid inspection and typically exhibit far less III. In Eugene,
11 percent of the pipes are at least 50 years old. In Springfield, the percentage of
pipes at least,50 years old is 15 percent... Because the 'primary sources ofI/I are
in the existing system and limited III is anticipated from system expansion,
growth in the system does not contribute sigriificantly to projected system
deficiencies. The 5-yeat peak is estimated at 298 mfd. Of this peak, only 4
"percent or 12 mgd, is estimated to be the result of III from future pipes. 'D' t ' 'R' . d
, " 1 ".' a e ecelve
Estimates made atthe time of design of the treatment plant, relative to the amount,
of rainfall-derived infiltration and inflow (ROIl) that could be cost-effectivel~UN'2 2r oL(
AttachmentA
Page 11 of 17
Planner: BJ'
4- 4
'j:'. I(~
"
AITACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Mihutes
removed; were overly optimistic. This has resulted in insufficient capacity to
manage peak flows at the treatment plant and has increased the risk of sanitary
sewer overflows (SSOs) at a number oflocations i~ the collection system.
Example problems include basement and street flooding and discharges to
stormwater facilities and receiving waters. Although the magnitude of wet
weather flows differs greatly, theY"are significantly diluted because the source of
the majority of the flow is rainwater, not sanitary sewage. Treatmentplant flow
data indicates that wet weather flow is diluted such that the concentration of
typical pollutants in wet weather flow is 50 percent to 60 percent of that in dry
weather flow (Executive Sunui:!ai'y, page 1465). '
The Master Plan also talks of the lack of peak flow capacity. '
Peak flows have approached or ex6eeded the hydraulic design capacity of the plan '
, . in seven instances, but no NPDES',permit violations have occurred - mass.Iimit~
. have been suspended in those instances. Flows greater than the peak design
capacity have been pumped by relying on redundant, spare pumps. The frequency
, of peak flow exceedances will increase as the base, average wastewater' flow
increases. This could potentially lead to NPDES permit violations caused by
sanitary sewer overflows or exceedance of effluent quality permit limits, ,
All of the documents agree that the peak flow design capacity is 175mgd. Everyone also
agrees that under our permit we are required to have enough capacity during the wet
weather months to "treat the wastewater flow that would occur during a sto~ event
,described as "the one-in-five-year, 24-hour duration storm" and that we do not have,
sufficient capacity to do so.
Effluent Biosolid Loads: '
BOD (now often seen as CBOD) and TSS can be measured in either Ibs/day or dry tons.
In the reports, you will see both used. Sometimes you may. wish to cornpare data frorr
different reports that are expressed ill different measurements (lbslday or tons/year). To
convert Ibs / day to dry tons / year; rnultiply the Ibs / day by 0.1825., To,convert'dry tons
per year to Ibs / day, multiply by 5.4795.: .
Under our permit, we are required to remove at least 85% of the monthly average for'
BOD and TSS. The existing capacity for BOD is 66,000 Ibs per day and for TSS is
71,600 lbs per day (Master Plan, page 455; System Development Charge Methodology,
page C-I). The Master Plan identifies the average dry weather BOD load as 28,682
Ibs/day and that ofTSS as 31,056Ibs/day (Table 3-3, page 455).[These were average.
dry season values, not the.30-day maximum that the plant experiences in '
the dry season and which permit compliance is. based on) It estimates that
there is a remaining life BOD average month capacity in the facility of 40 years and
maJi.inium month remaining capacity of 33 years. TSS has a remaining average, month .
: i;,.:~'Ki,~~)~~,apa,c;itYrot35 years and a maximum month capacity of29 years (Table 3-5, page
, , ' 457):[These values are based on prior NPDES permits. ,For purposes of the
::: r- t,!! n..
\~ ..".-,
.1 ", 'I,i!
...., ,. - ,. J - _I
Attachment'4 '
. Page 12 of 17
-0 J
0) r.D
>
'0) ':::J-., . .
~ II.;..
(.) '- Q)
0) c<l
a: IN c::
:z: C
0) :::>
~ -, Cd
-
0 0..
4-15,
r - l.....w
>
,'J ,.'r
" .-
~~~
~.' Ii'
" ,
f.';; ~';,;...
r- ,
;..:> r;!j.,:
."'>'1;.,. ;. ---;
,!,
::s- ,- -
" r-
.~-,. t":
. ~,~ !-
f1:-~ '!....
""
'f
"
"
ATTACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes'
. facility plan, current maximum month values are used as surrogate .'
parameters for ammonia}
TheMaster Plan concludes: "For BOD, the E/SWPCF has sub'stantialremaining capacity
to about 2030 as a result of lower than design per capita loadings and historical growth
rates (page 462). :It also speaks to TSS. "The results of remaining capacity, as measured
by'TSS,are also substantial, to about 2026 (page 462). ' " ,
DEQ, in its 2002 Fact Sheet [Again, these are based on 1996 values and were
not updated to reflect the new NPDES permit} and evaiuation discusses the '
different summer (dry season) and winter (wet season) BOD and TSSpermit
requirements. It concludes: ' '
"A revie\y of recent monitoring data indicates the 'perinittees should generally be
able to comply with the permit lirnits. 'No changes from the previous permitare
proposed... An 85 percent removal effiCiency limit is included in the proposed '
Permit to comply with federal requirements.[This requirement added
'significant difficulty to comply with the permit as a result of the
dilute wet weather flows. For example; if influent concentrations of
TSS are 100 mglL due to high III volumes of III, then the plant must
meet 85% removal, which translates to an effluent concentration of
approximately 15 mglL. This is significantly lower than the
,concentration limit ,of 30 mglL required on' a monthly ba;;is,] An
examination of the DMR data indicates the permittee wilI be able torneet the limit
, with the current facilities (page 10). '
The Draft Facilities Plan indicates that our permit has a MaXimum Week TSS permit
limit / removal requirements of28,000 Ibs/ day and that CBOD has a Maximum Week
requirement of24,00,O lbs/day. Actually, the permit does not refer to Maximum Week
requirements., The permit chart refers to MOnthly Average Ibs/day, Weekly Average
Ibs/day, and Daily Maximum pounds. [This is correct, b,ut,the effluent limits
mus{bemetfor the average ofaI/7-day'pefiods, including the maximum 7-
day average period (or maximum week)} CH2MHilI chose to convert the '
requirem~nt int(l Maximum week terms rather than'use the measurernents provided by
Dl':Q in the permit. [The weekly permit requirements do not change, they are
set for any 7-day period, whether you calHt weekly average, or maximum,
weeR] 'The answer would appear to be the,same as why we lost all of our dry weather
capacitY under the System DevelopmentCharge Methodology. Rather than using the
Monthly Average measutementprovided in the permit to compare to the Monthly
Average capacitY of 49 mgds (apples to apples), the decision was made to convert the
data to Maximum Week Ib/day and compare that number to the average flow design,
capilcityof 49 mgd (apples to oranges). '
Dry season mass limitations for both CBOD and TSS outlined in the NPDES
permit are b~ed on the current dry seasonflow,of 49 mgd. The rriassmiJ.^ 'R eiVE Id
requirements must be met for the highest 30-day flow period in thedrJ.J~,eC "
JUN 22, b4 .
Planner: ~.~
Attachment 4
Page 13 of.! 7
'1'-'
.C;
;
ATTACHMENT 4
To 05-06-0-;1 Draft MWMC Minutes
(maximum month basis). Even if the constant concentration limitsJor CBODand ' ,
, . ,
TSS are met, the mass limits imply a lower concentration requirement if the
wastewater flows exceed the current dry weather design capacity or if the future
dry weather design capacity of the facility is increased. Concentration limits was
well as percent removal requirements are also specified in the NPDES permit...
Pennit removal limits apply; however, they are not a factor during the dry season
because the mass and concentration limits, are significantly more stringent (page
,5-4). '
The question,arises again. Why measure things differently than DEQ does? DEQ, in the
pennit, provides three different means to tneasure,the CBOD and TSS in both the dry' ,
season and the wet weather seasons. Why convert. to a fourth measurement that is not '"
provided by DEQ? Since'DEQ refers to the average monthly dry weather design capacity
of the facility of 49 mgds and provides a limit for monthly average flow, why not use
monthly average flow to arrive at your capacity (apples to apples)? By converting to
Maximum W~ek, III is again included in the flow but not in the design capacity, wh!ch is '
'automatically going to skewer the measurerilent'andresult in a significant loss offacility
capacity. ' ' ' ,
As a result, CH2MHill determined in the,System Development Charge Methodology that"
the facility is now operating at 83% of our BOD capacity and at 90.4% of our TSS '
capacity. Seven years ago, when CH2MHill prepared the Master Plan, they concludc::d
that we had a great deal of effluent BOD and TSS capacity. ,"The rernaining treatment
capacity of the EJSWPCF is substantial for average dry and wet weather flow cOl!ditions
and conventional pollutants (BOD and TSS) (page 450). .'
DEQ, as you Will'reclill, placed the capaCity used for effluent organic loads at 60%. It
also said: "The current pennit contains CBOD and TSS removal efficiency limits of85
, percent. The facility,has. been able to comply with the permit limits and has not had aily
violations' even during the extremely wet months (page 4 of the Fa~t Sheet and ' ,
,'evaluation)." As you recall~DEQ also concluded that our current facilities,would allow
us to continue to remain in compliance with our pennit.
"
A second decision rnade by CH2MHill and MWMC staff also affected the amount of '
BOD and TSS capacity reportedly available. When calculating BOD capacity, for
example, CH2MHill used the following fonnula for the System Development Charge
,Methodology: - '
. ~-.
Current BOD = (0.19 x 217,690 x 1.3) +'2,402 = 54,800 lbs/day where
, ,
0.19 [0.185 us the correct number] is the selected pounds per capita per day
,based on dry season values from.,1990 to 2002 "
, ..;
Date Received
JUN 22 IOJ
" ' , '217,690 is the population served in 200~
'1 ',/ ." ',! ,', - ',' t. ,
I ':"~'~?I;l' :".'~l ,\':'. -.,,"," ,,,(,-"~'." .., . .
. '-.~ ,.;-"n411"'1/ f.'fJ~G\lt !:,<,.," - .
- . 1.''1 ,t"...~f~~t'-..l.~j,. .
,'..J .~' 14! 1t
~ "
Planner: BJ ,
. ~>,', :'{~~.t"-f"..':,~'"r.~"I',~-j
... " ,.,' -,.. ,,' "'1 1. i " ~... J..'L."
, .'~' I, ~'1'.: '-'; , , .
Attachment 4
Page 14 of 17
4-17
,
~ . ,
ATTACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
1.03 is the selected peaking \0' convert average dry season load to DSMM (dry
season maximum month) load (based on 1990 to 2002 data) ,
The key piece is the selected pounds per capita per,day. Per capita loads, according to'
the Master Plan, have been lower than the design capacity and the Master Plan identified
, the per capita load for BOD as 0.17. On twodiffenint occasions (the lastJime at the
, '
second public forum), Matt Noeson from CH2MHill assured me that the change in the
, per capita pounds per day frorn the 0.17 they had used in the Master Plan to the 0.19
being used now was not based upon any new data or any change in how the capacity
should be calculated. [This is incorrect. The change was made based on an
additiona/7.S years of flow and load data since the 1997 Master Plan] The
change'in per capita load was done solely for'thepurpose of further reducing our,chan<;es
of having a pennit violation during a'wet May. [This is incorrect. BOD would not
be an issue even in a wet May., TSS would be the,controlling factor]
However,the effect on the amount of 130b'capacity is significant. The ~sed,capacity
drops to 50,500 lbs per day. Changing the per capita,load results in an additional 8.5%
loss of BOD capacity. '
Ifwe substitute the population figures ,that are used in the Draft facility plan for those
used a~ove; we'have the following fonnula:"
.(0.19 x 229,145 x 1.3) +'2;402 = 59,000 lbs perday [This;s not how the SDC
values were calculated. This equation is using 2005 values for population.
The SDC values were calculated pased on 2002 population] that we are using
of our 66,000 lbs/day capacity, we are now using 89.5%,of our BOD capacity.
This is the dilemma that we'face. According the Master Plan prepared by CH2MHiII
seven years ago, we were using ~bout 46% of our BOD capacity. According to DEQ,',
five years later, w'e are usingapproxirnately 60% of our capacity and our current facility
would allow us to comply with our new permit requirements. However, according to
CH2MHill and MWMC staff in the Draft Facility Plan; the sky is falling. As 'a ratepayer,
I would feel most comfortable going with the more moderate assessment ofDEQ and , '
assume that we are using 60% of our BOD imd TSS capacities and have 40% available
for future use. ." ' C ' ,
The same argument'applies to TSS capacity. According the MasterPlan, wf? were using
46% of our TSS capacity seven years ago. According to DEQ in 2002, 'we were using
approximately 60% pf our capacity. ,Using the population numbers in the facility plan
and the fonnula provided by CH2MHill in the System Development Charge
Methodology, we are generating the following amount ofTSS:
, '
, (0.21 x 229,145 x 1.4) + 2,224 = 69,593Ibs/dayofTSS.[This is not how the SDC
, Ji., '''"t:.;. .vaIJe~';W,-€;~~ calculated. ,This equation is ,using 200S values lor population.
,the 'SDC";'alues were calculated based on 2002 population] Our capacity is
_ ,.11~,~~Oi'iso'!according CH2MHilland MWMC staff, we are currently using 97%Ome Recei,,~d
\ ",:<': ,- "i:~lr1Li ~3~~~~ JUN 22, D+
Attachment 4
Page 15 ofl7 Planner;d?J
"
-'
,
.'
ATIACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Minutes
TSS capacity.' As in the BOD calculation; weare now'using a different per capita load of "
, .21 rather tha)1the .19 used in the Master Plan. '
, '
Whysuch a large difference: I believe it is the combination in the draft facility pl~ of
comparing dry weather average flow design capacity with maximum rather than average
, flows and the change.in the peaking factor (for calculation dry we~ther flow, which I did
not discuss) and per capita loads for calculating the capacity of BOD and TSS. I don't
know what peaking factors and pounds per capita that DEQ used. I do know that they did
nofcompare maximum flows with average flow design capacity to calculate capacity,
DEQ seems' to have taken the most moderate approach compared to either the Master '
Plan or the Draft Facilities Plan and for that reason would appear to be more reliable in,
their capacity evaluations.
(As an interesting side note. In February of this year, CH2MHilI and MWMC staff were
actually using larger per capita loads for BOD and TSS - .20 and .22 respectively. Ifwe
were to use the February 0.22 pounds per'capita and plug it into the TSS formula using
the population estimates in'the draft facility plan, we \}'ould be gep.erating 72,800 lbs per'
day ofTSS, which would actually exceed the design capacity of 71 ,600. The following
month, the pounds per capita for both BOD _and TSS were reduced by .01.)
, Another indication of the difference in how CH2MHill and MWMC staff are calculating
current biosolid loadings is in the tons currently being generated by the facility. In Table'
C-3 of the Draft System Development Charge Methodology (page C-6), MWMC staff
and CH2MHill indicate that we have a current loading of 5,927 tons per year.. DEQ; in,
its 2002 evaluation of the facility, indicated that "The MWMC wastewater treatment
facility generated 4,240 dry metric tons dlJring the repOl:ting period January 1, 2000 to
December 31,2000 (page3)." I have not yet determined if the 5,927 tons ofbio'solids,
,reported by CH2MHill is in metric tons or not, but even if you convert the DEQ nunnber
from metric tons to tons, the numbers aren't close. The mere passage of three years can
~ot, explain a 21 % or,28% difference betw.een DEQ's and MWMC's numb~rs.
, '
In short, my concemin the assumptions behind the facilities plan is the dramatjc loss of
capacity resulting from the new marmer in which CH2MHill and MWMC is calculating
capacity. To have a facility go from having a'great deal of capacity to almost none in
seven years is troubling. To.indicate that this new method of calculating capacity is
sanctioned by DEQ would seem to be unsupported by DEQ's own actions, given that
, DEQused the more conventional method of calculating capacity in its 2002 evaluation of
the MWMC facilities.
How Much Capacity,Do We Need?
Maybe I should change this section to What Should We Build?, I just got off the phone
, , with John Gasik, at the Medford DEQ. He told me that he was in the process of '
"'>,:lIt: ,':.Mr~vie\Vi,rig;fhe MWMC facilities plan. Being ignorant of DEQ processes, I as~ Dee' e' ed'
. :. why we didn't wait and approve the facilities plan after he had had a chance t~~1&W ID IV '
'!" :, ,lHe't~Ic\,me ,that he couldn't really review the plan until the jurisdiction had selectedlUN 2 'rh
, .' , ~ 2 I 0'1
'" \'<.:~.~~\, ,)
'i\~': . ~~\~~" .'l'f"';"i~l;>::".:':.~'~;~,r~.~:
'r
Attachment 4
Page 16 of 17
Planner: BJ
4-19
" '
,
Date Received
JUN 221 6 Jt
Planner:
~
A IT ACHMENT 4
To 05-06-04 Draft MWMC Mip.utes
which of the required options it prefers.' He said that the commu~ity may choose to do,'
something much diff~rent. ' '
" ,
We talked about a $144 million cost after only 20 years. He told me that the treatI11ent
,facilities only have a lifetime of about 20 years before you have to start replacing things.
That bothers me somewhat because alinost all ,of $144 million is for new capacity. There
is some rehabilitation costs, but it is relatively minor. Twenty years from now, are we
looking at putting out $300 million to 'replace the eight secondary c1arifiers"etc?[The
existing secondary clarifiers have been in service for 20 years; Thefacility
plan assumes that they will be in service for an additional 20 years, or40
years total, ' There condition will be,assessed at the eild'of the next 20
years to determine their suitability for future treatment, Facilities do not
have an'infinite life.]
Eugene Planning, Commissioner Ruich mentioned at the meeting of thej~int planning
commissions that he would like to have a discussion about the type of facilities we build.
He'said that we are using a design that comes from the sixteenth century, but that,
revolutionary changes have been made in thelast twenty years. I mentioned thattoJohn
Gasik and he agreed. [This is incorrect. The technology proposed for MWMC
,is some of the most recent technology available for all facilities (fine
screening; washing, compacting, thickening outside primary clarifiers, step
feed plug flow proc'esswith,anoxic selectors, sodium hypochlorite ,
disinfection, and peak now management). The step feed plug now process
with ,anoxic selectors is an innovative process that has seen extensive use
and has proven itself over the past 10 years. It has been proposed and .
accepted for treatment at some of the largest and. most advanced
. . ..' ,
waste~ater facilities in the world (Singapore Facility).]
If our clirrent plant really is close to ,the erid of itS' functional life, why are we not .
,consideJ"ing the new techniques, especially if we are putting out $144 milliontobasically ,
add similar capacity to a facility that is becoming obsolete? Why are the new sanitary ,
techniques part of the option discussion? $144 million will always seem like a lot of
money to me, but if we end up having to shell that out and then' a: lot more to rehabilitate
the current facility, why not have a discussion about the new technology? [Many new
technologies were,discussed, considered, and adopted in the facilities
plan.]
(By the way, it 'was John Gasikwho approved of the way the capacity, is being calculated
after it was explained to him, although he did say that he thought it was to address a
technical issue. The impact on the actual capacity was evidently not the issue. I thinkit
needs t9 bean issue when you are talking about that much capacity.)
.' .,,' Sincerely,
" '1:1 - J. ," ....:. .'~ ',r'- .
r"iL'\I[ii":'~\I~jc'l' u'(/,;:.,;, ,
.,., t.. ,... ~~ (I, .' 1\-1'11 t ...~,IB- "-\ ,-
, ' Roxi(tCuellar
8 ,~Dir,ectorof GovermrientAffairs
. "T" .
, I'.. .roj{f"f'~ ';"1' f;',
~ .r;"',! . 1,.....-.". l, ',' ~,,;; ".!l
"".r.~ . .. ',"'or' l'i.' "".h" ,
Attachment 4 '
Page 17 of 17
".
"
, "
B~
4-~O
\
I' ;-
.'
"
';" .:. ';;.' i\, ~',. '~~.\ ._; ,; l{ltf-..f'
: .l~:. ,"':(.,., I~HJ ~\ l'i~j\ :-\~ ,~
, ''-I'\'
I -~:-.,- . v~jl
.,., .
.. ". ,.' , . ;:"\' "-,'. ~'..: l'\.~.
. ! . ~ f .,' It 1 I ':' -" I' I, - .
. ,. '., ~\../ " .
, .
AIlACHMENT2
MWMC's NPDESPERMIT '
. ',I
,
Date Received
JUN 22104-
Planner: BJ
4-21
.', .
'.
"
.~ " .' "I ',i'~d
,'. l:~"\t.. ;-\ ;~~rl. '\;'
','-'" .f'-\,' ",'. '.".:'
\
;.ilu,
Date Received
.' ,JUN 221 of
,Planner: BJ
....a.
I! I
. '"' t-; j!~~'L'L:..,
1 ~~, ~,I' ;;'~'J,' 1 1.
4<2
I
I'
.'
"
Dregon
ATTACHMENT 2
. April 11, 20~2
(.~:;:;'iF~~j\"::'i
t 1:: t 1i t ~ ~.~. '; "/
, !' . ',,:,: .: .i..i ;~
Department or Environmental Quality
, , Western Region - Salem Office
" 750 Front St: NE, Ste. 120
Salem, OR 97301-1039
(503) 378-8240
(503) 378-36841TY
John A. Kitzhabcr, M.D., Governor
Peter Ruffier
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
225 Fifth Street
Springfield OR 97477
, RE:, IssuanceNPDES Permit Number 102486
File Nuinber: 55999
Facility: MWMC-EugenelSpringfield STP, 410 River Ave, Eugene
Lane County ,
Dear Mr. Ruffier:
The Department has completed its review of Your application for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and the comments received during the Public Notice and
comment period for the draft permit regarding the preliminary draft permit. ' Your NPDES permit is
enclosed and will become effective on May 1,2002., '
This permit will be considered the final action on permit applic~'ion number 992653. '
, . .' ..'
You are urged to Carefully read'the pennit and take. all possible steps to comply with conditions
, established to help protect Oregon's environment against pollution.
If you are dissatisfied with the conditions or limitations of this permit, you have 20 days -to request a
hearing before the Environmental Quality commission or its authorized representative. Any such
request shaH be made in writing to the Di~ector and shaH clearl~ state the grounds for the request'.'
Questions regarding Discharge Monitoring Reports, inspections and other technical questions may be'
addressed to Raghu Namburi in the Salem Office, at 503-378-8240. Questions regarding the permit
may be addressed to Robert Dicksa, Salem Office, 503"378-8240 ert 246.
Sincerely,
;?S~
Gary Messer
Water Quality Manager
WestemRegion
Enclos'ure
GWM:der,
,~,- ( "' .
, " .<"'.' '." .l, I '/, 'l'll(~" . .
" ';? 11', ';.cc: >'C', - 'Rooerf'Dicksa, DEQ - Salem Office
EP A Region X, Seattle, W A
II It .
Source FIle
HQ-WQ.
1 ~' ..;~'.-., \ _~-'.; ," ,;(...~,:l~>..,
'. .
Date Received
JUN 22 lOt.(
Planner: BJ
DEQ/WVR'lOl 8.97 4",~3
"
,'\..,
."',1
,"
{
"
- "t"
. . .' .-"" j
Lil'~'~;' .~/.d:4~ .~~:,::~.;.--:: {.N~ il.!~.;,' "
:!.
Date Receive j .
JUN 22, @f '
Plann€)r~ 8,j
. j ~ .
~: .;: .tl!hl
,
i' . ~:"
\'j ': "ill; ~l fi...:::;~'
4-~4
"
"
... .. I
Expiration Date: December 31,2006
Permit Number: 102486' ,
File Number: 55999
Page 1 of26 Pages
, '
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE EL:rMIl'iATION SYSTEM
WASTE DISCHARGEPERl\-fiT
, Dep~ent ofEnvirorunental Quality , " ' ,
, , Western Re~oil- Salem Office '
750 Front StreetNE, SUite 120, Salem, OR 97301-1039
Telephone: (503) 378-8240
Issued pursUant to ORs 468B.050and The Federal 'Clean Water Act,
ISSUED TO:
SOURCES COVERED BY THIS PERl\llT:
. - . ' .,
'MetrOl'olitan Wastewater Management
Commission, City of Eugene, and City of
Springfield '
225 5th Street " '
, Springfield, Oregon 97477
" " Type of Waste
Treated Wastewater
Treated;\V astewater (Bank Outfall)
Reclaimed Water Reuse, ,
Reclaimed Water Reuse
Emergency Overflows:
Emergency Overflow
Willakenzie Pnmp Station
Terry Street Pump Station
West Irwin Pump Station
Fillmore Pump Station ,
Skipper Pump Station '
Enid Pump Station
. i ':"
Beverly Park '
Old Springfield WWTP Pump
, Station '
Tyler and 10th '
Glenwood Pump Station
'Barger/Greenhill Pump Station
North Santa Clara Pump Station
Outfall Outfall'
Number Location '
001 'R.M, 178
OOIA ' R.M.178
101' Level II
Reclaimed Water
Use
102 Level ill,
Reclaimed Water
, Use
002 R.M 178
, Willamette River
003 Willamette River
004 A-3 Channel
005 A-2 Charnt'el '
006 '1,'ilIamette River
007 Drainage ditch
south of BeltIine
008 Diainar ditch
west 0 Hwy. 99
009 Q Street Channel
010 Willamette River
011 Willamette River
012 Willarnette River
013 ' A-2 Channel
014 Spring Creek
RECEIVl+'iG STREAM INFORMATION:
Basin: WilIamette
Sub-Basin:- Upper Willarnette
Receiving Stream: Willarnette River
Hydro Code: 22=- WILL 178 D
County: Lane,
FACILITY TYPE AND LOCATION:
Activated Sludge
MWMC .
410 River Ave., Eugene, Oregon 97404
Eugene and Springtleld
Trea~ent System Class: Level IV
Collection System Class: Level IV '
EP A RlioJ!J!,KENCE NO:'OR-003122-4
,; ,';'";., -~.:#';;. ,,:, 11,~:,~;;~: j'.~JV~~f..: .
Issued m'responset~,Appli6~tion No. 992653 received December 31, 1996.
'This permit is ili~delb!ked on the land use findings in the permit record:
"'01"~>"""""
_';' '& 1+, . _ ''','' _ _' ~,! ~
~., ,>. . ., .'
Gary Mess~jVater Qu~lity Manager,
Western RegIOn " .
Mav L 2002
Effective Date
Date Received
JUN 2 2, 6tf
Planner: BJ
H5
"
. .
, .
File Number. 55999
Page 2 of26 Pagl:S
,PERlhu u!.D AcrMTIE~
"Until this peuni,t€;xpires or is modified or revoked; the permittee isailthorized to construct, instal!, modify, or
operate a wastewater collection"treatment, control and disposal system and discharge to public waters adequately
treated wastewater only from the authorized discharge point orp'oints.established in Schedule A and only in
conformance with all the requirements, limitations, and conditions set forth.in the attached schedules as follows:
, " , '. . , . ... . Page'
, Schedule A - W~e Dischar&e L.imitations not ~o be Exc::eded .......,.....,:.......:..........3 :
Schedule B'- Mimmum Momtonng and Reporting ReqUirements .......................,..... 6
Schedule C " Compliance <??naitions imd Sche~ules .................................:.....:..:.....11
Schedule D - SpeCial CondItions ...........'...........;.......................................,............;....12
, Schedule E - Pretreatment Activities........................................................:................. 16
Schedule F _ General Conditions ............,.............................................:.....................18
, ,
< . .'
Unless specifically authorized by this permit, by another NPDES or WPCF peunit, or by Oregon Administrative
,Rule"anyotherdirect or indirect discharge to waters of the state is prohibited,.includingdischarge to an
underground injection control system. ' "',
",r
'.
~
i
"(
,
i'",
I
" \ ," '~\I'"'("
',,-_,,",\- i''.~l ''';:;lljF''~,
. "'<:r'j .I,~,'I,. I,l h'n.~',.,' ~':
~ I.!
.~ <.~ i=: V\\J L
.', ,
.'
, .' ::. '. 'f ;ll.l-d' '
, ' 1" ", I'
','1.- H ,l t"" '
.. J/;' l.<
Date Received
JUN2 2, 64 -,
Planner: B~J'
, 4:"'16
. 'I'
.'
. ,
- ,',
.' ,
St.;.t1I!;vULE A .
File Number: 55999
Page 3 of26 PageS'
1. Waste Discharge Limitations I\ot tq be exceeded after p'ermit issuance. .
a.
Treated Effluent Outfall OOland GOIA * cw.astewat~r TreatrnentPlant Disc~ge)
(1)
(2)
(3)
-'\"--:;11 '" -., ,I I ',< I
. ~.\' '~t ~/.. -',.l. . " . J' ,-." ,',.:' 't' ,
"'.' ~....1'- ;:",'~~,-If ~,"J;. !,~
,
.': '.' ('.W.
: .<4)
.,:'t';.
:', " r,', ,<> _';ilk 1
.' 1'_' . .... :
Mav 1 - October 31:
. ~r:,..'. :~i';;' ....: ,: ~C~~~bJia~6~~.'.
Parameter . Monthly Weekly
I CBODs .10 mg/L 15 mg/L
(See Note 1) ,
I 'rSS .' 10 mWL 15 mWL
November 1 - April 30:
A verageEffillent
'. Concentrations'
MonfulyWeekIi
25 mg/L 40 ing,i
P~raritet~r. .
CBODs .
(See Note 1)
I'rSS
30 mg!L 45 mg{L
IPH
. CBODs andTSS Removal Efficiency .
Total CWorine Residual
. . Excess Thermal Loading:
May 1- October 31 (Summer)
Ammonia: I'
May 1 - October 31 (Summer)
'Monthly*,*c:cweeklY."*';""'Diil1Y"""''''il
.' ..~ -""A'~i'-:~':~, ':;'~I'r-'. ,\ t.~.~t;;~; ~.;')7 ~!:I-: ':.ri*K. "':;.' '~~i~:'tc.;';;;.. 'I-;;...."":i~~.
""yerage'..'C"'. ..../wera6e.. :.,.y~uum''''
, Ib/day' '...'lb/day .,....Ibs,.;:
4100 6100 8200 I
4100 6100 , 8200 ]
Morithly**Weekly**; ,> Daily .
. ,,' Average", .;;.Average.,.Maximum;,:
1l:ildiy:: . '.Jb/day . """lbs '.
.16,00b 24;000 :132,000
19,000 28,000 I 38,000
"""'J
W
I
':::,-:
'"
. C'f'
~
:z:
=>
---,
. .
'-
Q)
c:
c
ro
-
~
The allowable mixing zone is that portion of the WiIlamette River from20 feet upstream of
the diffuser to 200 feet downstream of the diffuser. In addition, the Zone ofImmediate
Dilution (ZID) shall include that portion of the Willamette river within 50 feet downstream 2
of the diffuser. . " . . . . 4- 7
"
. ,
File Number: 55999
Page 4 of26 Pag~
, '
This p~rmitC'ontains either technology or water quality based effluent limits for those parameters ' ,
discharged by the permittee that the Department has determined require effluent limitations to comply
with the water quality standards found in OAR 340-41-445 outside the above mixing zones. The limits
,were established on the basis of the information provided by the permittee'and,following the '
Department's rules, including OAR 340-41"026. Other parameters also were identified in the permittee's
application for which the Department did not establish effluent limitations. The Department has
determined that those parameters do not present a reasonable potential to viol,ate applicable water quality
standards. The permittee is required to notify the department if changes occur in its processes or influent
stream which could significantly chaIige the effluent streain for imy of those parameters.
b. Reclaimed Wastewater OutfalllQl and Outfall 102 (See Note 8)
(1) No discIWge to state waters is permitted; All reclaime:d water re~e shall prevent:
a; Prolonged ponding of treated reclaimed water on the groU?d surface;
c.
."
-y::,
~~',f'"
.-'i ~l.I
.~'.
'."'.
.--"/"
<
'-.,,:\...
"~7,
,,-.,--:'
':'J~'.
~>:"'".
~ "-
..,,:
"Gr
'(2)
-,.,-'
',!af~~-
""'1
";~ ,
\?'t.~~
.f~~
,. ,~
"};" '
.....,..,..
, ..~
.. ,'1.
'.. t~,::,:"
\'-,'1';'
, ,
b.Surface runoff o~ subsurfac~ drainage,through,drainage tile;
, '
c. :the creation of odors, fly and m6squito breeding or other nuisance conditions;
,- .
d. The overloading of land with nU!iients, orgailics, or other pollutant parameters; and,
e. Impairment of existing or reasonably probabkbeneficial uses of groundwa~er.
. . ' ," '., , .
(2) "
Outfall 101 ' Prior to reuse of the reclaimed water, it shall receive at least '
Level II,treatment as defined in OAR 340-55 to:
" '
, , .
, Reduce Total Colifo~ to 240 organisms ~r 100 ml in two consecuti've
samples, and'a 7-d:iy median of.23 organisms pedOO mI. '
"
Outfall 102 Prior to re~e of the reclaiined Water, it shall receive at least
Level !II: treatment as defined in OAR 340-55 to: ,
, Reduce Total Coliform to a 7-day median of22 organisms per 100 mL and
, ,maximum of23 organisms per 100 mI.,
(4) " Irrigation shall conform to the irrigation management plan approved by the Department
in accordance with OAR 340-55 for agricllltural, commercial or indUstrial use.
(3)
. ,
Emergency Overflow Outfalls 002 through 014:
(1) No wastes shall be discharged from these outfalls and no, activities shall be conducted which
- violate water quality standards as adopted in OAR 340-41,:0445, unless the cause of the '
, discharge is due to storm events as allowed under OAR340-41-120 (13) or (14) as
follows: '
Raw sewagedischarge~ are prohibited to Waters of the State from No'Vember 1 ~ugh May
:21, except during a. Storm event greater than the o?e-in-five"year, 24-hour duration stoITJ?-.
and from May 22 through October 31, except dunng a storm event greater thanthe one-m-
ten-year, 24-hour duration storm.
. " Ifa.noverfl~w oc~urs ~etween ~y 22 and. JUI,le 1, ~d lfth7 permitteed:lIo:i'tMQtl1~iV ed '
Department's SatIsfaction that no Increase m nsk to benefiCIal uses occ~Mfe'e1111s~'efth't, -'
, overflow, no violatio,n shall be triggered if the ~orm associated with the overflW~2 () 4
greater than the one-mcfive-year, 24-hour duratlOn storm. I
, Planner:4J~J
~ ..~'
, t'
"
,3.
5,
. .
, File Number: 55999
Page 5 of26 Pages
d. Groundwater
:(1) All wastewater and process related residuals sha-II be managed and disposed of in a :
manner that will prevent: A violation of the Department's Grqundwater Quality ".
Protection Rules (OAR 340-040);, and A violation of any permit-specific groundwater
concentration limits, established pursuant to OAR 340-040-0030, which have beeri~"
'subsequently incorporated into this 'permit. ; , .
(2) The'O:epartment may reopen this permit, 'if necessary, to include groundwater parameters,
concentration limits, and compliance points that are determined based on the revised data
analysis report required by Schedule C.
NOTES:
1..
The CBODs concentration limits are considered equivalent to the minimum design criteri~for BODs
specified in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-41. These limits and C;::BODs fi\ass lin1its may be
adjusted (up or down) by permit action if more accqI!lte information regarciingCBODslBODs becomes
,available. ' " '
If a single sample exceeds 406 organism; per 100ml, then five conse~utive re-samples maybe' taken at rour-
hour intervals beginning within 28 hours after the original sample was taken. If the log mean of the five re-
samples is less than or equal t~ 126 organisms per 100 ml;a violation shall not be triggered.
'If continuous monitoring for pH is conducted, pH,values shall ,!lot be outside the range 6.0 to 9.0 for more
than a total of7 hours and 26 minutes in any calendar IIlonth; and no individual excursion from this,range
, shall exceed 60 minutes. ' "~
2,
4,
, ,
, '
, UpOn review and approval of the engineering studies specified in Schedule D, Condition 8., and at the
request of the permittee, the Department intends t?modify this permit arid include revised permit lin1its.
. ,
Any exc~ion beyond thedaiiy average ettIuent limi~tion determined using analJtival methods approved in
40 CFR Part 136 requires the permittee to provide written documentation with the monthly discharge "
monitoring report The written documentation wiUprovide a detailed explanation for the excursion. If the
permittee can show that the excursion did not result in a stream coIidition which exceeds the water q1lality
standard for chlorine, then the excursion shall notbe considered a violation of this permit. Continuous
, monitoring of the effluent Total Residllal CWorine using analytical methods not approved in 40 CFR part
136 may be used for process control, but will not ]:le used for verifying compliance with this permit.
The excess thermal load limit was calculated using the average drY weather design flow and the 7-day
moving average maximum effluent temperature. The excess thermal load limit applies only dUring the '
summer discharge season between May 1 and October 31, when the Willamette'River is' water quality
.limited for temperature. The excess thermal load lin1itwas calculated using the average dry weather
design flow and the,degrees'Fahrenheit that the maximum 7-daymoving average effluent temperature-o
exceed~ the applicable stream temperature standard, as follows: 49 DADWF (MGD), x 1,000,000 x 8.~
, Ibs/gallon x (71.6 maximum effluent temperature in OF - 64 applicable standard in"F) ';'3.1 Billion .=::
'" BTUslday (roimdedto two significant figures), The weekly average,excess thermal load (BTUslday)~
, ';, be c~!cul~tep_af follows:' Weekly average flow (MGD) x 1,000,000 x 8.34 (lbslgallori) x (weekly avers
, :' }~:",:ofdaily ri);i!qiriu.m effluent temperature in "F - 64 OF).,' " ' , , 'a:
"~;:.~:'~CtX:~::-~_l.;; .:::-"};::r~'/.;' <2 . . I.. ~' , '.
"Tlic'p'eritiit'liii.1itations for ammonia are basedup<;m the current Oregon' Water Quality StandardS, OARj
, 041. Table 20. . This permit may be re-opened and, the limits modified upon adoption a new Oregon stan :
, "0,' for aIl1)Tlo,nia, ,Continuous monitoring of the effluent for ammonia using analytical methods not approv .
:",]\ " 40"CF~Pari:J3q:may be used for process control; but will not be used for v€;rifying compliance with this
"'):~~:..it., ;::;.-P~rm~t ,,~'-" > .
6.
7.
o n_",l...:-:}~,..l ~~.:";+~.....,,,,....... ;...,.." 1-.... ..~...A t-"" ,""";fo;~t".,t~",,:rl,,.,~t1n'p ; r't"Ir<o"" 1"1 co t1"l th".,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,;,/;nn t'-ho....<:lr't"l 'U.....,l1....u..... +1-1....
~
rt
~. .
'<:::l ""'
..... a;
<N
<N s:
:z c:
=>
---, ,CC
~
n.
4-29
~,
'J ,.
'.
File Number. 55999
Page 6 of26 Pag~
SCHEDULE B
1. Minimum MonitoriDl' and Reoortinp-'ReauirementS (uriless otherwise approved in writing by the
Department). "
The permittee shall monitor the parameters as specified below at the locations indicated. The laboratory
used by the permittee to analyze samples shall have a quality assurancef,quality control (QNQC) program to
verify the accuracy of sample analysis. If QNQC requirements are not met for any analysis, the results shall
be included,in the report, but not used in calculations required by this permit When possible, the permittee
shilll re-sample in a timely manner for parameters failing the QNQC requirements, analyze the samples, and
report the results, ' .' '
a. Influent '
, '
The facility inflllent sampling locatioris are the following:
The,plant headworks following the bar screens and priorto grit removal. ,
.~ . '
: Iteril'or:Pariurieter
Totli.l Flow (MGD) , , ':
Flow Meter Calibration'
CBODS
TSS
pH'
b.
Minimum)FteQuency, _ -
Daily
Semi-annually
3fWeek
3IWeek'
Daily
'. :;-, <Tyoeof'Sample
Measurement
Verification '
24-hour Composite'
24-hour Composite
, Grab or Continuous
-4'
I,
I
I
I
Treated Effluent Outfall 001 and 001A
~,
,The faC?ility effluent sampling locations are the following:
.,.:-,'
, The plant effluent channel following dechlorination.
, , I ,
~'.>;, <'~1'Jteffi.~of~Patahi.etefut4,:&,i;j i"'; 'MiliiiD.i!irr!Ffe'hjenC;)Il';7:,~ ~"'"ij:i:r~T;ypei6fiiSamoJe;:i~;';"~
.',.'." ,.., ."~ 'n" ,'.,.c...." .~~_~__~_____~~l~-====-~_--.:..:::_:-",___---.:..:.~.,_~~_=~~',
TotarFfowJ(MGD) -Daily Measurement
Flow Meter Calibration Semi-annually Verification
CBOD5 3IWeek 24-hour ComlJosite
TSS' " , .3IWeek ' 24-hour Composite
pH"' Daily , " Grab or Continuous
'Temperature (Daily Max) Daily (Mav..:. October) Record
I E, coli,' . 3fWeek Grab (See Note 1)
9uanti~ Chlorine Used Daily Measurement
Total Chlorine Residual Daily Grab
Pounds Discharged (CBODs 3IWeek Calculation
andTSS) ,
';,; Average PercentRemoved,
'c\. (CBODs,and TSS)
~ . .
,", 'Ammoma (NH3-N)
.,..,
~": Nutrients
?1~TKN, N02+N03-N, Total
,-~' '~Phosphorus
-::.. Bioassay (See Note 2)
"t":.'~', '., '
,.,......"
l.P
. 0;=:
1
I
1
"
';i ~
Monthly
Calculation
I,
-]
\
,'I
3IWeek
, ~'
, 24-hour ,Coml)osite
dr.
\';
;J'
llWeek (May~Oct)
24-hour Composite
',-'
1"S;.
Ouarterly
Acute & Chronic
Date1ieceived
JUN 2 2 01
" ,
Planner: BJ
.:'
, -,
,- '
'\
.1>,
I-~.~'
4-30 '
"
. ,
, .
File Number: 55999
Page 7 of26 Page~
c. , ,Pretreatment Program
'.... "",~,~, ~-,'~,I>;"'~iItei:iUor~R,"aram., " et,e1;,;"',il'tJjij;'J{.r;"i~:l'-" ",.\",';~ ii::'BO'catioii;*/'-,"~I','P. ~M, ' ,i"n' 'im,,' 'unt;';~",.,~,;r; 'e;6fiSam.'I~,-,'};',':,1
iIiir~.,!(l~""~~~~...1i~~"'c~": lW'~:<l<~j'"irl,~"''''~~~~'''"''-~ ~~g....,,,..,,,,,,,~'il..~;;
~~~~,li.~~~B-&.or~~~~~~gtl~,~~~~~~~~~Jlu,~trl?~~~~i~~~~
Metals (Ag, AS, Cd, Cu"Cr, Hg, Mo,' Influent -~~ Monthly 24-hour Composite-:-
Ni, Pb, Se, & Zn) measured as total" " ,
in ugIL(micrograms per liter).,' , ',-- ,
Total Cyanide (See Note 3)
Priority Pollutant Organics (See
Note 4) ,
Toxics Removal Rate: Metals; ,
Cyanide, and Priority Organic
Pollutants
d. Biosolids Management
. f~ :'~ ;"~ ~
, ,,"'i;jt~~tei1itiYriEll.tiI.irieter'.<\<,'"
Sludge analysis including:,
Total Solids (% dry wt)
Volatile solids (% drywt)
Biosolids nitrogen for:
NH3-N; N03,N; & TKN
(% dry wt) ,
Phosphorus (% dry"wt)
Potassium (% dry wt) ,
oH ( standard units)
Sludge metals content for: Ag, As,
Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mo, Ni, Pb,:Se &
Zn, measured as total inmg/kg
Record oflocations where biosolids
are applied on each DEQapproved
. site. (Site location maps to be
maintained at treatment facility for
review uoon request by DEO)
Re,~ord of%xo(atile solids reduction
accomplished,through stabilization "
Record oUligestion days (mean cell
residence time)
, I Daily Sludge Temperature for each
digestor in operation from digestor
overflow., "
""MihiriillmO'l1retjueI1CYl",v. "",;",;,,~,;:~,TyPe;of:Sample '}l,;;" ..I
-BimontWy when ll\I1dComposit~ ,S&J:lple to ~e '
applying 'representative of the product to
be land applied: (See Note 6) ,
" ).
,':,'.1 '., , 4-31
Monitorinl! freauencv shall be as indicated. However. results shall be reported in the Biosolids
*
."
"
File Number: 55999
Page 8 of26 Pag~s
, ,
e. Reclaimed Wastewater Reuse:
,
, Outfall 101
'"
,,:<,:4teni"or~Parameter:' "",/,: :;,i,,':':~,,"Mii1imtim,'Freqtielicy
Quantity Reused (incheslacre when Daily,' '
irrigated)
Flow Meter Calibration
Quailtity Chlorine Used
Chlorine Residual'
I pH "
\ Total Coliform
I Nutrients (TKN, NOi+N03-N, NH3,
Total Phosphorus) , '
,,', :,:,':,,;:rype of Sample ,
Calculatiori-
Annually
Daily
Daily
2fWeek ' ,
l/Week ,
Q1larterly
, Verificatioli'
MeaSurement
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
1
I
]
!-.
Outfall 1 02
, '"cC'",:';:,iv<,;:Item,qt$aritiri.eter;' ,,,:,:,':;
, "QuiintitYIrrigat~d (inches/acre when
irrigated)
'Flow Meter Calibration'
.-1 Quantity, Chlorine Used
I Chlorine Residual
I pH '
" TotalColifoi:m "
'\ NutrientS (TKN; N(h+N03-N,NH3,
, Total Phosphorus) , ' ,
",I, ,:~;MiIiiii,1llriiiF.requericy:', :",;~.;27.yPe,oISample,
Daily '. : Measuremerit
-,
, ,
Annually'"
Daily,
Daily'
2fWeek
, 3/Week
Q1larterly
Verification
Measurement
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
I
I
1
1
I <
, f. Emergency Overflow Outfalls 002 through 014:
" "I' '
"F!~~~e~@r~gi@R~r#J;: ~~:f=:::~~e~:~~;'b~l?;:~!~;;~t:~~:::~~;~~i
, ,. ,
g. Groundwater Minimum Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
(1) , Groundwater monitoring, shall be conducted in accordance with the Department approved
, Groundwater Monitoring Plan titled, Revised Groundwater Monitoring Plan, by "
Geofechnical Consultants, Inc., dated May 1991. ' ' "
(2): Reporting Requirements
(3)
, Quarterly Reporting: Analytical results of groundwater monitoring for the
parameters listed above and for any other parameters identified in the approved,
, Groundwater Monitoring Plan/shall be reported quarterly ina Department
approved format. At a ~inimum, the report shall contain the q1larterly reporting'
, information identified in the approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan. Reports are
due to the Department by the 30th day of the month following the sampling event.
(B) Annual Data Analysis and Reporting: An annual ~oundwater data analysis, '
report shall be submitted to the Department by April 1 of the f/il\l~~Ytgf!~',J:.I1, 1,,~d
annual report shall contain the annual data analysis and repo~l'I.It'l '" ,
identified in the approved Groundwater Monitoring Plan. " " ,
, JUN '}, 2, o~
'Groundwater Monitoring Resa~pling Requirements' ,
(A) If monitoring indicates,that a conce~tration limit has been exceS~anr~@~~~J
ooint. the permittee shall notify the Department within 10 days and shall " \
(A)
, ~.
,~
','
.',--,
.OG
y'
....
.~
r1t......
--J':.
-, ~
""
-
~L,'
."5...
';',)
..' .-
",'
e,
-"
....:-
~ "]'.J'
.,...,......
'.-f
..'
J;
"
"
.'
, File Number: 55999
Page 9 of26 Page$
, (B)
immediately resaniple the (nonitoring well for the exceeding parameter and other
parameters deemed necessary by the Department: The results of both sampling
events shall be reported to the Department within 10 'days of receipt ofthi:
laboratory data. ,", ',' '._
Ifmonitoringindicates a statistically significant increaSe (increase or decreaSe for
pH) in ~e ,:alue of a param~ter monitored, the permittee shall immediately''tesample
the momtormg well for the mcreased or decreased parameter and other parameters
deemed necessary, by the Department If the resampling confirms a change in water
quality, the permittee shall: .
(1)
Report the results to the Department within 10 days of receipt of the
, laboratory data; and " ' , " , ' , , .
Prepare and submit to the Department within 30 days a plan for
developing a preliminary assessment unless another time schedule is
,approved by the Depa,rtrnent, ' ,
(2)
, ,
h. Willamette River (Monitored only during May 1 - October 31) ,
Temperature monitoring of the Willamette,River shall be conducted in accordance with the
Department approved Temperature Management Plan, dated OCtober 2001. '
2. '
Renortinl! Procedures
'I
a.
, " .'
Monitoring results shall be reported on' approved forms; The reporting period is the calendar'month.
Reports must be submitted to the appropriate Department office by the 15th day ofthef.oUowing "
month.
b.
State monitoringrepcrts shall identify the name, certificate classification and grade level of each
principal operator designated by the permittee as responsible for supervising the wastewater,' ,
collection and treatment systems during the reporting period. Monitoring reports shall also identify
each system classification as found on page one of this permit "
, '
Arec()rd of the quantity and method of use of all sludge removed from the Biosolids Management
facility and a record of all applicable equipment breakdowns and bypassing shall be included in the ,
BiosolidsAnnuaI repcrt and submitted in, accordance with 3(b) below. '
3. ' Reoort Submittals '
c.
a. The permittee shall have in place a program to identify and reduce inflow and infi1tiationinto the
sewage collection system. An annual report shall be submitted to the Department by September 1
, each year which details sewer collection maintenance activities that reduce inflow and infiltration. ,
The repcrt shaiJ state those activities that have been done in the previous fiscal year (July 1 through
June30) and those activities planned for the following fiscal year.
b. For any'~ear'in ~ich biosolids are land applied, a report shall be submitted to the Department by
February 19 of the following year that describes solids handling activities for the previous year and
mcludes, but is not limited to, the requirediIlformation outliiled in OAR 340-50-035(6)(a)-(e).
. #,\I,r:,'/ '.-,.'}" ,\:' ;"~I,~r '
" ,k:, ",~ J'::' : :~J?~' .:7,~ :'!J'\k~: ..~','_
'. ,"~:::'_l' 'f. . ;; ,
.':. iil~.'t
J)"~c~'
Date Received
JUN 2 2 bL{
,I
Planner: BJ
" ' 4-33
.' ~.'~ t,,' .., ,,,';:", ~':,;. "-
'~:'I( ~,t.',;.'t:,'\Jli ;.j.~'.ji'-\
.,. ;'"
~~~~ ~~'~;",:~:-,
'~
"
"
File Number: 55999
Page 10 of26 Pag,es
NOTES:
E. coli monitoring must be conducted according' tQ '~~y ofthefollowing test procedures as ,pecified in
'Standard Methods for the Examination of Water 'and Wastewater, 19th Edition, or according to any
, test procedure ,that has been authorized and approved in writing by the Director or his authorized
representative:" ,', ' ,
,Method , ,.;0', Reference Page Method Number
, m'fEC agar, MF ' Standard Methods, 19th Edition 9-28 9213 D
NA-MUG, MF ,Standard Methods; 19th Edition 9-63 9222 G
ChromogenicSubstrat~, MPN Standard Methods, 19th Edition, 9"65 9223 B
Colilert OT' ,Idexx Laboratories. Inc.
, 2. Beginning no later than July 1 2002, the perrnittee shall conduct bioassay testing.for a period of one (1) year.,
in accordance with the frequency specified above. If the bioassay tests show thatthe effluent samples are
not acutely toxic at the dilution determined to occur at the Zone ofIroniediate Dilution and chronically toxic
atthe MiXing Zone, no further bioassay testing Will be required during this permitcycle. ,Bioassay results
required w.ith the nextNPDES permit renewal application are'as follows: At a minimum, quarterly testing
, for a.l2-rponth period\yithin the\past one year, or the results from four tests performed atcleast annually in
. the four and one halfye~ priort6the application, using the species listed in Schedule D. '
.1.
\>.
3. For influent and e'ffluent cyanide samples, at least six (6) discrete 'grab samples shall be collected ,over the
operating day. Each,aliquot shall be not less than 100 ml and shall be collected andcomposited into a larger
container ,~hich has been preserved with' sodium hydroxide for cyanidc;:samples to protect sample integrity.
" .
4. The pe,rmittee shall perform chemical analysis ofits influent, effluent and biosolids to be beneficially used
for the, tp,ucorganic pollutants listed in Tables IT of Appendix D of40 CPR Part 122 in accordance with the
sampling-frequency in Schedule B. 'nJe influent and 'effluent samples shall. be 24-hour,daily composites,
except where sampling volatile compounds. In this case, six (6) discrete samples (not less than 100 nil)
collected over the operating day are acceptable. The permittee shall take special precautions in compositing ,
the individual ~b samples for the volatile'organiCs to insUre sample integrity (i.e. 1).0 exposure to the
outside air). Alternately, the discrete samples collected for volatiles 'may be analyzed separately and ' ,
averaged. ;Forbiosolids analyses, a grab s~ple from the'sludge holding tank overflow shall be used.. The
results oftlle Priority Pollutant'Scari,ana:!ysisshall be submitted with the annualpretreatmentreport
"
5. Daily 24-hour composite samples shall be analyzed and reported separately. Toxic monitoring results and
toxics removal efficiency calculations shall be tabulated and submitted with the Pre~tment Program ,
Annual Report as required in ScheduleE. Submittal of toxic monitoring results with the monthly Discharge
Monitoring Report is not required. '
6. Composite samples f>om ,the sludge lagoons shall consist of blending equal volumes of grab. samples taken
, from the center of 9 or more like-size units resulting from an imaginary grid placed over each lagoon. The
grab samples shall include.,the 'entire depth of sludge in the area sampled. Composite samples from the air
drying beds shall consist of blending equal volumes of grab samples taken from each air drying bed in use.
Samples shall be representative of the sludge being land applied. ' .
I" , ..' ' .
Inorganic pollutant monitoring must be conducted according to Test Methods fo~ Bvaluating Solig Waste,
PhvsicallChemical Methods, Second Edition(1982) with Updates I and IT and third Edition (1986) with
RevisioIl 1.
"
Fecal C~liform monitoring must be conducted according toFeca( Colifprm, Part 9221 E: or Part 9222D.,
'!Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater", 18th Edition, 1992, American Public
'~':'% ~~~~~tt,~>>i;~on, 1015 15th Street, NW., Washington,DC 20005. Date Race ived
7. Calculation of the %vol<itile solids reduction for the anaerobic digesters is to be based on compaJ;\~\lp.\lf.(l ,/
representative grab sample of total and volatile solids entering the digestion process and a represe\\taliok ,'" / t,
composite sample of sludge solids exiting the sludge holding tanks. .
8 ~"" Th~ ~a}s ciiQ1~'isiion shall be calculated by dividing the digester liquid volume b; the averela~[: BJ
ofsfudge production. " ",' "-4~f4, ,
.
File Number: 55999
Page 11 of26 Pages
SCHEDULE C
Comofiance Schedules and Conditions
i'!-, :"
,.,\
-.l.. .
1. By no later than July 9, 2002, the permittee shall submit to the Department a revised water quality data '
analysis report for the BiosolidsManagement Facility. At a minimum, the report shall include: ' , ,
, ,
a. ' Identification of.background and, compliance wells, .
b. Determination of background groundwater quillity, ,
c. Analysis of exiSting water quillity data and existing impacts, and
d. Analysis of potential impacts from facility activities,
Based onthe water quality data analysis report, the permittee ~hall:
Propose permit specific concentration limits pursu~t, to OAR 340-40-030(3) for the Department's
consideration, and/or submit to the Department an application for a concentration limit variance pursuant to
OAR 340-40-D30(4). ," , ' ,'_' ,
2. The permittee 1s expecteClto meet the compliance dates which have been established in this schedule. Either
prior toorno later than 14 days following any lapsed compliance date, the permittee shall submit to the
Department a notice of compliance or noncompliance with the established schedule. The Director may
revise a schedule of compliance ifhe determInes good and valid cause 'resulting from events over which the
,permittee has little or no control.' '
"
, , ~
"':'.
I
"
:'~~:')::.,': ,~:-~:;,:i_': " i:~ "\: f-::.l('~ ,~
. .,.,
Date Received'
JUN 2 2 oJ
,', (
Planner: 8~-35
,
._' ". ." 1- . " /.'..
,-4... ,..,l;lf,..r~I'L~t}(.-1 ';'\rl><~I' j
. ", ,\ .!i~ 'I. "" II ':/,:l:~'l',,_
....1;~~\~,b,:,
", " """,lll
' ".,' ~ .
/"-,
"
"
.,'
,.
File Number: ~ 55999
Page 12 of26 Pages
"1
SCHEDULE D
Soecial Conditions
1. Prior to increasing thermal load beyond the current penn it limitations, the Permittee shall notify the '
Department and apply for and be issued a permit modification allowing the increase. ' , ,
2. Effluent temJlerature snall be managed in accordance with the Temperature Management Plan (TMP) '.,
(submitted'October 200I) approved by the Department by this permitting action. Implementation of short
and long term activities initiated in the approved Temperature Management Plan shall not neCessarily
constitute a permit modification'. " ""
, - ," .
3. All bios6lids shall be managed in'accordance with the current, DEQ approved biosolids management
, plan, and the site authorization letters issued by the DEQ. Any changes'in solids managemerit activities
that significantly differ from operations specified under the approved plan require the prior Written
approval of the DEQ.' " ,,'" , '. ,"
, - All new biosolids applicl1tionsites shall meet the site selection criteria set forth in.oAR 340-50-
0070. All currently approved sites a):'e located in Oregon. No new public noticeiS'requiied for the ,
contillued use of these currently approved sites. Property ,owners adjacent to any newly app'roved, ' '
application sites shall be notified, in writing or by any method approved pyDEQ, of the proposed
activity prior to the start of application: For,proposed nevrapplication sites ,that are deemed by
the DEQ to be sensitive with respect to residential housing, ninoff:potentialor tht~t to',
groundwater, an opportunity for public COmn1.ent shallbe,provide4 in accordance with OAR 340-
50-0030. ' , '
4. This pei:mit may be niodified to, incorporate any-applicable $ndard for biosolids use or disposal
promulgated under section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act, if the standard for biosolids USe or dispQSal is
. more stringent than'any requirements for biosolids use or disposal in the permit, or controls a pollutant or
prilctice not limited in this permit '
5. Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing
a. The permittee shall conduct whole effluent toxicitY teSts as specified in ScheduleS of this penhit.
b. Bioassay tests may be dual end-pointtests, in which both acute and chronic end-points can be '
determined from the results qfa single, chronic test (the acute end-point shall be based upon a 48-
hour time period). '
c. Acute Toxicity Testing - Organisms and Protocols
(1)
The permittee shall conduct 48-hour static renewal tests with the Ceriodaphnia dubia
(water flea) and the Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow). "
The presence, of acute toxicity will be determined as specified in Methods for Measuring
the Acute ToXicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine
, Organisms, Fourth Edition, EPAf600/4-90/027F, August 1993.
(2)
.\
" (3) An acute bioassay test shall be considered to show toxicity ifthe~e in statistically
, significant difference in survival between the control and 100 percent effluent, unless the ,
,permit specifically provides'for a Zone of Immediate Dilution (ZID) for biotoxicity. If the
, ",' :,,0" ....:,\~, ;""~:iperinit specifies such a ZID, acute toxicity shall be indicated when a ~~,D . d
' ,\C"~" z;. 1,,,, : . 'significant difference in survival occurs at dilutions greater than that w.tTcntrneCelv e
,;< v1\li occur at the edge of the ZID. ' , ,
. Chronic Toxicity Testing -Organisms and Protocols ' JUN' 22 ,()<f ,
. ,.-~ 'I~ . . , .
, ~'~ 'j '\ ~...I "-"I . .
':(1'/' ";;The permittee shall conduct tests with: Cerl,'odaphnia dubia (water flea)PhS:lS:Anef' I"J
", and survival test endpoint, Pimephales promelas (fathead minnow) for gpo~!1 '4- ;tj
d.
,
,\ .;",P'
"
.
,
. .
File Number: 55999
Page 13 bf26 Pag~
survival test endpoint, and Raphidocelis subcapitata (green algaJormerly kno,wn as' :
Selanastrum capricornutum) for,growth test endpoint. ' " ,;
" . '
(2) The presence of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in sl1ort-term Methods
for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of EffIuents and Receiving Waters to"'
Freshwater Organisms, Third Edition, EPN600/4-911002, July 1994. '
, '.
(3) A chronic bioassay test shall be considered to show toxicity if a statistically significant
difference in survival, growth, or reproduction occurs at dilutions greater than that which
,is known to occur at the edge of the mixing zone. ' ,
e. quality Assurance'
Quality assurance criteria, statistical analyses and data reporting for the bioassays shall be
in accordance with the EP A documents stated in this condition and the Department's
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Guidance Document, January 1993.
f. Evaluation of Causes and Exceedances
(1)
If toxicity is shown, as defined in sections c.(3) or d,(3) oftms permit condition, another
toxicity test using the same species and Department approved methodology shall be
conducted within two weeks, unless otherwise approved by the Department. If the second
test also indicates toxicity, the p'ermittee shall follow the procedure described in section '
f.(2)'of this permit condition., , ' " , '
If two consecutive. bioassay test results indicate acute and/or chronic toxicity, as defined
in sections c.(3) or d.(3) of this permit condition, the permittee shall evaluat"the5<ljlICe of
the toxicity and submit a plan and time schedule for demonstrating compliance with water
quality standards. Upon approval by the Department, the permittee shall implement the
'plan until compliance has been achieved., Evaluations shall be completed and plans
submitted to the Department within 6 months unless otherwise approved in writing by the '
Department. "j .', ' ,', " '
g. Reporting
(1)
(2)
Along with,the test results, the permittee shall include: 1. the dates of sampie collection
and initiation of each toxicity test; and 2. the flow rate at the time of sample collection.
Effluent at the time of sampling for bioassay testing should include samples of required
param~tersstated under Schedule B, Condition 1. of this permit.
The permittee shah make available to the Department, on request, the written standard
operating procedures they, or the laboratory performing the bioassays, are using for all
toxicity tests required by the Department.
h. Reopener , ,~
(1) 'If bioassay testing ~dicates acute and/or chronic toxicity, th~ Department mayreope~d
modify this permitto include new limitations and/or conditions as determined by the (.)
Department to be appropriate, and in accordance with procedures outlined in Oregon Q)
" " ,f-?ministrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 45. " ," ' 0:
, ,.; ',1, .:i~",:, ',,; : .!j'~::fJ; ,; 'I , Q)
, , '. , .-', 1 ~', 'I'~' - '. ->, ..'\
. ': (,;:};t:: :';:.~~'~'''':':~::',l -,' ~'" .....
6. The perm'ittee shail comply with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), ,Chapter 340, Div~ion 49" ctS
"RegulationS Pertaining To Certification of Wastewater System Operator Personnel" fUld accordinglyC
(1)
(2)
, '. a.., : <ifhe permittee shall have its wastewater system supervised by one or,more operators who are
'J' , '; :::fhpj'1iceit!~e:~ina classific~tion and grade level' (equal to or greater) that c?rre~pnnrl~ "Yith the '
.. '-i::l~s.lficatio~ (collect.on and/or treatment) of the system to be supeIVIsed as specified on page one
"\ ::;:~'
'",
~
'~, 00
," ' . .
~
~ ID
...... C
z C
:::>
---, '<<1
-
CL
4-37
"
File Number: 55999
Page 14 of26 Pages
,Note: A "supervisor" is,defined as the person exercising authority, for establishing and executing the
specific practice and procedures of operating the system in accord:inc~ with the policies of the
permittee and requirements of the waste discharge permit "Supervise" means responsible for the
technical .operation ,.of a system, which may affect.its pe'rfermance or the quality of the effluent
preduced. Supervisors are net required to be en-site at all timeS; ,
b. The permittee's wast~water system m~y not be without sup~rvision (as'required by Special
, Condition 6.a. above) for more than thirty (30) days. During this period, and at any time that the
supervisor is not available to respond on-site (Le. vacation, sick leave or off-call), the permittee must,
maKe avauaOle anotner personwno ls,certltleCl atno less tnan one grade lower then the system '
classification. , ' , " ' '
c, If the wastewater system has more than one daily shift, the permittee shall have the shift supervisor,
if any, certified at no less than one grade lower than the system classification. ' ' , ,"
,d. ' ,The permittee is responsible for ensuring the wastewater system has a properly certified supervisor
, ,available at all times to respond on"site at the request of the permittee and to any .other operator.
;, e.. ,The permittee shall notify the Department ofEnvircinmentalQu~ity in writing within-thirty (30)
, days of replacement or redesignation of certified operators responsible for supervising wastewater
, ,system .operation. The notice shall be filed with the Water Quality Division, Operator Certification
" Program, 811 SW 6th Aye, Portland, OR 97204.' This requirement is in addition to the reporting ,
requirements contained under Schedule B of this permit , '
, f. " Upon written reql)est, the Department may grant the permittee reasonable time, notto exceed 120 '
days, to obtain the services of a qualified person to supervise the wastewater system. The written
request must include justification for the time needed, a schedule for recruiting and hiring, the date
, the system supervisor availability ceased and the,naine of the alternate system supervisor(s),as
required by 6.b. above. ' ,
7. Management and Maintenance of Groundy;ater Monitoring Wells,
a. The permittee shall protect and maintain each groundwater monitoring well,sothat samples
collected are representative of actual conditions. ' ' , , "
b. " All monitoring well abandonments, replacements, repairs, and installations must be conducted in
,accordance with the Water Resources DepartmentOregonAQininistrative Rules, Chapter 690, ,
, Division 240, and with the Department's guidance "Groundwater Monitoring Well Drilling,
Construction, and Decommissioning", dated August 22, 1992. All monitoring well abandonments,
replacements, repairs, and installations must be documented in a report prepared by an Oregon
registered geologist., ' ' , '
;.,.,
,~t:
f,::..~
-..
""."' ,
':1:
~..)
c.r.:,d.
/00<."....
'.1.,',
<j'~' ,
tI.,;'...'"
~;':i'
,,J,'
..........
I.e.
'-~"
".l
-;n'"'.
....':
.
".-
:-.?T~~
...._,..
.'
8.
If a monitoring well becomes damaged or inoperable, the permittee shall notify the Department in
writing within 14 days of when the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The wri~n
report shall describe: what problem has occurred, the remedial measures that have been or Will be
, taken to correct the problem, and the measures taken to prevent the recurrence of damage or
inoperation.. The Department may require the replacement of inoperable monitoring wells.
- . . , " ' ,
. . . -
Prior to installation of new or replacement monitoring wells, the placement or design must be
: approved in writing by the Department Well logs and a well completion report shall be. ' ,',
submitted,to the Department within 30 days of installation of the well. Thelre,nQllt~:tIi!)i.Ii.GIw!.qJl. ~'
',: survey drawing showing, the, location of all' monitoring wells, disposal sites,YgUfitd"Ml1~IVe hJ
Prior to abandonment of existing wells deemed unsuitable for groundwater mo~itdl1tlg~ I Otf
abandonment plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval. '
The permittee may qualify for a l~wer percentage removal of CBOD and TSS than shEAaE'JhQaf A' ciS. j
this permit"pursuani to 40 CFR133.103(d), provided the permittee can adequately demonstrate that the' 4~ 38
c.
i'\
~' ,
,
File Number: 55999
Page 15 of26 Pagts
conditions for a leSser percentage removal exist or will exist in the design life'ofthe treatment facility. ffthe '
permittee wishes to make this demonstration, the pyrmittee must conduct engineering studies to demonstrate
that flows to the treatment facility are not the result of excessive infiltration and inflow, and conduct an
engineering evaluation of the attainable percentage removal for BOD 'and TSS at the peak month design
flow (using two-year high month precipitation amount)'and the higheSt monthly flow at which 85% removal
can be achieve~, and include the following information and evaluations:, " '
'.
a: !he~ntire system must be flow mapped, by subbasin, and all sewer system overflow points
IdentIfied.' " , ' ,
, o. unless omeIWIse approvea In wrItlng oy tne Liepartment, aIr mtJowsources must be Identified.
c. The treatment facility shall be evaluated to determine the maximum monthly flow at which 85%
removal of BOD and TSScan be achieved. In addition, the permittee shall evaluate:what, ' '
, percentage reduction of BOD and TSS is achievable at peak design monthly flows consistent with a
two-year high month precipitation event For both of these evaluations, projected flows after inflow
removal as required in Condition 9, of this schedule are to be used." , ' " '
, '
9. The Department hereby approves the MWMC Wet Weather Flow Ma~agement Plan dated August 27, 2001.
The permittee shall implement the Plan !IS'approved. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Department, all inflow sources identified during implementation of the Plan are to be permanently
disconnected from the sanitary sewer system.. " ' ' , ' , -, '
10, The permittee shall meet the requirements for use of reclaimed water under Division 55, including the
following: ' , ',' ' ",'
a. All reclaimed wate~ shall be managed in accordance with the approved Reclaimed Water Use Plan.
No substantial changes ,shall be made in the, approved plan without, written approval of th,e
Department ' ' , ".' " ' , ' {' " ,
b. No reclaimed water shall be released by the permittee to another person, as defined in Oregon
Revised Statute (ORS) 468.005, for use unless there is a valid contract between the perniittee and
that person that meets the req' uirements of OAR 340-55-015(9). ' , " "
, I '
c. The permittee shall notify the Department within 24 hours if it is determined that ,the treated effluent
is being used in a manner not in compliance with OAR 340-55. When the Department offices are
not open, the permittee shall report the incident of noncompliance to the Oregon' Emergency
Response System (Telephone Number 1-800452-0311).
d. No reclaimed wate~ shall be made available to a person proposing to ,recycle unless that person
certifies in wri~ing that they have read and understand the provisions in these rules. This written
, certification shall be kept on file by the sewage treatment system owner and be made available to the
Department for inspection. '
11.
The permittee shall notify the DEQ'WestemRegion ~ Salem Office (phone: (503) 378-8240) in accordance _
with the response times noted in the General Conditions of this permit, of any malfunction so that corrective
action can be coordinated between the permittee and the J?epartment
>,' -:{~':~ii',:~t:a.:~:!';;:!j;:~~:",
II,
'Date Received,
JUN 22 ID~
,Planner: BJ
0<.," "P,;-,,:
- . . ',' ,r('
'0 "1
:';:..~J~41;;'-~'-/'};i~-'i -,
4-39
~,
"
"
,,'
File Number: 55999
Page 16 of26 Pages
Pretreatment Activities
SCHEDULE E
The permittee shall implement the following pretreatment activities:
,1. ' The permittee shall conduct'and enforce its Pretreatment Program; as approved by'the Department, and
co~pl~ with t~e General Pretreatme~t Regulations (40 CFR Part 403). The permittee shall,secure';md
maintain suffiCient resources and quahfied personnel to cany.out the program implementation procedures
describ~d in this permit' '
2. !he- permitteesli:a11 lidopt,all legal authority necessary to fully implement Its 'appro~ea p~treatrfieni '
program and to comply with all, applicable State and Federal pretreatment'regulations. The permittee'
must also establish, where necessary, contracts or agreements with contributing jUrisdictions to ensure
compliance with pretreatment requirements by iridustriaI.users within these jurisdictions. These'contracts
or agreements shall identify the agency responsible for all iniplernentation and enforcement activities to
, ,be performed in the contributing jurisdictions.. Regardless ,of jurisdictionahituation;the permittee is
, responsible for ensuring that all aspects of\he,p:etreatment program ate fully implemented and ,enforced.
, '
).The permittee shall.' update its inventory ,of industria[:us~rs ,at, a frequency and diligence adequate to'
, ,ensure proper identification of industrial users subject to pretreatment standards, but no less than once per '
year. The 'permittee shall notify these industrial users of applicable pretreatment standards in accordance
with 40 CFR 9 403.8(f)(2)(iii). . " ,"','
, ,
'4. ,The permittee shall enforce cat~gorical'pretreatment siand~ds promulgated pursuant to Section 307(b)
. and (c) of the Act, prohibited discharge standards as set forth in 40 'CFR 9, 403.5(a) and (b), or local
limitations developed 'by,the permittee in accordance with 40 CPR 9 403.5(c), which~ver are'mo're
stringent, or, are applicable to non-domestic users discharging wastewater to'the collection 'system.
, Locally derived discharge limitations shall be defined as pretreatment standards under Section 3~7(d)of
b~' ',', , , ' ,,' "
, A technical evaluation of the need to revise local limits sh~ll be performed at.least once during the term
of tJ:is ,permit and must be submitted jto, ~e D.e!,artmen~ as' part o.f the permitte~'s ,NPDES permit
apphcation, unless the Department reqUires m wntmg that It ,be subnutted sooner. Lumts'development
will be in accordance with the procedures established by the Department " " " , '
5, , The permittee shall issue individual discharge permits to all Significant Industrial Users ,in a timely
manner. The permittee shall also reissue and/or modify,permits, where necessary, in' a timely manner.
Discharge permits must contain, at a minimum, the conditions identified in 40 CFR 9 403.8(f)(I)(iii).
Unless a more stringent defmition has been adopted 'by the perrn,ittee, the definition of Significant
Industrial User shall.be as stated in 40 CPR 9 403.3(t).
6. The permittee shall ~domly sample ~nd analyz~ industrial user effluents at a frequency commensurate '
, , with the character ,consistency, volume of discharge. At a minimum, the permittee' shall sample all
Significant Industrial Users for all regulated pollutants twice per year. Alternatively, at a minimum, the
. permittee shall sample all Significant' Industrial Users for all regulated pollutants once per year, if the
permittee has pretreatment program criteria in its approved procedures for determining appropriate
.. sampling levels forindustrial users, and provided the sampling criteria indicate once per year sampling is
'{"'aaequat~,> ,:ACa'::minimum, the permittee shall conduct a complete facility inspection once per year.
Ad,ditionally, 'at 'least once every two years the permittee shall evaluate the need for each Significant
IndustriahUserto develop a slug control plan. Where a plan is deemed necessary, itshall conform to the
require'ineniS'6'f 40 CFR 9 403.8(f)(2)(v). '
" Where )lie p'ermittee elects to conduct all industrial user monitoring in lieu of r~liDimoaM~eC\
by user, 'the permittee shall gather all information which would otherwise have~EiHi!tfb!ntM:aOy' the
,user. The permittee shall also perform the sampling arid analyses in accordance WW~ 'i'rot~fols
estal>lished for the user. ' ' , , ' "I 01
sarrip!e,' collection and ~nal~sis, ,and t~e ~ath~ri~g of 0, ther complia~ce 'dat~""Sh~~~'J\l.-)~W:Vi~ll~
. suffiCient care to produce eVidence :\dmlsslble In enforcement proceedmgs or m JUdlClll tretloM. 4-
, ,
"
.I; I
,
, ;~
File Number: 55999
Page 17 of26 Pages
7. The permittee shall review reports submitted by industrial users and identify all violations of the user's'
permit or the permittee's local ordinance.' , ' , , ' ' " , '.",
, '
8. The permittee shall investigate all instances of industrial user noncompliance and shall take all necessary
steps to return users to compliance. The permittee's enforcement actions shall track its approved
Enforcemerit Response Plan, developed in accordance ,with 40 CFR 9 403.8(f)(5). If the pe\Tllittee has
not developed' an approved Enforcement Response 'Plan, it, shall develop and submit a draft to the
.?e~~en.! for!eview..!'ithin ~g 4ay~~the issuim.:~~fth_is p~rmit '~_ __ __'_ -'-____ _ _ __
9., The permittee shall publish, at least annually in'the largest daily newspaper published in the permittee's'
, service area, aoIist of all industrial users which, at any time in the previous, 12 months, were in, Significant
Noncompliarice with applicable pretreatment requirements. For the purposes of this requirement, an
industrial user is in Significant Noncompliance if it meets one or more of the criteria listed in 40 CFR
403.8(f)(2)(vii).
10. The permii:tee must develop and maintain a ,data management system designed to track the status of the
industrial user inventory, discharge characteristics, and compliance. In accordance ,with 40 ,CFR 9
403.12(0), the permittee shall retain all records relating to pretreatment program activities for a minimum
of three years, , and shall make such records available to the Department and USEPA upon-request. The
permittee shall also provide public .access to infoJ;lIlation considered effluent data under 40 CFR Part 2.
. . ",.,' '
11. The permittee shall subniit by March 1 of each year, a report that describes the permittee's pretreatrrient
prograrri. diiringthe previous calendar year. The, content andformat,ofthis report shall be as e;stablished
" by the Department '" ," " ,
12. T1ieperriiitteeshaIl submit in writing to the Department a statement of the basis for any'pr~posed
modification of its approved program and a description of the proposed modification in accordance with
40 CFR 9 403'. 18(b). No substantial program modifications may be implemented by the permittee prior,
to receivi~g written authorization from the DeparJrnent ' ' ,
.....
I
,
"
, .
'"
"
. - "~. ,
" "
t_i~ i~f'.'i4;~~:~, .'
. ,.'<;"
"'" '.
.". ,,;.."
::!.. '';~: :'~..'r; :,:,::;: :. ')',:~." -
~ g..' ~,\f~l(s~,~,~~,~'\:,-l ~,~~'7:~~",-"j';;f:l"- t
~ '~.._J...,.~jJh,f '.~~'Lt'\
,!,:':(:';" ,,'" .'
'MIl
, ,
Date Received
JUN 22 I o<{
Planne, , ELJ
p,r~ 4-41
"':r~; ',I\~;'~F':~H:';;t~:<t: . ,<<I
'. '\. . . "l~'_ ~ : '-"': ;'~';"~".. \,1. ~~~~
I ':,
.,. ".."
File Number: 55999,'
Page IS of26 P~ges .
NPDES GENERAL CONDITIONS
(SCHEDULEF)
SECTION A. STANDARD CONDmONS
1.
Dutv to Comn,lv
. -.j .
,The pc;rmittee must comply with all conditions of this permit Any permit noncompliance constitutes a ' '
violation of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 468B.02Sand is grounds for enforcement action; 'for permit
termination, suspension, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application. ' ,
2.' Penalties for Water Pollution and Perrnit'ConditionViolations
, ,
, Oregon Law (ORS 468.140) allows the Director to impose civil penaItiesl.lp ,to $10,000 per'day for violation
of a term, condition, or requirement of a permit,' ,
',Inacidition, a peisoil who, unlawfully pollutes water as specified in ORS,468.943 or ORS 468.946 is subject
, "to criminal prosecution. ,', '. , ' "
. . ' ..'. '.' ,', .
. ,
3. Dutv to Mithmte '
" ,
, ,
TheperriJ.ittee shall take all reasonable steps ,to minimize ,or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal ,
in violation of this permit which has a reasonable' likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
enviroriment ,IIi addition, upon request of the, Departrnent, the permittee shall correct any adverse impact on
the environmentor human health resulting from noncompliance with this permit, including such accelerated
or' additional monitoring as necessary to det~rmine, the nature and' impact of the noncomplying disc~ge. ,
4. Dutv to Reaonlv
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulat'e~ by this permit after the expiration'date of this '
permit, the permittee must apply for and hkve the permitr~!1ewed; The application shall be submitted at
least 180 d~ys before the expiration date of this permit ' ' , '
, "
, '
The Director may giant permission to submit an application less than 180 days in advance but no later than
the permit expiration date.
5. ' Permit Actions,
, , '
This permit may be niodified, suspended, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause including, but not '
, limited to, the following:' " " '
a.
Violation of any term, condition, or requirement of this permit, a rule, or a statute;
~,
6.
, b. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all material facts; or ,
c, A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or peIl1!anent reduction or elimination of
the authorized discharge. '
. . The filing of l! request by the permittee for a permit modification or a notification of planned changes or
,:1., " anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition. ' ,
.J.' ,-".' ''\1'
't~~i~ polluta~~ ,- Date Rec~i\fel j
", Th~ P~qnitf~~ s.t~l,l comply with any ~ppllcableeffl~en~ stand~rds or p~ohib!tions establi~hJJi1 tln&~S~c~on
307(il) oftIie'Clean Water Act for tOXIC pollutants wlthm the time prOVided mthe regulations that establIsh
those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to inco~~~~nB~F
.')
. 1.1 , .~
"
File Number: 55999
Page 19 of26 Pages
7," Prooerlv Rights
.,!
The issuance of this permit does not convey' any PI?perty rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege.
, 8. Permit References
Except for effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act for'
toxic pollutants and,standar'ds for sewage sludge use or disposal established under Section 405(d) of the
'Clean WarerAct, all rules and statutes referred to in this permit are those in effect on the date this permit is
issued. " , ,
, SECTION B. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF POLLUTION CONTROLS'
1. Prooer OoerationandMaintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and '
control (and related appurtenances) which are instilled or used by,the permittee to achieve compliance with
the conditions of this permit Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls,
and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary
facilities or similar systems that are installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve
compliance with the conditions of the permit. ' '
, '
2. DutY to Halt or Reduce Activity
For industrial or commercial facilities, upon reduction, loss, or failure of the treatment facility, the permittee
shall, to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with its permit, control production or aU discharges or '
both until the facility is reStored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies,
for example; when the primary source of power of the treatment facility fails or is reduced or lost. It shall
,not be a d,efense fora permittee in an enforcement action that it would haVe been necessary to halt or reduce
the permitt~d activity in ord~r to maintain qompliance with the conditions of this permit ' '
3. BY1?ass of Treatment Facilities
,a.
Definiti'ons
:j, .
, ,
(I) "Bypass" means intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of the treatment,
facility. Theterm "bypass" does not include nonuse of singular or multiple units or
processes ofa treatment works wlien the nonuse is insignificant to the quality and/or
quantity of the effluent produced by the treatment works. The term "bypass" does not apply
,if the diversion does not cause, effluent limitations to be exceeded, provided the diversion is
,to allow essential maintenance to ~sure efficient operatioD.
, '
,(2), "SeYere property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the
treatment facilities or treatment processes which causes them to become inoperable, or
substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to
, occu,r in the abse~ce of a bYpass. Severe property damage does not mean ~n2mic,4lss '.
, ,,~~sed by delays In productIOn. " ,.' Uale Hecewed
; <I, llij _ ~:'\' \}~ I r'-!JpJ ,.' .... ,.' .
,'''" bl' ,",o, ProliibitiotJ. of bypass. " . JUN 2 2 oeb
, , / ~
',;' ";'6)11 Bypass is prohibited unless: ',", Planner: BJ
,',' ":~; ,,' ::"~'I,i(a) Byp~ was necessary to prevent loss of life;personal injury, or severe propertY
','I '.",,',1',' '<,. -." . :'., , " damage; , " 4 43'
"", ",;;" !i,n" :-'i"""(b) 'There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary -
. . .....~. .' .. - ,.." ., . . , ~
"-,,, .
.'
!'"
~,
. '
File Number: 55999
P!'-ge 20 of26 Paaes
. . ,',', -' .
periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup
equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering
, judgement to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment
: downtime or preventative maintenance; and " ' ,", , ,
(c) ,The permittee subIT(itted notic~s and requests as required und~r General C,ondition'
B.3.c.
(2) The D.irector may approv,e an anticipated byp~s, atter considering its a~verse effects and
l:lny'~ltp.m::l~ivp.~ tn hIT>;J.c(';ng. nr~p.~ thp',ni~rtnr rfetenn_,;nP'S'tb~.t..it.WilLmeet the_~...
conditions listed above in General Condition B.3.b.(I). ' '
c. Notice and request for bypass. "
(1)
, '
Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance ofthenee9 for a bypass; itshall '
submit prior written notice, if possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass.
Unanticipated bypass. 'The permittee shall.subrhit l)oticeof an unanticipated bypass as' "
required in General Condition D.5., ' ' , , - . '
, (2)
, ,
4. ' , Upset
a. Defmitiol\. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which th~re isui1intentionai and temporary
, noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitatiOns pecause .of factors beyond the
reasonable cOl)trol.ofthe permittee. 'An upset does not include noncompliance to the eXtent caused
by operation error, improperly desjgned treatment (acilities, inlldequate treatIpent facilities, lack of
preventative maintenance, or careless or improper operation., " , ~
"b, "Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with such technology based permit effluent limitatiorisiftherequirements of'
General Condition BA.c are met., No determination made during administrative review of clainis
that noncoinpliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is fi.rial .
administrative action 5ubjectto judicial review. '
, '
c. Conditions necessary for a de~onstration of upset. A permittee who wishes to establish the .
affirmative defense of upset shall demoQStrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence that " '
. " . 'j
'(1) An upsetoccurred'and that the permittee can id~ntify' the causes( s) of the ,upset;
, (2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly .operated;'
(3) The permittee submitted notice ofthevpset as required in General Condition D.5, hereof
(24-hour notice); and
(4), The permittee complied,with any remedial measures required under General Condition A.3
,',. hereof.', ' ,"
:1~!,;,l'~':,:1;1(i}':": ~:J~:~~en of proof. In any enforcemel\t proceeding the pe~ittee seeking to ~sta~lish ilie occ~enc~ '
, .~'" ~\U~f anupset has the burden of proof. ' D,ate Receive j
), ':"~" _\reatr;J'~?!'I?E..~inQ'!e Ooerational Event ',. " ,JU~ 2 21 oc(
... 'rt1.... ~I" 1"'- '
,.,1\ : For p~ose~'~fthiS permit, A Single Operati~nal,E,:ent ~hich l~~ds to simul:aneous 'R1f.~~~ ~i. ~ore .th~, n
one 'pollutant parameter shall be treated as a smgle Violation, A smgle operatIonal evqJlf'~@:!!\~1 tl1,J1
incident which causes simultaneous, unintentional, unknowing (not the result of a knowing act or omisslOn)4- 44
, .
if --,C'
" ;. ,,~ ,
.- " ./
File Number. 55999
Page 21 of26 Pages
if,
temporary noncompliance with more than one Clean Water Act effluent discharge pollutant parameter. A
single operational event does not include Clean Water Act violations involving discharge without a NPDES
permit or noncompliance to the extent caused by improperly designed orinadequate treatment facilities.
, Eac;h day ?f a single operational, event is a violation. '
6;
, '
, '
Overflows from Wastewater Conveyance SvstemsandAssociated PUmD Stations
'~'.
a. Defmitions
(1) "Overflow" means the diversion and discharge of waste streams from any portion of the
wastewater conveyance system including pump stations, through a designed overflow device
or structure, other than discharges to the wastewater treatment facility.
(2)
"Severe 'property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, daffiage to the ' '
conveyance system or pump station which caW!es them to become inoperable, or substantial
and permanentloss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the
absence of an overflow. '
(3) "Uncontrolled overflow" means the diversion of waste streams other than through a
designed overflow device or structure, for example to overflowing manholes or overflowing
, into residences, commercial establishments, or industries that may be connected to a
conveyance system. '
b. Prohibition of overflows. Overflows are prohibited unless:
(2).
Overflows were unavoidable to prevent an uncontrolled overflow, loss ofiife, l"".."..ai
. injury, or severe property damage;' , "
There were no feasible alternatives to the overflows, such as the use of auxiliaiy pumping or
conveyance systems, ormajdmization of conveyance system storage; and ,',
(1),
(3)
"
The overflows are the result of an upset as defined in General Condition B.4. and meeting
, all requirements of this condition. " '
, ,
c. Uncontrolled 'overflows are prohibited where wastewater is likely to escape or be carried into the
waters of the State by any means.' "
f' ,
")
d. Reporting required. Unless otherwise specified in writing by the Departnlent, all overflows and
uncontrolled overflows must be reported orally to the Departmentwithin 24 hours from the time the
permittee becomes aware of the overflow. Reporting procedures are described in more detail in
General Condition D.5. '
,7. Public Notification of Effluent Violation or Overllow
If effluent limitations specified in this permit are exceeded or an overflow occurs, uPon request by the
, Department, the permittee shall take such steps as are necessary to alert the public about the extent and
nature of the discharge. Such steps may include, but are not limited to, posting of the river at access points
and other pl~ces, news releases, and paid announcements on radio and television. Date Received
, 1; ..' ,,' .'. " .,~ 'lo..-'{ ,', ..., ,~-,"')
',:, '8:' ,:;. :;RemovedSuostances ' " " , JUN 2 d
, .' ' , " 2,6,
"S6lidWsludges, filter backwash, or other' pollutants removed in the course of treatment 6rc~!..of :
", W~,~Y'.a~e!'5, ~~alrbe dispos:d of i~ such a ma:u:er as to prev~nt any p~llutant from such m~tanfl e r' BJ
t~rt~rlhg:p'uphc waters, causmg nUIsance condloons, or creatmg a pubhc health hazard. ' , "," " ,
'..' _'J ,~': ,'!l ,r , ' ' , " , 4-45
\ '
':_'
};' .:'.~."
.'
, ,
File Nuinber:55999
Page 22'of26 Pages
SECI'ION C, MONITORlNGAND,RECORDS'
1: Reoresentative Samolinl\, ,
Sampling and measurements taken as required herein shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge; All samples shall be taken at the monitoring points specified in this permit and shall
, be taken, unless otherwisespecified, before the effluentjqins 9r,is diluted by any other-waste stream, body
of water, or substance. Monitoring points shall not b~ changed without notification to and the approval of
the Director. ' '
2. Flow Measurements
.' . 1
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods,consistentwith accepted scientific practices shall be ' ' '
selected and used to ensure the accuracy, and reliability of measurements of the volume of monitored
discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated and maintained, to insure that the accuracy of the
,measuremerits is consistent with the accepted capability ofthil~ type of device. Devices selected shall be
, capable of measuring flows with a maximum deviation of less than :l:;, 10 percent from h'\1e discharge rates
throughout the range of expected discharge volumes. '
" '
3. Monitorinl! Procedures
Monitoring must.be conducted according to test procedures approve'd ~der 40 CFR Part 136, unless other
test procedures have been specified in this permit. ' '.
4. Penalties ofTamoerinl!
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, qr lmowingly renders,inaccurate,
any monitoring device'or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be
punished by a fJ.1le of riot more than $10;000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than two years,
or by both. If a conviction ofa person.is .for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person;
punishment is a fiile not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or ~y imprisonment of not more than four
years or both. "
5. R~oortinl! ofMonitorinl! Results
Monitoring results shall be summarized each month on a Discharge Monitoring Report form approved by
the Department. The reports shall be submitted monthly and are tobe mailed, delivered or otherwise
transmitted by the 15th day of the following month unless specifically approved otherwise in Schedule B of
this 'permit. .,', "
6. Additional Monitorinl! bvthe Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently tIuln required by this permit, using test procedures
approv~d under 40 CPR 136 or as specified in this permit, theresults of this monitoring shall. be included in
the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the Discharge Monitoring Report. Such increased,
freql1ency shall,also be indicated. For a pollutant parameter that may be sampled more than once per day,
(e.g., Total Chlorine Residual), only the average daily value shall be recorded unless otherwise specified in
,this permit. '
'iF:'d:i~;;')iSiA:~efu~'~~cif~e~urements,., ", ' " ' , " ',' 'R "d
~:'€a\2Jiations for all limitations which require averaging ofmeasureme~ts shall utilize an an~~t~m~cel ve
except f~~;b,~cteria which shall be averaged as speCified in this permit. , 'JUN 2 2, ~~,
',: f ~', 1. :r~: I': , .,
.' , Pianner4,~J3J
,',
t. ,:
>.
File Number: 55999
Page 23 of26 Pages
8. Retention of Records
, Except for records of monitoiing information required by this permit related to the permittee's sewage
sludge use and disposal activities, which shall be retained for a period of at least five years (or longer as
required by 40 CFR part 503), the permittee shall'retain records of all monitoring information, in~luding all
calibration and Iflaintenance records of alI original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring ,
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by, this permit, and records ofalI data used to compl~te,the,'
application for this permit, for a period of at least 3 years from the date of the sample, measurement, report
or application' Thi. penon m.y hp eytpnnen hy ....'i"P<:t of the Directc- 0+ o~,:'..ti<-::,
9. Records Contents '
Records of monitoring information shalI include:
a. The date, exact place, time and methods of sampling or measurements;
, ,
,':~ ..
b. The individuil1(s) who perfoITned the sampling or measurements;
c. The date(s) analyses were performed;
d. ' The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
, ,
'e. The analytical techniques or methods Use!:!; and
f. ' The results of such analyses.
10. Insoectiori' and Entrv
~
" ,
, The perniittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized representative upon the presentation of credentials
to:-, ' ' , 'i" " ' ,
a. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located o~conducted, or
where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of
this permit;
c. Inspect at reascinabletimes any faciliti~s, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment),
practices" or operationS regulated or required under this permit, and '
, ,
d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for th~ purp~se of aSsuring permit compliance or as
otherwise authorized by state law, any substances or parameters at any location. Date Received
SECTION D. REPORTING REOumEMENTS
1.
Planned Chanll'es
~e permittee shalI comply,with Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 3~0, Division 52; "fJaoot}!:
and Specifications", Except where exempted under, OAR 340-52, no construction, instalIation, or
niq~jficaiion involving disposal systems, treatment works, sewerage systems, or common sewers shall be
commenced until the plans and specifications are submitted to and approved by the Department The
permittt:;elshall give notice to the Department as soon as possible of any planned physical alternations or,
additions to the permitted facility:' , ,
JUN 22tffl{
BJ
,;".r..:i:
".;.,
J'"\~' .
'.::'_':;..,.;f,
.,.-....';,:;.,
,t IJ. "11 -'I,
4-47
" ,,'
, ~
.
.
File Number: 55999
Page ,240f26 Pages
2. Anticioated NOlicomliliance
.. " The permittee shall,give advance notice to the Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility or
activity that may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. " ',' , '
3. Transfers
, , .
This pe~it may be transferred to a new permittee provided the transferee 'acquires a property interest in the
permitted activity and agrees in writing to fully comply with all the terms and conditions of the permit and
the rules of the Commission. No permitshall be transferred to a third party without prior written approval
from the Director. The permittee shall notify the Department when a transfer of property interest takes
, place. "
',4. Comoliance Schedule
"
, ,
'Reports of compliance or noricompliance with, or any progress repOrts on interim and final requirementS
c01).tained in any cOlIJpliance schedule of this permit shall be submitted no late, than 14 days'following each
schedule date. Any reports of noncompliance shall include the cause of noncompliance; any remedial
, , actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled requirements.
5. Twentv-Four Hour Reoorting
The permittee shall repOrt any noncompliance that may endanger health or the enviroilment. Any
" information shall be provided orally (by telephone) within 24 hours, unless otherwise specified in this,
permit, from th,e time the permittee becomes awa;e of the circumstances: During normal business hours, the
Department's Regional office shall be called. Outside of normal business hours, the Department shall be
contacted at 1-800-452-0311 (Oregon Emergency Response System). " " ~
A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the
'circumstances. If the permittee is establishing an affirmative defense of upset or bypass to any offense under
ORS 468.922 to 468.946, and in which caA~ if the original reporting notice was oral, delivered ~tten notice
'must be made to the Department or other agc1).cy with reg1,llatory jurisdiction within 4 (four) ,calendar days. '
, The written submission shall contain: '
a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b. The period of noncompliance, including eXact dates and times;
c. The estimated time non~ompliance is expected to co~tinue if it has not b~en corrected;
d.
Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance; and ,
';'"
':'e. ,)'ubllc notification steps taken, purSuant to General Condition B.7. ,
k.", '. "...,. --~L.. :~".,',II ,-!V,,,:-Z'I, " '
. ,,~, "", '/.0 " , ,
'TtJe following shall be included as infoiniation that must be reported within 24 hours under this paragraph:
.,'..', ','Ill. '
,a: Any unanticipated byPass Which exceeds any effluent limitation in this permit. ' .
.,;,,'(\:":,' "
: Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in this permit.
Violation of maximum daily dischar~~ limitation for any o'fthe' pollutants listed ~e0eived
this permit. " , ',' ,
, , . . b b' 'f' th' I ' h' b JUN 2 2~ Dl(
The Department may waive the wntten report on a case- y-case aslS 1 ,e ora report as een receIve" "
within 24 hours. ' Pi-WJ
" anner:4T
,'b:
,~,
c.
,,'
r '
.
.
File Number: 55999
Page 25 of26 Pages
6. Other Noncomoliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported under General Condition D.4 or D.5
at the time monitoring reports are submitted. The reports shall contain: ',', ,,'
, a ' A descrjption of the noncompliance and its cause;
b.
, ,The period of no~compliimce, including exact dates and times;
~,' - '
c. The ,estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected; and
d. Steps take'n or pllinned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
" ,7. ' Dutv to Provide Information
, The permittee shan furnish to the Department, within a reasonable tiine, any information that the ,
Department may request to determine compliance with this permit The permittee shall also furnish to the
Department, upon request, copies of records re'luired to be keptby this permit
Other Information: When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit
application, or submi~edincorrect information in a permit application or any report to the Department, it ,
shall promptly submit such facts or information.,
.'
8. ' Silmatorv Reauirements
All applications, reports or information submitted to the Department shall be signed and certified in -(
accordance with 40 CFR 122.22.
9. FalsificationofInforrnatiori
0,
~.;
. '
A person who supplies the Department with false information. or omits material or requiredinfo~ation, as'
specified in,ORS 468.953 is subject to criminal prosecution, ,
10, ChanlZest6Indirect DischarlZers - [Applicable to Publicly Owned Treatment WC)rks (pOTW) only]
The,permittee must provide adequate notice to the Department of the following:
a. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be ,
subject to section 301 or 306 of the Clean Water Act if it.were directly discharging those pollutants '
and; , '
11.
Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutantS being introduced into the POTW ~ '
a sotirce introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the pe~it ' >
For the purposes of this paragraph, adequate notice shall 'include infonnation on (1) the quality an~
quantity of effluent introduced into the POTW, and (ii) any anticipated impact of the-cl1ange on thiiQ)
quantity or quality of effluent to be disch~ged from the POTW,' a:
Chan~es. t~ Dischar~es of Toxic Pollutant - [Appl!cable to existing manufacturing, coinmercial, minin~
ancl~!IYlc!!It)1.ral:dlSchargers only] , 0
-j'.. Ii"" ":"", _
The permittee inust notify the Department as soon as they know or have reason to believe of the following:
'.', ;.'
'1 ,
, That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or
frequent b;LSis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed 4-49
I 'th~ hi "he;rr nfthe follnwin" "nntification levels:
b.
c.
a.
. r~;. /.. ~
. -0,.
'."",
=
.
a:
,~ "
jb,
..... (1:
C">
Q<l b
:z C
~
-, <<
~
a.
/ ~
. 't
.. " ~. . ' .. '. ,.
, File Number. 55999
Page 26 of26 Pag.es
(1) One hundred micrograms per liter (100 figIL);
(2) Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 fLitI-) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred
micrograms per liter (500 fLgIL) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-{6-dinitrophen~l;
and one milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony; ,
(3) Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit
application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or ' " ' ,.'
(4) The level established by the Department in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(1). "
b, That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, ona non-routine or
infrequent basis, 'of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following "notification levels',': ' '
(1) " Five hundredmicrograms perliter (500 ~g/L);
(2) One milligram per liter (1 mgIL) for antimony;
(3) Ten (10) times the r=dnium concentration value reported f;r that pollutant in the permit
application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or ' '
(4) The level established by the Department in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(1).
SECTION E. DEFINITIONS
,0(
BOD means five-day biochemical oxygen demand.
TSS means total suspended solids~
mg/L means milligrams per liter.
~means kilograms. '
m Id means cubic meters per day.
, MGD means million gallons per day.
Composite sample means a sample formed by collecting and mixing discrete samples taken periodically and ,
based on time or flow. '
FC means fecal colifermbacteria.
Technology based permit effluent limitations mell!l5 technology-based treatment requirements as defined in
40 CFR 125.3, and concentration and mass load effluent limitations that are based on.minimum design
, criteria specified in OAR 340-41. "
1 O. _t.~. CBOD means five day carbonaceous biochemical'oxygeri demand. ' ,,'
J "
11. ':;: Grab sample means an individual discrete sample collected over a period of time not to exceed 15 minutes.
12. ',~ ,Quarter means January through March, April through June, July through September, or October through
, December. ' '
13. ' .~- , Month means calendar month.
~ 14. ' . Week means a calendar week of Sunday through Saturday.
15.;;i' Total residual cWorine means Combined chlorine forms plus free residual chlorine. "
16.;:-:; The term "bacteria" includes but is not limited to fecal coliform bacteria, total coliform bacteria, and E. coli
, bacteria.
POTW means a publicly owned treatment works.
1.
2.
3.,
4. '
5.
6.
7.
I"
8.
9.
17.
Date Rece\vec',
',<
JUN 2 21~+
PI~nner: e1
Updated 2-5-02 PN 107381,der
"r' '
, .,'
, , ,
ATTACHMENT ,3
'MWMCDRAFT 05-06-04
MEETING MINUTES
, I
, "
" ,~,"'. " - . ",.1-:1\' : .' ~ '.' ,'t~l,
. \"',.~ , . ') ,
, '1'" I;
.. :~., ,'I: t .
'"
'; . , . ~'_':':::" ,;,,; .)I,I~,; ,It.."
,-
", ,.J:. \<'
....;:'",,:' ~;<,.'
,;. ,~ -.
, Oate Received
J\.JN 2'2 (DLt
, ,." ,-" 00,': r:
r., ~ ~"',~'_;ii'1 ,!t-,l' ,
. ?:q~ ~Y-.'~ , 4-51
, I "t",,"'
.~ ? 't'
~, -.. '
_'11,
, Date Received
, JUN 221uf
;>~. Planner:' BJ
, , '4-i2
:~ "
'"),. r
, .',' ,\ . r J' '),~ "," .,., J .
, ',.:.- 1/. t~"" "'-\,"1'" r
' ,,'" I _I,lc'
, -"',\,'.
, '"
r '
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
~ .~ji....~
" '
partners in wastewater 'management
MEMBERS
PRESENT: "
MWMCMEETING
"Thursday, 7:30 a.m., May 't~'
Springfield Library Mee :,,' ooin '
Anne Ballew
STAFF IN ,
ATTENDANCE:
, DaveBreitenstein'
- Dan Brown
Gary Colwell
Bob B '
Do
Susie Smith
teve Templin
, ' b Sprick
Ken Vanderford
Tonja Kling
Len Goodwin
Bill Bennett
, GUESTS:
~
Date Received
JUN 22 I o1-f
Planner: BJ
I.
CONSENT CALENDAR
,a. MWMC 04-22-04 Meeting Minutes
b. Contract Award for Financial Advisor Services, Resolution 04-08'
it '\'j;\-.''':t,,;::lte'rT1;.1::b. was removed from the Consent Calendar in,order to allow discussion.
. , Commissioner Morrison asked what was the hourly rate of the Financial Advisor Services selected.
,t>J1s. :Smith:i~~.icated the figure was not readily available but staff would have the answer before the'
\. ""':'~"':;- . : ,:
,i.} -':/ll/.":, ::u-
,. ,I F"~:.._: ~~. ,'II, ~, d~ \
\ ., \J.\~~I\Jn:;'I"C:::\"(,,"r..tI\...t1C:::U\AAI~IIITr::c:::\nJ:::_n~ nA nt'''''''
4-53
lJ_" C ."",,,
,._'"
.-',
: - '1 ,
end of the meeting. Commissioner Morrison also asked if funds were budgeted in the current
budget. Ms. Smith indicated there were no monies in the current fiscal year specifically budgeted
foi'these services. However, in the Regional Wastewater portion of the Finance Department's
budget there is about $7,000 budgeted in Contractual Services that will be used to start the
consultant's services: In the FY 04-05 proposed budget, there is $40,000 Qudgeted. The service;
of the consultants will be to prepare for a bond issuance July 1, 2005.' '
, IT WAS MOVED SY COMMISSION KEELER TO APPROVE T
MEETING MINUTES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMM
PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. '
PRIL 22, 2004, MWMl
ER EVANS. ' MOTIO~
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment. '
III: MWMC FACILITIES PLAN &20-YEAR PRIft c
President Ballew opened the Pubiic Hea~ing.
ar said that, rega'rding odor control, the Plan mentioned new 14'
. ,,_. ..'..._......... .. ........... ....... n. ..... ..--........_ __ ..... __....
,
f' ,
/"
required by the NPDES, permit arid, increasing wastewater flows and loads generates more solids. ,
Ms. ,Cuellar said t/:1is is performance because of the ammonia reguirement and would be billed
differently because of that.' , ,
, NOTE: At this point, Commissioner Meyer was connected to the meeting via conference call.
Ms. Cuellar stated she had one more issue and that is that she had no clue the Facilities
document (Plan) existed until she met with Eugene staff the previous wf!e and she called to '
request a copy of the Plan. However, when she called, there were n es available for the
, public and, staff had not decided how they would make copies or ch to charge. She stated
she is grateful for the copy she got in a few hours for $60. Her' hat'there was a hearing
the previous week and these documents needed to be avail ' blic and the public needs
to know these documents exist long before the public hea' "
..:",.1!..
" -.., I '., ,,"-,'//' 1-
r. 'I,: .' .. '. ~\_; .~, .
. V'U::N\l1~().~\^r.()^AI\~L~I-lUl.ltlNIITJ=~\n~n~_I'\d.,n('\~
Camilla Pratt '120 Westbrook Way, Eugene, member of the WWFMP CAC. Ms. Pratt said she
questioned how much the public is Willing t6 be educated and this Plan is very basic, public
service. She urged the Commission to accept the staff's recommendation. ,She s~ated she had a
-' ,;,.;trer:n~nq()l,Js"WV~urt of respect for all the people that put in time on this praatffQ/11Q~.Q. ~h.e d
. , CommissioK'a'pproved tl)e Plan as it beats being sued into submission. nt::lit::lve,
JUN 22,1'
PI 4-55
, anner: BJOM'
", 1,'1'\1-"
" \' l_:' :' ,t. I:,: ~.~ ;! : ,
: 'L
.
'"
. \ '1
,
PhiliD FarrinGton, Director, Land Use Planning and Develop~ent, PeaceHealth Oregon RE3gion.
Mr. Farrington stated that PeaceHealth is interested in insuring that adequate infrastructure will b:
available to meet current needs and future demands for planned health care facilities and that the
community's environmental stewardship objectives are met as well. He commented that
PeaceHealthwill be paying a significant amount in SDCs and are also major contributors towards
the standard rate structure and will be paying towards improvements one way or the other. He
stated that the 2003 increase to the SDC resulted in nearly a 50% increase in SDCs and the
, proposal, now proposed would result in yet another SDC increase' of 780 He commented ,on
DEQ's'evaluation of MWMC's NPDES permit which identified that th ',"" operated at 60%
design capacity in dry weather, 42% during wet weather period a etrbpolitan Public
Facilities Plan ,Was adopted as part oHhe Metro Plan under the , tion, consistent with the
previously approved MWMC Facilities Plan, that there is ade, ,l!J ,ca': ,'in the regional
wastewater plant to meet projected grQwth through the'pl . im' period. aid it appeared that
much of the basis for the projects that are proposed in t, cilities Plan aF ,,' , address thermal
loading and peak flows during wet weather. Mr. Fa . ~L said the wet wea e" sue is
addressed by reducing inflow and infiltration (III) ,Hermalloading is addresst,<1!lll ith a new
'river outfall. He stated that his concern is!hat th osed solutie s describe a ~IL~ortionate
burden to new development to add ress both of thes blem . elieved the ineffiCIent existin I
sewer pipes and connections should have the regulat u ,borne by all system users and
ratepayers; and not a disproportionate a unt by new d ment.
arrington d wh pened to the capacity identified in previously adopted plans?
He e information e th,!lJ.,ut he had a hard time following it. He asked 'if there had
been m,' growth sincet ,il970r. the 2001 Metro Public Facilities Plan? He also asked'
what pro's s there wen~ ~~DC creclits and how are they determined. Another question he
asked was ' 'the local SD~~~ tes match up with other communities or how would the rates
compare beMee" ities for em residential SDCs. Mr. Farrington asked about SDC rates
" increasing again' ne t re or if this is the last time these rates are going to be increased
, :" through this planni ' e I He said it is not clear to him the basis for the percentages that are
alloCated,togrowth in WMC Facilities Plan 20-Year Project List, Regarding the Project List,
Mr. Farrington said a new bank site outfall is identified and 38% of,that is described as new growth '
but he asked if a lll3w outfall that is established to address issues of mixing in receiving waters and
allow for:potentlciU,euse be appropriately described as being as responsibility of all ratepayers. He '
didn't fe,elttie',ou, tf,alh~as a consequence of growth, doesn't directly relate, to caPAc~~ or,~~k_f151Y' I d
, reE,uq~io.n .oR:pe.rh,~p~ not to a 38% proportion. ,Mr. Farrington stated that Peaceua~~W!e
reuse 'concept and are looking to accept reclaimed wastewater at the Cottage Grove Community
Hospital s!te,,anglthey would be,'a willing custome~ if that opportunity arose in this areMJN 22 I Dtf
, ......-1'(..,;
I . \ :"",... "10. -.
...11 . "t~~:, \I.!t,~ ;1 t
. ",..-,.. n___' ............... ""'" ........ ,............................. ,...,......,..
""Plann~~~~~J
f' ,
~ "
Mr. Farrington said that; while MWMC should reduce the risk of sewage overflows, ill may
be a contributor and new growth represents a nominal part of that problem., Therefore, 'new
development is shouldering a disproportionate financial burden for addressing this III. He said ,
PeaceHealth is going to be paying large sums to this community towards the improvements that '
are needed and they acknowledge the improvements that all applicable requirements and laws are'
met and the infra~tructure is going to be available to support current needs and future,
development. Peace Health appreciates the work put forth by MWMC, stgff, consultants, and
citizen volunteers who worked on this important project.
Joshua Skov. Member of sot CAC. Mr. Skov said that osed Facilities Plan
protects quality of life. MWMC has fulfilled its responsibility n nts with responsive,
thorough and transparent public process; and the SOCs gelJe' ed by t ,thodology and
Facilities Plan are low by any reasonable standard or b ~!tl ark. He sai urrent plan will
, address growth in Lane County and rising water qua' uirements. Wate afil', water quality
issu,~~ are incr~as,ingly becomin~ a concem in ma~~/,I g a ~uality of life. He ~ d that the
FacllItles'Plan is Vital to addreSSing the needs of mmumty,
~:..'~;~~<i~i~~:
.. ',,~' ."~, Ms. Smith introduced Matt Noesen and Shawn Clark from CH2M Hill who would be ,
"" responding to the comments received, Commissioner Morrison requested a copy of the list of
, people that received notices. Mr. Noesen covered two topics. One was in response to' "
, ,Commissione~ Morrison'~.reque~t for additional data analysis and the s_irn)NaaJ~ i.QQ~at
, ~t'1ii~r.8Jr,rsP<?~clJq;the submitted wntten comments.,' ,m::t,;t:m!~U
, JUN 2 2 / /){
Planner: BJ 4-57
Mr. Skov commented that MWMC has done excel
'"
, ,0 , I.\l \1
'..." :':" ,
.~.
.. ::.,;,~},,~;.:, ,,' ~~ .';..',il;'\:t~I~\"'7"~~
" ,'- ' V:\FNvIRi1~V\C[)~MI~J;nMINIITF~\n!>.nR..n.d nnr.
._,___~~n_ ___ . , _ .
.
U':l\l I::l: ")'\(\11
~,
, I "
, '.
Regarding Commissioner-Morrison's question on what frequency does the historical data
bump up against the dry season 49 mgd and wet seaSOn 75 mgd , Mr. Noesen said that the
information was mailed to the Commissioners earlier in the week. A statistical analysis was donu
to look at what percent of the time the historical flows were above the 49 mgd rating and 43.8 is
the current utilized capacity in the SDC methodology. When you look at that, 2.1 % of the time th"
historical data was above the 49 mgd and looking at the number used for the current utilized
capacity, 12.5% of the time historical data was above. Looking at the wet season; which is 75
mgd, 21.1 % of th.e time ~he historical data wa~ above that val~e. .C~m '. ~ti~g on CBOD ,
(carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand), Mr. Noesen said this I ,.ndlcator of fluid strengtJ-
coming into the treatment facility. It does not capture ammonia, " ." another-parameter '
pollutant that is now in the NPDES permit and which does use' bit of existing and
available capacity, Looking at Total Suspends Solids (TSS)~..., lated capacity is 2.5% 0;
, the time of the historical period is greater than the rated ri and 7. the time in the
current rated capacity. "
Mr.
e standard in Oregon for summe,
ery 10 years, it is considered a 1
. Thl 1 standard in the Water
EQ s'- :mitted a letter stating that
, a d based on maximum flows
, , ,
, '
" ,
Regarding the comparison of the 1997 Master Plan and the 2004 Facilities Plan, Mr.
Noesen said there are significant differences in the two analyses.' For dry season flow, there is an
11'%~~9,iff~~,r.r, g~;j9:R.?Py.'atio, n'as well as a 9% decrease. in per capita. values thatililP. i~~}rIflLecting' d'
flows;' M~, Noesen also commented on the use of maximum month Instead of aWattG ""~CeIV~
assessiQgcapacity!, The DEQ letter (attached) states that maximum flows (monthly, jlXeekly, and
daily) need to be looked .at when assessing capacity, which is what has been done in'~~~04IiIf
, ,
- ,
, ~. ,. ;'"",', '
<t: '_"'1'.1. .-.' 1
..,l.....""...,.........'^.................Jlt"'Ln.,...t1r'?"......,^t:' "^ ".. ..............
.;:~,.. .,10,
Planner:'4~
. . . .0_..'" ^........~
r'
Facilities Plan and the SDC methodology.- Mr. Noesen said the capacity assessment that is in the
, NPDES fact sheet was from 1996 when the staff submitted the permit renewal application to DEQ.
Staff took information from the 1997 Master Plan, which was under development at the time. It
, took a number of years for DEQ to re-issue the permit and DEQ kept that 1996 data sheet and
never re-evaluated it. There is a 12% increase in the maximum peaking factor between the 1997
data and today. '
Mr. Noesen said a critical point is CBOD and TSS are now ac .
ammonia. Ammonia and thermal load are now in the permit and t
permit in 1996, when the capacity assessment was done for th
SDC methodology was being evaluated, ammonia and the
p'arameterS. Mr. Noesen said the reason these could not be
(industrial, residential, and commercial) is because the
implement SDCs and monthly user rates for these tw
ammonia versus removing one pound of CBOD is
captured in the current data but was not part of tli
oner Morrison asked when DEQ
flows instea'd of average flows'
as changed in 1991, and in 1996
n was not submitted to DEQ for review, '
. , '-, ~
like the 2004 Facilities Pla~\:The 2004
m accordance with DEQ' guidelifi~s since the
, ,
, Mr. Noesen t ewed the dry season maximum month flow historical and projected
data. He said DEQ, ha statistical method to arrive at the 1 O-year dry season and five-year wet
season'data and staff is in ongoing discussions with DEQ to Lise the Plan's projections, which are
conservative, instead of DEQ's numbers, which would be even more conservative. He commented'
that the~??4 Fapilities PI~n !s based on projections that are reaS?nable, lo..QAt&Reteived
'_,' "de~elopeal!~119.,97, and significantly lower than what DEQ would like to be used.' "', '" ..
','.y",':~rh' , ,,' , , ,', ' JUN.22/~~
"";i;.'ql Iii"::: ',~.
",'- 'l, , Planner: BJ
.'. ",-", ",.,,;~-ii' 4-59
~. ",.If _. >. ,.... ~l I
,\I.\c:":hlloi-..c-\^,r:~~A'.':lICU\.AI"IlITC:c:"\"C: nQ nA ......1"'\1"
" ",." """..(
.._..,.. "1'11'\'
, "
Commissioner'lrige asked what the impact would be for facilities that needed to be b~i1t if
the projections were raised or lowered. Mr. Noesen said one ofthings that could be impacted
would be the phasing of the tertiary filters, 'It wouldn't necessarily enable the Commission to get r d
of, or have more filters, but would impact when they would need to be built, and may not impact
what needsto'be built at all. "
, Regarding th~ allocations, Mr. Noesen said that the allocations that have been developed
are a combination of what is ,in Chapter 8 of the Facilities Plan, plus w~~ in the SDC
methodology. The actual allocation of the 20-Year project List will all~e the cost of those
projects between growth and existing users. The development of I.'rrin Chapter 8 of the
Facilities Plan and some of the numbers that are used in applyi . a orne from the SDC
methodology.
's letter., This is a
} '_ Looking at the
MC could divert to new, different technology in a few years
'a ,"ities Plan is a "road map" and is designed to'be flexible,
ITWA <
PLAN AND 20-
EVANS.
. MISSIONER ME'(ER TO APPROVE THE MWMC FACILITIES
LIST. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
, '
if the motion could reflect approval of Resolution 04-04.
, ,
, ,
, IT WAS,MOVED BYCOMMISSIONER MEYER TO APPROVE RESOLUTioN 04-04. THE
. , ' . l , . 4' ",-_, ' .
,,""fMOTIONWASISECONDED BY COMMISSIONER EVANS. THE MOTION PASSED WITH 6
VOTIN~f9!~(THE MOTION AND ONE (COMMISSIONER MORRISON) oPPcfJate Received
, , JUN 2 2 /Jtf
: t~~ ,'..\ l~'~::~~j i, -j.
Piann.e.r~j~J
r' :, I
, .
"
/',
ConimissionerPoling stated that he believed staff, the consultants and the assistantS
involved in this project have put in a lot of time. He said this is an extremely technical information
and his primary reason for voting in favor of the Resolution is to move forward. He said, he was not
totally convinced that MWMC is going down the right road but MWMC is not absolutely "married" to
this master plan. With different population growths and advancement in technology, it can be
changed if necessary. He added that he is voting yes but he is not totally convinced that this is the
right path at this time. He said MWMC did an excellent job ,in getting the word out to people. The
people receive it~ but they don't pay attention to it until it is up for a fina 'te.
. He said he appreciated
e an extensive look at this
doing the right thing.
At this point, Commissioner Meyer had to terminate the conferenc
the hard work done by staff. The very, best consultants were hi
project 'and he was confident that CH2M Hill did good work
" ' '~
',' " - "
, Ms. Smith made some comments on the riext ste' so, d where
She reminded the Commissioners that the preferred ,~, selected by, them
system-wide set of improvements. As the Plim morwardand 1s approve
officials of the governing bodies, it will also be g I', rough a D review proce
that DEQ will require additional improvements.
oes from here.
least cost
e elected
is possible
IVa.
IVb.
ear Project List was closed:
Commissioner Keeler commente '
change his vote, is that such a g~od jo,
that to become something that is so wel
, that standard. He,requests that staff kee
Ms.
Budget/Capita
, combined 'as on
staffselected the
~
,"
:"','i;".-'<;:>'~; ,
, ,
,1"'"
-",;,;
, ,
,V:IENVIROS\ACOMMISHIMINUTESI05-06,04,DOC
q
M~v R. ?nn.d.
'-,
r -,
, I '1
, '
No one responded and President~allew closed the PublicHearing.
Commissioner Keeler indicated that, because he was not at the previous Cor:nmission
meeting, he didn't have an understanding where each Commissioner wanted to go as far as the
user rate was concemed. President Ballew answered,that the Commissionwas waveringbetwee n
the 24% and 38% increase. Ms. Smith told Commissioner Keeler that she did state that the 12%
increase was preferred by him so that it would be in the record. At this point, President Ballew
polled the Commissioners regarding their preference. After further dis sion, the Commission
members present settled on the 24% increase option.
IT WAS MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KEELER TO AP .
AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 2004-~a
CURRENTl YAND ADOPT THE 24% USER RATE INCR S' ,WHIC
RESOLUTIONS 04-05 AND 04-06. THE MOTION WA. .':: ONDED B
POLING.
_ Mr. Colwell inte~ected that the septage ra
recommended an increase to $.102 per gallon for s
COMMISSIONER KEELER AM
SEPTAGE RATES TO $0,102 PER G
WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONE
..
. ED TO SEPARATE THE TWO MOTIONS FOR
E MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
,USlY. '
':?Se the first motiC!, iJid not include coriside'ration of the septage rates, it now stood as
stat~d:"Com~'" . ner Balle "'ailed for a vote on the motion made by Commissioner Keeler,
, , I ' '
seconded by Co 'i ' ing, to approve, the MWMC Budget and Capital Impn?vement
Program for FY 20 documented currently and adopt the 24% user rate increase, which
is scenario 0, in Reso s 04-05 and 0'4-06. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
, t:,:1: .
, ";"biscussion followed on septage rates.
, , '
"\-~"'~;:J,{I;nWAS~MOVECi BY COMMISSIONER INGE TO INCREASE THE SEPTAeate.J8eceIVed
, . RATE CONSISTENT WITH THE INCREASES IN THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL INCREASES (24%) UNDER SCENARIO D.." ,JUN 22 I D~
" ,
1 /t;:.,
..
!' .~
.,j ':
Planner: BJ
4-y2 ,
ll.....c: ""~,,
..._._.......................n.......n...........r""........... ^....... .............
,
(' I ,
, .
~ -",
/' '
Ms. Smith requested thatpart of the motion make clear that the Commission is waiving a
previously established Commission policy guiding septage rates. COMMISSIONER INGE
AGREED TO THE INCLUSION IN THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER EVANS. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr: Colwell indicated that the schedule attached to Resolution 04-06 needed to have the
septage rate removed from Exhibit A of the Resolution. This rate didn't need to be on the schedule
since the cities do not implement the rate, only the treatment plant. He' icated the rate would be
approximately $1.10 per gallon under the Scenario D increase.
President Ballew called for discussion: Seeing
methodology was adopted on April 1 ,200:l1 and the 200
were approved earlier in the meeting. '
mean that the septage
'issioner Evans indicated
Commissioner Inge also clarified that his motion was int
hauler rate will continue to increase consistent with the other.,
that was her understanding as well.
Ms, Smith indicated that staff will bring back a '
, ,V. FY 04-05 SDC CHARGES
ndicated that the SDC
ies Plan and 20-Year Project list
IV.
,
Contract Awar, W . ,,:ofessional Financial Advisor (Item 1.b. removed from the
onsent CalencF~);! Ms.. commented that Commissioner Morrison had requested
~hourly rate for~. Financral Advisor Contract and said it was $165 per hour, She,
,l&!~q that MWMC 1A(11 receive the services of two partners and the intent of CJtIDg these,"""')
sernlr~ is to max' .~, the amount of the work that canbe done intemally, se~ng the lID
~ experffi - , a ners provide, , , ' ""0; I~: ;.:
IT WAS M, BY COMMISSIONER POLING TO APPROVE ITEM 1,b. TH~ ~ ' ~
MOTlqN WAS SECONDED BY COMMISS'IONER KEELER~ MOTION PASS~: C
,', " . ,UNANIMOUSLY. ,,'0) ~ <tS
~---~~~, "~~v,f ~~: _,' hj =-=--
,', ~;::,ni 3H,M,DRuffier informe,d the Commissioners that on May 151 the plant was made aQ of a (l,
," "',' Rt-,J" I "'leak from the force main at the Irving Station. The flow was controlled and channeled
, ",' .into a manhole in the sanitary system so there was no exposure to the public. OEa has
," .'f "been notified and concurrEiJd that the plant could take more time to work out a plan to
,~
: I. --"","; .t. ;
,!. ' .' '. f ", _ " ~'.. il
\/'\1="\/1 "n!"\^(YlMMI!~H\Ml"'ITF!';\nfi-l1R-114,n(1r.
11
4-63
tvlav 6, 2004
. "
,.,...
f , '\
, '
deal with this. The leak was in an area that is complicated with a lot of utilities,difficult :0
get to, plus 'part of it is in the County and part in the City. Mr. Ruffier didn't feel this
would be 'recorded as a violation to the permit. '
Mr. Breitenstein, Wastewater Plant Manager, added that by actirigresponsibly, It is not
considered a violation and the plant has not been issued a Notice of Noncompliance in
, regards to reported overflows.' . ,
c. Mr.Ruffi~r said the first pha~e of. the poplars hav~ be~n PI~ Ms. Smith added her
appreciation to Steve Templin, Blocycle Farm Project ~r, who has worked' '
extremely hard on this project. '
..'~
"-;...
"~.
.,.~.:.
...:--
-,
:_'~,
~
!"r,
-1','"
'. ':;: d.
>,
. eres ~ m the Farm Bureau and
iroweation on exclusive farm used
~oplar farm was a good risk
'\..
Mr. Ruffier nded the Commission about the Wastewater Division being accepted into
EPA's Performance Track Program and commented that he attended a meeting of the
program participants. He will bring information to the Commission at a future date.
",.lr~
.....,~
.jj, '
, '
t' , ' " ,
. ,'e., Ms. Smith indicated that anupdated Governing Bodies calendar was ~Q~~Aiv. ed '
, ,Commissioners. She said she would be contacting some of the Comllrll~'~Mr~'t'd"s~~ I '
, ',:hey could accompany staff to some of the scheduled meetings with the ot!MltJ 8jl~%i1fS'
,Planner:4iJ
I
.._., t:' '"I...~A
,
f' ~.'
, ,
. "
The Facilities Plan is now the Commission's Plan. The calendar will continually be
updated. '
f. In light of all the activities going on~ Com'missioner Inge inquired on the status of filling
the Public Information and Education Specialist'position vacated by Rachael Diliman.
How is MWMC,going to get the education and information to the public during the interim
search for a replacement? Ms. Smith said the position was currently being advertised. It '
will not be filled in time for the adoption process, but as the d 'gn process proceeds
'and before any type of dirt turning occurs..the position will, led., "
,Commissioner Inge asked how much notice the publi.~~~ ' ", garding the rate increases, ..'~ ':
Mr. Ruffier indicated the City of Eugene will send W ' roct " and flyer with " .,..'.
information on the rate and there will be a pub Ii "ecifmg. Ms. 'th indicated that '
Eugene Citizens will get more advanced notic )3 use of the tl ':,}o put information '
in an EWES bill. She indicated she was 10 -mto whether or nd~i2fii.ngfield could get
earli~r billin~ information sent out with t~ . bills an? the answer ~o.~Ublic ' ,
heanng notices are posted and Ms. S ;,~, aid that a dl!!)l!ay ad could b.ln the ,
newspaper. She also added that staff is ' . g wi "!J, ews media to g'ffadditional
coverage on the adopted plans. '
g.
h.
good and hard work that has been don,e by
, ers. He said "today was a culmination of a
',: .;; \.FJL .
Next meeting:
Thursday, June 24, 2004
, 7:30 a.m. ,
, "
Springfield Library Meeting ,Room
Date Received
JUN 2 2 ,D~
Planner: ,BJ
. . '1', "'~.i~ ';,V" .r)',~ I 1.\':r'!C\~ "
1".....' I' ,t.., \11.... J; 1._, 't' "'f '
, .., -T '.... J'. . 'U.' , . ~~..I _
l" ',(
':,..~_\".'.,!'i'" \;/~,'~:~ .
II \~'q (" ...,.~L,,_
"',:'.!' \ '4" .
.,
, ; ~ ,
, '
","'.
4-65
\1,\~""""n"'~\^""""""lUUe-U\l""1I rrr=~\ru:: 1"l0 I'\A nr'll'''''
,"
'J_,.O ,,)/"1""
./,,' ,\'
, '
.
"
~ " 'f'j'
'1.\ ~ I I
Date Received
JUN 22 r4 '
I '
Planner: BJ
\<"~,,,':':'r'\ ",:,.' '] , -
, .. I " Jl~,h""'''~{
. ' .-4''\ ~,..;. . ,J; '. ,
" ,lj ,.~ ' .-
. ',/-,,""'.' 'r.... i-I.{"'W .
. ,,,> ,,{, 'I !-\~Ii! ..,.,
4-(6
;' \, ~Dept. of Land Conservr' 1 and Development 660 011
-, .-
Page L of 11
OREGON SECRETARY OF STATE
, ',' "Oregon State Archives, ' Iii 11
~"_ , ,"_ ,;', -' ---- " ',- ,) .1';'
, ,;,tm!ij.w~gJs!i!tlyet.'j[:re,COf~$:r:r!9lj'ltJJ!!;ii'geOea!QgY!!!l{",g0Y~mQ,r.i,~ .' ""J,
""'>Wi, "",-,,';,jiI;;"""''''''''f1;'''l' Idlii- >,,' -tEflCeir- ,. J(r'-r-oVt'illii'';;cwelrexliJlillS?''''''tOu-;'';'''~~
"""""'_"....___~~..Q,'g$...... ,,9, _IN, .. gL9.. .__, ___ -- ,~="..J;,'- ,,'
1
The Oregon Administrative Rules contajn OARs flled through,February 13, 2004
LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT
DMSION 11
PUBLIC FACll..ITIES PLANNING
,
660-011-0000
Purpose
, '
The purpose of this division is to aid in achieving the requirements of Goa] ] I, pub]ic'Facilities and Services, OAR 660-0]5' ,
OOOO(] I), interpret Goal] 1 requirements regarding public facilities and services on rural lands, and implement ORS 197,712
(2)(e), which requires that a city or county shall develop and adopt a public facility plan for areas within an urban growth
boundary containing a population g1;eater than'2,500,persons. The purpose of the plan is to help assure that urban '
development in such urban growth boundaries is guided and supported by types and levels of urban facilities and services
appropriate for the needs and requirements of the urban areas to be serviced, and that those facilities and services are
provided in a timely, orderly and efficient arrangemen~ as required by Goal 11. The division contains definitions relating to a
, public facility plan, procedures and standards for developing, adopting, and amending such a plan, the date for submittal of
the plan to the Commission and standards for Department review of the plan. '
[ED. NOTE: The goal referred to o~ hlcorporated by reference in this rule i.s avail~ble from the agency,]
Stat.' Auth,: ORS 183 & OAR ] 97 '
Stats. Imp]emented: ORS 197,712
Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. ]0-]8-84; LCDD 4-1998, f. 8i. cert. ef. 7-28-98
660-011-0005
Date Received
JUFJ 2 2 I o~
Planner: 'BJ
Definitions
" (I) "Public Faci]ities Plan":' A public faeiiity plan is a support document or doc~ents to a comprehensive plan, The facility
, plan descnbes the water, sewer and transportation facilities which are to support the land uses designated in the appropriate '
" .' ackIiowledged comprehensive plans within an urban growth boundary containing a population greater than 2,500. Certain
", ;' elemeilts:of thepu.~lic facility plan also shall be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan, as specified in OAR 660-] 1-045:
. ' - , .
, (2)'''R6ui#C6st Estimates",; Rough cost'estimates are approximate 'costs 'expressed in ,current-year (year closest to the period
, of public facility plan development) dollars. It is not intended that 'project cost estimates be as exact as is required for
budgeting purposes..- '
. 'l-. ::,' ,>I, :~.....:~r(.'-"'<:
, ',I.,
, .,:,'
I 1._',..... .4.n('l t:.f\f'lIr\AD t:.t:..f'\/t:..f..fI' 011.html
ATTACHMENT 5-1
, '
Dept. of Land Conservation and f'elopment_660...:011
Page 2001, ,~'
, ,"
(3) "ShortTenn": The short term is the period from year one through year five of the facility plan.
'l '. . . .
/ (4) "Long Term": The long term is the period from year six through the remainder of the phinning period.
(5) "Public Facility": A public facilityincludes water, sewer, and transportation' facilities, but'does not include buildings,
strucnires or equipment incidental to the direct operation of those facilities.
(6) "Public Facility Project": A public facility project is the construction or reconstruction of a water, sewer, or transportation
facility within a public facility system that is funded or utilized. by members of the general public,
, L ' ' . .
(7) "Public Facility Systems": Public facility systems are'those facilities ofa particular type that combine to provide water,
sewer or transportation services, '
For purposes of this division, public facility systems are limited to the following:
(a) Water:
(A) Sources of water;
(B) Treatment system;
(C) Storage system;
(D) Pumping system;
(E) Primary distnbution system.
(b) Sanitaiy sewer:
, '
, '
, , (A) Tr~tment facilities system;
(13) Primary collection systeID.
(cY Storm sewer:
(A) Major dramageways (major trunk lilies, streams, ditches, pump stations and retention basins);: "
(B) Outfall locations.
(d) Transportation:, '"
,,, ' \ " ""'''"''
. ~l' 1~,~11 ,\~,',~,It.... ,',~"',,11\."",,",t
""f i/,..., " ,,'
(A) Freeway system, if planned for in the acknowledged comprehensive plan;
'. .' '-AIII ' . . '
. " .\,' r ", " ' .
(B) Arterial system; .
:,'. . t; , I, '\~ :, :..~ ~.::--.
, (C) Significant collector system;
(D) Bridge system (those on the Federal Bridge Inventory);
I,
,
(E) Mass transit facilities if planned for in the ackn~wledged comprehensive plan, including purchase of new b~~s if total
" fleoi'is less than 200 buses, rail lines or transit stations associated with providing transit servi'Dater~ved
corridors and park and ride station; , " , " ' ,
, JUN 2 2, oL{
(F) AirpOrt facilities as identified in'the current airport master plans;'
Planner: BJ
5 ')
.."
J .1 _ _I,", A. Tl ".
t:.f'lf\!"r\^ D
",m/{;f,O (j] 1 htm 1
I' "'~'1 Dept. of Land ConSeI\"1ll and Development_660_011
Page3 of 11
(G) Bicycle paths if planned f9r in the acknowledged comprehensive plan,
(8) "Land Use Decisions"" In accordance, with ORS 197 ,712(2)(e), project timing and fin~cing provisionS of public, facility
plans shall not be considered land use decisions as specified under ORS 197 .OI5( I 0),' '
, (9) "Urban Growth Management Agreement": In accordanc~ with OAR 660;003-0010(2)(c), al1d urban growth management'
agreemenl'is a written statement, agreement or set of agreements setting forth the means by which a plan for management of
the unincorporated area within the urban growth boundary will be completed and by which ,the urban growth boundary may'
be mooified (unless the same inforination is incorporated in other acknowledged documents),
j .." '" . ." ~ I'., ' . .
(10) Other Definitions: For th; purposes of this diVision; the definitionsln ORS 197,015 shall apply except as providedfor in
section (8) of this rule regarding the definition in ORS 197,015(10), '
,)
Stat. Auth" ORS 183 & QRS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712
'Hist.: LCDC 4-1984,f. & ef. 10-18:84
660-011-0010 '
The Public Facility Plan
, '
(I) The public facility, plan shall contain the following items:
(a) An inventory and general assessment of the condition ofa~ thesigcificant public facility systems which support the land,
uses designated in the acknowledged comprehensive plan;' "
(b) A list of the significant public facility projects which are to support th,e land uses designated in the acknowledged
comprehensive plan. Publidacility project descriptions, or specifications of these projects as necess:"Y: '
(c) Rough cost estiinates of each public facility project;
(d) A map or written description of each public facility projec~s general location or service area; ,
, '
(e) Policy statement(s) or urban growth management agreement identifying the provider of each 'publidacility system. If
there is more than one,provider with the authority to provide the system withintheaiea covered by the public facility plan,
then the provider of each project shall be designated;
. il
(f) An estimate of when each facility project will be needed; arid
(g) A discussion of the proVider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible new mech';";sms to fuD.d
the development of each public facility project or system. '
,
:.' ".~, .
(2) Those public facilitiestobe addressed in the plan shaH include, but ~eed not be limited to those specified in OAR 660,
011-0005(5), Facilities included in the public facility plan other than those included in OAR 660-011-0005(5) will not be
,.,reviewed for compliance with this,rule,
.~",: .'
. '.)",
~ ' '.l. 0::' ,": ; f-,~
. , ", (3) Itis,not the purpose of this division to cause duplication of or to Sllpplant existing applicable facility plans and programs,
'Where all or part of an acknowledged comprehensive plan, facility master,plan either of the local jurisdiction or appropriate
special district, capital improvement program, ,regional functional plan, similar plan or any combination of such plans meets
aU'or some of the requirements of this division, those plans, or programs may be incorporated by reference into the public
facility pian required by this division: Only those referenced portions of such documents shaH be considered to be a part of
.. ,the public {acility plan and shall be subject to the admip.istrative procedures of this division and ORS Chapter 197.
';:'l.I;~'~;~?~dt;7Jts(~~;3'~ORS 197' ' " '.' ,Date Rece','ved
.1'." Stal!i"rn,pl~!l'ented: pRS 197.712
" Hist.:"LGEl<;)'4-1984, f.& ef. 10-18-84 JUN 22 ( Df
f .; 'i;f~;f\;':::""Vl Planner: B~83
_."..,,____I_.1__II'\AD<:' t::1\1\/r\AP t:.hnlhf,() 011,j,tm! tit
Dept. of Land Conservation and:
elopment 660' 011
- -
Page~ of)U! "
" 660-011-0015
ResponsibilitY for Public;l'acili~,Pianprepa:ati~'; ,
'(I) Responsibility for the preparation, adoption and amendnient of the public facility plan shall be specified withiJi the urban
growt!1 management agreement, If the urban growth managenient agreement does nolmake provision for this responsibility,
the agreement shall be amended to do so prior to the prepa~tion cifthe public facility plan, In the,case where an',
unincorPorated area exists within the Portland Metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary which is noi contained within the
, boundary of an approved urban planning area agreement with the County, the County shall be the responsible agency for,
,preparation of the faci)ity plan for that unincorporated area, The urban growth management agreement shall be submitted
with the public facility plan as specified in OAR 660"011-0040, '
(2) The jurisdiction responsible for the preparation of the public facility plan shall providefor the coordination of such
,,;_,,_,.tion with the city, county, special districts and, as necessary, state and federal agencies and private providers of public'
facilities, The, Metropolitan Service District is responsible for public facility plans' coordination \vithin the District coIisistent
with Q115 197.190'imd 268.390. ' , '
(3) Special districts, including port districts! shall assist in the development of the 'publicJacility plan for those facilities they
provide. Special,districts may object to that portion of the facilitjes plan adopted as part of the comprehensive plan duiing'
review by the Commission only if they have completed a special district agreement as specified under ORS 197.185 and '
197.254(3) and (4) and participated in the, development of such portion of the public facility plan. .
(4) Those state agencies providing funding for or making'expenditures on public facility systems shali partiCipate in the
development of the public facility plan in accordance with,their state agency coordination agreement under ORS '197,180 and
197.712(2)(f), . ' ,
Stat Auth:: ORS 183 & ORS 197
'Stats, Implemented: ORS 1~7,712
: Hist.: LCDt 4-1984, f, & ef. 10-18~84
660-011-0020
Public Facility Inventory and Determination of Future Facility Projects ,
(I) The publicJacility plan shall include an inventory of significant public facility systems. Where the acknowledged
comprehensive plan, background document or one,or more of the plans or programs listed in OAR 660~011-00 1 0(3) contains
such an inventory, that inventory may be incorporated by reference. The inventory ,shall include: '
{a) Mapped location of the facility or service area;
(b )Facility' c~pacity or size; and
, '
(c) General assessment of condition of the facility (e,~" very good, good, fair, poor, very poor).
(2)The public'fa!,ility plan shall identify significant public facility projects which are to support the land uses designated in
the acknowledged comprehensive plan. The public facility plan shall list the title 'of the project and descnoe each public ' '
facility project in temis of the type of facility, service area, and facility capacity,
(3) Project descriptions withinili~facility plan may require modifications basedon subsequent environmental impact studies"
design studies, fac!li.ty master plans, capital improvement programs, or site availability, The public facility plan should \
, '. " anticipate thes,'e,cilallges as specified in OAR 660-011-004;. 0' 'R'" " j
, "','..";!: njl:j,', " 'ate ecelvel
Stat.A~th":I9.RSI83 &ORS 197
Stats: Implemented: QRS 197,712 JUN 22/ {H.r
Hist: LCDC 4-1984, f, & ef. 10-18-84
, " "i<' ,ii" '
I: ~.~~ t :~ ,;-:('-,~" "-~,
}~ "
Planner: ~l
,_ .....,..",.,,,_ 1'\~ 1 L--,-__'
.' .' ~::(Dept. ofLand ConserY' - nand Development_660_011
. Page 5 of 11
" '.
660~011-0025
'.
Timing of Required Public Facilities
(l) The public facilities plan ~hall.include a general estimate of the timing for the planned publicJacility projects. This timing
component of the public facilities plan can be medn seve.':al ways depending on whether the project is anticipated in the short
term or long term. The timing of projects may be related direct)y to population growth, e.g., the expansion or new .'
construction of water treatment facilities. Other facility projects can be related to a,measure of the facility's service level
being met or exceeded, e.g., a major arterial or intersecti?n reaching a maximum vehic1e-per,day standard.'Development of
other projects may be more long term and tied neither to specific population levels nor measures of service levels, e.g.; sewer
projects to correct inf1ltration and inflow problems. These projects can take place over a long period of time and may be tied
to the availability oflong:term funding..The timing of projects may also be tied to specific years. ' .
(2) Given the different methods used to estimate the timing of public facilities, the public facility plan shall identify proje~ts
. as occurring in either the short term or long term, based on those factors which are related to project development. For'those
projects designated for development in the short tenn, the public facility plan shall identify an approximate year for
development. For those projects designated for development over the long term, the public facility plan shall provide a
general estimate as to when the need for project development would exist, e.g.; population level, service level standards, etc.
Timing proVisions for public facility projects shali be consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan's projected
growth estirnates. The public facility plan shall consider the relationships between facilities in providing for development.
(3) Anticipated timing provisions for public facilities are not considered land use decisions as specified in ORS 197.712(2)
(e), and, ther~fore, cannot be the basis of appeal under ORS'197.610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4). .
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & QRS 197
Stats. implemented: ORS 197.712
Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f..& e(10-18-84
660-011-0030
Location of Public Facility Projects
(I) The public facility plan shall identify the general location of the public facility project in specificity appropriate for the
facility. Locations of projects anticipated to be carried out in the short term can be specified more. precisely than the locations
of projects anticipated for. development in the long terni'. .'. .
. .
(2) Anticipated locations for public facilities may require modifications based on subsequent environmental impact Sl!Jdies,
design studies, facility master plans, capital improvement programs, oiland availability. The public facility plan should
anticipate those changes as specified in OAR 660:011-004~.
Stat Auth.: ORS 183& PRS 197
Stats..Implemented: ORS 197.712
Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84
- . ~
Date Received
JUN 2 2 I D~
Planner: BJ'
660-011-0035
. Determination of Rough Cost Estimates for Public Facility Projects and Local Revie;v of Funding Mechanisms for
" '..,.:1,,'/,: P,,!b.1i~.F~c!1i!y'Systems . . '. " .' ." .' .
1\. '." ~ ...Jt...'~ ",)1}1 'I ...;~~~:o)\~ '. . 0 ., . ..
.' . (1) "!Pe p''1\>lic facility plan shall include rough' cost estimates for those sewer, water, and transportation public facility
projectk idimtified in the facility plan. The intent of these rough cost estimates is to: . .
,,"
~;:\'
. ." I ~ .. ..,.;1,..... 'j~ ',':~-'I.. 01: (l_~'l;l
-' , ,"" I
5-5
1.-.. A!'("'l o..."Jrll. D t::t:,.{)/t:.t:.n n(, htrnl
Dept. of Land Conservation arid r 'e1opment_ 660 ~ 011
'Page6 of p. "
"
, '
(a) Provide-an estimate of the fiscal requirements to support the land use designations in the acknowledged comprehensive
plan; and '
(b) For use by the facility provider in reviewing the provider's existing,funding mechanisms (e.g.; general funds, geneial
obligation and revenue bonds, local improvement district, system develoPlllent charges, etc.) and possible alternative funding
mechanisms. In addition to including rough cost estimates for each project, the facility plan shall include a discussion of the
provider's existing funding mechanisms and the ability of these and possible neW mechanisms to fund 'the development of'
each public facility project orsyst,m. These funding mechanisms may also be described iri terms of general guidelines or
local policies., ' ' , .'
(2) Anticipated financing provisions are not c~nsidered land use decisions as specified in ORS ,I 97.712(2)(e) and,.therefore,
cannotbethebasisofappealllI)derQRS \97,610(1) and (2) or 197.835(4).,' '
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & QRS 197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712
Hist.: I:CDC 4-1984; f. & ef. 10-18-84
660-011-0040
Date ofSubmlttal of Public Facility Plans
The public facilitY plan ;hall be completed, adopted, and submitted by the time of the responsible jurisdiction's periodic
review. The.public facility plan shall be reviewed imder OAR Chapter 660, Division 25, "Periodic Review" with the
, jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and land use regulations', Portions of public facilitY plans adopted as pOrt of comprehensive
plans prior to the responsible jurisdiction's periodic review will be reviewed pursuant' to OAR Chapter 660, Division 18,
"Post Acknowledgment Procedures". '
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS 197
Stats.lmplemented: ORS \97.712
Hist.: LCDC 4-19'84,( & ef. 10-18-84 '
660-011-0045
Adoption and Amendme~t Procedures for Public Faci1ityPla~~
(I) The governing body of the city or countY responsible for development of the public facility plan shall adopt the plan as a
supporting document to the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and shall also adopt as part of the comprehensive plan: '
. . .-,..' .'
(a) The list of public facility project titles; excluding (if the jurisdiction so ch~oses) th~ descriptions or specifications of those
, ,..', proJects;, " ,"
\14.,. ',~ c/, \li'';>(- 'I ,~. ,., . .
,~... P;~'jI.: ~;w;'i4,-/f:'-'ir:' . . , . - . - - . . .
(b) 'A niaf'hrWrltten description of the public facility projects' locations or service areas as specified in sections (2) and (3) 01
this rule; and
.;::.: ; III t ~
'I,'
(c) The policy(ies) or urban growth management agre~ment.designat~g the pro~d"r of each public facility system. If there is
'imore' than' one' provider with the authority ,to provide the system within the area covered by the public facility plan, then the,'
pr~Vider'6f eacli1project shall be designated.
(2) Certain public facility project descriptions; location or service area designations will necessarily change as a result of' "
subS, .equent design studies, capital improvement programs, environmental impact studies, and ch~s ~~t"f\lal sourc<:s of d
fundiIig.It is not the intent of this division t~: , ' , Valt~ neCelVe
JUN 22, ol{
Plannec ~j
1-.. T"on '1'\1'\1r. A n. t:.t::.f\It:.t::.f\ ()11 'htrnl
''0" <,I""
, 'Dept. of Land Conserv
~ and Development_ 660 _011
Page 7 01' 11
(a) Either prohibit projects not included in the public facility plans for which unanticipated funding has been obtained;
(b) Preclude project specification and loqtion decisions made according to the National Environmental Policy Act; or
(c) Subject administrative and technical changes to the facility plan'to ORS 197:610(1) Md (2) ~r 197.835(4).
(3) The public facility p'Ian may allow for the following modifications to projects without amendment to the public facility
plan:
I
(ai Administrative changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are minor in nature and do not
significantly impact the project's general description, location, sizing, capacity, or other general characteristic of the project;
(b) Technical and environmental changes are those modifications to a public facility project which are made pursuant to , '
"fmal engineering" on a project or those that result from the fiiidings of an Environmental Assessmentor Environmental
Impact Statement conducted under regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (40 CFRParts 1500-1508)or any federal or State of Oregon agency project development regulations consistent'
with that Act and its regulations.
(c) Public facility project changes made pursu,ant to subsection (3)(b) of this rule are subject to the administrative procedures
and review and appeal provisions of the regulations controlling the study (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 or similar regulations)
and are not subject to the administrative procedures or review or appeal provisions of ORS Chapter 197, or OAR Chapter 660
Division 18. ' C' '
(4) Land use amendm~nts are those modifications or amendments to the list; location' or provider of, public facility projects,
which significantly impact a public facility project identified in the comprehensive plan and which do not qualify under
subsection (3)(a) or (b) of this rule. Amendments made pursuant to this subsection are subject to the administrative
'procedures and review and appeal provisions accorded "land use decisions" in ORS Chapter 197 imd those set forth in OAR
Chapter 660 Division 18. ' '
Stat. Auth,: ORS 183 & ORS 197
Stats.'Implemented: ORS 197.712
Hist.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84
660-011-0050
Standards for Review by the Department
The Department of Lana Conservation and Developme,nt shall evaluate the following, as further defined in this division,
when reviewing public facility plans submitted under this division: '
'(I) Those items as specified in OAR 660-011-0010(l);:
(2) Whether the plan contains a copy of all agreements required under O}\R 660-011-0010 and 660-011-0015; and
(3) Whether the public facility plan is consistent with the acknowledged comprehensive plan.
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & 0RS 197 '
, Stats. Implemented: ORS 197.712
His!.: LCDC 4-1984, f. & ef. 10-18-84'
"
I 1. _In .,,In C" t:^^/~ ^ 'D t:.t:.()/h_hn ni 1.h~1
Date RAr.~!ved
JUN ?:9:1 ~~
Plan:~ "';'~J
5-7
'_"'.i q-.t' ,',."". j - ," - /--
/~..)l"o If '-". .il...~'" }:..:~ ; (lh jr"'.
, ' 0," "'-.~ . 1/.. I; ~<~'.;,'".h,
~~-<~, :iU~ ": .-.
660-011~0060
. ,..c..
~ . --
,-, r...... ..-.,..- /f",.
ll. .;,1~ 1!;i' --It" 0:.([
Dept. of Land ConserVation and r' ~lopment_660~011
Page 8 of}l;
, >
.'
Sewer Service to Rural Lands
(I) As used in this rule, unlesS: the context requires otherwise:
, (a) "Establishment of a sewer system" means the creation of a new sewage system, including systems provided by public or
private e~tities; . .
(b) "Extension ofa Sewer'System" shall have the,same meaning as stated in Goal 11;
,I'
. j
(c) "No practicable alternative to a sewer system" means a determination by DEQ or the Oregon Health Division;pursuant to
criteria in OAR 340, Division 071, and other applicable roles and laws, that an existing public health hazard cannot be
, adequately abated by the repair or maintenance of existing sewer systems or on-site systems or by 'the installation'ofnew on-
site systems as defined in OAR 340-071-0100;
(d) ','Public health haZard" means a condition whereby it is probable ihat the public is exposed iO disease-caused physical .
suffering or illness due to the presence of inadequately treated sewage;
(e) "Sewage" means the water-earned human, ,animal, vegetable, or industrial waste from residences, buildings" indUstrial
establishments or other places, together with such ground water infiltration and surface water as may be present;
.(1) "Sewer system" means a ~ystem that serves more than one lot or parcel, or more than one cond~minium unit or more than
one unit .within a planned unit development, and includes pipelines or conduits, pump stations, force maiDs, and all other
structures, devices, appurtenances and facilities used for treating or disposing of sewage or for collecting or conducting
,sewage to an ultimate point for treatment and disposal. The following are not conSidered a "sewer system" for purposes of
this rule: '
(A) A system provided solely for, the collection, transfer and/or disposal of stann water runoff;
.(B) A system provided solely for the collection, transfer and/or dispo~aI of animal waste from a farm use as defined in ORS,
215303. '
(2) Except as provided in sections (3) and (4) of this rule? and consistent with Gcall1; a local government shall no\ allow:
(a) The establishmeot of new s~wer syste';" outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated cOmmunity boundaries;
(b) The extension of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries ,or unincorporated community boundaries in orderio
serve uses on lan,(outside those boundaries; ,
(c) The extension of sewer,systems that currently,serveJand outside urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community
boundaries in order to serve uses that are outside such boundarles,and are not serVed by the systein on the date oftliis rule.
. . . . - . . .
, .'
(3) Components of a sewer system that serve lands inside an urban growth boundary (UaB) may be placed on lands outside
the boundafY provided that 'the conditions in subsections '(a) and (b) of this section are met, as follows:
(a) Such placement is necessaty to:
(A) Serve lands inside the UGB more efficiently by traversing lands outside the boundaty;
(B) Serve lands inside a nearby UGB or unincorporated community;
. '. - . . .
.';; }, ;,;,':,:'.:(G),C.onaecyo.components of the sewer system lawfully located on rural lands, such as outfall or treatment.facilities; or
" " '..;~; ;;~::;:l~~~hate~om a landfill on iuralland toa sewer system inside a U~B; and Date Received
,:.,1
(b) The locaj,government.
. .\' I ';'olfi&J .
: ~ ,.)' ...... .
JUN 22 I Dtf
Planner: 8.J
.5-8
'_.T'\<':'\' r.^^'r\AD t:.t:.,f\I;:.t:.,() ()11 html
'" If \.' --- .
" . Dept. of Land Conserv n, and Development_ 660_011 '
Page 9 of 11
(Al' Adopts land use regulations to ensure the sewer sy~tem shall not serve land outside urban growth boundaries or
unincorporated community boundaries, except as authorized under section (4) of this. rule; and
(B) Determines that the system satisfies ORS 215.296(1) or (2) to protect farm and forest practices, except for systemS
located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way.
- '
(4) A local government may allow the establishment of a new sewer system, or the extension of an existing sewer system, to
serve land outSide urban growth boundaries and unincorporated community boundaries in order to mitigate a public health
hazard, provided that the conditions in subsections (a) and (b) of this section are met, as foliows:
, ' '
(a) ,The OregonDepartm~nt of Environmentai Quality (OEQ) or the Oregon Health Di~ision initially: '
(A) Det~nnines that a public health hazard exists in the area;
(B) Detennines that the health hazard is caused'by sewage from development that existed in the area on the &te of this rule;
(C) Describes the physical location of the identified sources of the sewage contnbuting to the health hazard; and
(0) Detennines that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system in order to abate the public health hazard; and
(b) The lOCal government; in response to the detennination in subsection (a) of this section, and based on recommendations
by DEQ and the Oregon Health Division where appropriate:
(A) Determines the typeofsewer system and service to be provided, pursuant to section (5) of this rule;
(B) Detennines the boundaries of the sewer system service area, pursuant to seCtion (6) of this rule;
(C) Adopts land use regulations that ensure the sewer system is designed and constructed so that its capacity does not exceed
the minimum necessary to serve the area within the boundaries descnbed under paragraph (B) of this subsection, except tor
urban reservelireaS as provided under OAR 660-021-0040(6);
(0) Adopts land use regulations to prolubit the sewer system from serving any uses other than those existing or allowed in
'the identified service area on the date the sewer system'is approved;
(E) Adopts plan and zone amendments to ensure that only rural land uses are allowed on rural lands in the area to be served :
by the sewer system, consistent with Goal 14 and OAR 660-004-0018, unless a Goal 14 exception has been acknowledged;
, (F) Ensures that land use regulations do not authorize a higher density of resideotial development than would be authorize,d
, without the presence of the sewer system; and
(G) Detennines that the systeoi'satisfies ORS 215.~96(1) o~ (2) 'to protect farm and forest p;"ctices, except for systems
located in the subsurface of public roads and highways along the public right of way. '
(5) Where the D,epartmeot of Environmental Quality (OEQ) determines that there is no practicable alternative to .sewer
system, the local government, based on recommendations from DEQ, shall determine the most practicable sewer system to
abate the ~ealth hazard considering the following:
(0) ,The system must be sufficient to abate the public pealth hazard pUrsuant to DEQ requirements applicable to such systems;
~ ' . .
, jFM0?) N.ew?r expapded sewer systems serving only the health hazard area shall be generally preferred over theextension ot;.a
, 'J se~er~systdm fr'6iINlIl,urban growth boundary. However, if the health hazard area is within the serJC\4riofj;:l~I\(ed
authority or disrAc~'the sewer system operated by the authority or district, if available and sufficien'r,'sgh'l?e ~r~Ifu't~~~
other sew~rj~.Y~tem options.' 'JUN 2 2 ,0 f
.1 '.1
I' . t
(6), The local g,oyemm, ent, based on recommendations from DEQ and, where appropriate, the Orego~alth Division, shalhJ
'~'t; ';.I! '.' . .~jl~~:' . . ." . t'lan ner: ~ .
5-9
''''-r:-",,',^^/ro,4n t:t:r"t:t:r. (\11 'htn-ll
Dept. of Land Conservation arid r~ 'elopment_660_011
Page 10 of) 1, '.
detenirine the area to be serVed by a sewer system necessary tO,abate a health hazard. The area shall include only th~
following: ' '.'
(a) Lots and,parcels that contain the identified sourc~s of the sewage contributing to the health hazard;
(b) Lots and parcels that are surrounded by or abut the parcels descnbed in subsection (a) ofthi~ section, provided the local
government demonstrates tha~ due 'to soils, insufficient lot size, or other conditions, there is a reasonably clear probability
that onsite systems installed to ser.ve uses on such lots o'r parcels will fail and further contribute to'the health hazard, '
.
(7) The local government or agency responsible for the detennmations pursuant to sections (4) through (6) of this rule shall
provide notice to all affected local governments and special districts regarding opportunities to participate in such
determinations. ' ,',' "'.. ' .' '
(8) Applicable provisions of this rule, rather than conflicting provisions oflocal acknowledged zoning ordinances, shall
immediately apply to lOCal land use decisions filed subsequent to the 'effective date of this rule.
[ED. NOTE: The goals referred to or incorporated,bY reference U; this rule &e available frOm the agency,]
Stat. Auth.: ORS 183 & ORS '197
Stats. Implemented: ORS 197,712
Hist.: L9DD 4-1998, f. & cert. ef. 7-28-98
660-011-0065
Water Service to Rural Lands
(I) As used in this rule, unless the .context requires otherwise:
(a)."Establishment" means the creation of a new water system and all associated physical components, including systems
provided by public or private entities; , ' ' , '
(b) "Extension of a water system" means the extension ofa pipe, conduit"pipellne, main, ~r other physical component from
, or to an eXisting water system in order to provide service to a use that was not served by' the system on the applicable date of
this rUle, regardless of whether the USe is inside the service boundaries of the public or private ~rvice provider:
(c) "Water system" shall have the same meaning as provided m Goai II, and includes all pipe, conduit, pipeline, mains, or
other physical components of such a system: " "
(2) Consistent with Goal 11, local land use regulations applicableto lands that are outsid~ urban growth boundaries and ,
unincorporated community boundarieS shall not:
(a) Allow an increase in a base density in a residential zone due to. the availability of service from a water system;
(b) Allow a higher density for residential development served by a water system than would be authorized without such
service; or' . .. . \ .
(c) Allow an increase in the allowable density of residential development dueto the presence, establishment, or extension of
a water system. '
I ~'. ~,,;
(3) Applicable provisions of this role, Cather than conflicting provisions of local acknowledged zoning ordiUances, shall
, immediately apply to local land use decisions filed, subsequent to the effective date of this rule. " ' d
" ',-;"'1' I"';;;';~\ " . . 'R e\\fe
" '[E~. NOri: Th~ ~oalreferred to or incorporated by reference in this rule is available from thQate ec
~:: Ifill; . At I
"", ,," JUN 22 I Vi
Stat. Auth.:'ORS 183 & ORS 197
,:~~:~:,~~1~,~~J1ted:01l5197.712 Planner: BJ
5-,,0
1_ _,..-..... T"\t"'I 1:(\1"" A n t:.t::.f"\I?t:..f\ (\11 hfTnl .. I
,...'
-,'to ~:~7..
.e,
"
.;fl\'Dept. of Land ConserY
nand Development_660,.. 011
"
Hist.: LCDD 4-1998, f. & cert. ef. 7-28-98
Page 11 of 11
. The official copy of an Oregon Administrative Rule is co~tained in the Administrative Order filed at the Arc~ives Division, 800 Summer
. St. NE, Salem', Oregon 97310. Any discrepancies ~ith the published version are satisfied in favor of the Administrative Order. The Oregon
Administrative Rules,and the Oregon 'Bulletin are copyrighted by t~e'Oregon S~'retary 0[5tate. Term~,and Condition~ ofUs~'
Alnhnbi':ticllllndex by Age:llcy Name
Numerical Index by OAR Chapter Number.
Search the Text of the OARs '
Qu'pstiono;: about Administrative Rules? .
Link to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS)
Return to Oregon Stat~.Archives Home Page
,',
" . ~ '.~ ...;. I~ '~.1 '" J..~li~'(-:
, ...... \'1.:111. " 1\:...l'<' -t.. 4irt.l '
. _ I,\'- .' ",.","'..;t. I 'I "'i.,: ,,:.,~ :,:
~;l:\ 1,~iJJ'
\ '..'
'J.
~ '4 ....... \("~. .
j' . If}\: .j.~:',I" :
-I!
/.....,: ............ I'^^Ir. '" n r:.C.iltt::..t::..r. li1 t htrnl'
,P.,
"
,
,)
Date Received
JUN 2 2 16~
Planner~~1~
','
" .'
'. '.
, ~. ~~.. .. ) 'I 'l . I "
!~"III'd" 'Ii .)~,' "'l'~'"
'. .'~'~' .....!;, J~-,j...,J..l"
~. .:. t~t jl, .
"'l,;f:',":'
'i .., -":~::;i,,:i,:;.':rg:
. -, ,
,
',I',j. I,.. ,
; do
Date Receivf:d .
JUN 2 2 l 01)
Planner: BJ
, ,
.' I (~)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN TEXT, CHAPTER ill, SECTION G. PUBLIC F ACllJTIES
AND SERVICES ELEMENT:AND CHAPTER V GLOSSARY; AND ADOPTING A
, '
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. " ,
WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan; which for
Springfield are implerriented by the provisions of Article 7 of the Spnngfield
Development Code; and ,
. WHEREAS, on February 17,2004, the Springfield City Council initiated
. . proceedings for a Metro Plan text and Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments;
and' ' ,
WHEREAS, following an April 20, 2004 joint public hearing with the Eugene
and Lane County Planning Commission~, the. Springfield Planning Commission, on June
1,2004, recommended Public Facilities and Services Plan and Metro Plan text
, .
amendments to Chapter ill, Section G. Public Facilities and Services Element to include
"wastewater" as a subcategory of servicewithii1 the UGB; to amend Finding #6 and '
Policy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a to the Public Facilities 'and Services Plan
. (PFSP); to amend Policy #2 to include local capital improvement 'plans as a means to
implement policy in the'PFSP; to insert two new findings regarding local and regional
wastewater services to development within the UGB; to add a new Policy #G,9 that
commits the wastewater conveyancean~ treatment systems for this area to accommodate
projected growth and regulatory requirements; and to modify definition #36 in Chapter V
,Glossary to include Treatment Facilities ,System, the, exact language for each of the ,
preceding amendments being contained ill Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this
Ordinance' and '
,
WHEREAS, on May 24, 2004, the Eugene Planning Commission and on June I,
200{ the ,Lane County Board of Commissioners recommended Public Facilities and
ServicesPhin 'and:.Metro Plan amendments; and;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a joint public hearing on this amendment
on June 22, 2004, with the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of
Commissioners, and IS now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations
,and evidence andtestim~ny'already in the 'record as well as the evidence and testimony
,presented at the joint elected officials public hearing; and
,',
. WHEREAS, substantial evidence exists within the record demonstrating that the
, 'proposal meets the r,equirem~nts of the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code, and
, applicable ,state and local law as described in findings attached as Exhibit B, and which
,'j"~l~:'~F' ,area,~~Bied in support of this Ordinance. '
"._,4..",. h,..l,-.' ."..,", \ '.,
. "'; . ~ "-;r.,' .'
"l' f:'l'
l~. ~\ ,11..iL
Date Received
JUN' 2 2 { ~~
Rf~~t-JflJ
4".'(';
..J ,,'
.t~"'i". "
~ >1'''\'' -;~.'. "~."-:".':~.J;''':
. :.~., < 'I 11 ~ 1:" 'ii:'''"-'';
. .......,:'
,
, t (1 '. ~
NOW,THEREFORE, the Common Counci1.ofthe City of Springfield does
ordain as follows: ' ,
Sectionl: The Metro Plan Chapter ID'Section G. Public Facilities and Services
Element, and Chapter V Glossary, are hereby,arriended as described in Exhibit Aattached
'and adopted as part ofthis Ordinance. "
Section 2: Although not part of this Ordinance, the City Council adopts the
findings. set forth in the attached Exhibit B ,in support of this action.
Section 3: If any section;,subsection, senterice, clause,.pbrase or portion of the ,
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent'
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision
, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section4: Notwithstanding the effective.date of o'rdinances as provided by
Section 2.110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997 , this Ordinance shall become
, effective upon the date that all of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been
I' '
. acknowledged as provided by ORS 1.97.625; (b) atleast30 days have passed since the
date the ordinance was approved; and (c) both the Eugene City Council and the Lime
CoUnty Board of Commissioners have' adopted ordinances containing identical provisions "
to those described in Section I of this Ordimince, '
Adopted by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this
July, 2004 by a vote of ' in favor and against., ' '
day of
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Springfield thi~
, day ofJuly, 2004.
Mayor'
, ATTEST:
, City Recorder' .
'. f
1.f L' )1< Ii
,;.,'., , " C.
!, .' '1'(' !fr- \it. ~-'''~Mr:
(),t,..... i.,\~ 1_\ \l,..;,v.~'l' t~,;;lj"',\ .
. ~.-'l' !"..k' ft,.." 'f. ,. . ~'" ,,' .
,t....
. .",:" "
. '"l",'::;'
, .....
'. ',j
Planner: . ~f
:~,~~:L~':
, ,
,
, .
'J )
;, ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD :METROPOLITAN
AREA PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES PLAN (PFSP) BY ADDING NEW'
TABLES ANDMAPS IDENTIFYING W ASTEW ATER TREAT:MENT FACILITIES
AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS; AMENDING CHAPTER IV W ASTEW ATER
SYSTEM CONDITION ASSESS:MENT; ADDING A NEW CHAPTER VI
AMEND:MENTS TO THE PFSP; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. .
'WHEREAS, Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General
, Plan (Metro Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the' Metro Plan, and by ,
extension, amendment of refinement and functionai plans that supplement the Metro
Plan, which for Springfield are implemented by the provisions of Article 7,ofthe
'Springfield Development Code; and ' '
WHEREAS, onFebruary 17, 2004, the Springfield City Council initiated
proceedings for a Public Facilities and S~ces Plan amendment and,related Metro Plan
text amendments; and " '
WHEREAS, following an April 2,0, 2004joint.public hearing with the Eugene
and Lane County Planning Commissions, the Springfield Planning Commission; on June
1,2004, reconnended the related Metro Plan text amen<j.ments and;Public Facilities and
Services Plan amendmimts to include new tables identifying wastewater treatment system
and primary 'collection system improvement projects; to include new maps showing "
existing wastewater treatment systems and planned wastewater proj ect sites; to revise the
wastewaier syst~ condition assessment by describing and distmg\lishing treatment '
system and conveyance; to include an expanded discussion of wastewater service within "
the urbanizable area; to include project titles, rough cost estimates and completion dates
forthe wastewater treatment and collection system improvements; and to add a new
,Public Facilities and Services Plan amendment process, the exact language for each of the
preceding amendments being contained in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this
, Ordinance; and '
WHEREAS, on May 24,2004, the Eugene Planning Commission and on June 1,
2004, the Lane County Planning COmnUssion recommended the Metro Plan text '
amendments and Public Facilities and Services Plan amendments; and '
);~\:f :;, I~,-;+'i I" 5'f{'WHEREAS, th~ City Co~cil cop.ducted a joint public hearing on this amendment
op. June 22, 2004, with the Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of '
..,' H'<Eonnissioners, and is now ready to take action based upon the above reconnendations '
, ,and evidence ,and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony
'( ", I' {pres~hted,at the joint elected officials public hearing; and '
..: ". .,
\"1- -~.'
. WHEREAS, substantiai evidenc'e exists within the record demonstrating that the ,
proposai'meets the requirements of the Metro Plan, Springfield Development Code, and .
'.1:10' " " ,', 'Date Received,
JON 2 2 {~
,.., n
". 0 g",~
P'anne~ ,ii.,vl)1.3 '
r ," ( t
"I~ ' .
': ~. ..
applicable, state and local law as described in findings'attached as Exhibit B, and which
are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the COlnmon Council of the City of Springfield does'
, ordain as follows: ' <
, .
Secti~n 1: The Public Facilities and Services'Planis hereby amended as '
described in Exhibit A attached and adopted as part of this Ordinance. '
Section 2:. Although not part of this 'Ordinance, the City Council adopts the'
findings set forth in the att~ched Exhibit B in support of this action.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clailse, phrase or portion of this
, Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion s~all be deemed a separate; distinct and indePendent provision
and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
, '
Section 4: NotwithstancfuJg the effective date ~fordinances as pro~ided by .
Section 2.110 of the Springfield Municipal Code 1997, this Ordinance shall become
effective upon the date that all of the following have occurred: (a) the ordinance has been
'acknowledged as provided by ORS 197.625; (b) at least 30 days have passed since the
date the ordinaricewasapproved;and (c) both the Eugene City Counci~ and Lane County
Board of Commissioners have adopted ordinances containirig identical provisions to
those described ~ Section 1 of this Ordinance. ,. " , '
, Adopted by the Cominon, Coun~il of the City of SpriIigfield this
July, 2004 by a vote of in favorand ' against. . .
Approved by ,the Mayor of the City of Springfield this "day ofJuly, 2004
day of
, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Recorder
I'
. . -" .
. i..';I"f!;)>~,.:ti -(' ~'i,,- ;';'
t, , "r-., ~',. 'r. ..,1,,.4 LI.., ~ '"'11'1'
. ," "h I '>M'.'t-.
; i/rj ~.
< II '." ", .' I'~.:' '.
'I 4,.~' ; Ii'
€-4
, ~~~. ,',., '.
..j . },I
Findings of Compliance with the Metro Phm and Statewide Goals and
Administrative Rules
File LRP 2004-0001 Amendments to the Metro Plan and Public Facilities and Services
Plan
Applicant:
City of Springfield on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission
(MWMC)
Nature ofthe Application:
, The applicant proposes to amend the Eugene-Spri.ngfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan (Metro Plari.) and the Public Facilities and Services Pian (PFSP)l to (I) more '
adequately reflect the impact that new distharge pennit restrictions will ha~e had on the
capacity of the regional wastewater treatment system, (2) to clarify the relationship'" '
between the PFSP project list irnd locally adopted capital improvement plans, and (3) to
modify (streamline) the administrative and legislative processes that govern the
implementation and amelldment of the PFSP projects list.
Background:
MWMC's regional waste'Yater treatmel1t facilities were designed and constructed in the
, late 1970's with a 20-year life expectancy. Slower that expected population growth in the
1980's extended this life expectancy. In 1996-97 MWMC developed a Master Plan to
evaluate the performance of its facilities, to ascertain areas of constraints within the
existing permit conditions, to' identify short-term improvements (e.g. how to address
seismic hazards), and to address other major issues that needed to be studied further.
In May of 2002 the Oregon Department of EnvironIriental Quality (PEQ) imposed new
and more stringent discharge p~rmi~ standards on the regional wastewater treatment ,
fadlities, particularly in regard to the treatment-of ammoma and therm,llloading. As
MWMC staff began to evaltiate design needs for'its wastewater facilitie~; it became
apparent to them that the existing facilities could, not meet the demands imposed by the
new discharge permit restrictjons.
Recognizing that a thorough assessment of wastewater coiIection, treatment and
disposallreuse needs for the next 20.years waS essential, the MWMC began work 'on the
", 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan, a comprehensive facilities plan update. The objectives
, ' ofthe 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan are twofold. First, it is intended to provide for
adequate community growth capacity through 2025, considering policies in the Metro
Pian and current planning assessm~nts for population and development. Second, the 2004
Wastewater Facilities Plan is intended to protect community health and safety by
addressing sanitary sewer overflows, river safety, permit compliance arid the cost-
, , . ,effecSi~~use,of(existing facilities and the'efficient design of new facilities. '
"-" "''', '~I,~ "'i;::;,,1':II. . " ' ' Date Received
1 See appendicesA-.;~ B, respectfuliy. ' JUN 2 'l (O~
'( ,'; ," I, 'l"\\'~)'
.. -~ ~ '.:" ~ }.~.ii,t11 . . t':
Pia' ~" -""'ri,~",tl' ,
, _ _ ," -,~ >!~ '1~j1;::!lt::~~
ATTA 'HMENT 7-1
~ -~'
j\'
Staff Report and:FindingsPage 1
. ~,.~'~'
I
\'
"
'(,!# ".: ,
. - '..
The 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan recognizes and addresses 'the faCt that the regional
wastewater system for the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area does riot have the
capacity to meet'all'ofthe discharge standards imposed by state and federal law. Neither
the Metro Plan nor the PFSP currently reflect this situation. Statewide Planning Goal 2
requires that the,city, comity and speciaJ. district plans l?e consistenUn large part, the
amendments proposed by this application address the issue of consistency between the
Metro Plan and the PFSP and consistency of the 2004 Wastewater Facilities Plan with the
former documents. The proposed amendments provid,e information that should have been
included in the PFSP when it was adoptedand present amore accurate description of
wastewater services that will be available after certain capital improvement projects 'are
completed. ' ,
Phasing objectives of the 2004 Wastewate{Facilities Plan necessitate th1lt constniction of
" several key facility components begin by June of 2005 in order to meet'federal standards
that require that peak wet weather events be managed by 2010: In order to, meet this
, rigorous constniction schedule,MWMC muSt ha~e released Requests for Proposals'
(RFPs) for engineering design for by Octoberof2004. Prior to this date,'the 2004 '
Wastewater Facilities Plan must be adopted by the three metropolitanjiirisdictions and
the Metro Plan and the PFSP should be updated to reflect cum\ntinformation.
, In summary, the application proposes the following changes:
.' .' j' ,
Metro Plan
1. Specifically'recognizes "wastewater" as a subcategory of serVice within the Urban, '
Growth Boundary. [Chapter I,II-G] " '
2. "Amends Fimling #6 and ~olicy #3 to recognize the addition of Map 2a "Existing
Wastewater Collection and Treatinent Systems': to the P~SP. [Chapter 1II'-G]
, ,
3. Affiends Policy in to include local capital improvement plans as a means to '
imp1eme[lt policy in the PFSP. [Chaptet III~G]
4. Inserts two findings regarding local and regional wastewater services to
development within the urbari growth boundary. [Chapter III-G]
" '
5. Ad,ds a new policy G.9 thafmakes a commitment to providing the conveyance
and treatment ofwli.Stewaterto meet the needs of projected growth within the
urban growth boundary and that meets regulatory requirements. [Chapter III-G]
6. Modifies definition 37. Wastewater::Public FaCilities Projects. [Chapter V
Glossary] ,
".."'1
, t",-1'1l ..~,
, .~.. . '.
.. , I)
,Date Received
JUN 22 I D~
Planner: B~~
, ,PFSP . '.
,I "I> rll,~ '~.'~ "'<i?~~ it "
'I.... .-:t>;"'j..;: ";'.IM1..(",,1 :.."'j"I1.....~
-.- - '.. ..IJ~ ..'r I "(,I." ll,
,. ~1i \L
Staff Report and Findings Page 2
7-2
,
I.,\.'(~>..,'
',.. :' .'.
L Modifies the text on page 28, preceding Table 3, aI)d adds Tables 4a and4b that
identify MWMC Wastewater Treatment and Primary Collection System,
improvements, respectively.
2. Modifies Map 2,which shows Planned Wastewater Facilities, and adds Map 2a
that concerns Existing Wastewater Facilities.
, 3.
Modifies the existing narrative on ,"Wastewater System Condition Assessment" in
, Chapter IV. (Page 82)
,
4. , Modifies existing paragraphs # 1 and #2 ,under the discussion of."Wastewater" in
the subdivision entitled "Long-Term Service Availability Within Urbanizable
Areas" in Chapter IV. (Page 97).'
. ,
5. ' Adds'new Table 16a (following Table 16) entitled "MWMC Wastewater
Treatment and Collection System Improvements, Rough ,Cost Estimate, and '
Timing Estirnate~" (Page 101) ,
6. Adds new Chapter VI 'regarding amendments to the PFSP. "
Metropolitan Area General Plan Amendment Criteria
The proposed amendments are considered to be Type I Metro Plan amendments because
they are non-site specific amendments to the Plan text. Amendments to the Plan text,
which include cqanges to functional plans.such as TransPlanand the PFSP, and that are,
non-site ,specific require approval by all t)1ree governing bodies to become effective. 2
~
Springfield, Eugene and Lane County each adopted identical Metro Plan amendment
criteria into their respective implementing ordinances and codes. Springfield Code
Section 7.070(3) (a & b), Eugene Code9.128(3) (a & b), and Lane Code 12.225(2) (a &
b) require that the amendment be, consistent with relevant statewide planning goals and '
that the amendment will not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent. These criteria
are addressed as follows: ' '
. (a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant statewide planning goals
'adopted by the Land Conservation an'd Development Commission;
Goal! ~ Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens
to ,be involved in all phases of the planning process. .
The two cities and the county ha,ve acknowledged land use codes that are intended
to serVe as the principal implementing ordinances for the Metro Plan. SDC Article
7 METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS and SDC Article 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS
prescribe the manner in which ~ Type I Metro Plan amendment must be noticed.
" ,"~ .'.. \ :.'" ,... Citizen iI?-volvement fora Type I Metro Plan amendment not related,to an urban
,,'~ .,...-]1. ';7,"'" ,)Jf;;\ibwth boundary amendment requires; I) Notice to interested parties; 2) Notice
. .~: :
. "r..:*"
:~"n-i""'?(.""\\lilJ< '
,I \' :', ; ,\ :
Staff Report and Findings Page 3
Date Received,'
JUN 22 (DY
PI~nnAr: Sj-3
;"t i(~ I !l _'
.', ,2 See SDC 7,070q)(a), EC 9,7730(1)(a), and LC 12,225(1)(a)(i). '
, ..i,
,,,; 'I t,
'. ,,-":,"
shall be published in a newspaper of generai circulation; 3) Notice shall be
provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) at
least 45 days before the initiai evidentiary hearing (planning commission).
Notice of the joint planning commission hearing was published in the Springfield
News and in the Register-Guard on March 31, 2004. Notice to interested parties
was mailed on April 1 ,2004. Notice of the first evidentiary hearing was provided
to DLCD on March 4,2004. The notice toDLCD identified the City of Eugene,
Lane County, DEQ and EP A as affected agenCies.
Requirements,under Goal 1 are met by adherence,tothe citizen mvolvement
processes required by the Metro Plan and implemented by the'Springfield
Development Code, Articles 7 and 14; the Eugene Code, Sections 9.7735 and
9.7520; Lane Code Sections 12.025 and 12.240. ' '
Goal2 ~Land Use Planning ~ To establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land
and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
- .,'
, ' ,
All land-use plans and implementation ordinances'shall be adopted by the '
governing body after public hearing and shall be reviewed and, as needed,
, revised on a periodic' cycle to take into account changing public policies and
circumstances, in accord with a schedule set forth in the plan. Opportunities
,shall be providedfor review and comment 'bycitizens and affected governmental
units during preparation, review and revisio~ of plans and implementation
ordinances.
Implementation Measures- are the means used to cany out the plan. These are
of two general types: (1) management implementation measures such-as
ordinances, regulations or project plans, and'(2)-site or area specific
implementation measures such as permits anc{grants for constrnctioni
construction of public facilities or provision of services. , '
The most recent version of the Metro Plan is being'considered on May'17, 2004 ,
for final O;ldoption by Springfield (Ordinance No. ,:",,:,->;,by Eugene (Council Bill
'No, 4860) arid by Lane County (Ordinance No. 1197) after numerous public
meetings, public workshops and joint hearings of the Springfield, Eugene and
,Lane, County Plahning Commissions and Elected Officials,. '
The Metro Plan is the "land use" or comprehensive plan required by this goal; the ,
Springfield Development Code, the Eugene Code and the Lane Code are the
"implementation measures" required by this goai. Comprehensive plans, as
defined by ORS 197.015(5)3, must be coordinated with affected govemmental '
. - , units.4 Coordiria:ion means that comments from affected governmen..tat.\!nits arlh' d
,', - ,,,"", ", ,,' ", -uate neCelV3 '
, ','.', ",..,., . I
-:'1;;;'1" {j~\...~ ,~g?fP?~!~'py/elerence mto Goa 2.
I",. ',~"!:See DLGD v,(Douglas County, 33 Or LUBA 216,,221 (1997).
, JUN 2 2 ,01j
'1;' \...
lf~' "
~ - .,
Staff Report and Findings Page 4
Planner:- BJ
1-4
.' ';'
'0'"
'.. ,": I
. . '" ,.:t I~
~ ."; . . ~.f
. \~ \"\91'
.. , '
solicited and considered. In this regard, DLCD's N~tice cifProposed Amendment
form was sent to the City of Eugene, Lane County, DEQ ami EP A.'
One aspect of the Goal 2 coordination requirement concerns population
projections. In this respect, the proposed amendment to the PFSP Glossary
, concerning Wastewater incorporates a projected year 2025 population for the
Eugene-Springfield Urban Growth Boundary of297,585.5This projection is
consistent WIth the most recent (1 Q97) fmal forecasts provided to Lane County by
the Oregon Office of Economic AIl.alysis and the Year 2000 Census. The adoption
, of this modification to the PFSP WIll effectively "coordinate" this population
?Ssumption.
Goal3 - Agricultural Lands "
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
Goal 4 - ForestLands
This goal does not apply within adopted, acknowledged urban growth'boundaries: '
GoalS" Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
, This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments. .~
Goal 6 _ Air; Water arid Land Resources Quality - To maintain and improve
the,quality of the air, water and /eInd resources of tke state. '
This'goal is priinarily concerned with compliance with federal and state
environmental quality statutes, and how this compliance is achieved as
, development proceeds in relationship to air sheds, river basins and land resources.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, P.L: 92-500, as amended in 1977, ,
became known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.I251 et seq.). The goal of this '
Act was to eliminate the dischargy of pollutants 'into th~ navigable waters. ORS
468B.035 requires the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQc) to
implement the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The primary method of
implementation of this Act is through the issuance of a National Pollutant
, Discharge Elimination' System (Nf'DES) permit prior to the discharge of any
wastes into the waters of the state. (ORS 468B.050) Among the "pollutants"
regulated by the EQC are temperature (OAR 340-041-0028) and toxic substances
(OAR 340-041-0033). :
One purpose ofthe proposed amendments is to ensure that the Metro Plan and the
,PFSP accurately reflect regional wastewater system needs as imposed by Federal
and State regulation. Currently, the PFSP states that"... the Regional Wastewater
TreatInent Plant has sufficient design capacity to accommodate population
';~ '\r;~~_~(;,~'~!J-~\ .~~-;:':~;' :.~ ,"; . . '. " ", . -' ~ .
, . l Table 3 oftechrucal memorandum entitled "Metropolitan Wastewater Management C~&Qe~elved '
, (" P?p.!l!~!ion Projections for Wastewater Facilities Plan," prepared by Matt Noesen, CH2~~ el al (~pnr .
, ," 9, 2004) JUN 22 ( b~
;1", . .....-
- I " " .:j''- ~ t. ~~l [:--\ .- "':& Illl!:' .
'-~/~". ~....:,~,jj.:~,l ;.l.~~f",' PI EH
Staff Report !If1d.Findings Page 5 anner: L,L"'7_S'
. I'
;.0',..11.
'W'... ,.l.. .
increases and serve all new deyelopment at buildout." Recent analyses have ,
'determined that facility improvements are now required to address both dry and
wet weather, requirements relating,to pollutant loads and wastewater flows. The
sectiolrin Chapter IV of the PFSP entitled "Long-Term Service Availability
Within Urbanizable Areas" is proposed to be modified to reflect the need for
:facility improvements necessary ~o address dry and wet weather fegulatory
requirements.,
" Goal 7':'" Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
'"
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments:
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs
, This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Go:1I 9 - Economic Development - Goal 9 provides, in part, that it is intended
to: "Provide for at least an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types,'
locations, and service levels for a variety of industrial and commercial uses
consistent with plan policies." The,proposedamendments are consistent with
this, objective in that the Metro Plan, the PFSP and the 2004 Wastewater Facilities
Plan must be consistent in order to comply with State discharge peimit conditions
that will determine the improvements to the Regional Wastewater System that are
necessary to address new regulatory standards. The improvements are necessary
to allow adequate service and conveyance, treatment, reuse and disIJosal capacity
, to serve new and existmg industrial and convnercial uses.
Goal 10 - Housing"': To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Goal 10 Planning Guideline 3 states that "[P}lans.shouldprovidejor the, ,
appropriate type, location and phasing of pubic facilities and servic'es sufficient to
sitpport housing development in areas presimtly deVf;loped or undergoing
development or redevelopment. " '
..
, '
OAR 660-008-00 I o requires that "[S]ufficient buildable land shall be designated
on the comprehensive plan map to satisfy housing needs by type and density
range as determined. in the housing needs projection." Goal,IO defines buildable'
'lands as ".. .lands in urban and urbanizable areas that are suitable, available ~d '
necessary for residential use." 660-008-'0005(13), in part,.defin.es land that is
"suitable and available'~ as land "for which public fa.cilities are planned or to
which public facilities can be made available."
Similar'to Gpal9, adequate public facilities are necessary to accomplish the
, objectives of this goal and applicilble administrative rules (OAR Chapter 660, _
, Division 008). The purpose of the proposed amendments is to pro~ th,e ' ,. '
, ,.IF',f~(.j:.IJ;i-,; '.e~~prehensive planning i!'am~work to allow for the improvements tJi[~elveCi
. ;.or,'i :.~..,i._~~}t',:i~~;!;" -,!
Staff Report and Findings Page 6
JUN22,1ft-{
Planner: 8...1
7- 6
j'l," liiil'l
.". ~ ( ,J,~
. ::~ ~.'O.lr
wastewater system that support the housing needs of the Eugene-Springfield
, metropolitan area.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services - To plan and develop a timely, orderly
and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as aframework
for urban and rura/development. ' , '
, ,,' . . . .'
OAR Chapter 660, Division 011, implements goal 11. oAR 660-011'-0030(1)
requires that the public facility plan identify the general location of public
facilities projects. In regard to the Metro Plan, the reference to Public Facilities
and Services PI~ Map 2a in Finding 6 and Policy G.3 in the proposed
amendments addresses this requirement. In regard to the PFSP, the mocLification
of the introductory narrative unde{"Planned'Wastewater System Improvements
(Page' 28)," the insertion of new Tables 4a and 4b (page 28), and the modification
of Map 2 and the insertion of new Map 2a" also address this requirement. '
. OAR 660-011-:-0035(1) requires iliat the public facility plan include a rough cost'
estimate for sewe~ public facility projects identified in the facility plan. In
confonnity with this requirement, it is proposed that the PFSP be amended by the
insertion of Table 16a (Inserted following Page 101), which addresses rough cost
'. estimates and a timing estimate for MWMC Wa~tewater Treatment and
Collection System Improvements. . The rough, cost estimates in Table l6a are
,based on costs set forth in the MWMC 2004 Facilities Plan and,projectlist. This
- 2004 Plan was the result of an exhaustive study that examined alternatives
ranging from $144M to $233M (See Attachment 3). The preferred alternative;
fourid in Table l6a, was selected ~~cause, among other reasons, it provides the
least expensive means to comply with federal requirements and maximizes
MWMC's existing investments.
I ." .
OAR 660-011-0045(3) provides that modifications to projects listed within a
, public facility plan may be made without amen$Iment to the public facility plan.
Thisapplication proposes to add (new chapter.to the PFSP regarding . ,
amendments to that plan.' Proposed Chapter VI incorporates the standards for
amending a public facility plan allowed by OAR 660-011-0045(3) and adopts an
amendment process.' ' '" .
':"/ ':" [, Goal 12 - Transportation
This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
. ,
rW='\lr,I".;)''''!C~j.l,''~ -,o}t1irGoaI13 - Energy Conservation
,.,,'1 !' \}-~.f'''''J'''',\'' I 'J.:t.1'~Y..;_1' : .
t, ,:(,~ HUt;; 'This goal is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
, ; ~+;: , ',' ., '.' .. . .
1 ',::l, ~'".,;).~',i~\';biril:'GbaI14 - Urbanization - To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from
.~:~ ,1 ,It;:, ,I,d .1!:;;~u "7-ural to urban land use., ' ' , " - Date Received
JUN 22 I D~ '
Staff Report and Findings Page 7 PI BJ
anner: _ 7-7
,~,.,"I;-.F:-
. -i' ';,..,0.,;
This goal is not applicable to the proposed pmendments, as they do not affect the
existing urban growth boundary.' ' '
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway
This goal is_not applicable to the proposed amendments. ,
"
. i.~~'
"~i~ Goal 16 Estuarine Resources, Goal 17 CoastalShorelarids, Goal 18 Beaches
and Dunes, and Goal19 Ocean Resources ,..
.1(",,..~..
. '~se goals do not apply to 'the Eugene-springfield'Metro;olitan k-ea.
(b) Adoption of the amendmentmust not ,nakethe Metro Plan internally ,
inconsistent.
The proposed changes to the Metro Plan are essentially ofa "housekeeping"
. nature. They essentially recognize the role of wastewater service provision within
, the urban growth boundary by the addition or modification of applic~ble findings
and add or modify policy language to clarify th~ relationship between the Metro,
Plan and the PFSP in regard to capital improvement plans and the comrnitInent to
comply withregulatciry requirements. The proposed changes, as pre~ented, will
not create internal inconsistencies withiD. the Metro Plan.
'.
.. l,;
i','\
The proposed changes.also'amend the PFSP to more accurately reflect MWMC's
'plarmed improveinent projects for its wastewater treatment system and primary
collection system, to provide rough cost and timing estimates for those '
improvements, update narrative inforination regarding necessary improvements to,
the wastewater treatment system and primary collection system, and more clearly
implement the plan modification standards contained in OAR 660-:011'-0045(3).
';Th~ proposed changes to the PFSP dei' not create any inconsistencies within the
PFSP nor do they create any inconsistencies between the PFSP and the Metro
'Plan.' ~.
.ih"~"'- ,':' ,,...,..~", ; i.'. i i
, y~nl!\i.I(','.....~:~.:....(";l...).I(/."':
.. """ ' ~ ,'J , " A! '.' " ':! ....."..:
Date Recei\fed
JUN 2 P4
, '(,
P,lanner: BJ
.,
:f:' ';. -,11,;
..,.~,- ,
, "
,I . ~ ; :': ,...~ /- ~ .' ..
Staff Report and Findings Page 8,
ij-8