Loading...
2007-1618-Minutes for Meeting April 18,2007 Recorded 11/7/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2001+U~8 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK Y~1 y COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1110712007 09;13;09 AM 0 11111111111111111111111 3618 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page x`01 t C 02 C { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.om MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007 Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, Dan Haldeman, Barbara Rich, Catherine Morrow, Peter Gutowsky, Todd Cleveland and Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department; and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel. Also present was Kaylee Mendenhall of The Bulletin; and approximately thirty other citizens. Also present from the State were Michael Kucinski, Robert Baggett and Joni Hammond of the DEQ (State Department of Environmental Quality) and Doug White and Jon Jennings of the DLCD (State Department of Land Conservation and Development). The meeting began at 1: 30 p.m. Chair Daly explained that this is a work session and not a public hearing. The Commissioners are meeting with representatives of the Department of Environmental Quality to discuss the south County groundwater issue. The group referred to the agenda (a copy of which is attached), and went through the discussion points. Mr. Baggett stated that the project began at the DEQ headquarters, where preliminary research was done on the model. The County approached the Department of Environmental Quality, which went with the County to the Environmental Protection Agency to apply for funding for the La Pine Demonstration Project. Part of this project was the USGS study regarding nitrate contamination. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the DEQ has been involved in the process for a long time, and helped to get and administered the federal grants for the bigger steps. Tom Anderson pointed out that Barbara Rich was a part of this process since it was a joint project, with DEQ being the recipient of the grant funds, with part of the funding going to Deschutes County. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 1 of 11 Pages Commissioner Daly asked if the DEQ viewed the same presentation as the County did, and whether DEQ has questions about or agrees with the information provided. Michael Kucinski stated that he understands that the USGS model and study has not yet been formally published, and it might be difficult for DEQ to provide an opinion until the report is official. Commissioner Baney asked if they know when this will happen. Mr. Kucinski said that it is supposed to be published in June. Commissioner Luke added that it is in peer review now. Tom Anderson added that the latest estimate from Dave Morgan is late May. It could be June, but he understands that this is basically the document production stage and peer review has already been completed. The report has not been formally released but the results of the study, as presented by Mr. Morgan at public meetings is basically the final results. The remaining piece is the formal publishing of that document. The conclusions have not changed from what was already presented. Commissioner Daly asked if the DEQ has seen the results of the study. Mr. Kucinski said they have seen it only in peer review. Mr. Anderson stated that for the most part, the study is complete and they are producing the document. If there is anything left to do, it would be minimal. Commissioner Baney said that she understands it is not completely finalized, but asked if they have any comments on how it has gone and whether everyone is on the right track. Mr. Baggett stated that the work began in headquarters, through preliminary research on the model. The County approached DEQ, and they went together to the EPA for funding for the La Pine Demonstration Project. Part of it was the USGS study regarding nitrate contamination. Mr. Kucinski stated that it is premature to say; the validity will be flushed out during the process. They are waiting for the final report to be released. Joni Hammond asked if they can ask questions at this time. Commissioner Daly noted that this is a round table, informal discussion. Joni asked who is doing the peer review; and whether time is allowed for the USGS to receive comments from peer reviewers. That is normally how the DEQ would handle it. If there are substantive issues, it could be revised. Barbara Rich said that the peer review process at the USGS, per Dave Morgan, is to receive comments from reviewers all over the nation - hydrologists who work in groundwater monitoring. Almost all of this review material is in the final version of the document. It is very late in the process, but all peer review should already been finalized for the USGS document. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 2 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke referred to the agenda item #4 regarding sewer system/cluster system evaluation. He noted that DLCD and DEQ suggesting they'd like to see sewering, but through Goals DLCD makes this difficult. He asked if it is a possibility in the future or if it is too big a hurdle to get over. Ms. Hammond said that she doesn't think the letter from DEQ says it is a preference, just an option. Commissioner Luke said that sewers are better if you can do it. If it is the preference of the DEQ, that's great, but there are big roadblocks through State laws and Goals. He asked if it is viable and, if so, what it would take to make that option viable. John Jennings stated that a Goal 11 exception would be necessary, and would include most of the lands at issue. It is not absolutely forbidden by State law, but Goal 11 discourages sewering. If candidates can satisfy the requirements of Goal 11, it is possible although difficult. DLCD hasn't looked at this. It is a detailed and complex land use procedure. It is complex and challenging and a lot of work, and there has to be sufficient evidence to determine it is the right thing to do. Otherwise, it is hard to satisfy applicable law. Commissioner Luke said that there are existing sewer systems in unincorporated areas, and asked how they got there. Mr. Jennings replied that he is probably not the best person to answer this question. Perhaps they were done before the law was in place. Oregon Water Wonderland was done through a Goal 11 exception; it was legally established before current requirements and has been an exception since then. Doug White said he is a point person for Goal 11. Destination resorts don't have to take an exception to some Goals, including this one. The others may have predated the Goal. The other situation is that you can extend a sewer system or put in a cluster system if the DEQ determines there is an existing public health hazard and this is the only alternative. It is important to get ahead of the curve before the problem is there, and it needs to be the only or best alternative. The DLCD has no jurisdiction outside of periodic review. It could be subject to review by LUBA. DLCD is a clearinghouse, and a response may have to go to a higher level, LCDC (Land Conservation and Development Commission), and then to the Court of Appeals. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 3 of 11 Pages Mr. White added that a practical alternative to a sewer system is a general term, meaning something not requiring a Goal exception. There is no specific criteria that talks about that short of "reasonable alternatives". Commissioner Luke noted that the reason the Goal is in place is to discourage rural subdivisions on small lots and sprawl. He asked that since there are existing homes, would there be less resistance to the Goal exception. Mr. White said that it's possible, based on the facts of the situation. Commissioner Luke stated that a sewer isn't always the cheapest way to go, since you have to find a place for the plant. Commissioner Daly asked if the septic systems are a reasonable alternative, and whether it would have to be shown that other alternatives are not better than the sewer system. Mr. White replied that LCDC lays the framework for this. It would have to be done to avoid a health problem. He said he really doesn't know since he's not an environmental scientist. Commissioner Baney asked whether it makes sense to look at centralized systems. She asked Ms. Hammond about a letter from DEQ that says they would have approached the situation differently - and what that means. Ms. Hammond repined that DEQ is not in the lead on the project, and the County has the authority to do what it wants. As far as the community goes, it is nice to offer as many options as possible and let the community decide, although public health and the environment have a say in that as well. She added that she doesn't think DEQ is trying to imply that the whole area be sewered. There could be areas where it might be cheaper or a better alternative. She said she prefers to go back to what the community wants. Commissioner Luke said, to clear the record, if the County didn't have an environmental health department, who then would do the work. Ms. Hammond replied that the DEQ would by statute. Commissioner Luke said that the County does this work under contract for the DEQ. Ms. Hammond stated that the County has the right to be more restrictive than the DEQ. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the County cannot do whatever it wants, but has to operate within the rules of DEQ. If the County didn't have an environmental health program, the DEQ would be running the program. Mr. Baggett said that the DEQ would prefer onsite disposal systems only, in most cases. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 4 of 11 Pages Commissioner Baney noted that the County is an agent of the State, and it has been suggested that DEQ would like to go forward with the program. Ms. Hammond said that they want to make sure the DEQ doesn't step in the County's pathway, and wants the County to do what it wants within boundaries. The public process is always challenging. She said the County should want to have a series of meetings with the public. She said that she wasn't sure, but maybe meetings have already been held by the County. She said the County should want to hear from the community, not from DEQ. Many times DEQ is not the perfect agency when it comes to dealing with the public. She suggested there be an advisory committee established would work with the public for as long as it takes. Not everyone will like what is being proposed or done, but the environment and groundwater need to be protected. Commissioner Luke noted that the City of Portland dumps raw sewage into the Willamette River under federal order, and that's probably not what the citizens would like. In the La Pine area there has been a lot of testimony that there is no reason to do anything because the problem is years out. He asked if doing nothing is an alternative for the DEQ. Ms. Hammond stated that, through discussions over the past nine years, the DEQ doesn't want the County to do nothing; they want the County to be proactive. She added that perhaps there could be additional input and they could step back to look at the process. Commissioner Luke said that the County operates within the parameters set by the DEQ. He asked if doing nothing is less restrictive to DEQ. Ms. Hammond stated that this gets into details and procedures that she is not well versed in. She has only a general understanding of the data. She said that it is her understanding that there are several hot spots in the area with elevated nitrate levels. In general the rest of the area doesn't have this today, but the study says that within a period of time, with people moving in, there could be a greater problem. It is her understanding that there is not a huge area of elevated nitrates at this time. Commissioner Luke asked again, if doing nothing is considered less restrictive than what DEQ would do, since the County can be more restrictive but not less restrictive than DEQ. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 5 of 11 Pages He pointed out that Ms. Hammond has been involved for nine years and should know this; he added that she said they should do what the public wants, but some want nothing done. He asked if the DEQ was in charge of the program and had full responsibility for the groundwater, whether doing nothing is an alternative. Ms. Hammond stated they would look at it. She said that from her conversations with folks, she feels that no one wants to do nothing. There is concern regarding the groundwater. She thinks they want the process to pause to look at alternatives, not that they want to stop the process altogether. Commissioner Daly asked if anyone has said how they would look at alternatives, and what those alternatives might be. He also asked if the DEQ has any suggestions regarding exploring other alternatives. Mr. Hammond stated that she would hope this would be discussed in a separate meeting at some future date. Commissioner Daly suggested that the Director of DEQ sit through the USGS presentation, so that there will be an understanding of the overall problem. There could be time to slow down to look at this more closely, but DEQ and DLCD should sit through the same presentation so they understand the problem. Not much can be accomplished until the DEQ and DLCD have a full understanding. Commissioner Luke said that if they haven't read the appropriate documents, it can't be discussed today. Commissioner Baney stated that she realizes she is new to the process, but asked how they all got to this point if the DEQ didn't even read the material. She thought they were involved from the beginning. Ms. Hammond said that if the study and model were going to be discussed, there would be different people in attendance at this time. Neither she nor the Director will talk about it. Staff is probably familiar with it. She feels sure someone from DEQ has looked at it. Commissioner Luke asked if anyone in the group has done so. No one responded. Commissioner Baney asked if the work appears to be valid at this point. She added she doesn't want to waste people's time, and wants to come out of the meeting with some kind of understanding. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 6 of 11 Pages Mr. Kucinski stated that so far they feel it is valid, and are just waiting for it to be published. Commissioner Daly said that he was under the impression that the DEQ knew all about it already since they were involved from the beginning. Mr. Baggett said that they are waiting for the report to be done. Commissioner Luke pointed out that DEQ has already approved some systems based on the report. Mr. Baggett replied that they have, after going through the Rule with the national scientific foundation. Commissioner Luke said he has watched the rules change over the years. The question is, why, after all of the studies were done, did it take so long to get State approval of the systems. Mr. Kucinski said that they needed a certification from the manufacturer for three or four systems. Sometimes the technical review committee needs to look at the product, and they meet only once every quarter. Commissioner Luke asked why there isn't a list of what the manufacturer must provide on the application from the first. Mr. Kucinski replied that it is administratively complete but some things have to be tweaked. They also want to have a user-friendly manual. Mr. Baggett added that if it is new in the program, they want to be careful. It is kind of an experiment and they don't want to make a fatal mistake. There is a lot involved; more than individual systems. There are also issues with national scientific foundation conclusions. Mr. Anderson said that the project has been foundering at the EPA office, and the technical steering committee is doing a final review. There is no information on when they might be done. Mr. Kanner said that some people have asked about composting toilets. He asked if there is a process under which they could be considered. Mr. Kucinski said that plumbing fixtures are approved through building codes. There would be no way to know if they are still in place ten years from now. There would be no way to know if the fixture was removed, and no one knows how well it would work. Someone could replace it with a conventional one and no one would know about it. Mr. Kanner noted that the administrative rule adopted by the DEQ on July 1 2006 requires the best available system on new construction. Mr. Anderson clarified that it was adopted by the County in conjunction with the DEQ. It is not specifically an administrative rule. It was done under an exemption that requires the DEQ or its agent to not approve systems that they believe may pollute the public waters. In conjunction with the DEQ that section of the rule was invoked, requiring nitrogen-reducing systems for new development. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 7 of 11 Pages Commissioner Baney asked what she feels is the basic question, whether the DEQ can say if nitrates present a health problem, in theory or in fact. The County has been challenged often on this. She asked if the DEQ has taken a position on this specific question. Mr. Kucinski replied that based on what is required by groundwater rules, nitrates are not good for public health. In regard to specific areas, they would have to pull in groundwater specialists to get an answer on that. He said that the DEQ has worked with County staff for a long time on a memorandum of understanding to try to identify the different approaches. Last February they reached a point where they were okay with how this would work. Mr. Anderson explained that the County has been involved in long, detailed discussions with the DEQ on this issue for about a year. They went through consensus building in the fall. To be frank, one of the difficulties has to do with the high water table lots. County staff believes that when looking at a solution to the nitrate issue, it is important to address the continued use of conventional systems and to require nitrate-reducing systems in the future. High water table lots had not been studied until then, as it was felt they were not realistically viable to develop. He asked if the DEQ has a position on these lots. It appeared to the County that it was important to the DEQ for these lots to be considered. The concerns of DEQ in this regard kept coming back, and they wanted language in the MOU included in order to qualify their support of the local rule and the solution. This has been much of the discussion in the past. They never got to the point of signing the MOU and moving on. The MOU is basically signable at this point, but the County was hoping for more direct support on this particular issue. Commissioner Luke asked if the report were done by the end of June, could another meeting be held about thirty days later to discuss preliminary positions. The DEQ representatives said they would have to find out when their groundwater staff is available. Commissioner Daly stressed that the next time they all meet, he would like everyone to be operating from the same information. They all need to be on the same page. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 8 of 11 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if the DEQ believes nitrates are a problem that needs to be addressed and, if so, soon, later, a lot later, or never. He asked what part DEQ wants to take in this process. Commissioner Daly said that some La Pine people want an outside agency to review the study and results. This is a big undertaking and may not be possible. Commissioner Baney stated that the next steps need to be discussed as well - options, alternatives, and other issues so that this can move forward. Ms. Hammond asked if the Commissioners know how the La Pine folks feel about the issue. Commissioner Luke replied that there are nine hours of public meetings and testimony, and a huge record. Ms. Hammond apologized for not being able to read it; that she is not trying to hold things up. She suggested that at some point meetings be held by the County with representatives of the community. Commissioner Luke said that La Pine is now an incorporated city; that area would not fall under local rule, since they are served by a sewer system. There are neighborhoods all over the area. Some residents are more interested than others. There were nine hours of testimony before the Commissioners, plus staff had a long series of meetings. Most of the people in the audience are from La Pine. If there was a way to pick three or four leaders of sections, maybe not subdivisions, and have them sit in a group and participate, he has no problem with that. There needs to be another meeting with the DEQ first to figure out what the basic facts are that are agreeable by each group; then the others can be brought in. The record is still open and the County is still taking e-mails and written testimony. This is a legislative matter so the Commissioners can be approached by anyone. Commissioner Baney said she'd like to turn the tables a little bit. She would like to know everyone's thoughts on the larger recommendations. The community has already established representatives for particular areas. Commissioner Daly said he thought there was already a technical advisory committee in place. Mr. Anderson stated that there were members from the area as well as others. They looked at the transfer development code and helped to develop alternatives to the TDC program. The pollution reduction program is a product of the process. Because the program is intertwined with nitrates and the local rule, it became part of what was discussed. The most recent meeting talked about local rule and groundwater issues. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 9 of 11 Pages Commissioner Daly asked who the citizen group would meet with, and when. There needs to be a process in place. First, DEQ has to get up to speed on the study. Everyone needs to have the same information. At that point a committee could participate; they need to be broadly represented, not just a few select people. Commissioner Baney added that at that point they would be able to give input on solutions and determine if the community supports the solutions. Commissioner Luke said that having a group speak for the neighborhoods would be helpful. However, the next meeting with DEQ should talk about policy and DEQ's position. They can take part but the County needs to know what direction to go and how to get there. Mr. Anderson stated that he was hoping for a little clearer direction of the role of a committee. He has no objection to working with them but it would help to know what their mission is and what recommendations they could provide. Commissioner Luke said that they would be a point of contact. Instead of fifty e- mails, perhaps maybe five or six. Input is helpful from the community and DEQ, but ultimately the policy is determined by the Board. Commissioner Baney added that it could be a hybrid situation. One size may not fit all. Commissioner Daly said that he has the same concerns as Mr. Anderson; there should be specific results in mind, a timeline and what is being sought. Discussions need to include the DEQ. Commissioner Luke noted that he was born and raised in Salem, and at that time the Willamette was so polluted you could almost walk across it. The sooner the groundwater issue is addressed, the cheaper, less restrictive and better things will be. Prevention is much better. There are decisions to make on how to address it and how to pay for it. Groundwater pollution can be stopped. If it isn't, it will be too late. Ms. Hammond said that she looks forward to at least one more meeting. Commissioner Daly stated that one similar to this one should be held as soon as DEQ has reviewed its material. This process will move as quickly as possible, and a long pause may be merited. Commissioner Luke added that he hopes it moves faster than the nitrates in the groundwater. Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 10 of 11 Pages Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 2:50 p.m. DATED this 18th Day of April 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Michael M. Daly, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair Tammy aney, Com i sioner &4~- Recording Secretary Minutes of Administrative Work Session - DEQ and DLCD Wednesday, April 18, 2007 Page 11 of 11 Pages willo { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2007 1. Meeting with Joni Hammond, Administrator, Eastern Region of Department of Environmental Quality regarding South County Groundwater Project 2. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. z z V W Q W J a O N 00 r- C Q ` ~ L ce C -0 N c1 J J cp a c E c W = o C N - Er 4-4 v a Co Z J ~ 7 v v 0 m v m d a Deschutes County/DEQ/DLCD Joint Meeting April 18, 2007 Goals for discussion: 1. Agreement that the science is valid (groundwater study conducted by DEQ and USGS and that nitrates are a health concern). a. If no agreement on this issue, what does DEQ propose as a remedy? 2. Agreement that the county should take action on the proposed Local Rule with an understanding formalized in the MOU that the County and DEQ will conduct a public process to address alternatives for high water table lots. a. If no agreement on this issue, what is DEQ's proposed alternative? Possible alternatives: 1. Delay rule adoption to engage in more public process a. What would the DEQ do in addition to what has already been done 2. Require only new construction to install nitrogen reducing systems a. Will this be enough to solve the problem? (No, based on USGS/DEQ study) b. All new systems, including systems approved under previously issued site evaluations? c. What about repairs and authorizations? 3. DEQ assumes authority in southern Deschutes County to implement a Geographic Rule or Groundwater Management Area 4. Sewer/cluster evaluation a. Basin-wide or targeted? b. Who does engineering study? c. Who pays for the engineering study? d. Who develops the public support f or a sewer or cluster system(s)? e. Who pays for the land use process? (Comprehensive Plan amendment, goal 11, goal 5 exception processes, transportation planning) i. Current Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan policies (based on previous public involvement processes) direct the county to seek alternative individual on site systems instead of new sewers. f. Who pays for the engineering design and construction? Page 1 April 18, 2007 5. Other alternative treatment systems a. Systems not yet approved in Oregon i. Why does it take so long to get alternative systems approved by DEQ? b. Composting toilets (allowed in Oregon by DEQ rule, question is how to ensure that these remain in use over time?) c. Fill, tile dewatering, easements i. See (6) below 6. Development on high groundwater table lots a. What if this increases the costs/standards for existing homeowners? b. Who performs the public participation process to determine public opinion / feedback on increased development c. Why, when DEQ participated in the Regional Problem Solving Project, did DEQ not state their concerns about allowing development in high water table areas in 1998? 7. Do the groundwater study over a. Who does the study b. Who pays for the study c. Who ensures the study meets QA/QC protocols to allow comparison of existing study to new study Page 2 April 18, 2007 O V AH W 4 V N i 4 I N ,,Ow VI 4J i~ `J O E V H 0 0 w CL L N ~0 3 O L L7 a~ co co F- L N 7 t bA C co N 1010 F- = (C N a LL Iz cd o cd(:> T ~E E t O cc U CL «O c ~ c -,-Ty o y U E UOJ y W C N O W t~ 7 d t ti N T aC3 c O N ~ A v .o C tad CO W \ ~ N ~L - C N 0) Ln a+ V) a m~ O N 2 ^ C > Z N U ^ O y o G~ s N WC a+ L L q) s u - m ^ V) ev > a~ O H s u s ~r 7 O N E c O u O L a L 4J 3 V C i O N ~o. 0 4J N E 4J V) H c u I--, O ii c N ~O y O C N 44 L N > d a+ 4l ~ u L L N > y- C U V N ca W a -0 c CL tko E L Q O ~ C 4-0 fd -3p ~ ~ O t O N C C C 0 L- W E cd, d -C U L U C "O U O Vl L C bq 41 O N E E 40, N L O a+ a1 b0 o LL cl U 41 N N Vl L C c C C b0 L _0 C O y bQ O C E U Cd d1 L, + + V) O 't 0 +j 41 a L ° a i u c w a~ C d O O - O C 7 a - 4, L > C > " N L -0 N :3 W -0 C O 0 L ice, E L A 0) L cd S. N i d 0 41 ~ ~ N N L ~ L d 3 O 3 0 o cdL O r ' C w C (d Z N C O L n- c 3 E L 0 O O Cd F- N 4VJI C N J w w C N w H 41 yr &A s 4' a v II W II I i O O u N r a 1_, C C) N L O O O a O _ -Ce N ~ \ ~ `n o s l 3 ^ i > OL _ n -v o n. L ai a co c Q c 4J c v •O -0 > -o w E > C _ N a C- a > n. d u :Lj II ed C y ~ C O N C O a~ o o o > > fd 1- cd Z w O U > p > v a O 0 ; w J -0 H w . - (n - (N s o O > > E c 0 U E aJ t 2 u E Z 4, D FA cc > H Cd > - cV M 4 ui ~ y E E O U a m ~ c ~ C O 'itv U E uJ N a r O t> h N d O O 8~0 N a O it a 0 a~ 0 a o ,y ,u two V V H it V W Q E r RECOMMENDATION FOR ACTION AND CONSIDERATION OF A GEOGRAPHIC RULE Because population has grown 35 % in Deschutes County since the 1990 census, and will probably continue to grow; and, ' Because there are 4,000 improved lots in the South Deschutes Basin (part of the La Pine Basin) c ently served with on-site sewage systems; and, Because there are 6,000 additional lots in the Basin that could be developed and served with on-site sewage systems in coming years; and, Because domestic water needed to support such growth comes from groundwater that is vulnerable to pollution; and, Because background levels of nitrate outside of the more densely populated areas is typically less than 0.02 mg/l; and, Because existing and future developments in the Basin will result in increased nitrate contamination and potential pollution of that groundwater, as shown by the Department of Environmental Quality's 1994/1995 study on nitrate concentrations in groundwater; and, Because the Department's study predicted nitrate concentrations in groundwater that would exceed the federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/1 within 10 to 20 years, which under Oregon law would require a declaration of a Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) at 7 mg/l; and, Because further degradation of the groundwater may lead to more stringent action under Oregon's Groundwater Protection Act (ORS 468B); and, Because the present rules of the Environmental Quality Commission are not adequate to protect the groundwater quality in the Basin, which is the primary source of drinking water; and, Because The Deschutes County Working Group on Groundwater issues has selected a nitrate threshold level of 5 mg/1 as a proactive target to protect the Basin's groundwater quality, We, the Deschutes County Working Group on Groundwater Issues, formed as part of the Deschutes County Regional Problem Solving Project, recommend that the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the Environmental Quality Commission, by virtue of their authority and expertise, address these problems and concerns by considering the adoption of a geographic rule within the On-Site Sewage Disposal Rules, OAR 340, Division 71, that will be adequate to protect the Basin's groundwater resource. Signed and dated the A_? day of April, 1999 by members of the Deschutes County Working Group on Groundwater Issues for the South Deschutes Basin: i Larry Chitwo eologist R.S., Lead Sanitarian an Halde x US Forest Service De utes County Jill Phillips-McLane, La Pi We Community Deirdre Malarkey, Ph.D., Coo ator. En er Regional Problem Solving Project o ert Main, Regional Director a Gorman, Watermaster O egon Department of Water Resources gDepartment of Water Resources % C. Keith Sime, CRS, RI Steve Wert, R.W.W.S. ci ate Real tate Broker RT & ASSOCIATES Soi onsultta q nt ence Bro R. S. Roge Everett, R. S. La NRS-3, Department of Environmental Qnali Director, Deschutes County Environmental Health Robert Baggett, R.S., NRS-4, Oregon Department Environmental Quality Y~ !r n n,, s .~c;it.z. fut.e~ i~'► ,t .~svn 7`a ~ Deschutes County Health Department April 18, 2007 Dave Kanner, County Administrator Tom Anderson, Director Community Development Commissioner Dennis Luke, Commissioner Mike Daly Commissioner Tammy Baney Re: Groundwater Nitrates and Health Concerns Thank you for the continued opportunity to comment on the health concerns associated with groundwater nitrates in southern Deschutes County. We support the EPA's current drinking water standard and threshold of 10 milligrams of nitrate per liter of drinking water to be the upper limit of recommended human exposure. We remain steadfast in our understanding that consumption of drinking water in excess of l Omg of nitrate per liter can and does have harmful effects on human health, especially to infants and pregnant women. This position is supported by our State public health colleagues and does not appear to be in serious dispute among public health professionals in other states nor at the federal level. A number of concerned citizens with good intentions have raised questions in regards to the merits of the science and findings upon which these standards are based. Some suggest that an in-depth review of the modern medical literature be conducted to affirm or refute the relationship between nitrate consumption and human health. We believe that Deschutes County is not the appropriate forum for conducting serious scientific or academic debate regarding this matter. It will necessitate an academy of professional scientists representing a multitude of disciplines to thoroughly study legitimate health research findings related to nitrates before we would give pause to our concern or suggest that the EPA alter their 10 milligram/liter drinking water standard. We continue to endorse efforts to limit and control nitrate-nitrogen accumulation in the groundwater from surface and immediate subsurface sources. Nitrate in the groundwater can and does lead to human exposure especially in areas that draw a preponderance of drinking water, untreated, from the ground water. Nitrate- nitrogen accumulation in groundwater is almost always the result of human and agricultural use of the land and is exceedingly rare to be the result of natural causes. The nitrates we consume come from either the food we eat or the water we drink. Because of the natural occurrence of nitrates in many common foods, we draw our attention to limiting exposure in the water we drink, by encouraging measures that prevent its accumulation. Respectfully, Daniel W. Peddycord RN, MPA/HA - Public Health Director Dr. Mary Norburg MD, Medical Director Dr. Richard Fawcett MD, Medical Director PREFACE The Regional Problem Solving Project for South Deschutes County (RPS) began in July 1996 with the support of a grant from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). DLCD awarded a second grant for the RPS project in October 1997. The project is one of four pilot projects authorized by the State Legislature (ORS 197.650). South Deschutes County is the site of more than 12,000 residential lots platted in the 1960s and 70s. These lots are primarily served by on-site septic systems. The regional problems identified through the RPS program include potential pollution to groundwater, the primary source of drinking water in South Deschutes County, loss of wildlife habitat, increased threat of wildfire and degradation to air quality due to traffic on unpaved roads. This report has been prepared for the Land Conservation and Development Commission in part to fulfill the County's obligations under the RPS grant. It will also serve as a guide for collaborative implementation of the regional solutions identified by the project stakeholders, including agencies and citizen groups. As stated in the report the stakeholders will monitor results to help ensure that desired outcomes are achieved. The work to achieve these results is far from being completed. It will be a challenge to implement timely solutions in a region that continues to experience the largest growth rate on a percentage basis in the state. The County is indebted to DLCD and all of the RPS stakeholders for any future successes that may occur as a result of this project. Final RPS Report for LCDC - 1 - July 8, 1999 South Deschutes County Bend t ■ (12 Mi.) Regional Problem Solving SUNRIVER Project Area Map STUDY AREA t PARS ~ RU g ; STU DY AREA 2 ti Q R D~C1iu~~s R1 1,A PINE S7q R~, R K S 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles tY ~ C u STU AREA 3 s WICKIUP 10 ~ JCT Rp BURCE66 RD NEW Z NEIGHBORHOOD O 8TH ST LA PINE Final RPS Report for LCDC -2- July 8, 1999 REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING PROJECT Final Report 1997-19991 Problems in South Deschutes Count Deschutes County received funding through Regional Problem Solving (RPS) to identify solutions to problems that resulted from the platting of more than 12,000 lots in the La Pine basin. Most of these lots were created in the 1960's and early 70's, prior to the enactment of Oregon's statewide land use planning laws. The RPS project area covers more than 30 sq. miles and includes more than 10,000 lots. (see map on next page) Many of the lots are in proximity to the Little Deschutes and Deschutes Rivers and are in areas of floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, deer migration routes and lodgepole forests. The water table is shallow - less than six feet for most lots and less than two feet for many lots. Most are one-half acre lots, with few larger than two acres. Very few lots are serviced by sewer or water districts, or have paved roads.2 Existing development (4,071 lots) and continued development of vacant lots (4,901 lots less than 1.5 acres in size) could result in the following regional problems: • Groundwater pollution that could affect drinking water and public health.3 • Additional loss of wildlife habitat, including mule deer migration corridors and riparian and wetland habitat. • Increased threat of forest fire. • More air pollution from traffic on unpaved roads. Each of these problems is discussed in more detail in Appendix B of this report. The format for Appendix B follows the RPS statute and includes an outline of regional goals, optional techniques for achieving goals, performance indicators, incentives and disincentives to encourage implementation, monitoring activities and a process for correcting the techniques if necessary. ' The Regional Problem Solving Project has been funded in large part by the Oregon Legislature through the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). This is the county's final report pursuant to the RPS grant from DLCD. 2 See Appendix A for land analysis data about lots and development in the entire project area and by Study Areas 1, 2 and 3. 3 Groundwater modeling based on the measurement of nitrate levels in well samples is the primary method used to predict future trends in water quality. The presence of nitrates may also indicate the existence of other pathogens. Additional testing and modeling over the next three years will help to refine the trend analysis for groundwater quality in South Deschutes County. Final RPS Report for LCDC -3- July 8, 1999 Collaborative Process From July 1996 until June 1999, more than 50 representatives from local, state and federal agencies, local special districts, and concerned citizens met as stakeholders to provide education, examine problems and determine possible regional solutions to the problems.4 In January, 1998, the stakeholders chose a number of goals to reach these solutions. After review by the planning commission, the Board of County Commissioners adopted comprehensive plan goals in December, 1998, to achieve the following results in the RPS area: • Preserve water and air quality, reduce wildfire hazards and protect wildlife habitat. • Ensure that domestic water from groundwater meets safe drinking water standards. • Develop a market-driven system to reduce development in flood plains, wetlands deer migration corridors and areas susceptible to groundwater pollution. • Create a new neighborhood between La Pine and Wickiup Junction. • Explore experimental sewage disposal methods.5 Throughout the collaborative process, the following educational and public processes took place: • More than 30 stakeholder meetings; • 4 newsletters, each mailed to over 6,000 property owners and interested people throughout the United States; RPS web site (http://newberry.deschutes.org) that provides background and current information and maps about the project; • 12,000 surveys mailed to all property owners with over a 10% response; • Surveys conducted in public meetings; • 5 public forums with nearly 350 citizens participating in focus groups to identify options; • 1 public workshop to provide further information on local problems and choices for solutions; 1 public workshop to present groundwater model and discuss groundwater pollution issues • 3 days of public participation in preliminary new neighborhood design workshop, followed by a public workshop on final neighborhood design; • 2 public meetings on a transferable development credits (TDC) program; • 5 meetings on TDCs to realty, banking and development community; • Presentations to the County Commissioners and Planning Commission and adoption of RPS Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies through public hearing process; • 4 meetings with the Oregon Water Wonderland II Sewer District Board and members; 4 meetings of interested citizens and experts on alternatives for sewers and cost comparison analysis between sewer and on-site disposal systems; 9 meetings of the Joint Working Group for Geographic Rule that included interested citizens, agency representatives and experts; • 1 meeting of forestry agency representatives and experts to confirm commercial forest use of BLM property; • 3 presentations to legislative committees or agency directors of Community Solutions Team at the state capital, and to Regional Community Solutions Team; a Appendix C is a list of official stakeholders (agency representatives) and active citizen participants. 5 Appendix D includes the full text of the comprehensive plan RPS goals and policies. Final RPS Report for LCDC -4- July 8, 1999 • 7 meetings with stakeholders to review each agency's or special district's memorandum of understanding for continuing work on RPS solutions. • Adoption of final RPS report for LCDC by the County via public hearing process. III. Summary of Regional Solutions The solutions endorsed by the stakeholders of the RPS land use problems include: • Reduce the potential density of septic systems at buildout in existing subdivisions. • Develop a transferable development credit (TDC) program to use vacant lots in existing subdivisions as "sending" areas.s • Design an attractive new neighborhood between La Pine and Wickiup Junction with a range in housing types as a "receiving" area for TDCs. • Support the upgrade and expansion of the existing sewer system in Oregon Water Wonderland II subdivision. • Coordinate with DEQ to continue to sample wells for water quality testing and test experimental on-site septic disposal techniques through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant. • Work with DEQ and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to improve the reliability of the regional groundwater model. • Require inspection and upgrade (when needed) of on-site septic systems at time of property transfer. • Consider amending County fence standards to reduce conflicts with migrating deer. • Work with Department of Forestry on vegetation and fuels management to meet both fire and wildlife objectives. • Map and adopt a wildfire hazard zone for Deschutes County under SB 360. • Adopt and implement standards for fire retardant building materials. • Identify improvements needed for access and evacuation from subdivision lots. • Continue work with interagency fire organizations to educate property owners on fuel load management. • Diminish the increasing rate of vehicle miles traveled and reduce trip generation. • Reduce further degradation to paved and unpaved roads. • Reduce air pollution from dust. • Reduce conflicts with deer along Highway 97. • Improve County road connections with Highway 97 at Burgess and Reed Roads. Appendix F contains a list of the studies and reports produced during the past three years specifically for the South Deschutes County RPS project. 6 Appendix E includes a possible model for assigning and requiring TDCs in South Deschutes County. Final RPS Report for LCDC -5- July 8, 1999 IV. Implementation Steps To implement the solutions endorsed by the stakeholders the following activities will be undertaken: REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING IMPLEMENTATION WORK PROGRAM TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDIT TDC PROGRAM Com lete calibration of TDC model Jul 1999 Create final ma for TDCs August 1999 Decide on implementation details, i.e. banking, tracking, record maintenance September 1999 Develop covenant document September 1999 Set u system for tracking and monitoring Fall 1999 Develop public handout on voluntary program - mail as art of newsletter Fall 1999 Hold public hearing with Planning Commission and BOCC on TDC program Fall 1999 Determine policy for 0-2' water table, liability lots and coup owned lots Fall 1999 Adopt TDC comp plan policy and implementing & monitoring program Winter 1999-2000 Conduct public meeting to explain program prior to issuance of TDCs Spring 2000 Distribute TDC to property owners 2000 NEW NEIGHBORHOOD BLM ■ Notice Of Realty Action (45 days comment) published by BLM June 1999 ■ Appraisal July 1999 ■ FONSI b BLM October 1999 Land Purchase Decision by Deschutes County ■ Determine funding opportunities for purchase Fall 1999 ■ Decision to purchase b Count Commissioners Winter 1999-2000 Evaluation of plan infrastructure and development costs. Summer - Fall 1999 ■ Land cost - Appraisal by BLM ■ Water system - Work with water district & Oregon Water Resources, conduct more detailed feasibility study and determine costs, develop facilities plan and engineer system, develop funding mechanism. ■ Sewer system - Work with La Pine Sanitary Dist., complete final feasibility study & engineering, determine funding sources & construction timing. ■ Roads - Work with ODOT & County Road Dep't. to complete planning, funding and construction of State highway interchange at Highway 97 and Burgess Road at Wickiup Junction. Conduct additional traffic impact analysis, determine need for light(s). Obtain ODOT approval, determine timing, funding & phasing of projects. ■ Market feasibility ■ Open space: determine ownership & maintenance responsibilities Final RPS Report for LCDC -6- July 8, 1999 Design and Management Issues ■ Depending how the new neighborhood pencils out decisions have to be made on Winter 1999-2000 the "who, what, when, where and how" for actual development and marketing. Where does the money go, which projects get funding, administration costs, development costs, etc? ■ Housing - Provide for a range of market rate housing choices. Identify funding sources to assist in providing affordable housing. ■ Meet community needs - Sr. Center, School, etc. ■ Coordinate with Baldwin Trust. ■ Determine governance. Who will be in charge of development decisions in early, middle and late stages? Plan and Zoning Amendments ■ Draft exception to expand La Pine UUC boundary Summer 1999 ■ Obtain LCDC approval of exception (submit after decision to purchase) Winter 1999-2000 ■ Finalize Draft Plan Summer 1999 ■ Finalize Draft implementing zoning code Summer 1999 ■ Planning Commission work sessions Fall 1999 ■ Planning Commission public hearing Fall 1999 ■ BOCC public hearing Winter 1999-2000 ■ BOCC adoption January 2000 Forest Plan - Grant Funded September 1999 ■ Community education - Work with High school and Park & Recreation District ■ Identify native species for preservation ■ Identify appropriate species for landscaping ■ Create a plan for maintenance of open space, wildlife habitat and parks WATER QUALITY Geographic Rule - DEQ • Recommendation from Local Advisory Committee to DEQ April 1999 ■ DEQ decision if geographic rule is needed Summer 2000 ■ If geographic rule needed, take to Oregon Environmental Quality Commission Summer 2000 EPA Grant - 5.5 million dollars Ongoing through 2004 ■ Establish a monitoring program for sampling wells & testing water quality ■ Install, test and monitor experimental on-site septic systems ■ Develop three dimensional model for groundwater ■ Establish a sanitary district for septic sstem maintenance Oregon Water Wonderland II Sanitary District ■ Work with OWW II Sanitary Dist. on sewer system upgrade & expansion Ongoing feasibility, hook up agreements ■ Assist in obtaining funding for feasibility studies and construction Require upgrade of failing on-site septic systems at time of property transfer Fall 1999 - Spring 2000 ■ Determine legal mechanism ■ Consult with real-estate community ■ Draft proposal for inspection and upgrade requirements ■ Adopt program through Planning Commission & County Commissioner public hearings Final RPS Report for LCDC -7- July 8, 1999 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Complete Intergovernmental Agreements with Stakeholders July 1999 ■ La Pine Special Sanitary District ■ La Pine Water District ■ La Pine Rural Fire Protection District ■ Oregon Water Wonderland II Sewer District ■ Bend - La Pine School District ■ State of Oregon: Economic Development Dep't. Dep't. of Environmental Quality Dep't. of Fish & Wildlife Dept. of Forestry Housing and Community Services Dep't. Dep't. of Parks & Recreation Dep't. of Transportation Water Resources Dep't. ■ Forest Service - Deschutes National Forest ■ Bureau of Land Management - Prineville District ROADS ■ Consult with DEQ on Potential Dust Pollution Problem at build out Spring 2000 ■ Work with County Road Dep't to distribute information about Local Improvement Districts WILDLIFE ■ Continue consulting with ODFW on fence standards Ongoing ■ Draft comp plan policies & zoning standards; amend County Code through public Winter 1999-2000 review process ■ Work with ODFW & Forest Service on conducting systematic deer track counts Ongoing and habitat surveys ■ Work with ODFW and ODOF on vegetation management strategies for habitat Winter 1999-2000 protection and wildfire fuels management ■ Consult with nonprofit organizations about possible transfer of conservation Winter 1999-2000 easements for long term management. WILDFIRE HAZARD • Encourage development of building standards for use of fire retardant materials. Ongoing • Adopt wildfire hazards map and building requirements through public review Winter 1999-2000 process with Planning Commission and County Commissioners. • Work with ODOF and La Pine RFPD - fuels management requirements in new Winter 1999-2000 neighborhood; maintain appropriate forest designation for new neighborhood. • Work with fire agencies to educate property owners about wildfire fuels 2000 management. • Work with County Road Dep't., ODOT and emergency service providers to 2000 identify access and evacuation improvements. Final RPS Report for LCDC -8- July 8, 1999 MONITORING ■ County - recalibrate TDC model if it is not generating sales or meeting desired 2001 or as needed outcomes ■ County - maintain records on TDCs, restricted covenants and new neighborhood 2000 and beyond development ■ County - monitor &require upgrade of failing on-site septic systems Ongoing ■ DEQ - continue well sampling and water quality testing 1999-2001; possibly beyond ■ DEQ & County - analyze results from experimental on-site septic systems 1999-2004; possibly beyond ■ ODFW - continue to conduct deer track counts and habitat surveys Ongoing ■ Fire agencies - evaluate fire hazards and impact of risk reduction measures Ongoing PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ■ Keep Web site up to date Ongoing ■ Respond to requests for information, documents and maps Ongoing ■ Mail newsletters periodically to keep public informed Ongoing ■ Publish legal notice(s) of hearings for comprehensive plan and text amendments As needed ■ Planning Commission public hearing on zoning and comprehensive plan Fall/Winter 1999-2000 amendments ■ County Commissioners public hearing on zoning and comprehensive plan Winter 1999-2000 amendments Ongoing PERIODIC REVIEW -Task 17 • Draft Curry County findings to determine if RPS area is rural or urban Summer 1999 • If urban, prepare necessary exception to statewide planning goals 14 and 11 • Complete unincorporated community designations or exceptions for Wildhunt, Fall 1999 Spring River and Whistlestop • Coordinate with DLCD to review draft amendments. Ongoing Final RPS Report for LCDC -9- July 8, 1999 Appendix A Land Analysis For RPS Project Area (30.4 Sq. Miles)' Existing Conditions Land Type Number of Lots Acres Total Promect Area 10,127 19,436 Roads & Rivers 1,889 Public Lands 208 1,477 Sewered Lands 279 176 Septic Disposal Lands 9,640 15,888 On-Site Septic Number of Lots Acres Total Project Area 9,640 15,888 Developed Lands 4,274 7,106 Vacant, 1.5 Acres 644 5,224 Vacant, < 1.5 Acres 4,722 3,713 Vacant, < 1.5 Acres, On-Site Septic Number of Lots Acres Total Parcels 4,722 3,713 0-2' Water Table 1,490 886 > 2' Water Table 3,232 2,676 Expanded OWW II Sewer Scenario Land Type Number of Lots Acres Total Project Area 10,127 19,436 Roads & Rivers 1,889 Public Lands 208 1,477 Sewered Lands 1,006 561 Septic Disposal Lands 8,913 15,509 On-Site Septic Number of Lots Acres Total Project Area 8,913 15,509 Developed Lands 4,014 6,579 Vacant, 1.5 Acres 644 5,224 Vacant, < 1.5 Acres 4,255 3,310 Vacant, < 1.5 Acres, On-Site Septic Number of Lots Acres Total Parcels 4,255 3,310 0-2' Water Table 1,345 806 > 2' Water Table 2,910 2,516 ' Land Analysis data updated June 13, 1999. Final RPS Report for LCDC _10- July 8, 1999 Study Area 1 - Expanded Oregon Water Wonderland II Sewer Alternative DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF LOTS ACRES 0-2 FT. WATER TABLE LOTS DWELLINGS ACRES > 2 FT WATER TABLE LOTS DWELLINGS ACRES TOTAL DWELLINGS Total Land in Study Area 1 3,066.3 - - - - Roads & Rivers 453.5 - - - - Parcels Within Study Area 1 3,504 2,614.8 1,332 202 904.1 2,172 888 1,710.7 1,090 Public Lands 65 78.3 51 0 70.8 14 0 7.5 0 OWW - Existing Sewer 279 176.1 - 134 OWW - Expanded Sewer 727 384.9 203, 59 115.0 524 193 269.9 252 Developed Lands, Septic 777 770.9 151 151 115.5 626 626 636.4 799 Vacant, Private, 1.5 Acres, Septic 40 232.3 14 0 69.7 26 0 162.6 0 Vacant, Private, < 1.5 Acres, Se tic 1,618 972.7 913 0 522.8 705 0 449.8 0 Study Area 1 - Existing Conditions DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF LOTS ACRES 0-2' WATER TABLE Lois ACRES 12' WATER TABLE Lots ACRES Total Land in Study Area 1 3,068.3 - - Roads & Rivers 453.5 - Public Lands 74 82.7 53 71.6 21 11.1 Sewered Lands/Dwellings 279/134 176.1 - - Septic Disposal Lands 3,287 2,521.2 1,335 896.4 1,952 1,624.8 Developed Lands, Septic 1,017 905.7 206 149.4 811 756.3 Vacant, Private - 1.5 Acres, Septic 40 232.3 14 69.7 26 162.9 Vacant, Private < 1.5 Acres, Se tic 2,085 1,211.9 1,058 602.7 1,027 609.3 Study Area 2 DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF LOTS ACRES 0-2' WATER TABLE LOTS ACRES > 2' WATER TABLE LOTS ACRES Total Land in Study Area 2 3,122.4 - Roads & Rivers 338.4 - - Parcels Within Study Area 2 1,359 2,780.0 338 600.1 1,021 2,179.9 Public Lands 52 , 204.1 17 16.1 35 188.0 Developed Lands, Septic 407 852.7 38 111.3 369 741.4 Vacant, Private 1.5 Acres, Se tic 430 1,205.3 91 335.3 139 869.9 Vacant, Private < 1.5 Acres, Septic 670 517.6 192 137.3 478 380.6 Study Area 3 DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF LOTS ACRES 0-2' WATER TABLE LOTS ACRES > 2' WATER TABLE LOTS ACRES Total Land in Study Area 3 13,244.9 - Roads & Rivers 1,096.0 - - Parcels Within Study Area 3 5,263 12,148.9 386 479.3 4,877 11,669.6 Public Lands 82 1,190.5 41 57.7 41 1,132.8 Developed Lands, Septic 2,840 5,341.2 53 97.9 2,787 5,243.6 Vacant, Private, 1.5 ac., Septic 374 3,786.1 52 177.5 322 3,608.6 Vacant, Private, < 1.5 Acres, Septic 1,967 19,831.1 zao 145.5 1,727 1,685.6 Final RPS Report for LCDC - 11 - July 8, 1999 Appendix B REGIONAL LAND USE PROBLEMS PROBLEM #1: Water Quality Degradation from Existing Subdivision Lots Of the 10,126 lots in the RPS project area, at least 4,071 are already developed, and most use on-site septic systems (only 279 are on sewer) and wells for drinking water. Continuing development in some areas could pollute groundwater and affect drinking water. In addition, there is a possibility that groundwater pollution could lead to water quality degradation to the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. (A) Regional goals for resolution of regional problem: • Protect groundwater quality for safe drinking water; • Reduce number of potential new houses on existing subdivision lots to maintain rural character and reduce number of on-site septic systems on small lots; • Maintain sufficient buildable lots in the region to meet projected population growth; • Establish a sanitary district for septic system maintenance; • Reduce potential for groundwater pollutants to reach rivers. (B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals: The participants in the regional problem solving process selected the following techniques to achieve the goals: • Reduce the potential density of septic systems at buildout in existing subdivisions; • Develop a transferable development credit (TDC) program to use vacant lots in existing subdivisions as "sending areas"; • Design an attractive new neighborhood between La Pine and Wickiup Junction with a range in housing types as a receiving area for TDCs; • Support the upgrade and expansion of the existing sewer system in Oregon Water Wonderland II subdivision; • Continue to sample wells for water quality testing and test experimental on-site septic disposal techniques through Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant; • Improve the reliability of the DEQ groundwater model through the EPA grant. Participants in the regional problem solving process also considered and evaluated the following techniques to achieve the goals, but determined not to recommend them at this time: • Sewer all rural residential lots or certain subdivisions. • Require an effective lot area of 1.5-acres for placement of an on-site septic system. • Education program for the effective long-term use of on-site systems. • Formation of septic system maintenance districts. • Outright purchase of lots with less than a 2-foot water table. Final RPS Report for LCDC -12- July 8, 1999 (C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals. Progress will be measured with the completion of the following tasks: • Purchase of the Bureau of Land Management land for the new neighborhood; • Implementation of the TDC program; • Expansion of the La Pine UUC boundary to include the new neighborhood; • Adoption of the new neighborhood master plan and zoning standards; • Completion of facility planning for new neighborhood; • Funding of sewer and water infrastructure in new neighborhood; • Platting of subdivisions in the new neighborhood; • Expansion of the La Pine sewer and water systems; • Measurement of nitrate level in groundwater; • Adoption of a regional Geographic Rule by DEQ for specific standards for on-site septic systems; • Completion of Periodic Review Task 17 by Deschutes County regarding the "Curry County Decision" and rural vs. urban development. (D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals: Incentives • The TDC program is designed to be a voluntary, market-based program that provides financial compensation as an incentive to reduce density. • The EPA grant provides opportunities for testing experimental on-site systems at low cost, sampling and testing of well water for nitrates and chlorides, and the refinement of the groundwater flow model by creating a three dimensional model (the current model is two dimensional). • The new neighborhood will provide housing choices that are not currently available in the local market. • Requirement to upgrade substandard septic systems at time of property sale. Disincentives • Existing development and unaltered development pattern on vacant subdivision lots could lead to groundwater pollution above regulatory limits (DEQ and EPA) and lead to a building moratorium. • High cost to provide sewer throughout the region if mandated by DEQ. • Statewide planning laws do not support region-wide sewer system. • Property owners view a regional zoning restriction as a taking. (E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals: The County will maintain permanent records on restrictive covenants placed on property where TDCs are sold. These records will provide the number and location of TDCs issued and transferred. The County and DEQ will establish a well sampling program to monitor ground water quality on a semi-annual basis. The County and DEQ will monitor the installation and evaluate the performance of experimental on-site septic technology. Final RPS Report for LCDC -13- July 8, 1999 • The EPA grant will allow DEQ to continue to study and model groundwater movement. • The County will track the number and type of on-site systems installed and compares this data with groundwater studies. • The County and HCD will monitor the range of housing types in the new neighborhood. • EDD will provide technical assistance for funding of sewer and water facility upgrades and expansion. (F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals: • TDC calibration can be changed to respond to inactivity in the market or the need to target a specific area because of ground water quality problems. • A moratorium on new construction could be imposed by DEQ. • A larger minimum lot size for on-site septic systems could be adopted. • Other measures can be evaluated and adopted if appropriate. Final RPS Report for LCDC -14- July 8, 1999 PROBLEM #2: Wildlife Habitat Many of the subdivision lots are one-half acre in size. Population density and further development on these lots will increase conflicts with wildlife, reduce botanical and animal habitat in wetlands and riparian areas, and infringe on Oregon's largest mule deer migration corridor. (A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem: • Maintain or improve habitat for deer migration by reducing potential density of new houses in identified high priority migration corridors (1263 vacant lots). • Maintain riparian and wetland habitat (302 vacant lots). (B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals: The following techniques are considered achievable: • Transferable Development Credit program to reduce density in priority migration corridor and riparian habitat areas; • Use of conservation easements to protect habitat values; • Blocking up large areas in corridors, riparian areas and wetlands and transferring ownership to public or non-profit ownership for management; • Amend County fence standards to reduce conflict with migrating deer; • Work with Department of Forestry on vegetation and fuels management to meet both fire and wildlife objectives. The following techniques may not be achievable: • Purchase of riparian and wetlands habitats; • Adopt and enforce regulation on dog control; (C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals: • Restrictive covenants from sale of TDC's are placed on lots in priority deer migration corridors and riparian habitat areas; • Use of priority migration corridors by deer increases; • Deer populations are maintained to meet ODFW management objectives. • Ownership of lots located in riparian areas, wetlands and migration corridors transferred to public or non-profit agency for management. • Adoption and enforcement by the County of fence standards in priority migration corridors. • Education and/or adoption of management standards for vegetation that reduce fire fuels but also maintain habitat values. (D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals: • Surveys of residents indicate strong support for wildlife values and concern for maintaining rural character. • Reduction in density protects habitat. Final RPS Report for LCDC - 15- July 8, 1999 (E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals: • Work with ODFW to track deer counts to measure use of migration corridors in areas where development is restricted due to TDC program. • Monitor TDC sales and map lots with restricted covenants. • Map habitat areas on a periodic basis to see if large tracts are being protected. (F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals: • Recalibrate TDC system to encourage increased sales of TDCs in priority areas. Final RPS Report for LCDC -16- July 8, 1999 PROBLEM #3: Wildfire Hazard Much of the corridor of platted lots lies at the interface of federal and private lands, and many lots have high fuel loads. The potential of wildland fire is significant and could affect public lands, as well as personal life, residences and property. (A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem: • Map and adopt a wildfire hazard zone for Deschutes County under SB 360 and implement standards for fire retardant building materials; • Identify improvements needed for access and evacuation; • Continued cooperation with interagency fire organization to educate property owners on fuel load management. (B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals: • Reduce potential buildout density through TDC process. • Coordinate with ODFW and ODOF on wildlife management objectives through vegetation management. • Work with La Pine High School, La Pine Parks and Recreation District, and ODOF and ODFW in fuels management planning in new neighborhood. • Support continuing education of property owners to reduce fire hazards on private property by the La Pine RFPD and ODOF. • Coordinate with La Pine RFPD, ODOT, County Road Department, private road districts and owners associations to identify access/evacuation improvements. (C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals: • Adoption of a wildfire hazard map by the County Commissioners. • Development of building standards and fuels management rules in the County Code. • Participation by the public in fuels management education presentations. • Inclusion of a fuels management component in the new neighborhood plan. • Construction of access/evacuation improvements. (D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals: • Future reduction in fuels increases personal safety and reduces risks to property from wildland fire. • Property owners could realize lower insurance rates due to building material standards and participation in a coordinated fuels reduction program. Final RPS Report for LCDC -17- July 8, 1999 (E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals. • Continued participation of County Planner and ODOF in SB 360 process. • Monitoring the TDC program and the success of the new neighborhood as a means to redirect growth. (F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals. • Continued coordination with ODOF and La Pine RFPD on recommendation for changes in fuels management, access/evacuation improvements. Final RPS Report for LCDC -18- July 8, 1999 PROBLEM #4: Roads Developers of many subdivisions did not provide paved roads for County maintenance. Of the nearly 200 miles of unpaved roads, only a few are maintained by Special Road Districts. These few would require costly upgrades to become part of the County road system. There is one Local Improvement District (LID), and most neighborhoods or subdivisions are unable to afford the cost of an LID. Trip generation and the total number of vehicle miles traveled will increase as development continues. This contributes to further maintenance needs and more air pollution from dust, especially in the summer. For some, the dust creates a significant health hazard. (A) Regional goals for resolution of each regional problem: • Diminish the increasing rate of vehicle miles traveled and reduce trip generation. • Reduce further degradation to paved and unpaved roads. • Reduce air pollution from dust. • Reduce conflicts with deer along Highway 97 • Improve County road connections with Highway 97 (B) Optional techniques to achieve the goals: • Educate homeowner associations about the merit of LIDs. • Reduce amount of future trip generation by development of the new neighborhood, where multi-modal transportation planning will occur and roads will be paved. • Develop a proactive program for dust abatement. • Construct Highway 97 intersection improvements at Burgess (grade separation of the highway over the railroad) and Reed (signalize) Roads. (C) Measurable indicators of performance toward achievement of the goals: • Formation of new LIDs; • Construction of intersection improvements; • Highway corridor planning. (D) A system of incentives and disincentives to encourage successful implementation of the techniques chosen by the participants to achieve the goals: Incentives • State grants for improvements to unpaved roads or loans for LIDs. • ODOT construction of intersection improvements. Disincentives • High costs for road improvements or establishment of LIDs. • Low priority for many property owners. Final RPS Report for LCDC _19- July 8, 1999 (E) A system for monitoring progress toward achievement of the goals: • Ongoing traffic counts by the County and ODOT will demonstrate the level of service at intersections. (F) A process for correction of the techniques if monitoring indicates that the techniques are not achieving the goals: • Continued coordination with ODOT and ODFW on highway project development and wildlife conflict mitigation. • Evaluate road needs on an annual basis as part of the County budget cycle. Final RPS Report for LCDC -20- July 8, 1999 Appendix C RPS Stakeholders and Active Citizen Participants AGENCY PARTICIPANTS OREGON STATE DEPARTMENTS Economic Development Environmental Quality Fish and Wildlife Forestry Housing & Community Services Land Conservation & Development Parks & Recreation State Lands Transportation Water Resources FEDERAL AGENCIES Bureau of Land Management Deschutes National Forest DESCHUTES COUNTY DEPARTMENTS Public Works/ Road Sheriff Property Management Environmental Health Robert Raimondi Craig Costello; Robert Baggett; Rodney Weick; Stephanie Hallock; Tom Hall; Dick Nichols Ted Wise; Steve George John Jackson; Tom Keith; Katie Kouse H. Jack Duncan Brent Lake; Marguerite Nabeta Jan Houck; Curtis Smith John Lilly; Bob Brown Mark Devony; Peter Russell Bob Main; Kyle Gorman Ron Wortman; Shaaron Netherton Phil Paterno Mollie Chaudet; George Chesley; Larry Chitwood Gary Judd; Dick Johnson Pete Penzenik Jim Bonnarens Roger Everett; Dan Haldeman OTHER DISTRICTS AGENCIES AND CITIZEN PARTICIPANTS La Pine Community Action Team La Pine Chamber of Commerce La Pine Industrial Park La Pine Park District La Pine Rural Fire Protection District La Pine Senior Center La Pine Special Sewer District Bend/La Pine School District Oregon Water Wonderland II Neighborhood Assoc. Oregon Water Wonderland II Sanitary District Fall River Water Company Water Wonderland Improvement District Jill Phillips-McLane; Randy Gordon; Vickie Allen Ted Scholer Sylvia Shields John Taylor; Marilyn Russell Pat McVicker; Jim Gustafson Andi Ferguson Andrew Newton; Dennis Carter John Rexford Jill Sollenberg; Eric Wyman Don Devine; George Oldham Evan Pruitt Walter Seaborn Final RPS Report for LCDC -21- July 8, 1999 Crescent Ranger District Fall River Special Road District Lazy River Special Road District Ponderosa Pine East Special Road District River Forest Acres Special Road District Special Road District #1 Special Road District #8 Vandervert Acres Special Road District Deschutes Basin Watershed Council Sunriver Fire Department Sunriver Utilities Sunriver Homeowners Association Phil Cruz Glen Downey Dick Decker Lester Davis Mary Wallace; June Sebastian Bob Vaught; Jay Yowell Jim Kendall Barbara Lee Era Horton Terry Penhollow; Todd Penhollow Gary Fiebeck; Bill Peck Many citizens have also contributed to the project, including: Ernie Poole, ArLuDeCo Keith Sime, Realty Community Steve Wert, Soils Consultant Dan Rutherford, on-site information Leon Shields, on-site information Final RPS Report for LCDC -22- July 8, 1999 Appendix D Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies For South Deschutes County Regional Problem Solving Project Adopted by Ordinance No. 98-085 on December 30, 1998 GOALS: 1. To preserve water and air quality, reduce wildfire hazards and protect wildlife habitat. 2. To ensure that domestic water derived from groundwater meets safe drinking water standards. 3. To develop an equitable, market-driven system, that reduces the potential development of existing lots in floodplains, wetlands, mule deer migration corridors and areas susceptible to groundwater pollution. 4. To create a new neighborhood, primarily residential in character, between La Pine and Wickiup Junction, that provides services efficiently, sustains economic development and reduces adverse impacts to groundwater quality in South Deschutes County. 5. To explore experimental sewage disposal methods. POLICIES: The County shall continue to work with landowners, citizens, community organizations and governmental agencies at the local, state and federal level to: a. Continue collaborative work on the Regional Problem Solving project. b. Develop, review and implement land use policies and development standards that will ensure that agreed-upon solutions from the RPS project are enacted to the maximum extent possible. c. Analyze the feasibility of acquiring land from the BLM between La Pine and Wickiup Junction, west of Highway 97, to develop as a new neighborhood. d. Conduct feasibility studies regarding development of a new neighborhood. Such studies may include, but are not limited to: a master design plan, development costs and funding options, water and sewer system feasibility, traffic impacts, and zoning codes and governance issues. Final RPS Report for LCDC -23- July 8, 1999 2. The County shall continue to develop and analyze a Transferable Development Credit program as a possible means to redirect potential growth away from residential lots in subdivisions throughout the region into the new neighborhood. 3. The County shall continue to evaluate means to reduce nitrate loading from on-site sewage disposal systems by exploring experimental on-site sewage disposal technology, retrofitting of existing substandard disposal systems, expansion of sewer systems, development standards such as an effective lot area or variable lot area requirements, or other measures that will accomplish the goals. 4. New residential subdivisions and partitions in the Wickiup Junction Rural Service Center and the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community shall be connected to a community water system and the La Pine Special Sewer District sewage disposal system. Final RPS Report for LCDC -24- July 8, 1999 Appendix E Model for Assigning and Requiring Transferable Development Credits' Possible Method for Assigning TDCs in Sending Area (Existing subdivision lots) # of Lots Size Factor Other Factors Total TDCs Vacant Lots, <1.5 acre, > 2 ft water table Lot Size: 0.1 - .49 acre 289 1.00 289 .50 - .99 acre 1321 0.75 991 1.0 - 1.49 acre 1300 0.50 650 Other Factors Nitrate plume > 1 m911 759 0.25 190 Water table depth 2 - 6 ft 1310 0.25 328 Deer migration corridor only 657 0.25 164 Riparian habitat area only 98 0.25 25 Deer migration & Riparian 107 0.50 54 Past Actions, < 2' water table Septic Approvals 115 1.50 173 Priority existing houses 25 3.00 75 Total 2910 2726 2937 Possible Method for Requiring TDCs in Receiving Area (New Neiahborhood) # of Size Total Units Facto TDCs Single Family Dwelling Lot Size: Up to 7,000 sq. ft 344 1.00 344 7,001 - 10,000 sq. ft. 344 2.00 688 10,001 - 15,000 sq. ft. 300 3.00 900 Over 15,000 sq. ft. 120 4.00 480 Multi-Family Units Single Family Attached (duplex) 250 1.00 250 Apartment Units: 2500- 5000 sq, ft, per unit 146 0.75 110 < 2500 sq. ft. per unt 146 0.50 73 Senior Housing 150 0.00 0 Total 1800 2845 ' This model for assigning and requiring TDCs is modified from the "Summary of Phase II Work On a Transferable Development Credit System," completed for Deschutes County by Clarion Associates in June, 1999. Final RPS Report for LCDC -25- July 8, 1999 Appendix F DOCUMENTS PRODUCED FOR REGIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING PROJECT FOR SOUTH DESCHUTES COUNTY GROUNDWATER AND SEWAGE STUDIES Haldeman, Dan. "Regional Problem Solving Project for South Deschutes County. Community Sewer/On-site Septic Cost Comparison." Deschutes County Environmental Health Department, 1999. Sandison, Derek. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Technical Memorandum. Appendix B of KCM Final Report. . Status Report, South County Wastewater Disposal Options Technical Memorandum. March, 1999. REGIONAL STUDIES Howe, Deborah A., and William A. Rabiega. "La Pine North: Two Futures." Center for Urban Studies, Portland State University, January 1998. KCM,Inc. South County Regional Cost/Benefit Analysis Regional Problem Solving Project Final Report, August, 1997. NEW NEIGHBORHOOD STUDIES HGE, Inc. Water and Wastewater Feasibility Study for New Neighborhood and Cagle Subdivision April, 1999. Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. Traffic Impact Study. La Pine Mixed-Use Development March, 1999. Lennertz, Coyle & Associates. The La Pine New Neighborhood Code - A Tool for Building New Neighborhoods May, 1999. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT CREDITS Clarion Associates. "Deschutes County, Oregon Regional Problem Solving Program Summary of Workshop Presentation, May 22, 1997." June, 1997. . Presentation Materials, Obsolete Subdivisions and Transferrable Development Rights." May 22, 1997. "Deschutes County, Oregon Regional Problem Solving Program Summary of Phase II Work On a Transferable Development Credit System." June 30, 1999. FIRE MANAGEMENT Coyle, Douglas. Fire Management Recommendations for Southern Deschutes County. D & H Enterprises, April, 1997. Final RPS Report for LCDC -26- July 8, 1999 Infrastructure Report Card 2005 WASTEWATER [D-] Co.n...d..it ons I Fol cy...Op.tions I S.o...u.rces_ Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. The EPA estimates that the nation must invest $390 billion over the next 20 years to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands. Yet, in 2005, Congress cut funding for wastewater management for the first time in eight years. The Bush administration has proposed a further 33% reduction, to $730 million, for FY06. Conditions The federal government has directly invested more than $72 billion in the construction of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs) and their related facilities since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. Nevertheless, the physical condition of many of the nation's 16,000 wastewater treatment systems is poor, due to a lack of investment in plant, equipment and other capital improvements over the years. Many systems have reached the end of their useful design lives. Older systems are plagued by chronic overflows during major rain storms and heavy snowmelt and, intentionally or not, are bringing about the discharge of raw sewage into U.S. surface waters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in August 2004 that the volume of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharged nationwide is 850 billion gallons per year. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), caused by blocked or broken pipes, result in the release of as much as 10 billion gallons of raw sewage yearly, according to the EPA. Federal funding under the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program has remained flat for the past decade. With one exception, Congress appropriated between $1.2 billion and $1.35 billion from 1995 to 2004.1-11 But in FY 2005, Congress cut wastewater SRF funding for the first time in eight years, reducing the total investment to $1.1 billion. The Bush administration has proposed further cuts for FY 2006, with a budget submittal calling for an appropriation of only $730 million, a reduction of 33% from the FY 2005-enacted level. Federal assistance has not kept pace with the needs, yet virtually every authority agrees that funding needs remain very high: the United States must invest an additional $181 billion for all types of sewage treatment projects eligible for funding under the Act, according to the most recent needs survey estimate by the EPA and the states, completed in August 2003. A more recent report from the staff of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee stated the issue bluntly: "Without increased investment in wastewater infrastructure, in less than a generation, the U.S. could lose much of the gains it made thus far in improving water quality, and wind up with dirtier water than existed prior to Page 1 of 4 http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=35&printer=l 3/28/2007 Infrastructure Report Card 2005 the enactment of the 1972 Clean Water Act." That is only part of the story. In September 2002, EPA released a detailed gap analysis, which assessed the difference between current spending for wastewater infrastructure and total funding needs. The EPA Gap Analysis estimated that, over the next two decades, the United States must spend nearly $390 billion to replace existing wastewater infrastructure systems and to build new ones (the total includes money for some projects not currently eligible for federal funds, such as system replacement, which are not reflected in the EPA State Needs Survey). According to the Gap Analysis, if there is no increase in investment, there will be a roughly $6 billion gap between current annual capital expenditures for wastewater treatment ($13 billion annually) and projected spending needs. The study also estimated that, if wastewater spending increases by only 3% per year, the gap would shrink by nearly 90% (to about $1 billion annually). In 2000, the Water Infrastructure Network, a consortium of water and wastewater providers, researchers, environmentalists, engineers (including the American Society of Civil Engineers [ASCE]) and product manufacturers, released a study concluding that the annual investment need for all sewer treatment facilities is $12 billion. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its own gap analysis in 2002, in which it determined that the gap for wastewater ranges, from $23 billion to $37 billion annually, depending on various financial and accounting variables.M Policy Options If the nation fails to meet the investment needs of the next 20 years, it risks reversing the public health, environmental, and economic gains of the past three decades. The case for increased federal investment is compelling. Needs are large and unprecedented; in many locations, local sources cannot be expected to meet this challenge alone and, because waters are shared across local and state boundaries, the benefits of federal help will accrue to the entire nation. Clean and safe water is no less a national priority than are national defense, an adequate system of interstate highways, and a safe and efficient aviation system. Many other highly important infrastructure programs enjoy sustainable, long-term sources of federal backing, often through the use of dedicated trust funds; under current policy, water and wastewater infrastructure do not. The American Society of Civil Engineers supports enactment of a federal water infrastructure trust fund act that would provide a reliable source of federal assistance for the construction and repair of POTWs to reduce the enormous funding gap. In the interim, ASCE supports annual appropriations of $1.5 billion from the federal general fund for the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program. In addition, ASCE supports the establishment of a federal capital budget to create a mechanism to help reduce the constant conflict between short-term and long-term needs. The current federal budget process does not differentiate between expenditures for current consumption and long-term investment. This causes major inefficiencies in the planning, design and construction process for long-term investments. A capital budget system would help to increase public awareness of the problems and needs facing this country's physical infrastructure, and would help Congress to focus on programs devoted to long- Page 2 of 4 http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=35&printer=1 3/28/2007 Infrastructure Report Card 2005 term growth and productivity. . ASCE supports funding research into wastewater treatment technology, which may reduce capital expenditures, as well as operation and maintenance cost. An example of technology that needs further study is membrane bioreactors. Sources U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Summary of EPA's 2006 Budget, February 2005 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Water Infrastructure Financing Act, October 2004 U.S. House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Progress Made, Progress Lost, Minority Staff Report, October 2004 Congressional Research Service, Implementing the Clean Water Act, September 2004 Congressional Research Service, Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress, September 2004 Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., All Dried up; How Clean Water is Threatened by Budget Cuts, September 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs, August 2004 Government Accountability Office, Water Infrastructure: Comprehensive Asset Management Has Potential to Help Utilities Better Identify Needs and Plan Future Investments, March 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, September 2002 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure, November 2002 Water Infrastructure Network, Water Infrastructure NOW, February 2001 Water Infrastructure Network, Clean and Safe Water for the 21St Century, April 2000 ASCE Policy Statement 299, "Infrastructure Improvement Policy," 2003 ASCE Policy Statement 326, "Waste Water Facilities Construction Funding," 2003 ASCE Policy Statement 395, "Control of Combined Sewer Discharges," 2003 ASCE Policy Statement 420, "Clean Water Act Reauthorization," 2004 ASCE Policy Statement 453, "Federal Capital Budgeting," 2000 ASCE Policy Statement 480, "Clean Water Infrastructure Funding," 2003 [1] The appropriation for state SRF programs was reduced to $625 million in FY 1997. [21 None of the estimates cited includes the costs of operation and maintenance (O&M), costs that are borne http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=35&printer--l Page 3 of 4 3/28/2007 Infrastructure Report Card 2005 Page 4 of 4 entirely by the local utilities and are not eligible for federal funding. The 2002 Gap Analysis, for example, put the total O&M cost at $161 billion for the 20-year study period. Copyright © 1996 - 2005 ASCE. All rights reserved. Terms. a.nd Conditions Privacy. Please send your comments or questions to the rep....ortcaW.@.asce.org. In the case of technical issues, please contact the ASCE_We_b-n a.s...ter. http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=35&printer=l 3/28/2007 Department of Environmental Quality 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 503-229-5696 TTY: 503-229-6993 Tom Anderson, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Dear Mr. Anderson: I understand there is some question about DEQ's position on the proposed County Ordinance regarding nitrate contamination of water from onsite septic systems. This question may stem from a letter from my Eastern Region Administrator, Joni Hammond, to Mr. Steve Wert. Ms. Hammond's letter responded to Mr. Wert's concerns about the South Deschutes County Groundwater Protection Plan. Mr. Wert had expressed the need for additional time to conduct independent sampling of groundwater wells in the area. He also wants to conduct an independent review of the U.S. Geological Survey's nitrate loading management model. Ms. Hammond stated in her letter to Mr. Wert that DEQ encourages the County to allow a reasonable time for Mr. Wert to complete these activities. I support Ms. Hammond's statement and encourage the County to consider allowing additional time prior to adopting the Ordinance. When I addressed DEQ's onsite program annual conference on February 13, 2006, I discussed the proposed Ordinance and how DEQ and Deschutes County are partnering in this effort. I also stated that we are hopeful the County will adopt the Ordinance in the near future. I believe we share common goals including collaborating with each other to protect groundwater and surface water in South Deschutes County. • In general, DEQ supports the proposed Ordinance; however, there are several areas in the proposed Ordinance that DEQ would have approached differently. These include allowing sewering, engineered fills, and easements as tools to be considered. These differences have been outlined in the Memorandum of • Understanding (MOU) between DEQ and the County. I understand that the MOU has been drafted awl is ready for signature by both parties. We support your authority and responsibility to administer the onsite program in Deschutes County and your authority to adopt County Ordinance(s) as appropriate. We also support public process and the right of property owners in South Deschutes County to help determine the fate of groundwater and surface water in their community. The public process now underway will determine the future of the proposed Ordinance. We encourage the County to fully consider the public feedback and adapt the Ordinance as necessary. The Deschutes County Commissioners, of course, will make the final determination on how to proceed. We remain an active partner with you in protecting the groundwater and surface water in South Deschutes County. If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact Joni Hammond at (541) 278-4610. Sincerely, Stephanie"Hallock; Director :Oregon Department of Environmental Quality cc: Joni Hammond, DEQ, ER, Pendleton Office EC,EIVE MAR 16 2007 UL03( tau I.Eb COUh -Y Oreg6n Theodore R. KuImWsid, Governor June 15, 2005 Deschutes County Board of. Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR. 97701 Department of Environmental Quality Eastern Region 700 SE Emigrant Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 (541) 276-4063 VokWTl y CEI /en. FAX (541) 278.0168 ~ JuN 1 ? 2005 E8C.11U1'ES CUM TY RE:..Regional Rule for.South Deschutes County Dear Commissioners DeWolf, Luke, and Daly. Congratulations to you and to your staff in the Community Development Department's Environmental Health Division (Environmental Health Division) for the excellent,work accomplished during the La Pine National Demonstration Project. The information produced during this project has already been and will continue to be useful for other . states and jurisdictions nationally, as well as for Oregon and, specifically, Deschutes County. Having followed the work of Deschutes County which.began with the Regional Problem Solving Project (RPS), I am aware of the extensive commitment you have already made to solve the issues of the south county area. As the La Pine National Demonstration Project comes to closure focus will now turn, in part, to implementing the loan portion of the project. The loan program will provide money to some homeowners in the area to retrofit or upgrade existing onsite systems and for new innovative onsite systems. Over the past several months, the Department of Environmental Quality. (DEQ) and the Environmental Health Division have discussed the need to develop a regional rule that would require more stringent performance standards for septic systems in south Deschutes County. The more stringent performance standards would address increasing nitrate-nitrogen levels in the groundwater. Our agency supports the use of a local ordinance as the legal mechanism to impose the new performance standards. Development of this ordinance will require close coordination between the county and our Department and, we believe, will require an updated contract between the county and our agency. Finally, pubic.awareness of a new-ordinance is vitally important. We realize that much work has been done by the County to inform the. public. about. the seriousness of the . nitrate problem and the need to upgrade sewage treatment and disposal practices.. DEQ/U-101 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 15, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Nevertheless, we believe that, by nature, the general public. is usually apathetic to these types ofinitiatives and will, not realize.the impact of the ordinance'untii it IsImposed upon lliem. As _parto f =developing the ordinance; we would like to.work with you to develop an effective Pub'c:iwareness progranf I would like to confirm to you DEQ's commitment to continue working with Deschutes County towards a collaborative and constructive solution for the region. Again thank you for your attention and if you have any further questions please contact Dick Nichols at (541.) 388-6146, x251 or Mark Cullington at (503) 229-6442. Sincerely, J ' ammond Administrator Eastern Region JH: WQ/MC Cc: elrom.Andersen, Deschutes County Community Development Department Dan Haldeman, Deschutes County Community Development Department Lauri Aunan, DEQ HQ Portland Mark Cullington, DEQ HQ Portland Dick Nichols, DEQ ER Bend Bob Baggett, DEQ ER Bend C") MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between EXHIBIT r'Hr' THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. ODEQ - MOU DESCHUTES COUNTY. OREGON And THE OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Related to Continued Cooperation to Implement the Goals of the Regional Problem Solving Project for Deschutes Count% I. PURPOSE This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is between Deschutes County, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon, through the Deschutes County Community Development Department, hereinafter referred to as "the County", and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, hereinafter referred to as "DEQ". It establishes standards of cooperation for implementing chosen solutions of the County's Regional Problem Solving Project. Oregon's Regional Problem Solving statute. ORS 197.650, requires assurance that "goals that are the subject of the collaborative regional problem solving process" are achieved. II. BACKGROUND The Oregon State Legislature authorized the Regional Problem Solving Project (RPS Project) and assigned the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to administer the program. By statute, the Project required the collaboration of all local, state and federal agencies involved in the study area to identify and resolve significant land use problems. Thousands of lots were platted in the RPS project area prior to Oregon's land use laws. As development continues, there are impacts to groundwater that may become polluted, to wetlands. riparian areas, wildlife habitats and migration corridors, with increased wildfire hazards. The favored solution to reduce density is to purchase and develop a parcel of 518 acres between La Pine and Wickiup Junction. This property has favorable access, existing utilities and infrastructure. Agency stakeholders participated in the preparation of alternative solutions to problems. The County and stakeholders concurred on the goal of exploring a new neighborhood as a receiving area for development rights as a means to reduce development in more sensitive areas where infrastructure does not exist. Groundwater has been a long-standing issue in the upper Deschutes River basin. DEQ has developed a groundwater computer model that indicates potential future degradation of water quality should existing and future development continue to use conventional sewage treatment and disposal methods that do not remove nitrogen. As a result of the findings from this project, DEQ was successful in acquiring a $5.5 million appropriation for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum of Understanding Regional Problem Solving Goals • Substantiate further the potential for groundwater contamination:, • Test alternative waste water facilities: • Provide upgrades to existing facilities: • Work with USGS to determine the impact of possible groundwater pollution to the Deschutes River. Implementation of the new neighborhood meets the following Quality Development Objectives established by Executive Order 97=22. These Objectives are to be used in combination with state and local partnership principles and local development objectives to help build healthy and diverse communities and regions throughout Oregon. These objectives are: • Give priority to a quality mix of development that addresses the economic and colminunity goals of a community and a region. • Encourage mixed use. energy efficient development designed to encourage walking. biking and transit use (where transit is available). ■ Support development that is compatible with a community's ability to provide adequate public facilities and services. • Facilitate development that is compatible inunity and regional environmental concerns and available natural resources (e.g. a,,.wabie water, air quality. etc.) ■ Support development that provides for a balance of jobs and affordable housing within a community to reduce the need to commute long distances between home and work. therebv minimizing personal commuting costs as well as the public and societal costs of expanding the transportation infrastructure. Ill. AGREEMENT s In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein. the parties agree as follows: A. The parties both agree to continue to cooperate in administering the grant from EPA. including the following tasks: 1. Site. permit and install alternative s%*stems pursuant to County and State regulations: 2. Analyze and monitor effectiveness of alternative wastewater treatment systems to reduce nitrate levels from existing and new on-site disposal -nits; 3. Continue to implement a groundwater-monitoring program. B. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality agrees to: Consider regulatory changes as needed to establish specific wastewater treatment and disposal standards to address potential groundwater contamination problems ill the Regional Problem Solving Project's study area. C. Deschutes County, through its Department of Environmental Health, agrees to: I. Ensure compliance with the County's and State's on-site sewage disposal system regulations: 2. Provide information to property owners. the public and stakeholders on the effectiveness of alternative wastewater treatment svstems to reduce nitrate levels from existing and new on- site sewage disposal units. 1 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2 Memorandum of Understanding Regional Problem Solving Goals D. General Provisions: 1. Ejjec•tive Date. This MOU is effective as of the last date shown below. .11otlificcttions. Modifications within the scope of this IOU shall be made by mutual consent of both parities, by the issuance of a written modification, signed and dated by both parties prior to any changes being performed. I Renewal. This MOU shall automatically renew each July 1. unless otherwise terminated. 4. Termination. Either party. in writing, may terminate this MOU. in whole or in part. 5. Entire .-Agreement. The representations made in this MOU constitute the entire agreement. No prior or contemporaneous negotiations, understandings, or agreement sliall be valid unless in %%riting and signed by authorized representatives of each party. IV. SIGNATURES For the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: DATED this 2 5 ~Cday of. ~ L.. 2000 1 LangdonlMarsh, Director For Deschutes County: X7/1 DATED thiZ day of ~ 2000 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESOgUTES COUbWY, OREGON L. SweaAlWn. Chair ATTEST: ~7. Recording Secretary Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Memorandum of Understanding Regional Problem Solving Goals Tom De , Commissioner` nnls R. Luke, Commissioner 3 ~ MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 2005 TO: TDC A =1sorymmittee FROM: Cathe , Dick ols, Jo<ngs, and Doug White RE: Goal 11 and South Desc tes County Regional Problem Solving The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify how Statewide Planning Goal 11 and the adopted South Deschutes County Regional Problem Solving solutions affect the opportunities for sewer systems as an option to modify the Transferable Development Credit program. It is important to clarify these issues because of opinions stated by Advisory Committee members promoting the use of cluster or other sewer systems as an approach to solve the groundwater problem. On September 26, 2005 Dick Nichols (DEQ), Jon Jinings and Doug White (DLCD), Catherine Morrow, Dan Haldeman, Barbara Rich and Peter Gutowsky (Deschutes County) met to discuss Goal 11 and the task of the TDC Advisory Committee. The following summarizes the consensus of the interagency group. GOAL 11 Statewide Planning Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, and Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR 660 660-011-0060) regulates how sewer systems are located outside of urban growth boundaries (UGBs) or unincorporated communities. The Goal is: 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. The Goal further requires: Local Governments shall not allow the establishment or extension of sewer systems outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries, or allow extensions of sewer lines from within urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries to serve land outside those boundaries, except where the new or extended system is the only practicable alternative to mitigate a public health hazard and will not adversely affect farm or forest land. The policy issue of permitting cluster or other sewer systems outside of UGBs and unincorporated communities has been discussed by state agencies for many years. Any decisions regarding changes to the Statewide Planning Goal are made at the state level. TDC Advisory Committee Memo 9/30/05 Page 1 Goal 11 was amended by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in February 2005. The purpose of the amendment was to clarify the issues related to hooking up residential uses to existing sewers outside of UGBs. The amendment was a result of an extensive public process including review by the LCDC appointed Economic Development and Rural, Commercial and Industrial Development work groups. The DEQ participated in the amendment process. Although there was testimony to consider broader amendments to the rule to address the policy of new sewers outside of UGBs, the LCDC decided, and the DEQ agreed (see attached letter), to defer that policy question to the comprehensive review of the statewide land use program. It is possible to take an exception to Goal 11 to allow sewers outside of UGBs. However, at this time it is not possible under the Goal or the criteria in OAR 660- 011-0060 to allow a sewer system in south Deschutes County. The OAR criteria require that the DEQ or the Oregon Health Division determine that there is a public health hazard and that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system to abate the hazard. All the previous and existing projects undertaken in south Deschutes County worked to prevent a health hazard and these programs have not yet determined that there is no practicable alternative to a sewer system. Future use of the USGS optimization model may identify specific areas where onsite technology will not prevent a health hazard and, in those cases, it may be possible to justify an exception. Regional Problem Solving • The South County Regional Problem Solving Project (RPS) resulted in adoption of changes to the County Comprehensive Plan to include the designation of the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area as a receiving area for development rights. As a result of RPS, the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners and DEQ signed a memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The agreement in the MOU is to continue to cooperate in analyzing and monitoring onsite systems as a means to address the potential groundwater contamination problem. The MOU specifically cites the La Pine Neighborhood, the TDC program and the 5.5 million dollar appropriation to test alternative onsite systems and provide upgrades to existing systems. This agreement and the County Comprehensive Plan do not support sewers as a solution to the groundwater issue. Role of Advisory Committee The goal of the Advisory Committee, as stated in the invitation letter, is to develop a proposal to revise the TDC program. At the first meeting we established objectives including: o Use the optimization model to analyze alternative strategies for siting new and replacement onsite septic systems. o Modify the Transferable Development Credit (TDC) program to allow continued development in the Neighborhood Planning Area. TDC Advisory Committee Memo 9/30/05 Page 2 • Although the committee generated ideas about using approaches such as cluster systems or sewers in the south county, the State policy embodied in Goal 11 and in the acknowledgement of the County RPS program does not allow the county, DLCD, or ODEQ to consider cluster systems at this time. • The EPA Federal Earmark Grant was awarded to implement the RPS goals and the technology that was tested by the DEQ in the 5.5 million dollar grant. The work plan funded by EPA does not include consideration or the development of sewer systems. • The legislature approved funding for a two year review of the State land use program by DLCD. The policies regarding public facilities will be debated in a statewide forum during that process. Opportunities to consider cluster systems or sewers may be created with future changes to the Goals or land use program. • To meet the work scope of the current EPA grant and the objectives of the RPS program, the committee's energy and attention are most effectively applied by identifying and evaluating strategies to modify the TDC program within the constraints of Goal 11 and RPS. The Advisory Committee is not the forum in which to debate existing state public facilities policy because the ability to change these rules does not yet exist. Pursuing sewer systems at this time detracts from implementation of existing and planned RPS tasks and the work plan funded by the current EPA grant. TDC Advisory Committee Memo 9/30/05 Page 3 Comments Related to Cost of Proposal % y ex;_ _ LISP-of Co ts' r,l f `t ..x~ o i~ f Ip,iewer-1 m .n st i-I Il J [ 1- iI n fr the Ff I ,I n 7 7 tr -d .ol 7 tha'.!hdw t! I,r,rect t.r n l Plt F ,-J- Tn a_um I 1 alt I1 r ,:ect Ir; Iat f r i;catm - F ,1 I'd _re• t 10. and l gars m, elan t t : _,,,t of c h „d the . .:r~ Lu; ]per. n. .,s nn Fr -j r --nn[ --*rare,,] e, ~I j"r an 'I r rod - Th H ad ,I,J f 1 tt 1 ml ed 5 w r5t T.n Ca e c n i in sally n`t]esl C a:ar J . t,'i 51 0(51 F ('.fl ri^r oSt : or lua n I,-,n hor vi w..It tz1_v7m1, In ~1m rJJ113f r en,e°nn:e -~st - st co-r aascn - In all thecharts and ra hs that have been resented-6h ts-en h "rd -t. _fa'F 'n Ir ,an t dv` Do , . ,t, _ost I . . A co-enefn anal sts based en cost er increment of t rgan erv 11 It, and shot to f rfiii - . Cdn ar :an _ Has anyone considered now the cost of requiring more expensive septic systems and making alterations to existing systems will affect ost e;moor son ' the overall affordable housing in South County and Central Oregon, as well. (i.e. will the cost of housing make it unattainable for a tar er group of homeowners? Cost Cost of Ii i the financial impacts on the families in the area need to be addressed Cost v n Cost of Iivin Please do not do this. Please reconsider this Policy This will have a devastating impact on the citizens of the community. Cost Cost of Iivin This could potentially pull $150,000,000 out of this area. An area with an average low income of $20,000 or Iess.There has to be a better way. Nobody wants dirty water or di rivers, however this policy oes over the line. Cost Cost of Ii in We do not want this - we cannot afford itll ' ` Cost v Cost of Iivin -can I t aflortl thisonu rade am retired and a fixed income. I can't afford the upgrades Cost Cost of living , costs too much Cost Cost of living This rule will make the are unaffordable cost Cost of living Maintenance costs will be unaffordable on low/fixed inc cost Cost of living ome ' Cost Cost of living Lots of seniors can t afford the upgrade The ro osal costs too much Cost Cost of Iivin The financial burden is too hi h Cost Cost of Iivin TAe ma orit in this community cannot afford to upgrade theirs stem Cosl c t Cost of living Hex do ou realistical expect these people to com I whh the ek acted doltar culls to u date theirs l os Cost of Iivin s ams. The Ian is not-workable because it also tries to ad'ustahe old su8oiviaions at th f h Cost Cost of living e a ense o t e property . Cost Cost of livirt The County hasn't put out any money - this program will be a cash cow for county with the increase in permits and fees a. CDD match required for all grants. The department is fee supported and does not make a profit on the fees nor does it receive any general fund. Any funds to operate a new program before grants are received come from the general fund. For example, the money used to purchase the new neighborhood land came from the general fund and that was dedicated to fund the solution to the roundwater issues. An mono made off the sale of land oes into the partnership fund to het finance upgrades Cost C . Are there different levelsof financial assistance? Not et ount contribution Are the f h d f Cost - Financial Assistance re two un s or omeowner assistance? a. Sale of land plus any fallback payments In lieu of PRCs b. National Demonstration project fund for loans c " Rabat:from Elk Horn Land Development Cost Financial Assista ce will there be addttional financial assistance for maintenance ($700.800 for 2 year contract?) n a. We don't. know real costs of annual maintenance because the market is. changing so much . b. The systems must be maintained because of their complexity and because it is required by state rule. c. Maintenance is considered the homeowner responsibility because the homeowners: need to take some ownership of the system and not receive a complete free ride, d. Ownersaened 8 munia al sewers must a a month) operation and maintenance fee. to continue to be served [ Cost Financial Assistanc Win o is 11cle forthefoill e a.- USDA loans and grants are targeted towards low/fixed income and elderly persons b:- Deschutes Coun loan ro ram bas not been desi ned at and we are taking su a a estionsfor cntena - Cost Financial Assistance The financial he offered seems to be unclear,: because it is way below the actual costs. C t Are there loans or rants available toisu ort this expensive endeavor os . Financial Assistance . are the low intereet loans available et? Cost Financial Assistance what financial assistance sis: availble now? Cost Financial Assistance When will the low interest loans be available? Cost- Financial Assistance Give a -tax credit for u ratlin s stems Cost Financial Assistance. Waive the permit costs for u redin s stems Cost Cost Idea Idea Raise property taxes for the entire count to create a pollution fund to a for this fix and other problem areas Cost Idea l recommend the Count assign a "South Count Ombudsman" to assist property owners with finding financial assistance for upgrades. p Cost Idea s stem im rovemanis tax deductible? VF It Cost Idea W When developer purchases land, where the money go? The land for the new La Pine neighborhood was purchased to help solve the groundwater problem so the money from the sale of land oes into a coon fund to assist roe owners u radio theirs stems. d to assist a Cost New Nei hborhood What is maintenance current is .800/2 ears Please fi ures on the actual costs of thse s stems and the cost of maintenance Cost . Onsite stem cosk ' m ch h H ow u do systems cost? Vanes - Cary Manhewsr-$7-15K Cost : Onsite s stem cost a. Permit costs b. Rebates loan program can the owner build/engineer their system to save on installation costs? Cost Onsite s'stem cost a.The manufacturers of the systems s eci whether a homeowner can do this type of work or not. p Cost Onsite 5 stem cost What will m out of ocket costs be? What are. the costs of these new system s? Cost Onsite stem Cost We won't know the costs 'o e`cte the rule is ado ted this rocess is bin t f t Cost Onsite system cost , oo as What i ff 7 Cost Onsite stem cost s annua ee $50 to ermiffin a v c..~N r nEQ? - Parmlt It Me dnl a. FR a'rr 'Jwe tl 3-•0I t. - r. 5rF 5 h ; s f. ha YF IF ie for r.r fJh y anlq tth FR ar~oCrr wan T9 .fallte k n e` as t p.Hoi d - , " r scl si rcr' n it t. a n n Sant t- t ss l" r n. r~ f N b. e F Aram a a aL e t . p, lu on Jr .t un C:redit E e C r drs n tfy de ed aB th 7 Fs t s t n in 9se 9t~f May 1 " t t bUhea to adop ect n th TDC r= r r st amenfTe i toff s _ to I thi'd e t r ,le w th re rn t ~r Jute b(t~ ` _al}ZW It r _ it hit or fedrt Hom L -d De, do nr t r2:.d ' t1 , d re bat r -retrofa - .u' - - Jost - _ F lotion R: d C'10 n C t d The taut estate market sill be flooded when everybody tuns in sail cm m , i How can you account for growth of propeortyg nwners over 10 years if La Pine area has the exposure" of high nitrate level? How will or y .ust Real estate market do ou explain to the economic effect that"ne ativeex osure" will do for the roe values In this area? Cost R l e t t k Ne ath. re ional Image reflected in reduced roe values attime of sale ea s a e mr et a . Cost Real estate m arket Page 1 Comments related to Grant Funding, High Groundwater Lots, Ideas, Rule Implementation, Local Rule Concepts, Onsite Systems ~ _,ti-... a~-y,,~ou fm iS x'4`,'t- I,'`.~Cytg v", How much rarl1 f n b e :r SUbCBQ c _L oas e r used In the La Fine region? cut o . , m1TOn, interest on ' . l 5,r' H hin ow was the 515. million for the La Pine National Demonstration Project spent? t fun I dm are is t e rant directive and how and where the mono was s enliaudit i available Financial Re rtin Grant fund in the , doesn't reel have 200 000 for loans Financial Re rtin y Islas o -omponanf o e roun afar ro ec loh 0 an top" wrier u Ic Education matena Is) not Grant fund in Financial Re rtin , scheduled until June 30, 2007. Perhaps this should be the first thin on the list . Grant funding Work Plan " ListofComments ' he county 'des not treat a progen owners y h y h e I 6t Category "Subcategb- pry y . e av o e0 t wu to 1,4 o red r.,: owners om a ev mgihe o s ir Igh liroundv.aiar a s on the groun wa er mo e , e ou Is preventing some property owners rom eve oping air an an is ea or Lots all existing and new syatema from Sunriver south to the Klamath County border to below nitrate producing individual High Groundwater s stems. Lots List of Comments n aL-, - Category Subcate o~~ Tr a .,.IS shuuil Ue anieu Won the riversto manage l,aa nitrate rOOlenl Waa Lill IF Omments 'W.."isthe en al for non-tom Isar.," S' 0 Category : - ,$me t 0g0 How will this be effective at the end r i -czi s implementation ation Im lemem n Eniorceent What is the code enforcement ro osad for this rule - does the eoun have the ersOnnel ~ en G Im lementation Enforcement Im lementation Enforcement a. Many may upgrade at time of reniudel b. May upgrade at time of sale C. Involuntary compliance is'afuture Board of County Commissioners policy decision d. Rule will be coun code and enforced as such - a e sure t Ia an wo now an „Or ears l0 come Implementation Enforcement an In Iw ue eve opine s, ex. on erosa Ines a treated i eren , can ey o it own I nc w, en own m smentation measure succe ss Installers and maintenance providers? a. A group of homeowners can create their own district, like a water district, and that district can employ or contract with licensed and certified installers and maintenance providers, Im lementation O&M Dist ict eve you cons, ere wo Ing roug e a Ina ewer Is tct n or r I. Advisory 08M committee recommended against forming utility district for 08M because they preferred keeping the work in the private sector New s stems alread have to install the new systems w th 1 ho m,o,,y _ system was:a roved'onf Inn lementation Im lament -,i O&M District 'JAR 340-071-(Ir;. r a r ago ands bought ink n r aI Im Iement~ )r R c t in'tMW nstalled m s stem-w y J, I : (have to upgrad residents are under the pr...~..n J,, r Im lamett nsfelat nstalle m s steT Im lementa Mallw efe bees= 6 liirem rl tg ernf wh~,n Ih ho e,s rr• ~cn~;ed^ n r• . T' : Im emem: Im er,e". o. Im'n n List of Com is : ' • - , Vvnat a n Cate 0 Subcate o' rea Is a ected the ro osetl Local rule? re ere o s awl no a require o upgra a Local F.c:z z : Aiiea- area a. Rule concept is. that all lots will upgrade (everyone contributes to the problem, everyone should contribute to the solution at is t e geograp Ic oun ary Local Rule Concept Affected area. a All unsewered lots from Sunriver to the Klamath County border yiust a me an not unriver Local Rule Concept Affected area a. Sunriver is on sewer, unsewered lots with a Sunriver mailing address are included in the rule Local Rule Concept Affe ted cl Is S rin ever inuded? - Yes. : The ro esed changes should not remove an n hts ofa eal regarding Des utes Countyn decisions. local Rule Concept Local' ule Concept area c Affected area will the Local: Rule. take awe a eal: to OEC? .2E. 22- DonY a I rL retroactive) Local Rule Concept A alNadance ; at does new construction have to do? Local Rule Conte 1 FJrlstin is stem upgrades e o ga' s:eyl I h Local Rule Conce I News stem r ulrements _.II ate s;.a.' S recta T " - -777 L c ` u "Eon 1. d ist of Comments y I - r` - = - -Ca169ory Subcat0 O - there are atwa snows returns bacomm evadable. have u looked at others stems - there are twos stems I found on the intemst that reduce nitrates finnan stems A roval rocess Why is the NI I "stem nor listed as a nitro en reducin s stem? Onstte.S stems A roust rocess Of the numerous stems on the market wh era on three acre tad Onsite S stems A royal process Can Iinstall.an ATT m self? Onslie S stems A ravel rocesa Isttiere a mono of ,on who can do toe work? on lie S stems I nstallation What arethe deal n standa s focthe news stems? Onsite S stems I Onsite S stems nstallation are retno Its compab ewli gal on tan'. mstana5on Eli Yes if that tank is still sound. "net ndrate levels: do the new s stems roduca? Onsite-S stems I nstallation : Haw on o the nitrogen reducin ems last? Onsite Systems . Performance tt seems amore detailedstud (should be made of the treatments stems Onstte Systems P erformance . ese system are not it understoo b t a real ants Onsde S stems P ertormance The systems approved ti 'the State of.Ore on are not raven to be effective for the lon term Onsde Systems P ertormance g , : Do ou havean avidence to prove the new s emswork7 st Onske Systems P erformance ' N'. -I,,--bentsystems don't appear ast ou a e will work OnsdeS stems P eiformance Ara there some of.theses stems a rea installed? Dnaltesystems , P erformance r 0 San ers wor OnstteSystems ` - P erformance. a. Yes, they are designed to remove bacteria but they are not designed to remove nitrates so they do not do a good job of that. Recirculating sand filters do remove nitrates to a degree but the sand filters installed in South Deschutes County are sin le- assR; tems. - La I n 8 68n er In a Ina Project - did I al 0 0 a JO . Onsttes stems P erformance: ` a.' They were control systems to study how well they perform in this region and they did not perform as expected. The stu here . end other aero ssthe nation: show that sand fitters don't reduce nitrogen : O . ow dolt eve Y. ems een on me nsde systems : P erformance a; - Some areas 20-30 years - b.- La Pine Demonstration .Pro ecl on line since 2000 . O wrist proof ey will wo nt, of erexampes nsite systems P erformance a. Yes, La Pine Demonstration Pro ect, Rhode Island Warren Vermont Florida'Ke s ys , O What I. re e eves ave een van to a ow standard an an I er sys ems m e: u an ow many o t ose ave nslte s tems P - erformance been tested and at what distance does dilution occur to :a sate level Have results of this t ti b s . es ng een publish ed? O nsile Systems P erformance If res onsible homeonwers have tested their water sodree and maintained their ae tic. s:ams - wh is that not good era: a r~ O How much f th rt tta stem;, P erformance o e cost of the s stem is rofit to the manufanurer and installer of these systems. O How do we find outwhatkin of u reds we wdlneedr - nsde S stems r~rt= --do, 1, .11 O 6 l ctrl bo _ IBC' e *d ~ nstle s stems ..lac - ~ 1 S ri's5 ~r7Y - Gila ClF 'Sit a S' , ~ e i e. 'a' A t - e O 6 e t Page 2 Llst of Commegttt.' = = anymra pursued this r<mo op gram amour F ar m n h a s Cato o Subcate o' y y cum u es are ev manng and u ing these systems all overt the country a s the impa o a ins incorpora ion. Polio Case studies a. There is no change to the program until La Pine adopts a comprehenslve plan and zonin code th t ff t g a a ec s the new neighborhood The Coun would be better served workinc ar 4anr wih CEO a~ ~ w `mq~.n unle7 Polio y Foll~v ~ Ctt of La Plne at ha ens If ou than e: ourmintl 3. ea u n the I r ~ L Thins kee than m how.dan we be certa it , Wu le than esto rule. I'r/nn r]iFS h'aTa.r~~Un.y rat C- ~ ' :e only ha ~ aWhonty c c scFure ' ~ r uem alJi stl todb C. h s~ , la tr u t 11-0 _ rl h~r7 - he I p Uu a s t rae -r tl rtr3t Er LI r h_ t, t p r --ngte 1G e f(h-ntr t s _ _ for, nq r r m t- l h The ( st rf L ,ill 1,4 r -r G-:.)tes rOUI t . g . 1 l - I -c se lot t - n r on -_K a 1 1Y t If F N-d the DE. = r e n-I Iret th ou0e7Jr tr nr:!pro L ler•t• via-r-rh r I Ths a fee ral a . Crr nc .~a er >.n nh.ra' th-u m ILJS.H teaeral.law,that a hes tocommuo .waters ete msh v y The wells that rr ht be affected are ve shallow, but the count is still .,uau :r th c ae v A VVIi has the DEQ approved all the existing permits for septic sstems but now a t t h - y-li w n s o t an a the rules ow many sys ems nee to be up rade Poli Why thane now g a. 8 800 m a h o us agree a n ra a con mina ion is an will continue o e a rea pro em. y goes ions o. y as no Polio there been as much time and money spent solving the problem to a point where everyone involved would be more agreeable to comply? Polio List of Comments - ' - + Cate o _9-rY_ Subcate o Q rY Th. E h ti sC h n f ,"d a C-j f the last m clog ca 1 G r ]5 to let p pie know cf the pcori p it t _pNn r use en 1 ~;2r a-tl lies iert it 2h thea gtm~u tithe 3th- rl ho'7 rc'~i eireG CI aptl n 1 e P b c a h ~ The r r t i F rl= P nl o Is th r K I-orailablef ru Wlf~ th r.~hngs F' -'ver wt "rr -t . .1: t P LI -h r~n o _ - ~ , Wh a t`ai eet n m h P rl-:=7t-,In Lo.,...., y e i gs in t e anernoon 1 Fot a r How soon Science Session - December Public Outre ach Scnedme of evens Sand notice to the Chamber of Commerce ' - Public Outreach - Schedule of events Provide massive exosurethrough redroBOC~ F nt r a oah<ut 'nil ann mee: ; ; a o a al n s ublic Outreach . , a Nervy resdents have lea for the winter anda r aw e a`ih P ublic Outreach . i e xo o- new «,Ie ' >~gestionto get rnformatlon: out to residents inrougbthe churches PU bIiC Outreach - Nh not s4. our meetin notices In La Pine at me ost ofice=lihr - pubic Outreach . ar: - - - ea5 C~1 710 - OW _~n -tl r Wien'. Public Outreach ~ ~ - x List of Corn-ts ,t a: erc _ F nr at if 11 , Ih~ sus s,~ri art ani thr, P-r-_m-~, r EG ar~5 a i - riternan C aeo- r g' ewer ubcatey S e ves to Consider clusters ,in there be a combination of sewer and onsite7 Sewer Goal 11 m nei hborhootls tlo clust t ? Sewer Goal 11 ers s ems S can't we put sewers stems in rural areas ewer Goai n S as een represents that Centralized systems are not a ow y regon fate. ease prov e a re erence tot is tatute an ewer Goal 11 . ne waived and Considered as an o lion In some of the 'hots ots'that are re orted to exist. S ewer ie Count claims that Goall 11 revents sewers and the KCM reort se s that sewers are too expensive S ewer Goal 11 , ie county got an m t no an fume it into a su ivision. at is more di icu tan an exceptwn to oa ecause Goal 11 s BLM land deal required an act of congress S a ewer Goai 11 on Page 3 Comments related to: Other Sources of Nitrogen, Performance Standards, Policy, Public Outreach, Sewer Comments related to Science " -Itst of Comhlrnte r Cate o. ' SDbc'ate o Belief that the original water contamination problem was phosphates, now it's nitrates; what's next? _ a. The contaminant of concern in south Deschutes County has always been nitrates because of the 10 mg/L safe drinking water act standard and the fact that the rivers In the region are nitro en Ilmited; that is, nitro en acts as a fertilizer If excess amounts' et In to the rivets and streams S i . ep c an a uen a so as viruses, ace a; an can eve a vn a va e o c emcra s depending on ow a oawneIf uses err S m e s c ence Contaminant of concern y em.. y focusin on nitrates, other harmful consfituents can be overlooked. Other pollutants must also be addressed . e ocus o e p an,rs on n trail re ucbon, some pp n m e re, as we earn more, are may e. a rhona treatment racial reme a us Science r Contaminant of concern , s Stems allow for easier and chew er u lades than individuals stems . wen eve-verc a o ev ante a e group a er es a gro ng con aroma on over severe years to be accep a as a o e no us in a ' Science contaminant of concern , few plumes or he spots") (See Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 98-005 (12/90198) The last sentence of paragraph 1 reads 'However the majority of well , show ve low nIbate levels at this time and surface water contaminetlon has not been documented . I:would ;like a co oI data used in ubuG i model so I can net an outside source _7 ,o"; Science _ Date staff D e II most we s m equi a slow owing and lower eqm er t : s t1 f D e II ~Pondero a Pines wet r Is go d we donY have e p c 1 IF{ D kin to 2t+ eJ r i ._m pl X 7 n e F D nkin t ' ),F iT _ 1 h 1 Drlnkln ter 1 I -'h t J111 t I. f nIY~ i9 I I ' a/ I ? t T I L r h-n t t r a 1._'_n ,t ,.n~iliG rgr nrov, ru err y/ n a i l 1 1 .1 ;.t m m.•. rr -.vmelra n,tt.e ~ F II m t om the 1111st curve 1 mp I ~rlave o oat Onnkn 't' build out of the new peg t r 1 r'n dwhat your 1 ~,I roe irwe esmcr all r"S , -Tt_a'r-[rr~--^-~ d- Nclence Effects f om land -d-fine IT F~ , sn 1 pal e 11 e -.hie, .~f ~J - W"'~' - InF, [ 1 tt 1 ' Ac It 'i- 1 r n LI e -dl i~ r r' .1 f 1 Jh e nt ~)I 'r „ j-" I oL<F 9 Ce Is 'fN ir' t .I,tl~ r JM111 r' F Iii 1 tam e3~ - t..+ r "'m9 „ r'IC onoca v.~ c sac sampe orm es.1. a"f uar, r ha n~~~ F v : vrthin m r o -I , If such a clinic 11 n r 1 1 r - :r t. dank their water safely or know that they have an excess,,, nitrate problem and take steps to coned it and 'Buy in to the Deschutes County s programs. Perhaps this clinic could be a priority in the ro ram. e eg one Problem o ng role Inc u eresu - ase on est case scenarms, or cou a ; Coo sin y ea to coot us ons o Science Lon term monitoring round water contaminate levels at less than 10m over an extended eriod of time' e wome In u e in their mo a Ing ow eep a mt2 a sa uraban x en s an in Irec on Fol;r;u1 ere:owing o es ng was one in which Science Model the Ponderosa Pines sub-division. What roof is there that the model for this area is fa ctuel7 76 d ve 7176 accep e coot uslons o e sal lac group wa er s u y eep ase on a aqua a es mg an n ,.:..i .per a peso o Imo a is aqua Science Model to or longer than the time Name referenced in the projected increase of contamination of the groundwater. d,a condusions eight, observations of the model sufficiently rellable. What Is the realistic margin of error to the model and could you draw significantly different results horn the testing and monitoring? Does the model actual lead to conclusions that could be described as a good practice of science or just o t f , ne se o aSahnfifles that should be consideredo' ow far ac the modeling go ac Science Model To the 1960s when develo menu been in me area a e erence In e s u y IscusSOS a apme core area as an example o ra a con amine on. are s ou e a isc osure as o e ratio o SOP TIC Science Model systems per square acre, the density, compared to the 1-5 parcel area that Is the subject of the Regional Problem Solving Study There was also a . project that the aquifer would reach nitrate levels of 7mg1I by 2005. Did this projection prove accurate? (ref. page 4 ExhibR A to Ordinance no 98 , . - 085 If not, does this indicate the model used for melon roections could be flowed? The last several ears have been drou ht ears. This must skew our statistics Science Model . There are a lot of vacation homesthat era onl Ilvon in a short time or an of the time each r Did id Science Modal , ea . ou cons er that? oesn un ers an s u y Silence Model a. There were between 200-240 shallow monitoring wells b. 200 drinking water wells - C. Study covered the entire south Deschutes County. area d.. to '30"000 left for loans Science Monitodn network ow man we s were sam a udn the groundwater stn now muc o Study om ragon water wonderland a is gong on sewer? trance Monitodn network a. Small amount of data came from that area - th e sw area Included all ofsouth Deschutes County Science Monitonn network la there a waas e e ova non ma showin all the test site loeafionsn aloe with nitrate mounts at each site 2 Science Monitonn network Some sal ivisions are: not onin iwduai wells -what di you c eck? balance Monitodn network o e es we s is. 200-240 shallow monitoring wells sampling the top of the aquifer rvarwes as realm issue he truth should be disclosed regarding the effect of nitrates on humans over 0 months of age, with a disclosure regarding the Maxlmum ontamination Limits set by Federal EPA and a comparison of the typical consumption of Nitrates by adults, as well as the sources of Nitrates. onest education is essential. Not ust ortions of information that me lead to remalure and Inaccurate conclusions of the eneral o ulaton. Science Nitrates as health issue mat Is the ,fled of livestock and other domesfioocwildanimals. in the area 2 IF - Science Omer sources of ri note on't the road de-leers oiuts"'' 1lvh :are theaoun andstate road de arlments using them Science other sources of nitrate rare are nitrates In Me fee. we eat metdoes a l thI, lam erti erdo to roundwater nail ? - sa shrdy be ook d at aaossc nun r. ~e [reviewed at national co fe nces end Ann[ sports afea 61ecLta ae r _ ,a IISFfiT',7Tr~',T,rc p Y ,typ rt r.t FrK„[-1 h, rre Iduir .panty, r aldr It ,r j 1 19 -h,7 rill, 1 1, n~n,d I - ; - F - r a r n' - Wdl~l ainrl~ea ~r ran ~ • - I, I TesLtha well O rI I o, pradichone matle oyae model'are~eccurate"u- - : F t pf F rb f r your 7L Lam, ah bo„c uo , ~ wantto s e report s an one uslons wnhen a common anguage _ yl r n to or rl ,c. r 9 , q`c l m m -tar. R esaine •r7.. not commons used or understood b the general population of the of r ea th Itv nr eri fic data an ro act re orts are not avaiiabla for review end should be rovlded _ R e rt ate is the scientific re ort on the suit of the roundwafa rx Science R e rt e stn y too years to comp oll e evi antes o metes an a an owners propert owners ll a „ Spence R e rt y w nobl e eve yea ygra e - ow Imminent ,St e why n r what we have - eo7l`-Y r.r ;liters stem much thee er Science T min e _ o au r t u a ,r-acted b a ;I T r water flow horn utsltla four ere --r- IX ]1 --,Tn 1 , Science W ear rlosrean e G ni y Tit LF- i fI ~vv LFOti JIII ail " i t I pro every --T-, T - _FF_ w J rid-Il l~ldi p;,ol it rlnb`_! r 4n - :J .n Peg. 4 Comments: Statements, Statistics, Strategy, Timing, Unknown/Other mmel7tS List of C0 Category Subcate o rYt,c t e a~c ,.ne t~ r ,a. ras i ,;n„ .ommissioners e. Comments due in 30 days b. Modification to draft rule based on comments vdthin about 2 weeks c. Need a second comment period with draft rule d. Earliest ossible head n would be at the end of Janua Ti i Adult the em,ittin rotes? for future wells and se tics stems rather than take action retroactively m n Ti i Isahe Local Rule ado ted et? m n Who has the final se on whether this rule is ado tad and when S Timing Timin low down the rule ado tion process Ti What is the rush to ado t? The roblem looks like it mi ht be coming in 10-15 ears. ming Timing ime ow can is propose a imp amen e m suc a s ort ina en so many questions romain unanswere oes a rape implementation line correspond to the depletion of grant money? Why is there not more effort directed to getting the DEO to certify more nitrate filte n s stems? Ti i I. would'. ikethis rule process slowed down for at least 12 months m n . When wit the draft rule be available? n Timin Page 5