New Search
beyond the simple objective of "cost-effective and efficient provision of public facilities" when <br /> considering whether services should be extended to a satellite community. The Region 2050 <br /> study has not, at this point, extended the evaluation of future wastewater services beyond this <br /> simplified view. <br /> Beyond providing this regional planning information in response to.requests for a broader <br /> framework and context for discussion, staff has not anticipated that further staff effort or <br /> <br /> .resources would be expended on this for the purposes of evaluating Coburg's request. Therefore, <br /> no associated work activities or costs are identified in Attachment A. <br /> Comparative Environmental, Public Health and Safety Impacts <br /> When MWMC discussed Coburg's request several years ago, several issues were raised by <br /> Commissioners, which are reflected throughout this report. One of the factors several of the <br /> Commissioners expressed as important is whether regional treatment of Coburg's wastewater <br /> would be more or less beneficial to protecting water quality and the environment. This is one of <br /> the factors the elected officials and the public may fmd important in considering whether <br /> wastewater service should be treated and discharged by MWMC facilities. This question has not <br /> been analyzed; and therefore conclusions cannot be drawn as to which wastewater treatment <br /> .option would provide greater benefits to the environment and lower environmental and public. <br /> health/safety risks in the long run: <br /> The .following elements should be included in a comprehensive evaluation of this question: <br /> • .Impacts on land use and the environment from 1) building a wastewater treatment plant <br /> and new outfall vs. 2) building a conveyance and pumping system to connect to an <br /> existing treatment system and existing treated wastewater outfall; <br /> • Impacts on water quality of 1) effluent discharged to the McKenzie River from a new <br /> outfall serving the Coburg system. [Note, the treatment system would have to be <br /> designed and operated to meet current wastewater discharge standards, including those <br /> requirements established under the Total Maximum Daily Loads and Waste Load <br /> Allocations] vs. 2) conveyance to and treatment and discharge of Coburg's wastewater <br /> through MWMC's existing system to the Willamette. [Note, the MWMC system faces <br /> significant challenges over the next 10 years to comply with new temperature limitations,, <br /> and one of the main strategies for achieving summer water temperature requirements is to <br /> divert effluent flow out of the River by increasing treated water reuse projects. Option 2, <br /> connecting Coburg to the MWMC system, would increase the amount of wastewater <br /> flows that have to be treated or diverted through reclaimed water use. This has to be <br /> weighed against the alternative impacts of Coburg's effluent discharged to the <br /> McKenzie.] <br /> • Risk factors associated with conveyance of wastewater from Coburg to the MWIVIC <br /> system, which would include conveyance across the McKenzie River; <br /> • Risk factors associated with the operation and maintenance. of a new wastewater <br /> treatment facility, including chemical usage (such as for disinfection), electrical <br /> transmission facilities, potential for chemical air emissions and odors, and facility-related <br /> transportation activities; <br /> • The need for a separate program to manage the disposal or beneficial reuse of biosolids <br /> generated by a dedicated wastewater treatment facility for Coburg: <br /> City Council page 441 Page 5 <br /> <br />