EPA910/9-go-022b
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 88101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Environmental Review
February 1M1
Neskowin
Regional Sanitary Authority
Wastewater Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal
Facilities
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Volume II
-------
NESKOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Volume 2
Comment Letters
INDEX
-------
DATE
LETTER NO.
COUNTY, STATE. AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
Tillamook County
Board of Commissioners
Department of Community Development
Sanitarian
Sanitarian
10-24-90
10-25-90
10-29-90
10-29-90
13
14
15
16
Oregon State
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Executive Department
Department of Agriculture
Department of Economic Development
State Parks and Recreation Department
Division of State Lands
State Historic Preservation Office
Parks and Recreation Department
State Historic Preservation Office
10-26-90
10-29-90
10-17-90
11-01-90
11-03-90
10-26-90
10-26-90
10-30-90
10-30-90
10-30-90
10-28-90
1
2
10
11
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10-17-90
12
United States
Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
10-30-90
10-25-90
9-28-90
16a
17
18
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
Friends of Neskowin 10-21-90
Friends of Neskowin
"Quotes from the EPA EIS for Neskowin"
Oregon Natural Resources Council 10-08-90
Ocean Shores Conservation Coalition 10-27-90
Oregon Trout 11-01-90
19
24
21
22
23
-------
INDIVIDUALS
Anderson, John 10-31-90 25
Carver, Gene and Jeanette 11-01-90 26
Corliss, John 11-01-90 27
Gulp, Beverly 11-02-90 28
Gulp, Richard 11-02-90 29
Dougherty, Philip and Susan 11-01-90 30
Duncan, Alice 10-27-90 31
Duncan, David 10-28-90 32
Emlaw, Merry 10-26-90 33
Frank, Mamie 10-30-90 34
French, Edd 10-26-90 35
Fuhrmeister, Jeffrey and Jeraline 10-02-90 36
Fultz, Lester 10-31-90 37
Givens, James and Elen 11-02-90 38
Goodrich, Joseph and Karen 11-05-90 39
Goodrich, Goodrich, Koch, Koch, Grenbaum,
Ousele, Ousele, Haga, Madenski 11-04-90 40
Hadley, Shirley 11-01-90 41
Haga, Douglas and Lee 10-30-90 42
Harding, Goodwin 11-03-90 43
Hegge, Harold and Florence 11-04-90 44
Jennings, R. Duke 11-01-90 45
Joyce, David 09-05-90 46
10-10-90 47
11-01-90 48
Joyce, Katharine 09-27-90 49
10-05-90 50
10-29-90 51
Killeen, Gerard 10-30-90 52
Koch, Randall 11-06-90 53
Kosterlitz, Richard 10-04-90 54
10-30-90 54a
10-30-90 55
McNamara, Kevin and Lowry, Barbara 11-05-90 56
McNeil, Don 10-31-90 57
Madenski, Melissa 11-04-90 58
Martin, Kerri 10-30-90 59
Martin, William 11-01-90 60
Meyer, Roger 10-24-90 61
Murdock 62
Oregon Iron Works, Inc. 11-02-90 20
Osborne, Ed and Cathi 11-01-90 63
Ousele, David 10-30-90 64
Ousele, Gale 10-30-90 65
Patten, George 11-01-90 66
Patten, Skip 11-01-90 67
Phipps, Charles and Mary 11-01-90 68
Querin, Douglas 11-02-90 69
Ramey, Suzanne H. 11-07-91 85
Rissel, Sally 11-04-90 70
Saunders, Carolyn and McCormack, Ken 11-02-90 71
Saunders, Katherine 11-01-90 73
-------
INDIVIDUALS continued
Schlicting, H.R. 11-01-90 74
Schlicting, Theodore 10-23-90 75
Schwartz, Shirley 10-31-90 76
Seeley, Becky Wiese 10-06-90 77
Sifford, Alex 10-31-90 78
Stahl, John R. and Janet 11-05-91 84
Stephens, Sue 10-31-90 79
Strader, Charles 11-05-90 80
Thompson, Margot and George 11-03-90 81
Tutt, George 11-05-90 82
Wiese, N.C. 10-06-90 83
-------
Response to Written Comments
-------
Department of Environmental Quality
811 SW SIXTH AVENUE. PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1390 PHONE (503) 229-5696
October 26, 1990
Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), Neskowin
Regional Sanitary
Authority Wastewater
Collection, Treatment, and
Disposal Facilities
Dear Mr. Opatz:
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requests that the
public comment record for the above referenced DEIS indicate that
the Department supports the proposed project as essential for
protection of public health and water quality in the Neskowin
area. Our support is reflective of the fact that the project
ranks 16th (among 104) on the Department's current Construction
Grants Priority List. The Neskowin project has had a relatively
high priority ranking for several years since a study conducted by
the Department in 1985 concluded that bacterial contamination of
the creeks near the Neskowin core area results from failing on-
site waste disposal systems.
The DEIS and 1988 Facilities Plan Update bring together much
information that makes the need for the proposed project apparent.
Among the salient considerations are these:
Water quality sampling over the last decade has repeatedly
found evidence of fecal bacterial contamination of area
streams. The 1985 DEQ study indicated the contamination
derives from human sources through failing on-site systems.
The bacterial contamination of area surface waters is an
indication of a threat to public health. This is of
especially great concern due to the recreational nature of
the Neskowin area and the contact recreation use of area
surface waters in summer.
1. Comment noted.
2
b
2. Comment noted. This was supported by the water quality
sampling program completed during preparation of the
EIS.
3. Comment noted.
-------
The sand dune soils prevalent in the core area are poorly
suited to on-site waste disposal systems. These rapidly
draining soils generally do not allow for adequate removal
of pathogenic or chemical contaminants. In the specific case
of Neskowin, the core area has developed on small lots at
urban densities which would not be acceptable for on-site
systems under DEQ's present rules. The use of seepage pits
and cesspool which are also prevalent in the core area would
likewise not be allowed. The existing on-site systems
constitute a continuing threat to public health and the
quality of surface and groundwater.
4 4. Comment noted.
It is the policy of the State of Oregon, as stated in ORS 468.710,
to prevent and abate water pollution and to ensure that no waste
be discharged to waters of the state without adequate treatment.
Clearly, improperly treated waste is being discharged into
Neskowin area groundwater and creeks resulting in a threat to
public health and degradation of water quality. The construction
of a properly functioning sewage collection and treatment system
is the most appropriate means of permanently correcting this
situation. The Department supports implementation of the proposed
project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
5 5. As indicated in the Background of the DEIS, the purpose
of the provision of new sewage treatment facilities is to
eliminate failing septic systems which are contributing to
groundwater and surface water contamination which in
turn increases the risk to public health.
Sincerely,
LRT:RJS:crw
CG\WC7343
Lydla R. Taylor
Administrator
Water Quality Division
-------
NOV
Department of Environmental Quality
_l
811 SW SIXTH AVENUE, PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-1390 PHONE (503) 229-5696
October 29, 1990
Gerald Opatz
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
Draft EIS for Neskowin
RSA Hastewater
Collection, Treatment,
and Disposal Facilities
In my review of the above referenced document, I have noted a
couple of places in the text where additions or clarification
would result in a more comprehensive document.
Direct reference to Oregon's Groundwater Quality Protection
Rules, OAR Chapter 340, Division 40 is needed. While these
rules are generally referred to in latter chapters, there is no
mention of them in Chapter 1 under "State Laws, Regulations,
and Policies" as should be.
In addition, the description in Chapter 3 of "Geological Units"
is cursory at best, and does not provide specific information
regarding rock types, geologic structure, or proper names of
geologic formations. For the purpose of evaluating potential
impacts to groundwater, a more detailed description of the
geology and geohydrology is a must.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Lucinda A. Bidleman
Groundwater Section,
Water Quality Division
Wastewater Finance Section, WQ Division, DEQ
Northwest Region, DEQ
6. Comment noted. Text has been added in Chapter I in the
discussion of state laws and regulations.
7. The project is comprised of three components - the
collection system, the treatment facility, and the effluent
system. The collection system will extend from the
discharge side of the septic tanks to the treatment plant
and will be tightly jointed; no movement of effluent into
the groundwater is expected. The treatment plant will be
constructed above ground and the storage lagoons will be
lined; no seepage to groundwater is anticipated. The
effluent disposal system will discharge treated effluent to
surface waters; no impact to groundwater is anticipated.
-------
Executive Department
155 COTTAGE STREET NE. SALEM. OREGON 97310
November 3, 1990
Gerald Opatz (M/S WD-136)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Subject: Neskowln Regional Sanitary Authority
Wastewater Facilities
TlUamook County
PNRS IOR900917-016-4
Thank you for submitting your draft Environmental Impact Statement for State of
Oregon review and comment.
Your draft was referred to the appropriate state agencies for review. The
Departments of Parks, Economic Development, Agriculture, Division of State Lands,
and the State Historic Preservation Office have offered the enclosed comments
which should be addressed in preparation of the final Environmental Impact
Statement.
The Department of Environmental Quality has submitted their comments directly to
you, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development comments will be
forwarded to you as soon as they are received.
We will expect to receive copies of the final statement as required by Council of
Environmental Quality Guidelines.
Sincerely,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS DIVISION
8 8. Thank you for forwarding the DEIS to the appropriate
agencies.
Dolores Streeter
Clearinghouse Coordinator
Attachment
-------
OREGON INTEROOVERNKENTAL PROJECT .^EVIEH n~nTTV~r\
niiiltiiJ'lili
State Clearinghouse
Intergovernmental Relations Division' p-D . Q
-------
Project
OREGON INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROJECT REVIEW
State Clearinghouse
Intergovernmental Relations Division
155 Cottage Street N. E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
373-7652
SEP 1 9 1S90
NATURAL RESOURCES
STATE AGENCY,
REVIEW
Return Date:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
If you cannot respond by the above return date, please call to
arrange an extension at least one week prior to the return date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
[ ] This project has no significant environmental impact.
[ ] The environmental impact is adequately described.
[ ] We suggest that the following points be considered in the
preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
[ ] No comment.
REMARKS
November 5, 1990
Froo Rudy Fenfc, Chair, Tlllamook County SUCD: "Emphasize that "no action"
alternative will have significant adverse Impacts on grounduater, surface
water quality, land use, socloecononlcs, and public health."
Agency /}-<>-.',,. I
f)
IPR 15
.By.
Phone Number
NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION
OREGON DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE
635 CAPITOL ST NE
SALEM, OREGON 97310-0110
10 10. The impact of the "no action" alternative is summarized
in Table S-3. Additional commentary is provided in the
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, pages 4-1
through 4-4. It is further discussed in the comment letters
and testimony given by the Tillamook County Sanitarian,
Letters No 15 and 16 and Comments 396-399.
-------
OREGOH IHTEROOVEMOmiTJU. PROJECT REVIEW
State Clearinghouse
Intergovernmental Relations Division
155 Cottage Street N. E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
373-7652
STATE AGENCY
Project Number_
REVIEW
"Return Date:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
If you cannot respond by the above return date, please call to
arrange an extension at least one week prior to the return date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
[ ] This project has no significant environmental impact.
b«4. The environmental impact is adequately described.
[ ] We suggest that the following points be considered in the
preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
[ ] No comment.
(1 ,YwUtA -
or is.
REMARKS
11 11. Comment noted. Please also refer to Response to
Comment 1, Letter No. 1.
Agency_
IPR 15
Phone Number
-------
OREGON IHTERGOVERNHEMTAL PROJECT REVIEW
State Clearinghouse
Intergovernmental Relations Division
155 Cottage Street N. E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
373-7652
-,V 4^ STATE AGENCY, REVIEW
Number '•*': '* '< '- '- .•'-.' ~ . 1 ^ ~ -• Return Date:_
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
If you cannot respond by the above return date, please call to
arrange an extension at least one week prior to the return date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
[ ] This project has no significant environmental impact.
[ ] The environmental impact is adequately described.
["] We suggest that the following points be considered in the
preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
[ ] No comment.
REMARKS
705
Agency f*.. * <•.,
IPR #5
O
Phone Number
7 '
12. Comment noted. Text has been added in Chapter 1,
under the Section entitled State Laws, Ordinances, and
Regulations.
-------
8
OREGON IMTERGOVERNMZHTAI. PROJECT
State Clearinghouse
Intergovernmental Relations Di'v
155 Cottage Street N. E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
373-7652
mte ana rpjuru iw ±*n cc
^/^
STATE AGENCY- REVIEW
Project Number
• Return Date:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
If you cannot respond by the above return date, please call to
arrange an extension at least one week prior to the return date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
[ ] This project has no significant environmental impact.
[ ] The environmental impact is adequately described.
[V/J We suggest that the following points be considered in the
^ preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
[ ] No comment.
REMARKS
The construction of the Butte Creek, South Highway site and
the marine outfall will require a removal-fill permit from
the Division of State Lands. All impacts to wetland and
stream habitat must address the no net loss of functional
value criteria to compensate for loss of wetland habitat.
Agency__
IPR *5
.By.
Phone Number F
1 13
13. Comment noted. The need for a fill-remove permit has
been incorporated into the text of the FEIS in Chapter 1,
in the Section addressing State Laws, Regulations, and
Policies.
14. Comment noted. The proposed action will have no
direct effects on wetlands.
-------
OREQOH lOTBROOVERNMKHTAI. PROJECT REVIEW
State Clearinghouse
Intergovernmental Relations Division
155 Cottage Street N. E.
Salem, Oregon 97310
373-7652
8 T_A T^E^AOBMCT .REVIEW
Project Number ^ R 5 U :-J ? I 7 - Q 7 Q - A,,^.M Date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW PROCEDURES
If you cannot respond by the above return date, please call to
arrange^ an extension at least one week prior to the return date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW
DRAFT STATEMENT
This project has no significant environmental impact.
The environmental impact is adequately described.
We suggest that the following points be considered in the
preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement.
No comment.
15
NOTED
LOOSEN
Phone number
*;«P"- -.? !;:;-^
•'"'" " TT-r^wO
.31? - - i->-v
15. The text on page 3-47 has been modified to indicate that
two surveys have been conducted in the Neskowin area.
The village site along Meadow/Butte/Hawk Creek was
generally discounted.
The word "archaeological" has been deleted from the text
on page 4-8.
Appendix F provides documentation which describes the
surveys which have been conducted and the conclusions
that have been reached.
The NRSA has suggested that monitoring for subsurface
resources take place during construction. If cultural
artifacts are encountered during construction, the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be notified
immediately and construction will cease at the site.
SHPO recommendations will determine subsequent
mitigation. EPA will provide grant conditions to insure
the above mitigation measures are implemented. Please
refer to Comment Letter No. 12, dated after Comment
15, Letter No. 9.
.i ^.irjr I'/-/v,i
^T co itb; {;L-
-------
10
Department of Fish and Wildlife
COLUMBIA REGION
TIIiAICOK DISTRICT OFFICE
4909 THIRD SOOSSf, TILLJUECK, OR 97141
October 17, 1990
Gerald Opatz, Chief
Enviponnental Rev. Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
The Tlllamook District Office of the Oregon Department of
Flsn and Wildlife conducts very little fish inventory work
on Nestowln Creek. To the best of our present knowledge
there are no threatened or endangered species in Neskowin
Creek.
We are, however, concerned with recent trends of Cono and
Chum Salman which we monitor in other basins. Both Coho
and Chum occur in Neskowin Creek, but recent data is
limited. If current trends continue over the next few
years, steps may be taken by this office to list these
species as sensitive.
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
RICK KLUMPH
District Fish Biologist
CC: BCD
Region 7
16 16. Comment noted.
17. Comment noted. One of the purposes of this project is
to improve water quality. The effluent will meet ODEQ
water quality standards for solids, BOD, water chemistry,
and temperature. Because of the sensitivity of the stream
relative to anadromous and resident salmonids and their
food organisms, it was decided that ultraviolet irradiation
would be the preferred method of disinfection. It is also
proposed to only discharge effluent during the winter
months when a dilution ratio of greater than 20:1 can be
attained. This will further preclude any potential
impacts to water quality and the biota. Please also refer
to Response to Comment 95, Letter No. 22.
-------
11
Department of Fish and Wildlife em **»„< ,„„.
w •»*««'*
2501 SW FIRST AVENUE. PO BOX 59. PORTLAND. OREGON 97207 PHONE (503) 229-5400
November 1, 1990
Gerald Opatz
Chief, Environmental Review section
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, HA 9B101
Re: Neskovin Regional Sanitary Authority Haste-
water Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EZS)
Dear Mr. Opatz:
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildjifa (ODFH) has
completed review of your draft EIS. (This letter is to
convey our recommendation for Effluent Storage and Disposal
Development Option five.
He understand this alternative would provide for summer
storage of all effluent between Hay 15 and October 31 with
discharge of stored and winter effluent into Neskowin Creek
between November 1 and Hay 14. Storage would be
accomplished at the Simpson Timber site.
ODFH further recommends EPA require the Neskowin Sanitary
Authority to discharge effluent at the currently existing
discharge site approximately 0.8 mile from the mouth of
Neskowin Creek.
Also, EPA should require automatic sensors and fail safe
alarm systems to monitor Neskowin Creek flows so that
discharge to Neskowin Creek occurs only when sufficient
creek flows are present to provide required dilution.
To minimize the likelihood of "worst case" treatment plant
system failure and resort to chlorine disinfection, ODFW
recommends:
1. Close EPA scrutiny of the treatment plant preliminary
and final design characteristics to ensure Neskowin
Sanitary Authority installs only state-of-the-art
engineered primary and secondary treatment. Especially
important is the requirement that only the best
possible ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system
engineering and installation is employed.
18
19
120
21
18. Comment noted.
19. The EPA preferred disposal option includes continued
use of the existing outfall.
20. EPA, in cooperation with ODEQ and ODFW, is
completing a study which will estimate daily flows in
Neskowin Creek, and determine periods of stream flow
unsuitable for effluent discharge. Based on the results of
this study, automatic stream flow sensors may be
required. This information would also be used by ODEQ
in establishing NPDES permit conditions. Please also
refer to Chapter 3, Surface Water, Water Quality,
Neskowin Creek Flow Data.
21. ODEQ will approve the plans and specifications prior to
the initiation of any construction. Because of the
sensitivity of the stream and its importance for
anadromous and resident fish species, no chlorine will be
used for disinfection. Ultraviolet disinfection is the
chosen method; ODEQ will approve the system.
-------
11
EPA
November 1,
Page 2
1990
2. Require facilities for removing the chlorine residual
so that if, in the unlikely event, the UV system fails,
and chlorine disinfection is necessary, all detectable
chlorine is removed from the effluent.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Gregory P. Robart
Staff Biologist
Aquatic Habitats Programs
Habitat Conservation Division
c Neskowin Sanitary Authority
DEQ, Water Quality Division - Vigil
EPA - Region 10 Environmental Review Section - Gray
-------
12
I
Parks and R&creatlon Departmei t
STATE HISTORIC PRES
525 TRADE STREET 8E, SALEM. OREGON 97310'
ERVATION OFFICE
'HONE (503) 378-5001 FAX (503) 378-6447
October
1990
Kevin France |
HGI Engineers
19 M.W. 5th Ave. I
Portland, OR 97209
REi NesXowln Wastewater Facilit
~ T6S,"*low,-Sec-6- •• r - - »
Tillanook County | !
Dear Mr. France:
Our office ha* reviewed 'our ;site files based on the
information you have supplied to
..
PORTLAND
OCT19S90
es Project
is since we have no record
of any historic or archaeological sites in or adjacent to
the proposed project area.' We feel that the project can
proceed as a "no effect* finding under Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act ind 36:CFR 800.
If you have any question
Gilsen at 378-5023.
Sincerely,
Janes N. Hanrick
Deputy .SHPO
JMHtlr
FRANCE.LTR
can contact Dr. Laland
22 22. Appendix F provides documentation which describes
surveys which have been conducted in the Neskowin area
and the conclusions that have been reached.
The text on page 3-47 has been modified to indicate that
two surveys have been conducted in the Neskowin area.
The village site along Meadow/Butte/Hawk Creek was
generally discounted. Please refer to Response to
Comment No. 15, Letter No. 9.
-------
13
COMMISSIONERS
I.A. Lane
K.M. Burdick
R.B. Miles
Tillamook County
Lend of Cheese. Tree$ end Oceen Breeze
(503)842-3403
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Tillamook County Courthouse
201 Laurel Avenue, Tillamook, Oregon 97141
October 24, 1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (H/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RE:
DEIS for NRSA's Wastewater Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal Facilities
Dear Mr. Opatz:
He appreciate having the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Neskovin Regional
Sanitary Authority Waste Water Collection, Treatment, and
Disposal Facilities. This document discusses the potential
impacts of construction of vastewater treatment facilities for
the Community of Neskowin in Tillamook county. Our primary
concern is with the current and future impacts of not
constructing much needed sewage collection, treatment, and
disposal facilities for the developed portions of Neskowin while
funding is available for this much needed project.
The core area of Neskowin has been platted and developed at urban
densities (lots averaging about 5,000 square feet) which by
current standard's are not suitable for on-site sewage treatment.
Yet, your DEIS notes correctly that septic tanks with seepage
pits and cesspools are the predominant means of sewage disposal
in the Neskowin core area (Page S-l) . Your report also notes
that all of the soils in the Neskowin project area provide "poor
treatment for septic tank and absorption fields" (Pages 3-2, and
3-3). A logical consequence is that, as noted in your report,
"Neskowin has a history of water quality problems and subsequent
concerns for public health." (Page 3-10). And that "Contam-
ination of the creeks has been attributed in part to inadequate
sewage disposal practices in the community." (Page 3-11).
23) 23. The impact of the "no action" alternative is summarized
in Table S-3. Additional commentary is provided in
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, pages 4-1
through 4-4. It is further discussed in the comment letters
and testimony given by the Tillamook County Sanitarian.
See Letter Nos. 15 and 16 and Comments 396-399.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
Mr. Gerald Opatz
Page 2
These problems will become progressively worse if sewer services
are not provided for the developed core area of Neskowin. Most
on-site systems were installed prior to current regulations.
Virtually everyone of these systems can be expected to fail in a
time frame that will adversely affect people currently living in
Neskowin. Many, if not most, lots in the core area are too small
to accommodate adequate on-site replacement areas. As a result
the County increasingly will be pressured to approve alterations
or repairs that are likely to result in further pollution of area
streams and the aquifer. The alternatives will be to require
very costly on-site disposal when available or to limit the use
of already developed properties. These unfortunate choices can
be avoided by the approval and construction of an adequate sewer
system.
He are not indicating a preference for any of the proposed
alternatives except to state emphatically that the "no action"
alternative would be very detrimental to the future health and
well being of Neskowin and a great burden on Tillamook County's
limited resources. We concur with the conclusion in your DEIS
that selecting the "no action" alternative would result in
"potentially significant adverse impacts ... on groundwater,
surface water quality, land use, socioeconomics, and public
health". Certainly, putting treated effluent into Neskowin Creek
at a 20 to 1 dilution rate under controlled circumstances during
high water winter months is very much preferable to the current
situation whereby more and more untreated effluent is finding its
way into Neskowin Creek and other streams in the area.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important
project.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FOR TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON
24
25
24. Comment noted.
25. The discussion on pages 4-1 through 4-4 describes the
negative impacts on ground and surface water, land use,
socioeconomic and public health. The need for the
project is well documented.
Ida A.Lane,Chairperson
Kenneth M. Burdick Vice-Chairperson
.
Robert B. Miles, Commissioner
Mark Hatfield, U.S. Senator
Richard Santner, DEQ
Mike Kowalski, Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
-------
14
DEPARTMENT OF
IMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
-c Affolter, Director
201 Laurel Avenue
Tillamook, OR 97141
(503) 842-3408
FAX f 842-2721
Tllltmook County
Ltnd of Ch»«si. Tr»et ind Ocitn
October 25, 1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
RE:
DEIS for NRSA's Hastewater Collection,
Treatment, and' Disposal Facilities
Dear Mr. Opatz:
Th« Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Neskowin
Regional Sanitary Authority Hastewater Collection, Treatment, and
Disposal Facilities provides ample and persuasive justification
for authorizing grant and loan funds for the design and
construction of a sewer system to serve the developed core area
of Neskowin. Tillamook County government strongly supports this
project as essential to resolving public health concerns
resulting from inadequate sewage disposal in the Community of
Neskowin. We urge that the EIS process be concluded in a timely
manner to assure much needed public funding for this project.
My department has responsibility for administering planning,
building, and sanitation regulations throughout Tillamook County.
our experiences in Neskowin cause us to concur with statements in
the DEIS which clearly document the need for a community sewer
system in the Neskowin core area. These statements include the
following:
• That all soils in the Neskowin project area provide "poor
treatment for septic tanks and absorption fields" (Pages
3-2 and 3-3).
• That septic tanks with seepage pits and cesspools are the
predominant means of sewage disposal in the Neskowin core
area (Page S-l).
26 26. A number of comments received indicated support for
the project.
27
27. Funding for the project is dependent upon the timing of
the grant application, the priority of this project among
the applications received during a particular funding
28 period and the availability of funds. EPA Construction
Grants Program as it currently exists will terminate
September 30, 1991. It appears that funding may run out
as soon as March of 1991.
28. Comments noted.
OPPORTUNITY £>.
-------
14
Mr. Gerald Opatz
Page 2
* That "Neskowin has a history of water quality problems
and subsequent concerns for public health." (Page 3-10).
* That "Contamination of the creeks has been attributed in
part to inadequate sewage disposal practices in the
community." (Page 3-11).
* That the "no action" alternative would result in
•potentially significant adverse impacts ... on
groundwater, surface water quality, land use,
socioeconomics, and public health." (Page S-3).
The Neskowin core area is platted and built at an urban density
that, coupled with adverse soil conditions, clearly requires a
community sewer system. The median lot size in the core area is
approximately 5,000 square feet, with 63% of the development lots
5,000 square feet or smaller in size. This is ncjt large enough
for an adequate septic tank, drainfield, and repair area, even if
soils were suitable for such systems.
Most existing on-site systems were installed prior to current
regulations. These seepage pits, cesspools, and undersized
drainfields are inadequate by todays standards. There can be no
doubt that many of these are causing effluents to enter into the
aquifer and streams in the Neskowin area. Virtually all of these
systems can be expected to fail in a time frame that will
adversely affect people currently living in Neskowin.
Reliance on seepage pits and cesspools, coupled with porous
soils, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint
polluting systems. Enforcement agencies are usually the last to
know that a system is not working properly as people are
reluctant to report it, especially if they know that adequate
repairs may be impossible. When failures are identified, the
County will increasingly be pressured to approve alterations and
repairs that are likely to result in further pollution of area
aquifers and streams. The alternative will be to require very
costly on-site disposal when available, or to limit the use of
already developed properties.
Clearly, the continued reliance on on-site sewage disposal would
be very detrimental to the public health and well-being of the
Neskowin community. It would present virtually insurmountable
enforcement problems for Tillamook County and DEQ. The logic and
evidence are irrefutable -- Neskowin needs a sewer system to
serve its developed core area. The "no action" alternative is
not acceptable.
Objectors have launched a broad attack on the adequacy of the
DEIS. Their concerns and recommendations are contained in an
October 21, 1990 letter to EPA. They claim that the DEIS lacks
28
29 29. Comments noted.
30 30. Comments noted.
-------
14
Kr. Gerald opotr
Pag* 3
vital information on environmental impacts, that it does not
adequately evaluate impacts on growth in the area, and that it
should include a "limited action" alternative that "narrowly and
directly address sever problems".
These objections, taken as a whole, make impossible demands upon
an EIS process that is subject to reasonable time and resource
constraints. For example, objectors would have the DEIS address
the impact of the project on numerous federally listed species,
including the bald eagle, Aleutian Canada goose, northern spotted
owl, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, Oregon silverspot
butterfly, snowy plover, and big eared bat". Granting objector's
requests for more and more information would postpone completion
of the EIS process to a time when public funding is no longer
available. This would result in a defacto implementation of the
"no action" alternative or of eventually imposing the full costs
of a needed sewer system on the Neskowin Community.
Objectors are concerned about waste water disposal alternatives
that include putting treated effluent into Neskowin Creek at a 20
to 1 dilution rate under controlled circumstances during
relatively high water winter months. But that is surely
preferable to the "no action" alternative whereby more and more
untreated effluent is put into the aquifer and streams in the
Neskowin area on a year-round basis.
The proposed "limited action" alternative would require a site
specific identification of sewage disposal problems, after which
•failing systems could be upgraded, or properties sewered as
needed" (Joyce, 10-5-90 letter). This alternative, which is
further described in other correspondence to EPA, appears to be a
sincere effort to identify and remedy failing systems without
constructing a system large enough to facilitate growth in the
Neskowin area. However, there are several significant problems
with this approach in addition to the fact that a detailed EIS
analysis of it would prevent meeting critical time deadlines.
As already noted, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to
identify the site specific sources of most effluent coming from
inadequate or failed systems in Neskowin. (An exception was the
golf course, for which the County did require a replacement
drainfield. Fortunately, space was available on that property.)
Even if failures could be identified, it would be financially
untenable to base a community sewer system on a limited and
undetermined number of hookups. There are significant economies
of scale in the construction of sewage collection, treatment, and
disposal facilities. This is a primary reason why such
facilities are provided on an all or none basis for a given area.
Moreover, there is good reason to believe that sewage disposal
problems are relatively pervasive in the core area (all systems
will eventually fail) which further justifies connecting all
properties to the sewer system.
31
32
33
31. Please refer to Response to Comment 27, Letter No. 14.
The data that has been collected and the analysis that
has taken place related to the issues which could be
anticipated to be impacted by the proposed project. The
data which was not collected was in regard to areas that
will not be impacted by this project.
32. Comment noted. As noted above, the treated effluent
will be required to meet water quality standards which
have been demonstrated to not impact water quality and
biota. The existing condition is such that Neskowin
Creek is receiving unmeasured quantities of effluent at
unknown levels of treatment.
33. Because of the nature of the soils and the close proximity
of many of the drainfields in the core area, it would be
difficult if not impossible to identify each failing system.
Assuming that all the failing systems could be identified
and that they would be solely responsible for hook-up to
a new STE system, the costs to individual homeowners
would be prohibitive. This is due primarily to the need
for a specific size plant (in anticipation of all systems
eventually failing) and the length of collectors and
interceptors, the cost of which would have to be borne by
those limited number of users. Please refer to Comment
332 and Response to Comment 332.
-------
Mr. Gerald Opatz
Page 4
opponent* of the oewer project are apparently motivated by an
overriding concern that it will fuel unwanted growth in the
Neskowin area. At the extreme someone allegedly said that they
would rather see sewage running down the streets of MesXowin than
they would have a sewer system that would facilitate growth in
the area. People should be aware that derailing this sewer
project will not prevent growth in the Neskowin area.
Ironically, the absence of an adequate central sewer system may
encourage growth in larger increments as large-scale developments
can afford to put in their own sewer systems (an example is the
RV Campground south of Neskowin). The construction of satellite
sewer systems is less efficient than the development of a single
central system, but it is something that is likely to happen if
an adequate central system is not available.
This department takes no position on the growth issue, except to
say that is our job to anticipate what is likely to occur and
then plan for it. Our support for a sewer system is based solely
on public health concerns. We are convinced that a sewer that
serves all of the core area is the only way to effectively
address these concerns.
He appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of this much
needed project.
34 34. Comment noted.
35 35. Comment noted.
Sincerely,
TXLLAMOOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Vic Affolter
Director
VA:jj
cc: Board of County Commissioners
Richard Santner, DEQ
Marnie Frank, County Planning Commission
-------
HAWK STREET BETWEEN THE POINT AND CORVALLIS
Tffbo
31
I .
I
i 4-3
13000
HI
(W.SX)
>|SOOO
COMMENTS:
(1) 78« (224/228) of the lots have residences.
(2) 631 (141/224) of the built lots are 5000 square feet or smaller.
(3) Only 23S (52/224) lots are larger than 7500 square feet. This 1s
important because our sanitarian estimates that a lot would have to
be at least this large to have a reasonable chance of qualifying for
an adequate repair area for a failed system.
(4) There are approximately 51 undeveloped lots in the core area that are
7500 square feet or smaller. These are the lots that are most likely
to be unbuildable without a sewer.
(5) The above figures do not Include the Breakers (12 units). Pacific
Sands (24 units), and the Chelan (8 units). These ownerships are all
developed at a density greater than one unit per 5000 square feet. If
these are included, 691 of the residential units are on parcels (or
portions thereof) smaller than 5000 square feet.
NOTE: This information was prepared by the TUlamook County Department
of Comnunity Development on 10/26/90. While there may be some
minor errors, these should not be of a magnitude that would affect
any conclusions that may be drawn from these numbers.
-------
15
Tlllaaook County Courthouaa
2O1 Laural Avanua
Tlllaaook, OR 97141
Tala: SOS 842 34O9
Fax: 5O3 A42 2721
NEMO
Oat.*: 23 Oct. 90
To: Jarry Opatz, EXS Project Officer
Froa: Doug Narahall, County S
Ra: Draft EIS tor URSA
Offlcar ^^
anltarlan UXV*^^
Aftajr ravlawlng tha 31 Aug 9O draft of thai Naakowln EIS. I wiah
to ottmr aoaa coaaanta and corraction*. Alao, I would Ilka to
•ay that I found It aurprlalng aaay to raad, coaparad to aoat
govarnaant doeuaanta that eroaa ay daak.
Tha Jaat paragraph on paga 2-2, atataa that "... Naakowln North
.*• racalvad County Sanitarian approval for Ita aaptlc ayataaa-
..***. Thlm atataaant la corract howavar, I would auggaat addi-
tional Information. Tha aubdlvlalon waa approvad In 1971, undar
Stata Maalth Olvlalon ragulatlona. Undar tha rulaa In affact at
that tlaa. It racalvad a ganaral approval baaad on two or thraa
taat pita oa tba proparty. Each lot waa avaluatad whan tha ownar
waa raady to conatruct a dwalllng* Problaaa with aany of thoaa
lota raaultad In tha currant DEO rulaa, requiring aach lot to
hava an approval prior to tha final aubdlvlalon platting*
Tha aacond paragraph on paga 2-1O atataa "... dlachargaa into
aany aaptlc ayataaa occur only during • parlod of alx to alght
aontha avary yaar.M Thla aay hava baan trua tan yaara ago, but
it la not corract today. Moat of tha baach houaaa I vlalt (la:
Madonna, Capa Naaraa, Tiarra dal Mar, Naakowln, ate.) whila
trying to raaolva falling dlapoaal ayataaa, ara balng rantad whan
not balng uaa by tha ownara, thalr faalllaa, and frlanda. Noat
proparty aanagaaant flraa in tha atata can rant you • baach hoaa,
by tha day, waak, ate. A quick. paruaal of tha "Vacation Rantala'*
coluan in tha Sunday Oragonlan claaalflad ada ravaala a nuvbar of
Naakowln rantala avallabla.
Rantara ara ganarally hardar on a dlapoaal ayataa than a
hoaaownar. In Boat caaaa, dally uatar uaa par paraon la hlghar.
Sharing a rantal unit la not uncoaaon, with tha raaultlng (t.aapo-
raryl hydraulic ovajrload to tha ayataa. Alao, rantara tand to
fluah or rlnaa aora unaultabla itaaa into tha dlapoaal ayataa.
36 36. The text has been modified.
37 37. Additional text has been added in the section on Sludge
Disposal in Chapter 2 to clarify this point.
-------
Page
The a a con d paragraph on page 3-11 atetea. "... Although population
i* low dux-ing the winter . ,.". Uinter uaage of beach dwelling*
ha a rlaen ateodl 1 y over the pa at. never a 1 year a. Thi a 1m. due to a
variety of raaaona, Including ga» avail obi 11 ty , highway i»prova-
manta, and rental uaage..
37a 37a. Comment noted.
The laat paragraph on page 4-3 atatea '* . . . Under the No Action
Al ter native, tha coz-a araa would not be abla to grow. ..". I hava
i aaued two <2> per ml to. t.hla year for new dwal 1 ing a in tha cor a
araa. Both permit a. involva mul tlplo lota to comply with tha
current DEO rule*. Jn tha aana tlma p«rlodr J hava jracaivad
•a van <7> Authorization Notlca application a for major rautodal
project a. Flva <53 o^ thoaa appl icationa war* approvad, all
involving dl apoaal ayatea upgradaa. Alao^ four <4> rapalr par-
• ita war a la»ued, all for undaralzed repair ayataaa, dua to lack
of available area . Growth 1 a occurring In tha cor a araa, with or
without a aawar .
Many of tha older houaaa within tha cor a araa ara aarvad by
gravity bad a, aaapaga pita, or coaapoola. Thaaa «yata»a contrlb-
uta diractly to ground wa tar pol lutlon a vary ti»a thay ara uaad.
Partially traatad affluant flowa out of thaaa »yata»* aa a »«tu-
ratad flow < mhort-circul ting) f diractly into tha ahallow under-
ground aquif ar . Thl a flow, moving at tha rata of inchaa par
• Inuta, raaul to in parti ally traatad af f luant hundrada of f «at
f roB tha dl apoaaj ayaten .
Jloderat c te-chnol ogy ay step a, auch OB the low-preaaure O p> aya~
te» , al low the ci"i"l uent to move downward aa a "wotting front"
rather thon a aaturated i \ ow in courae taxtured aondy ooi la. A
Ip ayatea installed in beach aande wl th 36-46" of aeporatlon dl a-
tance f ro» the ground water tabl a, will provide 1 i ttl* or no
ground water contamination . VI ntar ground water tabl a A in much of
the core area , are 3O" or laaar during the winter month a. A
properly alzed Ip ay a tern, including aetbacka, require* 31 OO
•quara f *et of undav*lop«d lot area to i natal 1 . The*a two ra-
quir*»anta rule out 1 p repair ay a tarn a on over 7OX of tha exl a ting
houaea in the core area . Note that Ip bed a can be i natal lad In
21 OO aq . f t . of area however , a bed ha a a lif eapan that la ap-
proximately 1/2 of the full -mised 1 p ay a tern del 1O yeara vra.
.20* yeara) .
37b. Comment noted.
37c 31 c. Comment noted.
-------
Pag* 3
Tha hlgh-tach Intaralttant aand flltar ayataa raqulraa only two
<2> faat of aaparatlon dlatanca froa t_ha grounduatar tabla to
function properly. In baach aanda, no additional dlapoaal
tjranchaa ara raqulrad /or thla ayataa and It la called a hot ton-
laaa aand flltar . Thla ayat«» can fit In 17OO a
-------
16
Tillanooh County Courthouse
291 Laurel Avenue
Tillauook, OR 97141
Tele» S«I3 B*S 3-409
Fax i 5813 8-42 27SJ
MEMO
Date i 23 Oct 981
To a Jerry Opatz, E1S Project Officer
FroMj Doug Marshall, County Sani t ari an
Re: Draft EIS for- NRSfl
I wantvd »n opporturti t y to r#*por>d
during 1a«t ni ght* h**ring.
of th
Onv p»r-*or. vi*ntiorv*d innov»tiv» t»crhnology »o
Nat ional SM* 1 J Fl OMB. Ci»»i*i nghiou»*. Th* proposed STEP *y»t v«i ii
cor.»jd*r-rd irtnov«ti v» t»crhnoJ ogy, and th»rv «r* ••v»r-«J publica-
t i or>* avjii 1 abl* for~ thiiK. typv of *y»t»M on th* c)»*r>i r
pr-oduet Jifct.
40 40. Comment noted.
Or>otn»T- it*M awntionvd M«» th» po»»ib}V u»» of comporting
in difficult r-«p»ir- »itu>tionK. Sine* • toi l»t accountB for
• pproxi Mat*! y 1/3 of th» hou»«hold Matvr u«»f thi» could jilloM
for- • *.mmllmr- t-*p*ir- myKtmat. P»»t •xp»i-i>n» h»» •hoxn that
cornpoct toilets do not worM M>! 1 in ol u» dM>lling», for-
* nunt»r- of rviBon*. One* >t
daily Nc*r» *nd f»»ding. •' Somvon* n»»d» to monitor t»rnp«»"at ur*f
pH, •oiBtui-v contvnt, »rvd c»rt>on—ni t>-og»n i-vtio* for pi-op»r
operation of th* mymtrra. If »ny of th* *bov* Blvnwnt* *r» out of
proportion, composting Ktop*. I hjiv* u«»d incin*r»tor toilvtB on
difficult repair situations however, both the incinerator «nd
compost toilets are expensive.
41 41. Comment noted.
Oth»r tvBtiMony wa» dir*ct»d at th* po*»ibl* »ff»ct of th* STP
di*ch*r-g» on th* r*at i v» fifth run« in N»»kdwi n Crvvk. Th* conc»r-n
M*» t h*t *n inor*ii»* in pljint vffj uvnt mi ght eh*ng» t h» »t r*»«niB
"flavor" to th» pc. i nt th»t f i *h would nc-t r-*reogni z» thwir* *tr~**M
for- «o*wrii ng. If «arti t *ry «»w*rc mr-m not i n*t *1 l*d in th* cor*
»r»*>t np« pollutant*, in the Cr»*M cmr, b« »Mp*ct»d to ri»». Thi*
iner»a»* will h«v* *n «dv»n*» «ff*ct on all bir-dK, fi»h, butt»r-
fli»», bat*. »tc. that prwvntl y u»» or inhabi t N»»Mc-t-»ir. Cr**k.
Th* c-onnwc-t i on of all hou»»* within th* cor-* arva to »arii t »ry
*»**•»*•• MJ 1 1, jr» My **t iH«%ti on, * 1 imin«t» 85-90X of thv pr»*»nt
pc
-------
Pane a
The following comments are directed to th»
Neahowin letter.
Oet 90 Friends of
Page 3, paragraph «3 concerning "... sources of unitary problem
...". OB. 1 Mentioned during ey testimony last night, creek
pollution IB classified as point-aource (piped outfall) or non-
point aource (saturated flew mixed with groundwater). Conven-
tional Methods of identifying falling disposal rn.ym.tmam., »uch as
introducing fluorescein dye into the system, work well for an
outfall pip*. However, non-point Bourse* (npB> are harder- to
identify. It IB not possible to dye test nps in the core area,
•B the beach sands filter and hold the dye particle*. Other
methods, auch urn. radioactive tagging of selected bacteria, must
be used, and thia type of testing ia expensive. Current budget
constraints make theae types of teata impractical.
43 43. Comment noted.
Paat bacrter-ial teating of Nee-howin Creed clearly ahowa evidence
of huiaan pollution. Much of thia. pollution ia froai npa aeepage
froe. nearby dxellingB. .My office haa corrected all of the known
outfall pollution aour*cea into the Creek, auch a» the temporary
repair for the Naahowin Golf Courae. The Mayaide parh, eentiened
under 3a, ia connected to the Better s/ate«. The large RV park
Mentioned in the letter ha a a new diapoBal Byateit, inBtallad
under the auperviaion of an engineer, and approved by DEO. The
Mor-ae atablea have baen r-eferr>ed to the SCS, and they are trying
to work out a beBt management plan (BMP) with the owner for
proper diapoaal of the horae Manure. To the beat of my knowl-
edge, there n«a been no chemical teat ing of the Creek nor teats
for* Tetanus aporea. Monies have not been available for other
than atandard bacterial teating.
44 44. Comment noted.
To date, ultraviolet (UV> treatment of effluent haa not been
aatiafactoi-y. The effluent is normally pascpd thru clear glass
or plaatic pi pea sui-rounded by UV lights. The pipes must be
cleaned and checked daily to weekly, due to algae growth and
staining on the inside surfaces- Scratching of the inside sur-
face, during cleaning, further linita UV penetration and treat-
ment. The UV causes moat plaatica to darken, and becc>*iB hard and
brittle. Annual replacement of these tub>s is not uncommon. Two
complete systems are generally needed, to eliminate bypassing
during cleaning operations. Bulb replacement costs are also
high.
45 45. The use of ultraviolet disinfection has some recognizable
difficulties. However, in considering the alternative of
chlorination and recognizing the sensitivity of the creek,
UV was selected as the chosen disinfection alternative.
-------
Pag* 3
I t«w * 6f on p«g» 5, r-ai «*R c-onewr^n* Mi th th» p»i-iodic pun-pi ng of
th» aeptier tanMa, S*ptic tank* in the- STEP *y*t*m Mi 1 J b»
chvckvd at rwgul ar int»>~va} * ( u*ual 3 y •vtrry G month*) and punpvd
a* n»*d»d* Tha> f *-»qu»r»cry of puripi ng wi 1J d»p»nd on u*ag* of th»
dMcrl 1 i ng, Th» NREA will havta* to buy a pumpvr* ti-uc-k, or- *i gn a
Jong—t»r*«i contract wi th a I icvnsBd pumpvr for* this »*»~vi c»*
St *t» 3 aw r*»qui r~»s. tnat all «»pt «g* ft-o* th» STEP tan MB. Mu*t b*
dumpvd into « DEO appr~owd STP, If th» dumpi ng i» to go to
another* STP, a 1 ong—t»r*» crontract Mill b» r»quir*vd, Th» ci t i »•
of H*bo and PC botn haw 1 ie*nB»d pump*i^« on contract to pump
STEP tank* a* n»«d»d. Th« i»su* of holding hoavownvr** "ho*t«g»M
i* ab*ur-d. Tr»i» tro*t i • g»n»r#] 1 y par-t of th* r-vgulat" monthl y
*»M»r *wrv i cm f •>*.
46 46. Comment noted.
]t»» nunitwr- 1J, on p*g» &, qu>»tior>* th» *vptic tanM problvxK on
th» Pacific- City »y*t»«. I *xa»ln»d • r.u»b»>- of th» f 1 b*i—
g]*> wptic t»nh> in PC, bvfoi-r and «ft»>- thvy wvi-v rvplnod.
TI->» coHp»ny that mad* th» two par-t tanh» i» now out of buBin»».
ThvB* tanhc »•>-• con*ti-uct*d in two pivc», and thvn gluvd to—
gvthvr*. Molt of th* tjinh* I irr»p»c-t»d failvd at tHI» »»*m. Many
had eoncrmtm pour-»d insidv, or on top, for- purpoMB of ant J-
bouyancy« S*>v*r-al of tht* tar»h» w«r-* nc nvw »*>ptic tanhB i n-
•taJlv-d in N»Bbc, the last paragraph or, page 6, proposes « ne»
alternative 4* 10, using state of the art technology for repair of
failing systems in the core area. Previous t»>tinony ftubmitted
by my office, and dated 25 Oct 9P, discaisses two such systems
a. To restate my previous esti-
mates, in a different way, about 5Ci dwellings would have to
connect to the sanitary sewers. The bsf would need to be in-
stalled on an estimated 123-130 dwellings. The remaining 40-50
dwellings would likely have Ip repair systems.
47 47. Comment noted.
48 48. Comment noted. Please also refer to Response to
Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
-------
Pag* 4
The proposed alternative M10 does little for solving the long-
tet-M problems within this community, a* it makes no monies avail-
able for* STP improvements. The problem homes, forced to connect
immediately to the sewer. Mould nave to pay for • foi~e»-m»in,
plu» hookup fmmm., doling Bvptic- t«n>i, pump, »tc. I would »»tl-
Mt> th»B» cOBtB at *3S90-5000 p»r- lot, dvpvnding on location.
Th» Majority of th» hornvs forc->d to construct a b»f, at •53810-
10,009 vach. Hill want to go th* ch»ap»*t rout* and connect to
the ••twr. Tha> nu«b»r of K*M»I- hookup* could rvjieh 170. The
•Misting STP can not nandl* thi* additional load without upgrad-
ing and enlarging.
48
In cloaing, I wanted to enphavize that the proposed alternative •
9 does nothing to re»olve the eniating pollution proble» within
the area. All new etructurea in the core area are in compliance
with current DEO rule* and regulation*. Each year, in thia aanie
area, I ae forced to approve an inc-reaaing number of temporary
repair* on eMiating dwelling*, that are both undersized and
direct pollution eourcea for the underground freshwater aquifer.
If Me wian to preserve this aquifer for future beneficial uses,
the core area must be served by sanitary sewers.
49 49. Comment noted.
If you have questions or- need additional information plea»e give
mm a call. I ae, usually in My office for phone calls from Bi00
to 10<00 AM, Monday thru Friday.
Cc>
NPSfl
file
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Ocaanle and Atmoapharle Administration
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
ENVIRONMENTAL 1 TECHNICAL SERVICES """~"tft!
911 NE 11th Av«nu« - Room «20 ^^
PORTLAND. OREGON «7!tt
SO»M-S400 FAX SKU2M-S43S
ocr s o
F/NWR5:281
i'C'V 011990
OCEAN
EH
S Sttillltf
REGION 10
Mr. Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (w/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Wastewater
Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Opatz:
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has completed its
review of the subject document and found that resources for which
NMFS bears responsibility and alternatives to reduce adverse
Impacts on these resources have been addressed to our
satisfaction. Therefore, we have no comments.
Sincerely,
50 50, Comment noted.
Merritt,E. Tuttle
Division Chief
-------
17
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH « HUMAN SERVICES
Public Httlrh S«ni«
Ctnuri lor Diuui Control
Atlinu GA 30333
October 25, 1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz (MS WD-136)
Region 10, U.S. EPA
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the Newkowin Regional Sanitary Authority
(NRSA) Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal Facilities,
Tillamook County, Oregon. We are responding on behalf of the
U.S. Public Health Service.
We concur that there is a demonstrated need for upgraded waste
water collection, treatment, and disposal systems for the NRSA.
we offer the following comments and suggestions on the DEIS.
1. The reader is left to infer that the preferred
alternatives for collection, treatment and effluent
disposal in the 1990 addendum to the Neskowin Wastewater
facilities plan are the preferred alternatives for the EIS
process. We suggest that EIS preferred alternatives should
be clearly and prominently presented.
2.Plans for sludge disposal are vague.
alternative should be presented.
A clear preferred
3. Plans for effluent disinfection are confusing. The
facilities plan identifies UV disinfection as the preferred
alternative, yet much discussion is presented on the merits
of chlorination as a more proven method (we agree). In
fact, in chapter 6, the principal unavoidable adverse
impact of the "preferred" alternative is presented as
chlorinated effluent. The EIS should clearly present a
preferred alternative for effluent disinfection.
4. A more detailed description of the existing treatment
plant NPDES permit requirements and compliance problems
would be useful.
5. In chapter 3, a rather detailed presentation is made of
chronic surface water quality problems in the Neskowin
area. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 and much of the discussion focus
on sampling stations and results from March to September
51
52
53
|54
55
51. The DEIS was prepared to provide a comparison of the
alternatives evaluated. The DEIS intentionally did not
select a "preferred alternative" but rather presented
comparisons of a number of alternatives for collection,
treatment and disposal. The alternative which will
create the least environmental impact and which is the
most cost-effective has been selected and denoted as the
"preferred alternative" in the Final EIS.
52. Text has been added to Chapter 2 to clarify this issue.
53. UV disinfection is the preferred method of disinfection.
Ozone disinfection was not proposed or discussed
because of the higher costs involved and the level of
training required to operate and maintain the process.
The discussion relating to chlorination was intended to
explain the pros and cons of this method of disinfection.
As we note in the text, while chlorination is more
universally used, the residual chlorine can be toxic to
sensitive species. Because Neskowin Creek provides
habitat for salmonids and because neither dechlorination
nor flows of the creek may lower the residual chlorine
concentrations to below the chronic toxicity levels and/or
those levels recommended by ODFW, it was determined
that UV would be the preferred method for disinfection.
Chapter 6 has been revised.
54. It is noted in the DEIS and the 1988 Facilities Plan that
the existing treatment plant has had a history of not
meeting NPDES permit requirements. The purpose of
the proposed project is to ensure that this situation does
not persist.
-------
55. Station 7 on Figures 3-3 and 3-4 was located below the
confluence of Meadow, Butte and Hawk Creeks; it was
assumed that Hawk Creek continued from this
confluence to Neskowin Creek.
The potable water source on Hawk Creek is located
upstream of the golf course at a point well outside the
NRSA and thus beyond the realm of influence of this
proposed project. FC and FS samples in this area while
important relative to drinking water standards will not be
impacted by this project and thus are beyond the purview
of this study. The no action alternative would allow
continued contamination of the lower reaches of the
various creeks in the project area but would not impact
drinking water quality because of the location of the
water supply intake.
Phase 1 of this project will alleviate the existing chronic
contamination situation primarily in the core area of
Neskowin. Completion of Phase 2 will place additional
homes on sewers thereby decreasing even more the
amount of contamination which occurs now or can be
anticipated in the future. All sources of contamination
have not been identified; it is clear, however, that
provision of sewers will not eliminate all these sources.
Refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
-------
Page 2 - Mr. Opatz
1989. Contrary to the statement made on page 3-12, these
data do not include sites on Hawk Creek, the source of
potable water for Neskowin. We would like to see an
historical presentation of FC, FS and FC/FS ratio data for
Hawk Creek along with a diagram showing sampling sites
relative to the drinking water intake. A presentation of
violations (if any) of the SDWA by the Neskowin Regional
Water District would also be helpful. The statement in
chapter 4 (Ho Action Alternative-Public Health) that the no
action alternative would not adversely impact drinking
water quality should be explained more thoroughly. We
assume that the proposed sewage collection system will not
reach contamination sources above the drinking water
intake. We also note with concern that because of
contamination sources outside the NRSA, the extent to which
construction of new facilities will alleviate surface water
quality problems is not known.
6. A diagram showing the existing and planned effluent
discharge points* in relation to the contact recreation
area(s) on Neskowin Creek would be helpful.
7. The statement in chapter 4 (Collection System
Alternatives-Public Health) that the collection system is
not expected to impact public health should be supported.
We would assume that efforts to collect septic tank
effluent (of poor quality and sometimes discharged to
surface water) for further treatment would positively
impact surface water quality (and probably groundwater
quality). While the direct impact of this improvement in
water quality on public health is difficult to quantify we
feel that it could be significant.
8. The term "pathogens and viruses" is used on page 4-35
(and possibly elsewhere). Because Pathogens are disease
causing agents and many viruses are pathogens, we suggest
deleting "and viruses."
9. There is an unintended "message" in the DEIS that spray
irrigation presents no public health risk (e.g. pages 4-19
and 4-41) . While we agree that such risk is usually
minimal, we feel that mitigation measures are prudent both
from the standpoint of the minimization of exposure to
pathogen containing aerosols and the control of groundwater
contamination.
56. The existing outfall is located 0.8 mile upstream of the
discharge into the ocean. Most of the contact recreation
occurs below the outfall in the vicinity of the ocean
beach. Some recreation also occurs throughout the
watershed. However, discharge will not occur at the time
55 when contact recreation takes place (May 1 to October
31).
56
57
57. The statement should read "...not expected to directly
negatively impact...". Completion of the entire system
(collection, treatment and disposal) will certainly have a
potential positive impact on public health.
58. The term "and viruses" has been deleted from page 4-35.
59. Mitigation would include extensive buffering to preclude
the spread of aerosols beyond the project boundary. In
addition, the sites selected for the spray irrigation would
of necessity have adequately drained soils with a
co groundwater level greater than minus 4 feet. If spray
irrigation were to occur at agronomic rates, the likelihood
of the occurrence of groundwater contamination would
be minimal. In addition, groundwater monitoring wells
™ would be installed. To further ensure minimal health
risks, the site could be fenced.
-------
Page 3 - Mr. Opatz
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
document. Please insure that we are included on your mailing
list to receive a copy of the Final EIS, and future EIS's which
may indicate potential public health impact and are developed
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .
Sincerely yours,
Kenneth W. Holt, M.S.E.H.
Environmental Health Scientist '
Center for Environmental Health
and Injury Control |
I
-------
18
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Portland Held Station
2600 S.E. 98th Avenue. Suite 100
Portland, Oregon 97266
1 September 28, 1990
Re: 1-7-90-SP-9R.dll
Gerald Opatz
Environmental Review Section
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
Thi» regards the area of the proposed Neskowin vastevater treatment facility.
Our agency baa no new information at this time regarding the preaence of
threatened and endangered cpecies in the area. However, we alao auggeat that
you contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, Oregon Department of
Agriculture and Oregon Department of Pish and Wildlife for information
regarding threatened, endangered, and sensitive species which Bay be in the
area.
60 60. Comment noted.
DT Peterson
Supervisor
PFO-ES
UMTS
Dr. Kosterlitz; 3935 S.H. Harins Lane, Portland, Oregon 97201
praatd on IH VM«A,rf rttyeltd p
-------
19
FRIENDS OF NESKOWIN P.O. BOX 796. NESKOWIN, OR 97149
Mr. Gerald Opatz
' ).S. Environmental Protection Agency
legion 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101
RE EIS 910/9-90-121. Neskowin
Dear Mr. Opatz,
..-ITRODUCTION: We believed that The current Draft EIS is inadequate under NEPA, because:
1 .The EIS does not adequately describe the problem. Please note the many EIS
:atements quoted below that describe how numerous aspects of vital data and information
irfqarding {he environment.are said bv EPA to be either unknown, not tested, studied or are
otherwise acknowledged to be vague or speculative.
e.g. Stream Row, limpacts on Rsh, etc)
2. The EIS fails to consider other reasonable alternatives such as 'Alternative #10" proposed
kv our group as is the stated intent of "The Clean Water Act, discussed and exhibited below.
Exhibit E)
Furthermore, with the exception of the 'No Action " Alternative #9, all of the other alternatives
- -oposed in the EIS are essentially the same ir] regard to the size of the project.
What is missing is an alternative such as "Alternative #10" of a different si?e. capacity and
cost, that narrowly and directly addresses the pollution problems. It is critical for the EIS to include
' .Itemative #10" because the issue capacity on growth is SQ crucial
3.The Draft EIS doesn't adequately describe the effects of the listed alternatives on the
environment. In describing the existing environment the EIS does not make clear that the decision
j i a sewer sy stern in itself will determine what growth can occur in the Neskowin . Any sewer
p.oject decision has the clear potential to permanently change the character oj Neskowin.
The Neskowin environment is at a critical point and the choice of a sewerage system will
c cide In which direction the environment will will go. The EIS hasn't fully studied how each of the
alternatives will affect such aspects of the environment. It is not possible for the EIS to do so,
because the environment has not been adequately described as discussed below under various
I- adings. (See: Sludge Management, Costs, WaterQuality, Sewage , Inspection, Worse case
Scenarios, and The Nature of the NRSA, etc.)
For These reasons a new alternative is proposed in this letter.
C 3CUSSION: The following discussion is submitted lor your record with the hope that it may be helpful in (urther
di ling ol the Neskowin EIS. and to assist with lull compliance ol the requirements
ol NEPA.
EIS Statements are In this type. My comments are In this smaller type.
VI.. Richard J. Nichols of ODEQ after reviewing sewer proposals from NRSA on 9/29/88 staled that
' /e have concluded from our review that the information submitted to date is inconclusive in determining the
>c~ntial impact of the proposed discharges to Neskowin Creek on scream water quality, stream biota, and
;tream uses such as fishing and contact recreation. Therefore, we cannot recommend to the EPA that a FONSI
x ssued at this time. Also, we cannot move forward with your request for permit renewal. Specific concerns
elated to stream discharge/impact issue are listed below" ( Exhibit C)
PAGE 1 OF 7
61
62
63
\64
65
61. Since completion of the DEIS, additional work, primarily
related to stream flows, has been completed. This
coupled with the work completed prior to issuance of the
draft and the best professional judgement of the agencies
provides sufficient information from which to make an
informed decision.
62. "Alternative 10" has been determined to not be a
reasonable alternative. Please refer to Response to
Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
63. The decisions regarding growth and/or development
should be based on the accepted Comprehensive Land
Use Plans and the Zoning Regulations. As described in
the EIS, there are a number of constraints placed upon
potential developments.
64. Please refer to Response to Comment 61, Letter No. 19.
65. This comment predates the EIS process and in fact is the
basis for the decision for completion of this document.
Please refer to Response to Comment 61, Letter No. 19.
-------
In response. NRSA ha* chosen to have an EIS prepared and 'In August 1990 an addendum to the
facilities plan was prepared (HOE. inc 1990)' .Page s-2—EIS. UNFORTUNATELY. THE EIS AND
THAT ADDENDUM ARE IS STILL INCONCLUSIVE AND DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN MR. NICHOLS
ODEO LETTER.
The following are examples of some of the still unanswered questions.
1. Stream Flow and Temperature. This system must accommodate - large fluctuations
of flow*. Discussions have been vague about area and vokime measurements. 'Little Information regarding
the hvdrogeoloav of the Meskowln area Is available.' 'Page 3-4 —EIS Tleskowln Creek has
never been gauged. Although sufficient measurements have been obtained to gain a general
understanding of summer flows, there Is not enough data to generate statistically sound
hydrographs." —page 3-7 EIS.
'Additional flow estimates are available from an Oregon State University (OSU) report
which estimated that an average annual How In Meskowin Creek Is 92 cfs. with 95 percent
of the flows greater than 4.8 (rUlngerman 1979 )* Tlo record of winter discharge
measurements exist.' JODOT) has computed calculated flood flows based on watershed
characteristics. Only eight flow measurements are available for Hawk Creek.*—Pane 3-8 EIS
"Butte Creek No discharge measurements are available. " Meadow Creek. The majority of
Meadow creek has been channelized through the wetland and the golf course. Mo flow data
are available for the creek.*—nane3-5 EIS. 'Discussions with U.S. Geological Survey (USQS)
staff .... Indicate the characteristics of the aquifer In the
Meskowln Area should be similar. However no data are available to confirm
this,* 'Flooding of the creeks In the study area Is an annual winter occurrence. The degree
of salt water encroachment Into the lower portions of Heskowln Creek Is not known.* —
page3-9 EIS. 'It Is likely that adequate stream flows would be available during the winter
months; however, there Is little direct data to support this (I.e. winter stream flows were
calculated from a model. but rarely or never measured directly.*—page 4-10 EIS
The information on the quantity of flow that can be expected in Neskowin Creek during both summer
and winter discharge periods is not conclusive.* |(R J. Nichols.ExhlM C.page 3 (1)}
"Would the combination of tidal effects that cause stagnation of water in the lower section of the creek
and the increased nutrient load from the proposed discharge lead to nuisance algal growth in the stream?"((R.J.
Nichote.ExrubH C.page 4 (5)}
We need current substantiated (low figures. The EIS stales they do not exist. They should be taken al: A).
High and low tide, B). In all lour seasons, and should Include C) respective changes In pollution and temperature Irom
eflluert discharge. (OR Trout Exhfctt 8)
2.lmpact of the proposal on the Neskowin environment. This discussion is incompieie.e.g—Lot
size could change, more mobile homes could be allowed, some wetland drainage or fill could occur, new roads could
be developed, all contributing to density. p»g« 2 of ( zoning and conditional use changes. *... lower
population growth rates^would generate fewer Impacts on public services compared to
Impacts under the project alternatives,"— Page 4-4 EIS. "Imparts resulting from the extension
of collector sewer lines Into floodolalns would be significant.*— Page 4-6 EIS. The NRSA does
not have a sludge management plan." Page 4-9 EIS. The lack of such a plan makes various impacts on
Neskowin even more*Inconclusive.
Note: The Confederated Trbes ol The Grand Ronde community have hunting and fishing rights In the
Neskowin area-Impact not discussed In the EIS. (Exhibit E).
3.The sources Of the Sanitary problems. These should be welt defined. Major sources ol
contamination ol the creeks have been Inconchisively considered. * The source of contamination at these
sites has not been Identified. Inadequate or falling septic systems outside the collection area
PA0E20F7
66.
f\f\
._
O 7
Gaging information collected during a 10 year period
from Schooner Creek provides insight into the flow
characteristics of Neskowin Creek. The Schooner Creek
watershed has an area of 13.7 square miles; Neskowin
Creek has a 14 square mile watershed. Both watersheds
are similar in that they are relatively undeveloped and
forested. In addition, the elevation ranges of both
watersheds are similar. Data from Schooner Creek
indicate that during the 10 year period of record, the flow
did not fall below 8 cfs between November 1 and April
30.
A nonlinear regression correlating stream flow and
recurrence interval in Schooner Creek indicates that
there is a likelihood that once every 11 years the
average daily streamflow would fall below 8 cfs. To
further ensure that 20:1 dilution is attained, flow
measurements and an alarm system can be in place to
control discharges to the stream. Please also refer to
Comment 20, Letter No. 11. If the dilution ratio would
fall below 20:1, the effluent would be stored in the
holding lagoon until stream flow increased.
-------
67. The issue of development and growth is discussed in
Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19. The type of
development will be controlled by the uses allowed under
existing accepted Land Use Plans and Zoning
Regulations.
The EIS states that extension of collector lines into
floodplains is in opposition to EPA policies. It further
notes that EPA will provide grant condition language
which precludes sewer hookups in the floodplain.
Text has been added to Chapter 2 to clarify the sludge
management issues.
As has been stated above with regard to other issues not
addressed in this document, the data presented in the
DEIS and developed since the issuance of that document
(principally in relation to flows in Neskowin Creek)
address those areas that might be impacted by this
project. Issues beyond the scope of the project were not
included in the DEIS.
68. There are a number of sources of contamination of the
Neskowin area creeks. These include natural sources
such as wildlife, potential contamination from
agricultural/lawn maintenance, non-point discharges of
contaminated stormwater, improper storage/disposal
from livestock rearing activity, and from continued use of
failing and marginal septic systems. EPA's construction
grant program addresses only the latter source.
Implementation of this proposal will assist the community
in reducing the contamination of the surface waters
within the NRSA. As pointed out in the EIS, it will not
eliminate all sources of contamination of the surface
waters.
Additional programs which address each of the sources
of contamination can be explored to reduce or eliminate
the non-domestic sources of contamination. These
programs are beyond the purview of the proposed project
and the EIS.
-------
69. This number not used for comment.
boundary have been Identified by TUlamook County health authorities as potential sources
jf contamination There Is also a large RV park just above Station 3 which has a new septic
system and dralnfleld. Specific sites which might be contributing fecal contamination could
tot be identified from the results of this study. Given this limitation, the extent to which
construction of the proposed treatment plant would alleviate the contamination l«
not known.*—oaam 3-16 EIS.
Trie DEO 'no-point discharge program' is omitted from the EIS.
a.) Horse stab|esr Etc, page 3-12 'Based on the ratio of fecal collforms to fecal
streptococci. It was determined that the high fecal coliform counts at several stations
resulted from non-human sources (wildlife or domestic animals). However, the surveys
'ndicated that there were at least six sampling stations in which contamination resulted from
mman sources (discharges from subsurface systems)'—EIS. Also see (Exhibit Q). Testing lor
bacteria such as Tetanus spores could Indicate the extent of equine contamination.
' The impact and sanitary status ol the day use Wayside, and the Neskowin golf course toilet facilities are not
iscussed.
b.) Evaluation of those houses ki the core area actually producing contamination by use ol dva testing has not
n done.
c.) There has been no mention of chemical testing of creek water for fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides.
Neskowin Go» course sod beatment. or the farms located on the respective creeks. A federal deadline for total maximum
daily water bads of ammonia, phosphorus and ajgaa was set In 1985.
The information on how the discharge would meet the North Coast Basin water quality
standards for dissolved oxygen, temperature, turbidity. pHAcal coliform bacteria,
•esthetics, etc., during both summer and winter discharge periods is not conclusive. Please refer to Oregon
.dministranve rules (OAR) 340-41-204.)" {RJ. Nichols.Exhibit Cpage 3 (2)) There Is little historical data
regarding BOD loading or DO concentrations In the streams.*—Page3-i7EiS.
1.) No evidence Is presented that the proposed ultraviolet treatment of sewage would be effective lor specific
ilhogenic infectious contaminants (other than fecal E. CoO) such as.<3iardiasis. Hepatitis viruses.and Amebiasis. A
•Chlorlnation provides a much more proven and reliable system for disinfection.Due to Its
-roven effectiveness, the ease of use. and the low associated operation and maintenance
osts, chlorination Is the most frequently used method disinfecting wastewaters.*— Page 2-11
as.
"Would ultraviolet technology Effidds Eliabk disinfection capability under general operating
uiditions and following lagoon storage/treatment of effluent, if required, and what method of disinfection
would be provided for backup service if needed? What are the potential water quality effects of the back-up
i sinfection process?" |R J. Nchols.OOEO Exhibit C page 3 (4))
-.New Environmental Concerns:
Potentially endangered fish. 'Information on the fisheries resources in Neskowin
< reek and its tributaries is limited.*—Page 3-22 EIS.
* Chinook and coho salmon enter the system between September and December.
nd chum salmon enter between October and December.Winter-run steelhead trout enter
I iskowin Creek to spawn between November and March.. It has not been established If
suitable spawning habitat is available or If salmon are spawning In Neskowin Creek below
I e treatment plant discharge.
Both resident and sea-run cutthroat trout are found throughout the Neskowin Creek
System. ODFW believes that the anadromous run numbers only a few hundred per year.
'he effect of discharge of secondary treated effluent to streams on the Imprinting and
homing ability of salmonlds Is unknown —,Page 3-22 EIS.
'Winter-run steelhead trout.. ODfW estimates that the annual run number between 150
PAGE 3 OF 7
70.
71.
|70
171
J72
73
74
75 72.
76
Flows in wayside facilities generally are low per capita
when compared to residential uses. Per capita flow
estimates (per OAR 340-71) range between 10 and 15
gallons per day. Assuming 70 percent of the 10,000
annual wayside visitors arrived between May 1 and
October 31, the impact on flow would average less than
600 gallons per day.
Dye testing has not been completed because these tests
would be inconclusive. The diffusion of effluent from
individual septic tanks is such that it mixes with other
tank effluent, travels with the groundwater, enters into
seepage pits and cesspools and generally does not clearly
"expose itself to the surface. Other methods (i.e.
radioactive tags) are available; they are expensive and
beyond the budget of the County Sanitarian to undertake.
Further, isolation of individual failing systems does not
solve the long term problem; all systems will eventually
fail. Please also refer to Response to Comment 33,
Letter No. 14.
Chemical testing for these constituents was not
undertaken because this project will not impact nor be
impacted by the presence or absence of these chemicals.
Tests were completed to further demonstrate that human
fecal contamination continues to occur in the surface
waters; these problems will at least in part be resolved
with the completion of the proposed project.
-------
73. Please refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10.
The OAR provides the mechanism by which the state can
place restrictions on the quantity and quality of the
effluent being discharged. The water quality standards
have been developed through the scientific community to
be at levels not detrimental to the receiving waters and
the resident biota.
74. Ultraviolet disinfection is the preferred method because
of the sensitivity of the receiving waters.
75. Chlorination was determined not to be the best method
of disinfection in this case because of the concern for the
anadromous and resident salmonid species and their food
organisms that are present in Neskowin Creek. The
ultraviolet system which will be installed will be reviewed
by ODEQ during their review of the projects plans and
specifications. The most reliable and most effective
system will be utilized. The storage lagoons can be used
as the back-up for the disinfection system. When the
system is off-line for maintenance or repair, effluent can
be bypassed to the lagoons until such time as the system
is once again operational. Refer to Response to
Comment 84, Letter No. 19 and Response to Comment
222, Letter No. 56a.
-------
and 400 fish per year*— Pag* 3-22 EIS. This small number is subject to threatened or andangernwnt proposals.
The information on the impact of the proposed discharge on recognized beneficial uses of Neskowin
Creek including rwater supply, anadromous ash passage, salmonid rearing, salmonid spawning, resident fish
and aquatic life, water contact recreation, aesthetic quality, etc. is not conclusive. Please refer to OAR-340-41-
202." (RJ. Nfchote.ODEO ExhbH. C page 3 (1)}
Neskowin Creek Is an Index stream lor these wild flsh. Some ol these salmon varieties (chum) are already on the
•watch list tor the Columbia river and have been proposed lor toting as endangered In other Oregon rivers.
Additionally endangerrnent recommendations are pending from The American Fisheries Institute lor several
species of salmon..(pers. comra Oregon Trout.)
Consideration Is being given to a similar proposal lor threatened or endangerment recommendations lor The
Neskowin Creek unless the problems presented by the small number ol
offish and the unknown hazards ol additional effluent, etc.. discharged Into the Creek can be
resolved.
The USFWS has identified the following federally listed threatened and endangered
species as occurring with the Suislaw national Forest: bald eagle. Aleutian Canada goose.
the northern spotted owl, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and Oregon sllverspot butterfly.
Sensitive species Include the snowy plover and the big eared bat*— Page 3-30 EIS. There is no
discussion of the impact of the proposed sewer system on these and other species. (Exhibits A,B,D,F,G)
5. The Clean Water Act.i 33 use section IZM OKSJ i9?2).(Exhut u)
The treatment plant Is designed to have some excess capacity after the Phase 1 sewering
is Installed .which can serve about 100 EDUs (Monro pers. comm.) or 258 people.' 'as the
facilities are expanded to Incorporate additional sewer connections and to Include other
developments in the cost for expanding collection, treatment and effluent disposal
capacity"—Page 2-2 as. "Curtain past Board Members and soma present dav mnmbers and staff
have interests In land and tots that are zoned for subdivision'—-INRSA pamphlet ExhW O, page S, (e))
The Committee Report on the Clean Water AcHSenate Report» 95-370. Exhibits I & U) Indicates the stated
congressional Intent of that Act. * The purpose of the funds fa not to finance the future growth needs...' and note
limited provisions for growth".— page 4. Approximately 100 currently undeveloped hook-ups to serve about 258
additional people are to be allocated to "excess" capacity planned to Indirectly receive the benefit of Federal funds (if
granted) lor development and future growth. This could trigger undesirable sodal and environmental effects such as:
land use changes, population density effectsjncreased traffic, and the nature of zoning. The so called 'excess* capacity
allocation should conform to the governmental rules lor rescue, capacity. Thlsicseaa (not'excess *) capacity needs to
be reserved for the benefit of the Core Area and not elsewhere as now proposed. Furthermore. R is noted that;
The Federal action may directly oj through induced development have a significant adverse effect
upon surface water quality, and fish and other aquatic species and their natural habitats.Code of Federal
regulations 40 CRF 6.108,40 CFR 6.509 ' (corresp. Thomas J. Lucas OOEO1988)
The EIS should Include the NRSA 'Excess* capacity ordinance plus the names and Neskowin land holdings of
NRSA board members 'URSA can also equitably allocate the excess capacity of the Phase 1
plant so that no single subdivision within the district can monopolize the remaining
capacity.' —page 5-3 EIS.
6.Costs:*Phase 1 customers may see periodic Increases In monthly user fees to
•eflect Increased operation and maintenance costs resulting from Increased flows, and
ncreased costs for disposal of septage.Phase 1 customers would also likely sustain
ncreases In the user costs as the facilities are expanded IQ Incorporate additional sewer
•.onnectlons and to Include other developments In the cost for expanding collection,
reatment and effluent disposal capacity*— pages 2-27/2-29 EIS. The large (NRSA proposed) system
osts too much for our community. .NRSA should provide current estimates of the actual bid costs of the project, and
rejections of future increases. Those furnished In Table 2-6 ol the EIS by NRSA are Incomplete or unrealistic and the
ost of sludge management Is not stated. The sludge produced aL the treatment plant and collected
i the septic tanks will require periodic removal and disposal. Presently local contractors
ispose of sludge In state approved sludge disposal areas or haul |t for treatment at the
PAGE 4 OF 7
76
77
78
79
76. Please refer to Appendix B in the DEIS. No endangered
or threatened species are known to exist in the project
area and thus none will be impacted by this project.
Discharge criteria for treatment plant effluent have been
established by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. Concentrations of solids, BOD, nutrients and
other constituents are required to be low enough so as to
preclude impacts to the biota and receiving waters.
Disinfection of effluent is required to preclude the
discharge of elevated concentrations of bacteria; for
Neskowin Creek, ultraviolet radiation was selected to
ensure that no toxicity was imparted to the effluent.
The use of ultraviolet radiation as the disinfection
mechanism will preclude the discharge of residual
chlorine into Neskowin Creek. The side products, i.e.
organic chlorine compounds which may be chronically
toxic, will therefore not be generated. During periods of
time when maintenance of the disinfection system is
required, the effluent can be diverted into the holding
lagoon until such time as the UV system is operable.
A number of bioassays was conducted by METRO in
Seattle to determine the potential impact upon salmonid
resources as a result of sewage treatment plant effluent
(STPE) discharge. These bioassays were both acute (96
hour) and continuous flow with concentrations of effluent
as high as 40%.
Information on spawning habitat has been added to the
text of the FEIS in Chapter 3, Biological Resources,
Neskowin Planning Area, Aquatic Biota.
-------
Buckley (1983) held coho salmon fingerlings (average
weight 6 grams) for 96 hours in a variety of
concentrations of dechlorinated STPE as high as 40%.
No mortalities were recorded during these tests. In a
follow-up study, Buckley et al (1984) held coho
fingerlings 25 days in continuous flow bioassays with
concentrations of dechlorinated STPE as high as 50%.
As in the first bioassay, no mortalities resulted.
In order to determine the effect of prolonged exposure to
ammonia, Buckley et al (1979) exposed coho fingerlings
for 91 days to either river water, one of three
concentrations of ammonium chloride in river water and
to 30% unchlorinated secondary-treated domestic sewage
all in continuous flow unrecycled bioassays. Blood
ammonia and urea concentrations were not significantly
different after 91 days regardless of concentration of the
ambient ammonia.
Ten static acute (96 hour) bioassays were carried out on
chlorinated secondary effluent from Metro's Renton
Treatment Plant. Using Duwamish/Green River water
as the diluent, Buckley and Matsuda (1973) found that
50% mortality of the test fish (coho salmon fingerlings)
occurred in 24 and 96 hours with concentrations of
effluent of 33% and 29% effluent, respectively. Residual
chlorine was determined to be the principal toxicant to
fish with an average 24 and 96-hour TL50 concentration
of 0.23 and 0.20 mg/1, respectively.
The conclusions of the studies conducted by METRO is
that unchlorinated effluent in concentrations as high as
50% (one part river water to one part effluent or 1:1
dilution) is not toxic to coho fingerlings. The anticipated
concentration of effluent discharged into Neskowin Creek
will be 20:1 or twenty times more dilute than that shown
to have no effect on fingerling survival.
77. In the early design phases of this project, NRSA
identified those areas which required sewering
immediately in order to alleviate a known existing
situation. The 100 equivalent dwelling units which the
treatment plant has been sized to accommodate were
allocated by NRSA to a variety of locations within the
NRSA service area boundaries. Phase 2 implementation
will be necessary for some of these EDUs to be served.
EPA is not participating in the costs of the excess
capacity of the plant; the growth issue will be controlled
by local land use decisions.
78. The cost increases which may occur will relate to the
increased costs for operation and maintenance. No costs
remain static; they are influenced by inflation, recession,
salaries, costs of goods and services, etc. The costs in
Table 2-6 were the best estimates available. They have
been revised in the final EIS. Sludge disposal costs were
included in the estimates.
79. The issue of sludge handling has been clarified in
Chapter 2.
-------
TIllamoQh municipal wastewater treatment plant, -pits practice cauMcontlmiej^>« 4-9 EIS.
tils statement seems speculative sine* such faculties may be closed or
•astrlcted as theHmttsot their capacity are reached. Under the NRSA proposal. This sludoe
will be pumped on a biannual basis and can be handled In a manner
ilmilar to septage.' —page 2-10 EIS Tnus. the homeowners could be -held hostage' to
.apidly escalating rates horn garbage transport, as has been reported In some THIamook County areas. The EIS slates
that NRSA has not developed any such plans.and no proposed haulage or deposit sites have been designated. There
lay be none available wkhki a reasonable distance from Neskowin.
Expansive technicians and equipment from Portland could be needed lor mechanical and electronic breakdowns.
and might not even be available in a timely manner or affordable. The costs of abandoning the present plant and the cost
• I liability Insurance are not fully discussed.
The EIS should kickJde the cost and Imits of lability or Insurance of the NRSAof lor the various types of
damages Us activities may Incur.
The cost ol abandoning any present sewage plant previously acquired or planned to be acquired should be
duded.
7.Sewage: Tillamook County Goal 16:- "Controlled release of treated industrial, domestic, and
agricultural wastes into ocean, river or esnurine waters shall be permitted only if no practicable alternatives
cist." "Development of the collection system will not eliminate surface water quality
degradation In the area but will contribute to decreasing the degradation."— Page 4-5 EIS.
8. Inspection: The EIS should specify that the plan for operating and Inspecting the sewerage system Is in
mpliance with clean water laws and standards lor daily pollution k>ads.(v.s ODEQ. R J. Nichols) Inspections ol the
system should be random and unannounced.and not announced and arranged.
9. Worst Case Scenarios: The EPA has not deal with worst case scenarios such as a severe drought (
I Klcled lor 1991. ExrUbH S.). total failure of the sewage plant, discharge ol raw sewage Into Neskowin Creek,
destruction ol fish runs, back up effluent flowing into the wetlands during winter Hooding in Neskowin. etc.
WU permits be Issued tor automatic release Ones lor treated effluent even when the flow rates produce a dilution
i to ol less than 20:1, or what will be done with the elfluent. and lor how long.? The contingency ol the 14 day pond
folding time died may not be sufficient. No data Is presented.
10. Public OppOSitiorn'Based on public opposition to creek discharge, the potential
f r other treatment /disposal alternatives and on the facilities update plan. EPA determined
tnat additional effluent alternatives should be evaluated and Incorporated Into this CIS" page
2-' EIS. (ExhibitU. In 1984theNRSAconductedapoHwhichshowed:Forapro|ectnow.71.0pposed.107.
C ndHtonal supporl-13. a 45% return ol the number sent out. (Exhibit N) in vlaw ol such nubile opposition. » current noil
is clearly Indicated and should be conducted by EPA or NRSA before proceeding with any particular proposal..
11. The Nature of the NRSA:
a.) NRSA asks—tow DIFFFPENT is THF NRSA SVSTFM FROM THF PACIFIC CITV SYSTEM THAT HAP
PROBLEMS WITH FtOATihiG TANKS IN THE FLOOD 70NF AND SFFPACF?' and responded "There
80.
79 «•
81
82
|83
184
82.
83.
ar* significant differences between the system proposed in Neskowin and the system in Pacific City .We are not
ei irely aware of all of the elements of the Pacific City Systematic."
(Exhibit P)
As previously noted, its membership Includes developers who have demonstrated self-
interest by allocating the 'excess* capacity to a significant degree among themselves.
This may be In conflict with The Clean Water Act ol 1972 (Exhibit O.U.4 I)
Even though EPA notes It will not fund this particular allocation, a favorable
EPA grant recommendation might be controversial lor this allocatlon.appendix E, EIS.
It Is lelt that such allocations could be withdrawn as described under Mitigation, page 5-3.EIS.
1. \ group of Neskowin citizens has proposed a new alternative; Alternative #10:
"Proper repair and expansion of the existing sewerage plant, plus utilization of the new "state
}f the art" soil technology for existing and replacement septic tanks.
o Jther with proper regulation of Neskowin Lodge, the Horse Stables, The Wayside, and the Golf
Xjrse sewerage, could solve the pollution problem.*
We have asked that this alternative be added to those previously evaluated.
PAGE 5 OF 7
This number not used for comment.
The cost of acquiring and refurbishing the existing plant
was evaluated in the 1988 Facilities Plan. As noted in
the summary chapter of the DEIS, the 1988 Plan
proposed acquisition, modification, and expansion of the
existing plant as the preferred alternative. Further
analysis in the Plan Addenda concluded that this
alternative was not the most cost-effective. All other
appropriate costs have been considered in the EIS.
Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
The NPDES permit issued for this new facility will
specify operating standards, discharge limitations, and
monitoring and reporting requirements. Inspections by
ODEQ are beyond the scope of this analysis but can be
completed as desired by ODEQ.
85 84. The project has been designed with adequate back-up
systems such that if upset conditions occur, storage
capacity exists to cease discharge to Neskowin Creek
until the problem is remedied. The quality of the
effluent will certainly be better than currently exists such
that danger to the fish populations is reduced rather than
increased (please refer to Response to Comment 76,
Letter No. 19). As noted in Response to Comment 83,
the NPDES permit will place discharge limitations to
ensure that dilution ratios will exceed 20:1 per ODEQ
requirements. The storage lagoons will have a capacity
to store nearly 20 million gallons of effluent so that if
upset conditions occur, ample capacity will be available
to store effluent until any problems can be resolved.
Please refer to Response to Comment 20, Letter No. 11;
and Response to Comment 91, Letter No. 20.
86
86 a
87
-------
85. Additional effluent disposal alternatives have been
studied and analyzed as a result of the EIS process and
the Facilities Plan Updates. Each alternative was
evaluated in terms of environmental impact and cost; the
selection of preferred alternative in the FEIS is the result
of this analysis. It is recognized that there will not be
unanimous support for the project. The decision to
proceed with the project is based on the environmental
need for the project.
86. The Pacific City system was comprised of fiberglass tanks.
The seams in these tanks failed. The County Sanitarian
has noted that as a result of Pacific City's experience
tanks installed in Neskowin are required to be concrete.
See Comment 47, Letter No. 16.
86a Comment noted. The DEIS addresses the issue. EPA
will not fund additional capacity. The decision of
providing additional capacity was made early in the
facilities planning process.
87. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
-------
This alternative:
A) It outside of the range of the other proposed aBemallvei considered.
B) Has less environmental Impact than the other E1S aRematlves discussed.
C) His less expensive than the other EIS alternatives discussed.
0) It to the anematlve most compatble with the mitigation concepts In the EIS especially
unknown or Inconclusive.
".... core area...the County has required that any development In these areas utilize state-of-
the-art Individual wastewater treatment systems. These systems are the most effective ]Q
avoiding aquifer contamination but are expensive.*— page 3-44 EIS As noted above, we also propose
(his approach, as part of our attematlve.(also note Exhibits G & R)
This would require hook-up of Irreparable septic systems In the core area and additional hook-
up of those other core area homeowners who elect to do so, while maintaining reserve capacity for
vacant land owners In the core area.
This reasonable Alternative is already generally described by the EPA in the EIS Mitigation
'In order to mitigate these Indirect Impacts HRSA could scale down the treatment plant
capacities proposed for Phases 1 and 2. or the areas to fre sewered In Phase 2.*—Page 5-3 EIS
•Upgrading the existing plant which ODEQ has Indicated Is at the end of Its service life,
appeared IQ fce a viable alternative and was further evaluated.*— Page 2-9 EIS
A great deal of effort has been expended by our group to develop this balanced compromise solution to the
many difficult and controversial Nestowki sewer plan problems.
Therefore It Is hoped "Alternative *10" wffl be given every consideration as a plan which best addresses the alms ol
various resident groups and best complies with the various mandates regarding environmental Impact, and cost
containment
Sincerely Yours
87
Please refer to Response to Comment 62, Letter No. 19.
Margot Thompson
Janet McCracKen
Jean Meihott
Kacey Joyce.
Richard & Nancy Kosterlitz Alex & Sara Silford
Addi*0ss CofT6Spond6nc0 tor
3935 SW Martins Lane
Portland. OR. 97201
for Friends of Neskowin
cc:
Ms. Fredianne Gray. EPA
Oregon Operations Office. EPA
Mr. Daniel Fraser, FHA
State Director, FHA
David M. Des Voigne. Ph.D.
Mr. Kenneth M. Vigil Or. DEO
Mr. Thomas J.Lucas OR DEO
Mr. RJ. Nichols, DEO
Northwest Region. DEO
US Regional OEPR
Mr. John Marshall. ODSL
Richard KJohnson. Chief.(CENPT-PL-R)
U.SArmy Corps of Engineers CECW-ORU.S.
Mr.MerritTuttle.NMFS
Mr. Bruce Andrews, Director OSDA
OR Water Resources Commision
Kacey Joyce
Alex & Sara Sifford
John Shurts
Roger L. Meyer
Mr. Jim Martin Director.ODFW
USFWS
EXHIBITS
PAGE 6 OF 7
-------
A: Small Saknon Run. Oregonlan 10/11/90
B: Latter OR Trout. 7/13/90
•Exhba C: DEO Review of Sewerage Plan, Rfchard J. Nichols 9/29/90
•Exhtoa D: Decline of Frogs, Oregonlan article.
: Hunting & Fishing Rights. Grande Ronde Indians
F: Marbled murrlet.proposed threatened species. Oregonlan 1/14/90
'Exhibit G: "Septl-Save* bacterial formula (or septic tank performance.
'Exhibit H: Nature Conservancy, Letter of 7/20/88
•Exhfcit I: Clean Water Act ol 1977, Report No. 95-370
'Exhibit J: NRSA Bulletin 'Dear Neskowin Homeowners .page 5.
'Exhibit K: Neskowin Community Association Newsletter, 6/1988. Page 8.
'Exhibit L: DEO Notes on Neskowin • B/1 6/90. Section 5 .
'Exhibit M: Human Waste not a significant factor, Article Tdlamook Headlight Herald
•cxhibit:N: Neskowin Sewer Project poll, 1/84
Exhtoit O: NRSA paphlet describing sewer project Section E Conflicts of Interest
'Exhibit P. Neskowin Community Assoc. Newsletter, Re.Pacific City Sewer, 6/88
Exhibit O: miamook Headlight Herald -Human Waste not a significant tactot1988
•Exhibit:R: "Bactera, fungi battleman's messes biologicaty. Oregonian Article
'Exhtut S: Newspaper articles (3 items) -Drought predictions for 1991& river matters.
Exhibit T: Bacterial cleanup of toxic and biologic wastes.(2 Items).
•Exhibit U: U.S. Clean waler Ad ( 33 USC Section 1284 (a)(5) 1972).
PAGE 7 OF 7
-------
20
«on mm, inc.
NOV
0700 S.E. LAWNFELD ROAD • OLACKAMAS. OREGON 87015
TELEPHONE (BOS) 8S343OO • FAX (BOS) 6B3-B87O
November 2, 1990
D. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, HA 98101
Mail Stop HD 136
Dear Sirs:
Please be advised that this Company is purchasing
property on the oceanfront at Neskovin, Oregon, northwest of
the intersection of Breakers Blvd. and Corvallis Avenue. It
vill be legally described as Lot 1, Gulp Acres. The sale
will be closed this year.
He are very much in favor of the installation of
sanitary severs in Corvallis and Breakers in order that ve
may have more flexibility in the development of the lot and
the assurance of a reliable and healthful sevage disposal
system not only for this property but also for the entire
Neskovin community. He hope that the system can be
installed soon in order to save us the cost of developing a
septic system and then having to make a connection to the
sever before the septic system is amortized.
Again, please record us as being in favor of the
installation of the sanitary sever system in Neskovin.
Very truly yours,
OREGON IRON WORKS, INC.
89 89. Comment noted.
Arnold
Project Manager, Coast Properties
cc: Terrance J. Aarnio, President
-------
21
OREGON
NATURAL
RESOURCES
COUNCIL
• OTIM* IUWNA1 OrTKX
IIW UNOXN STUIT
a oca MIGON r«oi
W tx 06'5
Protecting Oregon's lands.
Balers and natufal resources
October 8. 1990
Mr. Gerald Opali
EJS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D Ut)
Environmental protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Opati,
The Orejon Natural Resources Council has been made aware of the recent E1S
ETA 9109-90-021 regarding Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Wastewater
Collection Treatment, and Disposal Facilities.
We are concerned about the discharge of additional effluent into the Neskowin
creek when it appears that the actual flow rates have not been satisfactorily
measured and may become temporarily or permanently too small to support
such discharge.
furthermore it seems possible that such discharge could back up into the
adjacent wetlands at the time of regular winter flooding with several
untoward consequences. According to the DS, there is little information
regarding the thickness of the sands and the hydrology of Neskowin, or even
the minerals, toxic chemicals, or iron content of Neskowin Creek. There also
appears to be significant hazards to wild fish. The following are quotes from
the VS.
•Neskowin Creek has never been gauged there is not enough data to
generate statistically sound hydrographs. No record of winter discharge
measurements exist" (as well as for the other tributary creeks-sic). 'The
source of contamination at theses sites hasn't been identified. Given thif
limitation the extent to which the construction of the proposed treatment
plant would alleviate the contamination is not known.'
•Anadromous fish enter the system between September and March each year
to spawn. Chinook and eoho salmon enter the system between September and
December, and chum salmon enter between October and December. Winter-
run steelhead trout enter Neskowin Creek to spawn between November ond
March.. It has not been established if suitable spawning habitat is available
90
91
92
|93
94
90. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
91. The treated effluent will be of high enough quality that
with 20:1 dilution no impacts to the receiving waters will
occur. If flooding occurs, the dilution will be much in
excess of this dilution; there will thus be no impacts due
to overspilling into wetlands in such a dilute state.
USGS has estimated flood flows for Neskowin Creek. As
indicated in Appendix D, flows of approximately 1531 cfs
are expected at least every two years; th'e 100 year flood
(i.e. those flows anticipated only one percent of the time)
flows were estimated to be 3871 cfs. Work to be
completed by EPA will substantiate anticipated winter
flooding flows. Please refer to Response to Comment 20,
Letter No. 11.
Assuming discharge of treated effluent were to be 0.4 cfs
(which would require operation of the treatment plant at
full capacity in the winter months), dilution of effluent
would exceed 6000:1 during the most frequent flooding
conditions. The impacts of effluent in wetlands at this
concentration would not be measurable.
-------
92. Please refer to Comment 31, Letter No. 14.
or if salmon or* spawning in Ntskowin Creek Mow the treatment plant
discharge.
Both resident and sto-run ouUbroat iroul or* found throughout the
Neskowin Creek System. Hatchery cutthroat trout were stocked in Neskowin
Creek prior to 1974. No population estimates for cutthroat have been
performed; however ODFW believes that the anadromous run numbers only a
few hundred per year.*
We wanted to let you know that we are concerned about these and other
potential environmental impacts with the hope that such problems can be
resolved before finalizing a sewerage disposal system.
Sincerely,
Wendell Wood
Conservation Coordinator
94
93. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19;
and Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
94. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
Information on spawning habitat has been added to the
text of the FEIS in Chapter 3, Biological Resources,
Neskowin Planning Area, Aquatic Biota.
cc: Richard H. rosterUU. M.D.
-------
22
Oregon Shores
Conservation
Coalition / P.O. Box 578 . Rockaw.y. Oregon 97136
I 'Ikon
i we*
*>"MJOM
October 27, 1990
fir. Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Breach (U/0 136)
environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, UA 96101
Re;EIS CPA 9109-90-021
Dear PIT. Opatz i
The Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition la a 19-year old
organization whoso primary interest is the protection of coaatal
resources - land, beaches, water, and air.
Ue believe that the water quality of the Neakowin Creek will
be greatly endangered If approval la given to the Neakowin Regional
Sanitary Authority Uaatewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities. Not only the water in the creek will be heavily pol-
luted by the discharge, but the surrounding wetlands will be con-
taminated during the high flow during winter flooding.
Not enough it known about the Impact of this dlacharga on
the anadromous and resident fish which inhabit and spawn in the
Neakowin. With the current stress that our fish population is
experiencing. It is aurely not appropriate to put them under
additional stress.
Ue strongly support the statement made by Or. Richard H.
Kosterlitz in his October 3 letter and we strongly oppose the
issuance of a permit for this discharge until the questions he
raisea have been addreased.
Please keep me informed as to the progress of the permit,
especially if a hearing la held on this natter.
95
96
97
198
95. The existing situation allows for minimally treated
effluent to seep from unidentified (and unidentifiable)
sources into Neskowin, Hawk and Meadow Creeks. The
water quality sampling indicates that these streams are
contaminated due to fecal discharges. The purpose of
this project is to assist in the elimination of these
impacts. Please also refer to Response to Comment 5,
Letter No. 1; Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10;
Response to Comment 23, Letter No. 13; Response to
Comment 32, Letter No. 14; Response to Comment 76,
Letter No. 19; Response to Comment 84, Letter No. 19;
and Response to Comment 91, Letter No. 21.
96. Please refer to Response to Comment 91, Letter No. 21.
97. Please refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10,
and Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
98. Please refer to Response to Comments 61 through 88,
Letter No. 19.
Sincerely,
'ftowa'rS ti Uatkins, President
270 Johnson
Cooa Bay, OR 97420
Please use the Coos Bay address for any communication.
Dedicated To The Preservation Of Our Shoreline Resources
-------
23
Oregon Trout
Speaking out for Oregon's fish
P.O. Box 19540 • Portland. Oregon 97219 • (503) 244-2292
November 1,1990
Gerald Opatz
EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
NESKOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Dear Mr. Opatz:
Oregon Trout appreciates this opportunity to participate in the public comment
process through sharing our concerns with you in this letter.
Oregon Trout is a statewide, non-profit conservation organization comprised of
over 2200 members. We organized as a formal 501(Q(3) corporation in 1983.
Oregon Trout's purpose is to work for the protection, preservation, and
restoration of Oregon's native fish and their habitats. We are not a fishing group
or anglers club. We work as advocates for the fish.
Of 195 salmonid stocks described as of "special concern" or at "high" or
"moderate" risk of extinction in a draft report by the Endangered Species
Committee of the American Fisheries Society, the professional society of fishery 99
biologists, 56 are found along the Oregon Coast and 76 in the Columbia Basin.
Neskowin Creek will be directly affected by the dumping of treated effluent from
the proposed sanitary facility.
The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS hereinafter) lists salmonid fish .
species which have been reported as living in or using Neskowin Creek during 1100
their life cycles. The following table shows the status currently accorded those
99. This comment only indirectly relates to this project
proposal. Please refer to Response to Comment 76,
Letter, No. 19.
100. Comment noted. Please refer to Response to Comment
76, Letter No. 19.
-------
OREGON TROUT COMMENTS Page 2
11/1/90 DEIS
specific populations by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in its "Issues
90 - Sensitive Fish Species Overview and Lists," September 18, 1990.
Sahnonids
Reported in Neskowin Creek
Fall Chinook
Oncorhvnchiis tshawytscha
Coho
O. kisutch
Chum
O. keta
Steelhead Trout (winter-run)
Oncorhvnchus mvkiss
Sea-run Cutthroat Trout
Salmo clarki
Resident Cutthroat Trout
Salmo clarki
ODFW Fish Species Overview & Lists
Stocks of Concern List: Very
small populations; documented
Sensitive Species List: Decline
in numbers
Stocks of Concern List Suspect
problem; no data substantiating
Stocks of Concern List: Suspect
problem; no data substantiating
100
According to the DEIS (pg. 3-23), "fisheries management in Neskowin Creek and
its tributaries has focused on wild fish" since 1979. Further "habitat protection and
improvement is emphasized." Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
no longer stocks fish in the system. Fishing regulations also emphasize native
salmon values. The entire "Neskowin Creek system is closed to the taking of all
salmon species."
Fishing for cutthroat trout and steelhead is allowed department regulations with
winter steelhead fishing subject to catch and release with barbless hooks only.
Department biologist Klumph is cited in this DEIS as saying current sport fishing
pressure is not limiting steelhead and cutthroat populations. Yet the department
includes sea-run cutthroat and winter-run steelhead on the September 1990 Stocks
of Concern List. Current habitat alterations and human influences or impacts
101 101. Please refer to Response to Comment 95, Letter No. 22.
-------
OREGON TROUT COMMENTS Page 3
11/1/90 DEIS
other than fishing pressure must be carefully evaluated in considering any
additional changes in the water system supporting these fish populations. The
DEIS does not adequately do this.
Given this management focus for Neskowin Creek and the level of concern for
several of the salmonid populations reported as using the stream, the proposal to
discharge treated effluent into Neskowin Creek during those periods when
salmonids would normally be using the affected stream area is difficult to
understand.
The DEIS (pg. 3-22,3-23) gives information on anadromous fish use, noting adults
enter the stream between September and March with Chinook and coho salmon
entering between September and December, chum salmon between October and
December, winter steelhead between November and March, and cutthroat trout
spawning between February and March. The DEIS also reports that S. clarki and
o. mykiss do not just travel through the lower stream reach to spawn, but that
young fish remain in the system for two to four years depending on the species.
The issue of loading the stream system with sewage effluent is not adequately
addressed in the DEIS with respect to the effects on these salmonids.
In July 1988, Mr. Dale Pearson of Oregon Trout expressed our concerns in a letter
on this project to Mr. Kenneth M. Vigil of the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. We ask that Mr. Pearson's letter be considered part of
this comment letter.
Oregon Trout understands that Mr. Pearson's letter has been read
into the formal record at a recent public meeting on this sewage treatment facility.
Oregon Trout was hopeful that those concerns would be addressed in this
document Unfortunately this is not the case.
Oregon Trout's concerns remain regarding effluent effects. These concerns
include the probable effects of effluent, whether ultraviolet treated or chlorinated,
with respect to the food chain organisms upon which the salmonids are dependent
The effluent discharge effects upon the salmonids' homing abilities and spawning
and rearing success due to changes in temperature, taste, smell, and chemical or
metal content are also not addressed. Finally, contingency plans in the event of
either high or low flows, particularly flood events and extended low flow periods,
are not adequately presented with respect to the survival of current reported
populations of these valuable fish.
101
102
102. With regard to disinfection alternatives, please refer to
Response to Comment 45, Letter No. 16; Response to
Comment 53, Letter No. 17; and Response to Comments
74 and 75, Letter No. 19. Please also refer to Response
to Comment 95, Letter No. 22 relative to potential
impacts to fish.
102
103
103. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
-------
OREGON TROUT COMMENTS Page 4
11A/90 DEIS
Because the DEIS presents only incomplete information concerning effects of the
proposed project on the area's fish and water quality, Oregon Trout recommends
these deficiencies be corrected prior to permits being issued and prior to any
project work. The need to achieve clean water in the Neskowin area and to
handle human wastes in a responsible and effective manner such that this valuable
coastal area suffers no irreversible water ecosystem degradation is recognized by
Oregon Trout.
Oregon Trout urges the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the
alternatives proposed, with the goal of considering at least one alternative which
will achieve clean water standards, safe and effective treatment of human wastes,
and the protection and maintenance of Oregon's native salmonids by directly
addressing the source of the community's waste problems and by constructing an
updated facility sized to meet community needs without encouraging coastal
development in excess of that which this coastal area can tolerate. In brief, we
recommend the EPA consider the "Alternative 10" being proposed by the Friends
of Neskowin.
Thank you for receiving our concerns. We look forward to learning your response.
Sincerely,
104
105
1106
104. As noted in Response to Comment 5, Letter No.l and
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10, one of the
primary areas of concern is the protection of fishery
resources of Neskowin Creek. Please also refer to
Response to Comment 23, Letter No. 13; Response to
Comment 32, Letter No. 14; Response to Comment 76,
Letter No. 19; Response to Comment 84, Letter No. 19;
and Response to Comment 91, Letter No. 21.
105. Please refer to Response to Comment 95, Letter No. 22.
106. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
Kathleen Simpson Myron
Resource Policy Assistant
pc: Bill Bakke, Executive Director, Oregon Trout
be:
-------
Oregon Trout
P.O. Dox I9J40 • Portland. Oregon • 97219 • (JOJ) 246-7870
July 15, 1988
Mr. Kenneth H. Vigil
Dept. of Environmental Quality
811 S.W. 6th Ave.
Portland, OR 97204
This letter was inadvertently not included in the bound
Volume 2, Response to Comments.
Dear Mr. Vigil:
Thank you for taking the time to fill me in on the details
of the proposed sewerage treatment facility for the town' of
Neskowin. As I indicated on the phone, Oregon Trout is most
concerned with the potential damage of the discharge of treated
effluent into Neskowin Creek upon the fish and other aquatic life
present. I hope the following observations will aid you in
adequately addressing our concerns before permits are issued and
this project allowed to commence operation.
As you well know, the winter steelhead run is of prime
concern on this small and fragile stream. It is one of few
remaining wild runs on the Northern Oregon coast and is now
protected with a catch and release angling regulation. Neskowin
Creek is considered an index stream by the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife for the purposes of evaluating the relative
strength and success of each year's run. This totally wild run
of fish must be considered a treasured asset in this day of
hatchery raised steelhead. Each individual wild run of steelhead
represents a unique genetic odnptoiion to the specific conditions
of the stream to which they return. The sum total of all such
runs, up and down the Oregon coast, represents a storehouse of
genetic diversity that guarantees the continued health and
persistence of I he species. The loss of Jny single run is truly
ii ca tnslro|ilic. niiiti-r iii 1 1 y affecting the visibility of the entire
popu1n t)on .
The importance of the winter stcclhead run, however, by no
mentis rrlicvi.'s us of the responsibility to give due considerotio-n
to other fish species that may be present, permanently or
occasionn11y, in the stream. Such species mny include silver,
Chinook, sockcyc or chum salmon as well os the winter steelhead
and cutlhrunt trout, both resident and sea-run, we know to he
users of lliis strcnni. In addition we must also consider ony
r'pccics of shellfish using the bcuch nren over which Neskowin
Creek drnins to the sea and the occon fish, such as ocean perch,
using the nrcti just off the mouth. This site is, I believe, the
best location for the ever- growing spori fishery for ocean perch
on the northern Oregon coast.
106a
106a. Comment noted.
106b
106b. Comment noted.
-------
As an example, if chum siilnion nro present, they nre most
likely to use the tidewater nrcn for spawning. This is also the
orrn most directly affected hy nny discharge of effluent. I
would expect that incubating eggs or newly hatched salmon fry to
be for more sensitive to the chemical or temperature changes caused
by operation of a sewerage facility thnn a run of large, mature
fish passing through on their way to headwater spawning gravel.
If in fact fish are using the tidewater area for spawning and
rearing we may have to adopt more stringent restrictions on the
chemical and temperature characteristics of any discharge than if
there is no such use.
In order to determine the effects of the proposed treatment
facility on aquatic life you should obtain the following
informal ion :
A) A complete inventory of nil fish and other aquatic
species using the creek on a permanent or temporary basis,
including shellfish, invertebrate insects, and ocean species Just
off the mouth.
B) The life histories of these species, especially the run
times and sizes and the location and timing of spawning and
rearing for all anadromous species.
C) The effects of the various levels of chemistry and
temperature likely to be encountered as a result of operation of
the proposed facility on the species identified by the inventory
described above. Special attention should be paid to effects on
fish during incubation of eggs and rearing of juveniles.
D) The potential effects of possible chemical and
temperature changes on the homing nbility of the anadromous fish
runs involved. If returning fish become confused as to location
of their birth stream due to changes in taste, smell or
temperature of its water flow from effluent discharge the entire
run could be extinguished even though the effluent has no toxic
characteristics whatsoever.
E) Special attention must be given to contingency procedures
if streamflows drop below minimum levels for proper dilution of
effluent or if temperature? rise to harmful levels.
Consideration must also be given to the situation where local
heavy rains cause flooding of injection fields or holding ponds,
or if chemical or mechanical breakdowns occur during day to day
operelion.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of n thorough tind
diligent analysis of these factors. The small si/e find
streamflows of Ncskovin Creek drastically limit its nliility to
absorb, even for short periods of time, the cficcls of discharges
that arc chemically damaging to aquiitic life or that cause water
temperatures to rise to intolerable levels.
I also suggest that your analysis address the effect of
discharges on the food cliiiin available to support the fish
populations of the creek. Healthy invertebrate and fornge. fish
populations arc as nccessury to the health and survival of the
fish of Neskowin as clcnn, cool water.
106c
106c. Please refer to Response to Comment 20, Letter No. 11;
Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19; Response to
Comment 84, Letter No. 19; Response to Comment 185,
Letter No. 49; Response to Comment 406; and Chapter
3 of the Final EIS, Biological Resources, Aquatic Biota
section.
-------
I hope these observations will contribute to the
thoroughness of your analysis. We stand ready to assist you in
any way we can to assure the continued health and persistence of
the aquatic life of Neskowin Creek.
I look forward to receiving a copy of your final report.
cc:Gregory P. Robert
Clair Kunkel
Skip Patten
-------
24
QUOTES FROM THE EPA EIS FOR NESKOWIN
I. COSTS :"Phase 1 customers may see periodic increases jfl monthly user fees to reflect increased
operation and maintenance costs resulting from increased flows, and increased costs for disposal of
septage.Phase 1 customers would also likely sustain increases in the user costs as the facilities are expanded jo.
incorporate additional sewer connections and to include other developments in the cost for expanding
collection, treatment, and effluent disposal capacity"— pages 2-27/2-29 EIS.
2.STREAM FLOW: "Little information regarding the hvdroeeolopv of the Neskowin area is available." "Page
3-4 —EIS "Neskowin Creek has never been gauged. Although sufficient measurements have been
obtained to gain a general understanding of summer flows, there is not enough data to generate statistically
sound hvdrographs."—page 3-7 EIS.
"Additional flow estimates are available from an Oregon State University (OSU) report which
estimated that an average annual flow in Neskowin Creek is 92 cfs, with 95 percent of the flows greater than
4.8." "No record of winter discharge measurements exist." " (ODOT) has computed calculated flood flows
based on watershed characteristics. Only eight flow measurements are available for Hawk Creek."— Page 3-8
EIS "Butte Creek No discharge measurements are available. " Meadow Creek. The majority of Meadow creek
has been channelized through the wetland and the golf course. No flow data are available for the creek."—
page3-5 EIS. "Discussions with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) staff... indicate the characteristics of the
aquifer in the Neskowin Area should be similar. However no data are available to confirm this." "Flooding of
the creeks in the study area is an annual winter occurrence. The degree of salt water encroachment into the
lower portions of Neskowin Creek is not known." — page3-9 EIS. "It is likely that adequate stream flows
would be available during the winter months; however, there is little direct data to support this (i.e. winter
stream flows were calculated from a model, but rarely or never measured directly."—pg 4-10 EIS
2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS "... lower population growth rates would generate fewer impacts on public
services compared to impacts under the project alternatives,"— Page 4-4 EIS. "Impacts resulting from the
extension of collector sewer lines into floodplains would be significant."— Page 4-6 EIS. "The sjadge.
produced at the treatment plant and collected in the septic tanks will require periodic; removal and disposal..
"This sludge will be pumped on a biannual basis and can be handled in a manner similar to septage."—page 2-
10 EIS The NRSA does not have a sludge management plan." Page 4-9 EIS.
3.SANITARY PROBLEMS " The source of contamination at these sites has not been identified. Inadequate or
failing septic systems outside the collection area boundary have been identified by Tillamook County healtii
authorities as potential sources of contamination Specific sites which might be contributing fecal
contamination could not be identified from the results of this study. Given this limitation, the extent to
which construction of the proposed treatment plant would alleviate the contamination is
not known."—page 3-16 EIS.
"Based on the ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal streptococci, it was determined that the high fecal coliform
counts at several stations resulted from non-human sources (wildlife or domestic animals). However, the
surveys indicated that there were at least six sampling stations in which contamination resulted from human
sources (discharges from subsurface systems)"— page 3-12 EIS. "There is little historical data regarding BOD
loading or DO concentrations in the streams."— Page 3-17 EIS.
4. DISINFECTION:"!! was the recommendation of the facilities planners (HGE Inc. 1988) that UV be the
preferred disinfection mode with chlorination to be used only during periods of maintenance and down-lime for
the UV units."Page 2-10 EIS "Chlorination provides a much more BTQVCJIandreliable, sysierp for
disinfection.Due to its proven effectiveness, the ease of use,
and the low associated operation and maintenance costs, chlorination is the most frequently used method
disinfecting wastewaters."— Page 2-11 EIS.
107
107. Please refer to Response to Comment 78, Letter No. 19.
108. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
108
109
109. Please refer to Response to Comment 67, Letter No. 19.
110. Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
110
111
111. Please refer to Response to Comment 75 and 76, Letter
No. 19.
-------
S. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: "Information on the fisheries resources in Neskowin Creek and its
tributaries is limited."— Page 3-22 EIS.
" Chinook and echo salmon enter the system between September and December, and chum salmon
enter between October and December.Winter-run steelhead trout enter Neskowin Creek to spawn between
November and March.. It has not been established if suitable spawning habitat is available or if salmon are
spawning in Neskowin Creek below the treatment plant discharge.Both resident and sea-run cutthroat trout are
found throughout the Neskowin Creek System. ODFW believes that the anadromous run numbers only a few
hundred per year. The effect of discharge of secondary treated effluent to streams on the imprinting and homing
ability of salmonids is unknown — Page 3-22 EIS. "Winter-run steelhead trout.. ODFW estimates that the
annual run number between ISO and 400 fish per year"— Page 3-22 EIS. "The USFWS has identified the
following federally listed threatened and endangered species as occurring with the Suislaw National Forest:
bald eagle, Aleutian Canada goose, the northern spotted owl, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and Oregon
silverspot butterfly. Sensitive species include the snowy plover and the big eared bat."— Page 3-30 EIS.
6. EXCESS CAPACITY: "In addition the cost of providing capacity for future needs (the 100 connections or
258 people authorized by NRSA Ordinance 2-88) is not EPA grant eligible" page 2-26 EIS "The treatment
plant is designed to have some excess capacity after the Phase 1 sewering is installed .which can serve about
100 EDUs (Monro pen. comrn.) or 258 people." "as the facilities are expanded to incorporate additional sewer
connections and to include other developments in the cost for expanding collection, treatment, and effluent
disposal capacity"— Page 2-2 EIS. "NRSA can also equitably allocate the excess capacity of the Phase 1 plant
so that no single subdivision within the district can monopolize the remaining capacity."—page 5-3 EIS.
"Development of the collection system will not eliminate surface water Quality degradation in the area
but will contribute to decreasing the degradation."— Page 4-5 EIS.
7. PUBLIC OPPOSITION: "Based on public opposition to creek discharge, the potential for other treatment
/disposal alternatives and on the facilities update plan, EPA determined that additional effluent alternatives
should be evaluated and incorporated into this EIS"
8. SEPTIC TANKS:"-., core area—the County has required that any development in these areas utilize sialfc
of-the-art individual wastewater treatment systems. These systems aa jhs ffl&SI effective in avoiding agujfei
contamination but are expensive."— page 3-44 EIS
"In order to mitigate these indirect impacts NRSA could scale dqwn the treatment plant capacities
proposed fja Phases 1 and 2. fit ihfi areas la Is sewered in Phase 2."— Page 5-3 EIS "Upgrading the existing
plant which ODEQ has indicated is at the end of its service life, appeared 12 ts a viable alternative and was
further evaluated."— Page 2-9 EIS
109a
109a. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
HOa. Please refer to Response to Comments 62 and 77, Letter
No. 19.
HOa
j|ia 11 la.It is acknowledged that there is public opposition to
creek discharge. Wintertime creek discharge as
proposed in the EPA preferred alternative is not
expected to have any adverse effects on Neskowin Creek
112 a or *te resources-
112a. These are quotes from the DEIS.
FRIENDS OF NESKOWIN P.O. BOX 796, NESKOWIN, OR 97149
-------
25
JOHN W. ANDERSON. P.E.. Ph.D.
r.o. iox av>
NEIKOWIN. OREGON »714»
(603) 302-3822
NGV 6 '''I
Oct..-Ht199Q j
EPA
Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Comments on the Neskowin, OR DEI
Statement of 9/5/90.
Comments made at Public Meeting on
the DEI Statement on Oct. 27,1990
at the Neskowin Fire Hall,Neskowin,OR..
Dear Sirs:
First, I want to thank you for the sending of the DEI
statement to me. The report was well done and covered in a proper
manner many items of interest to the town.
My comments are:
1. Your report in some places indicates that the
Neskowin Crest subdivision is a part of Phase 2. At about the time
that Neskowin North subdivision was excluded from the sanitary
district, Neskowin Crest subdivision was also excluded. In other
words Neskowin Crest is not a part of the Neskowin Regional Sanit-
ary Authority District. Therefor, future reports on this sanitary
project should not include Neskowin Crest subdivision in any
Phase of the projected sewage treatment facilities.
2. Many of the maps/drawings
various subdivisio
zs, such as Fig. 2-1, do not
list out where the various subdivisions are in the Neskowin
area. For example, on Fig. 2-1, Neskowin Crest, Pacific Sands
Heights( immediately North of neskowin Crest and adjoining it),
Ocean Creek subdivision are not noted or pointed out.
3. User fees.
The estimated costs for Phase 1 users involves the
value of a $40,000 house. This latter cost is way too low.
A more practical house value to use would be one valued at about
$80,000.For a house valued at $80,000, the monthly user cost
would be about XXX $30.95.
If at all possible, the user monthly cost for Phase
2 users should be estimated and submitted with a future report.
4. The cost for Phase 2 is quite high and it appears
to me to be impractical. Therefor, I would recommend that Phase
2 be removed from consideration by all parties.
Fira/Explosion Investigations — Product Liability — Industrial Health/Toxicology
Invtstigations — Air/Waltr/Wasta Pollution — Energy/Haat Studies/Utiliiation
Process/Chemical Piano/Equipment Design — Wafer Recovery
Heating/Cooling Systems — Materials of Construction — Microscopy
112
113
114
115
112. Comment noted. Reference to Neskowin Crest as part
of the NRSA has been eliminated from the FEIS.
113. We did not attempt to indicate all subdivisions on the
maps. Thank you for pointing out these subdivisions.
114. The purpose of the economic analysis was to evaluat
the environmentally acceptable alternative which is th
most cost-effective. The dollar amounts derived for th
present worth analysis and the user costs ar
approximations which can best be refined durin
engineering of the selected system. The portion of th
user costs based on property valuation comprises only
small portion of the total user charges; therefore, w
have not recalculated user charges based on highe
property values. Since Phase 2 is just in the conceptm
stage and sources of funding are unknown, Phase 2 user
costs cannot be determined.
-------
w. Anaerson, V.t. ,4>h.page 2.
Oct. 31,1990
5.At the Saturday night meeting, it was stated that
copies of all testimony/statements made at the two public
meetings would be available at no cost. Therfor, would you
please send to me copies of these statements for both meetings.
Thank you.
very truly yours
j'onn w . naer son , e . t. . , r n . u .
P.O. Zox 387
Neskowin, OR 97149
Phone: (503) 392-3622
115. The facilities plan and therefore the DEIS discuss
implementation of Phase 1 to alleviate on-going
pollution problems and to remedy those problems for
some time into the future. Population forecasts which
are provided may or may not be realized because of a
number of factors other than the availability of sewers.
If growth does not occur as rapidly as predicted in the
facilities plan, implementation of Phase 2 will be delayed
or may not be necessary. Discussion of Phase 2 does not
presuppose that it will be constructed; rather this
discussion provides a description of how it could be
implemented if and when the need arises. EPA would
not participate in funding of Phase 2.
-------
26
ijer al d Opatz
EIS Project 0-fficer
Mail Stop WD-136
12OO 6th Ave.
Seattle WA 9B1O1
g.fe'll] >'.£
NOV T . :•
November 1, 199O
Dear Sir,
As concerned resi dents o-f Neskowi n T we are most anx i ous
to have a sewage system instal 1 ed. The probl em o-f -f ai 1 ing
or inadequate sewage disposal has been present in this
village -for years. It is time to begin to correct thi s
si tuat i on with the positive acti on o-f- beginning,phase I of 'H
this project.
116 116. A number of comments were received which supported
completion of the project.
Yours truly,
berte Carver
Jeanstte Carver
-------
27
Washington 98101
My name Is John F. Corliss. I wish to provide written comment upon the DEIllor the
MRS A Wastewater collection. Treatment, and Disposal Facilities. I live alterhatehy
at 2998 Washington St. , Eugene, OR 9,7405 and at 4445 Yamhlll (P.O. Box 380), 97149
Neskowln, OR . I iattended the public hearing on Oct. 27, 1990 and gave verbal
testimony. I wish to elaborate on that testimony In this letter to you.
1. I renuest that phase ILof this project be deleted from . ... further consideration
In this EIS. As long as It Is Included, It keeps a devlslve element before the
community and Is only marginally Important as far as the principal problem
facing the community and the Effi ts concerned. It Is causing difficulty finding a
workable solution for the priority problem. That problem Is to solve the dilemma of
those In the core area who have faulty systems—the oldest part-61 town nearest the
surface water showing the highest bacterial counts. The surrounding phase U lots
are generally larger and have newer systems. This permits some time before they
too may have to face this *a-*;:iuv,a. Also, soil type's on many or the lots on non-dunal
topography, are more suitable for leach field filtration.
If the problem of disposal of wastewater from the central core Riase I properties
ts considered first and solely. It simplifies the solution. This Is due to (a) smaller
volume generated, and (b) less area needed for all elements of the disposal system.
Including area needed for leaching or spray Irrigation effluent disposal. It also
gives the county time and responslbl llty to work on the solution of the long term
problem of expansion In the Neskowln area. If the county acts responsibly. It will
cease giving butld.lng permits and encouraging resort development In the area until
such time as (a)support facilities can feasibly an) economically be developed, and
(b) the community supports such expansion.
2. Because of the many unknowns relating to the organic and Inorganic contents of
the effluent and Impacts of these alone or In- combination upon the stream biota ••of
Neskowln Cr. and Flat C., I urge no effluent releases to either of these streams or
to offshore ocean outfall. I recommend another serious effort be made to facilitate
effluent spray Irrigation. I recommend (a)spray as much as reasonably possible
during the summer months when most effluent Is generated and evaporation/
transpiration rates are at their peak (this reduces effluent storage capacity needed),
and (b) spray Irrigate on a number of small dispersed sites In and around Neskowln.
The Simpson Timber site should deflmltely be considered all or In part for this use.
Several other dispersed sites come to mind: the entire grounds of the fire station and
public building along Hawk Cr., high ground and slopes adjacent to Highway 101 and
land for subsurface and/or spray Irrigation which may be leased from the 2 golf
courses, especially the roughs. Also, do not overlook spray Irrigating soils on
steep slopes, fercolatlon from spray Irrigation far upslopePovir the tight sandstone
rock through the soil column roughly parallel to the surface slope, sr the effluent Is In
contact with soil material, much of It containing shrub and tree roots, over a long
distance In Its downslope travel.
117
117. Please refer to Response to Comment 115, Letter No.
25.
118
118. Spray irrigation was discussed in the Effluent Disposal
Options section of Chapter 2. Each of the options
incorporating spray irrigation require adequately drained
soils in sufficient quantities to ensure percolation and
removal of nutrients. The soils of the Neskowin Area,
specifically those sites investigated as potential disposal
sites are poorly drained with evidence of high water
tables. The amount of land available would be
insufficient for spray irrigation.
-------
3. I strongly urge the URSA and County approach the State Highway and larks
Department to reduce thetr Impact upon the core area wastewater loading problem.
This could be done by storing , pumping and removing all wastewater from the public
restroom at the Neskowln Wayside. The State Is a part of the problem and Is acting
Irresponsibly by attracting tourists to stop by providing facilities which Neskowln has
no means to support—namely wastewater disposal. I would also urge closing over
half the parking spaces and using the space to dispose of effluent by spray Irrigation.
Spray Irrigation could be done on this site If soil material having good filtration
properties were Imported to the site and mounded up In the present, parking spaces
and landscaped areas. This artificial filter field could then become one of the
dispersed spray Irrigation sites mentioned above. Tourists wastewater would be haulec
to other state facility locat'ons having a better ws?t» dljposa! opportunity.
4. I urge you to continue use of the present treatment site, expand It for temporary
pond space and working space. The present pond stte and adjacent road sides
could be covered with soil material having favorable percolation characteristics
and serve as additional dispersed spray Irrigation sites. I believe there are soil
materials having such favorable characteristics nearby In the Salmon River watershed
and also north of Oretown In the Nestucca watershed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I offer my services as a soil scientist
and watershed specialist to discuss these proposals at length with you.
^ ——*s~
119 119. Please refer to Response to Comment 70, Letter No. 19.
John F. Corliss
-------
28
U.S -&r>oi
ID -
\ O*M} O.
',-, oex« Ga
o,. <•
ifleen W\
loc-.
/WuC
\itSref
i/ffitJfj.
L\i=0 -QJSC^-rtA^ -^
bfutl
stotoo &rffa-fex
US fl. £CjU3t.r
o
fctUv
120 120. A number of comments were received which supported
completion of the project.
-------
29
V7
~tt+te.
-------
30
EPA
(203
Scoitb,
1 am G
acttnd
proitct
ou-m «jT "
*»
NOV 5'
124
m- A ™f>* of comments were received which supported
completion of the project. FF
• ;*< •>•• '•?,»'•• 'y'f.'!' ":'."-i-* "'•
-------
31
27 October, 1390
Mr. Gerald Opatz
VS. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz.
I am very concerned about the recent proposal to place a sewage reservoir on
Slab Creek Road in Neskowin. As a Neskowin resident and business-owner, I am
opposed to the currently-proposed sewage project and feel strongly that it should
not be allowed in its present form, for many reasons.
Most of us who actually live here (rather than merely having flnanrfol interests
contingent on a sewer-system's development) are appalled at the lack of thought
that is going into this project Although it is logical to expect a sanitation system to
actnally be sanitary - ie. free of negative impact on the health of the human
residents of the area, as well as that of wildlife and the natural environment - we
are given no convincing evidence that this method of treating and disposing of
sewage will truly be healthy or safe.
Should a sewage lagoon be instated on one of our local meadows, the odor alone
would be nauseating and disconcerting to residents, and to parents and children
involved in nearby Neskowin Valley School. Dogs, ducks and geese, and other
animals, however, may be attracted by material in such a lake and act as vectors
of disease (or be injured trying to reach the lake through barriers); and unless the
lake is very well-protected, the violent storms experienced in this area may even
serve to spread disease-laden water. As we all know, human fecal bacteria can
cause serious illness; bacterial and viral substances from diseased persons, oral
vaccines, etc, may also be present in waste from toilets and drains. Dumping this
material into a lake in our lovely valley will not change that fact- it will merely
take this disgusting material away from the people who made it and ruin our
neighborhood into the bargain. Those of us living on Slab Creek Road would not be
'served* by the system at all, having septic systems of our own, yet we would be
the onet whose quality of life would be sullied by this project
Besides the fact that the presence of such a lake will deprive us (and visitors to
our valley, creek, and forest) of a peaceful pure-smelling atmosphere for walks
and bike-rides, and alter the physical beauty of our valley - there is also a strong
possibility of bad environmental effect from improper design and improper
protection from leakage. By now, no matter what 'spokespersons' say to further
political and business purposes, it is dear to most Americans that waste-disposal
(including disposal of toxic and nuclear wastes) is too often carried out
inadequately. Deficiencies in providing safeguards from contamination are too
often glossed over, not corrected Residents of threatened areas who object to such
treatment are too often worn down or browbeaten by political or commercial forces
into accepting 'solutions' that damage the quality of their lives.
125. The systems which have been analyzed, evaluated and
are recommended in the EIS and the Facilities Plan are
all systems which have been proven throughout the
125 United States as being sanitary systems which protect
public health and improve conditions in the environment
to minimize and/or eliminate impacts of sewage.
126 126. See Response to Comment 422 regarding odor potential.
The lagoon will be fenced and should present no
significant health problems.
127 127. Please refer to Response to Comment 7, Letter No. 2;
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10 and Response
to Comment 21, Letter No. 11.
-------
then released Into Neskowin Creek. It is well-known that dianical treatment of
sewage and contaminated water may 'kill germ*, but often alio [auduces
carcinogenic crank compounds; the'sanitizing*chemica]s themselves are
m these to» of increased degeneratme disease, fan^
128
cancer, it is naive and foolhardy to make light of the dangers of tone ejujusuie;
effects are not always instant and obvious; damage ocean over time, bat is no leu
deadly for that If •processed* sewage is to be damped into Neskowin Creek, what
guarantee do we have that our children who swim, raft, and play in that water
will not eventually became diseased or poisoned by the effluent? There is no good
reason for as to sacrifice their safety and the parity of oar environment far the
sake of developers' hopes.
And -as far as •development* goes, what respect do these developers show for
the customers they mean to attract? What of the summer homeowners, motel,
condominium, and restaurant patrons relishing their dinners while sewage-filled
Neskowin creek flows past them... what of the tourists picnicking; sunbathing;
wading and splashing in Neskowin creek as it carries processed fecal matter
across the i*"^, past Proposal Rock, and into the waves?
Neskowin Creek and the Slab Creek Road area are much less spoiled than
Hawk Creek and the core area of Neskowin - yet the presence of bacteria in Hawk
creek has been one of the reasons cited in support of the 'need* for a sewage
system! Neskowin Creek is a beautiful stream that provides a place for trout,
sea-run cutthroat, salmon, steelhead. otters, deer, kingfishers, great blue herons,
and many other animals in its waters and along its banks. It runs through
farmland; past homes and recreation sites. Endorsing its contamination for any
reason would be Irrational and offensive.
It seems to me that the people most in support of this project who are now in
financial panic because they are unable to develop and profit from parcels of land
which they purchased in the past without employing foresight should now begin to
employ it Rushing into this project before it is well-thought-out and satisfactory to
all affected residents will only bring disaster. The Neskowin area is known for its
beauty and nnspoiledness: if it is ruined, it will no longer be appealing to the
buyers and tourists these people intend to attract There are plenty of ruined
places in this country already, but very few as unspoiled and protected as our is.
Now is the time to think ahead and plan intelligently: if a sewage system is truly
needed, a safe one that doesn't offend or sicken the area's residents should be
devised If this takes time, let it take time. Nothing potentially ruinous or
dangerous should ever be rushed into for the cake of funding: good sense tells us
this, though greed does not always agree.
Alice Duncan, D.C.
Upstairs Clinic
Neskowin Marketplace
Neskowin, Oregon 97149
129
130
131
132
133
128 There will be no chemical treatment involved in this
orocess The proposed treatment is
mechari al/biological followed by physical filteringof
Se effluent; the proposed disinfection is through
ultraviolet irradiation. No chlorine will ^ used in the
system and thus the concern of carcinogenic hydrocarbon
chemicals is unfounded. Please refer to Response to
Comment 53, Letter No. 17.
129. Please refer to Response to Comment 1£ Letter NjxlO
and Response to Comment 76, Letter No 19. Please
So note that no effluent discharge will take place
during the times of high usage of the creek for
swimming and wading.
130. Please refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10.
The situation as describe here is more likely to occur
given the no-action alternative rather that
implementation of any of the proposed alternatives.
131. The project is not proposing to contaminate Neskowin
Creek. The project recognizes the ecological sensitivity
of the creek; the purpose of the project is to protect
both public and natural system health. Please refer to
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10.
132. Please refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10;
Response to Comment 23, Letter No. 13; Response to
Comment 32, Letter No 14; and Response to Comment
63, Letter No. 19.
1 of 3 copies/ copy to F. Gray, Oregon DEQ
-------
32
Re OS 910-9-90-12L Neskowin
Octoba-28,1990
Dear Gerald Opatz,
I am a Slab Creek Road property owner and a life-long friend of Neskowin Creek.
During the five yean I lived on the creek (from 1982 to 1987) I walked it almost
daily, year round, often in waders. I have caught and released large numbers of
Neskowin Creek's trout and winter steelbead and a few of its echo (booked on flies
while fishing for searun cutthroat); I've seen many deer and elk, countless herons
and kingfishers, two black bears, several bobcat, otters and mink, Northern
Phaloropes, Sharp-shinned and Cooper's hawks, and countless more common
species on and near the creek. I have twice, right outside my study at 7995 Slab
Creek Road, •conversed* with a Northern Spotted Owl drawn to hunt by the lights
I kept burning when I worked late hours in my study.
As a lifelong fishermen and fishing author (my 19*3 novel, fix River Wty-,
published by Sierra Club and Bantam Books, is still in most Northwest bookstores),
as a father of two, and as a person who, from '62 to '87, probably spent more hours
in and by Neskowin Creek than any ten other people put together, it is my opinion
that the current draft of the OS supplies lamentably inadequate information on
summer stream flows and tempera tuna, particularly in regard to their effects on
juvenile echo and steelhead and aquatic biota. Even with no further environmental
degradation whatever, the future of Neskowin Creek salmon and steelhead—the
coho in particular— is extremely tenuous. And—with all due respect to ODFW
studies—in my five years of close company with the creek, I have never hooked,
seen, or even heard rumors of a single Neskowin Creek chinook or chum salmon,
and would suggest that these strains, if they exist at all, are endangered
On the other hand, I have, seen bright coho spawning in the creek as late as
February, and bright "winter" steelhead spawning as late as May. This is the
beauty^his little index stream with its little native runs of fish; the extremely
diverse genetic "opinion* of these salmon and steelhead about what time to enter
the stream and spawn makes them almost impossible to wipe out with a single
flood or outbreak of disease—as so often occurs to our hathery runs. Just last week
the disastrous decline of West Coast salmon runs (the coho in particular) was a
133. The process which is now nearing completion has been
on-going for nearly three years. The facilities planning
process has evaluated numerous collection, treatment
and disposal options; those which are the most adaptable
to the Neskowin situation have been further evaluated
through the production of this EIS. The outcome has
been the development of the least environmentally
perturbing alternative which addresses the current public
health problems associated with inadequate septic
systems.
134 134. Please refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10
and Responses to Comments 66 and 76, Letter No. 19.
-------
front pace stay in The On-gooiaa. At a time when the drastic vulnerability of the
hatchery programs has caused almost all fisheries experts to reemphasixe the
restoration of native nms and of native habitat, we can hardly afford to lose this
gem of a stream to an inappropriate sewage treatment proposal.
The town of Neskowin has a small sewage problem, and needs a small,
inexpensive sedation. It does not need to have its small problem used as an excuse
to install a large treatment system to open the area up to developers. Tins issue is
extreinely important, and, as I'm sure yon understand, it is not just aboot sewage.
Your recommendations on this issue may be the single most important decision
ever made for this area: if yon support a large treatment system, there will be an
enormous population increase in this delicate little area—and the inevitable loss or
degradation of wildlife habitat, the depletion or extinction of the native salmon and
steelhead runs, and the loss of the small-scale, friendly rural life-style that most of
the people who live here cherish.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Opatz, that you will do everything yoa can to see that
Neskowin's sewage problem is solved on an appropriately small scale.
Thank you.
David J. Duncan
/
PO Box 523
Neskowin, OR 97149
134
135 135. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No. 1;
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10; and Response
to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
2220 NW Aspen,
Portland, OR 97210
-------
33
^^
136. A number of comments were received which supported
completion of the project.
-------
34
"» 0.
h>
NOV
A.
0K.
. 7W-
tM . ,9
137 137. A number of comments were received which favored a
solution to the pollution problem.
138 138. Please refer to Response to Comment 31, Letter No. 14.
139 139. A number of comments were received which opposed
the implementation of Phase 2. Please refer to
Response to Comment 115, Letter No. 25.
140 140. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
-------
(i ^ 141
141 p^ase refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter, No. 10.
do .vm \vtitkL
-------
35
October 26, 1990
Mr. Edd French
P. 0. Box 564
Jasper, AR 72641
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
P. 0. Box 383
Neskowin, OR 97149
Dear Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority,
I am the owner of Lot 5, Block 2, in Neskowin Heights. Because
I live out of state, I will not be able to attend the public
hearings on the Community Sewer Plan for Neskowin Height*.
However, I do wish to have my input. Let it be known, that I
fully support the sewer facility for the Neskowin Community. I
cannot understand why anyone would be opposed so such a plan, as
long as all EPA guidelines are adhered to.
Many of us property owners would build on our lots if we could
get our septic permits. This would allow for us to move to
Neskowin Heights and this would bring much needed tax revenue
and other sources of revenue to the community.
Sincerely,
142 142. A number of comments were received which, supported
completion of the proposed project.
Edd Frenc
Concerned property owner in Neskowin Heights and an avid
supporter for developing a sewer system for the community of
Neskowin Heights.
-------
36
State of Oregon
Department of Enviornnental Quality
811 SW 6th Avenue, Portland, Oregon
10/2/90
97204
Attn: Richard Santner
Re: Neskowin Project
Richard,
Please put us down in favor of the Neskowin Sewer
Project and record our opinion at the upcomming public
hearing in Neskowin. We, like many others, have been waiting
to build in Neskowin. A quick walk through the community
shows signs of septic systems failing, improper drainage
areas for the septic systems, and pollution in Neskowin
creek. It would be in the best interest of the community
to have a public sever disposal system, both from a health
standpoint and an increase in market value. Historically,
dwellings on public sewer bring a higher market price than
homes on private septic systems. From an enviommental
standpoint, homes on public sewer would be the best solution
to the problems present in the Neskowin community. Again,
we, like many other members of the community, are in favor of
the project.
143
143. A number of comments were received which supported
completion of the proposed project.
Jeraline H. Fuhrmeister
Enviommental ist
8137 SW 35th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97219
C) «u»uiu
-------
LESTER. E. FULTZ. P.E.. P.LS.
P.O. Box 818
Nedumrtn. Oregon 97140
503*393-3073
31 October 1990
Gerald Opatz
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Mail Stop WD 136
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: Neskovin Regional Sanitary Authority
Uastewater Collection, Treatment & Disposal Facilities
Draft Environmental Statement
Dear Mr. Opatz:
These written comments are submitted in addition to my oral pres-
entation at the Neskovin Fire Hall on 27 October 1990.
I believe it pertinent to provide a bit of background to these com-
ments. I have been a property owner in the Neskowin Community for
29+ years. I am not one of the "inner circle"' for I am a "develo-
per" and as such apparently a person to be shunned by the "right
thinking group". This group, some of which were represented by
some of the speakers at the meeting, seem to find it very conveni-
ent to overlook the large number of property owners in the Commun-
ity that have not been able to construct living quarters because
of the lack of sewage disposal facilities. These property owners
have lots in legally platted subdivisions to higher standards than
wer-.1 in effect in 1910 when a large portion of the "core" area of
Neskoui.i na.« platted. As I tried to express in my oral presentat-
ion, these non-present property owners purchased their lots because
they like a "non-commercial" community. They did not purchase to
create a highly commercialized area like Lincoln City, an area that
lam most familiar with because I first moved to the Central Ore-
gon Coast in 1949. I have seen many, many changes in Lincoln City.
I mentioned the other subdivisions in my presentation. From north
to south, Viking Estates, Neff Addition, Oceancreek, Neskowin Woods,
Pacific Sands Heights, (Neskovin Crest is out), Hawk Creek Hills,
Proposal Rock & Neskowin Heights. There are only a few residences
in these subdivisionsbecause, even though they met Tillamook County
platting standards, the change in the Department of Environmental
Quality Rules of Subsurface sewage disposal Systems were changed
to the extent there is not sufficient land area for residence,
septic tank and drain fields. There is no commercially zoned areas
in these subdivisions. The lots in these subdivisions are not
cheapies. A lot in Neskowin Heights recently sold for $59,000.00,
with the purchaser being fully aware that sewage disposal was not
yet available. That purchase price exceeds the present market val-
ue of most of the residences in the "core area" of Neskowin.
1.
144 144. Comments noted.
-------
Page 2 - L.E. Fultz to Gerald Opatz:
I mentioned the NIMBY syndrome in my oral presentation. I am sure
the word was new to most of the audience. The letters stand for,
"Not In My BackYard" and is the reaction of many persons who are
faced with a sharp change in their life styles. I have been in
private engineering practice for a good share of my life and have
attended many Public Hearings on a wide range of subjects and am
very familiar with the syndrome. It seems that it is very easy to
focus on our own life style and ignore the fact that there are a
large number of persons who share the same objectives and who need
the same advantages as those within a community who are trying to
keep them away by finding very minute "straws" to clutch on to
justify their NIMBY position. The situation in which a clique of
persons in a community like Neskowin where the population from a
low of about 250 persons in the winter season to about 3,000 in
the summer season can have alarge negative impact by virtue of be-
ing residents when e Public Hearing is held at a time of the year
when the persons who need the improvements, in this case sewage
facilities, are not either informed of the Public Hearing or are
so far away they cannot attend. In the usual case of a Public
Hearing in an urban area or in area where the population does not
fluctuate, I am sure the NIMBY syndrome is not so pronounced.
With respect to specific comments on the subject statement:
1. The Draft Environmental Statement is very thorough. This
is understandable in these days when persons are review-
all governmental and private actions with fine tooth combs
in sincere attempts to guarantee proper return on funds
spent. An inspection of the Table of Contents shows the
excellent inclusion of every possible item that some per-
son or group could use to create questions.
2- The Draft Environmental Statement illustrates very well
the increased cost incurred by delay. I recognize that
this fact is easily overlooked by the NIMBY crowd but it is
a real life fact in which the persons least able to pay the
increased costs are usually stuck with the bills.
3. I believe the Draft Environmental Statement gives suffic-
ient information on the various treatment alternatives and
the reasons for choosing the best alternative. But here
again, logic seems to have no effect upon the thinking of
the NIMBY group. Then too, these persons have no technical
experience and cannot follow the reasoning. For example,
I clearly remember the man who spoke at the Public Meeting
on 27 October 1990 pitching for improving the present treat-
ment plant and forgetting all the fancy new plans. Obvious-
ly this person does not understand the Septic Tank Effluent
system and the economic benefits of that system for the
Neskowin Community.
4. The same kind of statements made above can be applied to
Chapter It, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. The majority of the
speakers on 27 October 1990 showed great concern about the
144
2.
-------
Page 3 - L.E. Fultz to Gerald Opatt;
local environment and particularly Neskovin Creek. As I
stated in my oral testimony, I live on Neskovin Creek. I
am one of three parties who live on the Creek. My property
is directly downstream from the discharge point for the pre-
sent treatment plant into Neskovin Creek. I have never not-
iced any negative effects of the discharge. I doubt that
any of the speakers on the 27th of October have ever been
in Neskovin Creek. They knov nothing about it but seem to
have seized upon an issue that can inflame passions.
5. I vas interested in the statements relative to the fish pop-
ulation of Neskovin Creek. As I stated above I live on
Neskovin Creek by the bridge across the stream on South
Beach Road. I have had occasion to observe anglers in act-
ion. Some years ago there vas a lot of activity by anglers
in the summer time as veil as the fall and vinter. The rea-
son for the activity vas that there vere plenty of fish in
the stream. The last tvo years the fishing activity has
been very slow. The reason is obvious- there are very fev
fish in the stream. There vas mention of Chinook, silver
and steelhead being in the stream. I admit that in the
past there vere runs of such fish but I have not known of
a chinook or silver salmon run in the stream for at least
five years. There is very little steelhead action on the
stream. This is interesting when one considers that the
Indian name for the stream meant "many fish". I believe
the reduced number of fish in the stream is due to the
human actvity on the beach where Neskovin Creek enters the
Pacific Ocean, not such activities as discharge of sewage
effluent into the stream.
In summary, I vant to be on record as supporting the Neskovin Reg-
ional Sanitary Authority's activities in promoting a community sew-
age disposal system. The Draft Environmental Statement clearly
illustrates the environmental need for a public sevage disposal sys-
tem, most particularly in the "core" area of the Neskovin Community
in vhich almost all of the speakers on the 27th of October live.
Sincerely,
144
145 145. A number of comments were received which supported
completion of the proposed project.
'Lester E. Fultz
cc: Neskovin Regional Sanitary Authority
Jann Steelhammer
File
3.
-------
38
l/.S Environmental fro faction Age'
I 300 5, UA S/x #1 A /enye Wb-l3(,
Or
o
/
a se^er
U(L
*ri u.1 / ^ H e
alsc
ficlvct* all
]/
f- pr$>err
i*H
/«
a»
146 146. A number of comments were received which supported
completion of the proposed project.
147 147 The facility planning process has determined the area to
be served by Phase 1. The EIS process has not changed
these decisions. Further, local decisions will need to be
made regarding implementation or modification of Phase
2.
-------
39
148. The facilities planning process identified two pasture
sites along Slab Creek Road as potential treatment plant
sites. For reasons described in the Facilities Plan and
the DEIS, these sites were eliminated from
consideration. As the planning process progressed and
it became obvious that effluent disposal alternatives
were extremely limited, it became necessary to identify
sites that were large enough to store all effluent
generated during the summer months for disposal when
Neskowin Creek flows are high enough to ensure
dilution ratios of 20:1. The siting of these storage
lagoons at the Simpson Timber Site is the result of
investigations of potential sites throughout the area.
None of the other sites examined could accommodate
the lagoons necessary for summertime storage. The
alternatives available are extremely limited. Please refer
to Response to Comments 147, Letter No. 38.
149 149. The potential for impact to fisheries resources is
considerably greater with the no-action alternative than
with implementation of the preferred alternative. Please
refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
.^fL^ft. "7/4- x
-------
_..
150. Projections for the area's growth were based on existing
adopted land use plans. Projections of the need for
particular utilities are based on anticipated population
within the service area. These projections form the basis
for utility planning.
Actual development will depend upon the adopted
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Zoning Regulations and
demand.
151. EPA's planning horizon is 20 years. The facilities plan
and therefore the DEIS discuss implementation of Phase
1 to alleviate on-going pollution problems and to remedy
those problems for some time into the future.
Population forecasts which are provided may or may not
be realized because of a number of factors other than
the availability of sewers. If growth does not occur as
rapidly as predicted in the facilities plan, implementation
of Phase 2 will be delayed or will not be necessary.
Discussion of Phase 2 does no,t presuppose that it will be
constructed; rather this discussion provides a description
of how it could be implemented if and when the need
arises.
152 152. Please refer to Response to Comment 148, Letter No.
39.
1'_- 153. Please refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10;
*5o Response to Comment 27, Letter No. 14; Response to
Comment 61, Letter No. 19 and Response to Comment,
133, Letter No. 31.
151
-------
1 Oc ' W 07: i»
1153
154 154. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
1
«!
it'
-4
-------
40
November41990
To: Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
4360 Salem Ave.
NeakowiaOR 97149
We are residents, homeowners and landowners of property along Slab Creek Road
Neskowin. OR. who may experience unreasonable_peri»onaJ and sodoeconomic impact as a
result of tbe siting ofa sewage treatment planftn Slab Creek Road
We have reason to believe that the proposed siting of tbe plant may have been arrived at
without due process regarding its impact on our Dves and environment In order to
determine if proper and legal procedures have been followed with respect to local, state and
federal statutes and with respect to the codes of any bodies empowered to make decisions on
tbe siting, we are requesting tbe following:
1) Copies of tbe official minutes of the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority in which
any mention, action or decision which might reasonably pertain to the siting of the
freatinent plan^c ffi*^* Creek Road appeared
2} Any formal or informal contacts, including letters and telephone calls, with dates,
that may have been made between members of the author) ty and any person or
persons with respect to the location of tbe treatment sitFbn Slab Creek Road
including bat not restricted to any con tact made with property owners of the site
where the plant coold be located
3) Aqy preparatory steps, with dates, that were taken to determine tbe suitability of the
site for a treatment plantfiDclnding bat not restricted to soil sampling, water flow,
etc. that may not have otherwise appeared in tbe official records and may have been
made without due process.
We appreciate receiving tbe information as quickly as possible. Time is of the essence.
Su
cc EPA.attn; Gerald Opatt
MallStopWD-136
12006thAve.
Seattle, WA 88101
.155 155. EPA does not have minutes from NRSA meetings.
115 These may be available from the NRSA.
156 156. EPA does not have any records of this type.
-------
41
'ft Tf j»
X/amu Jvaauu
7S7 G.aiJ S.6., Saf.m. O^.jon 97S02
^•t'f
a
157 157. Several comments were received which support the
project.
"V***-1
^)
-------
42
Mr. Gerald Opatz v,lu.^.
US Environmental Protection Agency " ""/XJ* "I
Mail Stop WD 136
Region 10
1200 -6th Ave
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Sir,
We are writing this letter in concern with
the proposed dumping of effluent on Slabpree^Rd.He are very
much opposed to any effluent being dumped in our beautiful
creek, and we also oppose the construction of any storage
lagoons along Slab Creek Rd. for many reasons. We take pride
in our creek's clean, clear water,and we and our children
enjoy wading, swimming, and even rafting along this river.We
are careful not to contaminate nor "fish out," Neskowin Creek,and
it has been a joy to see the fish return to our creek. This
creek also borders one of the loveliest scenic routes on
the coast and it would be a shame to ruin it in any way.
Regarding the proposed lagoon at Simpson Timber farm,this
also would be an eyesore as well as a health hazard who
use this road as scenic and bike route, not to mention hikers
who like to explore the lovely surrounding terrain. As homeowners
here for the last twelve years along the creek, we do not
wish to live near a waste disposal of any kind. Oftentimes
the smell of the ocean is carried up the valley, which would
include the odors of the lagoon. Our dogs Cke to roam the
area and might get sick or bring back diseases from the
effluent. We think also that the location of such a lagoon
anywhere in the vicinity of lots of children is very inappropriate.
In this case the daily population of children at Neskowin
Valley School one mile away might be affected. We families
out here on Slab Creek Road have never felt connected to
Neskowin's sewer woes in any way, and we will resist any
effort to change our peaceful.uncrowded bucolic life style.
Most of us are zoned Small Farm 10, and this acreage gives
plenty of room for our efficient septic tanks to operate
smoothly. We do not wish to be included on any future sewer
system, and we do not want any part of Slab Creek Road to
be included in the Community (Urban)Growth Boundary either,
simply because the residents of Neskowin wish to dump their
waste in our backyards.We work hard to preserve the pretty
pastoral quality of our scenic route neighborhood, and we
will fight against any attempt to alter our environment
Yours truly,
158
159
158. A number of comments were received which opposed
the storage of effluent at the Slab Creek site. The
current proposal is to discharge effluent at the existing
outfall site at approximately 0.8 miles from the ocean.
159. Comment noted.
160 160. Please refer to Response to Comment 428 and 422.
1161 161. The storage facilities will be fenced to preclude
schoolchildren, pets, etc. from inadvertently getting near
the lagoons.
162 162- T*16 residences along Slab Creek Road will not be
served by these facilities.
1 f\\
163. The Slab Creek Road area is not included within the
Urban Growth Area.
Douglas ana Lee Haga
a 0
3 copies- Opatz
Gray
Haga
-------
43
3 November 1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz, EIS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
1206 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz,
I am writing to express my firm opposition to the proposed
location for the NRSA's waste treatment "holding ponds in the
Neskowin Creek Valley. While my wife and I have been year-round
residents of the Neskowin area for 18 years, we live 3 miles north
of Neskowin, well outside the sewer district. Our overriding
concern is to preserve the Integrity not only of the pristine
class-I Neskowin Creek, but also of the rural character of the
resource lands which largely comprise it. Neskowin, in the last
half of the ninth inning (The prospect has been announced for only
a couple of months, I gather; I learned of it only last week! No
effort, that I can discern, has been made to notify area
residents. I suspect the converse is likely), has no Just cause to
point the proverbial shotgun toward the valley in hopes of
usurping land merely because the time limit for federal aid has
forced an expedient, ill-conceived, and somewhat desperate
resolution.
without reiterating the details, I want to stress that I
appreciate fully the need to resolve the unhealthy and
unacceptable sewage systems currently "serving" Neskowin's
residents. The site of any new treatment facility, however, must
b« found within Neskowin's existing Urban Growth Boundary. The
fact that much of this land may have a high price teg is no excuse
for compromising so obviously the use of resource lands,
especially Neskowin Creek. An additional $100-300,000 acquisition
cost is negligible as a percentage of total cost, and a tiny tithe
to pay for the purported growth in the immediate area, upon which
such a large plant has been predicated. (Over the years the NRSA
Board has neglected to act upon several suitable sites, one of
which, 3 or 4 years ago, made invitation for such use, and which
had to resort to constructing its own system))
I spent 3 years as a member of the local Citizens Advisory
Committee in the late 70's as we made determinations regarding
land uxe classification for adoption at the County level, under
the statewide Planning Goals of the State of Oregon. Throughout
the process, those in Neskowin who were staunchly (and, one must
conclude, self-servingly) advocating a vast urban growth boundary
were told time and time again by the County Planning Commission
staff that not even the most optimistic population, or "growth,"
164 164. A number of comments were received which opposed
the location of the storage lagoons at the Simpson
Timber Site. Please refer to Response to Comment 148,
Letter No. 39; and Response to Comment 427.
165 165. Please refer to Response to Comment 150, Letter No.
39.
9 T ; 4
-------
Page 2
projection then available could possibly justify such a large UGB.
Staff was hard-pressed to support the zone in the final plan; they
expected rejection by LCDC. Since that growth has yet to
materialize: 1) There must be alternative sites within the UGB,
and 2) the proposed system, in all its 3 phases, is designed for a
much larger population than is currently needed.
My greatest objection to the location of the holding pools in
the Nsskowin Valley centers on the probability that the mere
existence of such a facility would encourage, even "justify," an
expansion of the existing UGB up into the Valley. Thus my anger
over what I increasingly believe amounts to a "railroad job"
involves not just the imposition of a wholly inappropriate, albeit
feasible, land use (READ: river use), but a surreptitious
preemption of the Valley's existing zoning classification.
Finally, I am greatly troubled that the EIS apparently makes
no provision for the eventuality where there is not adequate water
flow--at any time of year—to dilute the treated effluent.
I am grateful for your consideration.
Respectfully,
166
166. No extension of the Urban Growth Boundary will be
made as a result of this proposal. Future extensions of
the boundary must conform to adopted land use plans
and zoning regulations; input to those processes will
direct the expansion or reduction of those boundaries.
167 167. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19
I and Response to Comment 84, Letter No. 19.
Goodwin Harding
44405 Aeolian Way
Neskowin, OR 97149
"Zonnv. -A,
-------
168 168- Comment noted.
Vv~'U5>Z-«2-
-------
45
NESKOWIN REGIONAL
-&EPA
September 11, 1990
ERRATA
PUBLIC HEARINO DATE0 AMD COMMENT PERIOD
NE8KOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY
WABTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
DRATT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
To ensure ample time for public review and comment prior to
the hearing on the Heskowln Regional Sanitary Authority
Hastewater Collection; Treatment, and Disposal Facilities Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, EPA has rescheduled the public
hearings. The public hearings will now be held on Saturday,
October 27, 1990 at 7:00 pm, and on Sunday, October 28, 1990 at
2:00 pm, in the Neskowin Fire Hall. The close of the public
commert period will be extended to Monday, November 5, 1990.
Please note that information contained in this notice
supersedes information contained on the cover page of the
Heskowln Regional Sanitary Authority Hastewater Collection,
Treatment, and Disposal Facilities Draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
T
I*
169. Comment noted.
-------
46
SEP 7
September 5th"/1990
Fredianne Gray,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, Washington
Dear Ms. Gray,
Perhaps you remember that ve spoke at some length on the phone
shortly after Neskovin Fact Sheet #5 was sent out to homeowners.
I told you then that many of us suspect that the people who are the
most ardent supporters of a large-scale sever system in Neskovin
are the same people who stand to make financial gains if this area
is heavily developed.
By way of supporting this notion, I am sending along a copy of a
recent front page article in the Tillamook Headlight Herald. The
source of the information seems to be Vic Affolter, the Director of
the Community Development Department for the county. Last year, when
he tried to get our support for the county's Resort Development Plan,
Mr. Affolter assured us all that he really wanted to keep Neskowin
small and beautiful and that the proposed plan would make it very
difficult for developers to move into the Neskowin area. Now here he
is in the newspaper actively promoting the inevitability of develop-
ment and the need for an enabling sever under the guise of concern
for. public health. I am also including a Letter To The Editor in the
same paper a week later in which an irate citizen seems to be accusing
Mr. Affolter of the same type of duplicity.
Ms. Gray, I know you don't have any involvement in the politics of
all this but I simply wanted to show you what we're up against in the
fight for a sewer that's scaled to the needs of the community without
opening the door to the type of 'progress* which will surely destroy
our precious small-town quality of life. By the way, both Ted Corbett
and Mike Kovalski, who are quoted in the first article, are land-
owners in this area with conflicts of interest in the whole debate.
Many thanks for your interest and hard work in the resolution
of this matter.
170 170. This comment is beyond the scope of this EIS.
n Street,
Eugene, Oregon 97402
-------
47
October 10th, 1990
Gerald Opatz, EIS Project Director,
Environmental Evaluation Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, Washington
Dear Mr. Opatz,
Having just completed a thorough reading of the draft EIS
on wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for Neskowin,
Oregon, several concerns come to mind and I vould like to note
them for you.
First of all, there seems to be a conclusion formed that
dumping treated vastevater into Neskowin Creek during winter
months is somehow inevitable if the contamination problem in
Havk Creek is to be solved. From what ve know about the
importance of Neskowin Creek to the spawning patterns of five
different species of fish (some of which may soon be listed as
endangered in the northwest) it seems extremely unwise to assume
that this path is the only viable alternative available. Further,
since Neskowin Creek ultimately flows into the ocean at Proposal
Rock, a popular tourist area designated as a state park with its
own parking wayside and access path, it would seem that the EPA
is leaving itself vulnerable to possible future complications and
protests by pursuing this option.
Secondly, an obvious alternative to the nine listed in the
DEIS, namely, limited action to identify and clean up existing
inadequate septic systems along Hawk Creek, is not even mentioned.
In addition, the actual source of the contamination in Hawk Creek
has not been identified nor has the scope of the problem been
clearly outlined. In other words, rather drastic measures are
being proposed to solve a condition which is ill-defined and not
clearly understood.
A third concern of mine is that the DEIS frequently states
that certain sewage treatment and disposal alternatives would
have a negative impact on the growth of the local economy and
the potential for real estate development in the Neskowin area.
This negative impact is listed as a disadvantage and is used as
evidence to discredit certain disposal alternatives. Mr. Opatz,
the only economy in Neskowin which is wanted is a village store
and a small restaurant. A recent survey of homeowner opinions
indicate that the vast majority of Neskowin residents like it
that way. Future "development" Is emphatically not an attractive
prospect for most people in this community and, indeed, the EPA
analyses of the Neskowin area seem to indicate that it is a
region which is uniquely unsuited to handling the sewage needs
of large numbers of people. Add to this the fact that the EPA is
171. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19;
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10; Response to
Comment 95, Letter No.22 and Response to Comment
129, Letter No. 31.
172 172. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
173 173. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
-------
...2
proscribed from advocating sewage disposal plans which are
designed to enable development and I believe there is evidence
to suggest that there is an implicit bias in the DEIS towards
advocating sewage treatment solutions which are pro-growth and
not in the best interests of this community.
It is clear that a great deal of work has gone into the
preparation of the DEIS for Neskowin but I feel that certain
assumptions have been made in this process which are simply
not appropriate to the circumstances. The greatest of these
is the assumption that growth (and lots of it) is Inevitable
for the Neskowin area and that a sewage disposal system which
would facilitate this growth is logical and desirable. The fact
is that the few people who want growth in Neskowin are the ones
who stand to make the most money from it and are some of the same
people who have persisted in promoting an enabling sewer system
for this tiny community no matter what the social or economic
costs might be. The fact that the sewer system we almost ended
up with a couple of years ago was profoundly flawed in its design
concept and its negative environmental Impact shows how high the
stakes are in this issue. I believe your own studies lead to the
obvious conclusion that Neskowin cannot accomodate large numbers
of people (and their resulting sewage) and that we should accept
this as a fact and work to find solutions which are in keeping
with this finding.
I thank you for your attention and consideration of this
matter and would welcome any comments you or your staff might
care to make about it.
.Sincerel
-------
48
Gerald Opatz, EIS Project Director,
Environmental Protection Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, Washington
November 1, 1990
Dear Mr. Opatz,
Having attended the two DEIS public hearings in Neskowin
last weekend, I thought I would take this opportunity to get
some ideas to you in writing so that they may become part of
the public record.
Let me begin by acknowledging all of the hard work that
your office has put into the DEIS and the patient and fair
manner in which the public hearings were conducted in Neskowin.
I had hoped for a chance to ask questions about specific issues
but I also understand thatrthis may have made the whole process
3 lot more unwieldy and time-consuming. I'm still confused,
however, by your announcement that none of the alternatives
outlined in the DEIS are acceptable to your office. Does this
mean that:thev have all been automatically rejected and that.:
(-.he NRSA must come UD with an entirely new plan? If so. will
there be another public hearing after a full evaluation of any
new plan by your office? If this is the case, it seems that
a lot of time may pass before there is anything of substance
to propose to the community.
I do hope that those of us who oppose the plans which have
so far been outlined do not seem like a group of obstructionists.
We all want to solve the pollution problem in Neskowin but we
are deeply concerned about approaches which seem to virtually
guarantee substantial growth in an area which is already having
difficulty accommodating the sewage treatment needs of the
present residents. To simply assume that the population in the
Neskowin area will continue to grow unabated.(as the county's
growth projections in the DEIS suggest) is to allow a bad sit-
uation to get a lot worse. Inevitably, if this is allowed to
occur, an even larger, more costly, more environmentally-hostile
sewage treatment system will have to be devised. This system,
currently dubbed "Phase II", is totally out of scale with what
I_believe the future size of Neskowin should be. It would attract
even more people to the area and make the problem even worse.
All vestiges of the quiet'.village atmosphere which we so cherish
would be gone forever.
How do we find ourselves in a situation where, in trying to
solve a relatively minor pollution problem in the core area of
the town, a two-stage plan costing millions of dollars is devised
with the potential for causing signifigant environmental
degradation and inducing a spiral of growth which could only
aggravate future pollution problems? I believe there are several
174 174. Please refer to Response to Comment 51, Letter No. 17.
175 175. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19
and Response to Comment 150, Letter No. 39.
-------
reasons for this predicament and that. In carefully examining
then, we may be able to find a way out of this quandry.
First of all, I believe the area vhich is defined as "Neskowin"
in the DEIS is much too large. If the designers of the sewage
disposal system feel obligated to include the needs of commun-
ities as far away as Viking Estates (several miles up the high-
way) then we are truly doomed to proposing a system which is
dramatically out of scale with the needs of the Neskowin core
area. Further, any system which would Include such a large area
would, enable the population infill of all the area in between.
The result would be a dramatic increase in population with
runaway sewage treatment problems and costs. In some respects
it is understandable that the county should wish to include
such a large area in its "Neskowin" designation - it is probably
expedient to do so from a bureaucratic and administrative stand-
point. Expedience, however, is counterproductive when dealing
with the pollution problem in the core of the town. The plain
fact is that the treatment and disposal of sewage in Neskowin
has been, and will continue to be, a difficult problem and it
makes no sense to make the problem worse by adding more people
who don't really need to be on the system in the first place.
Secondly, there is one likely reason why the addition of
other population groups to the Neskowin sewage disposal system
is being proposed. It is that there exists, on the part of a
few individuals, a strong economic incentive to promote growth
in the area. Who would benefit from such growth? Why the people
who own undeveloped land along the proposed sewer route, of course.
Some of these people currently sit on the NRSA and are the most
active proponents of a larger system (under the constant guise
of concern for the health of the community). The county would
benefit too in the form of increased tax revenues and tourist
traffic streaming up the highway. Vic Affolter, the Director
of Tillamook County's Department of Community Development,
states plainly in Appendix C of the DEIS that "A further benefit
of such a system is its ability to facilitate further development
within the Neskowin Community Growth Boundary". The majority of
the citizens of Neskowin, however, do not seek and do not want
increased tourism or development in our area. Add to this the
clear fact that Neskowin cannot accomodate the sewage implications
of such growth and I believe the conclusion is inescapable. The
interests of the developers and the county growth boosters are
not in the best interests of our community, nor are they in
harmony with the ecological constraints of this region. Perhaps
this is why the frequent statements in the DEIS which demonstrate
a bias towards accepting growth in Neskowin are so profoundly
galling to those of us who truly care about the future of this
community with no ulterior motives for financial gain.
A third reason for the present predicament is, I believe,
the result of poor communication on the part of the NRSA. Their
history in this issue seems to be that of a group which is intent
on keeping local residents in the dark about decisions which
have enormous potential impact for the whole area. NRSA meetings
176 176. This comment is beyond the scope of this EIS.
177 177. This comment is beyond the scope of this EIS.
-------
. . .3
are public, of course, but in a small village where the majority
of the homeowners are not full-time residents it is easy to
allow substantive issues recede into the background without
thorough public discourse. How else can one explain the fact
that this community came dangerously close to getting a sewage
disposal system two years ago which was clearly unacceptable
from an environmental standpoint and which has subsequently
been rejected as unsuitable by the DEIS? It took a small group
of concerned citizens several months and over $5000 of their
own money to prove the failings of this proposed system. As
another example of poor communication, can you imagine the
sense of panic and anger that the residents of the Slab Creek
area must have experienced last weekend vhen, at the eleventh
hour, they discovered that in one fell swoop they could simul-
taneously be included in the Neskowin Community Growth Bound-
ary, come under the jurisdiction of the NRSA, find that a large
sewage holding pond was being proposed to be situated virtually
in their backyards, and that hundreds of thousands of gallons
of treated effluent might be pumped into the 'Class A' stream
which runs through their property? One may argue that the
citizen bears the responsibility for uncovering such matters
but it is certainly true that there has been too much misinfor-
mation and too many rumors in this entire process and that the
NRSA has not taken the lead in informing the community on these
issues. Their vested interest in getting a sewer system - any
sewer system - has repeatedly led them to choose the easy way
out. I believe that much of the anger and distrust which now
surrounds this problem can be laid at their feet.
Finally, I believe there has been a clear failure on the
part of the county, the NRSA, and the DEQ to honestly evaluate
the pollution problem in Neskowin. He know that there is coli-
form bacteria in Hawk Creek and that all septic systems event-
ually fail and need to be replaced. We also know that some
lots may not be large enough to allow for adequate upgrading
of some of these failing systems. Where is the plan which seeks
to solve these problems without creating new ones? Where are
the innovative solutions which show a genuine caring for health
issues and the quality of life in a quiet community instead of
a barrage of mega-systems which all lead down the same road to
runaway growth and environmental degradation? I believe that a
careful analysis of the ideas and testimony presented over the
two-year course of this debate contain the necessary solutions
to the problem. There are a lot of empty lots in Neskowin which
could be used to expand the total drainfield capacity in the
community. Residents could share drainfield capacity for their
mutual benefit. Even the wayside which was recently dropped into
the heart of the community by the state should be questioned.
Why should a community with the sewage problems of Neskowin be
required to accept the sewage needs of thousands of tourists
each year vhen the very land the wayside sits upon may prove
useful in the final solution to the problem? The county sani-
tarian testified last week that demands are increasing on the
178
179
178. Please refer to Response to Comment 148, Letter No.
' 39.
179. Please refer to Response to Comment 166, Letter No.
43.
180
180. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14
and Response to Comment No. 412.
181 This comment assumes that the owner of the vacant
property would make this land available for drainfield
use By so doing these, landowners would be precluding
181 their opportunity to develop their lots. Many of the
owners in the core area that have not developed have
done so anticipating completion of a sewer project and
not in anticipation of giving up their property for use by
others as drainfields. Please refer to Response to
Comment 70, Letter No. 19; and Response to Comment
200, Letter No. 51.
-------
. . .4
current dralnfield capacity because people are adding garbage
disposal systems, dishwashers, hot tubs and other problem-
inducing appliances in remodelling projects and in nev buildings.
Why should such luxuries be allowed in the face of a sevage
disposal problem which threatens to bring about negative change
to our community forever?
This is a very complex issue and an Important one too. I
vant you to know that my wife and I and a number of other
concerned Neskowin residents are ready and willing to assist
in any way which might be useful and we thank you for your
interest and consideration in this matter.
182 182. The septic systems and drainfields currently in place are
potentially adversely impacted by these appliances.
Sewage treatment plants are designed to handle these
type of effluents.
Joyce)
JOg/Mad isoj/ Street.
EugeneTOregon 97402
-------
185
183. Please refer to Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10
and Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
184. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
185. There is no change in water temperature anticipated as a
result of the proposed discharge. The treatment and
holding of effluent will render the effluent close to
ambient air temperature. During the winter months, the
air temperature will be close to stream temperature. In
addition, the dilution ratio will exceed 20:1 so that the
effluent would have to be in excess of 20 degrees warmer
than the creek to raise the creek temperature 1 degree.
Treated effluent will not impact the fish nor will it impact
their spawning habits. It is generally accepted that the
addition of dilute non-toxic chemicals, such as secondary
sewage treatment plant effluent, will not impact a
salmonids ability to imprint and home on its rearing
stream. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter
No. 19.
-------
Ac
-"
77u
186 186. Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. IS
/o
iSSst S<;/l/<:
itj7#t
, asid /is/Jfyst
-------
us* if
fa /,
//
t^ ;K/
- famslej
lruttuK-
- antt
•
// SrtlJf 7*2
/r
//?
_,
/^<*-
-------
Mn Jbvrh (firmer
*r&i>f7ii
.
//If
ftMMrf'rtq- /U0$w/fi fr/&^*j /£-&#& i
jw/r-^.v_y 77$^ p^/s jtfjy MMM^ yb/'/u*i s&fc
jUrtssw*, an* J,M srf- /jfa/f jjfa /#) ^/ /f*n<
**
/?
oil/
tnfr/bt/tisff T^ Tfte /trti/s/n. *t- ,
^,.-t ;/&* ^/. /^//^^^^rii
pnbjsm us/tfaul' tfito"" ~'-'- '
iptf '
fk.
**<*
'JuU*f fJ- S#fj>)
*• /Xl ' .
7
189
189. Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
190
190. Please refer to Response to Comment 51, Letter No. 17;
Response to Comment 85, Letter No. 19; and Response
to Comment 133, Letter No.31.
191
191. Please refer to Response to Comment 62, Letter No. 19.
-------
2T/
r6//M<>
/,
0
f/r?a//
/rfssifi and
W
far
T?* yj
, riw,
//
Jo
7~A*fj*
it/£ tfhis /
^
/
/n
192
192. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
193
193. The alternatives analysis conducted during the facilities
planning process and the generation of this EIS
demonstrated that no additional practicable solution
exists.
-------
51
hist j £>j/erfsr.
~
*.
/ia
,a,3 _/°A- 4«r
/ v
7 tfen er /»*,<•
-» ir/7 #<
r/ifff- Tte fr
-------
i/c sSf/7•?*•/£ s-trifafrt/tf^fisM rtfsuM fa ss?swf-a&-sx-
Sf/kt'iMf/t/e /O, aa orvfyssfst ktf -ft-f™/ rtftp/c^sxay
^-/Sst'rMT^/t/e /O, aa owtfssfd tw j-t-i/srx/ asef/c,-
/-, we -f/sMoi £t-(f
-------
U>S<*M /fit
sr
^
- u/allfiSf ast //'/?«
/rsstfsfl //if tff /'/'/'•&
///// «//• ,ir
-------
f(/?/~i
J^u/M
/ /
sr?f ///v
# n
/) ^/v •
a
/A/
r
0/2. /f
0F
/ u
bt/b//c
Jx
-f/it
'
ffu
i/a fa.
203
203.
The data that has been collected and the analysis that
has taken place related to the sewage collection,
treatment and disposal proposals, addressed issues which
could be anticipated to be impacted by the proposed
project. The data which has not been collected was in
areas not expected to be impacted by this project.
Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No. 1;
and Response to Comment 133, Letter No. 31.
-------
52
10130 Slab Creek Rd.
Neskowin
Oregon 97149.
October 30, 1990.
Environmental Protection Agency
Mall Stop WD-136
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
To whom it may concern:
I would like to place on record the following remarks
about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
relating to the proposed expansion of sewage treatment
facilities at Neskowin, Oregon:
J
1. It is my understanding of the law relating to
Environmental Impact Statements that such statements are
required to analyze thoroughly and rigorously all of the
risks which, within reason, are attendant on the project
under consideration. In my opinion the above mentioned DEIS
does not fulfill the legal obligations of such a statement
due to acknowledged uncertainties and lack of study in the
following areas of concern—
a. Stream Flow; "Neskowin Creek has never been gauged.
Although sufficient measurements have been obtained to
gain a general understanding of summer flows, there is
not enough data to generate statistically sound
hydrographs." DEIS page3-7
"No record of winter discharge measurements exist
(sic)." DEIS page 3-8
"Flooding of the creeks in the study area is an annual
winter occurrence. The degree of salt water encroachment
into the lower portions of Neskowin Creek is not known."
DEIS page 3-9
"It is likely that adequate stream flows would be
available during the winter months; however there is
204 204. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
-------
little direct data to support this (i.e. winter stream
flows were calculated from a model, but rarely or never
measured directly." DEIS page4-10
Ecological Profile; Neskowin Creek has one of the last
wild runs of Winter Steelhead on the Oregon Coast and
its unique nature is recognized officially by the Orego:
Department of Fish and Wildlife which protects the cree
through a "Catch-and-Release" regulation and considers
it an 'Index Stream" in gauging the strength of the
annual steelhead run. Several other salmon and trout
species are also known to enter the creek in late Fall
and Winter.
The DEIS provides little or no data on the following
topics which it seems prudent to believe would need to
be studied in order to produce an accurate ecological
profile of the Neskowin Creek system, and thus a
realistic assessment of environmental impacts: 1. An
inventory and population measurement of all
significant animal and plant species in the creek.
2. Food chains. 3.Biochemical effects on creek species
of both treated and untreated effluent.
Sanitation; One of the main purposes of the proposed
project is, supposedly, to prevent present and future
groundwater and other contamination from occurring
in the Neskowin area due to the claimed failure of
septic systems. It would, therefore, be reasonable to
suppose that the DEIS would address the issues of the
sources of contamination and the degree of improvement
the project's implementation could be expected to
bring. However, the DEIS acknowledges that it has not
traced all sources of contamination, that it suspects
that some contamination originates outside the project's
catchment area, and given this possibility "the extent
to which construction of the proposed treatment plant
would alleviate the contamination is not known." DEIS
page 3-16 (emphasis mine). My conclusion is that the
DEIS does not fulfill its legal responsibility to
provide as full and accurate information as possible
while such basic issues remain in the realm of the
205 205. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
206 206. Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
-------
unknown.
2. With a realistic assessment of Neskowin'a sanitation
problems, a thorough analysis of contaminant sources, and an
accurate projection of the degree of improvement to be
expected from an expanded collection system, I am prepared
to see some virtue in Phase I of the project. I am, however,
totally opposed to Phase II for the following reasons:
a. The assumption of a doubling of the population in the
Neskowin area by 2010 is ludicrous and cannot possibly
have been derived by valid projections from existing
demographic data. Neskowin's attractiveness as a
community is in large part due to the fact that it is
small and has almost reached the limit of expansion in
area and population before "diminishing returns" set in,
i.e. its present size and nature are the reasons why
most current residents choose to live here. Anecdotal
evidence which I have collected suggests that a large
majority of Neskowin area residents neither desire nor
see as beneficial any large population growth or much
additional commercial development in the area. As a
community we have the right to choose to be small.
Therefore Phase II of the project is not in keeping with
the nature and character of our area.
b. As I mentioned in a different context in Section Ib
above, the DEIS provides little data on important
ecological concerns about the effects of a treatment
plant on, and effluent in, Neskowin Creek. Even if such
data were available and could prove minimal disruption
of the creek's ecosystem I think that any disruption of
such a unique biological resource is unjustified, given
the precariousness of the very existence of wild fish
runs in Oregon due to similar human disruption of
spawning grounds and food sources.
c. Pumping sewage from the Neskowin core area to holding
tanks on Slab Creek Road would create contamination
where none now exists due to leakage from the transfer
lines. Up to 1% of raw sewage entering sewage lines
leaks through cracks and gaps in the lines (cf.Carol
207 207. Please refer to Response to Comment 417 and Response
to Comment 115, Letter No. 25.
208. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19;
Response to Comment 131, Letter No. 31; Response to
Comment 214, Letter 53, and Response to Comment
208 238, Letter No. 61.
208a
208a The proposal is to pump treated sewage treatment plant
effluent from the existing treatment plant site to the
Simpson Timber Site for storage only during the summer
months. The lines will be tight to ensure that pumping
can be accomplished efficiently. No seepage from the
pipes into the surrounding soils/groundwater is
anticipated.
-------
Hupping Stoner 'How We're Handling Our Wastewater Now,
And Alternatives for the Future", 1977; p 23). The
possibility of accidental, untreated discharges gives
even greater cause for concern.
d. Slab Creek Road is a small, scenic highway. As part
of the Oregon Coast Bike Route it is used a great deal
in summer by visitors from all over the Northwest and
beyond. It winds through part of the Siuslaw National
Forest and is home to a popular National Forest Camp-
ground much used by cyclists and backpackers. I choose
to live on Slab Creek because its scenic beauty adds a
great deal to my quality of life. I can think of few
places more aesthetically inappropriate for the location
of sludge tanks.
209 209. The berms for the storage lagoons will be visible from
Slab Creek Road; the lagoons themselves will not be
visible. Landscaping and screening can be provided to
minimize the visual impact of the proposal.
I hope you will give serious consideration to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Gerard D. Killeen
-------
53
*.«-.. ; .
f/af SI** £>*«£, X*.
210. A lengthy screening process to locate suitable sites for
treatment plants, subsurface disposal and storage lagoons
was undertaken by both the engineer and the
environmental consultants. Most of the sites were
eliminated because of inadequate size, poor soils, steep
slopes or sensitive habitats. There quite simply is not an
adequate site location nearer Neskowin which meets the
size and engineering criteria for storage lagoons other
than the Simpson Timber site. The lagoons will be
located uphill from Slab Creek Road. The berms
creating the lagoons will be visible from the road; the
lagoons themselves will not. Landscaping will create
visual barriers to further reduce the impact.
211. Please refer to Response to Comment No. 422.
-------
er7
v
0
ffy&uJU- SWt% (TKL'
W
/}C6w
-------
*•
«Jt*M»
c /o
0 v
4**++>T44
-------
214. The existing situation allows for minimally treated
effluent to seep from unidentified (and unidentifiable)
sources into Neskowin, Hawk and Meadow Creeks. The
water quality sampling indicates that these streams are
contaminated due to fecal discharges. The purpose of
this project is to assist in the elimination of these
impacts. Please also refer to Response to Comment 95,
Letter No. 22.
-------
. ' 1 + >^
U(J*A, cU4p*JC 7W- "71*JL>
• /^.
215
215. Please refer to Response to Comment 210, Letter No.
53.
(/
216
216.
I'
/t^tii-ujx C7iu' Cf*t*H*4**i&**
'tutfai u
s&r a*^ r*+*~f^ -fJn*- y^-.^
'-*!,. w* ^ d #** P~I* ^£***** **
217
217.
Please refer to the discussion on the Butte Creek site in
Chapter 2 under the site options section. Please also
refer to Response to Comment 210, Letter No. 53.
The facilities planning process has assessed numerous
collection, treatment and effluent disposal alternatives.
The preferred alternative is the result of that assessment.
The alternatives available to the Neskowin are relatively
limited due to the topography, hydrology, and soils.
-------
54
Richard H. Koslerlltz M.O.
3935 $.11). Martini Lone
Portland. Oregon 97201
(503)246-2432
Mr. Gerald Opatz
8t Ms.Predlanne Gray
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 156)
environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Sea ttle.WA 9801
October 4,1990
Dear Gerry and Fredianne.
It was a pleasure to meet you both personally. Thank you for the time
and attention you devoted to my visit and the sincerity with which you dealt
with my concerns about the Neskowln EIS. I was also very Impressed with
Dr. Des Volgne.
I want to respond to two major points that you brought up at our meeting:
1. Provision of documentation and data to support my Alternative
• 10. Our group Is sincerely attempting to contact and retain engineers from
two sources for assistance. However our funds are limited and the Ome
frame may be too short to provide this material by November SuX 1990. This
problem may however become moot, since the flow data of Neskowln Creek
and the effectiveness of any of the NRSA sewer plans are not known.
2. There was concern at our meeting that Alternative »10 would place
an unfair financial burden on those In the core area who didn't want or need
to be connected to the sewer, but would still have to pay for It
There are a number of houses (Including mine) In The Sewer District
that cannot have sewers until Phase 2 of the plan Is accomplished. Phase 2
Is theoretical, and no definite plans. costs, or Impacts have been developed.
It Is projected for Implementation In 5-10 years. Meanwhile I and other
homeowners situated so that they cannot participate In Phase I. will still
have to pay the Phase 1 monthly assessments. Therefore the financial
Inequality burden already exists In the current NRSA plan and would not
necessarily be significantly different In Alternative • 10.
I plan to submit a more detailed discussion of the EIS shortly. Once
again many thanks for your time and,attentton.
^yyqnrs.
ri
iterlltz M.D.
218 218. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14
and Response to Comment 147, Letter No. 38.
-------
54a
RICHARD H. KOSTERLITZ, M.D.
Mr. Qerald Opatz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
October 30.1990
Dear Mr. Opatz,
R was nice to see you again recently and I think you deserve a lot of
credit for arranging two excellent public hearings on the Neskowtn US.
I would like to add three comments to the CIS draft record, although I
realize that the record b already voluminous.
First, Mr. Doug Marshal (who gave an excellent presentation of the
sewage problems) stated that a Knitted alternative such as 'Alternative • 10.
would not be economical. Indicating that It would only be econmlcal to hook
up all the core area properties. However, under our proposal for a scaled
down project (such as Is mentioned In the mitigation section of the CIS)
costs would decrease considerably over the current alternatives and would
thereby allow such selective hooK-upsJust as economically, as full hookups
under the larger alternatives • 1-6.
Second. I'm entoslng a copy of an article from The Oregonlan
emphasizing the continuing decrease In some river salmon runs. You
already know how concerned our group Is about this aspect of the danger of
effluent discharge Into Neskowln Creek.
Third, I am enclosing an article from The Oregonlan Indicating that the
water reservoirs In Oregon are currently only half full. This article Increases
our concerns regarding a worst case scenario whereby effluent discharge
could become Impossible periodically, even when deemed necessary by the
kind of new systems proposed In the Alternatives.
With the hope that you may find these comments useful for the Anal
as.
219
219. It is unclear how costs would be reduced.
Implementation of Alternative #10 would still require
the construction of all of the collectors and interceptors
anticipated in Phase 1. Also, as indicated by the County
Sanitarian, it would be difficult to identify failing systems
even if testing were completed. Please also refer to
Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
220 220. This article is generic and not specific to Neskowin
Creek. Please refer to Response to Comment 95, Letter
No. 22.
221
221. This article is generic and not specific to the Neskowin
Area. Please refer to Response to Comment 84, Letter
No. 19.
3935 S W MARTINS LANE PORTLAND. OREGON 97201 PHONE (5O3I 246-2432
-------
55
RICHARD H. KOSTERLITZ. M.D.
Nfr. Gerald Opatz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Nfr. Opatz
October 30, 1990
RE EIS 910/9-90-121. Neskowin
Since time is short before closure of public comment on the Nesfcowin EIS, I ask.
your indulgence on behalf of my continued correspondence on this subject, with the
hope that it witl be mutually beneficial. The purpose of this letter is to briefly caU your
attention to some public health aspects of ultraviolet sewage disinfection.
The advantages of using UV are primarily related to the effluent
constttuents'-page 2-1 1, EIS
*Qround water quality In the Neskowln area Is generally good, but Is
characterized by an elevated mineral content, particularly ten- A limited
number of wells In the Clatsop Plains contain 1cm concentrations In the
water which exceed the Federal Drinking Water Standards ...... Reportedly,
elevated lisa concentrations are common In Oregon's coastal dune aquifer. '-
-page 3-5, EIS
The following is quoted from Maxcy-Rosenau "PREVENTIVE MEDICINE and
PUBLIC HEALTH Tenth Edbon, CH34, page 1 106 (copy endowed)
" Direct exposure to ultraviolet light of wave-lengths below 2800 Angstrom units ( A) tills
vegetative bacteria in afew seconds, and even spores areeliminiifrd by slightly longer exposure.
Light of suitable wavelength may readily be produced by mercury arc lamps with tubes of quartz
or special glasses with high transmit on in the ultra violet. The principal wavelength of the light
emitted by the mercury arc is 25M A. There have been a f ew attempts to sterilize water by passing
it under or around banks of such lamps in shallow flumes. The depth of water must be 5 inches or
less because of rapid absorption of the ultraviolet rays by water. The process h** f ftilrf in p
for several reasons, amon which arc IhtrtlftiYClV^^^fflfff oeration, the difficulty of
maintaining ffficieni operaflffnflf f*"tl'f h" "I>ggi«l|y|mh.e.obignceof any rapid test for
efficiency and the fact that even**" •Uqopnjjties of color. turbidity. Of iron in the water seriously
diminish th£ cff ft
y of the dixin
ff the ultraviolet lip
Surely the EPA win not want to subject Neskowin to this kind of sewage
treatment without further careful consideration. /*
V Richard H. Kostertitz M.D.
3935 S W MARTINS LANE PORTLAND. OREGON 972O1 PHONE (SO3) 246-2432
222
223
224
222. Please refer to Response to Comment 21, Letter No. 11.
Ultraviolet disinfection is effective on sewage treatment
effluent. The review of the plans and specifications for
the system and the NPDES permit will require
compliance with discharge standards which will include
adequate disinfection.
223. The UV disinfection will be treating sewage treatment
effluent, not groundwater. The iron levels in the
effluent will be low because domestic water supplies are
required to have low concentrations of iron and other
metal constituents (per the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act). Also, surface waters such as
Neskowin's drinking water supply have naturally low
levels of iron.
224. Please refer to Response to Comment 223, Letter No.
55, and Response to Comment 84, Letter No. 19.
-------
56
D
n
S..TTU , UK
JX.. f.r
N.. 5"
•«•» »«•!-••—/ wU+4"
< ^ rJ.i,-L 1-^
(1
-TU
^.kl^, «.r _ «»r».4-|. Wot. Cwtt
« 1. -K-/^ J~J.r».l .
.« «. •- , - -7
""'"3 '""
I, AAj V* '/'*" J-7
225
226
2}27
1228
"••3 r~*«'J ''••?
.*j.^.-i/. ^, ^.; r-..« :
..j<. jc^..;. ^ ^..,1...... ..W^,
ui, t;,,.k •»i«.lu. J^.^ii^ -Mu>
229
225. Phase 1 is being proposed to respond to current
pollution problems. Future expansion i. e. Phase 2 may
be necessary to respond to future growth. Land Use
Plans and Zoning Ordinances will dictate the direction
of future growth; developer charges, while a possibility
are beyond the scope of this EIS.
226 The second paragraph on page 2-10 states "...discharges
into many septic systems occur only during a period of
six to eight months every year." According to the County
Sanitarian:
This may have been true ten years ago, but it is not
correct today. Most of the beach houses I visit...while
trying to resolve failing disposal systems, are being
rented when not being used by the owners, their
families, and friends.... Renters are generally harder on
a disposal system than a homeowner. In most cases,
daily water use per person is higher. Sharing a rental
unit is not uncommon, with the resulting (temporary)
hydraulic overload to the system.... Also, renters tend to
flush or rinse more unsuitable items into the disposal
system.
-------
.... Winter usage of beach dwellings has risen steadily
over the past several years.
Groundwater contamination does not necessarily stop
when the source of pollution ceases. Migration of
bacteria and chemicals takes place over a period of time
-- days, months, or years. Although the source of
contamination may be intermittent, the materials
discharged will continue to contaminate the
groundwater.
227. The project is not pro-development. Rather it proposes
a long term solution to a known, documented pollution
problem. Growth and development will be controlled by
the Land Use Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinances of Tillamook County.
228. Chapter 340, Division 40 of the Oregon Administrative
Rules establishes mandatory minimum groundwater
quality protection requirements which apply to federal
and state agencies, cities, counties, industries, and
citizens. High groundwater quality is to be protected.
It a solution to the elimination of groundwater
contamination is available, the resource should be
protected regardless of the immediate use of the
resource.
229. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No.l;
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10; and Response
to Comments 84, Letter No. 19.
-------
r* •»••"'j
eruk
1U
t»
^+ ti-.i . I). -IU l
4UI., .r K» Ujv
jj-f <..nc c.ii.1c t
In^irtit/. , ^ cnyf,^ »
. ll.t...
i~s> .f
LcVLft, .
u.ll ci—jt
230. Please refer to Response to Comment 210, Letter No.
230 53' Response to Comment 217, Letter No. 53 and
Response to Comment 422.
231 231. Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
232 232. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No. 1;
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10; Response to
Comment 33, Letter No. 14; Response to Comment 63,
Letter No. 19 and Response to Comment 71, Letter No.
19.
-------
5T-
From tht ««>k 01.
Don McNoll
1490 AorKI W«y tf
S«l«">, Oregon tTJOl
(509) 1I4-1I2S
October 31, 1990
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Ave.
Mail Stop WG 136
Seattle, WA 98101
Gentle mem
For the past 12 years we've owned property at
Neskowin, Oregon . . . Lot 3 and the North one-
half of Lots 5 and 6, Block 5, NESKOWIN, in
Tillamook County, Oregon.
Due to increasing contamination of the! water
in Hawk Creek, brought on by overloaded septic
tanks and other factors, there la a growing health
hazard, particularly among youngsters who wade
the creek.
We were in favor of plans for the proposed
Neskowin sewer project, upon which we received
a NHSA update, 1988 outlining tentative time
tables.
Now we understand that the project has been
delayr*:
This is a desperate situation. We certainly
want to be counted among the property owners
who favor it, and urge all possible speed to
get the project moving.
233. Comment noted.
234 234. Comment noted.
-------
58
Melissa Madenskl
B9BO Slab Creek Road • neskowln. Oregon B714B • (5O3) 3B2-38O8
November 4. 1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle. WA 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz.
I'm a resident of Slab Creek Road 1n Neskowln Oregon.
writing 1n response to a proposed plan for a sewage
treatment pond and effluent release Into Slab Creek.
I'm
This stream 1s fragile, especially 1n relation to the
winter steelhead runs. Although I don't fish. I've taken
part with students In the S.T.E.P. program. I've taken my
children to the creek to see the gravel-like beds where the
salmon spawn. Because this "hatchery" 1s wild. It seems to
me It Is of prime benefit to tourists and residents alike.
It offers wild salmon a safe place to spawn, and 1n doing
so gives us Information useful to hatcheries.
I'm also opposed to the treatment plant because I feel 1t
will contribute to the over-development of Neskowln. I
feel support for this project 1s directly related to people
who hold real estate that they would like to develop. I
think "planned" development 1s beneficial for any town.
small or large: but this plan has the potential to destroy
one of the few remaining wild salmon runs on the coast.
Most of us have lived on our road at least 15 or 20 years,
some longer. We moved here because It was beautiful and
peaceful — a good place to raise families. And we have
built a community, one 1n which we support and care for
each other, our children and the land on which we live. I
think we have been good stewards of the land and the creek,
and I know we are all committed to doing anything we can to
see that development Is handled carefully and with a good
deal of thought and consideration to the consequences of
that development. I'm hoping that you will Inform us of
the next step as this study progresses because we all care
deeply for the place we live.
Sincerely.
235 235. Please refer to Responses to Comments 63 and 76,
Letter No. 19.
Melissa Madenskl
-------
59
E . P . A .
Mai 1 Stop WD-136
120O 6th Ave.
Seattle. WA 98101
To whom it may concern:
As a resident o-f Neskowin and the mother o-f two sons, I
am writing to express my concern over the polluti on problems
in this communi ty. My sons 1 ove the beach and all o-f the
recreational activities that are available to us here. It
would be a great relief to know that when they want to play
in the waves or the creel that they could do so wi thout the
risi of contaminati on.
I urge you r Q con 51cer the families who 1ove this
communitv and this beach and want to cont i n-je to enjoy all
Lhat it has to o-fer. Please rnal-'e a decisi on to get the
se?wer pro :ecr s t =irted so we can clean up the mess.
236 236. Comment noted.
bi ncc-r o t
\- err i A . plar 11 r
-------
60
neslcwin beoch qolf course
PO.Bo.436 • N**o»«n. OR 97149 • 000)9934377 V^ MunVMom MAIMMoral -
I.P.A.
Hail SUp m 136
1200 6th AT*
Seattle. Wa 96101
Te Whom It Hay Concerni
A* a "trae" friend, resident, and business owner IB Noskowla
I have te express ay concern en the holdup ef the ••••r project 1m
Heskewla. Ve have a serious solution preblea, a> ha* b«en d»euB*nt*d
by *tat* atudl**, and IT the icwcr *••• not pr*o««d IB a tla«lj Bamnar
the pnblm will »nlor get larger. Er»ry year He»k»»la la b^eaaiBS a
bualcr r*a*rt tcva, putting »»r» and B*r* prcaaur* •• th« ••ptlc
•jr*t«Ba. M»r» •••page Is reaching th» nat«nfa]r* and batch** and If
thl* 1* net *t*pp*d It »»«n will b*e*B*. If It lan't already, a »a>r
health hatard. IBM* wh* a»j th*y ar* "friend* *f H**k**in* by *x-
pr***lBg unf*und*d *nvlx*nB*atal cencera* t* atall the pr*j*et ar* dodging
th* Bala l**u* f*r their *wn **lflah reasena. Owlx cencerm* BIT*
b**B addreaaed and f*und t* b* nnxuraated and n*w the *tat* suit get
thl* preject Berlag b*f*r* (1) sueene dee* becoae **rl*u*ly 111 due
t* thl* health hazard aad (2) befere It beceae* public knowledge th*
•tat* ha* JcnenB *f thl* preblea fer 5 year* and ha* dene little te
get It cured.
la B yete a few year* age this ceaaunlty passed a levy te proceed
with a eewer by a Bargain ef 60 plus t* 20. However, duo t* the very
vocal alacrity, th* state aad federal ageacie* Involved seea te think
the caBBunity 1* net bohiad thl* project. This 1* far fro* the truth
as the vast majority fool It 1* tiae t* complete phase I ef the project
and them proceed with findlmg the best options fer phase II.
237 237. Comment noted.
Slscerely,
U
HlUlaa V. Hartia
-------
61
•COCK i. MrvtH
CMANLCB M. MA»CHNIOO>
• COTT C.WtSC
MEYER, HABERNIGO Sc WYSE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
OOO S. W. FIFTH AVCNUE
SUITE I9OO
PORTLAND, ORCOON 97ZO+
t HAWAII ft AMCMCAN SAMOA
I CAU'OWMIA
1 IDAHO
October 24, 1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 South Sixth Avenue
Seattle, HA 98101
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Haste Hater
Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facility
Dear Mr. Opatz:
I have had an opportunity to briefly review the above
draft. It appears that the plan proposes alternatives without
having investigated fully, and in some cases even at all, to obtain
the necessary information to determine the impact of these
proposals.
For example, it is proposed to discharge additional
affluent in Neskowin Creek when the actual flow rates have not been
satisfactorily measured and cay become temporarily or permanently
inadequate to support the expected discharge. Numerous other
deficiencies are contained in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement which lead me to conclude that there is inadequate
information to support proceeding with the EIS alternative. It is
my understanding that a group of Neskowin citizens have proposed
a new alternative called Alternative 10 which would be to repair
and expand the existing sewage plant, utilize the new state of the
art soil technology for existing and replacement septic tanks,
together with regulation of the Neskowin Lodge, the horse stables,
the Wayside Path and the golf course sewage. It would seem to me
that at this time this is the only viable alternative. It is my
understanding that you will be receiving a more detailed analysis
238
238. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No. 1;
Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19; and Response
to Comment 95, Letter No. 22.
239 239. Please refer to Response to Comment 62, Letter No. 19.
-------
Mr. Gerald Opatz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
October 24, 1990
Page B
of the deficiencies of the~~Dr*f$^ Environmental Impact Statement
from the Friends of Neskovin which
yours,
-------
62
- r/t
240 240. Comment noted.
-------
63
To: EPA
- /-
IB4
10.00 6-** Avs~
u= , VAM .
£D. f OATH i OSBOB.K*=T
-3SM-//0000 SLAB CRASS*.
CR.IS.. Sv/q^
i_e-rre2- is To eucooRAG-s- THe
TO TV+e ^4esK.o\^;|^^ PRoje-cr. N\y
oKT — THIS. B& ADViser>, T
TH& ex'»sTJvj&- \W
TKeB.e.PoEjs, TUI-S is A
A.siD T
j
TR-lBLTS" TO TUET DeTS
AS U;ISL-(_ AS TUe KC n\e 0 uu1 N: VE: P-^
AS TO TUG v/|Av(5Ler OpTniNJS
S" iS CFFe.Ci=.D
T fee ACcepTeo.
OU,'/^ pacp«=RTy Atop i_\ve' osi SLA.&
AkJ eWNMR-OMKNeTKIVA^^y SOUN\3 TT2.(=-ATN\
STCEAG-G" FAciulTy O<0 CL'R, ROAD VJ ll_t_ KJOT
T5e crpetosiuer AVOG T^& i r -
241 241. Comment noted.
-------
IN C.IOS.
Ke
V/ACAT,OMB.
nftf%£
-6.C-A*:..
fr .
W<
-------
64
DAVID OUSELE
Hp«rHlllng hi PICK SyMnv (MMm
BIOS Stab Craak RiMd
NMkowln. dragon 87148 (S03) 382-3875
Octobo-30,1990
Mr. Gerald Qpatz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenne
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz,
I am writing regarding the OS Draft 910/9-90-121, Neskowin. I believe it is
inadequate under NEPA for several reasons:
• Much of the supporting data is acknowledged to be unknown, specifically
regarding stream flows in Neskowin Oeek. Adequate winter stream flow is
esscntiallbr all proposed alternatives, yet no record of winder discharge,
measurements easts (pp. S-* Hg.
I live on the banks of Neskowin Oeek and know its year-round behavior
intimately. Winter stream flows are highly variable — it floods a few days a
year after heavy rains, hut most of the {'"Tf *h*? winter flows are tnppflfflh**?
to rommer flows — a few inches of water. Not only that, but flows vary
dramatically from year to year.
It is a gross error to assume Neskowin Oeek can handle sewage discharges
in the winter when summer flows are conceded to be inadequate.
• The report acknowledges mat "the source of contamination... has not been
identified _. Specific sites which might be contributing to fecal
contamination could not be identified from the results of this study. Given
this limitation, the extent to whi ch the conrtroction of the proposed
treatment plant would alleviate the contamination is not known.* (pp. S-16
OS).
In other words, hnildinf the proposed trenfampnt plants might not solve the
pnphlmit
This is absurd. The whole point of a sewage treatment system is to clean up
the water. At the very least, the EIS should identify the actual sources of
contamination so they can be addressed effectively.
242 242. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
243 243. Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
-------
DAVID OUSELE
not
-------
65
October 30.1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenoe
Seattle.\VA 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz.
I am writing regarding the OS Draft 9KV9-90-12L Neskowin.
I believe that the draft OS is inadequate. Not enough data ia available on flow levels
in Neskowin Creek — the creek has m*vr fcggn yyfj (pp. 3 ~ 7 EIS).
As a year-round creekside resident I can attest that the stream level varies widely
from winter to winter. The risk of insufficient dilution of discharges is too great
Neskowin Creek is host to rare native, salmon and steelhead runs. These runs bold
valuable gene pools that must not be jeopardized by potentially toxic discharges.
Even if secondary effluent is 'safely diluted" its effects on imprinting and homing
abilities of salmonids is unknown (pp. 3-22 EIS).
I therefore urge the further investigation of small flow systems. We can find away
to solve our problems without inducing excessive growth and incurring
environmental damage to this special region.
Sincerely.
245 245. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
246 246. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
IIIUVII. M «»•
-------
66
GEORGE F. PATTEN, JR.
MOV
610 S. .;. Broadway Suite #302
4040 M.W.TrALATIN AVENUE
HOHTLAND, OREOON B7*01
PHONK ao3/fea*M7B
November 1, 1990
U. S. Environmental Protection ngency
Attention: Mr. Gerald Opatz
1200 Sixth Avenue VJD136
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
You probably recall my letter of.a year or so ago on the
subject of the proposed sewtr at our small coastal community of Neskowin.
In that letter I informed you that I have beena property ovmer thertfor
a great many years, enjoying the rural quality that is offered by its
unique country village character.
For several years there has been an effort made to obtain the
means to construct a sewer system there, in my opinion more to achieve
the objective of further development than to really meat the pollution
problem, if one in fact exists. I believe the very first objective of
your agency should be to require the upgrading of existing septic
systems to cure whatever pollution problem is known to exist. One of
my present properties which is located adjacent to Ha'.vk Creek could
possibly be vulnerable to such an order, even though I installed a large
septic tank some years ago to replace an old dry well. There may very
well be still a number of those old fashioned systems still in use in
the area, and their replacement could go far toward solving whatever
problem is present. The horse corral across the creek from my house nay
also be responsible for a good deal of the pollution alleged. I remind
you that in that particular section of Hawk Creek there is periodic
"flushing" by the ocean tides. This natural activity surely helps to
reduce the impact of whatever pollution roally is present.
In previous letters I have pointed out that the lieskowin
community occupies a quite restricted geographical area, largely flat
and of extremely low elevation. This fact leads me to the unescapable
conclusion that the increased density of population following the install-
ation of a sewer would create an impossible drainage problem in disposing
of the effluent created. I further believe that this expected population
growth would likely soon outrun the capacity of the plant, and result in
the creation of a far more serious problem than now exists. _IF there is
truly a problem at present the real causes should be positively identified
and corrective measures enforced.
I thought your report was fair and ouite complete. I am
unalterably opposed to the adoption of Phase 2 as presented in your
outline of the alternatives.
Res/yrtfull
247 247. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
248
249
250
248. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14
and Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19.
249. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No 1-
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10; Response to
Comment 63, Letter No. 19; and Comment Letters 1 14
15, and 16. ' '
250. Comment noted.
George f-JFatten,
-------
67
oi>r
-------
OCA
251 251. This comment is beyond the scope of this EIS.
) (2
252 252. This comment is beyond the scope of this EIS.
-------
•e-
to
Use
/J
Of-
253 253. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
-------
Vfffi.
TO
254 254. Please refer to Response to Comment 70, Letter No. IS
/A/
255 255. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 1
-------
-.r-
256 256. Please refer to Response to Comment 181, Letter No
48.
r |257 257.
The EIS discusses the ocean outfall as an alternative for
Phase 2; costs have been estimated for that Phase.
Please refer to Response to Comment 413.
-------
.70
60
46
/A/
258 258. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 1
-------
//•/•fa
/A/
CMS**
to*
259
259. Please refer to Appendix B of the DEIS. No
endangered or threatened species are known to exist in
the project area and thus none will be impacted.
-------
-------
68
47920 HAWK ST., BOX 394
NiacowiN, OUCON 97U9
•/+ eft .
i-f £rm.
. /,
260 260. Comment noted.
-------
69
E IB Ih u w it
NOV 51990
Douglas e. Querin
4706 S.W. Lowell Ct.
Portland, OR 07221
292-8164
. el fl
Ms. Judy Johdohl
Northwest Regional DEQ
811 S.W. Sixth, 10th Floor
Portland, OR 97204
NovemJn»r0
f^ECEBVIE
NO'/ 5 1990
NORTHWEST REGION
Ret Neskowin, Oregon — Sevage Treatment System
D«ar MB. Johdohl:
I have owned property at NesXovin, Oregon for a number of years.
Like thousands of other*, my family and I have immeneely enjoyed
the beauty and richneee of thie area along our Oregon coo»t. I
have, however, alwaye found it disturbing that there has never
been an effective and properly functioning sewage collection and
treatment eyatea in place to serve the local residents and
growing numbers of the visiting public.
Every few years there has been an outbreak of illness at Neskowin
directly attributable to the lack of proper sewage facilities.
My family and I, along with hundreds of others, have been victims
of this lack of attention to the moat elementary concern for
public health. It is nothing short of shocking that this health
hazard has never been remedied.
I am writing at this tine to strongly urge the approval of a
sewage collection and treatment system at Neskowin, Oregon. Only
through such action can the threat to public health be
permanently corrected. The parochial and self-serving Interests
objecting to an effective sewage treatment syetem in Neekowin
should not be allowed to prevail over the general health and
welfare of those families that cherish Neekowin, Oregon.
261 261. Comment noted.
262 262. Comment noted.
DSQ:«a
-------
70
OSe P01
Oe
N,
NEIKOWIN VALLEY KHOOL
10005 SLAB CREEK ROAD • NESKOWIN, OREGON 97149 • 1-503-392-3124
Ooqp.iM.njoiTtonp.on Hovember 4, 1990
tJunM Richmond. Cklirmtn
Cltmdtfn«<
jbnEaun
vjkneden Such. O**on
«to»in. Onto"
tarcCnfnon
ftxlUnd. Ortjoo
ncoui C*y, Oie«on
Clcnectn flwcti, Or«|on
' ' Jn> its luenkc
•«ln Gly Oirgon
^•ijro«- Vlonpn
. Oref on
Onjon
Lincoln Cil\: Oicson
Ii Rqi«t, Dirictor
fortUnd Adviiory Mm*«f»
MA
• ironAloon
bl.
Mrk Henry
I hO'«n Owvn
L MO">i
d«orfe Thorn pton
TkimMW Thompson
C IX) * VrrtM
dr. Gerald Opatz
EIS Project office
Environmental Evaluation Board
E. P. A.
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatzt
I am writing in regard to the proposed location of
a oevage treatment plant on Slab Creek Road in
Neekovin, Oregon. I an Director of Neakovln Valley
School, vhere the property borders five scree along
Slab Creek Road and the Neakovln Creek. The sevage
plant vould uee Neakovin Creek for possible emergency
out fall. The presence of the creek is one of the main
reaaone for locating the school vhere it is so ve can
take advantage of it for environmental studies. Some
programs *e teach on a regular basis are fresh vater
biology, aquatic insect studies and our STEP program in
which *e raise 20, OOO salmon eaoh year. Heekovin Creek
is so special that ve are not allowed to release them
into the creek because it is considered a native
stream. The school has been conducting these science
programs for its 87 students for 18 years. We are
hoping to now offer some of the programs in the summer.
The possible out fall of chlorinated water would
destroy the natural plant and animal life of this
creek. Fly fisherman are also users of this creek and
the book THE RIVER WHY, by David Duncan, obtained its
Inspiration fron this beautiful creek.
I hope you will visit this site to see for
yourself why it is unsuitable and how it would affect a
natural science learning lab that has given young
children a firsthand experience about the special and
fragile creek environment necessary to sustain both
plant and animal life.
Sincerely
263 263. Please refer to Responses to Comments 75 and 76,
Letter No. 19.
Sail/ Rl.t.iel
Director
-------
71
. 2, 1990
Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Wash. 98101
Dear People:
I am writing this letter to register my objection to the
EPA's DEIS and plans for building a sewage treatment facility
on Neskowin Creek (Slab Creek). Having only heard of the plan
Sunday, October 28, I have not had the opportunity to read the
entire plan and cannot be specific and comprehensive in my
objections, but can list some concerns that immediately come
to mind.
Vie want to solve the sewage problems in Neskowin, but
without risking Neskowin Creek. Neskowin Creek has some of the
few remaining native fish runs in the Northwest, and the water
needs to be protected from the possibility of contamination.
Also, apparently, tests of the Neskowin ground water do not
distinguish between human and animal fecal pollution, nor do
they pinpoint the origin of the pollution, and the building
of a treatment plant does not ensure that Neskowin 's problem
of contamination will be solved.
Also, the preparation for growth reflected in the report
does not reflect the desires of the majority of people living
in and around Neskowin. We do not want to plan for growth and
thereby create it.
Vie are therefore also exploring litigious means to prohibit
the project if the EPA insists on continuing with its current
inadequate plan and information.
At the meeting Sunday, a representative from the state
water department made a statement about the availability of
grants from the federal government. It came off sounding like
a hard sell from a "tin man." I hope that the decision about
the future of Neskowin Creek will not be made on the basis of
an uneducated vote in order to get a quick buck.
I am a 12-year resident land owner on Slab Creek Road
and my husband, who has also signed this letter, has been living
with me there for five years.
If possible we would like copies of the EIS and EPA plans
sent to us.
264 264. Please refer to Responses to Comments 68 and 76,
Letter No. 19.
265 265. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
Yours truly
Carolyn Saunders
Ken McCormack
10130 Slab Creek Road
Neskowin, OR 97149
-------
73
To: E.P.A.
Hall Stop WD 136
1200 6th Ave.,
Seattle, WA 98101.
10130 Slab Creek Rd.
Neakowin,
OR. 97149
Nov. 1, 1990
NOV
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement concerning the
proposed expansion of a sewage system and construction
of a treatment plant at Neskowin, Oregon.
Dear Sir or madam,
I wish to place on record my strong objections to the sewage
treatment facilities proposed in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Neskowin, viz. the Statement's Option
9.
In my opinion an improvement in the alleged level of
groundwater and other contamination in the Neskowin core
area can be accomplished by means that are far less drastic
and less costly than the proposed method. This would mainly
involve redoing failing septic systems by such means as
retrofitting them with aerobic tanks, a method which would
place no additional stress on the local environment.
Even if I were convinced that such methods were unsuitable
for Neskowin (and there are no data available one way or the
other) and that Phase I of the proposed project was the only
viable alternative, I would still have to express my
opposition to Phase II for these reasons: The population it
expects to service bears no relation to what residents in
our area want as a future place in which to live. We live
here not because we assume population growth and commercial
development but because we assume and want to sustain a
quality of life without city-type problems. Thus Phase II is
neither wanted nor needed. Secondly, the EIS contains hardly
any information on the ecology of Neskowin Creek and no hard
data on the possible effects of treated effluent on the fish
and other aquatic life inhabiting the creek. Since this
creek is now protected by catch-and -release fishing
regulations and used as an indicator creek by the Oregon
Dept. of Fish and Wildlife one would have expected an
exhaustive assessment of environmental and ecological
concerns associated with it. Indeed, given the acknowledged
uniqueness of the ecosystem in question, I don't believe it
should ever have been considered as a place in which to
discharge treated effluent. Finally, Slab Creek Road is not
an appropriate place in which to locate a treatment facility
and holding tanks. Zoned "farm and woodland" it is an area
of great scenic beauty adjacent to the Siuslaw National
Forest and close to the Cascade Head Nature Preserve. The
proposed Phase II facilities, however camouflaged, would be
a black spot on the area and are unwanted by those of us who
266
267
268
269
270
260. Comment noted.
261. Comment noted.
262. Comment noted.
263. Please refer to Responses to Comments 75 and 76,
Letter No. 19.
264. Please refer to Responses to Comments 68 and 76,
Letter No. 19.
265. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
266. Comment noted.
267. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
268. Please refer to Response to Comment 115, Letter No.
25.
269. Please refer to Response to Comment 76, Letter No. 19.
270. A lengthy screening process to locate suitable sites for
treatment plants, subsurface disposal and storage lagoons
was undertaken by both the engineer and the
environmental consultants. Most of the sites were
eliminated because of inadequate size, poor soils, steep
slopes or sensitive habitats. There quite simply is not an
adequate site location nearer Neskowin which meets the
size and engineering criteria for storage lagoons other
than the Simpson Timber site. Please refer to Response
to Comment 148, Letter No. 39.
-------
choose to make our homes here.
I trust you will give full consideration to my concerns.
Yours sincerely.
Katherine F. Saunders
-------
74
^AWK CREEK 4JILLS
I NECKOWIN. OBI60N
November 1, 1990
To: Mr. Gerald Opatz
Mail Stop WD-136
EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Ave
Seattle, WA 98101
Dear Sir;
Following are some concerns that I have regarding the DEIS for the
planned sewer project by the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority:
1. During the development of the 1987 project (no mention in the DEIS)
There was alot of discussion in a public hearing about the reason
for determination of the portion of the project that was to receive
EPA grant funds.
The statements then and since emphatically stated that only the area
causing the pollution was eligible. Is this true?
If in fact this statement is true, why has the system that serves 6
major commercial customers and a small group of residences (all of
whom are sitting on filled ground to try and set them above floods
that have occurred a number of times in the last 70 years) being
funded? There is no evidence that this system is contributing to the
pollution of Hawk Creek or Neskowin.Creek.
2. There are 1200 tax lots in the NRSA. The Phase 1 portion is 425
units plus 100 extra that are supposedly addressing the needs of the
community for the next 20 years. According to the statements in the DEIS,
the extra capacity is spread over the entire district to control the
community growth. What was left out of the DEIS was the ordinance that
controls the hookups. The ultimate result will be that only Proposal
Rock subdivision, Neskowin Heights, and vacant lots in the core area
will ever be served. Is it the policy of EPA to control growth?
3. There is a lot of discussion about asewer project creating a boom
in growth to let some of the zones already approved after a great deal
of public input to double the living units and increase population.
It appears, from all the space given, that the public agencies are
concerned. Is this correct?
No mention was made that Neskowin is in the center of a public owned
beach and a major public parking area with major public toilet facilities
that are serving at least 10,000 non-local tax paying visitors each year
and increasing in numbers eacn year. It seems that denying tax paying
property owners the right to use their property is completely unfair.
A. It was my understanding that EPA requires the District to come up
with a 20 year plan. Is this correct?
The 20 year plan mentioned is completlely unreal and impossible. Why
did not the DEIS mention that the bonding capability is just over
$5,000,000.' The pbn mentioned is impossible to attain and this is what
the " public interest minority" is looking for.
271
272
273
271. The area served by the existing collection and treatmen
system will be included in Phase 1 of the project. Th<
existing treatment facility is periodically in violation o
its permit and is in need of upgrading. Consolidatinj
the existing system with the new system which will serv(
the core area is appropriate. No improvements to th(
existing collection system will be required. Please refei
to Response to Comment 77, Letter No. 19.
272. EPA did not determine the allocation of the 100
"equivalent dwelling units"; this determination was made
by the NRSA (see Appendix E of the DEIS). The 100
EDUs are not expected to be utilized in the short term.
Phase 2 of the project is to serve the 20 year planning
period. Please refer to Response to Comment 115,
Letter No. 25 and Response to Comment 63, Letter No.
19.
273. During the EIS scoping process, community grow
impacts were cited as a major public concern, therefoi
the EIS discusses this subject in some detail. Plea
refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
274. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 1
and Response to Comment 67, Letter No. 19.
275
-------
275. EPA requires planning for a 20-year period. Phase 1
will respond to documented existing need, primarily in
the core area. The discussion of Phase 2 presents
alternatives which are feasible from an engineering and
environmental point of view; it does not presuppose that
it will be constructed. The timing of the need for Phase
2 will be dictated by land use and zoning constraints; if
growth does not occur as predicted, the time for
implementation of Phase 2 will be prolonged. Please
refer to Response to Comment 413.
-------
5. There appears to be some doubt that the firm hired to do the
study spent much time at Neskowin. There are many statements that
are repeats of errors made in previous studies. Where is pacific
Sands Golf Course? Where is Hawk Crest? (Repeated at the public
hearing by HGE engineer) How much time has HGE spent in Neskcvin
for the $250,000 they have been paid to date? Why vas the statement
made that the tree farm on the Simpson property was an abandoned
Christmas tree planting? This is a going Douglas Fir tree planting
that HGE propses to rip up to store the dangerous sewage effluent
for 6 months and then dump it into Neskowin Creek in the winter.
It seems inconceivable to me that pumping sewage for 3.5 miles to
a new plant is cost effective when the District already has a site
nearer to the source.
6. There two other options that have received little or no attention
a. The wetlands north of Neskowin Beach Golf course. This was the
number 1 site proposed in the 1981 study. Millions of oal'.ons
per day are treated in wetlands by Disney World in Florida every-
day. Why wasn't this given more study?
b. The Nestucca River eas not mentioned as a disposal site. Why not?
If the plan proposed is used. North Neskowin seuage will travel
6 miles for disposal. The Nestucca River is 4 miles away and
system could include Winema church sewage and Horizon Hills that
are both having problems.
7. One could go on and on about this project and it appears that more
thought should be given to putting together a sound affordable project
for the community.
A great help would be rendered to the general public if the agencies
would expain in simple, understandable words that it is possible
to produce high quality sewage effluent that is utilized for good use
all over the world. Why was there no mention of Ozone final treatment?
Sincerely yours,
H.R. Schlicting '
PO BOX 817
Neskowin, OR 97149
276 The Pacific Sand Golf Course (pg D-7) was a reference
275 to sampling sites of DEQ when they took a number of
water quality samples along Meadow and Hawk Creeks.
Hawk Crest (pg 2-2) should read Hawk Creek Hills.
277 277. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No. 1;
Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10; Response to
Comment 85, Letter No. 19; Response to Comment 148,
Letter No. 22 and Response to Comment 299, Letter
278 No-78'
279
280
278. The wetland disposal option was considered in the FEIS.
It was noted that the "use of existing wetlands is limited
to polishing secondary effluent because water quality
standards must be met near the point of discharge to the
wetland (EPA 1987)." Treatment of wastewater may be
accomplished in wetlands constructed for that purpose;
treatment of wastewater in existing wetlands is possible
only when no other practicable alternative exists. This
option was dismissed from further consideration in the
facilities plans.
-------
279. The option of discharge to Nestucca River was evaluated
briefly by the engineering consultant; it was determined
to be not feasible.
280. Ozone final treatment is an effective disinfection agent.
It is, however, expensive to install and operate and
requires considerable maintenance.
-------
75
From: Theodore Schllctlng
PO Box 765
Neskowin, OR 97149
October 23, 1990
To Gerald Opatz (Mail Stop WD-136)
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA98I01
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
Neskowin Regional Sannary Authority (NRSA)
The following Is submitted to the EPA as public response to the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for wastewater facilities proposed by
the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority.
Although I have followed the activities of the NRSA during the last
several years and have participated In the facilities planning process, I
find the DEIS very difficult to understand. Some of the questions raised
by the DEIS are listed below. Hopefully, the EPA will address these
questlons^tthe upcoming public meetingsan October 27 and 28.
l. What where the specif 1c factors leading to the determination by
the EPA that the NRSA's proposed project had the potential to cause
significant environmental Impacts?
This Is an important question because it addresses the NRSA's ability
to plan an environmentally safe project. The critical point here Involves
the fact that the EPA's determination concerning potential impacts and ife
subsequent decision to prepare an EIS (December, 1988) came well after
the NRSA had already begun to Implement the 1988 revised Facilities Plan
Update by making significant expenditures to acquire the existing sewer
system. According to the public record, the NRSA's action to go ahead and
begin implementation of the project was based on the facts that "We now
have an approyabJe EPA Facilities Plan, and "We are virtually assured of
EPA construction money this fall" (pg 2, Progress Report, NRSA, January
21, 1988).
281 281. EPA made its decision to prepare an EIS based on
review of the draft environmental assessment in 1988.
EPA's major concerns were water- quality impacts
associated with potential summertime discharge to
Neskowin Creek and the public controversy associated
with the project. The project appeared to meet certain
of the criteria in 40 CFR 6.108 and 40 CFR 6.509. EPA
does not approve the facilities plan; that is the
responsibility of ODEQ. Facility plan approval cannot
occur prior to completion of the NEPA process. EPA
cannot comment on the basis of actions or statements
made by NRSA.
-------
Not only did the EPA not approve the revised Facilities Plan Update, It
determined that implementation of .the plan had the potential to cause
significant environmental Impact. The EPA must make some effort to
explain the discrepancy. What specifically was the concern with the plan?
Why did the NRSA appear to be unaware of this concern when It committed
tax-payer money to acquire facilities which (the public was told) would
be an integral part of the new system?
2. What was the preferred system development alternative formulated
by the EPA during its preparation of the EIS?
At the scoping meeting held on January 27, 1989, It was explained that
in addition to evaluating the NRSA's proposed facilities plan, the EPA
would investigate other possible alternatives and would make a
recommendation to the NRSA based upon Its findings. It Is my
understanding that earlier this year the EPA did present Its
recommendation to the NRSA board of commissioners at a meeting which
was closed to the public. Why the secrecy? Why doesn't the DEIS discuss
the recommendation?
3. What Is the public policy significance of the various revisions to
the Facilities Plan Update which have been made in recent years?.
The DEIS repeatedly refers to a 1988 version of the Facilities Plan
Update but does not explain how this plan—one of many that have been
proposed—relates to the overall planning process or to the statutory
requirements concerning the development of construction plans for
sanitary authorities. A Wastewater Facilities Plan prepared by Century
West Engineers In 1981 was updated by HGE, Inc. and published by the
NRSA In 1987, not 1988. It was this 1987 plan which was presented to '
the public at a hearing on April 25, 1987 and which was subsequently
adopted by the NRSA via the formal process of passing an ordinance (No.
87-2). This ordinance specif les a.) the methods of wastewater
collection, treatment, and effluent disposal to be used, b.) the area to be
served by the project, c.) the funding sources for the project, and d.)
confirmatlon,of-DEQ approval of the plans and specifications for the
project.
282 282' EPA did not sPec'fy a preferred alternative in the draft
EIS. An EPA preferred alternative has been identified
in the final EIS, based on further review of issues and
public comment received on the draft EIS. Many
different alternatives were evaluated in the draft EIS.
EPA staff met several times with the NRSA Board
during development of the draft EIS. The NRSA would
need to address whether these meetings were open or
closed to the public.
283
283. The facility planning process, in the case of Neskowin,
includes various documents prepared by the NRSA's
engineering consultant, supplemented by the EIS. The
facility planning process ultimately requires ODEQ
approval prior to award of a construction grant. This
approval cannot occur prior to completion of the NEPA
process, therefore the comment that ODEQ approved
the 1987 facility plan is in error. EPA, through the
i NEPA process, does not oversee the procedures used by
the NRSA to raise its share of the funding. We cannot,
therefore, comment on the relationship of the 1987
facility plan to the general obligation bond election. The
language in the final EIS regarding land use
compatibility has been changed.
-------
Formal adoption and DEO approval of the 1987 Facilities Plan Update In
turn became the procedural basts for a general obligation bond election
held on June 30, 1987. Those of us who participated In these public policy
procedures were led to believe that they had some significance and
meaning. It is rather disconcerting to find that the EPA does not consider
them Important enough to mention In the DEIS's review of project planning
history. In addition, the discussion of "Legal, Policy and Regulatory
Constraints" which begins on page I -A of the DEIS mentions neither
Ordinance 87-2 nor the Oregon statutes specifying planning criteria and
the requirements for raising funds through the sale of general.obllgatlon
and revenue bonds.
The failure of the DEIS to make a distinction between the 1987
Facilities Plan Update and subsequent plans leads to outright errors In Its
analysis of development alternatives. For example. In discussing land use
implications of various effluent disposal alteratives on page 4-22, the
DEIS states that In August .1987 Tlllamook County certified the 1988 plan
as conforming to the county's comprehensive plan. This Is not only wrong
(as should be obvious by the Incompatible dates), It also misrepresents (In
a direct quote) the Tlllamook County Board of Commissioners. The error Is
compounded by stating that the Land Use .Compatibility. Statement applies
to Alternate 3. This effluent disposal alternative was not recommended
in the 1987 Facilities Plan Update and was not addressed by the'cbu'nty In
its land use review.
4. Why does the DEIS fall to explain that the existing sewer system
was purchased by the NRSA In 1988, pursuant to the Facilities Plan
Update?
On page S-1 and again on page I -3, the existing sewer system at '
Neskowin is described as "privately owned." In table 2-7, acquisition of
existing facilities is listed along with other components of a proposed
project. In order for the public to cogently participate In the planning
process, It is Important to make clear the fact that the NRSA is already
engaged in operating a public sewer system, which means that it Is
engaged in extending public benefits to certain private properties. The
DEIS does nothing to clarify the planning implications of this situation.
284 284. The final EIS has been corrected to show that the
NKSA has acquired the existing sewer system. The costs
ot acquiring the existing system are included in Table 2-7
to show that these costs are not grant eligible. EPA,
through the NEPA process, does not oversee how the
NRSA manages its local finances. We cannot comment
therefore, on how much of the $800,000 bond issue has*
already been committed.
-------
For example, how much of the $800,000 bond Issue money listed In
table 2-6 Is actually available for new facilities construction, and how
much will be required to pay back bank loans which the NRSA has already
spent In planning, acquiring and operating treatment and disposal
facilities which are not a part of an approved facilities plan?
5. in what sense Is the NRSA's current proposal an "addendum" to the
Facilities Plan Update?
As explained In the DEIS, the NRSA's latest facilities plan Involves new
treatment and disposal methods located at a new site several miles
outside of the NRSA boundaries, abandonment of facilities which the NRSA
had previously planned to use (and which have already been purchased),
abandonment of the concept of expanding the facilities to serve future
needs, and new funding arrangements (Including a $ 1,000,000 revenue bond
which has yet to be referred to NRSA voters and approved). This Is an
"addendum?" The NRSA may be hoping to circumvent the public policy
procedures associated with abandoning an old plan and adopting a new one,
but there Is no reason why the EPA should make Itself a party to these
efforts by promoting the use of Inaccurate and misleading terminology.
6. What is the significance of dividing public sewer development at
Neskow in. Into two "phases?" ' •
In the absence of some sort of explanatory context, the division of the
Neskowin community Into two geographical areas as described on page 2-2
of the DEIS seems rather arbitrary. What Is the rationale for deciding
what properties will be served by the proposed project and which will be
excluded? The NRSA has adopted an ordinance (No. 88-2) under which a
commercial development consisting of more than six "equivalent dwelling
units" (such as a hotel, bed-and-breakfast, etc) will not be allowed to
access available system capacity If the development Is not a "phase I
customer." The EPA needs to explain how the public's environmental
interests are served by providing grant money to Implement a plan which
excludes new development from the available capacity of a public system,
forcing the proliferation of many small private systems.
285 285. The facilities planning process includes planning done by
the NRSA's engineering consultant and by EPA through
the NEPA process. Through the EIS process, there has
been considerable opportunity for public input into
determining the remedies for Neskowin's sewage
problems. EPA cannot comment on the local funding
arrangements; these must be handled in accordance with
state law.
286 286. The NRSA has been determined to have an immediate
need for sewerage service, referred to as Phase I.
Longer term need, depending on the timing of
development and population growth, is referred to as
Phase II. Phase I boundaries have been identified by
the NRSA through the facility planning process. EPA
will only be participating in eligible portions of the
Phase I project. EPA will not participate in funding the
excess capacity addressed by Ordinance 88-2, therefore
we cannot comment on how that excess capacity will be
allocated. The allocation of excess capacity is a local
issue. The draft EIS did not advocate a system
incapable of serving wastewater disposal needs. It stated
that reducing the scope of the sewerage project could
reduce socioeconomic impacts. Please also refer to
Response to Comment 272, Letter No. 74.
-------
The DElS's explanation of how available capacity ts to be "equitably"
allocated among several different areas Is unintelligible. If a given
property Is denied access to available capacity, does the fact that a
certain number of other properties In the "area" have been granted hookups
somehow Justify the denial of access? The NRSA either has the Intention
to provide service to all properties that are bearing the cost of the
project, or else It does not have this Intention. The question of "equitable
allocation" only arises In the latter case. If the NRSA Is preparing to
implement (with EPA grant assistance) a plan which does not Include
specific provisions detailing how the treated effluent from "phase II"
customers Is to be disposed and how the disposal facilities are to be
funded (as required by Oregon planning statutes), then unfairness Is a built
In feature of the plan.
if the EiS is going to talk about "phases" It needs to supply some
background explanation to avoid confusion. The 1987 Facilities Plan
Update (adopted by Ordinance 87-2) describes a three-phased project.
Since then; the use of the term "phases" has come to mean different.things
in different contexts. For example, In Ordinance 88-2 "phase-l customer"
Is defined in such a way which excludes some properties In the "core
area." And even though the ordinance gives service priority to "phase I
customers," the NRSA has already been selling capacity to non-phase I
customers even though It has yet to complete arVaprroved facilities plan
and hence does not know what capacity new facilities will provide or even
If such facilities will in fact be constructed.
if nothing else, the EIS needs to present a basic analysis of the
community's sewer needs without making unexplained assumptions about
"phases." Where are the areas and situations where new development Is
likely to occur because a utility Infrastructure Is already In place, the »
property is zoned for development, and specific plans exist for that
development? What are the environmental Implications of excluding such
areas from a community sewer system? What Is the potential for new
commercial development? How might capital participation of such
projects in a public sewer system benefit the long-range environmental
integrity of the community? The DEIS rather crudely lumps all new
development, reg'ardless of where or how It occurs, Into one category and
-------
discusses ft soley in terms of an 'environmental Impact." The DEIS
actually suggests that the "Impact" of new growth can be "mitigated" If
the NRSA were to deliberately restrict the capacity of the facilities It
constructs (page 5-3)1 To advocate a system which Is Intentionally
designed to be Incapable of serving the wastewater disposal needs of a
community seems rather irresponsible and deserves a little better
explanation than the one provided in the DEIS.
7. Did preparation of the DEIS Involve on-slte research?
Where is the "Pacific Sands Golf Course" (pg. D-7)? What does "Hawk
Crest" refer to (pg 2-2)7 Why is the Hawk Creek treatment plan site
indentlf led as "RR" zoned property (pg. 3-39)7 Where Is the "emergent
wetlands" on this property (pg. 3-24)7 Why .Is land use In the Hawk Creek
valley described by saying "Farming and ranching Is not as prevalent" [as
compared to the Neskowln Creek valley] (pg. 3-7)7
The DEIS appears to be primarily a second-hand recapitulation-of. '
previously developed material compiled with little regard for accurate,
relevant analysis.
8. What responsibility does the Neskowln community bear for solving
the environmental pollution problems caused by substandard septic
systems? \
The DEIS briefly mentions and then dismisses the 1981 Facilities Plan
by saying that federal grant money was not available at that time. Is such
grant participation a prerequisite for construction of sewer facilities at
Neskowln? What is the current status of the so-called "emergency health
hazard" which was invoked by the NRSA In Its efforts to pass the 1987 ,
bonding authority? What responsibility does the Neskowln community
bear with regard to the health hazards of polluted public resources?
Thank you for consideration of these Issues.
Theodore Schllcting
2S8
287. The preparation of the EIS included on-site research.
The Pacific Sand Golf Course (pg D-7) was a reference
to sampling sites of DEQ when they took a number of
water quality samples along Meadow and Hawk Creeks.
Hawk Crest (pg 2-2) should read Hawk Creek Hills.
The RR zoning designation of the property for the Hawk
Creek treatment plant site (pg 3-39) was taken from the
Tillamook County zoning map. The "emergent wetlands"
identified on the Hawk Creek site are located between
an historic fill and Highway 101. The statement on page
3-7 regarding fanning and ranching in Hawk Creek
- valley has been edited to read "Farming and ranching is
somewhat restricted in the Hawk Creek Valley."
288. The NRSA, and individual property owners within the
NRSA, are responsible for complying with various
federal, state, and local pollution control laws. The lack
of availability of grant funding does not relieve the
NRSA or individual property owners from complying
with applicable laws. We assume the reference to
"emergency" relates to language in Ordinance 2-87. We
cannot comment on the meaning or status of that term
since it seems to be specific to wording in the NRSA
ordinance.
-------
76
October 31, 1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz
Environmental Protection Agency Regional Office
1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop WD-136
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Opatz:
Please send me a crpy cf the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
concerning the Keskowin Regional Sanitary Authority Wastewater
Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities.
Please also send a copy of the transcript of the hearings held at
Neskouln, Oregon, on October 27 and 28, 1990.
. Since 1 have not yet had an opportunity to review the DEIS, I cannot
comment on the various proposed alternatives. I was present at the
hearing on October 27 and an writing now because of the response date
of November 5.
However, I will state ny opposition to the dumping of effluent into
Neskowln Creek. I will also resist efforts to shift the burden of
disposal to the Slab Creek area.
Thank you for coming to Neskowin.
Sincerely yours,
289 289. Comment noted.
(Mr
_ _ , <
s.) Shirley
/U i •« ~
y Schwartz
Civil Servant (U. S. Department cf Veterans Affairs) for 26 years
fifth Generation Oregonian
Property owner en Slab Creek Road since 1982
Post Office Box 778
Neskowln, Oregon 97LC9
-------
77
October 6.1990
Mr. Gerald Opatz
E!S Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
1 200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101
! have reviewed the draft ElS.
A sewer system sn Neskowin is nonsense. It will benefit only a few for
financial gain and nave a negative impact on so many. Costs and the
damage to the environment ooth culturally and physically are not
acceptable
identify and correct the few that are contaminating and then abandon the
idea of a sewer system for the good of Neskowin's future.
Sincerely.
290 290. Comment noted.
Becky VViesa Seeley
•iC28 N. Ccionisl Av.
Portland. Oreaon 97257
-------
78
Comments from Alex Sifford
EPA DEIS 910/9-90-021
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
Wastewater Collection, Treatment I Disp6sal Facilities
October 31, 1990
SUMMARY
The DEIS describes impacts from 9 select sewer alternatives, eight
of which are the same in size. Meeting the goal of the sewer
should be clearly stated at the beginning of the document and tied
to proposed alternatives throughout: to solve a water pollution
(and potential health) problem.
Alternatives presented in the DEIS are all the same in size with
one exception: the No Action Alternative. I urge the EPA to
choose a new smaller system - Alternative 10 as proposed by the
Friends of Neskowin - as the Preferred Alternative. A new
alternative sewer system using the same collection design and
upgrading and expanding the existing treatment system makes much
more sense and should be chosen. The reasons for that suggestion
are below.
Further, I urge the EPA to acknowledge that under no circumstances
should a Phase Two system of any kind be included in this project.
Goals of both the EPA and this project will be met by building a
properly sized Phase One project. Any capacity available
(from marginally increasing project size over the minimum
necessary to solve the existing problem) ia reserve and
not excess. All capacity beyond existing customers should be
clearly defined as reserved for core area lots currently not
developable. NRSA Ordinance 2-88 may be amended to reserve
capacity for the core area as a condition of the EPA grant. I
urge this specific condition to the grant. No other plant
capacity is needed, save for a modest contingency. Solving a
pollution problem and concentiating excess/reserve capacity use to
the problem area (highest density lots) furthers county land use
planning goals by concentrating future development, and is good
•common sense for operating the sewer plant efficiently. For this
reason, any discussion regarding a Phase Two of any kind should be
eliminated from further discussion and analysis.
The growth inducing effects of even Phase One will be severe -
over 10 percent growth from filling in the core area using the
numbers on p.4-22 - but acceptable. The growth inducing effects
of Phase Two are unacceptable and may violate federal law. A new
alternative Phase One sewer system will solve the problem the
proposed sewer project is intended to do.
291 291. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No. 1
and Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10.
292 292. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
293. A number of comments were received which recognized
293 the need for sewering of the core area but were opposed
to the implementation of Phase 2. Please refer to
Response to Comment 115, Letter No. 25.
294 294. Please refer to Response to Comment 77, Letter No. 19.
295 295. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
The comments below are organized by DEIS chapter number.
-------
Sifford DEIS Comments
page 2
Chapter 1
The Introduction states (p. 1-1) "septic tanks with seepage pits
and cesspools are the predominant means of individual wastewater
disposal in the area*. Population and dwelling unit ratios used
further in the report indicate that about 418 homes or condos
exist in the core area. Can the DEIS not provide more detail
supporting this statement? Is there data - even subjective NRSA
or water district employee observations - indicating specific
disposal conditions for each residence? There certainly is for
customers of the existing system. Surely the NRSA knows which
core area residences are in the worst shape. Those homeowners
with obviously deficient systems should bear pollution testing
costs if necessary. Tracer tests for suspected leaking systems
have been proposed at previous public meetings as one means of
pinpointing problems. The basis for building a sewer in the first
place is due to inadequate septic systems: after a decade of
study, the problem should be presented in substantial detail.
(The water quality discussion on pp. 3-11 to 3-16 reinforces the
geographically limited testing: no core area samples appear to
have been taken. Yet p.3-12 states that fecal counts have been
highest along lower Hawk Creek )
Chapter 2
The discussion of treatment alternatives p.2-9 points out that DEQ
feels the existing plant is at the end of it's useful life. It
would appear that unless such depreciation was not apparent to
NRSA at the time of purchase, buying that plant was not a prudent
thing to do. This seems to be is confirmed by the recommendation
in all but one alternative to abandon the existing plant. But
given the current use of the plant, let's fix it up and use it.
This is only common sense given serious land constraints in
Neskowin.
The proximity of the existing plant argues strongly for
rehabilitation and minor expansion sufficient to address suspected
core area sewage problems. Equally important is the existing
plant site is consistent with the Tillamook County Comprehensive
Plan and policies (p.4-15). Other sites would require the County
to amend its Plan and certify a new site.
The sludge disposal discussion is weak. Page 2-10 notes likely
increases in plant sludge disposal operating costs, yet no
estimates are broken out for the reader in the User Cost analysis.
Please list likely disposal sites and hauling costs. An
alternative sludge disposal system is used by the Redwood Sanitary
Sewer District in Grants Pass, Oregon and should be proposed here.
That system was awarded EPA's Sewer Sludge Management Excellence
Award. Savings to NRSA residents from using a similar system
could be substantial.
296 296. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14
and Response to Comment 81, Letter No. 19.
297
297. The discussion of sludge and septage management has
been strengthened in Chapter 2 of the FEIS.
-------
Sifford DEIS Comments
page 3
The disinfectation alternatives discussion sums up the only
alternative to choose: "Chlorination provides a much more proven
and reliable system for disinfectation.* For this reason,
whichever alternative is chosen should use Chlorination with
dechlorinization before discharge to any surface waters. Final
discharge levels should of course meet both DEQ and Fish I
Wildlife agency requirements.
It is better to downsize the system if capital costs increase as a
result, and do the job right. It is irresponsible to choose a
larger, cheaper, less reliable system that requires more
maintenance. Reduce the capacity and use a
chlorination/dechlorinization treatment alternative that results
in little or no impact on fisheries.
On page 2-13 the Hawk Creek site is dismissed due to "high
construction costs". It is unclear why such costs would-be high.
Further on the same page, the Simpson Timber site is described
briefly. Information presented shows that the site is 2 miles
from the core area and that piping to it will cost $150,000.
Common sense dictates the NRSA must first optimize use of the
current plant site and closest available land regardless of size.
This will also avoid new site purchase costs and piping costs.
Such savings could therefore be available for better plant
treatment uses.
Again "high costs" attributed to another closer disposal site are
not explained. Is it high land purchase costs that lead to the
dimissal of both the Hawk Creek and Pasture 2 sites?. It appears
so, but please clarify.
The User Costs discussion on page 2-26 does not adequately include
homeowner solid waste disposal costs. For the homeowner, this
means pumping their septic tank "every five to seven years" (p. 2-
10). Such pumping cost will be borne by the homeowner/NRSA
customer, and should be estimated in this section..
The User Fee Analysis (Table 2-6 on page 2-28) uses low average
home costs. Many of us feel the lou cost for homes in the area is
$40,000. The average will be significantly higher, so perhaps
using $60-80,000 is a conservative approach yielding more accurate
cost estimates.
Note: The Phase 2 map on page 2-7 indicates service to Kiawanda
Beach. That land is an active foredune, and therefore subject to
overlay zoning. It seems the NRSA is either encouraging
development there or is unfamiliar with Tillamook County and
statewide planning guidleines for such areas. Regardless, that
land will likely not be developable. Again this argues for EPA t
NRSA to focus on an acceptable Phase 1 system.
298
299
300
301
298. Please refer to Response to Comment 45, Letter No. 17;
Response to Comment 53, Letter No. 17: Responses to
Comments 74 and 75, Letter No. 19; and Response to
Comment 84, Letter No. 19.
299. The engineering consultant reviewed, evaluated and
screened a wide variety of alternatives for collection,
treatment, and disposal. The review of these
alternatives included a cost element, a portion of which
included land costs, and cost of construction (i. e. would
construction on piling be required). The environmental
review process examined the alternatives remaining after
consideration of technical feasibility, constructability,
initial engineering and cost had reduced the number of
alternatives to those which appeared to be most practical
and, initially, the most environmentally sound.
The EPA preferred alternative recommends construction
of a contact stabilization/extended aeration treatment
plant at the existing plant site. Lack of sufficient
acreage at the existing plant site to accommodate the
holding lagoon necessitated construction of the holding
lagoon at some other site. Please refer to Response to
Comment 148, Letter No. 39.
302 300. Please refer to Response to Comment 79, Letter No. 19.
-------
301. Please refer to Response to Comment 114, Letter No.
25.
302. Comment noted.
-------
Sifford DEIS Comments
page 4
Much of the discussion in this chapter is area description. When
real sewage discussion occurs, this is revealed: "The extent to
which construction of the proposed treatment plant would alleviate
the contamination is unknown". The remaining question is
therefore why go ahead with alternatives addressing any areas
other than the core ie., problem area? Why not instead choose a
smaller alternative that upgrades the exisitng system and focuses
on the core area.
projections discuss how "growth in the core area is
vacant lots sized too small for individual wastewater
systems and lack of alternative wastewater treatment
. This supports the premise of most Neskowin
the purported goal of the NRSA and this sewer project:
pollution problem and use reserve capacity to allow the
to fill up with houses. Other areas in Neskowin will
state-of-the-art individual wastewater treatment
will not be built. Period. It is pyplicitly not the
Population
limited by
treatment
facilities
residents,
to solve a
urban area
either use
systems or
responsibility of the NRSA nor of this project to provide seweraye
for future growth. The goal Is to solve a pollution problem.
Chapter 4
Land use impacts under the No Action Alternative state that the
"impacts on the pace of development could occur" (page 4-3) if no
action takes place. A new Alternative 10 would maintain those
impacts at a minimum level. The NRSA and the EPA should remind
themselves that this project is not proposed to affect the pace of
development in this community. It is only to solve a problem.
Page 4-16 notes that a significant impact of any alternative using
the Simpson Timber site is an expansion of the Community Growth
Boundary and NRSA boundary. This contradicts County Policy of
concentrating urban areas to provide efficient services, leaving
remaining lands in productive farm and forest uses. Vic Affolter
of Tillamook County confirmed the core area's high density to EPA
with a lot size map at the public meeting October 27, 1990.
The new water supply system will cost Neskowin residents dearly -
on top of already high water rates -as a result of Phase 2. The
growth inducing impacts of this project are enormous - if Phase 2
were ever to occur. A trimmed down Phase 1 system is acceptable
to most Neskowin citizens and supportable by the existing water
system. This alternative is proposed in detail in comments
provided by the group Friends of Neskowin.
Accomodating any anticipated future growth is not the goal of this
project. Yet on page 4-22 the project as a whole is described as
growth inducing. This is unacceptable and may violate the Clean
Water Act.
303
304
305
303. Please refer to Response to Comment 68, Letter No. 19,
and the first paragraph of Response to Comment 33,
Letter No. 14.
304. Please refer to Response to Comment 63, Letter No. 19.
305. The draft EIS was in error regarding expansion of
NRSA and community growth boundaries. The text in
the final EIS has been corrected.
306. We assume the comment relates to the cost of the new
sewer system. Please refer to Response to Comment 63,
Letter No. 19. Phase 2 will only be constructed when
the capacity of the existing plant is reached and if the
Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations allow for growth
as projected in the EIS; if or when this growth occurs,
the costs will certainly be borne by more than the
existing population.
307. There may be a potential for growth inducement as part
3Q6 of Phase 2. However, as pointed out above, the Land
Use and Zoning Regulations dictate how and where this
growth might occur. EPA is providing funding for the
existing Phase 1 proposal. Please refer to Response to
307 Comment 63 and 77, Letter No. 19.
-------
Siffond DEIS Comments
page 5
The Phase 1 population impact "is not significant" page 4-23. To
quantify this impact, it is 46 core area dwelling units to be
added to 425 existing units for an increase of 10.8 percent. That
la. significant.
pnnri.ii.STnM
I urge the EPA to choose a new smaller system as the Preferred
Alternative. One example of such an Alternative 10 is proposed by
the Friends of Neskowin, but any similar alternative will solve
the problem. The optimal alternative will:'
> upgrade and optimize the existing plant;
> use any elosg available land regardless of size; and
> address the core area problem only.
Such a new alternative sewer system using the same collection
design and upgrading and expanding the existing system makes much
more sense and should be chosen.
Further, I urge the EPA to acknowledge that under no circumstances
should a Phase Two system of any kind be included in this project.
Goals of both the EPA and this project will be met by building a
properly sized Phase One project.
308
308. This 10.8 percent increase will occur over several years.
The rate of growth at which this increase will occur is
dependent upon a numbej of land use decisions and
economic considerations. s
309
309. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
310
310. Please refer to Response to Comment 115, Letter No.
25.
-------
79
^/-/^^w^
^v-W^
311 311. Comment noted.
-------
80
CHARLES J. STRADER
ATTOMNCVAriAW
Smtl401
THI Rivf ft Fonuu II
4M« S^W MACAOAII An NUI
Pomuwai OMOOH 97201
(90S U3-2U1
/j^^^^L
312 312. Comment noted.
-------
81
Hargot ana George Thompson
2529 N w Nortnrup Street
Port land,0regon,97210
Margot and George Thompson
Box'e-46
Neskowm,0regon 97149
Dear Mr. Opatz.
Novemeber 3,1990
Thank you for coming to Neskowln to hear the concerns of our
community regarding the EIS and the proposed sewer plans for the
Neskowin area. This letter Is to be Included in the public record of the
EiS and represents the questions and issues which the draft EIS raised
upon us publication. Your attention to the Issues prior to the publication
of your recommendation and the final EIS will be appreciated.
The following is a list that touches upon a number of points
raised by the process that has Involved the community in resolving the
problem of effluent disposal and public health:
i we do not fee! a competent effort was made to develop an
appropriate sewer proposal scaled to repair existing problems
in HesKowm. The EiS is a source of public controversy because
the different constituents in the debate from the local,county
ana state level believe the outcome will necessarily affect the
quality of life in Neskowln. We feel the debate should focus
on repairing the existing health problems and not on the use of a
sewer proposal as a way to envision development for the Neskowin
Area Confusion over the goals of the proposals under review is
contained In the language of the EIS PHASE *l may or may not
fix the health problems from waste water PHASE*; will not
.' serve me core area adequately PHASE "2 would waste the
financial and environmental resources of the community Pleas?
refer to the letter submitted as part of the public recora by the
Friend? of Neskowln on October 27 and 28,1990
313
313. Please refer to Response to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
314
314. Please refer to Responses to Comments 61 through 88
Letter No. 19.
-------
2. We do not feel the draft EI5 contains enough new data about stream
f lows.water temperatures, and fish populations In the Neskowtn
Creek.There \s not enough accurate and new Information provided by
the ElS to make a sound decision possible. The proposals which
have been devloped for our area miss the mark.leavlng huge areas
of concern (human health and the ecology of the area) hanging In the
balance.
3. The Tillamook County planning department has consistently articulated
mixed messages with regard to the proposed sewer plans.
Mr. Affolter has contradicted himself on numerous occasions when
speaking as a professional public employee. The arguments
which he presents to the community vary from one
hearing.newspaper arttcle.conversation and meeting to another.
This inconsistent posture has been accompanied by maps
inconsistent with the areas under discussion in the proposals.
How can any of the people Involved In this decision make a
judicious resolution to the problem of wastewater in Neskowln
without clear.thoughtful and responsibly gathered data ?
Mr. Affolter is defensive when substantive questions are asked
to which he has been unable to adequately respond Rather than
taking the time to address the legitimate concerns of registered
voters in the affected areas, he subverts the public discussion of
the issues by stating that the public doesn't understand the
process thereby belittling its citizens. Mr. Affolter takes a
variety of stands. He has not presented unbiased information for
our review we feel Mr Affolter and the Tillamook County
Planning Department have seen the proposed sewer systems and
me accompanying construction budgets as an indirect opportunity
to cirect future development of the Mesfcowin area We fee! the
posture of the Tillamoot, County Planning Department has
suoverted trie ongma! goal of fixing a puDiic nealtn proc-lem ;n
NesKowm Mr Affolter nas used n;s profession^ position as
public planner to speak personally. We fee! this behaviour has had
an adverse effect upon the process.needlessly polarizing the
community and making the truth harder to find How will you
measure the effects of such behavior on this puolic process of
finding a good solution to a complex problem '' We feel the
315. Please refer to Response to Comment 66, Letter No. 19.
315
316
316. Please refer to Comment 31; Response to Comment 31,
Letter No. 14, and Response to Comment 61, Letter No.
19.
317
317. This comment is beyond the scope of this EIS.
-------
Neskowin property owneisneed to arrive at a consensus that fairly
weigns every aspect of the proposed systems from health to
ecology to cost.
4 We understand that there ts pressure to meet the construction
grant deadlines. However.we feel It Is fruitless to fund a proposal
simply because it has the ability to be funded. The proposal should
be funded on merit: the known potential of the considered proposal
to solve the public health problems of the Neskowln as
economically as possible. Why does it appear that the construction
grant money and its deadline are driving the discussions of
proposed systems for Neskowin ? It Is our opinion that the true
goal of finding a good economical system has been lost In the rush
to get money for a project. We feel the EIS Is inadequate on many
levels,but particularly in the areas of goals and Information
for sound decision making. We feel a sewer system Is worth
doing well since we will live with its effects after its
Installation. Do you think it is right to spend anybody's money
forjproject poor in concept and development ?
5. We appreciate the work you are doing and we will continue to
take a keen interest in your decisions and recommendations.
Please know that we support every effort In this public process
to find and articulate the truth prior to funding or recommending
any system. We feel there are alternative proposals that have
not oeen given serious consideration. Please help us find them.
Neskowin has a right to unique solutions.
6 We would appreciate your consideration of our concerns as
expressed in this letter, as reflected in our public comments
spoken into the hearing record on October 27 and 28,1990 and
as written in our letters to you throughout the process under
comment.
Mr Op3tr,we loov rorward to hearing from you If you have any
questions with regard to any of our statements please contact us,we
would enjoy speaking with you Thanks again for coming to our
community We await the final recommendation and revised EIS with
interest Your conclusions will directly .affect our community
we have been property owners in Neskowm since 1967. Before that
318
318. Please refer to Response to Comment 217, Letter No.
53; Response to Comment 354 and Response to
Comment 367.
319
319. Please refer to Response to Comment 133, Letter No.
31.
-------
our families had been taxpayers in Ttllamook County as well.
Thanks again for your interest and concern.
Sincerely,
Nekowln Property Owners.Iaxpayers &
o'-Founders of Neskowln Valley School
-------
82
BB. , »-Ui-Ui
Dvpi. at Environment*) Quality
NOV ? 1990
NORTHWEST RE'
rge T. Tutt
NC Barnes
Qresham, OR 97050
November 9, 1990
Ma. Judy Johdohl
Northwest Region DEO
eil SU 6th, lOth Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Dear Ms JohdohlI
My family has owned property in Neskowin for the past 20 years
and have enjoyed the beaches and the total environment. A number
of years ago there was a serious outbreak of illness caused by a
malfunctioning septic system. People were required to boil the
tap water before using. At that time it was determined to
install a sewage system to alleviate the problem and prevent
future more serious infectious outbreaks.
I wish to voice my support of the proposed sewage collection and
treatment system for Neskowin, Oregon. At the present tine a few
people with selfish interests are blocking the health and welfare
of an entire community. Should they be successful In the denial
of sanitary conditions? Should small children be admonished
every time they want a drink of water? Is this the Oregon we are
all proud of? I think not! Please act responsibly for the good
of the majority of the residents and visitors to this scenic
part of Oregon. Support the sewage treatment and collection
system of Neskowin.
Sincerely yours,
320 320. Comment noted.
321 321. Comment noted.
George T. Tutt
-------
83
October 6. 1990
rv'r. Gerald Opatz
EiS Project Officer
Environmental Evaluation Branch (W/D 136)
Environmental Protection Agency
15GO Six.ih Avenue
oeatiie. Wasnington 98101
10
i have revis-.vea cne craft EiS. ' am even more convinced that Neskowm
•joes ru: ^esri a sewage system. According to the EIS Neskcwin would.
•" 'act be ' »™T!«: by a sewage system.
Ar.v oiscr-a'-oe c* e'f-w'jnt I.-M \-eSKOv»n Creek is unacceptable. Have
iC^drei cesr- cjiiouctfec to show the effect of this dumping on plant and
a-iTi-ia- I'fe" Th?s ouesccn would nave to be answered beyond any ooubt
jjfct'S j'jnpsna ;cijlc occur
•a-" on a fixed income and ! nave an adequa^ septic tank system. I do
:ict -.vane the expense of a sewer system nor the hidden costs or
conariuaiiy increasing monthly payments.
• ttvrx the norr.ecwrers responsible for contaminating the creek snouid be
•cenrifiec arc corrections made.
•: is of -janost importance to keep Neskowm livable. I feel the sewer
svsserr wcuic contribute >n a negative \vay to Neskowin's future.
C. '.V:ese
?-3''raguc 5t
G^eoon 575 i 7
322 322. Comment noted.
323. Please refer to Response to Comment 5, Letter No. 1;
323 Response to Comment 17, Letter No. 10; Response to
Comment 32, Letter No. 14 and Response to Comment
76, Letter No. 19.
324 324. A number of studies have been conducted which
examined the impact of secondary treated effluent upon
stream biota. Some as listed in Response to Comment
76, Letter No. 19 investigated concentrations of effluent
20 times stronger than proposed as a minimum dilution
for this project and found no effect to salmonids.
-------
84
John R. S Janec J. Stahl
9780 Whiskey Ck.Rd.W.(Netarts)
Tlllamook, OR 97141
November 5, 1990
US Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sinth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Re: EIS
Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority
WW Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities
Gentlemen:
We are in favor of Sanitary Sewers at the above location.
It is nearing the end of 1990 and villages must accept the responsibility
of a clean environment. That responsibility does not stop at the metro
boundaires.
We also cannot understand why this process has taken so long years.
The funds have been available, the message has been clear from many
governmental agencies to name: Oregon Department Environmental Quality
and Tillanook County Health Departments. The need for sanitary disposal
goes on daily.
We ask your departments to respond quickly while funds are available
for this project.
325 325. Comment noted.
Sincerely
John Stahl
-------
85
3 ^ O
i \-
I • ' '-^-t- (~ i
I ^— _ i . t —_ V /
" "^-^ —
325 a 325a. Comment noted.
-------
x^'^V-
(Lv'^J},--"*-* H°~
7 • c
-(^ .-.I A-'V_ *_>U 0
-/ <
-------
Response to Public Testimony
-------
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Regarding the DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for the NESKOWIN REGIONAL SANITARY AUTHORITY WASTEWATER
COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES held
Saturday, October 27, 1990, and Sunday, October 28, 1990,
at the Neskowin Fire Hall, in the County of Tillamook,
State of Oregon.
Mr. Kenneth Brooks, Hearing Officer.
INDEX
Speakers
Page
Saturday. October 27. 1990;
Ken Brooks, Introductory Remarks 3
Gerald Opatz, EPA 6
Dan Fraser, FmHA 9
Kevin France, HGE Engineers 11
Richard Santner, DEQ 13
Vic Affolter, Tillamook County 15
John Anderson 26
Hal Schlicting 28
John Corliss 31
Jann Steelhanmer 33
Katharine Joyce 34
David Joyce 36
Margot Thompson 40
Alex Sifford 41
Hike Kowalski, NRSA 48
Lee Haga 50
Ted Schlicting 52
Les Fultz 53
Bryce Shumway 56
Sunday. October 28. 1990;
Ken Brooks, Introductory Remarks 59
Gerald Opatz, EPA 62
Dan Fraser, FmHA 66
Kevin France, HGE Engineers 68
Richard Santner, DEQ 70
Doug Marshall, Tillamook County 75
Margot Thompson 86
David Joyce 89
Katharine Joyce 91
Jann Steelhammer 94
Marnie Frank 95
Norm Sievertson, EPA 97
Lana Kowalski 99
Randall Koch 101
Nancy Schweiger 105
Marvin Greenbaum 107
Mike Kowalski, NRSA 109
Joyce Anderson no
Reporter's Certificate 112
Exhibits
-------
1 Ken Brooks: Good evening. I'd like to call this hearing to
2 order, please. My name is Ken Brooks. I'm the Assistant
3 Regional Administrator for EPA's Oregon Operations office. I'm
4 located in Portland, Oregon. I have been designated as the
5 hearing officer for this public hearing on our Draft
6 Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Neskowin sewage
7 system.
8 I want to welcome each of you to the hearing and thank you
9 for your interest in the EIS and the proposed project. For the
10 record, this hearing is being held on October 27, 1990,
11 beginning at 7:03 p.m. in Neskowin Fire Hall. This hearing is
12 to provide an opportunity for citizens, interest groups, and
13 public agencies to comment on the draft EIS. We will hold
14 another hearing tomorrow beginning at 2:00 p.m. in the same
15 place.
16 First, I'd like to mention a couple of housekeeping
17 items. We have sign-up cards at the entrance of the room, and
18 I'd like everybody who wishes to be on our mailing list to
19 please fill out a card. We are also asking you to fill out a
20 card if you wish to provide testimony this evening. That will
21 give me an idea of the number of speakers we'll have, so I can
22 assure everybody will have a turn at speaking this evening.
23 If we have a large number of speakers, I will call a short
24 recess around 9 o'clock. In the interest of time this evening,
25 I would ask that you limit redundant testimony. That is, if a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
previous speaker has made the same comments you wish to make,
you can just refer to the previous speaker's comments.
Making an opening statement this evening will be
Gerald Opatz of our regional office in Seattle. Mr. Opatz will
briefly discuss this EIS process and describe how EPA intends
to make a decision on the project. Dan Fraser of the Farmers
Home Administration will follow Mr. Opatz in describing his
office's role in the project.
During Mr. Opatz1 and Mr. Fraser's statements, I will be
arranging the order of those who wish to speak this evening. I
will be arranging the order of speakers in the following
manner: First, those individuals representing Federal, state,
or local agencies; second, those representing organizations;
and finally, individuals who wish to speak in their private
capacity.
You will note that we have a court reporter this evening
who will be making a transcript of the testimony. This
transcript will be available to anyone on request at no cost.
This transcript is important since your testimony this evening
will become part of the official record. When you are called
to speak, please first give your name and speak slowly and
loudly enough so our court reporter doesn't miss any of your
testimony.
The oral comments you provide this evening are just as
important as written comments you may send to us. Both written
-------
1 and oral comments will be fully considered and responded to in
2 our final EIS. Please also note that the public comment period
3 will run through November 5th. In other words, we will receive
4 written testimony through the 5th of November. So if you do
5 not wish to make an oral statement today or you wish to
6 supplement your oral testimony, you may send your comments to
7 the Seattle office as indicated in the EIS.
8 The last procedural issue I want to tell you about is that
9 there will be no cross-examination or questions of the speakers
10 this evening, nor will EPA be attempting to respond to your
11 questions other than on procedural, EIS, or grant-related
12 issues. He will not try to answer project-specific or policy
13 issues since EPA will not be developing a final position on
14 this project until after the close of the comment period and
15 our careful analysis of all comments have been completed.
16 We're here to listen to your concerns and comments this
17 evening. Please be assured that your comments will be
18 thoroughly analyzed and responded to in the final EIS.
19 I now would like to have Jerry Opatz make an introductory
20 comment. Could we please have all the sign-up cards brought to
21 the front of the room, and I'll arrange for the speakers.
22 Gerald Opatz; There's still a couple more chairs if we want to
23 try to work in and get a seat. There are two up here and looks
24 like a couple back there.
25 Unidentified Han: I'll stay — right here is fine.
1 Ken Brooksi Anybody •!»• who would like -- might want to speak
2 this evening? Okay. Jerry.
3 Gerald Opatz; Thank you. Ken. My name is Gerald Opatz, and
4 I'm chief of the Environmental Review Section of EPA's regional
5 office in Seattle. I'd like to give you a brief history of
6 EPA's involvement in this EIS process and describe to you the
7 steps remaining for completing the EIS.
8 In the fall of 1988, EPA was requested by the Department
9 of Environmental Quality to prepare an EIS on the proposal by
10 the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority to construct a sewage
11 collection and treatment facility. He evaluated the
12 information available at that time, fall of 1988, and agreed
13 that the project could have significant water quality and
14 socioeconomic impacts and agreed that it would be appropriate
15 to prepare an EIS to describe and evaluate those impacts.
16 The first step in preparing the EIS was to conduct
17 scoping. This is a process for determining the scope of issues
18 to be addressed in the EIS and for identifying significant
19 issues related to the proposed action. As a result of the
20 scoping process, a number of important issues were identified
21 for the EIS including effluent disposal methods, groundwater
22 contamination, public health risks associated with children
23 playing and swimming in Neskowin Creek, and the effect of the
24 sewage system on community growth and development.
25 A scoping meeting was held here in Neskowin in January of
-------
1 1989. After the close of the scoping process, EPA through its
2 contractor, Jones & Stokes, commenced pulling together the
3 information necessary to prepare the EIS; and we started
4 writing it at that time. That was January — shortly after
5 January of 1989.
6 The Farmers Home Administration subsequently requested to
7 be a cooperating agency with EPA since they, too, would be
8 providing funding; and Dan Fraser will speak on Farmers Hone
9 Administration involvement in a few minutes.
10 EPA had been working on the draft EIS from early 1989
11 through mid 1990, roughly a year and a half. And at the end of
12 that time period, we concluded that none of the effluent
13 disposal alternatives that we had studied to that time would be
14 acceptable.
15 We advised the Sanitary Authority of that fact and
16 indicated that the EIS process could not develop further
17 alternatives and that the authority, through its consultant,
18 would need to take the lead in developing other effluent
19 disposal alternatives; and I believe we indicated that to those
20 of you on our mailing list in -- I believe it was August. We
21 had a short fact sheet that went out describing that.
22 The Authority then took the lead on identifying subsequent
23 or additional effluent disposal alternatives and identified
24 what we have included as Effluent Disposal Alternatives 1 and 2
25 in the draft EIS. From these two alternatives, five
8
1 development options were identified and cost analyses are
2 presented for these five development options.
3 We have identified our so-called Option 5 as being the
4 most cost effective of those alternatives. Please note,
5 though, that EPA has not identified a preferred alternative in
6 this draft EIS. He will identify a preferred alternative in
7 the final EIS after evaluating all comments and any new
8 information which is presented through this public comment
9 process.
10 Where do we go from here with the EIS? First, as Ken
11 indicated, and let me restate that the public comment period
12 does remain open through November 5th. Upon close of the
13 comment period, we will analyze all the comments received here
14 at the public hearings and — today and tomorrow, and those
15 written comments that are sent to us.
16 Upon review and analysis of those comments, we'll
17 determine what changes need to be made to the draft EIS; and we
18 will prepare a final EIS which will include a written response
19 to all comments received. The final EIS will be sent to all
20 persons on our mailing list, and there will be a 30-day review
21 and comment period. The final EIS, again, will identify the
22 planned EPA action.
23 At the end of the 30-day review process, EPA will issue
24 its record of decision, which will include all mitigation
25 measures adopted by the agency to avoid or minimize
-------
1 environmental ham. These mitigation measures will be
2 incorporated as enforceable grant conditions if appropriate.
3 As far as timing for how long completion of the EIS will
4 take, that answer is going to be dependent upon the nature of
5 all the comments we receive. We have already received many
6 very thoughtful comments which will take some time for us to
7 analyze and either incorporate into the EIS or adequately
8 respond to in our response to comments.
9 As you nay understand, since we've been involved with this
10 now for a couple years, we're anxious to complete the process;
11 but we're not going to release the final EIS until we do give
12 adequate consideration to all the comments that we've
13 received. I can tell you that unless there are going to be
14 major changes made, we certainly hope to be able to release the
15 EIS in the December, January time frame. But that's only if we
16 don't have major changes we feel we have to make in the final.
17 That concludes my testimony, Ken.
18 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Jerry. Daniel Fraser of Farmers Home
19 Administration.
20 Dan Fraser: My name is Dan Fraser. I'm with the Farmers Home
21 Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of
22 Agriculture. I'm the State Environmental Coordinator for
23 Farmers Home as well as being a loan officer in the Community
24 and Business Programs Division. I'm located in the Portland
25 office.
10
1 Farmers Hone Administration administers a number of
2 financial programs for rural areas. One of those programs is
3 our Rural Hater and Wastewater Loan and Grant Program. This
4 program is available to rural communities such as Neskowin and
5 those under 10,000 population. The loan and grant program can
6 be used for construction and development of water and
7 wastewater facilities.
8 Several years ago, the Neskowin Regional Sanitary
9 Authority submitted a preapplication to Farmers Hone
10 Administration for a loan in the amount of $800,000. That loan
11 would be used to purchase the Sanitary Authority's bonds for
12 the completion of the sewer system and would also be used to
13 complement the grant funds that had been applied for from the
14 EPA.
15 As a federal agency. Farmers Home Administration is
16 subject to the requirements of the National Environmental
17 Policy Act the same as the EPA is, and we cannot make a final
18 decision on any requests for financing or assistance until the
19 NEPA requirements have been satisfied.
20 When it was determined that the EIS would need to be
21 prepared to evaluate environmental impacts created by the
22 project, Farmers Home Administration asked EPA to include us as
23 a cooperative — cooperating agency. The reason for doing that
24 is that in order to satisfy our need for requirements, it would
25 be much easier if we could dovetail our process with theirs and
-------
11
1 avoid any duplication.
2 So we've been involved with the EPA in the preparation and
3 coordination of the EIS from the day it was started. We will
4 not be able to make any final decisions on the financial
5 assistance that has been requested until the EIS is completed
6 and the NEPA requirements have been met.
7 Briefly, that will explain the involvement of Farmers Home
8 Administration, how we're involved in the project, and what our
9 role is with the EIS process.
10 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Dan. Kevin France representing
11 HGE Engineers.
12 Kevin France: I'm Kevin France. I'm with HGE Engineers in the
13 Portland office, and we're the Sanitary Authority's engineer
14 for this project.
15 As Gerald has kind of given an introduction to, we
16 prepared a facility plan and addendum in August to update the
17 original facilities plan that was prepared in 1988. And in the
18 addendum we evaluated different types of collection systems,
19 treatment processes, treatment plant sites, and definite
20 disposal options.
21 We evaluated septic tank effluent collection systems and
22 conventional gravity collection systems. We evaluated
23 recirculating gravel filter treatment plants, floccutative
24 lagoons, extended aeration treatment plants, and utilizing the
25 existing extended aeration treatment plant in combination with
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
the new treatment plant.
We evaluated many different sites to locate the treatment
facilities. These included the existing treatment plant site,
the Hawk Creek site, the Pasture 2 site, and the Simpson Timber
site. The site that was identified as the preferred site in
the 1988 facilities plan has been developed and is no longer
available.
For disposal options, we evaluated spray irrigation,
subsurface disposal, and direct discharge to Neskowin Creek.
For disinfection alternatives, we evaluated ultraviolet
radiation, chlorination, and dechlorination.
The recommendation of the 1990 facilities plan addendum
was to construct the project in two phases. Phase 1 would
provide sewer service to the Neskowin core area, the point, and
the western portion of Proposal Rock. Phase 2 construction
would extend sewer service to Viking Estates, Kiawanda Beach,
Keskowin Crest, Hawk crest, Neskowin Heights, and the remainder
of Proposal Rock.
The recommended alternative developed in the 1990
facilities plan addendum was to provide a septic tank effluent
collection system, to abandon the existing treatment plant, to
construct an extended aeration treatment plant at the Simpson
Timber site, to hold the effluent from the treatment plant
during the summer in a lined lagoon, and then to discharge the
effluent in the winter to Neskowin Creek when the flows in the
-------
13
1 creek were great enough to provide adequate dilution of the
2 effluent, and the effluent would be disinfected using
3 ultraviolet radiation so that there wouldn't be any chlorine
4 residual going to the creek to affect the fish population.
5 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Kevin. Richard Santner from the Oregon
6 Department of Environmental Quality.
7 Richard Santner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He have submitted a
8 letter of comment from Lydia Taylor, Administrator of the
9 Department's Water Quality Division, and I would like to take
10 just a brief moment to read that letter to the attendees this
11 evening, so it is clear before it's published in the final EIS
12 what the position of the Department is on this matter.
13 Let me step back and add that I am an employee in the
14 Water Quality Division of the Department of Environmental
15 Quality. The letter is addressed to Gerald Opatz.
16 "Dear Mr. Opatz:
17 "The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requests
18 that the public comment record for the above referenced DEIS
19 indicate that the Department supports the proposed project as
20 essential for protection of public health and water quality in
21 the Neskowin area. Our support is reflective of the fact that
22 the project ranks 16th (among 104) on the Department's current
23 Construction Grants Priority List. The Neskowin project has
24 had a relatively high priority ranking for several years since
25 a study conducted by the Department in 1985 concluded that
326 326. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 1,
Letter No. 1.
-------
14
1 bacterial contamination of the creeks near the Neskowin core
2 area results from failing on-site waste disposal systems.
3 "The DEIS and 1988 Facilities Plan Update bring together
4 much information that makes the need for the proposed project
5 apparent. Among the salient considerations are these:
6 "Water quality sampling over the last decade has
7 repeatedly found evidence of fecal bacterial contamination of
8 area streams. The 1985 DEQ study indicated the contamination
9 derives from human sources through failing on-site systems.
10 "The bacterial contamination of area surface waters is an
11 indication of a threat to public health. This is of especially
12 great concern due to the recreational nature of the Neskowin
13 area and the contact recreation use of area surface waters in
14 summer.
15 "The sand dune soils prevalent in the core area are poorly
16 suited to on-site waste disposal systems. These rapidly
17 draining soils generally do not allow for adequate removal of
18 pathogenic or chemical contaminants. In the specific case of
19 Neskowin, the core area has developed on small lots at urban
20 densities which would not be acceptable for on-site systems
21 under DEQ's present rules. The use of seepage pits and
22 cesspools which are also prevalent in the core area would
23 likewise not be allowed. The existing on-site systems
24 constitute a continuing threat to public health and the quality
25 of surface and groundwater.
327 327. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 2,
Letter No. 1.
328 328. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 3,
Letter No. 1.
329 329. This comment was submitted as part of the written
i comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 4,
Letter No. 1.
-------
15
1 "It is the policy of the State of Oregon, as stated in
2 ORS 468.710, to prevent and abate water pollution and to
3 ensure that no waste be discharged to waters of the state
4 without adequate treatment.
5 "Clearly, improperly treated waste is being discharged
6 into Neskowin area groundwater and creeks resulting in a threat
7 to public health and degradation of water quality. The
8 construction of a properly functioning sewage collection and
9 treatment system is the most appropriate means of permanently
10 correcting this situation. The Department supports
11 implementation of the proposed project.
12 "Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
13 "Sincerely, Lydia R. Taylor, Administrator, Hater Quality
14 Division"
15 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
16 Ken Brooks: Thank you. Vic Affolter, Tillamook County.
17 Vic Affolter: I have a map. Where do you think? Over there?
18 Ken Brooks; Do you want to put it over there?
19 vie Affolter: Yeah. Just a second.
20 Ken Brooks: If it's getting stuffy, maybe we can crack that
21 door a little bit. There's two more chairs up front here if
22 anybody is interested.
23 Following Vic will be John Anderson. You're in the bull
24 pen.
25 Vic Affolter: Okay. I'm Vic Affolter. I'm the Director of
330 330. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 5,
Letter No. 1.
-------
16
1 Community Development for Tillamook County; and as such, I have
2 responsibility for administering the County's planning,
3 building, and sanitation regulations. And it's the sanitation
4 issue that brings me to Neskowin tonight.
5 I'll — during my testimony I'll discuss the significance
6 of the colored map up there for you, but I've — I've got
7 written testimony to make available, and I brought some
8 additional copies in case anyone's interested. I don't know if
9 I should pass them out or leave them up here. Do you have a —
10 we could run them around the room if you like. I don't want to
11 detract from anyone else's testimony, but there's about 15
12 copies. So if you wish to share, that would be fine.
13 Ken Brooks: Why don't we just put them on the table.
14 Vic Affolter: Why don't we put them on the table. It would be
15 less distracting, yeah.
16 The Tillamook County Board of County Commissioners has
17 submitted written testimony to EPA on this project. It was
18 mailed on Wednesday, and you may have received it on Friday.
19 And the essence of their testimony is to express their concerns
20 about the public health conditions here in Neskowin resulting
21 from the pollution that's occurring from the current sanitation
22 situation, or lack thereof, in Neskowin and particularly to
23 indicate their total opposition to the No Action Alternative.
24 They feel very strongly that the -- at least the core
25 developed area of Neskowin requires sewering. They've asked me
331 331. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 23,
Letter No. 13.
-------
17
1 to provide some more specific testimony on that issue, and the
2 sanitarian who works for me, Doug Marshall, will be here
3 testifying tomorrow afternoon on some of the more specific
4 sanitation issues and some of the alternatives.
5 Our experience with the situation in Neskowin concurs with
6 some of the key statements in the Draft Environmental Impact
7 Statement, and some of these include the fact that all of the
8 soils in the Neskowin project area provide poor treatment for
9 septic tanks and absorption fields — all of the soils in the
10 Neskowin area — that septic tanks with seepage pits and
11 cesspools are the predominant means of sewage disposal in
12 Neskowin core area. That is a fact.
13 We're not even talking about drain fields in many or most
14 cases. We're talking about seepage pits and cesspools.
15 Neskowin, of course, has a history of water quality problems.
16 Contamination of the creeks has been attributed to the
17 sanitation situation here, and the DEIS notes that the No
IB Action Alternative would result in, quote, potentially
19 significant adverse impacts on groundwater, surface water
20 quality, land use, socioeconomics, and public health.
21 We feel that, if anything, the DEIS understates the
22 problem in Neskowin, and I hope to be able to illustrate that
23 for you a little more clearly.
24 The Neskowin core area is platted and built at an urban
25 density, and this, coupled with adverse soil conditions,
332 332.
Comment noted. The dune soils of the core area have
been described as being very poor for septic system
drainfields. In addition to the poor suitability for a
septic drainfield in this soil type, the fact that homes are
built to urban densities further exacerbates the
subsurface treatment situation.
-------
18
1 clearly requires a community sewer system. I want to have a
2 sense of the platting of the Neskowin area, and that's
3 illustrated by the colored map I have on the wall. The red
4 area indicates parcels that are 5,000 square feet or smaller in
5 the core area, and the area shown on the map, the colored area,
6 goes from the point up to Corvallis.
7 Approximately 63 percent of the lots in the core area are
8 5,000 square feet or less. If you include in that the
9 Breakers, Pacific Sands, and Chelan, as I think we should, then
10 we're up closer to 70 percent of the dwellings around parcels
11 that are at a density that is greater than one house per 5,000
12 square feet, at that density or greater.
13 Only 23 percent of the lots are larger than 7,500 square
14 feet, and this is very important; because our sanitarian
15 estimates that lots would have to be at least that big to have
16 a reasonable chance of qualifying for an adequate repair area
17 for a failed system. Those over 5,000 feet with the highest,
18 most expensive technology, some of those might have a chance.
19 But we're saying somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of the
20 lots really could not be adequately repaired when failures are
21 occurring.
22 When you have a situation where you have seepage pits and
23 cesspools, you've got essentially failures built into that.
24 You have effluent going into the groundwater, the aquifer, and
25 consequently, the streams of the Neskowin area. All septic
332
333 333.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 24,
Letter No. 13.
-------
19
1 tanks and drain fields will ultimately fail. They're even more
2 mortal than we are. The projected time frame ia much less than
3 that which we are given. You can assume that every system in
4 Neskowin will fail within the lifetime of people living in this
5 community.
6 So the question then becomes: What do we do about that
7 when these fail? We better not stick our head in the sand,
8 because that will be polluted. We need to have a way of
9 dealing with that, and what we're saying here, in up to 70
10 percent of the cases, there will not be an adequate way to deal
11 with that. And that's, I think, really the reason why I'm here
12 tonight. You know, what is this person from Tillamook County
13 Government doing down here?
14 I'm here because — for several reasons, but one is
IS because when failures occur, we have to deal with them. And
16 we're put in a situation where increasingly there are not good
17 choices. More and more pressure is put on us to approve
18 repairs that will continue to contribute to pollution problems
19 in Neskowin, or we can impose very expensive alternatives on
20 people including having a — just a septic tank which could be
21 pumped on a regular basis or limiting, ultimately, people's use
22 of their property. And none of those are good alternatives.
23 Incidentally, on a personal side, I probably have as much
24 reason to oppose this system as anyone in the room. My family
25 homesteaded about a mile and a half up this valley, and that
333
334 334.
These alternatives could become requirements if the
current situation is not remedied. As noted in Comment
10 and in the DEIS in Table S-3 and in Chapter 4, pages
4-1 through 4-4, continued use of essentially the "No-
Action Alternative" will have significant adverse effects
on groundwater, surface water quality, and land use.
Probably the most important implication of continuation
of this alternative are the potential public health risks.
335 335. Comment noted.
-------
20
1 property which my family owned for about 70 years — they
2 homesteaded in the 1890s — is in some of the more likely
3 alternatives proposed for sewage lagoons. And that isn't the
4 most pleasant thing to think about on property that you have
5 that kind of attachment to.
6 But I want to make it clear I'm not opposing those
7 alternatives, because I think it's absolutely important that we
8 put our personal feelings and needs aside and look at the needs
9 of the Neskowin community. I want to just highlight a few
10 other aspects of my testimony. There's a proposal made by some
11 people in the community, and I think it's a well-intended and
12 well-meaning proposal, that's been called Alternative 10.
13 It's called the Limited Action Alternative, and as I
14 understand that alternative, it would involve a site-specific
15 identification of failed or problem systems. It would have
16 those system sewered but not the others, and presumably, it
17 would sewer additional systems as problems arose.
18 There are some significant problems with that approach,
19 and I think it's a sincere attempt to limit the scope of this
20 system; and I think it comes particularly from people who are
21 concerned that the sewer system will encourage or facilitate
22 growth in the Neskowin community, something they don't feel
23 very comfortable about. And I'm not here, frankly, to testify
24 one way or another on the growth issue.
25 But the problem with that proposal is at least several-
335
336 336.
Numerous comments were received which proposed this
limited action alternative. The difficulty of identifying
failed systems is but one aspect of implementation of
this alternative. Even if each failed system could be
identified, the fact remains that the collection system
would still need to be constructed throughout the project
area. Design would still be required assuming that all
systems would eventually fail; sizing of the collection
system would not be reduced. Please also refer to
Response to Comment 48, Letter No. 16, and Response
to Comment 33, Letter No. 14.
-------
21
1 fold. The nature of the pollution, the nature of the failed
2 systems here is that it's a very diffuse situation. It's very
3 hard to pinpoint individual systems that are failing and
4 contributing to contamination of the creeks, because we have
5 these cesspools, we have seepage pits, and we have effluent
6 going from them or directly down into the groundwater and the
7 aquifers.
8 And it doesn't go like straight from those to the creek.
9 It goes down into the groundwater first. In some cases we've
10 been able to identify failed systems that are contributing
11 greatly directly to the creek. We were able to do that in the
12 case of the golf course. Bill Martin was required to put in a
13 new drain field. Fortunately, he had room for that on his
14 property. Most people wouldn't.
15 But in most cases, we cannot identify the direct sources
16 of pollution; and when problems do occur, the enforcement
17 agencies are usually the last to know about them. Because if
18 people know that there aren't good alternatives or repairs are
19 very difficult to obtain, they're not likely to tell the
20 enforcement people that they have a problem.
21 So we're the last to know about it, and the kind of
22 monitoring, the kind of technology that would be required to
23 identify these failures is — we don't have those resources,
24 and I don't think DEQ has those resources. The other problem
25 is there are certain economies of scale when you're putting in
336
-------
22
1 a sewer system.
2 You have to be assured that you're going to be serving at
3 least so many houses for the system to — for the thing to
4 pencil out economically, and you can't base a sewer system on
5 an unknown number of hookups over an uncertain period of time.
6 You have to know up front that a certain area is going to be
7 served.
8 The other thing — another thing that I'm concerned about,
9 of course, is — are delays that are going to push this project
10 beyond the time when it can be funded, and there have been
11 requests for a lot of additional information. And all of those
12 requests, if they're taken seriously, would clearly push this
13 project beyond a time when there's public funding available.
14 There have been requests for very specific impact
15 information on T and Es, threatened/endangered species, ranging
16 from the bald eagle to the big-eared bat. And if we're going
17 to try to connect everything in the universe down here, the
18 time it's going to take will not allow for the funding of this
19 system.
20 There's a lot of concern about putting treated effluent
21 into Neskowin Creek at a 20:1 dilution rate under controlled
22 circumstances during relatively high-water winter months. I
23 think we have to compare that concern with what's happening or
24 what would continue to happen under the No Action Alternative;
25 whereby, more and more untreated effluent is put into the
336
337 337.
The Environmental Impact Statement provides sufficient
information on which to base a decision for this project.
In many instances, the requested information would have
no bearing on the decisionmaking for this project since
implementation of this project would not have an effect
on the requested information.
338 338.
The discharge of treated effluent at a dilution ratio of
20:1 will certainly have a much lesser impact on water
quality and biota than the existing condition. The
discharge requirements of ODEQ have been established
to preclude negative impacts on the receiving waters.
Water quality standards would be met and beneficial
uses would be protected.
-------
23
1 aquifer and streams in the Neskowin area on a year-round basis.
2 You have to compare which of those is most harmful to the
3 community.
4 And finally, a brief comment on the growth issue. I think
5 there's obviously genuine and sincere concern among people who
6 feel that a sewer system would facilitate growth in the area,
7 but what we're testifying on tonight is sewering the core area,
8 essentially. Phase 1.
9 I think Phase 2 has some of the same problems as Phase 1.
10 There are some relatively high-density areas within Phase 2,
11 but they're not as concentrated as the core area. There aren't
12 as many lots in those areas, so it's really a question of
13 degree. And the core area is — of course, is the largest and
14 most substantial problem. But on the growth issue, I think
IS people have to understand that even if you didn't provide
16 adequate sewer services for the core of Neskowin, you're not
17 going to prevent growth from occurring in this area.
18 You may be encouraging it to occur in larger-scale
19 increments, because a developer who has enough land to work
20 with can afford to come in with their own system. And you saw
21 it happen with the campground south of here in Neskowin.
22 So those are things you need to keep in mind, that we're
23 not talking about — we're talking about sewering, essentially,
24 the core area where most of the lots are developed. In fact,
25 there are approximately 51 undeveloped lots in the core area.
338
339
339. A number of comments were received on growth. Phase
1 of this proposal will provide sewers to the core area
and a limited number of additional homes. Clearly,
there is a problem with the core area which will be
alleviated with this project. In addition, there are a few
vacant lots in the core area (and other areas to be
sewered) which can be developed following completion
of this project. The land use decisions to allow for this
additional development have already been made; the
Phase 1 sewering is in response to what has already
occurred and what is permitted under current land use
regulations. Please also refer to Response to Comment
135, Letter No. 32.
340. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Letter No. 15.
341 341. Comment noted.
340
342 342. Comment noted.
-------
24
1 The rest — that's 51 out of 288. So roughly over 80 percent
2 of the lots are developed.
3 I think that concludes my testimony. We just want to
4 emphasis that from a public-health perspective, we strongly
5 support sewering the core area. We believe that the Draft
6 Environmental Impact Statement provides ample and persuasive
7 arguments in support for that position, and we also completely
8 endorse the testimony provided by Department of Environmental
9 Quality tonight.
10 Unidentified Man: I have a question, Vic. Would you explain
11 to the people what happened up by the water tower where you
12 allowed this fellow — there was 7,500 square feet lots, and
13 you let him have one at fifty-three — I mean fifty-eight
14 three-hundred, and then they're putting in septic tanks up
15 there. Would you explain to the people how this happened.
16 Instead of a 7,500 square foot lot, he was allowed fifty-eight
17 three-hundred. And the other one was fifty-eight two-fifty, or
18 something like this. I saw your letter.
19 Vic Affolter: I don't have my files with me. I don't know
20 when that happened, I don't know the circumstances, and I don't
21 think that's —
22 Unidentified Man: I know exactly where it is.
23 Vic Affolter: Yeah. It's my understanding that this is not
24 the way we're functioning tonight.
25 Ken Brooks: Why don't you get with Vic after the meeting.
342
343 343. This comment is beyond the scope of this EIS.
-------
25
1 Unidentified Man; I don't want to get together with Vio after
2 the meeting.
3 Vic Affolter; I think —
4 Unidentified Man; I just want him to explain why these
5 allowances were made when he's talking about septic tanks and
6 yet they're putting them up there.
7 Ken Brooks; And I think you very well deserve an answer to
8 that, but I don't think that's really pertinent to what we're
9 doing right now.
10 Unidentified Man; People want —
11 Vic Affolter; Let me finish my testimony — let me finish ny
12 testimony by saying that I think I have just heard a rhetorical
13 question, but let me — let me just point out that without a
14 sewer system, the County will be under continuing pressure to
15 approve development on septic tank and drain fields; and we'll
16 be doing that by current regulations.
17 And I think that, hopefully, those pressures wouldn't
18 cause the County to make bad decisions; but most of what's been
19 approved in the core area that we're dealing with was approved
20 way before we had the current regulations, and they would not
21 be approved today.
22 Most of the development the Neskowin area has that we're
23 looking at could not be approved under today's standards. But
24 I don't want to get into a discussion over issues that I'm —
25 frankly, we deal with hundreds of permits each year; and I'm
344 344.
The land use decisions which have been made in the
past to allow certain types of development within the
core area may well need to be modified to preclude non-
sewered development. However, as pointed out above,
permits are still being approved for the core area.
-------
26
1 not coming down here prepared to discuss a specific one. If
2 you wish to call me in my office when I can access our files,
3 I'll be happy to respond to your question.
4 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Vic. John Anderson is the next speaker
5 followed by Hal Schlicting.
6 John Anderson: I'm John Anderson. I reside at Neskowin
7 Crest. I just have a few small points here, strictly personal;
8 in that, the report is contradictory relating to the inclusion
9 of Neskowin Crest under this district. That — before I go
10 further on that, I want to point out that I think your maps in
11 your preliminary report should show the designated areas of the
12 various subdivisions, which would include items such as the
13 Neskowin Crest Subdivision.
14 The area immediately north of that division is called
15 Pacific Sands Heights Subdivision, and further north of that is
16 an area called Ocean Creek. And then, of course, you do show
17 Viking Estates on there; but I think you should show every one
18 of those, delineate clearly what each of those subdivisions are
19 and covered.
20 Now, getting back to Neskowin Crest. This is for the
21 benefit of the EPA people who issued this report. Neskowin
22 Crest is not part of the Neskowin Regional Sewer District. We
23 gained an exclusion at about the same time that Neskowin North
24 did from the County commissioners through a directive order.
25 And therefore, I would think that any future reports would
345
345.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 113,
Letter No. 25.
346
346.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 112,
Letter No. 25.
-------
27
1 exclude Neskowin Crest from being included in anything relating
2 to Phase 2.
3 Now, I just have a brief comment relating to the user
4 fees. For some of you, I happen to be a consulting engineer,
5 now retired; but I'm a chemical engineer, have over 30, 40
6 years experience in the field. And you're coming up with a
7 user fee schedule in which you note the inclusion of a $40,000
8 house in those monthly figures, and my comment is that is way
9 too low.
10 I think you should be using a figure, minimally, of a
11 house 80,000 in that figure. If you did that, you would find
12 that your monthly fees in Phase 1 would be of the order of 30,
13 almost $31 per month. And although you made a comment of the
14 estimate for Phase 1, I think you ought to include an estimate
15 for Phase 2 on the normal user in the district.
16 I'd like to relate out for the audience here that the cost
17 of Phase 1 is posted in this preliminary report as around 3
18 million 3. For approximately 1,339 residences. If you get
19 into Phase 2, you will add on a factor of 300 percent or come
20 up with a figure of approximately 9 million 4, additionally, on
21 top of the 3 million 3. And that will cover only the
22 additional number of residents of 1,376.
23 So you can see the enormity of that cost feature as it
24 relates to Phase 2 and is — should be just tossed right out
25 the window and forgotten. I think one more comment relating to
347
347.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 114,
Letter No. 25.
348
348.
349.
349
User costs for Phase 2 were not calculated for this
document because the source of outside funding is at
this time unknown and thus the amount of financing
required is unknown. User costs cannot be calculated
without additional financial information.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 115,
Letter No. 25.
-------
28
1 your sampling data. I kind of took a brief look at that. You
2 do show areas of contamination, but you have got a large amount
3 of contradictory data there; and I won't get into the details
4 on that.
5 If you get into the terminology which these people use
6 called the ratio of FC over FS, which is the fecal coliform
7 over the — some sort of streptococci material — which that
8 ratio FC over FS is four or more, it would indicate
9 contamination by people. There are very few instances in here
10 where that has shown in the data. And on top of that, as
11 several of the places are fairly close to a concentrated
12 source, such as the horse stables.
13 Another location which has possibly been rectified is the
14 Neskowin Beach Golf Course clubhouse. They have a new field
15 now, and that may have canceled out that problem; but there are
16 areas of data that are highly contradictory as it relates to
17 some of the stream data.
18 That's all I have to say.
19 Ken Brooks: Thank you John. Hal Schlicting, followed by John
20 Corliss.
21 Hal Schlictinq: My name is Hal Schlicting. I'm involved in
22 the Hawk Creek development, lived here for 30 years and for the
23 last 14, 15 years have been directly and indirectly involved in
24 the progress of sewering in Neskowin. Regarding the DEIS
25 statement, there's considerable misinformation that I won't go
350
351
350. The data indicate that during certain time periods and
at certain locations, there is an indication of human fecal
contamination. The presence of these bacteria in the
surface waters indicates that during high use periods (i.e.
summer months) there is human fecal contamination in
the streams.
351. The Neskowin Beach Golf Course has recently installed
a new drainfield. It is unknown whether the golf course
may still be contributing to ground water and surface
water contamination.
-------
29
1 into now but will submit written, because it's of considerable
2 scope.
3 One of the areas of concern that I have was the statements
4 regarding the agency's concern about the areas where there is
5 wetlands, and they have — the studies have indicated that —
6 there was a reference to 1972 as being the 100-year flood.
7 Well, on Thanksgiving of I960, the entire area was covered with
8 water; 1964 was the worst flood in — it was related in the
9 paper by Governor Hatfield that this was the greatest disaster
10 that had ever hit Oregon.
11 The so-called 100-year flood plain in Neskowin Creek was
12 indicated to go as far as the bridge that crosses into the
13 South Beach area, and in the '64 flood that area was covered
14 with water so deep that the — clear to the concrete bridge,
15 approximately a mile upstream that a family that was living in
16 the South Beach area was marooned for three days.
17 And going back talking to old-timers, in 1928 there was a
18 flood which could be estimated at probably 14 feet through the
19 entire community. And in 1939 Idris Holcolm has indicated —
20 she lives up on the north end of the core area, up in Kiawanda
21 Beach, and that she was marooned for three days up there.
22 And the folks that we bought our property from had a
23 dairy, and they pastured in the wetlands north of the golf
24 course. And they had to put their cattle up on top of that
25 ridge, which would indicate that the flood waters were at
352 352. The terminology of a "100-year flood" and "100-year
floodplain" is simply a statistical reference to the chance
of occurrence of a specific flow over a specific area. A
"100-year flood" is that flow of water which is expected
to occur one percent of the time or less; the "100 year
floodplain" is that area over which this flow will travel.
There is no doubt that flows exceed these levels and as
has been pointed out they do occur more often than
once in each 100 years. The DEIS used the official
floodplain information from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
-------
30
1 probably 14 feet, at least, elevation which — and indications
2 in both the '28 and '39 tines were that residents rode their
3 boats over the entire area across fence posts and everything
4 else. So you know the water was deep, and I think these facts
5 should enter in the record.
6 Another area that has bothered me over the years. I've
7 attended just about every public hearing where the agencies
8 have been involved, and including the DEIS there isn't a single
9 reference to the quality of the effluent coming out of these
10 proposed treatment facilities in the way that the average
11 person could understand it.
12 They talk about fecal coliform and 20/20 and all the rest
13 of the stuff, but no one has ever indicated to the average
14 person. Now, just how bad is this stuff? It must be really
15 bad, because this project talks in terms of spending $3 million
16 to treat the effluent, 110,000 gallons a day, which is
17 unbelievably small. And in the ultimate treatment, it's going
18 to cost $4 1/2 million to take this terrible stuff a quarter of
19 a aile out in the ocean to get rid of it, and these are areas
20 that I just don't understand.
21 Technology — through my studies and talking to a lot of
22 different people, indicates that the technology is available at
23 very reasonable prices to treat the effluent; and it appears to
24 me that more effort should be put into finding a much more
25 economically feasible way to dispose of that effluent. And I
352
353
353. The requirements for secondary treatment are to
discharge no more than 20 mg/1 solids (0.002 percent
solids) and less than 20 mg/1 of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD). BOD is a measure of the amount
of oxygen required to stabilize the biodegradable
organic material remaining in the treated effluent.
The lower the BOD, the less oxygen will be
demanded from Neskowin Creek to break down the
organics. Because fish and many aquatic plants
require oxygen to survive, the removal of BOD is an
important function of the wastewater treatment
process. The organic material, the major constituent
of the sewage entering the treatment plant, is broken
down (oxidized) through treatment into simpler
chemicals. This reduces the oxygen demand and
results in minimizing the impacts to the receiving
waters. Limiting the total suspended solids to 20
mg/1 and the BOD to 20 mg/1 has been determined
to virtually eliminate impact to receiving waters when
adequate dilution (20:1) has been attained. Please
also refer to Response to Comment 95, Letter No.
22.
354 354. The facilities planning process and this EIS process have
screened a great number of proven technologies for
collection, treatment, and disposal. The alternatives
presented in the DEIS are those which through
professional engineering have been determined to be the
most feasible for the Neskowin Sanitary Authority.
-------
31
1 think this is the area that needs to be thoroughly looked at.
2 Thank you.
3 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Mr. Schlicting. John Corliss, followed
4 by Jann Steelhammer.
5 John Corliss; My name is John Corliss, and I'a a property
6 owner in the core, core area of Neskowin. We have a lot that
7 is 24 feet wide and 70 feet long, so we're one of
8 Vic Affolter's worst of the worse.
9 We are on the old, existing system; and we feel we're no
10 longer a part of the problem, but we are a major part of the
11 problem. We'd like to see something done that would include
12 the present system that has been developed in Neskowin. To
13 abandon that system seems foolhardy and not using the developed
14 resources very well.
15 I think I would echo the testimony and expand on the
16 testimony of Mr. Anderson that we should drop Phase 2
17 consideration at this time. It does not seem appropriate with
18 respect to the core area, and that seems to be the immediate
19 source, the closest source, and hence, the source that needs to
20 be evaluated first in terms of any contributions to fecal
21 coliform in Neskowin Creek.
22 The immediate streamside and near streamside runoff areas
23 should be those first evaluated and then look at areas out
24 beyond that core area. The second point I would raise is that
25 one I've already addressed, and that is to incorporate the
355
356
355. Please refer to Response to Comment 354 and Response
to Comment 81, Letter No. 19.
356. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 115,
Letter No. 25.
-------
32
1 existing system into the plan. I have read the report, and
2 it's not clear to me. And partly, it's because Phase 1 and
3 Phase 2 are covered in the same report, and it's difficult to
4 know where one ends and the other begins.
5 What is going to be the fate of those systems, those homes
6 that are already on the existing system? Must they be a part
7 of a new septic-tank collection system, or are they going to
8 continue to use the system that has been developed and paid for
9 and is currently operating?
10 The third point I would like to raise relates to the
11 Alternative 7, relating to spray irrigation. I made earlier
12 testimony to EPA and DEQ concerning the opportunities of lands,
13 soils, upstream in Slab Creek, available for spray irrigation.
14 The evaluation in Alternative 7 speaks to poorly-drained
15 soils.
16 I am a soil scientist with 30 years experience. I know
17 what I'm talking about. The soils that were evaluated
18 definitely do have high water tables and poor drainage
19 characteristics. The problem is, the testimony I gave
20 previously has not been recognized. I asked to go up Slab
21 Creek beyond the present Simpson site and look for additional
22 sites for spray irrigation.
23 I think that remains one of the few real practical
24 alternatives to deposition of the treated effluents other than
25 dumping them into Neskowin Creek, and I'm very much opposed to
356
357
358
357.
358.
It is anticipated that those homes on the current system
will remain on the existing collection system; these
collectors will be routed to the proposed new treatment
system.
Continuing further up Slab Creek Road further increases
the costs of treatment and thus the user costs. The
screening process for sites did not locate soils which
could accept this amount of effluent within a cost
effective range for Neskowin.
359 359.
A number of commentors have indicated their
opposition to this project. The EIS and engineering
process have attempted to minimize overall
environmental impact while providing alternatives to the
current sewage situation.
-------
33
1 that particular action. Thank you.
2 Ken Brooks; Thank you. Following Jann will be
3 Katharine Joyce.
4 Jann Steelhammer: oh, I think there's lots of things going
5 through my mind right now. The most important issue seems to
6 be, as the gentleman from the FHA pointed out and Vic Affolter
7 pointed out, is the real main reason we're doing this is to
8 clean up the creek and to take care of the pollutants in our
9 creek. And Vic stated that it was too expensive to try to
10 source-identify these particular places.
11 But I'd like to quote from the EIS statement which —
12 let's see. This is on page 3-16 of the EIS, and it says, "The
13 source of contamination of these sites has not been
14 identified." "Inadequate or failing septic systems outside the
15 collection area boundary have been identified by Tillamook
16 County health authorities as potential sources of
17 contamination."
18 Now, this is where Vic comes in and says that we can't
19 afford this. Specific sites which might be contributing fecal
20 contamination cannot be identified from the results of this
21 study. "Given this limitation, the extent to which
22 construction of the proposed treatment plant would alleviate
23 the contamination," of the creek, "is not known."
24 It seems to me that — or I would like to submit that
25 possibly we might have to expand looking into those sources if
360 360. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 186,
Letter No. 49.
-------
34
1 they are not guaranteeing us that going through all of this
2 expenditure would actually clean up our creek. If that is our
3 purpose, then it seems that we should have to look into
4 whether, in fact, doing the sewer would serve our purpose and
5 clean up the creek. And they are telling us here that they
6 cannot make that guarantee.
7 So I guess that's about all I want to say.
8 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Jann. Katharine Joyce, and following
9 Katharine will be David Joyce.
10 Katharine Joyce: I would like to first say that I agree with
11 Jann Steelhammer, and that was going to be something that I was
12 going to say. I would like to add that I feel that one of the
13 most important things in solving the problem at hand in
14 Neskowin is to first identify the problem in Neskowin,
15 succinctly and clearly, so that there is no question about the
16 problem that we're trying to solve.
17 I think that it's expensive and folly to go ahead and try
18 to correct a problem when we're not exactly sure what the
19 problem is. So that is my feeling. That's the number one
20 priority at this point, and I feel that a lot of data is
21 lacking in the EIS in respect to this question.
22 Concerning the alternatives and in speaking with various
23 people about the EIS and trying to understand what it is, it
24 was my feeling in the end that an EIS really is about
25 alternatives and ways of solving problems. It was my opinion
360
361
361. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 186,
Letter No. 49.
-------
35
1 that Alternatives 1 through 8 in this particular document war*
2 very similar. They were different disposal methods, but they
3 all came to the same end.
4 The scope of the sewer was about the same size, the same
5 expense, variations on disposal methods for effluent. Ho
6 Action, I believe that was No. 9, was at the extreme opposite
7 end. Therefore, I feel that a limited action alternative is
8 extremely important to pursue.
9 And I was given a letter that was written by the law firm
10 of Stoel, Rivers, Boley, & Grey that quoted the NEPA rules.
11 And I'll read that, and it says that the N-E-P-A, NEPA rules
12 indicate that state and Federal agencies responsible for
13 approving and funding such sewer projects as Neskowin's
14 perform a thorough analysis of all reasonable alternatives.
15 And again, it's ray opinion that all reasonable alternatives
16 such as one for limited action have not been researched.
17 I'm also concerned about the — oh, wait a minute. Back
18 up a minute. Tillamook County, I believe it is in their — is
19 it Chapter 16? Anyway, Tillamook County's Comprehensive Plan
20 which states that controlled release of treated industrial,
21 domestic, and agricultural waste into ocean, river, or estuary
22 waters be permited only if no practicable alternatives exist.
23 And I think that all practicable alternatives need to be looked
24 into before we consider putting treated effluents into Neskowin
25 Creek.
362 362. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 33,
Letter No. 14; Response to Comment 217, Letter No.
53; and Response to Comment 125, Letter No. 31.
3J63
363. Please refer to Response to Comment 354.
-------
36
1 I'd like to stress the fact, also, that I'm very concerned
2 about Neskowin Creek. I feel the fact that they have — that
3 Neskowin Creek has five species of fish, three salmon, one of
4 which is possibly going to be on the endangered species listing
5 for some of the Oregon rivers, the chum, that we have all five
6 of these species living healthfully in Neskowin Creek is very
7 important.
8 And that — that the biota in Neskowin Creek and the fish
9 habitat spawning, their times, should be studied really in a
10 detail so that when and if anything is put into the creek, it
11 is done in such a way that these five species of fish are
12 allowed to spawn and to continue living healthfully there.
13 The fact that these fish are doing well now is indicative
14 that the stream is healthy at this time. And I think problems
15 done — caused by an ill-done and ill-conceived project could
16 be far worse than any problems we're trying to correct. Thank
17 you.
18 Ken Brooks: Thank you. David Joyce, to be followed by
19 Margaret (sic) Thompson.
20 David Joyce: My name is David Joyce, and with my wife, we are
21 homeowners in the core area here in Neskowin. I would like to
22 speak specifically about the apparent bias towards the
23 inevitability of growth in the Neskowin area. I think it's been
24 shown clearly over and over that the Neskowin area is an area
25 that is uniquely unsuited to handling large numbers of people.
364
364. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 95,
Letter No. 22.
365
365. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 173,
Letter No. 47.
-------
37
1 That's why it's taken so long, this tortuous process, of
2 getting to the point that the EPA has finally achieved with the
3 EIS where alternative after alternative has been thrown out; and
4 finally, we're asked to look at the least evil of what is left.
5 I know that the State is very pro-growth. We have a
6 governor who is putting out millions of dollars with the idea
7 that bringing tourists to Oregon is somehow good and that no
8 one is hurt by that. I believe anyone who spends any time at
9 the coast has seen the incredible blight that has actually
10 occurred from thousands of tourists going up and down our
11 highway.
12 A lot of people speak about growth and jobs and all of
13 this as somehow we're all supposed to fall in line here and
14 say, "Oh, yes. This is all good." I think the experience of
15 many people in Oregon is that this is not good. Certainly, the
16 experience of people in Neskowin is that there's nothing about
17 tourism that serves our interests.
18 The resort as it exists and Proposal Rock are filled to
19 overflowing. We have no economy here. Surveys indicate that
20 that's the way people want it. This is the town that wants to
21 not have some feeling of obligation to grow, get larger, have
22 resorts, condos, the whole bit. And part of the reason for
23 that is that people value the beautiful area here, the small
24 community flavor; but the other thing is that this area cannot
25 accept large areas of people.
365
-------
38
1 It may be a tragedy for many people to understand that,
2 but that is true. We can't get rid of the sewage. And so
3 while Mr. Affolter's job really is to promote growth in
4 Tillamook County and get the tax dollars for the general fund
5 and all of that, it isn't what the people of Neskowin want; and
6 it isn't what the area can absorb.
7 I think there are many examples of the EIS having a growth
8 bias. It lists lack of — it lists certain sewer systems not
9 allowing development to occur as being negative aspects, and I
10 think that none of that really should contaminate this finding
11 at all. The EIS is not at all directed towards promoting 365
12 growth or commenting on it, as far as I can tell.
13 It seems quite implicitly within the whole statement that
14 there's this feeling of growth as somehow being good; and as
15 far as I can tell, that is not really what this is supposed to
16 be about at all. it's about fixing a problem that we have in
17 the core of the area.
18 On page 4-26 it mentions that certain — the sewer system
19 discussed there would have the indirect benefit of promoting
20 tourism, for example. And this kind of language occurs
21 throughout it, and I think it's really — you know, people just
22 say, "Oh, yeah, tourism," as if we're all supposed to decide
23 that that's a good thing. I don't think it is.
24 it's very expensive to have growth in this area. Not only
25 the sewer system right now, as many people have pointed out,
-------
39
1 but as other people come on-line and as inevitably new area*
2 are opened up because there's a sewer system, all of the people
3 who are on it at that point are going to be paying to expand
4 that system and really are buying the opportunity to make the
5 problem worse without any chance to get out of it.
6 So I see this as being very critical in terms of just
7 allowing a lot of things that are not good for this area to
8 occur and it costing us all a great deal of money. Also, of
9 course, if we're going to have all this new projected growth in
10 here, and there are lots — all these projections about how the
11 population is going to double within the next 20 years or
12 something. I mean, it's preposterous.
13 That is going to mean all sorts of new water supplies.
14 The water that goes out has got to come from somewhere. So
15 we're not just talking about a sewer system. We're talking
16 about roads. We're talking about a whole new water system.
17 We're talking about power, the possibility for a need of a
18 full-time policeman here.
19 I think before long we're going to have stop signs in
20 Neskowin. It doesn't make any sense. Not stop signs,
21 stoplights, you know. It doesn't make any sense. This is an
22 overkill system, and it does — it goes way beyond solving a
23 problem that we have in the local area. And Phase 2 is
24 completely ridiculous, in my view. It — the only possible
25 thing Phase 2 could do would be to turn this place into another
365
-------
40
1 Lincoln City; and we've got Lincoln City on the other side of
2 Cascade Head, and it should stay there.
3 I think the thing that's really unique about Neskovin is
4 the way that it is now, and people in this community value and
5 cherish it. Maybe we do have a sewer problem. Maybe we need
6 to have some way of solving this situation, but I don't think
7 we need to decide that we need to become another of Tillamook
8 County's urban-growth areas. Thank you.
9 Ken Brooks: Thank you, David. Margaret (sic) Thompson, and
10 next to speak will be Alex Sifford.
11 Harqot Thompson; My name is Margot Thompson, and I've been a
12 property owner in Neskowin since 1967. I own several tracts of
13 land, one of which is a residence; and also several pieces of
14 property along the Neskowin Creek. I'm in areas that could be
15 affected both in the current system and in possible Phase 2
16 systems.
17 I do not feel that the — the EIS, as it is presently
18 drafted, really presents us with concrete, new data that is
19 fairly gathered and up-to-date upon which we can make a sound
20 decision at this time. I feel we need more information. I
21 would like to speak to Vic Affolter's concern about deadlines.
22 I think there's a lot of pressure. Mentioned, I think, at
23 least twice and possibly more times in his letter to Mr. Opatz
24 that deadlines were of primary concern.
25 However, it was also said by Mr. Opatz in his opening
365
366
366. Please refer to Response to Comment 337, and
Response to Comment 354.
-------
41
1 remarks that while deadlines were an issue and a concern
2 because this has taken so long, that I still think the goal is
3 to find the best system for the area. And I think we should
4 take whatever time it takes to do that, so we can really
5 correct the problem. And I don't believe that development for
6 the area should be made the back door through water, sanitary
7 district kind of formation.
8 I think it's extremely important that we correct the
9 problem. I'm for fixing it, and I do hope that we will allow
10 this community to change it's mind and that we can have a
11 consensus here at some point. It is my sincere goal that we
12 work together as a community to preserve the quality of life
13 we like, to make sufficient room for some of the newcomers that
14 also appreciate that quality, but I also do not want the
15 drinking water, the wastewater, or any of the waters of the
16 area contaminated permanently.
17 And I really believe that we need more information to go
18 on, and many of the other people who have testified this
19 evening have raised issues that I would raise. So I won't go
20 into them now, but I will submit a further letter point by
21 point, outlining my problems.
22 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Margot.
23 Marqot Thompson: Thank you.
24 Ken Brooks: Alex Sifford, and then Hike Kowalski.
25 Alex Sifford: Thank you. For the record, my name is
-------
42
1 Alex Sifford, and I'm the president of the Neskowin Community
2 Association; and I am speaking tonight strictly as a citizen
3 and homeowner in Neskowin and not representing the views of the
4 Community Association.
5 I'd like to first thank the EPA, DEQ, and Sewer Authority
6 for holding this meeting. I think a few more of these wouldn't
7 hurt, regardless of the status of the DEIS, so much as to
8 inform the community of what the activities of the Sewer
9 Authority are, where they are currently at. I would hope that
10 the agencies involved, including the Economic Development
11 Department and the Farmers Home Loan Administration or Farmers
12 Home Administration, will bear with us and simply hold the
13 dollars tied to the project as opposed to deadlines that are
14 potentially near due. So that when the project is finally
IS decided upon, the dollars will still be there.
16 We're asking them to keep dollars that are already
17 budgeted and committed, so I don't think it's a big favor to
18 ask. Thirdly, I'd like to note that the — I think it's a
19 generally agreed upon precept that all residents of Neskowin
20 want to solve the problem. If there's any dispute or
21 disagreement, it's over a means to address the problem of the
22 pollution that we know exists in the water supply — rather the
23 water bodies of the area.
24 Many of the presenters tonight have echoed comments that I
25 would agree with, and so I will simply summarize my remarks. I
367 367. No EPA construction grants may be made after
September 1991, and it appears that funding will run out
sooner than that, possibly in March 1991. While this
project has a high priority, other communities are
competing for these funds. EPA funds have not been
specifically committed to the Neskowin project.
-------
43
1 will be submitting full, written testimony to the EPA before
2 the November 5th deadline. In summary, I think a new, smaller
3 alternative based on upgrading and expanding the existing
4 system makes much more sense and should be chosen. The reasons
5 for that suggestion are in my detailed testimony.
6 Again, under no circumstances should a Phase 2 system of
7 any kind be included in this project; and I feel that because
8 again, I think everyone agrees we're here to solve the problem;
9 and Phase 2 does not address the problem. Phase 2 goes beyond
10 the problem. Phase 1 is the issue at hand. I think I'm
11 echoing Vic Affolter's remarks when I say that.
12 Further, I believe personally that a new Phase 1
13 alternative, whether it's known as Alternative 10 proposed by
14 certain constituents of the area or not, will solve the problem
15 that the sewer project is intended to do. I'd like to
16 highlight just a few of my points, and then my remarks will be
17 done. First of all, again, out of the nine alternatives, it
18 appears that eight are a very similar size.
19 This No. 1 argues for choosing a new alternative.
20 Further, I think that the description of the problem is
21 woefully lacking. With an estimated 418 homes or condos
22 existing in the core area, can the Draft Environmental Impact
23 Statement not provide more detail supporting the statement
24 regarding the cesspools and septic tanks that are leaking? I,
25 personally speaking — have spoken, rather, with folks in the
368. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 296,
Letter No. 78.
369 369. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 295,
Letter No. 78 and Response to Comment 115, Letter
No. 25.
370 370. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 172,
Letter No. 47.
371 371. Please refer to Comment 336.
-------
44
1 community who say, "Yes, I am familiar with certain areas that
2 I believe are leaking."
3 I think we're dealing with a small enough area as shown by
4 the map that Vic has graciously provided that it's truly a
5 small enough town that we can go out and count individual
6 situations. I would also believe that the water quality
7 discussion on pages 3-11 to 3-16 in the DEIS reinforces the
8 geographically limited testing that has been done.
9 For example, I believe that literally going along Hawk
10 Creek at a hundred foot intervals and measuring fecal coliform
11 and other matters in the water would be far more beneficial to
12 the community in pinpointing sources of pollution than the
13 sites listed again on those pages that I cited.
14 The discussion of treatment alternatives on page 2-9
15 points out the DEQ feels that the existing plant is at the
16 end of its useful life. I find that ironic. It would appear
17 that, unless such depreciation was not apparent to the NRSA at
18 the time of the purchase, buying that plant was not necessarily
19 a prudent thing to do. This is — we're talking about a
20 purchase that is only several years old. This seems to be
21 confirmed by the recommendation in all but one of the
22 alternatives to abandon the existing plant.
23 But given the current use of the plant, I would propose
24 that we fix it up, upgrade it, and use it. The proximity of
25 the existing plant also argues strongly for rehabilitation or
371
372
372.
Use of the existing treatment plant and the existing
treatment plant site was again evaluated by the 1990
Facilities Plan Addendum (HGE, Inc. 1990). The
Facilities Plan Addendum recommended abandoning
the existing treatment plant and constructing a new
110,000 gpd contact stabilization/extended aeration
plant at the Simpson Timber Site. The EPA
preferred alternative recommends construction of
this new treatment plant at the existing treatment
plant site. Please refer to Response to Comment 81,
Letter No. 19 and Response to Comment 354.
-------
45
1 minor expansion sufficient to address the suspected core area
2 sewage problems. Equally important is that the existing plant
3 site is consistent with Tillamook County Comprehensive Plan and
4 policies as cited in the DEIS on page 4-15.
5 Other sites would require the County to amendment its Plan
6 and certify, to use the DEIS language, a new site. I believe
7 that the sludge-disposal option is also weak. We note that
8 increases in plant sludge-disposal operating costs, yet no
9 estimates are broken out for the reader in the user-cost
10 analysis. In my detailed testimony, I'll ask that we show
11 where the likely disposal sites are and the hauling costs
12 associated with them.
13 Further, I refer to a very successful sewer district
14 disposal, sludge disposal program operating in Grants Pass,
15 Oregon. It is perhaps an option that we should consider here.
16 Disinfectation (sic) alternatives discuss ultraviolet
17 disinfectation (sic) and chlorination, and to quote from the
18 DEIS, "Chlorination provides a much more proven and reliable
19 system for" disinfectation (sic).
20 I would argue that under all alternatives chosen, we use
21 chlorination with the obvious dechlorinization (sic) that would
22 need to occur before any treated effluent is discharged in the
23 surface waters in Ncskowin.
24 Further, on page 2-13, the Simpson Timber site is
25 described briefly. Information presented shows that the site
372
373
373.
374 374.
Use of the Simpson Timber site is consistent with the
Tillamook County Land Use Plan. A conditional use
permit, however, would be required. See Appendix
C
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 52,
Letter No. 17.
375 375.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 53,
Letter No. 17.
376 376. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 277,
Letter No. 74.
-------
46
1 is 2 miles from the core area and that piping costs to it will
2 cost a 150,000 bucks. Common sense dictates that using a
3 current site will avoid new site-purchase costs and piping
4 costs. It would appear that such savings could, therefore, be
5 available for better treatment-plant options.
6 The user-cost discussion on page 2-26 does not adequately
7 include homeowner solid-waste disposal costs. Again, to echo
8 John Anderson's remarks, we're first of all assuming a
9 different value of a home than might, in fact, be documented as
10 the average value of homes in the Neskowin core area. And
11 secondly, for the homeowner, we also have to conclude the fact
12 that their septic tank will continue to have to be pumped every
13 five to seven years. Such pumping costs will obviously be
14 borne by the homeowner and the resident, but they ought to be
15 pointed out.
16 The Phase 2 map on page 2-4 is particularly disturbing to
17 me. It indicates service to Kiawanda Beach, and it's my
18 understanding — it's not on the map Vic has provided, but if
19 folks who have their copies here, it's on page 2-7. It seems
20 to indicate that we're going to serve an area that, it's my
21 understanding, is an active foredune and is thoroughly
22 undevelopable. I believe it's also zoned that way for the
23 County, but again, common sense would dictate you don't build
24 on dunes that are either building or eroding.
25 This system — again, this sort of description of Phase 2
376
377 377.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 52,
Letter No. 17.
378
378. Removal of septage from individual septic tanks will
continue to be required periodically. The NSRA will
be responsible for maintaining the septic tanks; costs
for periodic pumping have been included in the
estimated operation and maintenance costs used in
the user fee analysis.
379 379. Planning for collectors in Phase 2 has not proceeded
beyond the conceptual stage. Additional planning and
design will be required for the Phase 2 collectors as well
as the treatment plant expansion and effluent disposal
system. Land use plans and zoning regulations will
dictate the location of housing; the sewer system will be
designed to respond to the demand created by land use
decisions.
-------
47
1 argues for focusing on the problem, Phase 1, solving the
2 problem. Much of the discussion in Chapter 3 is in an area of
3 description. When the real sewage discussion occurs, the truth
4 also is revealed. The extent to which contruction of the
5 proposed treatment plant would alleviate the contamination is
6 unknown.
7 It's 1990. I think we could get a little better handle on
8 solving the problem. The support of growth in the core area —
9 pardon me, under projection of — under population projections
10 in Chapter 3, states that growth in the core area is limited by
11 vacant lots sized too small for individual wastewater treatment
12 systems, and by the lack of alternative wastewater treatment
13 facilities.
14 Again, this was echoed and pointed out in detail by
15 Vic Affolter of the County. This supports, I believe, the
16 premise of most Neskowin residents, the purported goal of the
17 NRSA, and this sewer project to solve a pollution problem and
18 use reserve capacity to allow the urban area; that is, the core
19 area of Neskowin to fill up. Other houses in Neskowin will
20 either use state-of-the-art individual wastewater treatment
21 systems or will not be built, period.
22 It is explicitly not the responsibility of the NRSA to —
23 nor of this project — to provide sewerage for future growth.
24 The goal is to solve the pollution problem.
25 Thank you.
380 380. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 186,
Letter No. 49.
381. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 173,
Letter No. 47.
-------
48
1 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Alex. Mike Kowalski, and then Skip
2 Patten.
3 Hike Kowalski; I'm Mike Kowalski. I am presently serving as
4 the manager of the Neskowin Sanitary Authority. Before that, I
5 was a Board member for ten years, from 1977 to "87. I was a
6 resident of Neskowin from '72 to '87; and presently, I'm a
7 homeowner and property owner of some other tracts in the
8 district. My comments are primarily from the standpoint of
9 being the manager of the District.
10 Much of what I had to say has already been stated, but the
11 first thing — one of the most important things I could do is
12 to indicate how much the NRSA appreciates the public input that
13 we're getting; and I urge you, and people that you know that
14 aren't here but yet are involved in Neskowin, to please make
15 your thoughts known within — within the time frame, if that's
16 possible.
17 I would just add a few comments from a historical
18 perspective on what NRSA has done over the years. During my
19 tenure with NRSA, I've seen a number of sewer proposals come
20 and go. I don't remember exactly how many there have been. I
21 don't even remember the details, except for a few. I was
22 talking with Hal Schlicting recently about the proposal in
23 1984, and at that time Hal was chairman of the District.
24 He reminded me that the plan that we were trying to put
25 forth at that time would have sewered the whole district for
382 382. Comment noted. Funding depends on the availability of
funds and the priority ranking developed by ODEQ.
i Neskowin is ranked high in priority but the availability
of funds may be insufficient to provide funding for this
project if application is not made in the near future.
-------
49
1 $1.6 million. Then in 1988, we had the proposal, as most of
2 you are aware, that was the forerunner of this BIS. That
3 proposal was to sewer the core area for $2.2 Billion. And now
4 we have the present proposal, which serves the same area as the
5 '88 plan, and — I'm reading in the EIS — it's $4 million.
6 It is clear to me, as I'm sure it is to you, that not only
7 is it getting more expensive to build community sanitation
8 facilities; but the costs are increasing at a very rapid rate.
9 Effectively, what we're seeing is a proposal that's doubled in
10 cost in two years. Now, it's not as — quite so horrible as it
11 sounds; in that, with the plan that's presented, approximately
12 two-thirds of the funding of this proposal is planned to be
13 funded through grants.
14 It remains to be seen, of course, on some of those grants
15 just what the amounts will be. For instance, the Farm Home
16 grant. I would like to conclude by saying that the Board is
17 doing its best to provide the lowest cost, most
18 environmentally-sensitive design for the community. Please
19 continue to help us with your input.
20 Thank you.
21 Ken. Brooks: Thank you, Mike. Skip Patten.
22 Skip Patten: I don't have any comment, thank you.
23 Ken Brooks: Okay, Skip. And the last card I have is for
24 Lee Haga. Is there anyone else who would like to speak after
25 Lee?
382
-------
50
1 Unidentified Man: Yeah, I would.
2 Ken Brooks: Okay. Could you give then a card, please. And
3 then this gentleman over here. Thank you.
4 Lee Haqa: My name is Lee Haga, and I've been a resident on
5 Slab Creek Road for 12 years; and I've owned property there for
6 about 15. And I would just like to say that I am very much
7 opposed to dumping effluent on Slab Creek, period. And I also
8 am very much opposed to any plans of creating a man-made lake
9 for sewage treatment up on that road.
10 There's about 20 to 25 families that live on that road,
11 and even though we may not be very obvious — some of our homes
12 are tucked away up in the hills by choice — we live there
13 because we want to live there and because our choice of that
14 locale fit in with our philosophy of beauty and just the real
15 pleasant remoteness of that particular area. And it's very —
16 one of the choicest areas on the coast to live.
17 I talked to many of the homeowners today, and most of them
18 would agree with me that they are also actively opposed to any
19 dumping of effluent on that creek, at any point along that
20 creek, whether it's up near where our houses are or beyond or
21 closer to the ocean itself.
22 We also are very much against the — like I said, the
23 creation of a man-made lake. My child and her friends have
24 played along that creek. They've waded in that creek. They've
25 swum in it. We've rafted along that creek. We've swum in it.
383 383. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 159,
Letter No. 42.
-------
51
1 We treat that creek with a lot of respect, and that creek is
2 actually one of the main reasons we're here; because it makes a
3 beautiful confluence with the ocean, and the Indians rather
4 favored it, and so do we.
5 And ecologically speaking, most of the families that live
6 up there treat that creek with a lot of respect. He don't dump
7 contaminants along it. We don't fish it. We just like to know
8 that it's a healthy stream and that it's getting healthier
9 every year. And I would hate to see that reverse itself. So
10 in other words, anything that — any proposal that goes against
11 that kind of holistic awareness of the importance of keeping
12 that creek as natural and as beautiful as possible, goes
13 against what we feel is important.
14 As for the lake, I myself don't want to live near a lake
15 that has sewage. Sure, maybe it's a mile down the road, so out
16 of sight, out of mind. Not in our book. He drive by that road
17 every day, and I would hate to see anything of that nature
18 being installed in there.
19 And I know that the people that own houses down here maybe
20 would love to see the sewage dumped up there, because it's
21 definitely out of sight and out of their minds; but as far as
22 we're concerned, that's not going to happen. And we're very
23 much against that.
24 We'd like to — we've never really been part or want to be
25 part of the sewage system in Neskowin. That's — you know, why
383
-------
52
1 should we? We're way up there, and we're all pretty content
2 with the septic systems we've got. We keep then in good
3 repair, and they're pretty efficient. And that just seems to
4 be — you know, seems to go along with — well, it seems to be
5 the best system for us out there.
6 Also, Slab Creek Road has been designated a scenic route.
7 You can see it along — the signs. It sure won't be scenic if
8 there's any kind of a septic dumping-ground up there. And I'd
9 like to point that out, that that road is one of the classic
10 bike routes along the coast; and bikers and campers and tourists
11 love to drive along there.
12 There is the experimental forest people like to see.
13 There's a lot of classic, old farms and farmland that just need
14 to be preserved. So speaking for the residents that can't
15 show up, although there is one of them here — most of them
16 will try to come tomorrow — I can tell you that we are against
17 that kind of idea. Thank you.
18 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Lee. Let's see. I just received two
19 cards. Jean Harmon you don't want -- you do not want to speak
20 then, this one indicates? Jean Harmon?
21 Jean Harmon: That's correct.
22 Ken Brooks: Okay. Fine. Okay. Ted Schlicting. Les, you'll
23 be next.
24 Ted Schlictinq: Yes. My name is Ted Schlicting. I just have
25 one comment. I'd like to address what I believe is a
383
384
384. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comments 281
and 283, Letter No. 75.
-------
53
1 deficiency in the DEIS, and that is the fact that it doesn't
2 explain the public policy framework under which the current
3 project has been planned and funded. There's no mention of the
4 ordinances that have been passed and the relationship to the
5 funding arrangements.
6 There's been a lot of talk tonight about limiting the
7 system, but it's my understanding that the funding
8 arrangements, whether they're good or bad, have already been
9 based upon previous public policy procedures that have been
10 adopted. And if that's going to be changed, there needs to be
11 a concomitant change in those ordinances and other public-
12 policy matters that have already been adopted. And that's
13 something that the DEIS doesn't go into at all; and it needs to
14 be, I think, addressed in the final version. Thank you.
15 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Ted. Les Furtz (sic).
16 Les Fultz; Fultz.
17 Ken Brooks: Fultz. And after — the next speaker will be
18 Bryce Shumway.
19 Les Fultz; My name is Les Fultz, and I live on — I live on
20 Neskowin Creek. And I look around in the room, and I see — I
21 don't see anyone else that actually lives on Neskowin Creek,
22 and I do.
23 I don't know how many of you have heard the word NIMBY,
24 N-I-M-B-Y, but it stands for "not in my back yard." And I've
25 been to many public hearings over my — in my life. I happen
384
385 385. Comment noted.
-------
54
1 to be a professional engineer, a professional land surveyor.
2 I have done sewer design. As a matter of fact, the private
3 sewer system — that was a private sewer system that NRSA had
4 purchased. I designed the original plant.
5 The problem that I — I've been sitting here listening to
6 this, and I did not intend to speak. I did not sign a card
7 when I cane in, but the thing that bothers me is I see here is
8 that there are so many, many people in the Neskowin community
9 that need sewage, need it; and I'm not talking about the core
10 area. I don't live in the core area.
11 I'm talking about the — out in the Phase 2 area, in
12 Neskowin Heights, for example; the portion of Proposal Rock;
13 Hawk Creek Hills; Neskowin North that Mike Kowalski has
14 developed; Pacific Sands Heights; viking Estates; Ocean Creek;
15 NEFF Addition. All of these — all these have lots — a good
16 many of those — I think almost all the lots are sold, and
17 those people would like to live here, too. And there — none
18 of those — none of those sites, those lots, are large enough
19 for a septic system, for an on-site disposal system. And the
20 problem that I have in sitting here is that I look around the
21 room; I see none of those people here.
22 You haven't heard any of their testimony. You haven't
23 heard any of the statements of the people in Neskowin Heights,
24 for example, in Hawk Creek Hills, that would like to build and
25 like to become a part of the community, would like to be a part
385
-------
55
1 of this quiet, non-industrial, non-commercial community. And
2 it's — unfortunately, so many of these owners of these lots in
3 these subdivisions I'm talking about, nany of them live far
4 away. They probably not even have been informed that this
5 meeting is being held.
6 And so that we have a whole segment of the Neskowin
7 community, owners in the Neskowin community, deeded — they
8 have — they paid for their property just like all of you have,
9 and they're not here to state their case. And I would — I
10 have no hesitation in saying that I know the numbers of the
11 people who would speak in their own behalf are much more than
12 the ones that we have here tonight. And I just — I just am
13 disturbed about the NIMBY feeling, because are so many people;
14 and unfortunately, so many of you people don't know these other
15 people, and I do.
16 I know a lot of them, and they're all fine people. And
17 they would fit in the community very nicely. They don't want
18 to see any commercialism. They don't want to see a Lincoln
19 City here. Neither do I. And I've been ini— I went to the
20 Lincoln City area in 1949. I saw it grow a great deal, and I
21 agree with many of the statements that have been made about
22 Lincoln City.
23 But the commercializing or this kind of thing of the
24 Neskowin community, the County alone will take care of a good
25 share of preventing of that. Look at the number of — look at
385
-------
56
1 the limited commercial area in the Neskowin area, just very
2 little commercial area. And it was done that way by the
3 developers, the owners of the property specifically asking for
4 only that much. And we do have to have some commercial area.
5 We do have to have some. We can't — we can't just live in our
6 house, and that's all there is to it.
7 And just as an example, how do you people get your
8 gasoline for your vehicles? Cloverdale, Pacific City, or
9 Lincoln City or Otis, eight, ten miles away at least. And
10 that's fine for the people who can afford to do that, but there
11 are a lot of people who can't really afford to go that far for
12 their gasoline. Why isn't there something like that here?
13 And it's those kind of things that — that isn't
14 commercialization like Lincoln City. That's the kind of basic
15 necessities that a community like this needs. So I close by
16 saying that I am going to put my statements into writing, and
17 I'm going to make some effort to get some of these people that
18 haven't been here to give their viewpoint, also.
19 There were some good points made tonight. I'm not saying
20 that the people were wrong. It's just that they're — I feel
21 that all the testimony is somewhat one-sided, and I know there
22 are a lot of people who could present another side that would
23 be just as convincing as what we heard tonight. Thank you.
24 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Les. Bryce Shumway.
25 Brvce Shumway: I'm Bryce Shumway. I live 3 miles up Slab
385
-------
57
1 Creek Road, and I own 80 acres up there. In fact, I bought
2 Vic Affolter's uncle's place, Walt Affolter. And probably this
3 doesn't affect me, since I'm out of the area; but I wanted to
4 point out a point here that — well, first of all, well said,
5 Les. You stole my thunder.
6 You said just about everything I was going to say, except
7 that — about our drinking water. Most of our drinking water
8 comes from springs around here. I don't think there's a well.
9 I don't believe there's a well in the area. Do you have a
10 well?
11 Marqot Thompson; Neskowin Valley School is on a well.
12 Bryce Shumway: Okay. I see.
13 Marqot Thompson; That's okay.
14 Bryce Shumwav; Okay. Well anyway, most of our drinking water
15 is from springs up in the hills, as mine is; and there's very
16 little chance of contamination from groundwater, polluted
17 groundwater there. But I can see that there is a problem
18 probably for sewage disposal here in the core area all right,
19 and I'm at a loss to submit a solution.
20 Someone mentioned that a spray system might be well to get
21 rid of the sludge; and then, I think, Mr. Schlicting mentioned
22 about taking it out in the ocean and dumping it a quarter of a
23 mile away. What's the difference? If it runs into the creek,
24 it goes to the ocean. If you dump it out there, it's in the
25 ocean. So what's the difference?
386 386- Comment noted.
-------
58
1 But the way these farmers get rid of their liquid manure
2 is spray it on the pastures, and it fertilizes the grass and is
3 taken care of; and it works out real well. But I don't know
4 how that would work for a sewage-disposal system of this sort.
5 Anyway, I wanted to say that my septic system is working real
6 well, and I know there's absolutely no contamination going into
7 Neskowin Creek from my sewage system.
8 It was approved by Tillamook County; and at the present
9 time, I have sold one piece of property there. And it is now
10 under the jurisdiction of the new owner, so all we have is
11 responsibility for our own home now. So I thank you and —
12 very much.
13 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Bryce. Is there anyone else who would
14 like to speak this evening? Okay.
15 I'd like to — before adjourning, I'd like to compliment
16 everybody here, the entire group. I don't think I've ever seen
17 a community where it appears that everybody belongs to the
18 toastmasters1 club. Truly some outstanding presentations, and
19 I can assure you everything that was said and everything that
20 you submit will be fully considered.
21 There will be another hearing tomorrow. If there's
22 anybody that you know that hasn't had an opportunity to be here
23 this evening, please encourage them to come tomorrow or submit
24 written testimony. Yes, sir?
25 David Joyce: Sir, it might be well to indicate that tonight
386
-------
59
1 the clocks are set back an hour, just so people are not
2 confused about the meeting tine.
3 Ken Brooks: That's a very good point. I think I'd better
4 change nine right now.
5 It is now 8:44, and this hearing is adjourned.
6
7 (October 28, 1990)
8 Ken Brooks; Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Since
9 it's two minutes after 6:00 (sic), and this is an official
10 hearing — I have a short announcement to read before we
11 begin.
12 My name is Ken Brooks. I'm the Assistant Regional
13 Administrator for EPA operations in the State of Oregon. I
14 have been designated as the hearing officer for this public
15 hearing on our Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
16 proposed Neskowin sewage system.
17 I want to welcome each of you to the hearing and thank you
18 for your interest in the EIS and the proposed project. For the
19 record, this hearing is being held on October 28, 1990; and as
20 I said, it is 2:07 p.m. in the Neskowin Fire Hall. This
21 hearing is to provide an opportunity for citizens, interest
22 groups, and public agencies to comment on the draft EIS.
23 We will hold -- this is a second hearing. We had a
24 hearing last night. First, I'd like to mention a couple of
25 housekeeping items. We have sign-up cards at the entrance of
60
1 the room, like this. Anyone who would like to be on our
2 mailing list, would you please fill out one of these cards. He
3 also request that you fill out a card if you'd like to provide
4 testimony this afternoon. That will given me an idea of the
5 number of speakers we will have, and I can arrange the cards
6 accordingly.
7 If we have a large number of speakers, we will recess at
8 4 o'clock if we need to continue after that tine. In the
9 interest of time, I would ask that you limit your redundant
10 testimony, please. That is, if a previous speaker has made the
11 same comments you wish to make, you can refer to that previous
12 speaker's comments. Making an opening statement this afternoon
13 will be Gerald Opatz of our regional office in Seattle.
14 Mr. Opatz will briefly discuss this EIS process and describe
15 how EPA intends to make its decision on the project.
16 Dan Fraser of the Farmers Home Administration will follow
17 Mr. Opatz in describing his office's role in the project.
18 During Mr. Opatz1 and Mr. Fraser's statements, I will be
19 arranging the order of those who wish to speak this afternoon.
20 I'll be arranging the order of speakers in the following
21 manner: First, those individuals representing Federal, state,
22 or local agencies; second, those representing organizations;
23 and finally, those individuals who wish to speak in their
24 private capacity.
25 You will note that we have a court reporter who will be
-------
61
1 making a transcription of the testimony. This transcript will
2 be available to anyone without cost. The transcript is
3 important since your testimony this evening will become part of
4 the official record. This afternoon. Excuse me. I forgot to
5 cross out that. When you are called to speak, please give your
6 name and speak slowly and loudly enough so that our court
7 reporter doesn't miss any of your testimony. The oral comments
8 you provide this afternoon are just as important as the written
9 comments you may send to us.
10 Both written and oral comments will be fully considered
11 and responded to in the final Environmental Impact Statement.
12 Please also note that the public comment will run through
13 November 5th. So if you want to make oral — or written
14 statements in addition to your oral comments today, we will
15 receive — we will accept those through the 5th of November.
16 Unidentified Man: Where do you send those?
17 Ken Brooks: The address, I believe, is in the EIS. Jerry?
18 Gerald Opatz: Yeah, to our Seattle office. Do you have a
19 copy of the EIS?
20 Unidentified Man: No.
21 Ken Brooks: Can we write it on the board up here?
22 Gerald Opatz: Yeah.
23 Ken Brooks: Could you, please.
24 Gerald Opatz: Sure.
25 Ken Brooks: The last procedural issue I would like to tell you
62
1 about is that there will be no cross-examination or questioning
2 of the speakers, nor will EPA attempt to respond to your
3 questions other than on procedural, EIS, or grant-related
4 issues. We will not try to answer project-specific or policy
5 issues since EPA will not be developing a final position on
6 this project until after the close of the comment period and
7 our careful analysis of all comments received.
8 We're here to listen to your concerns and comments this
9 afternoon and please be assured your comments will be
10 thoroughly analyzed. I would now like to have Jerry Opatz make
11 his introductory comments. Could you please pass any of the
12 sign-up cards to me at this time, or at any time you fill them
13 out, please pass them forward. Jerry.
14 Gerald Opatz; Thanks, Ken. My apologies to those of you who
15 were here last evening and have to listen to me a second tine,
16 but I guess that's your choice. The — my name is Gerald
17 Opatz. I'm chief of the Environmental Review Section in EPA's
18 regional office in Seattle.
19 I'd like to give you a brief history of EPA's involvement
20 in this EIS process and describe the steps remaining in
21 completing the EIS. In the fall of 1988, EPA was requested by
22 the Department of Environmental Quality to prepare an EIS on
23 the proposal by the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority for
24 its — on its proposal to construct a sewage collection and
25 treatment system. We evaluated the information available at
-------
63
1 that time and agreed that the project could have significant
2 water quality and socioeconomic impacts and agreed that it
3 would be appropriate to prepare an EIS to describe and evaluate
4 those potential impacts.
5 The first step in preparing that EIS was to conduct
6 scoping, and this is a process for determining the scope of
7 issues to be addressed in the EIS and for identifying
8 significant issues related to that action. As a result of the
9 scoping process, a number of important issues were identified
10 for inclusion in the EIS. These included effluent disposal
11 alternatives, groundwater contamination, potential health risks
12 associated with children wading and bathing at the mouth of
13 Neskowin Creek and the effect of the sewage system on community
14 growth and development.
15 A scoping meeting was held here in Neskowin in January of
16 1989. After the close of the scoping process, EPA through its
17 consultant, Jones & Stokes, started pulling together the
18 necessary information for preparing the EIS, and we started
19 writing it. The Fanners Home Administration subsequently
20 requested to be a cooperating agency with EPA on this EIS since
21 they, too, would be providing funding for the project; and Dan
22 Fraser will speak more to that in a couple moments.
23 EPA has been working on the draft EIS from early — had
24 been working on the draft EIS from early 1989 through mid 1990,
25 through about June, July of this past summer. And at the end
64
1 of that tine period, we concluded that none of the effluent
2 disposal alternatives that we had studied in that time period
3 would be acceptable. He advised the Sanitary Authority of that
4 fact and indicated that the EIS process could not develop
5 further alternatives and that the Authority, through its
6 consultant, would need to take the lead in developing other
7 effluent disposal alternatives.
8 The Authority did this and identified what we have
9 included as effluent 'disposal Alternatives 1 and 2 in the draft
10 EIS. For these two alternatives, five development options were
11 identified. And the cost analyses included in the EIS indicate
12 that the most cost-effective alternative is our so-called
13 Option 5. Please note, though, that EPA has not yet identified
14 its preferred alternative in this draft EIS.
15 He will identify a preferred alternative in the final EIS
16 after evaluating all comments and any new information that may
17 be presented through this public hearing and public comment
18 process. Where do we go from here in the EIS process? First,
19 as Ken indicated and I'd like to state, too, that public
20 comment period does run through November 5th; and upon close of
21 the comment period, we will analyze all the comments received
22 here at the public hearings and those that are sent to us, and
23 we will prepare our final EIS.
24 The final EIS will include a detailed response to all the
25 comments that we've received. The final EIS will be sent to
-------
65
1 all persons on our mailing list, so if you're not on our list
2 as Ken indicated, please be sure to fill out a card. And when
3 we send out the final EIS, there will be a subsequent 30-day
4 review and comment period. The final EIS, again, will identify
5 the planned EPA action.
6 At the end of the 30-day review period, EPA will issue its
7 record of decision. This will specifically identify our
8 proposed action and will include all mitigation measures
9 adopted by the agency to avoid or minimize environmental harm.
10 These mitigation measures will be incorporated as enforceable
11 grant conditions, if applicable. As far as timing for how long
12 completion of this process will take, that answer is dependent
13 upon the nature of the comments we receive through the public
14 comment process.
15 We have already received, both in writing and last night
16 -- for those of you who were here yesterday evening — quite a
17 number of very thoughtful comments that is going to take —
18 that are going to take some time for us to fully analyze and
19 respond to. We're obviously, having been involved with this EIS
20 now almost two years, we're anxious to complete the process;
21 but we won't release the final, we can assure you, until we
22 have given full and adequate consideration to all the comments
23 we've received. And unless there are major changes we need to
24 make in the EIS, we would hope to have the final out maybe
25 December or January.
66
1 That will only be after we feel very comfortable that
2 we've fully analyzed the comments that we've received.
3 David Joyce: Is it possible, just as to clarify, is
4 Option 5 the same as Alternative 5 in the EIS?
5 Gerald Opatz: No — the — and I — we are going to need to
6 clarify that in the final. I apologize for the confusion. The
7 Chapter 2, which goes through the various alternatives and then
8 talks about the development options is somewhat confusing. The
9 — Option 5 is — I need to check, but I believe it's a
10 combination — I believe it's probably based on Alternative —
11 effluent disposal Alternative 1.
12 Katharine Joyce: Disposal?
13 Gerald Opatz: Yeah. Option 5 is summer-hold and
14 winter-discharge. That is identified as being the most
15 cost-effective alternative. I think we're going to look and
16 maybe change some of that terminology around in the final to
17 try to clarify that, so —
18 David Joyce: I think that's Alternative 2.
19 Gerald Opatz: Okay.
20 Ken Brooks: Thanks, Jerry. Dan Fraser from Farmers Home
21 Administration.
22 Dan Fraser; My name is Dan Fraser. I'm with the Farmers Home
23 Administration, an agency of the U.S. Department of
24 Agriculture. I'm the State Environmental Coordinator for FmHA
25 and also a loan specialist in the Community and Business
-------
67
1 Programs Division. My office is located in Portland.
2 FmHA administers a number of financial assistance programs
3 for rural areas, one of those being the Rural Water and
4 Wastewater Loan and Grant Program. It's a program that's
5 available to rural communities with less than 10,000 population
6 for the construction, development, or expansion of water and
7 wastewater facilities.
8 The Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority submitted a
9 preapplication to the Farmers Home Administration a number of
10 years ago requesting financial assistance to complement the EPA
11 funding, grant funding, to complete or construct a vastewater
12 system for the Neskowin area. As a Federal agency, FmHA is
13 required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act,
14 which is commonly referred to as NEPA, and we cannot approve
15 any funding until the NEPA requirements have been complied
16 with.
17 When it was determined that an EIS would be necessary to
18 — or be required to be prepared for this project because of
19 the environmental impacts, FmHA asked the EPA to include us as
20 as cooperating agency. The reason we did that was to lessen
21 any duplicative work that we would have to do that EPA would
22 also have to do under the NEPA requirements and to do our
23 environmental review concurrent with theirs. EPA included FmHA
24 as a cooperating agency, and we've been working with them in
25 the coordination and preparation of the draft EIS.
68
1 Regarding funding from Farmers Home Administration, at
2 this point, FmHA has not approved, set aside, or otherwise
3 committed any funds to this project. Once the EIS process is
4 completed, then the Neskowin Regional Sanitary Authority's
5 application will be considered, along with other applications
6 we have on hand, on a priority basis to determine which
7 projects are funded. So at this point, there's been no
8 commitment at all regarding funding for this project.
9 Briefly, that explains FmHA's involvement in the project
10 and in the EIS process and also explains our basic policies and
11 procedures regarding funding. I think that's all I have. Ken.
12 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Dan. Kevin France, HGE Engineers.
13 Kevin France; I'm Kevin France. I'm with HGE Engineers out of
14 our Portland office, and we're the engineer for the Sanitary
15 Authority on this project.
16 When the facilities — or the environment — EIS process
17 in July of this year determined that additional effluent
18 disposal alternatives needed to be developed, we prepared an
19 addendum to the facilities plan that we prepared in 1988. And
20 in the facilities plan addendum, we evaluated two methods —
21 two different types of collection systems. We evaluated a
22 septic effluent collection system and a conventional gravity
23 collection system.
24 We evaluated several options for treatment processes.
25 These included a recirculating gravel filter, floccutative
-------
69
1 lagoons, an extended aeration process; and in combination with
2 the above processs, we looked at utilizing the existing
3 extended aeration treatment plant in combination with a new
4 treatment plant.
5 We evaluated four different plant — treatment plant
6 sites. They were the existing treatment plant site, the Hawk
7 Creek site, the Pasture 2 site, and the Simpson Timber site.
8 The site that was recommended in the the 1988 facilities plan
9 was no longer available, because it had been developed.
10 For effluent disposal options, we looked at three things.
11 We looked at spray irrigation, subsurface disposal, and direct
12 discharge to Neskowin Creek. For disinfection options, we
13 looked at ultraviolet radiation and then a chlorination,
14 dechlorination process. The recommended alternative of the
15 1990 facilities plan addendum was to construct the project in
16 phases.
17 The Phase 1 portion of the project would provide sewer
18 service to the core area, the point, and the western portion of
19 Proposal Rock. The Phase 2 portion of the project would
20 include Viking Estates, Kiawanda Beach, Neskowin Crest, Hawk
21 Crest, Neskowin Heights, and the remainder of Proposal Rock.
22 The recommended alternative included constructing a septic tank
23 effluent collection system for the parts of the system that are
24 current unsewered.
25 We would continue to utilize the existing collection
70
1 system in those areas that have sewer service now. We would
2 abandon the existing treatment plant, because it was determined
3 it would be more economical to build the new plant a little bit
4 larger than it would be rehabilitate the existing treatment
5 plant. We would construct a new extended aeration treatment
6 plant at the Simpson Timber site.
7 At that site we would construct a holding lagoon which
8 would be lined to prevent any seepage of the treated wastewater
9 from entering the groundwater, and we would hold the treated
10 wastewater during the summer months. And then in the winter
11 months when the flow in the creek was great enough to provide
12 adequate dilution, we would discharge to the creek, and
13 ultimately, out to the ocean. And the recommended disinfection
14 process was ultraviolet radiation.
15 Ken Brooks; Richard Santner from the Oregon Department of
16 Environmental Quality.
17 Richard Santner: Thank you, Ken. My name is Richard Santner.
18 I am employed at the Oregon Department of Environmental
19 Quality, Water Quality Division; and I would like, initially,
20 to read into the record a letter regarding this draft EIS and
21 this project from Lydia Taylor, the Administrator of our Water
22 Quality Division. And I beg the indulgence of those folks who
23 were here last night and have to hear a second reading.
24 I would say that we read it aloud now, because we would
25 like the community to know the position of the Department on
-------
71
1 this particular project. The letter is addressed to
2 Gerald Opatz.
3 "The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requests
4 that the public comment record for the above referenced DEIS
5 indicate that the Department supports the proposed project as
6 essential for protection of public health and water quality in
7 the Neskowin area. Our support is reflective of the fact that
8 the project ranks 16th (among 104) on the Department's current
9 Construction Grants Priority List. The Neskowin project has
10 had a relative highly priority ranking for several years since
11 a study conducted by the Department in 1985 concluded that
12 bacterial contamination of the creeks near the Neskowin core
13 area results from failing on-site waste disposal systems.
14 "The DEIS and the 1988 Facilities Plan Update bring
15 together much information that makes the need for the proposed
16 project apparent. Among the salient considerations are these:
17 "Water quality sampling over the last decade has
18 repeatedly found evidence of fecal bacterial contamination of
19 area streams. The 1985 DEQ study indicated the contamination
20 derives from human sources through failing on-site systems.
21 "The bacterial contamination of area surface waters is an
22 indication of a threat to public health. This is of especially
23 great concern due to the recreational nature of the Neskowin
24 area and the contact recreation use of area surface waters in
25 summer.
387 387.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment I,
Letter No. 1.
388 388.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 2,
Letter No. 1.
389 389.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 3,
Letter No. 1.
-------
72
1 "The sand dune soils prevalent in the core area are poorly
2 suited to on-site waste disposal systems. These rapidly
3 draining soils generally do not allow for adequate removal of
4 pathogenic or chemical contaminants. In the specific case of
5 Neskowin, the core area has developed on small lots at urban
6 densities which would not be acceptable for on-site systems
7 under DEQ's presents rules. The use of seepage pits and
8 cesspools which are also prevalent in the core area would
9 likewise not be allowed. The existing on-site systems
10 constitute a continuing threat to public health and the quality
11 of surface and groundwater.
12 "It is the policy of the State of Oregon, as stated in
13 ORS 468.710, to prevent and abate pollution and to ensure that
14 no waste be discharged to waters of the state without adequate
15 treatment.
16 "Clearly, improperly treated waste is being discharged
17 into Neskowin area groundwater and creeks resulting in a threat
18 to public health and degradation of water quality. The
19 construction of a properly functioning sewage collection and
20 treatment system is the most appropriate means of permanently
21 correcting this situation. The Department supports
22 implementation of the proposed project.
23 "Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
24 "Sincerely, Lydia R. Taylor, Administrator, Water Quality
25 Division.'
390 390. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 4,
Letter No. 1.
391. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 5,
Letter No. 1.
-------
73
1 I'd like to add on a few other remarks regarding funding
2 and process. Comments were made last night which shows, Z
3 think, some misunderstanding perhaps of what the situation is;
4 and I would like to clarify that. The grant — one of the
5 grants that the Sanitary Authority is seeking is an EPA
6 Hastewater Treatment Works Construction Grant.
7 The State of Oregon is a state which is called a delegated
8 state. That is, we administer that grant program on behalf of
9 EPA in Oregon. The grant, however, is a Federal grant. He
10 work with project applicants, communities like Neskowin or
11 other communities, to develop an appropriate grant application,
12 to have done a facilities plan, and so forth.
13 And when we deem them to have an appropriate project and
14 an appropriate application, we do what is called "certify" that
15 application, certify that project, send that to EPA; and EPA
16 Seattle awards that grant. The construction grants program
17 will expire, and I say that categorically, will expire on
18 September 31 (sic), 1991.
19 There will be no more EPA construction grants awarded
20 after that date. Pragmatically speaking, an application cannot
21 come in that late and be processed and awarded. It needs to be
22 — let us say for right now, on the order of a month or so
23 before that. That leaves the conclusion that the Regional
24 Sanitary Authority here has to have developed and have approved
25 a grant application by that date to be considered at all.
392 392. Comment noted.
-------
74
1 However, I need to add a bit of complexity to that. We
2 are in the final year of the program. The State of Oregon has
3 available to award a finite pot of money. We are working with
4 other communities like Neskowin on the development of projects
5 and applications. The number of communities and the amount of
6 money those communities could potentially apply for exceeds the
7 amount of money that we have available to award.
8 The conclusion one reasonably comes to from that is that
9 the earlier any jurisdiction, Neskowin or any other, comes in
10 with an approvable application, the more likely it is to be
11 funded. The Environmental Quality Commission, our policy body
12 — the Department's policy body — has adopted a policy for the
13 final year of administration of the program.
14 What we do, basically, is save up the applications that
15 come in in any quarter, then award the grants to those fundable
16 applications in their rank order on this priority list I
17 mentioned. It looks like no one is going to be coming in in
18 the first quarter. I think it's likely people will be coming
19 in in the second quarter and the quarters thereafter. As the
20 project — as the year gets closer and closer to its end, the
21 availability of money becomes more and more uncertain.
22 Therefore, it is in the interest of this community, and
23 any other seeking a grant, to get on with it as expeditiously
24 as they can. But I can make you a fiat statement, a definite
25 statement, that applications which are not in and processed by
392
-------
75
1 September 31st (sic), or actually somewhat before then, of 1991
2 will not get a grant. And if, in the end, it works out that
3 this community builds a sewer system, clearly, it is
4 advantageous to do it with approximately $2 million in Federal
5 grant than to do it without that amount of money.
6 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Richard. Doug Marshall, Tillamook
8 County.
9 Doug Marshall; I'm Doug Marshall, the County Sanitarian. I
10 got a subpoena a couple of weeks ago, and they spelled my name
11 D-o-g. So if you put me down on a subpoena be sure to spell my
12 name right.
13 I had some specific comments on the EIS draft statement,
14 and rather than read them in verbatim, I just wanted to kind of
15 highlight them. I made ten copies. I really didn't expect
16 this many people to show up, but you're welcome to them if you
17 want them.
IS On page 2-2 of the EIS, they talked about, quote, Neskowin
19 North received County Sanitary approval for its septic systems,
20 unquote. I started here in 1980, but I have been a sanitarian
21 since 1970. The point I wanted to make was, in '73, DEQ was
22 created. Prior to '73, the rules for subsurface sewage were
23 that if you wanted to do a subdivision, you looked at two or
24 three spots on the subdivision. If they looked feasible, you
25 went ahead and platted it, sold lots. When the owner was ready
392
393 393.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 36,
Letter No. 15.
-------
76
1 to build, then they came in and got their septic approval, if
2 possible.
3 AS you can imagine, a number of the lots they could not
4 get septic approval on that weren't right in the area where the
5 few test holes had been dug. So when DEQ was created, they
6 required that every lot be septic-approved before you platted
7 it. So in that statement, it is correct that it did have
8 sanitarian approval at that time, but remember that it was just
9 a general approval for the whole subdivision.
10 Most of Neskowin North that can be developed on sewers is
11 already developed. There are a few other approvals out there
12 that haven't been built on, but you're not going to see many
13 more houses out there than there are now, at least on our
14 tecnology today.
15 Second paragraph on page 2-10 talks about discharges into
16 many of the septic systems in the area occurring only during
17 the period of six to eight months during the year. What I've
18 seen in the ten years I've been here is that that may have been
19 true ten years ago, but over the years I'm seeing more and more
20 winter use of vacation dwellings. The old idea of the coastal
21 vacation cabin with the outhouse out back and cold running
22 water is fast disappearing.
23 I find myself doing more and more repairs where I'm
24 looking through the window, trying to figure out water use on
25 the house, estimating bedrooms. We're looking at pretty well
393
394 394.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 37,
Letter No. 15.
395 395.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 37,
Letter No. 15.
-------
77
1 set-up second homes, all of the conveniences, garbage
2 disposals, dishwashers, hot tubs, all of the things that scare
3 the sanitarian to death if they're going in the septic.
4 The other thing that I'm seeing is more and more of the
5 places that I'm called out to do repairs on the septic system
6 are being rented out either part-time or full time. And I
7 find, generally, over time that renters are a lot harder on a
8 septic system than a homeowner would be. We find that a lot of
9 items that wouldn't normally go down a system end up in a
10 system if it's been rented out. Most of those items aren't
11 real good on a system.
12 Page 4-3 under the No Action Alternative, the core area
13 will not be able to grow. I'm seeing growth every year on the
14 coastal dune areas, Tierra del Mar, Neskowin North -- or
15 Nedonna Beach, Neskowin, any of the areas where we've got beach
16 homes. It isn't all new dwellings that are being constructed.
17 I'm seeing a lot of remodels, upgrades of existing structures.
18 I pulled some statistics out of my files. Last year here
19 for the Neskowin core area, the area we're talking about
20 sewering up, I did two permits for brand-new dwellings. During
21 that same time period, I did seven authorization notices. The
22 authorization notice is a catch-all phrase for a remodel, loan
23 report, existing system evaluation, that sort of thing. Out of
24 that seven, five of them I approved with some conditions,
25 mainly, that the sewage-disposal systems needed to be
395
396 396.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 38,
Letter No. 15.
-------
78
1 upgraded.
2 I also did four septic repairs in the Neskowin area during
3 the last year. All of those four were undersized repairs.
4 Later on, I've got some numbers here for sizes of an adequate
5 repair. So if we want to get into that, we can. Host of the
6 old — older homes in the area are served by cesspools and
7 seepage pits, the cesspool being just the sewage flows out of
8 the house into a pit. There's no septic tank to even settle
9 the solids. The seepage pit has a septic tank, and then it
10 goes out to a deep pit.
11 The problems with those kind of systems are that they are
12 in direct contact the groundwater table much of the year. We
13 found in our studies that we need about 4 feet of separation
14 betweem the bottom of a sewage-disposal system and the
15 groundwater table for the sewage to get adequate treatment, and
16 it needs to be dry; and this applies in coarse-textured soils
17 like the sands.
18 Most of Neskowin core area here, Yaquina and Netarts beach
19 sands, they contain a lot of fines. Like many of the other
20 dune areas in the Oregon coast, it's underlain by a fresh-water
21 aquifer. Densities are such that — so you don't see it mixing
22 much with the Pacific Ocean, although it extends out onto the
23 beach front. That same aquifer, when the rains start and you
24 look out here on the golf course, you're seeing part of that
25 aquifer. It's all interconnected.
396
307 397.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 4,
Letter No. 1.
-------
79
1 I would "guesstimate" that the average depth of that
2 fresh-water underground aquifer is about 30 inches during the
3 winter months. The other thing to keep in mind is that if you
4 cut a cross-section through the Neskovin area, that water table
5 conforms approximately to the ground formed above it. So even
6 though you've got some foredune and some high dune area, that
7 water table rises up in that, having to do with capillarity.
8 So many of the drain fields up in those higher areas still
9 don't have that 4 foot of separation.
10 Without the 4 foot of separation between the bottom of
11 the disposal system and the groundwater table, the bacteria
12 flows into the groundwater table and disperses. Studies by
13 Bouma, Terry Rahe, some of the other leading people in the
14 state, show that that bacteria travels 200 feet or more, and
15 it's still hot, still untreated.
16 The point I wanted to make is many of the systems out
17 there, even with the small repairs that we're having to do, are
18 still contaminating that underground aquifer. It comes down to
19 the point of, do we want to preserve that aquifer for future
20 generations or do we want to continue contaminating it with raw
21 or partially-treated effluent.
22 When I talk about repairs on — for existing structures,
23 usually the two repairs that we do, if possible, are the
24 low-pressure system and the sand filter. The problem with a
25 sand filter, of course, it conserves area, but it's very
397
398 398-
The situation in this community is obviously complex.
The soils in the area clearly do not lend themselves to
adequate subsurface treatment at existing densities.
Septic systems are not an adequate solution to disposal
at urban densities.
-------
80
1 expensive. We're talking a sewage-disposal system in the range
2 of 5,500 to $10,000 depending upon how many bells and whistles
3 you want to put on it.
4 On lots 5,000 fecit — square feet and smaller, it's
5 getting tough to even find area for a sand filter. With
6 setbacks, a sand filter requires about 2,100 square feet. A
7 low-pressure system, properly done, shallow, with a cap over
8 the top of it, takes about twice that much or 5,100 square feet
9 — or more than twice than that much. Many of the lots in the
10 core area don't have enough room to do that. So when I talk
11 about undersized repairs, I'm talking seepage trenches,
12 low-pressure beds. In some cases, if they have a seepage pit
13 and I can't find any other room, we go ahead and put in new
14 seepage pits.
15 The problem when room becomes at a premium is, what do we
16 do with the old, contaminated gravels and sands. You just
17 can't throw them in the back of a truck and haul them off
18 somewhere and dump them. That sewage dribbling out the back of
19 the truck perturbs people when they get it on their
20 windshield. It tends to be a health hazard, too. When people
21 know what it is, they really don't want it buried in their yard
22 somewhere. So it's hard to get rid of. I've had to take it as
23 far as the landfill to dispose of it, and that's rather a waste
24 of landfill space.
25 The nice thing about the sand filter is that it really
398
-------
81
1 treats the effluent before it gets down into that groundwater
2 table. The two parameters that we measure sewage in,
3 generally, are BODs and suspended solids. They — a sand
4 filter cuts about 97 to 99 percent of that out of the effluent
5 in addition to most of the bacteria. It reduces the nitrates
6 about half. Most of the State standards are written with
7 nitrates in mind when you're talking bacterial pollution of
8 underground aquifers.
9 Nitrates are easy to test for. They're always present in
10 sewage. Planning made up some maps. I don't know if I should
11 point this out, but I think the sewer comes up to about here,
12 doesn't it. Hike?
13 Mike Kowalski; Yeah.
14 Doug Marshall; Yeah. They got a little carried away.
15 So if we ignore this section, the idea was to color the lots
16 that are less than 5,000 square feet red, because those are the
17 ones that I really have a problem with trying to do a repair
18 on. A lot that's 5,000 square feet, typically, you get out and
19 look and most of it's covered with house, driveway, parking;
20 and I'm left over with — it's not very much room.
21 The orange are 5,000 to 7,500 square feet. If everything
22 works right, usually we can get a — a repair system in there
23 that's adequate on lots that size, depending again on the size
24 of the house. And then the larger lots are — the green or
25 yellow, over 7,500 square feet. I think we're talking
398
-------
82
1 something in the neighborhood of — what? Sixty — I'm sure
2 Vic dug those out. sixty some percent are under 5,000 square
3 feet. I don't have his numbers. I think that's close.
4 Sixty-three percent? If the sewer doesn't go and I'm
5 called to do repairs, the lots that are red are the ones that
6 I'm going to have a heck of a time trying to fix with an
7 on-site solution. In the past, I have put in whatever we can
8 put in to get by in the hopes that the sewer is coming. In all
9 honesty, I'm kind of hanging my neck out doing that. The
10 choice is kicking people out of their home, vacation home, or
11 trying to get the sewage back underground.
12 So far, we've got it back underground, but understand that
13 most of those repairs that I'm doing are contributing directly
14 to the groundwater contamination. Houses along Hawk Creek, for
15 instance, irregardless (sic) of what kind of system they have,
16 if you're talking effluent that travels a couple hundred feet
17 or more in the groundwater contribute to the pollution in that
18 creek.
19 You're not going to see in rapidly-draining or
20 coarse-textured soils sewage coming up to the surface very
21 often. It disperses in that groundwater and flows on the
22 gravity gradient. Sand is particular — the Oregon beach
23 sands, because it has so many fines in it. Dyeing suspected
24 failing sewage systems doesn't work well. The particulate size
25 of the dye, the foreseen dye, is taken up by the sand, is
398
-------
83
1 filtered out, and we don't get it.
2 I night back up. We talk about failures either as
3 point-source failures or nonpoint-source failures.
4 Point-source is when you walk out there, and you've got a pipe;
5 and it's got gray, smelly stuff coming out of it. The old
6 sanitarian's test used to be if it looks, smells, and tastes
7 like sewage, it probably is. He don't see too many of those in
8 the Neskowin area. I can only think of two or three in the
9 past five or six years that I've found.
10 He would talk of sewage as a nonpoint-source, a saturated
11 flow. The systems along here contributing to that bacterial —
12 high bacterial counts that they're seeing on the — in the
13 creek when they test. So going in and dyeing them won't work
14 to figure out who's contributing to what. We could go in and
15 tag the bacteria radioactively; and in fact, that's how the
16 tests were done for travel of bacteria in coarse-textured soils
17 under experimental conditions. You're talking very expensive
18 testing.
19 It always creates a lot of problems when you talk about
20 dumping radioactive things out into the environment. It makes
21 me a little nervous, too. I don't know of any other way to
22 specifically nail down which house is contributing how much
23 load. I went out on a repair that we would class as as
24 point-source a couple of years ago, narrowed it down to three
25 houses, knocked on one door, and there were weekend renters in
398
399 399.
Please refer to Comment 398 and Response to
Comment 33, Letter No. 14. The limited action
alternative cannot be implemented without the
identification of failed systems. As this testimony
indicates, the determination of those failed systems is a
very complex and costly procedure.
-------
84
1 there. And when they figured out who I was and what I wanted
2 to do, they really weren't willing to let me in to dump dye
3 down the toilet to see if that's where it was coming from.
4 So I didn't push it. I tried the next house, and no one
5 was home, went through the lady that owned it, was told by her
6 lawyer I'd have to get a court order to do it. Right now, I'm
7 working about eight weeks behind on the paying customers that
8 come through the door that want new houses; and I really haven't
9 taken the time to go out and go up through the court system,
10 the time it takes to write up a brief, get a court order, and
11 dye the system.
12 Luckily, the case that I'm talking about, the people
13 wanted to remodel, came in and voluntarily upgraded the
14 system. So we got that one repaired. The enforcement
15 proceedings to force people to repair their systems are very
16 lengthy, and you can be talking two or three years.
17 I was given a letter by the Friends of Neskowin Friday
18 afternoon, and I really haven't had time to do a proper
19 response. I wanted to submit written comments before the 5th
20 deadline. I did notice one paragraph in there talking about an
21 additional alternative, recommending another alternative, 9 or
22 10. And I wanted to talk about that a minute. Anybody know
23 the one I'm talking about?
24 As you can see, I haven't had time to read this real
25 thoroughly yet. The point that they wanted to raise, I think
399
400. Please refer to the previous two Responses to Comment.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 187,
Letter No. 49.
-------
85
1 — and correct me if I'm wrong — was they wanted another
2 alternative added to the other alternatives about some Bore
3 surveying, forcing the people that we couldn't fix their drain
4 fields to hook to the sewer now. Using some dye testing or
5 whatever to determine where the problems were and either
6 correcting them on-site or hook into the sewer.
7 I've been in this business about 20 years. About 12 years
8 ago — up to about 12 years ago, Federal funds were readily
9 available for sewer projects. You could get 75 to 85 percent
10 Federal monies. So when a sewer project went, you ran the
11 sewers, hooked up everybody that was failing; and then as the
12 other systems failed, you forced them to hook on.
13 Monies have gotten so tight for these kind of projects
14 that I don't think you're going to see that anymore, at least I
15 haven't in the last two sewer projects that I worked in.
16 Generally, if they run a sewer line down the street, everyone
17 has to hook on. It's a simple matter of economics. The
18 Federal monies have pretty well dried up for these.
19 The other point that I wanted to raise, it would be nice
20 if we could go back and do door-to-door surveying, but because
21 dye, the old traditional dye methods, don't work in sands, I
22 don't know how we can nail down which house is contributing
23 what pollution to the creek short of some very exotic tests.
24 If Measure 5 passes, I doubt that you'll see any monies
25 available for that kind of testing at all.
400
-------
86
1 Ken Brooks: Could you kind of wrap it up?
2 Doug Marshall: Yes. I'll be here for questions if you have
3 any.
4 Ken Brooks: Thank you. The next speaker is Margot Thompson,
5 and she'll be followed by David Joyce.
6 Margot Thompson; My name is Margot Thompson, and I introduced
7 myself last evening when I also made comment. I've been a
8 taxpayer since 1967 in Tillamook County, and I own several
9 tracts of land in all the areas affected.
10 I would like to say that I am aware that there has been or
11 is a branch of the EPA called the Small Flows Clearing House
12 that exists to help small communities such as ours find
13 suitable as well as affordable solutions. I do not see any
14 mention of this in the EIS. I want to know why all available
15 avenues of information are not being investigated and the
16 findings submitted into the written record of the EIS.
17 Secondly, if this project is worth doing well— worth
18 doing, it is worth doing well; and I believe that to be true.
19 I want to know why the Tillamook County Planning Department
20 consistently submits inaccurate and misleading maps of NSRD and
21 areas to be included in the proposals. Are we to make, as
22 citizens in this community, informed decisions based on such
23 distorted information?
24 Third, I would like to read, because I have received a
25 number of phone calls from people in this community who are
401 401. The EPA National Small Flows Clearinghouse was
established in 1979 to assist small communities in
designing, constructing, operating, and managing
wastewater systems. The Clearinghouse can provide
useful information to consultants not familiar with small
system technology; however, the consultants for the
NRSA have considerable experience in designing
wastewater facilities for small communities. Please also
refer to Response to Comment 354.
402
402. This comment is beyond the scope of this Environmental
Impact Statement.
-------
87
1 long-tine friends of mine and people that I respect and love
2 about this, quote, "letter," that has been circulated. And I
3 would like anyone to know that if they would like a copy of our
4 letter from the Friends of Neskowin, it is available upon
5 request.
6 I would also like to say that, quoting from the last part
7 of the letter so that it won't take too much time, but I would
8 like to read it into the record. So please bear with me. This
9 is a quote.
10 "A group of Neskowin citizens has proposed a new
11 alternative; Alternative 110:
12 "Proper repair and expansion of the existing sewerage
13 plant, plus utilization of the new 'state of the art1 soil
14 technology for existing and replacement septic tanks, together
15 with proper regulation of Neskowin Lodge, the Horse Stables,
16 The Wayside, and the Golf Course sewerage, could solve the
17 pollution problem.
18 "We have asked that this alternative be added to those
19 previously evaluated.
20 "This alternative:
21 "A) Is outside the range of the other proposed
22 alternatives considered.
23 "B) Has less environmental impact than the other EIS
24 alternatives discussed.
25 "C) It is less expensive than the other EIS alternatives
403 403. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 62,
Letter No. 19.
-------
88
1 discussed.
2 HD) It is the alternative most compatible with the
3 mitigation concepts in the EIS especially unknown or
4 inconclusive.
5 '•••, core area...the County has required that any
6 development in these areas utilize state-of-the-art individual
7 wastewater treatment systems. These systems are the most
8 effective in avoiding aquifer contamination but are expensive.1
9 Page 3-44 EIS
10 "As noted above, we also propose this approach as part of
11 our alternative (also note Exhibits G and R)
12 "This would require hook-up of irreparable septic systems
13 in the core area and additional hook-up of those other core
14 area homeowners who elect to do so, while maintaining reserve
15 capacity for vacant land owners in the core area.
16 "This reasonable Alternative is already generally
17 described by the EPA in the EIS Mitigation 'In order to
18 mitigate these indirect impacts HRSA could scale down the
19 treatment plant capacities proposed for Phases 1 and 2, or the
20 areas to be sewered in Phase 2.' Page 5-3 EIS
21 'Upgrading the existing plant which ODEQ has indicated is
22 at the end of its service life, appeared to be a viable
23 alternative and was further evaluated. Page 2-9 EIS
24 "A great deal of effort has been expended our group to
25 develop this balanced compromise solution to the many difficult
403
-------
89
1 and controversial Neskowin sewer plan problems.
2 "Therefore, it is hoped 'Alternative 110* will be given
3 every consideration as a plan which best addresses the aims of 4U«5
4 various resident groups and best complies with the various
5 mandates regarding environmental impact, and cost
6 containment."
7 And I have signed this letter and submitted it along with
8 others who also drafted the letter, and I would like to say
9 that I don't think that any plan is going to go forward without
10 further refinement. But I think this is a sincere attempt at
11 looking at the truth of the situation and trying to envision a
12 very positive future for our community that does not exclude
13 people, but it envisions very positive growth in a very
14 contained kind of way. And thank you very much.
15 Ken Brooks; Margot, could you give the reporter a copy of that
16 letter, please.
17 Hargot Thompson: Yes. I believe they already submitted it.
18 Ken Brooks; David Joyce, to be followed by Katharine Joyce.
19 David Joyce: Without duplicating what I said last night, I
20 would like to acknowledge that, certainly, in this process it's
21 important to look at the big picture for what's being proposed
22 for a community like Neskowin and to plan for the future in the
23 design of any system to solve the pollution and health problems
24 that may result from what we have now.
25 And I tried to point out last night, and I want to
-------
90
1 emphasis again today, that the big picture is — for this area
2 that this is an area which cannot and does not — cannot handle
3 and does not want growth. Certainly, growth — does not want
4 growth that's going to bring some notion of economy to our
5 community, that's going to bring in — that's going to change
6 the nature of what this community is all about.
7 I think it's clear that the reason the EIS has taken so
8 long, has been such a difficult process, is that — as I
9 mentioned last night, this is an area which is uniquely
10 unsuited to accepting large amounts of effluent. Therefore,
11 any solution must be to solve the problem and not assume that
12 growth is good or inevitable for this area.
13 As a matter of fact, I think the DEQ and the County should
14 recognize and promote the need for growth limitations in this
15 area; because it's very clearly not an area which can accept
16 the kinds of projections, I believe, which are included in the
17 DEIS where they're speaking about the population here doubling,
18 I believe it's by the year 2006. This is an area which cannot
19 accept that kind of growth, I believe.
20 We should promote the need for growth limitations and
21 limit it beyond the core area and single family dwellings in
22 the core area. I would like to know where is the solution that
23 solves the problem as it exists now and doesn't create a myriad
24 of new ones.
25 I feel that Phase 2 is way out of line in terms of what's
404 404. This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 173,
Letter No. 47.
-------
91
1 needed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the problem as it
2 exists now. It assumes that massive numbers of people are
3 going to be moving into this area and that somehow we have to
4 spend a great deal of money and disrupt the whole nature of our
5 community to prepare for these people who are coming.
6 I'm as interested as anyone else in solving the health
7 problems that we have in this community, but I think that any
8 solution should be scaled to the problem and scaled to the
9 community and not provide enabling sewer systems that are going
10 to make the problem worse by allowing the hundreds, if not
11 thousands, of more people who will be attracted to this area if
12 we have sewer systems running all over the place. Thank you.
13 Ken Brooks; Thank you, David. Katharine Joyce, with
14 Jann Steelhammer to follow.
15 Katharine Joyce; My name is Katharine Joyce. I spoke last
16 night, and I'm not going to repeat myself. What I'm going to
17 do today is I have it letter here from Oregon Trout that was
18 written to Mr. Kenneth Vigil of the DEQ. It was written
19 July 15, 1988, by Mr. Dale Pearson with help from
20 Mr. Bill Bakke, who are both affiliated with Oregon Trout.
21 I don't know if all of you saw the Oreqonian today, but
22 there was an article on the front page concerning endangered
23 species of salmon; and several of those species, especially
24 winter steelhead, we have in Neskowin Creek. It is my opinion
25 that the — wastewater disposal of any sort, especially
404
405 405.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 95
Letter No. 22.
-------
92
1 chlorinated effluent would be disastrous to our five species of
2 — wild species — the creek has not been stocked since 1968 —
3 would destroy that unique waterway.
4 Mr. Pearson of Oregon Trout lists five different important
5 points in his letter. 1 won't read them all to you, but some
6 of them are — he says that we should take a complete inventory
7 of all fish and other aquatic species, which includes
8 shellfish, insects, ocean species, and everything that exists
9 in the waterway. We need life histories of these species,
10 especially run times and spawning periods; and as you know, the
11 water — the treatment — wastewater is going to be held during
12 the summer and discharged during the winter months, which is
13 during the spawning period of these fish.
14 The potential effects, the possible chemical and
15 temperature changes on the homing ability of the fish should be
16 clearly understood. If returning fish become confused as to
17 location of their birth stream due to changes in taste, smell,
18 or temperature of its water from effluent discharge, the entire
19 run could be extinguished, even though the effluent has no
20 toxic characteristics whatsoever.
21 In summing, I just just want to read a summing paragraph
22 to enter it into the record.
23 "I cannot overemphasize the importance of a thorough and
24 diligent analysis of these factors. The small size of
25 strearaflows of Neskowin Creek drastically limit its ability to
406.
406
The effluent to be discharged will meet state water
quality standards and will protect beneficial uses of
Neskowin Creek. These standards have been
established to preclude impacts to the species living
in the receiving waters. An inventory of the species
would serve no purpose for this document since these
organisms should not be impacted by the proposed
action.
The timing of smolt outmigration varies for different
species and locations; however, most fish migrate
between March and June. There are several factors
which are thought to trigger downstream migratory
behavior, the most prominent of which is an increase
in stream flow. This suggests that outmigrants would
be passing through the area influenced by the
effluent at periods of relatively high stream flow. At
high stream flows, the effluent would be most
effectively diluted, and would probably not
significantly alter the chemical status of the stream.
It is generally accepted that the addition of dilute
chemicals such as sewage treatment plant effluent do
not impact a salmonid's ability to imprint and home
on its rearing stream.
407 407. Please refer to the previous comment. With dilution
rates of at least 20:1 the impact to the water quality and
the species in the receiving waters should be
insignificant.
-------
93
1 absorb, even for short periods of time, the effect* of
2 discharges that are chemically damaging to aquatic life or that
3 cause water temperatures to rise to intolerable levels."
4 Also, I might point out that in the DEIS it is admitted
5 that stream flows in Neskowin Creek have never been calculated,
6 and the dissolution ratios of 20:1 can only be assumed. They
7 cannot be promised. So I submit this letter from Dale Pearson
8 of Oregon Trout as — for public record.
9 Secondly, I would like to say that I — some of the
10 comments I 'was going to make were made by Margot Thompson, and
11 I agree with her wholeheartedly about solution No. 10 —
12 Alternative 10 or something in that area. I feel that we — I
13 request — would like to have included in the DEIS — I mean in
14 the FEIS, or whatever, a written cost comparison on innovative
15 alternatives such as the ones we have proposed, and I would
16 like to see some discussion of chemical toilets such as the
17 Clivus Multrura brand, which is a proven brand, all — perhaps
18 it would be possible to take available funds and purchase empty
19 properties within Neskowin proper, in the core area, and use
20 those for extra drain fields.
21 You may think this is an odd idea, but I don't think any
22 idea at this point is too innovative, too crazy, anything. We
23 should be exploring all reasonable ideas; and I think it should
24 be possible to solve our contamination problems, as soon as we
25 figure out what they are, without the growth inducements of the
407
408 408-
409
409.
410 410.
The effluent to be discharged will not elevate the
temperature of the receiving water. In addition, no
chlorine will be added for disinfection so that the
effluent will also not be chemically toxic. Please refer to
Response to Comments 406 and 407; and Response to
Comment 95, Letter No. 22.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 90,
Letter No. 21 and Response to Comment 95, Letter No.
22.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 172,
Letter No. 47.
411 411. Please refer to Response to Comment 41, Letter No. 16.
-------
94
1 DEIS, Alternatives 1 through 8, and that all innovative ideas,
2 approaches should be taken seriously. And all questions should
3 be answered with specific data as it can be collected. Thank
4 you.
5 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Katharine. Katharine, do we have a
6 copy of that?
7 Katharine Joyce; Oh, yes, here.
8 Ken Brooks; Jann Steelhammer, and to be followed by Mamie
9 Frank.
10 Jann Steelhammer: I think those of you who were not here last
11 night have missed a lot. So I'm sorry you missed it, because
12 we made some very basic points last night, and we're now kind
13 of expounding a little bit.
14 But at this point, I would like to refer to the Tables
15 that are on pages S-4 and S-5 of the EIS. They are titled
16 Summary of Significant Impacts Associated with the Plant Siting
17 Alternatives. More specifically, I would like to address the
18 comparison of the socioeconomic impact on Alternatives 1
19 through 8.
20 For all eight options, it states that the socioeconomic
21 impact will cause a — and I quote. "Potential increase in
22 population leading to increase in crime/police protection,
23 other utility demand,1 referring to a larger water system, and
24 "commercial development." Unquote. My question is why an
25 option has not been offered which would have a socioeconomic
412
^ *s acknowledged that Phase 1 would have some
socioeconomic impacts. However, these impacts are
not considered significant.
-------
95
1 impact of fixing a pollution problem with no impact on growth
2 beyond allowing for single family dwellings to try to keep the
3 flavor of the community the way it is. And I would like to see
4 an option put into the EIS which is sort of a middle ground.
5 In other words, I think Phase 2 is an ill-considered very
6 large, very expensive plan; and though we are going for Phase 1
7 and it's cheap money, if you will consider the cost to you of
B Phase 2, you will find that it now becomes a very expensive
9 option. And it is not limited enough to protect the family
10 beach atmosphere that we have here.
11 And I'm not saying that all those properties in Phase 2
12 should be excluded as single-family dwellings. I just don't
13 want to see small development, resorts which will over-tax or
14 demand restaurants; schools; more police; lighting; bigger,
15 better roads; and a big water system and things that we all are
16 going to pay for plus destroying the feeling of our community.
17 It is okay for Oregon to have a family beach. And that — so I
18 would request that we have some more specific answers to the
19 question of why a more moderate alternative has not been
20 offered and apparently not been considered. Thank you.
21 Ken Brooks: Thank you. Marnie Frank, and next after Mamie
22 will be Lana Kowalski.
23 Harnie Frank: I'm a member of the Tillamook County Planning
24 Commission, and I'm also a secretary of the Neskowin Community
25 Association; however, I'm not speaking today representing
413 413. Phase 2 can be developed as the demand for expansion
of the existing system is realized. The high cost of Phase
2 relates to the need for an alternative effluent disposal
system; because of the concern for discharges to
Neskowin Creek, the only system evaluated during this
planning process was an ocean outfall. Please also refer
to Response to Comment 115, Letter No. 25.
-------
96
1 either of those organizations. I'm speaking as a citizen and
2 full-time resident of NesKowin.
3 My statement does not contain any technical information.
4 However, I do want to go on the record as saying that I favor a
5 solution to the pollution problem that currently exists in
6 Neskowin. I feel that it's really important that we resolve
7 that pollution problem. I feel that this solution must be
8 based on complete information, and judging from the testimonies
9 that I've heard and from information I've gleaned from last
10 night's testimonies, it sounds to me as though there isn't
11 adequate information at this point to develop a sound
12 solution.
13 Therefore, I urge the EPA to spend the time and the effort
14 to get the necessary information so that we can develop a sound
15 solution to the pollution problem. And I realize that there is
16 a threat of losing grant money for that, but I still feel that,
17 in the long run, it is a less-costly procedure to get a good,
18 sound solution to our pollution problem.
19 I also want to state that I am 100 percent opposed to
20 Phase 2 as proposed in the EIS. I think that Phase 2
21 represents a consideration of growth, and I do not feel that
22 growth is -- this is the proper forum for considering growth
23 for our community. Phase 2 has nothing to do with solving the
24 pollution problem which currently exists in Neskowin.
25 Growth is not a question that should be answered by
414 414. Comment noted.
415 415.
The EIS addresses those issues which may be impacted
by this proposed project. A number of issues have been
raised which will not be affected by construction of this
system. Data on these issues was not incorporated
because it would not add to the base from which
decisions must be made.
416 416.
417 417.
A number of commentors indicated their opposition to
Phase 2 of this proposal.
The sewerage project should not determine future
growth. The Tillamook County Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and Zoning Regulations will dictate the
pattern and level of growth.
-------
97
1 County, State, or Federal agencies. It's a question that needs
2 to be answered by the citizens of Neskovin, and we need to
3 consider that within the current guidelines developed by those
4 agencies; but it is a question that Neskovin citizens need to
5 determine the answer for. And I do not feel that the solution
6 to our pollution problem is the proper forum for Baking a
7 determination for the future growth of Neskowin.
8 Therefore, I urge you in your decision-making process to
9 focus on solving the pollution problem rather than focusing on
10 future growth of our community. Thank you.
11 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Mamie.
12 I'd like to ask a clarifying question. This issue came up
13 several times last night about Phase 1, Phase 2. Jerry, the
•14 EIS deals with both phases, it looks at the environmental
15 impact from both phases; but as far as funding considerations
16 that are now being considered, don't they only apply to Phase
17 1? Or maybe Richard can help with that.
18 Norm Sievertson; Ken, let me try to respond to that question
19 or this concern.
20 Marqot Thompson; Could you introduce yourself, please.
21 Norm Sievertson; My name is Norm Sievertson, and I am with
22 EPA. I've worked with Jerry up in the Seattle office.
23 EPA's grant program has certain criteria that must be
24 followed to develop a facility plan that would be considered
25 for funding. One of that criteria is that a municipality,
417
-------
98
1 sewer district, whatever, must consider alternatives to satisfy
2 the existing pollution or health concern. Those alternatives
3 must be evaluated on a dollar basis based on present worth cost
4 to determine which alternative appears to be the least costly
5 from a dollar standpoint, if you will.
6 To assure that the evaluations are based on a common
7 ground and to respect the fact that in many communities growth
8 is certainly anticipated, supported, and desirable in many
9 communities, EPA's criteria requires that alternatives be
10 compared on a 20-year planning period. This means that a
11 solution, any alternative, if you will, to be considered would
12 be based on what the facility planner expects to be in the area
13 20 years down the road. This is a planning projection, if you
14 will.
15 The Neskowin Sanitary District in its facility planning
16 efforts had come up with population projections, the Phase 2
17 projections, if you will. That is a projection based on the
18 Neskowin District's assessment of what they think would be
19 here. It may have been impacted by the engineer preparing the
20 plan for Neskowin. I suspect that the County population
21 projections were somehow coordinated with that or maybe the
22 projections in Neskowin based on that; but at any rate, the
23 facility plan includes an estimate of the population 20 years
24 down the road within the service district that would be
25 considered to be served by this facility.
99
1 The facility plan recognizes that there's initial need.
2 That initial need, Phase 1, if you will, is what they really
3 intend to serve now. But to satisfy EPA's criteria, they took
4 a look into the future based on their estimates of what they
5 think might be here and based alternatives on that 20-year
6 solution.
7 The facility plan, as I understand it, recognizes a
8 20-year solution, compares alternatives, and proposes to
9 construct facilities in the two-phase approach, Phase 1 to
10 serve what exists now and a little more, if you will, as far as
11 population is concerned. And at some future date, there
12 probably will be a time for the Neskowin District, perhaps the
13 County as well as the citizens in this area, to make some
14 decision on are we really going grow as we projected in the
15 facility plan? Was that an ambitious projection that we want
16 to adjust now?
17 And we recognize, the EIS I'm pretty sure points this out,
18 that there's some decision point coming up for the Neskowin
19 citizens five or six years down the road; and I think that — I
20 hope that answers the question.
21 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Norm. That helps. I hope that might
22 help others. I know a number of people talked to me about that
23 last night, and I couldn't really answer it either.
24 Lana Kowalski to be followed by Randall Koch.
25 Lana Kowalski: My name is Lana Kowalski. I grew up in
-------
100
1 Neskowin as a child; and with my husband, Mike, we've owned a
2 hone in the core area for 18 years.
3 Hy — my mother often took us to the beach on warm summer
4 days when I was a little girl, and we used to walk by the old
S Neskowin campgrounds, which is where the Neskowin Lodge
6 condominium is presently located. At the edge of the creek,
7 there used to be a small, little wooden building; and it was
8 the public restroom for the park.
9 There was a pipe that ran down the back side, and it
10 emptied into the creek. In the summer, the pipe didn't quite
11 reach the water level, so as people used the rcstrooo, there
12 was a discharge into the creek. The water in the creek at that
13 place was kind of a dark, murky, gray-green color; and you
14 really couldn't see the bottom of the creek. But that was
15 okay, because we never looked. We always looked away. And
16 then we hurried on down to Proposal Rock to play where the
17 incoming ocean had, hopefully, diluted the contamination.
18 And so here we are today, and many of us are still turning
19 our heads and looking away from the pollution that's happening
20 in the middle of our community. As a health care professional,
21 I believe that if there's a health problem existing, it must be
22 addressed and as soon as possible. How many tests do we need
23 before we admit that many of our antiquated septic systems
24 aren't doing the job anymore?
25 Trying to identify failing systems still leaves us with
418
-------
101
1 the ongoing problem. Septic systems will continue to fall, and
2 our creek will continue to be polluted. We need a sewer system
3 for the core area, and all other concerns must be secondary to
4 ridding our community of the health risks that now exist. We
5 must not continue to turn our heads away from a problem with
6 stopgap solutions and hope that the problem will go away.
7 We must come together as neighbors and as friends and as
8 concerned citizens and support a permanent solution now while
9 the funding is available. I join others who support the
10 implementation of the proposed project in Neskowin.
11 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Lana. Randall Koch.
12 Randall Koch: My name is Randall Koch. I'm a homeowner on
13 Slab Creek, or Neskowin Creek as its referred to in the report,
14 and there are — I have concerns as someone who actually
15 doesn't live in the core of Neskowin but lives near the area.
16 First, I'd like to state that I'm sure everyone is very
17 concerned about the pollution that affects the creek and wants
18 to find a solution that works. There are so many complexities
19 involved here with the implications of any action that I think
20 it's very difficult to come up with a solution; and there's
21 been a lot of work done, obviously, and research on many
22 people's parts.
23 In Mr. Sievertson's questioning, I just was — had
24 underlined something about that, so I want to speak to that
25 also. As regards the higher, long-term population growth rate
418 418. Comment noted. A number of commentors indicated
their support for the project. Please also refer to
1 Response to Comment 89, Letter No. 20.
-------
102
1 on page 4-23 of the report, it ~ the facilities plan project*
2 a higher, long-term population growth rate within the NA —
3 NRSA boundary than either the historic growth rate or the
4 projected County growth rate and that the higher growth rate
5 within the proposed project they say is appropriate based on,
6 you know, growth of population in coastal areas.
7 And yet on 4-25 in a survey done about the quality of life
8 and the community impacts, of 50 people surveyed, 36 said that
9 they wanted to maintain the quiet, residential, family-oriented
10 character of the Neskowin area and do not want commercial
11 development, which is implied that the increased population
12 will be — as was read earlier, will be — and the Phase 2 plan
13 would all be based on increased desire to come here and
14 commercial development.
15 So just in those two pages, it seems like the desires and
16 implied growth in the area are directly contradictory to the
17 desire — the desire of the people in the community as pointed
18 out, you know, just within two pages. It seems to be
19 contradictory. One thing says we — that this is going to be
20 needed, and yet it's against the desire of the community to
21 have that growth. So anyway, that kind of speaks to what was
22 addressed there by Mr. sievertson.
23 The implications for people who do not live within the
24 core of this report is kind of why I want to bring this up in
25 the report, in this testimony, and that is that it seems to be
419.
420 420.
Comment number not used.
Growth as discussed in the EIS does not necessary imply
commercial development. The Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and Zoning Regulations will determine the
development which may occur in Neskowin.
421 421.
The siting of the holding lagoons outside the urban
growth boundary will not change the location of the
boundary. Appendix C of the DEIS indicates that sewer
service can not extend beyond the urban growth
boundary of Neskowin.
-------
103
1 indicated that people who live near the plant up the valley
2 will be then included in the NR — NRSA in that the sewer line
3 will run up to the plant and include the people in the
4 urban-growth boundary who right now are outside of that
5 urban-growth boundary.
6 That seems to be the implication as pointed out on 4-16,
7 and we will also be impacted by the odor of the plant as it's
8 aerated over the land there and stored all summer, accumulating
9 there. People know where the wind flows up that valley, and
10 right now, we — on many days we can smell the salt air of the
11 coast; and that's something we really cherish, when we can
12 smell the salt air and go, "Yeah, it is 4 miles away." It's
13 wonderful to smell that. Well, I'm sure that would not be
14 quite the same smell if there was a sewage treatment plant, in
15 my case, .7 miles down the valley.
16 So there are a couple of major impacts that this has on
17 us. We would be — as far as I can conclude, we would be under
18 the jurisdiction of the Sanitary District, which — we've gone
19 to a lot of trouble and expense to comply with the County
20 sanitary conditions so that our sewer systems do comply. And
21 they're — ours — in my case, it's about 12-years-old and was
22 over-built to consider the implications of, you know, being
23 there on a full-time basis; and we would now be at the whim of
24 someone down here who has a completely different situation and
25 needs and desires.
421
422 422.
There may be odors associated with the sewage
treatment plant. In order to mitigate for this impact,
EPA's preferred alternative is to locate the sewage
treatment plant at the site of the existing plant. The
sewage effluent to be stored in the lagoons at the
Simpson timber site will be highly treated effluent with
minimal potential for odor.
423 423. Please refer to Response to Comment 421.
-------
104
1 I feel it would be kind of — I'm not too pleased with the
2 implications of being included in a district that probably
3 doesn't have ay considerations very much in aind. Also, this
4 — this implies that with the sewer going out the valley and an
5 expanded urban-growth boundary that there would probably be
6 interest in people locating out that valley, because they could
7 hook up to the sewer and would probably want to change the
8 zoning out there away from farm and woodlands to — since
9 they're inside the urban-growth boundary, they'd probably want
10 to have some development going on out there. And there's been
11 a lot of effort that has gone in to preserve those wood —
12 woodland and farmland zones so that there would be a limited
13 growth out there.
14 And my other main concern goes along with the concerns of
IS these other groups about the impact of effluent and any
16 worst-case scenario, which if there is a chlorinated,
17 dechlorinated situation of effluent going back into the creek,
18 somebody makes a mistake and you chlorinate Slab Creek from 1
19 mile up, you're pretty much going to eradicate the — well,
20 it's going to be pointed out in the report if the — if the
21 life in the stream is impacted by a chlorination spill in the
22 middle of the time when they are — when the fish are
23 migrating, which is the time they are going to be pouring the
24 effluent into the creek, between February — no November and
25 March, you could pretty much destroy the whole fish run in a
423
424 424.
Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation is the preferred method of
disinfection. Chlorination and the potential for chlorine
spills into Neskowin Creek will not exist under the
current proposal. During times that the UV disinfection
system is being maintained, effluent will be held in the
storage lagoons. Discharge will only occur when the UV
is operable; chlorine disinfection as a back-up will be
unnecessary.
-------
105
1 stream which is a class one natural stream right now, which is
2 a very rare item, as can be pointed out by the Trout paper.
3 It's very unusual in a sense of a stream that carries a
4 native run of fish. So those would — kind of a minimum of
5 research — I really see a lot of problems with this particular
6 solution, and I think that the — that there needs to be more
7 research to find out the total impact that would be indicated
8 by Alternative 1. I think Alternative 2 is very far-reaching
9 and out of proportion to the desires of the community, and I
10 think that some alternatives and the goals of the community
11 need to be kind of aired.
12 It seems like the only time I ever come to a hearing is
13 when it's a red flag, and there's a problem. But somehow,
14 without being a city, this community needs to understand what
15 its desire is in the future, come up with a mission that these
16 things can address; so you're not going on one basis, and we're
17 going on another basis, or we're always going sideways.
18 We need to come up with a mission that we all have and
19 desire and then focus on that as part of the solution.
20 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Randall. Nancy Schwieger, and she'll
21 be followed by Marvin Greenbaum.
22 Nancy Schwieqer: Okay. I agree with Randall's comments. I
23 also live up Slab Creek Road, and in my opinion, it's not
24 acceptable to have any kind of sewage facility, especially
25 releasing effluent to Neskowin Creek at any time, whether it be
424
425 425.
This comment was submitted as part of the written
comment. Please refer to Response to Comment 95,
Letter No. 22.
-------
106
1 summer or winter.
2 The degradation of Neskowin Creek, it being a class one
3 stream for fish and game, has already put restrictions on when
4 and how people fish the creek because of years of abuse. If
5 you are going to be doing more environmental — the possibility
6 of more environmental damage or significant impact would, in my
7 opinion, possibly leave Neskowin Creek dying.
8 There's a scenic route and a bicycle route written up in a
9 lot of books, papers, so on and so forth, saying that this is a
10 beautiful way to see the countryside through United Nations'
11 Bio-Reserve, which is a unique environment which Neskowin Creek
12 is a part of. And it would be a wonderful way to drive along
13 the sewage treatment plant for Neskowin.
14 I'm assuming — I'm assuming that our zoning laws would
IS change, and it would decrease our property values. Air quality
16 and noise impacts would be significant. We live less — or
17 approximately a half a mile away from the proposed site, and I
18 really enjoy getting out in the morning and smelling the fresh
19 air, the sea air; and I'm afraid the effluent smell would
20 definitely decrease the reason that I moved to the area, which
21 was to get out of the core area and to enjoy a forested
22 environment which was close to the ocean.
23 I don't think Neskowin Creek should be sacrificed so that
24 Neskowin can have a sewer. I think Neskowin should have a
25 sewer. I think there should be other alternatives which would
425
426
427a
426. Please refer to Response to Comment 421, and
Response to Comment 422.
427a The facilities planning process has evaluated a number
of sites along with the development of the treatment
alternatives. As noted in the EIS, the number of
suitable sites for the proposed project is very limited.
Please also refer to Response to Comment 354.
-------
107
1 bypass using Neskowin Creek to release effluent.
2 Ken Brooks; Thank you, Nancy. The last person I have that is
3 signed up to speak is Marvin Greenbaum. Would anybody else
4 like to speak after Marvin?
5 Marvin Greenbaum My name is Marvin Greenbaum. I live on Slab
6 Creek Road, 8105 Slab Creek Road. I am a little bit
7 embarrassed. I don't think I have too much intelligent to say
8 about this matter, mainly, because I only learned about it's
9 impact on me last night — possible impact on me. I guess I
10 consider myself a socioeconomic impact point living up Neskowin
11 Creek, and I understand that one of the options is to put a
12 treatment plant halfway to my home up there.
13 I have been a resident — I have been a land owner in
14 Neskowin since 1973 and a resident since 1980, so anybody who
15 has been around here that long must be aware of the concerns of
16 the Neskowin community about pollution and sewage disposal. I
17 must say, though, that up until last night, I considered it a
18 Neskowin Beach problem and not my own. As of last night, I
19 think I've changed my ideas.
20 I have just a couple of points that I can make, not having
21 very intelligent comments to make at this time. The first is
22 that I'm dismayed that the recent proposal to place a potential
23 treatment plant up Slab Creek Road has never even come to my
24 attention prior to last night. Now, that may be my fault, but
25 somehow I would see as — that's one of the proposals that it
427 427. EPA diligently attempted to advise the Neskowin
community of the EIS process. It is unfortunate that we
were not effective in informing all interested parties.
-------
108
1 has not been more broadly broadcast to the people living along
2 that road is quite a concern of mine.
3 I don't know who — where to place the blame for it. I
4 assume that maybe I have to, because I wasn't more aggressively
5 informed; but I assumed that perhaps the Neskowin Regional
6 Sanitary Authority did not consult the people who were living
7 along that road. I could not be informed about that.
8 I want also to point out that the — I was involved as one
9 of the land owners in the changing of the name from Neskowin
10 Creek to Slab Creek Road a number of years ago in the effort to
11 obtain a more historic connection with the people who live
12 there with the Neskowin area. It was originally called Slab
13 Creek — Slab Creek, I understand. And we were instrumental in
14 having that changed back to Slab Creek.
15 I don't know whether it's come to people's attention that
16 there's a designation of Slab Creek as a scenic highway, and I
17 think that would be quite important. The site, I understand,
18 that's been talked about in one of the options is Simpson
19 Timber Company. We all know that timber companies aren't known
20 for their concern about scenic surroundings, for the most
21 part. And I'm quite interested in having that considered, what
22 impact the treatment facility would have on its — on the —-
23 Slab Creek's scenic environment. Thank you.
24 Ken Brooks: Thank you, Marvin. Again, would anybody else —
25 Doug?
427
428 428.
The lagoon berms will be visible from the road.
Appropriate landscaping should help to minimize the
visual impact of the berms.
-------
109
1 Doug Marshall! If nobody else wants to speak. You know, once
2 you get me turned on, you can't get me shut off; but I'd like
3 to talk about composting toilets and some of that if anyone is
4 interested.
5 Ken Brooks: I don't think — you know, I think a better forum
6 might be afterwards or something. That really doesn't pertain
7 specifically to the draft EIS, and I think there are people
8 that do need to leave. We've been here for the last 2 1/2
9 hours. I'd like to very sincerely thank — yes?
10 Hike Kowalski: Ken, I'd maybe make a quick statement, if I
11 might.
12 Ken Brooks: Okay.
13 Mike Kowalski; It just occurred to me that the Sanitary
14 Authority was not represented today. I made a few comments
15 last night, and I just wanted you to know that the Authority,
16 too, appreciates all of your comments and will take them into
17 careful consideration. We've heard a lot about what are the
18 negatives with the plan, and being a very comprehensive plan,
19 it can't be perfect. We know that.
20 I would urge you, though, as well, if there are positives
21 in the plan, we really need to know that, too. We need to
22 build on something that's generally thought to be positive in
23 the plan, or we have — or we're going back to ground zero.
24 Thank you very much.
25 Ken Brooks: Yes, ma'am.
110
1 Joyce Anderson; May I say a few words?
2 Ken Brooks! Yes, ma'am.
3 Joyce Anderson: My name is Joyce Anderson, and we're a
4 landowner in Neskowin Heights. It's Lot 4. We've owned the
5 land for around 15 years, and we've waited to build for some
6 time, until we had the finances to do so. And for about the
7 last two years, we have wanted to build; and we've waited with
8 great expectation to hear what might come out of all of the
9 research being done in the last two years, and we do appreciate
10 that.
11 I really appreciate what the city, the town here, is going
12 through. I understand that totally. We lived in an area where
13 there were very few homes outside of Portland, and people came
14 and built near us, too. And I know some of what you're going
15 through. At the same time, I think it's hard to deny what's
16 going to come in this state.
17 One thing that is seen is that there will be some kind of
18 growth, and on the Table, I believe it was 3-43, I wonder how
19 much of that growth is full time or is part-time. What we
20 wanted to build was a small home that would be approved by an
21 architectural committee in this area, as we have in our area ir
22 Happy Valley. We wanted it for a family, which is a single
23 family. There's three of us.
24 We just want to come here on weekends. We don't want to
25 disturb anybody. We like people around here. We think people
-------
Ill
1 are interesting, and we like to get to know people. He enjoyed
2 going to a meeting the other night at the Sanitary Authority
3 and just finding out about the area and the history around
4 here.
5 I hope you'll consider us, too. We're part of Phase 2,
6 and I hear a lot of comments about that; but we've waited a
7 long time. And we'd really like a home to come to on the
8 weekends that wouldn't be rented out and would just be for us,
9 for the three of us. I want to thank all of you, the EPA,
10 everyone, for all of the time that you've given to all the
11 considerations on all of our behalf. Thank you all.
12 Ken Brooks; Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who
13 would like to speak?
14 Ladies and gentlemen, I would most sincerely like to
15 compliment you. I've been to a number of hearings, and I think
16 that the people that have spoken, both this afternoon and last
17 night, were some of the most well-informed. And I know this
18 issue is — there's some different opinions on it. I think
19 you've been very tolerant and very cordial to each other, and
20 that's to be commended.
21 If there's no one else that would like to speak this
22 afternoon — I said we've been going for 2 1/2 hours. I forgot
23 the clock hasn't been set back from daylight-saving time. So
24 it may have seemed that long, but it hasn't been quite that
25 long. So at about 3:41, I'd like to adjourn this hearing.
429 429. Comment noted.
-------
112
1
2
3 CERTIFICATION
4
5
6 I, Noel R. Riney, a freelance court reporter and Notary Public
in and for the State of Oregon, hereby certify that the
7 transcript prepared for PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE NESKOWIN REGIONAL
8 SANITARY AUTHORITY WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES, is a true and correct verbatim transcript
9 of testimony given of the proceedings of October 27, 1990; and
October 28, 1990, at the Neskowin Fire Hall.
10
I further certify that I am not interested in the cause, nor am
11 I related by blood or marriage to any interested party in the
cause.
12
Dated this 2nd day of November 1990.
13
14
15
Noei» R. Riney ^
17 My Commission Expires 5/13/94
18
19
20
21
22 NOEL R. RINEY REPORTING
2013 Bayshore Drive
23 Waldport, OR 97394
(503) 563-2284
24
25
------- |
|