City of Creswell DRINKING WATER PROTECTION PLAN

Home , Big River (Oregon), Cottage Grove Lake, Dorena Reservoir

December 2017

This page was intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………….……………...... page 1

Acknowledgements………………………………………………….………………...... page 3

Area Map…………………………………………………………….………………...... page 4

Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………….………………..…..page 5

Chapter 2: Public Participation……………………………………………………..…...page 10

Chapter 3: Delineation of the Drinking Water Source Area………………………..…page 13

Chapter 4: Drinking Water Protection Areas Inventory……………………………....page 14

Chapter 5: Susceptibility Analysis………………………………………………………page 18

Chapter 6: Management of Potential Sources of Contaminants……………………....page 21

Chapter 7: Contingency Plan…………………………………………………………....page 26

Chapter 8: Siting Future Water System Sources………………………………….…....page 34

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………….page 35

List of Acronyms……………………………………….………………………………....page 37

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………...…...... page 38

Executive Summary

The Creswell Drinking Water Protection Plan (Plan) was produced through the combined efforts of involved citizens, City of Creswell staff, Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council staff, and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff. The purpose of this Drinking Water Protection Plan is to protect the water quality within the Upper Coast Fork Willamette watershed, the sole source of drinking water for the Creswell community.

The Creswell Plan process involved the public and utilized local knowledge. The Source Water Assessment (DEQ, 2002) for the Creswell Drinking Water Source Area was in the process of being updated and enhanced through during the creation of this plan. Updated data sets were used to help inform and guide recommendations.

The Plan process included:

• Researching and providing useable information on sensitive areas and potential contaminant sources. • Incorporating Committee knowledge and research information into an enhanced inventory. • Utilizing existing risk information and local knowledge to refine risk ratings for potential contaminant sources. • Developing management strategies to reduce or eliminate the risks to the drinking water source posed by potential contaminant sources. • Developing a Contingency Plan that identifies the primary potential threats to the water supply, and presents procedures that will be followed should the threats materialize. • Documenting a procedure for siting future water systems that outlines the steps that would need to be taken if the existing Upper Coast Fork Willamette River source should become unusable or if community growth requires more capacity than is available from the present source.

The Plan is recognized as a useful tool for protecting the viability of businesses and households in the City of Creswell and within the watershed. The Plan will be approved by the Oregon Drinking Water Services (DWS) under the Oregon Health Authority, as well as the Department of Environmental Quality.

Key strategies for implementation for the plan include:

• Continue participation in the Upper Willamette Drinking Water Protection Partners • Conduct targeted outreach and education to private landowners in the Upper Coast Fork Willamette Watershed to inform them their property is located in the Drinking Water Source Area. • Conduct targeted outreach to private industry located between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Creswell’s drinking water intake facility. • Prioritize riparian restoration efforts and removal of hazardous waste along the mainstem Coast Fork Willamette River between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Creswell to increase resiliency prior to potential contaminations occurring.

• Collaborate with partners and regulatory agencies who provide restoration, education, and or outreach relevant to source water protection outside the City of Creswell jurisdictional boundaries. • Develop recognition for industrial, commercial, and residential landowners that are going above and beyond to ensure and protect the drinking water for the City of Creswell. • Review progress of implementation on an annual basis to ensure steps are continuously being made to strengthen the security and resiliency of the drinking water for the citizens of Creswell.

For more information, contact:

Madeline Phillips, City Planner City of Creswell 13 South 1st Street Creswell, Oregon 97426 [email protected] 541-895-2531 ext. 326

Acknowledgements

The Technical Advisory Committee reviewed inventory information, provided local knowledge for the inventory of potential contaminant sources, participated in the ranking of the potential contaminant sources, and assisted in the development of management strategies to address potential contaminant sources. The Technical Advisory group provided information during Plan meetings, and also provided technical advice via email, conversations, and published documents.

All parties involved in the process, and interested parties that may present themselves in the future, will be critical for the successful implementation of this Plan.

Upper Willamette Drinking Water Protection Committee

Amanda Gilbert - Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Reilly Newman – Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Amanda Ferguson - City of Cottage Grove Ray Pardee - City of Cottage Grove Michael DeHart – City of Creswell Madeline Phillips – City of Creswell Frasier McDonald - Lane County Katherine Nordholm - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Steven Liebhardt – Bureau of Land Management Wes Messenger - Army Corps of Engineers Doug Garletts – Army Corps of Engineers Krista Farris - U.S. Forest Service Cameron Mitchell - U.S. Forest Service Daniel Dietz – Mckenzie River Trust Jacquie Fern – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Dave Downing – Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District

City of Creswell Staff

Maddie Phillips – City of Creswell, City Planner Cliff Bellew – Public Works Department, Water Production Superintendent Michael DeHart – City of Creswell, Economic Development Coordinator

Creswell Drinking Water Protection Plan

Area Map

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act, implemented new requirements, and provided resources for state agencies to assist communities in protecting the sources of their public water supplies. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed guidelines for implementing the new requirements to conduct “source water assessments.” In Oregon, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) conducted the source water assessments. The Source Water Assessment (SWA) for the City of Creswell was completed in 2002. The City of Creswell SWA included a delineation of the source area supplying the public water system, identification of areas sensitive to contamination, an inventory of potential contamination sources in the area, and a susceptibility analysis. The purpose of the Drinking Water Protection Plan is to build on the information provided in the Source Water Assessment and utilize local and expert knowledge to determine management strategies to protect the water source (ODEQ/OHA, 2002).

A state approval process for local jurisdictions that develop plans is included in the state voluntary drinking water protection program. The DEQ and OHA Administrative Rules provide the framework for developing a drinking water protection program leading to this approval. The voluntary drinking water protection program is built on the belief that local communities are best suited to developing their own drinking water protection program based on the needs and land uses within the community. The DEQ and OHA developed a guidance manual to assist local communities in following these rules and preparing a drinking water protection plan. The Oregon Wellhead Protection Program Guidance Manual (ODEQ/OHA, 1996) was utilized in the process of creating the Creswell Drinking Water Protection Plan.

The creation of a Drinking Water Protection Plan is voluntary for Oregon communities. The benefits of having a drinking water protection plan in place and implementing the Plan as prescribed are many. The Plan addresses past, current, and future potential contaminant sources. It suggests ways to resolve these problems, therefore protecting the health of the consumers. Contamination reduction and avoidance also reduces the costs and difficulties of treating water at the water treatment plant. The creation and implementation of the Plan may assist the City of Creswell in obtaining future funding and reducing monitoring needs and costs.

Purpose

The overriding purpose of this project is to develop a drinking water protection plan that supports high quality and quantity of water that benefits the health and economic viability of the community.

There are seven primary goals of this project:

1. Involve the public in the creation of a Drinking Water Protection Plan for their community.

2. Enhance the SWA inventory by collecting existing information not included in the Source Water Assessment and utilizing the diverse local knowledge of citizens.

3. Refine the SWA sensitive areas with GIS and LIDAR data and additional geologic information.

4. Reassess the susceptibility analysis by overlaying the refined sensitive areas with the enhanced inventory.

5. Develop management strategies for all potential contaminant sources identified through the planning process. Prioritize the management strategies and include them in the Drinking Water Protection Plan.

6. Create a Contingency Plan for possible interruption and/or contamination of the water supply system.

7. Create a procedure for siting new future water system sources.

Source Water & Intake

Creswell is located in southern Lane County, along the mainstem of the Coast Fork Willamette River. The City of Creswell relies primarily on the Coast Fork Willamette River for its drinking water supply. The intake facility is located on the southern border of city limits and supplies water service to all of Creswell and sewer service to homes and businesses west of Interstate 5, or roughly 4,000 users.

The drinking water for Creswell is supplied by the Coast Fork Willamette River and the Garden Lake Park Well System. The Emerald Valley Wells were shut down and disconnected from our water distribution system in 2009 and then placed in a reserve status. The intake is located in the Lower Coast Fork Willamette Sub-Basin in the Upper Willamette Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) #17090002. The Coast Fork Willamette intake is located at an approximate elevation of 550 feet and the upper edge of the watershed is located at an elevation of approximately 3,950 feet at Burnt Mountain. The wells draw from depths of 54’ to 197’ from the Willamette Alluvium Aquifer, which is part of the Willamette Basin Water reserve. Water production remains just above the amount of water consumed. The water taken from these is treated though the city’s PALL Membrane Water Plant before entering the Water Distribution System. The wells are routinely operated to verify the electrical, mechanical and communications systems are properly functioning.

The streams that contribute to the Coast Fork Willamette intake facility extend upstream approximately 208 miles in a Figure 1: City of Creswell Drinking Water Source southerly direction and encompass a total area of 192 square for Surface Water Supply Area 6

miles. The boundaries of this “Drinking Water Source Area” (DWSA), identified by the DEQ and illustrated in Figure 1, lie almost entirely outside of the City of Creswell jurisdiction (DEQ, 2002). The drinking water protection area includes the City of Cottage Grove and small rural unincorporated communities such as Black Butte, London Springs, Latham, and Saginaw. In general, the watershed supports a timber, agriculture, and recreation-based economy. Most of the drinking water protection area is located in Lane County, with a very small area located in Douglas County under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service.

Natural Features and Land Use

The delineated drinking water protection area is primarily dominated by managed forest land uses in the upper reaches and by residential and limited commercial development along the main rivers, creeks and Cottage Grove Reservoir. Major tributaries include the Silk Creek, Gettings Creek, Calico Creek, Big River and Little River. Most of the tributaries and water bodies in the Coast Fork Willamette watershed are listed on the 303(d) list for water quality impairment, with temperature, mercury, flow or habitat modification being the most frequent contaminants. The following chart lists current (2016) water quality impairments for the Upper Coast Fork watershed.

Water Quality Impairments for Streams in Creswell’s Drinking Water Source Area (Coast Fork Willamette Watershed):

Cottage Grove Lake Mercury Coast Fork Willamette River Temperature, Mercury, Fecal Coliform Dennis Creek Mercury

Geology and Soils

Creswell’s Drinking Water Source Area (DWSA) is within the Cascade Mountain physiographic province. The geology of the DWSA is associated with rock units of the Western Cascades, generally consisting of a mixture of volcanic and sedimentary units. Most of the source water area is underlain primarily with Tertiary-aged volcanic rock. East of Cottage Grove Reservoir, there are extensive deposits of basaltic, basaltic andesite lava flows and breccia. The area has steep mountainous headwaters carved by alpine glaciations during the last ice age (Weyerhaeuser, 1999).

Soils in the area vary from the alluvial soils found in the floodplains and valley stems to xeric soils in the foothills and lower elevations areas, to soils with an udic moisture regime found in the middle to higher elevations. In general, the soils are well drained, fine textured, and moderately deep to deep. Depending on the composition of the deposited material, soils in bottomlands and terraces range from excessively drained gravelly sandy loam to poorly drained silty clay loam and silty clay (Patching, 1987).

Climate

The climate in the DWSA is characteristic of Western Oregon: marine west coast climate. Moisture occurs primarily in the fall, winter, and spring months. The air masses are typically 7

warm with the predominant precipitation in the form of rainfall. Winters are cool, but snow and freezing temperatures are common only at higher elevations. The transient snow zone for the region is considered to be between 2000’-4000’. Summers are dry, contributing only 20 percent of annual moisture between the months of April and September. Precipitation generally increases with elevation in the watersheds, ranging from an average of 40 to 50 inches per year on the valley floor to 70 to 80 inches at the summit of the Cascade Mountains.

Ownership and Management

Land ownership within the DWSA consists of mostly Bureau of Land Management and Weyerhaeuser timber land. Other stakeholders include rural residential private ownership, other private timber companies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Lane County.

The Lane County Zoning designations within the DWSA include Exclusive Farm Use, Forest zones, and Rural Residential zones with varying densities.

Infrastructure and Recreation

The Cottage Grove Dam (Dam) impounds the Coast Fork Willamette River at river mile 29, forming Cottage Grove Reservoir. Cottage Grove Reservoir is an earth fill dam with concrete spillway and was completed in 1942 at a cost of $3.3 million. Since then, it has helped prevent almost $1.2 billion in potential flood damages and controls runoff drained by the Coast Fork Willamette River, an area of 104 square miles. The authorized primary project purpose of the Cottage Grove Dam is flood damage reduction, but other approved uses include irrigation, recreation, and improved navigation downstream. The reservoir is approximately 3 miles long, holding 1,156 acre feet of water.

There are a multitude of recreational Figure 2: Recreation areas along Cottage Grove Reservoir (USACE) opportunities within the DWSA. Cottage Grove Reservoir, for example, is a high-use recreational area including boating, fishing, and water sports (Figure 2). Fishing, swimming, boating and kayaking are medium-use recreation uses that take place in the mainstem Coast Fork Willamette River between the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Creswell. The recreation uses increase and create an additional challenge during sensitive times of the year for drinking water quality.

Responsible Management Authorities (RMAs)

The City of Creswell Water Utility is managed by Creswell Public Works. A Superintendent oversees plant operation. The treatment plant operator is responsible for proper treatment of incoming water, maintenance of the plant, monitoring, meter reading, and other duties.

Upper Coast Fork Willamette watershed lies within the jurisdiction of the Lane County government. Chapter 9 of the Lane County Code includes regulations for solid waste, waste disposal, erosion prevention, and tree conservation. Enforcement of these regulations pertains to this plan.

The Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) services the area and provides a regional forum for interested people, groups and agencies to bring forward conservation needs currently not being met. Upper Willamette SWCD cooperates with landowners, land occupiers, other natural resource users, other local governments as defined in ORS 174.116, and with agencies of the government of Oregon and of the United States in projects, programs, and activities to provide for the conservation of renewable natural resources of the state.

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council (CFWWC) is composed of volunteers led by a group of volunteer board members, and 3 staff managed by an Executive Director. The mission of the CFWWC is to enhance the Coast Fork Willamette watershed through restoration, education, monitoring and stewardship. The CFWWC coordinates with experts to conduct studies, collect data, and develop restoration strategies in addition to conducting targeted water quality monitoring.

The City of Creswell, the Upper Coast Fork Willamette watershed, and the entire surrounding area remains under the regulation of the State of Oregon. State agencies provide pertinent services in regards to this plan including, but not limited to: Oregon State Police, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Services, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Water Resources Department, and Oregon Department of Forestry.

Federal jurisdiction encompasses a large portion of the DWSA. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 32,000 acres within the area. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers manages and operates Cottage Grove Dam, Spillway and Reservoir. The Environmental Protection Agency carries out the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act and developed guidelines for implementing the requirements to conduct source water assessments.

Chapter 2: Public Participation

Public participation was encouraged throughout the planning process. All Advisory Committee meetings were advertised and open to the public to attend and comment. In addition, the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council bi-monthly newsletter highlighted events and progress relating to the Drinking Water Protection Plan and highlighted when presentations at Science Pub tied to the City of Creswell drinking water. Two prominent public participation aspects of this plan include the Technical Advisory Committee and the 30 day public comment period.

Technical Oversight Committee

The Upper Willamette Drinking Water Partnership served as the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for this plan. Represented interests included key agencies present in the DWSA, including: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Weyerhaeuser. The TAC met during the planning to discuss and revise plan strategies. The TAC was also used in the development of the City of Cottage Grove’s Drinking Water Protection Plan. The group will continue to meet annually and update the plan as needed.

The TAC consisted of:

Amanda Gilbert - Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Reilly Newman– Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Amanda Ferguson - City of Cottage Grove Ray Pardee - City of Cottage Grove Michael DeHart – City of Creswell Maddie Phillips – City of Creswell Ed Alverson - Lane County Jeff Ziller - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Katherine Nordholm - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Steven Liebhardt – Bureau of Land Management Wes Messinger - Army Corps of Engineers Doug Gartletts – Army Corps of Engineers Krista Farris - U.S. Forest Service KC Briggs - U.S. Forest Service Cameron Mitchell – U.S. Forest Service Daniel Dietz – McKenzie River Trust Jacqueline Fern – Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Dave Downing – Upper Willamette Soil and Water Conservation District Meghan Tuttle – Weyerhaeuser Company Maryanne Reiter – Weyerhaeuser Company

The TAC advised the City of Creswell regarding each individual organization’s internal management strategies as they relate to watershed health, as well as agency priorities and resources available to assist in strategy implementation. This information was provided during Plan meetings, and also via email, conversations, and published documents. The objectives for the Committee were to: 10

1. Inform the enhanced inventory with local knowledge, and comment on presented inventory materials.

2. Steer the direction of the Drinking Water Protection Planning process through input provided at the public meetings.

3. Provide local knowledge on the existence and extent of each type of Potential Contaminant Source (PCS) by systematically reviewing all types of Potential Contaminant Sources in a public meeting.

4. Discuss viable management strategies to address the PCSs.

5. Review the complete draft of the Plan, provide comments, and suggest edits.

The City of Creswell was responsible for developing the Emergency Plan, as well as the Contingency Plan for addressing future water needs included in this plan.

Public Comment Period

The purpose of the public comment period for the Plan was to allow engagement for residents who may not have been aware of the previous meetings. The 30-day public comment period ran from October 1 – October 30. An open house was held on October 17, 2017 for residents with questions about the plan. The draft Plan was posted on both the City of Creswell’s and the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Councils websites. Hard copies of the Plan were available for pick up at the City of Creswell City Hall and the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council office. Creswell residents were notified via mail that the Plan was available for comment. Social media was used to promote resident involvement. No public comments submitted during the comment period. Revisions and edits suggested by TAC members were made as appropriate.

Riparian Management Survey

The City of Cottage Grove conducted a Riparian Management survey in July 2012 to assess attitudes and habits of property owners who live along streams and rivers within the City’s urban growth boundary. The DWSA for the City of Creswell lies mostly outside the City’s jurisdiction. These findings are relevant to the City of Creswell Drinking Water Protection Plan as the City of Cottage Grove lies within the DWSA for the City of Creswell.

The survey had 12 questions and took approximately 5 minutes to complete. Questions included inquiries regarding trusted information sources, preferred outreach methods, management challenges, and perceived importance of stream or riparian features. It was made available on the City of Cottage Grove and the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council’s websites. A hard copy mailing was sent to streamside property owners within the urban growth boundary. A paper form of the survey was also available at the City of Cottage Grove booth at the Bohemia Mining Days Festival in July, 2012.

The “Riparian Corridor Water Quality Survey” was available on-line for 10 weeks. Data and comments received during this period will be used to help determine public outreach goals and methodology for the Drinking Water Protection Plan.

The full survey report can be found in the Appendix C. Below is a short summary of key findings as they pertain to this plan.

A clear majority of respondents found non-governmental organizations and Oregon State University Extension Service as trustworthy sources for property management decision information. Few respondents indicated that they would seek advice from Federal, State, County, or local government officials or agencies. The preferred forms of outreach and education included newsletters (60%), website information (54%), and workshops (43%). Tours of local gardens examples was also a popular method (34%).

When asked about perceived barriers to making property improvements, respondents identified financial constraints as the number one difficulty (60%). Respondents also cited government land use restrictions (45%), lack of labor (40%), and lack of knowledge (37%) as barriers to modifying their property.

Property owners identified several stream characteristics as important functions. Those included wildlife/fish habitat, erosion and flood control, and visual privacy and access. Improved wildlife/fish habitat (65%), protecting property for future generations (64%), water quality, and scenic beauty (60%) were the main priorities for landowners. Property value and prevention of flooding were also listed as very important by 42%. Providing income or profit was seen as less important. 80% of respondents agreed that riparian vegetation is important for erosion and flood control as well as providing wildlife habitat. The majority of respondents also agree that riparian areas are expensive to maintain (51%). Aesthetic qualities such as having the best looking lawn or flowers and trees overhanging property lines was of little importance to respondents.

These findings have implications for public outreach measures surrounding contaminant sources within the community of Creswell as well as residents that live outside city jurisdiction but within the drinking water source areas. These implications are discussed further in Chapter 6, Management of Potential Sources of Contaminants.

Open House

The City of Creswell conducted a Public Open House in October, 2017 to provide citizens of Creswell an additional opportunity to comment and give input on the planning effort. The project’s key components were explained to, and suggestions and comments were encouraged. Suggestions and comments received were reviewed by City staff and incorporated into the plan where appropriate. Information regarding the open house was made available online for those unable to attend. Notice of the open house was sent to all property owners along a riparian corridor as part of the Riparian Newsletter, and was included in the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council’s fall newsletter. Additional outreach and notification about the public comment period was conducted on Facebook and at the September 2017 Coast Fork Science Pub.

Chapter 3: Delineation of the Drinking Water Source Area

The mapping of the drinking water source area or the DWSA is an important aspect of the assessment and protection of a public water system. A delineation of the DWSA provides the community with the knowledge of the geographic area that provides the source of water that drains to the intake. This information allows the water supplier as well as community residents to develop management strategies that will have the largest impact on protecting the drinking water source. It is an equally valuable tool for notifying the public of their presence within a sensitive area.

The drinking water source area for the City of Creswell was identified by DEQ in 2002 to meet the requirements of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. The DWSA is composed of the area of the Upper Coast Fork Willamette watershed upstream of the City of Creswell Water Treatment Facility intake. The geographic area providing water to Creswell’s intake (Creswell’s portion of the drinking water protection area) extends upstream approximately 208 miles in a southerly direction and encompasses a total area of 192 square miles. The boundaries of this Drinking Water Source Area are illustrated on the figure attached to this summary. Included in this area are a number of tributaries to the main stem, including the Row River and its tributaries, Gettings, Lynx Hollow, Silk, Martin, Williams, Wilson, Cedar, and Garoutte Creeks as well as numerous smaller tributaries.

Chapter 4: Drinking Water Source Area Inventory

The State’s 2002 Source Water Assessment report for Creswell delineates the DWSA and identifies contaminant sources within the designated area. This Drinking Water Protection Plan expands and updates the DEQ’s inventory with local knowledge and new information.

The DEQ mapped a total of 50 potential contaminant sources within the City of Creswell’s drinking water source area, all of which are located in sensitive areas. The sensitive areas within the City of Creswell’s drinking water protection area include areas with high soil permeability, high soil erosion potential, high runoff potential, and areas within 1000’ from the river/streams. Potential contaminant sources, if located in these areas, pose a greater potential to impact the water supply.

The City of Creswell utilized the 2002 Source Water Assessment’s Potential Contaminant Source list, DEQ’s 2017 Potential Contaminant Source list with results from an updated regulatory database search, and accompanying potential impact descriptions to identify potential risks in the inventory assessment phase. Using DEQ information coupled with local knowledge, the updated inventory mapped a total of 55 potential contaminant sources (see Appendix F for complete list). These sources fell into seven categories:

1. Industrial/Commercial 2. Agriculture 3. Forestry Practices 4. Infrastructure 5. Natural Hazards 6. Recreation 7. Residential

Industrial/Commercial

Industry is a huge source of water pollution, it produces pollutants that are extremely harmful to people and the environment. The primary land use just upstream of to the City of Creswell’s drinking water intake facility is industrial/commercial. For this reason industrial/commercial activities are listed as the greatest potential contaminant magnified because they also have the shortest amount of time to react to the contamination due to the proximity to the Creswell Drinking Water Intake Facility. It is critical to begin outreach and restoration/enhancement efforts along this stretch of the mainstem Coast Fork Willamette River in order to increase the resiliency to reduce and avoid future contamination.

The City of Cottage Grove stormwater and wastewater inputs greatly decrease the water quality that is downstream from the city. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has fined the City of Cottage Grove multiple times in the previous years prior to this plan because of excess temperatures and bacteria. This creates an increased treatment costs for the City of Creswell and other downstream drinking water complications. The City of Cottage Grove is 14

currently working on additional efforts to increase the wastewater quality released into the mainstem Coast Fork Willamette River. Until construction is complete, the input of the City of Cottage Grove wastewater will continue to be a concern for the City of Creswell.

A variety of commercial and industrial businesses are located in additional portions of the DWSA. They include logging and construction companies, nurseries, auto gas stations (both active and historic), sand and gravel operations, wood/paper processing mills, and machine shops. These represent potential point and non-point sources of pollution mainly through stormwater runoff. Some possible contaminants include gasoline and its additives, oil and grease, SOCs, VOCs, inorganics, temperature increases, and heavy metals. Among the metals are arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc.

Agriculture

Agricultural activities in the Drinking Water Source Area include both commercial and hobby farms. Hobby farms include backyard gardens and small livestock herds including horses, cows, sheep, and other farm animals. Larger scale agriculture activities do not presently exist within the DWSA but may in the future.

Potential non-point source pollutants associated with agriculture include sediments, nutrients, pathogens, oxygen-depleting organics, and pesticides. Improper agricultural methods may elevate concentrations of nutrients, fecal coliforms, and sediment loads. Increased nutrient loading from animal waste can lead to eutrophication of water bodies which may eventually damage aquatic ecosystems. Animal waste may also introduce toxic fecal coliforms which threaten public health. Grazing and other agriculture practices may intensify erosion processes raising sediment input to nearby water sources. Increased sediment loads make drinking water treatment more difficult while also affecting fish and macroinvertebrates.

Forestry Practices

Timber Harvest

Forestry practices include activities related to growing and harvesting timber. Pollutants typically associated with forest practices include nutrients, sediments, organics, herbicides, and heat. Erosion and subsequent sedimentation can be caused or exacerbated by timber harvest, road construction, stream crossings, and high intensity fires.

Timber harvest on forested lands, including cutting and yarding, has the potential to contribute sediment, nutrients, chemical residue from fertilizer and/or pesticide applications, and organic matter runoff to stream channels. The actual impacts of these activities depend on the proximity to streams and sensitive areas such as slopes and landslide hazard areas, in addition to protective measures used to prevent pollution.

Managed Forest Land – Herbicide Application

The Oregon Forest Practices Act requires forest managers to plant tree seedlings within two years after a timber harvest. Many forest landowners choose to use herbicides to control 15

unwanted vegetation that could be detrimental to tree seedlings. Herbicides are often viewed as the most cost-effective means for reforestation purposes (ODF). When pesticides and herbicides are applied, they have the potential to run off to sites that could impact our water. Pesticides and herbicides can be toxic to fish and wildlife, and can pose a threat to public health.

Managed Forest Land – Road Density

Roads can be significant contributors of runoff/sediment to stream channels. They can influence the timing and magnitude of stream flows in a watershed. They can also be a barrier to some terrestrial and aquatic species (BLM, 1995).

Road-stream crossings used by motor vehicles pose a potential risk to the drinking water source. Vehicle accidents at or near crossings could lead to spilled fuel and fluids entering the source water. This situation constitutes a high risk contaminant source in a sensitive area. In addition, access roads have the potential to contribute sediment to stream channels. Industrial forest roads in particular, used predominantly by large logging trucks, can contribute to sedimentation along the road and into the stream channel. When roads are properly graded, graveled, and maintained, this risk is reduced.

Infrastructure

There are a variety of physical and organizational structures throughout the study area that are needed for the operation of local communities. They include dams, utility stations, waste transfer stations, and water treatment plants.

One dam exists in the DWSA for flood control purposes. Dams typically involve the use of fuels, paints, solvents, and coolants/lubricants. Although containment facilities are present at these sites, some risk may be associated with accidental spills and overfilling. It is important that they are inspected at regular intervals to ensure they will perform properly if needed.

Natural Hazards

Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)

Warm, slow moving water and excess nutrients contribute to the rapid growth of both green algae and cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Blooms can occur anytime of the year, but are most common between June and September. A few types of blue-green algae can develop toxins, which, if swallowed, can cause diarrhea, nausea, cramps, fainting, numbness, dizziness, tingling, and paralysis. Skin contact can cause rashes or irritation. Children and pets are at greatest risk.

A study conducted by Oregon State University researched the risk to Willamette Valley drinking water posed by algal blooms in the region and the potential presence of toxic cyanobacteria. Based on analysis of the 2011 and 2012 bloom seasons, the report concluded that Cottage Grove Reservoir has a low toxigenicity and appears to present low toxicity risks to the Creswell drinking water supplies.

As the previous study suggests, although some blue-green algae have the potential to produce toxins under the right conditions, toxins are not always produced, and when produced, are not always at levels that are harmful (OHA, 2013). Management strategies that promote healthy riparian areas and reduce sediment and nutrient delivery will address phosphorus sources and reduce the risk of blue-green algae blooms.

Testing to monitor for HABs will continue to be carried out by the Oregon Health Authority through their Harmful Algae Bloom Surveillance program. Ongoing testing is necessary to monitor the situation.

Recreation

The areas surrounding Cottage Grove Reservoir have a high volume of recreation activities. This includes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers campgrounds, County and Municipal parks, and multi- use bicycle trails. Cottage Grove Reservoir is a high-use recreational area including boating, fishing, and water sports.

Potential contamination from these activities includes petroleum products, solvents, paints, oils and grease, and untreated or partially treated human and pet waste (nutrients and pathogenic microorganisms). Sedimentation and turbidity (a measure of suspended or dissolved substances that cause water to be cloudy) can also be an issue. Contributing factors include stream bank erosion caused by boaters, anglers, off-trail hikers, and other streamside activities. These activities can cause soil erosion and increase the risk of sediment moving to waterways.

Residential

Residents, particularly those who live adjacent to the river or a tributary, have an important role to play in the stewardship of the Drinking Water Source Area and maintaining excellent water quality. Several communities within the DWSA, including London Springs, Latham, Saginaw, Walker, and Black Butte, exhibit residential clusters of private properties with household and automotive refuse stored within feet of the stream banks.

Potential contamination from these areas includes urban stormwater runoff, nutrients, pathogens, metals, petroleum products, toxic chemicals, and increased biochemical oxygen demand. Not only can this result in additional expense of treating potable water, but it may also harm fish and wildlife, and contaminate streams, groundwater, and soil.

Chapter 5: Susceptibility Analysis

The 2002 Source Water Assessment for Creswell’s intake on the Coast Fork Willamette River identified and delineated “sensitive areas” within the watershed (Figure 3). The purpose of the sensitive area delineation is to prioritize a subset of the watershed for the contaminant inventory and protection strategies in order to focus efforts on the portion of the source area that is most susceptible to contamination.

The Source Water Assessment also analyzed how susceptible the drinking water source is to contamination. Susceptibility can be defined as the potential for contamination in the drinking water source area to reach the intake on the surface water body being used by a public water system for drinking water purposes. Whether or not a particular drinking water source becomes contaminated depends on three major factors: 1) the occurrence of a facility or land use that releases contamination; 2) the location of the release; and 3) the hydrologic and/or soil characteristics in the watershed that allow the transport of the contaminants to the surface water body.

The first step of the State’s susceptibility analysis was to identify those parts of the watershed that are most sensitive to contamination.

The second step involved the inventory of potential contaminant sources within the Figure 3: Sensitive Area Delineation drinking water source area. Each possible contaminant source was then categorized as a lower, moderate, or higher-relative risk to the surface water body.

The final step was to combine the results from the sensitive area and potential contaminant source inventories. The results are analyzed in terms of: current, past, and future land uses; their time-of-travel relationship or proximity to the intake site; and their associated risk rating. Land uses that are closest to the intake and those with the highest associated risk pose the greatest threat to a drinking water supply. The presence and locations of the potential contaminant

sources within the sensitive areas will determine where the water system has the highest susceptibility to contamination.

For the purposes of the Drinking Water Protection Plan, Creswell elects to maintain the 1000 foot sensitive area designation outlined by DEQ in the 2002 Source Water Assessment. All areas within 1000 feet of a water body are deemed “sensitive areas” within the DWSA.

In addition, the Cottage Grove Dam and Spillway, operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, creates a boundary between upstream potential contaminant sources and those that have a more direct path to the intake facility. Currently, monitoring data comparing contaminants entering the reservoir with the level discharged at the Dam are unavailable. This is an area for possible future monitoring to better understand the relationship between water quality in the reservoir and Dam discharge levels. This information will help determine if the reservoir serves as a possible barrier to contaminants reaching the intake downstream. Despite the lack of data, in general, those contaminant sources located downstream of the Dam pose a greater and more immediate threat to the drinking water supply. There are four potential contaminant sources located downstream of the Dam that will be given priority for management.

Potential Contaminant Source Ranking

At the June 2013 meeting the TAC participants ranked eleven “High Risk” possible contaminant sources both by perceived threat, and by agency objectives. “Medium” and “low” risk contaminants are addressed in this report; however, the TAC only sought to prioritize the higher risk contaminants. Medium and low risk contaminants are discussed later in Chapter 7. Eight TAC members were present and participated in this ranking exercise. The same ranking is used for both the City of Cottage Grove and the City of Creswell’s Drinking Water Protection Plans. The Perceived Risk Ranking was based on the members presents expert opinions of risk. The Agency Prioritization Ranking is representative of internal rankings from the organizations and agencies that participated in the TAC.

The following tables display the results from that ranking exercise in terms of high, medium, and low priority for both the Perceived Risk Ranking and Agency Prioritization Ranking. High priority PCSs are those that received the most votes in the first through fourth designations. Medium priority PCSs are those that received the most votes in the fifth through eighth designations. Low priority PCSs are those that received the most votes in the ninth through eleventh designations.

Table 1. Perceived Risk Ranking High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Potential Contaminant Source Ranked Top 4 Ranked 5-8 Ranked 9-11 Septic Systems – High density 6 2 0 Crops- Irrigated 5 1 2 Managed Forest Land- Road Density 5 2 1 Managed Forestland, Clear-Cut 4 3 0 Gravel Pit/Random Dump Sites 3 4 1 Wood/Paper Processing Mills 3 *2 3 Residential, Junk/ Scrap Sites 2 5 1 19

Mining Activities 2 5 0 Waste Transfer Stations 1 4 3 Utility Stations 1 2 5 Auto Gas Stations - Historic 0 4 *4 *Indicates additional decision applied to break tie.

Table2. Agency Prioritization Ranking High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Potential Contaminant Source Ranked Top 4 Ranked 5-8 Ranked 9-11 Crops- Irrigated 5 2 0 Gravel Pit/Dump Sites 5 1 0 Managed Forest Land- Road Density 4 1 1 Mining Activities 4 1 1 Septic Systems – High Density 4 1 0 Managed Forestland, Clear-Cut 3 1 1 Residential, Junk/ Scrap Sites 3 *3 0 Utility Stations 1 2 0 Waste Transfer Stations 1 1 2 Auto Gas Stations - Historic 0 2 *2 Wood/Paper Processing Mills 0 1 2 *Indicates additional decision applied to break tie.

Priority will be given to implement management strategies that address the “High Priority” contaminant sources from this ranking exercise. Those include:

• Crops- Irrigated (Agriculture)

• Gravel Pit Dump Sites (Industrial/Commercial)

• Managed Forest Land- Road Density (Forestry)

• Managed Forest Land – Clear Cut (Forestry)

• Septic Systems – High Density (Residential)

• Mining Activities (Industrial/Commercial)

Phase 1 Plan Implementation

The City of Creswell contracted with Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council to develop management strategies that address these high priority contaminant sources in 2016/17. The appendix includes the report of this implementation stage. This updated Potential Contaminant Source list is included in Appendix F.

Chapter 6: Management of Potential Sources of Contaminants

This chapter discusses management strategies for each potential contaminant source identified in the inventory stage of this plan that attempt to address the top PCS listed in Chapter 5. Management strategies provide a process for reducing or eliminating the threat posed to the drinking water supply. These management strategies will be used by the City of Creswell as tools to protect the drinking water source area. The sensitive area inventory, risk ranking, and management strategy protocol allows the City of Creswell and other stakeholders to focus their limited resources on areas deemed particularly susceptible to contamination.

In general, best management practices for addressing potential contaminant sources involve a stepped process of outreach and education. Given Oregon’s regulatory framework and local jurisdiction barriers, outreach and public education is of the highest importance for protecting the drinking water supply. The Overall Management Strategy encompasses this aspect and considers all potential contaminant sources in its protocol.

Overall Management Strategy Protocol

Initial Contact

• Send letters to landowners notifying them of their location within the City of Creswell DWSA. Addresses for every landowner in the DWSA are included in the binder accompanying this Plan.

• Include pertinent maps

If known problem exists:

• Send letter to landowner notifying them of their location within the Creswell DWSA.

• Letter should encourage the landowner to contact and work with the appropriate entity/agency for technical and financial assistance for designing and implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address known Problematic Contaminant Sources on their property.

• Include fact sheets to address PCSs that may be located on their property. PCS fact sheets are included in the binder accompanying this Plan.

• Include pertinent maps

If known problem remains unresolved and is a known Contaminant Source causing harm to the drinking water source:

The City of Creswell or the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council can file a complaint with the pertinent state agency, and/or seek assistance from partner agencies:

Agriculture – Upper Willamette Soil Water Conservation District (SWCD), OSU Extension, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA)

Forestry – Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW), OSU Extension, NRCS, Upper Willamette SWCD, or private forestry consultant

Rural Residential – OSU Extension “Living on the Land” program, Lane County Sanitation Department (septic systems), Lane County Code Enforcement, DEQ

Transmission Lines – Utility Companies, Lane County Sheriff, DEQ

Transportation, Gas Station – Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), DEQ

Mine/Gravel Pit – Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), DEQ

Historic waste dumps/landfills – Lane County, DEQ

Drinking Water Treatment Plants – DEQ, Oregon Heath Authority (OHA)

Effectiveness and Awareness Management Strategies

By providing an array of information including the Plan, maps, fact sheets, and access to agency staff, landowners in the DWSA and residents of the City of Creswell can better understand the needs for protection and restoration. Upon adoption of the plan, the City of Creswell will include and update these materials on their website and have them available at City Hall.

The TAC also reviewed management strategies evaluated from other municipal drinking water plans and agreed on prioritizing the implementation of the following management strategies.

Recognition for Drinking Water Stewards

Providing recognition of landowners in the DWSA who manage their land in such a way that reduces or eliminates the risks posed by PCSs associated with their land use category will encourage good stewardship. This acknowledgment might consist of a letter of appreciation, placard, certificate, or press release. The CFWWC will partner with the City to develop a plan for recognition of Drinking Water Stewards as part of the Phase II Implementation plan (Plan detailed later in this plan). By recognizing those who are taking appropriate steps to protect the City drinking water, it will encourage additional efforts to increase activities to secure and protect the local drinking water supply.

Watershed Health Curriculum Programs

Incorporating Watershed Health education into local schools will educate and cultivate the next generation of watershed stewards. The objective of this strategy would be to encourage and 22

promote education of students in issues related to watershed health and protection of the Coast Fork Willamette watershed as a valuable resource. The City could partner with local schools to include readily available watershed lessons into curriculum plans. The benefits of supporting the education of elementary, middle, and high school level students in understanding the various water quality, biological, and cultural issues that surround the health and future of the watershed are numerous and far reaching.

The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council is expanding the Watershed Action Teams for Education, Restoration and Stewardship (WATERS) to all middle schools in South Lane County. Creswell Middle School students will receive lessons about where their water comes from and the importance of protection of vital resources. London School lies within the Creswell DWSA and will be learning that their water is the drinking water for the City of Creswell. All participating schools will conduct 2-3 hours of stewardship activities to increase water quality and improve habitat, followed by a hands on field-based environmental education lesson including but not limited to water quality, fish biology, macroinvertebrates, and plant identification.

Chemical/Hazardous Materials Roundup

Hazardous material roundups can provide necessary options for rural residents to dispose of materials they no longer need. Lane County currently has a waste collection program and this strategy would work to enhance the already existing efforts. Increased frequency and awareness of roundups is important to cleaning up hazardous chemicals that may be stored inappropriately within the DWSA.

The City should work with Lane County and the CFWWC to investigate the development of a voluntary cleanup effort. Household hazardous waste roundups should be organized in the watershed by Lane County Solid Waste Management on an annual basis. Chad Ficek is currently responsible for arranging these types of events throughout Lane County.

Public Education (newsletters, mail inserts)

High importance should be placed on public education and awareness and providing various means for residents to learn about their location within the DWSA as well as practices they can employ to help improve or maintain watershed health. The City of Creswell will explore water bill mail inserts, newsletter updates from the City as well as the Coast Fork Watershed Council, and other various public outreach methods. This method would be used to address PCSs including industrial/commercial activities listed above as “Gravel Pit/Random Dump Sites,” “Wood/Paper Processing Mills,” and “Auto Gas Stations – Historic,” agriculture activities listed above as “Crops- Irrigated”, and residential activities listed above as “Residential, Junk/ Scrap Sites.”

The City of Creswell should also engage in interagency coordination with applicable entities/agencies and create public partnerships to address the contaminant sources discussed in this Plan.

In order to address this priority, the City has entered into an agreement with CFWWC, focusing upon the development of the plan and landowner outreach and public education. Implementation of these efforts will require CFWWC to secure grant funding to adequately provide funds to cover staff time to develop materials and conduct outreach. Additionally, to effectively implement City of Creswell staff time will also be required.

Additional Strategy Considerations

Additional strategies may become feasible at a future point in time. These are strategies that may not be currently viable due to limitations in staffing, political capital, or financial resources. Nonetheless, they are to be considered as options should the opportunity and capability arise. Beside each of listed PCSs that the strategy would address. All would require additional funding either dedicated through the City of Creswell Annual Budget or secured through a variety of grant opportunities.

• Disaster Preparedness and Spill Response Plan (Industrial/Commercial, Agriculture, Forestry)

• Land Acquisition (Industrial/Commercial, Agriculture, Forestry, Residential)

• Volunteer Clean Up Group (Recreation, Residential, Industrial/Commercial)

• Grant assistance for Septic System Maintenance/replacement (Residential)

• DWSA Signage (Residential, Industrial/Commercial, Recreation)

• Landowner Workshops (Residential, Forestry, Agriculture)

Phase I - Plan Development

In 2016, the City retained the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council (CFWWC) to draft the Drinking Water Protection Plan. In addition, CFWWC was asked to begin the process of facilitating the Upper Willamette Drinking Water Protection Partnership. Members deemed that securing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the City and key stakeholders in the watershed was not necessary, but members committed to meeting annually. Based on the extensive work leading to the draft Plan and the excellent cooperation from City staff and others, CFWWC was able to successfully complete action items related to the City’s goal of safe and available drinking water for its residents. Phase II - Plan Implementation will include a public education component and outreach on the individual landowner level.

The draft Plan identified 55 potential contaminant sources in the drinking water source area. As part of this review CFWWC visited many of those sites to reexamine the level of threat they presented. Based on that review CFWWC has made recommendations on re-prioritizing the individual threat levels identified in the Plan. The revised threat list and map appear in the Appendix.

The two key landowners/managers in the Upper Coast Fork basin are Weyerhaeuser and the Bureau of Land Management. In meetings with these entities CFWWC has proposed areas of collaboration and support for activities that would protect water quality and quantity in this key tributary. Many of these activities are already in place, so the proposed agreements simply secure continued commitment to source water protection.

The Plan is focused on source water protection, preventing activities that may be harmful to the quality of water in the Upper Coast Fork watershed. Although water quantity is not currently a critical concern within the Plan, the potential impact of climate change may in the future cause changes in current flow cycles that could pose a future problem for the City.

Phase II Land Owner Outreach

For 2016-18, the Creswell Drinking Water Protection Implementation Plan is for the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council (CFWWC) to work with the City of Creswell to reach rural residents and owners of potential contaminant sources (primarily industrial landowners) in the drinking water source area. The Coast Fork Willamette River is a priority area for the CFWWC. Their organization has established working relationships with area residents, agencies and land managers that are specific to project implementation in the areas of riparian enhancement, aquatic habitat, and voluntary cooperation with water quality improvements (livestock fencing, off channel watering facilities, e.g.).

Riparian health will be the focus of the implementation project; contaminant sources such as underground tanks (LUSTs, USTs, ECSIs), septic tanks, and derelict metal/rural garbage dumping will be the focus of the enhanced assessment work. To achieve improved riparian conditions and a refined understanding of possible strategies for reducing contamination risks in the watershed, CFWWC will conduct outreach/education via mailings, site visits, and a landowner workshop and conduct invasive removal and planting activities with willing residents. Enhanced assessment will prioritize the reduction of water quality threats and remediation efforts based on an increased understanding and needs of local residents and property owners.

Chapter 7: Contingency Plan

The management strategies and protocol discussed in the previous chapter are centered on proactive efforts aimed at protecting the drinking water supply from possible contamination. It is as equally important for the City of Creswell to prepare for an actual contamination should the possible contamination scenarios occur. A contingency plan is a designed response to the contamination or disruption of Creswell’s current water supply. The contingency plan focuses on:

• Identification of the primary potential threats to the water supply. • Developing procedures that will be followed should threats materialize.

Contingency Elements

Creswell’s contingency plan addresses the ten key elements required by the Oregon Drinking Water Protection Program and OAR 333-061-0057(4) including:

1. Potential threat to the drinking water supply;

2. Protocols for incident response;

3. Prioritization of water usage;

4. Identify key personnel and development of notification roster;

5. Identify short-term and long-term replacement of potable water supplies;

6. Identify short-term and long-term conservation measures;

7. Provide for plan testing, review and update;

8. Provide for new and continuing training of appropriate individuals;

9. Provide for education of the public; and

10. Identify logistical and financial resources.

1. Potential Threats and Response Protocols

Primary threats to Creswell’s drinking water system are related to an interruption of water delivery or contamination of the water supply. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has identified the most likely types of events that could cause an interruption in delivery and/or contamination of the water supply.

A. Equipment and Power Failure B. Contamination of Raw Water Source C. Chemical Spills 26

D. Stormwater Contamination E. Sabotage/Terrorism F. Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Other Natural Disasters

2. Protocols for Incident Response

This section details the appropriate response for the most likely potential threats listed in section one. Please refer to the Water System Emergency Response Plan (WSERP) (pp. 4-12) for a more in-depth description of protocols for each type of response.

A. Equipment, Piping, and Power Failure (See Section 4, Emergency Equipment and Water Supplies, WSERP)

1. Rely on water source capacity and power system redundancy. - 2. In the short-term, rely on water tank storage. 3. Apply conservation measures.

B. Contamination of Raw Water Source (See Section 5, Hazard Specific Immediate Actions and Procedures to Lessen Impacts, WSERP)

The required response to detection of contamination at a raw water source depends on whether the contamination is less than or exceeds the maximum contaminant level (MCL). The MCL is considered to be the maximum allowed concentration that a contaminant can be present in drinking water without posing a significant health risk. The community has applied a much higher standard in responding to man-made chemicals. Every effort will be made to eliminate any detectable amounts of these man-made substances from the drinking water supply.

Notify the Oregon Health Authority –Drinking Water Services of any confirmed detection. (Contact Portland phone duty 971-673-0405 or local technical services contact 541-726-2587).

Notify the Department of Environmental Quality for spills and sewage overflows at (971) 673-0405 (M-F 8:00-5:00). For after-hours, call the Oregon Emergency Response System at (800) 452-0311.

If the contamination approaches the Maximum Contaminant Level:

1. Turn off affected intake facility. Take immediate corrective action and consult with Oregon Health Authority technical services.

2. Follow Oregon Health Authority Public Notice requirements.

3. Determine if water distribution system is contained.

4. Implement containment procedures to prevent contaminate from spreading throughout system.

5. Send news release to the local media.

6. Flush affected system and reservoirs.

7. Implement curtailment plan as needed.

8. Expand cooperation with agencies investigating the contamination

9. Consider documenting for pending annual release of CC & R

C. Chemical Contamination Spills

1. Follow protocol for emergency response listed above in “Protocols for Incident Response.”

2. Notify the Oregon Emergency Response System.

3. Shut off nearby public water supply intake facilities down-gradient of contamination as an immediate precaution.

4. Monitor outflows to receiving drainage ways for contaminants; Public Works should take extra precautions to prevent contaminant runoff.

D. Storm Water Discharge Contamination

1. Follow protocol for emergency response, above.

2. Notify the Oregon Emergency Response System because a contaminant release in the Creswell area surface waters could impact fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species.

3. Notify the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality of releases/spills if released to surface water body.

4. Shut off nearby public water supply intake facilities down-gradient of contamination as an immediate precaution.

5. Monitor outflows to receiving drainage ways for contaminants; Public Works should take extra precautions to prevent contaminant runoff.

E. Sabotage/ Terrorism

Acts of terrorism or sabotage are conducted by someone whose intent is to instill fear or induce harm to people and facilities. Even though it may seem unlikely, it would only take one well-staged event to undermine confidence in drinking water safety. Being

prepared and knowing what to look for are crucial elements of preventing an attack on the system.

There are many potential threats to drinking water systems, including chemical, biological or radiological contamination as well as damage to infrastructure and computer systems. In most cases, contamination using biological or chemical agents would cause the most concern for a drinking water system. The threat is real, and drinking water systems need to enhance security around facilities and be prepared to respond.

F. Earthquakes/Volcanoes (natural disasters)

Damage resulting from the earth shifting along geologic faults resulting in shaking and settling of the ground can cause severe structural damage to virtually all water system facilities, including sources, transmission and distribution lines, storage reservoirs, and pump-houses. The water system in Creswell is especially vulnerable to damage resulting from a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. Pipelines are especially vulnerable to failure from permanent ground deformation (resulting from liquefaction and landslides), because the deformation causes push-on pipe joints to separate.

It is essential that the City’s develop an Emergency Response Plans that will evaluate what facilities are at risk during an earthquake, what can be done to mitigate impacts and what actions can be taken to respond to such an event. The Water System Protection Plan includes specific protocols for earthquakes for the drinking water system (see Section 5, WSERP).

3. Prioritization of Water Usage

This element prioritizes community needs in case the water supply is interrupted and or a replacement supply is necessary.

1. Fire Department 2. Senior Centers 3. Residential 4. Industrial/Commercial 5. Schools 6. RV parks 7. Parks 8. Car washing, gardens, lawns 9. Agricultural uses

4. Key Personnel & Notification Roster

In the event of an emergency situation threatening the water supply, key people must be notified and response procedures coordinated among the City, the Fire District, Lane County, and State of Oregon personnel.

1. Call 9-1-1. If a call is received by the 9-1-1 center, the Fire District and City Police 29

Department are to be dispatched to the event of an emergency spill.

2. Report sewer spills and overflows to the Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS) 24-hour hotline at (800) 452-0311. If release flows to a surface water, report to DEQ.

3. Notify City Public Works immediately (541) 942-3349, if a spill occurs within the Drinking Water Source Area. The police and public works personnel are responsible for aiding the fire chief in adequate, appropriate, and safe actions.

The nature of the incident determines who is dispatched. If the incident involves a vehicle accident, the police department is often the first to be notified.

▪ If the event is non-vehicle related and a spill is reported, the appropriate fire department is normally the first to be notified by the 9-1-1 dispatch center.

▪ Both fire and police will be notified if a contaminant is known to be present.

▪ The incident commander will notify dispatch of the need for the Regional HAZMAT Response Team.

▪ With all spill reports in the Creswell area, the Dispatch Center will notify the Creswell Public Works Treatment Plants and relay all information available.

▪ During an emergency spill event, an incident command center is established to safely control the situation. The incident command system is dynamic, meaning that as events unfold, roles and responsibilities of personnel may change as the situation progresses.

▪ The person in charge may also change depending on which agency responds first.

Key Personnel

Key personnel and their roles are listed below. An up-to-date list of these persons’ name and their contact information will be posted in specific locations in each agency office. Mapped locations of the drinking water source are will be provided to first responders so they are cognizant of they are location prior to any incident.

Lane County Sheriff (Emergency 9-1-1) and Administrative Police personnel are often the first to be dispatched and respond to an emergency event. As the City of Creswell does not have their own Police Department, the Lane County Sheriff is in charge of public safety until fire personnel arrive, then the incident command control is relinquished to fire personnel. At the direction of the fire district incident commander, the sheriff is responsible for keeping the area secured and providing support help.

South Lane County Fire & Rescue. 233 East Harrison Avenue, Cottage Grove, OR 97424 (541) 942-4493. The fire chief or other designated fire personnel will be responsible for determining if local personnel can adequately and safely respond to a spill event. The incident commander will contact Oregon Emergency Response System and request a Regional HAZMAT Response Team if the situation and/or contamination is beyond local equipment and personnel capabilities. If it is determined that local response is adequate, the incident commander determines and directs what 30

is needed from police, Public Works, and other City personnel through a unified command system.

Creswell Public Works Director (541) 895-2395. This person coordinates necessary actions, making any decisions regarding the operation of the water system. The Director provides technical assistance and backup support as directed by the incident commander. It is this person’s responsibility to inform the incident commander of the spill location within the DWSA and suggest any additional precautionary measures that need to be considered. Operational situations that may affect the Department will be coordinated directly with the responsible department representative as soon as possible. The OHA will be immediately notified in the event of any drinking water contamination. The City Manager will designate a media relations person who will prepare a press release and handle all media contacts for the District.

Creswell Water Treatment Plant Operator (541) 895-4044. This person coordinates necessary actions, making any decisions regarding the operation of the Creswell water system. Creswell Water Treatment Plant Operator provides technical assistance and backup support as directed by the incident commander. It is this person’s responsibility to inform the incident commander of the spill location within the DWSA and suggest any additional precautionary measures that need to be considered. Operational situations that may affect the City will be coordinated directly with the responsible City representative as soon as possible. The OHA will be immediately notified in the event of any drinking water contamination.

Other officials to be notified include: ➢ Creswell City Administrator (541) 895-2531 ext.308 ➢ Creswell City Recorder (541) 895-2531 x307 ➢ Oregon Emergency Response System (OERS) 800-452-0311 ➢ Oregon Health Authority (OHA): 1-971-673-0405 ➢ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 888-997-7888 ➢ National Response Center: 1-800-424-8802 ➢ Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD), Water Master: 541-682-3620 ➢ Oregon State Fire Marshall: 503-378-3473 ➢ Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW): 541-902-1384 ➢ CHEMTREC 1-800-424-9300, www.cmahq.com

Call the Oregon Health Authority - Drinking Water Services Emergency Response System Notification number to report spills and sewage overflows. This toll-free telephone number is available 24-hours a day, every day at 1-800-452-0311.

5. Replacement of Water Supply

In the event of an emergency, the minimum water needs of the community must be met with water that meets applicable health standards. Short-term options are those where the alternative supply is needed for a few hours or days. Long-term options are considered for a permanent replacement supply.

Short-Term Drinking Water: 31

➢ Implement curtailment plan and practices. ➢ Bottled water (The City will establish distribution sites and allocation rates per household based upon events)

Intermediate-Term Drinking Water: ➢ Import water from neighboring sources following OHA recommended hauling procedure. ➢ Deliver potable water from non-affected supply with private tanker trucks and/or National Guard ➢ Make water available for only a short duration each day and issue a Boil Water notice to insure public health; and, when applicable, insert language for bacteriological concerns.

Long-Term: ➢ Implement conservation practices ➢ Develop new wells ➢ Construct well treatment facility(s) ➢ Construct surface water treatment plant ➢ Purchase water from Cottage Grove or EWEB Water District

A key concern for the City is that its entire water supply relies primarily on a sole source, consisting of the Coast Fork Willamette River. The City does have 10 groundwater wells of which nine are active. These may be able to be used to supplement the water supply during a contamination period. Mixing the well water with water from the Coast Fork Willamette River would need to take place. Testing for arsenic levels will need to take place before this water can be provided to the residents of Creswell. In the event of an emergency, such as a chemical spill or malicious attack, the City may be able to shut down and restart its self-contained drinking water treatment plant.

Creswell primarily relies on the two reservoirs capacity to meet water demands. While only Cottage Grove Dam is considered in the DWSA, Dorena Dam also plays a part in the quantity of the water.

The City’s water conservation and management measures can be a significant factor in slowing the growth of demand for water, but are not likely to eliminate all such growth. As previously described, the majority of the City’s water use is for residential use, which has an average per capita use. Moreover, the City has an average household daily per capita use of 200 gallons per month. These low values and trends are likely to continue given the City’s conservation efforts such as its rate structure and low-impact development strategies. The City intends to implement the various water management and conservation practices outlined in the Water System Emergency Response Plan in an effort to maximize the benefits of conservation, as well. However, the City’s actual water production is significantly less than its authorized water rights. The City needs to take action to address its water infrastructure constraints. The City may need to pursue additional water storage capacity within the 20-year planning period of the Water System Emergency Response Plan.

6. Conservation

Conservation of water use will lessen demands on Creswell’s public water supply system in the event of an emergency situation. The extent of conservation and curtailment measures necessary will depend on the nature and extent of the emergency. Conservation and good utilization of water is encouraged, but is not regulated; however, leak repair and prevention of water waste is required. The city encourages its water customers to conserve water at all times by:

A. Implementing efficient watering techniques for lawn and landscaping. B. Utilizing low flow water fixtures. C. Avoiding waste of water resulting from nonessential uses from water leaks.

7. Plan Testing, Review, and Update

This contingency plan will be evaluated, reviewed, and updated based on an annual review and mock exercise. The City will review any personnel or situational changes and make adjustments to the Plan annually. A copy of the Contingency Plan will be included in the City’s Water System Emergency Response Plan. Mock exercises will serve as an educational tool for local citizens, reminding the community of the importance of protecting their drinking water supply and of the curtailment measures that might be imposed in the event of an emergency. The Public is informed of the exercise via the Public Works web site and local media.

8. Personnel Training

To be effective, contingency plans must rely on properly trained people operating within a well- organized and effective system with up-to-date information. County and state emergency responders have been professionally trained to deal with HAZMAT responses. Local personnel are also trained in initial HAZMAT Response because they could be the first to arrive on site. Police officers receive HAZMAT Awareness level training as part of their officer training program. Currently, all fire personnel receive HAZMAT Operations level of training. With this training, local personnel are able to adequately identify and contain many hazardous materials. The City of Creswell has a Hazard Communication Plan that details required training frequencies and content, and is managed and updated by the Safety Committee.

9. Public Education

Public notification and education information builds and maintains support for the plan. It further encourages assistance and understanding when an emergency arises and the plan is put into effect. Management strategies for this plan have a strong educational imperative that satisfies this component of the contingency plan. However, before an emergency occurs, residents and businesses must be informed about the conservation and curtailment measures they will be expected to apply. The City’s website (http://www.ci.creswell.or.us/ ), Facebook page, and Facebook App will be used to disseminate information, as will the reverse 911 system as necessary in the event of an emergency. Curtailment notification will be implemented as required. Annual summer disaster education programs will include water bill inserts and newsletter mailings focusing on flooding, family preparedness in the event of emergencies, and water conservation techniques.

Public Education may take place in the following ways (subject to funding availability):

• Updated maps will be provided to first responders on an annual basis to ensure the most current information is available prior to an emergency or contamination taking place. • Outreach materials will be mailed directly to residents to the City of Creswell updating them on the drinking water quality protection efforts that had taken place in the previous year. • Outreach and education materials will be provided to residents in the DWSA to update them on efforts taking place in the DWSA and how they can get involved. • Offering free site visits for landowners to discuss how to best manage their lands in respect to drinking water quality.

10. Resources

The City should participate in an emergency response situation only to the extent of providing assistance and information regarding the water system and the particular needs of the community. The City should not attempt any clean up on its own, although containment may be necessarily appropriate. The responsible party is legally obligated to report and clean up chemical releases. If no responsible party is found, the community may need to finance contamination clean up or treatment. Potential funding sources include:

➢ State emergency funds ➢ Federal emergency funds ➢ City of Creswell develop and emergency fund ➢ Local Financing from citizen/business contributions dedicated to drinking water source protection ➢ A bond measure for replacement, treatment, or cleanup needs.

Chapter 8: Siting Future Water Sources

The Emerald Valley Wells were shut down and disconnected from our water distribution system in 2009 then placed in a reserve status. While it would not be cost effective to reopen those wells, in may be required due to contamination or increased demand in the water supply. The capacity of the Drinking Water Treatment Facility, as well as the existence of sufficient water rights for 30 years of growth indicates that the source should continue to be adequate for the foreseeable future. A water system master plan is required according to OAR 333-061-0060(a-c). Please refer to the Creswell Water System Master Plan for additional information.

A new source of drinking water may have to be developed if the existing Coast Fork Willamette River source should become unusable. Should development of a new source become necessary, the process would likely include the following:

• Transfer of water rights

• Geological survey to determine possible sources

• Site identification

• Land purchase, lease, or easement

• Design and construction of intake and/or wells

• Submittal of design plans to OHA for plan review as required

• Connection to treatment and distribution systems 

It is anticipated that any new proposed water source will likely be within the delineated Drinking Water Source Protection Area boundary discussed in this report. Information provided in this plan regarding the watershed characteristics will be used to facilitate the selection process of any new future water sources. If a new water supply must be developed, the data and analysis contained within this document will aid in the process. As soon as a new source is determined, delineations will be completed and added to protection areas.

Works Cited

OSU, 2013. Toxic Cyanobacterial Risk to Drinking Water in the Willamette Valley. Oregon State University, Department of Microbiology, Department of Chemistry. Intergovernmental Agreement #2011-2051

Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District, South Valley Resource Area, Mosby Creek Watershed Analysis. November 2000

Bureau of Land Management Eugene District, Row River Watershed Analysis, June 19, 1995.

Clean Water Fund, Clean Water Network, 2003. Source Water Stewardship, a Guide to Protecting and Restoring Your Drinking Water.

DEQ(2002) Creswell Source Water Assessment. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

DEQ, Lane Council of Governments, 1997. Coburg Drinking Water Protection Plan.

Eugene Water & Electric Board, 2000. Eugene Drinking Water Protection Plan Technical Report.

Eugene Water & Electric Board, 2001. Proposal for Implementation of the Drinking Water Source Protection Program.

Lane Council of Governments, 1997. Junction City Drinking Water Protection Plan.

Langlois Water District, 2010. Langlois Drinking Water Protection Plan.

OHA (2013) Algae Bloom Advisories. Oregon Health Authority. Available online at: http://public.health.oregon.gov/HEALTHYENVIRONMENTS/RECREATION/HARMFULAL GAEBLOOMS/Pages/Blue-GreenAlgaeAdvisories.aspx.

Oregon. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management Eugene District. Environmental Assessment for Eugene District Aquatic and Riparian Restoration Activities Environmental Assessment #DOIBLMOR09020090009EA. Eugene: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, BLM Eugene District Office, 2010. Print.

Springfield Utility Board, 2000. Springfield Drinking Water Protection Plan.

Stark, James L (March 1995) Changes in Riparian Vegetation and Channel Morphology Within and Between Sub basins with Different Land-Use Histories in the Mosby Creek Basin, Oregon. University of Oregon Graduate Thesis.

Stewart, Sheree and D. Nelson (1996) Oregon Wellhead Protection Program Guidance Manual. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Oregon Health Division publishers.

Layng Creek Management Plan, Umpqua National Forest, Unites States Department of Agriculture (1989)

Sharps Creek Watershed Analysis, May, 1999. Weyerhaeuser

Toxic Blooms in Oregon Waters. David Stone and Kara Hitchko. July 2009; EC 1631-E. Oregon State University Extension Service (pdf)

List of Acronyms

BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CFWWC Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council CFS Cubic Foot per Second DEQ Department of Environmental Quality DHS Department of Human Services DOGAMI Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries DWSPA Drinking Water Source Protection Area DWPA Drinking Water Protection Area DWSA Drinking Water Source Area HUC Hydrologic Unit Code MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MGD Million Gallons per Day NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture ODF Oregon Department of Forestry ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation OHA Oregon Health Authority ORS Oregon Revised Statutes PCS Potential Contaminant Source RMA Responsible Management Authority SLF&R South Lane Fire & Rescue District SLSD South Lane School District SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District SWA Source Water Assessment TAC Technical Advisory Committee WSERP Water System Emergency Response Plan

Appendix

A. Toxic Cyanobacterial Risk to Drinking Water in the Willamette Valley Report, 2013

B. DEQ Source Water Assessment, 2002

C. Riparian Corridor Management Survey Report, 2012

D. Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Action Plan 2007

E. Maps

F. Potential Contaminant Source index, 2016

G. 303(d) Listing 2012

Appendix A Toxic Cyanobacterial Risk to Drinking Water in the Willamette Valley Report, 2013

Appendix B DEQ Source Water Assessment, 2002

SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT Creswell’s intake (Creswell’s portion of the SUMMARY BROCHURE drinking water protection area) between Creswell’s intake and the upstream intakes for Cottage Grove and London Co-op. In addition, CITY OF CRESWELL there are three drinking water intakes PWS # 4100246 downstream of Creswell’s intake including the intakes for Pope and Talbot Inc., the City of WHAT IS A SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT? Corvallis, and Adair Village Water System The Source Water Assessment was recently which all have their intakes on the Willamette completed by the Department of Environmental River. Activities and impacts in the Creswell Quality (DEQ) and the Oregon Health Division drinking water protection area have the potential (OHD) to identify the surface areas (and/or to also impact downstream users. A schematic subsurface areas) that supply surface water to figure showing the drinking water intakes and City of Creswell’s public water system intake protection areas within the Coast Fork and to inventory the potential contaminant Willamette Sub-Basin is provided in this sources that may impact the water supply. summary brochure.

WHY WAS IT COMPLETED? The geographic area providing water to The Source Water Assessment was completed to Creswell’s intake (Creswell’s portion of the provide information so that City of Creswell’s drinking water protection area) extends upstream public water system staff/operator, consumers, approximately 208 miles in a southerly direction and community citizens can begin developing and encompasses a total area of 192 square strategies to protect the source of their drinking miles. The boundaries of this Drinking Water water, and to minimize future public Protection Area are illustrated on the figure expenditures for drinking water treatment. The attached to this summary. Included in this area assessment was prepared under the requirements are a number of tributaries to the main stem, and guidelines of the Federal Safe Drinking including the Row River and its tributaries, Water Act (SDWA). Gettings, Lynx Hollow, Silk, Martin, Williams, Wilson, Cedar, and Saroute Creeks as well as WHAT AREAS ARE INCLUDED IN CITY OF numerous smaller tributaries. The protection CRESWELL’S DRINKING WATER PROTECTION area within an 8-hour travel time from the intake AREA? extends approximately 10.7 miles upstream of The drinking water for City of Creswell is the Creswell intake. supplied by a surface water intake on the Coast Fork Willamette River and by multiple WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL SOURCES OF groundwater wells. This Source Water CONTAMINATION TO CITY OF CRESWELL’S Assessment addresses only the surface water PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY? component of the drinking water supply. The The primary intent of this inventory was to groundwater supply will be addressed in a identify and locate significant potential sources separate report. The Creswell public water of contaminants of concern. The delineated system serves approximately 3,380 citizens. drinking water protection area is primarily The surface water intake is located in the Lower dominated by agriculture and commercial land Coast Fork Willamette River/Upper Coast Fork uses. The potential contaminant sources Willamette River Watershed in the Coast Fork identified in the watershed include grazing Willamette Sub-Basin of the Willamette Basin. animals, non-irrigated crops, irrigated crops, clear cuts, upstream dam/reservoir, recreational The drinking water intake for the City of areas, a CAFO, rural residential areas, high- Cottage Grove and London Water Co-op public density housing, substation, golf courses, water systems are located upstream of the transportation corridors, a wastewater treatment Creswell intake. This source water assessment plant, sewer lines, a transfer station, a water addresses the geographic area providing water to treatment plant, golf courses, schools, auto wreckers, a fabricator, lumber companies, gravel river/streams. The sensitive areas are those companies, a county maintenance facility, gas where the potential contamination sources, if stations, an airport, car dealerships, a shopping present, have a greater potential to impact the mall, storage facilities, auto repair shops, small water supply. The information in this commercial businesses, and environmental assessment provides a basis for prioritizing areas clean-up sites. This provides a quick look at the in and around our community that are most existing potential sources of contamination that vulnerable to potential impacts and can be used could, if improperly managed or released, by the City of Creswell community to develop a impact the water quality in the watershed. voluntary Drinking Water Protection Plan.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS FOR OUR SYSTEM? NEED MORE INFORMATION? A total of 50 potential contaminant sources were City of Creswell’s Source Water Assessment identified in City of Creswell’s drinking water Report provides additional details on the protection area. All of these are located in the methodology and results of this assessment. The sensitive areas and 49 are high- to moderate-risk full report is available for review at: sources within “sensitive areas”. The sensitive ______areas within the City of Creswell drinking water Contact the City Public Works staff if you protection area include areas with high soil would like additional information on Creswell’s permeability, high soil erosion potential, high Source Water Assessment results. runoff potential and areas within 1000’ from the

TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 1 Transportation - Interstate 5 Runs north/south through Creswell Field- Within Higher Vehicle use increases the risk for leaks or Freeways/State DWPA Observation sensitive spills of fuel & other haz. materials. Road Highways/Other area. for building, maintenance & use can increase Heavy Use Roads WILLAMETTE erosion/slope failure causing turbidity. RIVER Over-application or improper handling of (COAST pesticides/fertilizers may impact water. FORK) WTP

2 Other --303d listed Coast Fork Mouth of Coast Fork to Creswell Database (2) Within Moderate The impacts of this potential contaminant stream Willamette Cottage Grove Reservoir Field- sensitive source will be addressed during the Observation area. for enhanced inventory. Listed for bacteria and toxics. WILLAMETTE RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

3 Crops - Irrigated Irrigated crops- South of intake Creswell Field- Within Higher Over-application or improper handling of (inc. orchards, Orchards Observation sensitive pesticides/fertilizers may impact drinking vineyards, area. for water. Excessive irrigation may transport nurseries, WILLAMETTE contaminants or sediments to RIVER groundwater/surface water through runoff. (COAST Drip-irrigated crops are considered to be a FORK) WTP low risk.

4 Managed Forest Clear Cuts Throughout DWPA Creswell Field- Within Higher Cutting and yarding of trees may Land - Clearcut Observation sensitive contribute to increased erosion, resulting in Harvest (< 35 yrs.) area. for turbidity and chemical changes in drinking WILLAMETTE water supply. Over-application or improper RIVER handling of pesticides or fertilizers may (COAST impact drinking water source. FORK) WTP

Note: Sites and areas identified in this Table are only potential sources of contamination to the drinking water. Environmental contamination is not likely to occur when contaminants are used and managed properly. (1) Where multiple potential contaminant sources exist at a site, the highest level of risk is used. (2) See Table 3 for database listings (if necessary).

3/7/2003 Page 1 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 5 Grazing Animals (> Grazing Animals South of intake Creswell Field- Within Higher Improper storage and management of 5 large animals or Observation sensitive animal wastes may impact drinking water equivalent/acre) area. for supply. Concentrated livestock may WILLAMETTE contribute to erosion and sedimentation of RIVER surface water bodies. (COAST FORK) WTP

6 Crops - Nonirrigated Non-irrigated Throughout DWPA Creswell Field- Within Lower Over-application or improper handling of (inc. Christmas Observation sensitive pesticides/fertilizers may impact drinking trees, grains, grass area. for water. Some agricultural practices may seed, pasture) WILLAMETTE result in excess sediments discharging to RIVER surface waters, but non-irrigated crops are (COAST generally considered to be a low risk. FORK) WTP

7 Stormwater Outfalls Stadler Slough South of intake Creswell Field- Within Higher Stormwater run-off may contain Observation sensitive contaminants from residential (homesites area. for and roads), commercial/industrial, and Slough takes runoff from WILLAMETTE agricultural use areas. agricultural land uses and I-5. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

8 Homesteads - Rural Rural Throughout DWPA Creswell Field- Within Lower If not properly sited, designed, installed, - Septic Systems Observation sensitive and maintained, septic systems can (< 1/acre) area. for impact drinking water. Use of drain WILLAMETTE cleaners and dumping household hazardous RIVER wastes can result in groundwater (COAST FORK) WTP Wells/Abandoned Moderate Improperly installed or maintained wells Wells and abandoned wells may provide a direct conduit for contamination to groundwater and drinking water source.

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 9 Large Capacity High Density South of intake Creswell Field- Within Moderate If not properly sited, designed, installed, Septic Systems Housing Observation sensitive and maintained, septic systems can (serves > 20 area. for impact drinking water. Riverwood and Arneys Mobile people) - Class V WILLAMETTE Home Park are located just UICs RIVER south of intake. City of (COAST Cottage Grove also includes FORK) WTP high density housing.

Housing - High Moderate Improper use, storage, and disposal of Density (> 1 household chemicals may impact the House/0.5 acres) drinking water supply. Stormwater run-off Riverwood and Arneys Mobile Home Park are located just or infiltration may carry contaminants to south of intake. City of drinking water supply. Cottage Grove also includes high density housing. Wells/Abandoned Moderate Improperly installed or maintained wells Wells and abandoned wells may provide a direct conduit for contamination to groundwater Riverwood and Arneys Mobile Home Park are located just and drinking water source. south of intake. City of Cottage Grove also includes high density housing.

10 Other -Equipment Unknown Sears Road. South of Creswell Field- Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Rentals Operations intake Observation sensitive chemicals and other materials during area. for transportation, use, storage, and disposal Observed numerous trucks, WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. excavating equipment on site. RIVER Unknown operations - needs (COAST verification. FORK) WTP

11 Mines/Gravel Pits Portable Rock Sears Road-South of Creswell Field- Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Products Observation sensitive chemicals and wastes generated in mining area. for operations or from heavy equipment may WILLAMETTE impact the drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type

12 Transportation - Railroad Runs on the west side of Creswell Field- Within Higher Rail transport elevates the risk for Railroads I-5. West of intake Observation sensitive leaks/spills of fuel & other haz. materials. area. for Installation/maintenance of tracks may WILLAMETTE increase erosion & slope failure causing RIVER turbidity. Over-application/improper (COAST handling of pesticides may impact the FORK) WTP

13 Transmission Lines Transmission Lines Runs on west side of I-5 Creswell Field- Within Higher Construction and corridor maintenance - Right-of-Ways Observation sensitive may contribute to increased erosion and area. for turbidity in drinking water supply. Over- WILLAMETTE application or improper handling of RIVER pesticides or fertilizers may impact (COAST FORK) WTP

14 Metal JD Rinaldi Hwy 99 S. Southwest of Creswell Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Plating/Finishing/Fa Fabricators intake Field- sensitive solvents, metals, and other chemicals brication Observation area. for during transportation, use, storage and WILLAMETTE disposal may impact the drinking water RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

15 Junk/Scrap/Salvage Walkers Auto Hwy 99 S. Just outside Creswell Field- Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Yards Wreckers DWPA Observation sensitive automotive chemicals, batteries, and other area. for waste materials during storage and WILLAMETTE disposal may impact the drinking water RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

3/7/2003 Page 4 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 16 Junk/Scrap/Salvage Fuzzies Truck Hwy 99 S. Southwest of Creswell Field- Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Yards Recycle intake Observation sensitive automotive chemicals, batteries, and other area. for waste materials during storage and WILLAMETTE disposal may impact the drinking water RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

17 Wood/Pulp/Paper Green River Davison Road. Southwest Creswell Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of wood Processing and Lumber Company of intake sensitive preservatives and other chemicals during area. for transportation, use, storage and disposal No visual observation of this WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. company. RIVER PCS location based on (COAST regulatory database search - FORK) WTP needs verification. UST - Status Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Unknown materials may impact the drinking water supply. No visual observation of this company. PCS location based on regulatory database search - needs verification.

18 Other -Unknown Willamette Hwy 99. Just north of Saginaw Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Operations Industries- Saginaw Field- sensitive chemicals and other materials during Warehouse Observation area. for transportation, use, storage, and disposal This warehouse is 1/4 mile north WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. of main Willamette Industries RIVER Mill site. (COAST FORK) WTP Above Ground Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Storage Tanks - materials may impact the drinking water Excluding Water supply. This warehouse is 1/4 mile north of main Willamette Industries Mill site.

3/7/2003 Page 5 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type

19 Wood/Pulp/Paper Willamette Hwy 99 S. Southwest of Saginaw Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of wood Processing and Industries Planer intake Field- sensitive preservatives and other chemicals during Mill Observation area. for transportation, use, storage and disposal WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP Above Ground Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Storage Tanks - materials may impact the drinking water Excluding Water supply.

20 Wood/Pulp/Paper Willamette Hwy 99 S. Southwest of Saginaw Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of wood Processing and Industries intake Field- sensitive preservatives and other chemicals during Laminated Beam Observation area. for transportation, use, storage and disposal Plant appears to be closed WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

21 Mines/Gravel Pits Zumwalt/Willams West of I-5. Horn Ln. Saginaw Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Sand & Gravel Field- sensitive chemicals and wastes generated in mining Observation area. for operations or from heavy equipment may WILLAMETTE impact the drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP UST - Status Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Unknown materials may impact the drinking water supply.

3/7/2003 Page 6 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 22 Confined Animal Hillcrest Dairy & Sears Rd. South of intake Creswell Field- Within Moderate Improper storage and management of Contact indicated site was dairy Feeding Operations Hemenway Farm Observation sensitive animal wastes and wastewater in areas of farm and was closed down (CAFOs) area. for concentrated livestock may impact approx two years ago. Farm WILLAMETTE drinking water. still in use- observed a large RIVER number a sheep grazing. (COAST FORK) WTP Risk reduced to Moderate because both farms appear closed. SIS permits have been terminated.

23 Other -Unknown Steel House Sears Rd. South of intake Creswell Field- Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Operations Sheet Metal Observation sensitive chemicals and other materials during area. for transportation, use, storage, and disposal Manufacture of sheet metal WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. roofing materials. Unsure if RIVER actual manufacturing takes (COAST place in building. Needs verified. FORK) WTP

24 Other -County Lane County Sears Rd. South of intake Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Maintenance Shop Maintenance Grove Field- sensitive chemicals and other materials during Facility Observation area. for transportation, use, storage, and disposal WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP UST - Status Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Unknown materials may impact the drinking water supply.

3/7/2003 Page 7 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 25 UST - Status Lane County Sears Rd. South of intake Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Unknown Recycle/Refuse Grove Field- sensitive materials may impact the drinking water Station Observation area. for supply. WILLAMETTE RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP Waste Higher Improper management of water contacting Transfer/Recycling waste material may impact the drinking Stations water supply.

26 Airport - Cottage Grove Off Row River Road. Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of fuels, Maintenance/Fuelin Airport South of intake Grove Field- sensitive de-icers, and other chemicals during g Area Observation area. for transportation, use, storage and disposal WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP UST - Lower Spills or improper handling during tank Upgraded/Registere filling or product distribution may impact d - Active the drinking water supply.

27 Golf Courses Middlefield Golf Off Row River Rd. South Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Over-application or improper handling of Course of intake Grove Field- sensitive pesticides or fertilizers may impact Observation area. for drinking water. Excessive irrigation may WILLAMETTE cause transport of contaminants to RIVER groundwater or surface water through (COAST FORK) WTP

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 28 Drinking Water Row River Water Off Row River Rd. South Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Treatment chemicals and equipment Treatment Plants Treatment Plant of intake Grove Field- sensitive maintenance materials may impact Observation area. for groundwater or surface water source. WILLAMETTE RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

29 Wood/Pulp/Paper Star Fire Lumber Mosby Creek Rd Cottage Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of wood Processing and Co Grove Field- sensitive preservatives and other chemicals during Observation area. for transportation, use, storage and disposal WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

30 Utility Stations - Substation South of intake/ Thomas Cottage Field- Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Maintenance Lane Grove Observation sensitive chemicals and other materials including Transformer area. for PCBs during transportation, use, storage WILLAMETTE and disposal may impact the drinking water RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

31 Automobiles - Car Suds-n-Shine Car Off Davison Ave. South Cottage Field- Within Moderate Improper management of vehicle wash Washes Wash of intake Grove Observation sensitive water may result in soaps, oils, greases, area. for and metals impacting the drinking water WILLAMETTE RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

3/7/2003 Page 9 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 32 Other -Unknown Kwikee Product Davison Ave. South of Cottage Field- Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Operation Co. intake Grove Observation sensitive chemicals and other materials during area. for transportation, use, storage, and disposal Unknown operations - needs WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. verification. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

33 Above Ground W.J. Welt Inc. Palmer ave Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Storage Tanks - Grove Field- sensitive materials may impact the drinking water Excluding Water Observation area. for supply. Company may own Pacific WILLAMETTE Pride Commercial Fueling and RIVER Monitor Heating Products. Both (COAST are located across from W.J. FORK) WTP Welt office.

UST - Lower Spills or improper handling during tank Upgraded/Registere filling or product distribution may impact d - Active the drinking water supply. Company may own Pacific Pride Commercial Fueling and Monitor Heating Products. Both are located across from W.J. Welt office.

Chemical/Petroleum Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Processing/Storage chemicals and other materials during transportation, use, storage and disposal Company may own Pacific Pride Commercial Fueling and may impact the drinking water supply. Monitor Heating Products. Both are located across from W.J. Welt office.

3/7/2003 Page 10 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 34 Other --Car Kendall Auto South of intake. Row Cottage Field- Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Dealerships Center River Road. Grove Observation sensitive chemicals and other materials during area. for transportation, use, storage, and disposal There are several car WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. dealerships throughout Cottage RIVER Grove. Those located on Row (COAST River Road appear closest to FORK) WTP Coast Fork Willamette.

Above Ground Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Storage Tanks - materials may impact the drinking water Excluding Water supply. There are several car dealerships throughout Cottage Grove. Those located on Row River Road appear closest to Coast Fork Willamette. Automobiles - Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Repair Shops automotive fluids, solvents, and repair materials during transportation, use, There are several car dealerships throughout Cottage storage and disposal may impact the Grove. Those located on Row drinking water supply. River Road appear closest to Coast Fork Willamette.

35 Other -Unknown Reiling South of intake. Sears Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Operation Environmental Road Grove Field- sensitive chemicals and other materials during Observation area. for transportation, use, storage, and disposal Unknown operations - needs WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. verification. RIVER Warehouse appears to be (COAST occupied, however a sign in FORK) WTP front of building indicates site is for lease.

36 Transportation - State Highway 99 West side of I-5. Creswell Field- Within Higher Vehicle use increases the risk for leaks or Freeways/State S Observation sensitive spills of fuel & other haz. materials. Road Highways/Other area. for building, maintenance & use can increase Heavy Use Roads WILLAMETTE erosion/slope failure causing turbidity. RIVER Over-application or improper handling of (COAST pesticides/fertilizers may impact water. FORK) WTP

3/7/2003 Page 11 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 37 Automobiles - Gas Bimor Gas Station South of intake. Mosby Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of fuels Stations Creek Road Grove Field- sensitive and other materials during transportation, Observation area. for transfer, and storage may impact the There are several gas stations WILLAMETTE drinking water supply. located in Cottage Grove. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP Above Ground Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Storage Tanks - materials may impact the drinking water Excluding Water supply. There are several gas stations located in Cottage Grove.

38 Junk/Scrap/Salvage Ricks Stor-n-Lock Southwest of intake. Off Cottage Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Yards N.River Rd Grove Field- sensitive automotive chemicals, batteries, and other Observation area. for waste materials during storage and A large number of autos and WILLAMETTE disposal may impact the drinking water trucks stored in back of storage RIVER units. Unsure if these vehicles (COAST are part of storage company or FORK) WTP another company. Verify

RV/Mini Storage Lower Spills, leaks, or improper handling of automotive fluids and other materials during transportation, storage and disposal A large number of autos and trucks stored in back of storage may impact the drinking water supply. units. Unsure if these vehicles are part of storage company or another company. Verify

39 Wastewater Cottage Grove Southwest of intake. Hwy Cottage Database (2) Within Higher Improper management of wastewater, Treatment Wastewater 99S Grove Field- sensitive treatment chemicals, or equipment Plants/Collection Treatment Plant Observation area. for maintenance materials may impact Stations WILLAMETTE drinking water supply. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

3/7/2003 Page 12 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 40 Sewer Lines - Close Sewer Lines Throughout Cottage Cottage Interview Within Moderate If not properly designed, installed, and Proximity to PWS Grove sensitive maintained, sewer lines can impact drinking area. for water, especially adjacent to a waterbody WILLAMETTE or within the 2-year time-of-travel zone for RIVER drinking water wells. (COAST FORK) WTP

41 Parking Lots/Malls Mall- Parking Lot Southwest of intake. Hwy Cottage Field- Within Higher Spills and leaks of automotive fluids in (> 50 Spaces) 99 S Grove Observation sensitive parking lots may impact the drinking water area. for supply. WILLAMETTE RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP

42 Golf Courses Hidden Valley Southwest of intake. Off Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Over-application or improper handling of Golf Course N.River Rd Grove Field- sensitive pesticides or fertilizers may impact Observation area. for drinking water. Excessive irrigation may WILLAMETTE cause transport of contaminants to RIVER groundwater or surface water through (COAST FORK) WTP

43 Chemical/Petroleum Unocal Bulk Plant Southwest of intake. Off Cottage Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Processing/Storage Quincy Ave Grove Field- sensitive chemicals and other materials during Observation area. for transportation, use, storage and disposal Potential risk should be verified WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. during enhanced inventory. RIVER Site has been closed. (COAST FORK) WTP Other -Suspected Moderate The impacts of this potential contaminant Environmental source will be addressed during the Clean-up Site enhanced inventory. Potential risk should be verified during enhanced inventory. Site has been closed.

3/7/2003 Page 13 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 44 Automobiles - Body Auto Art Collision Southwest of intake. Main Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Improper management of vehicle paints, Shops St Grove Field- sensitive thinners, and primer products may impact Observation area. for the drinking water supply. There are several auto WILLAMETTE body/repair shops within RIVER Cottage Grove and DWPA. (COAST FORK) WTP

45 UST - Status OP & E 10th Southwest of intake. 10th Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Unknown Street Locomotive Steet Grove Field- sensitive materials may impact the drinking water Shop Observation area. for supply. Risk reduced to Moderate WILLAMETTE because because site has been RIVER evaluated and risk assessment (COAST indicates lower risk should FORK) WTP Railroad Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of fuels Yards/Maintenance/ and other materials during transportation, Fueling Areas use, storage and disposal may impact the Risk reduced to Moderate because because site has been drinking water supply. evaluated and risk assessment indicates lower risk should

46 Schools Cottage Grove Southwest of intake. Off Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Over-application or improper handling of High School Taylor Ave Grove Field- sensitive cleaning products, pesticides or fertilizers Observation area. for used on the school grounds may impact WILLAMETTE drinking water. Vehicle maintenance RIVER wastes may contribute contaminants. (COAST FORK) WTP UST - Status Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Unknown materials may impact the drinking water supply.

3/7/2003 Page 14 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type

47 Wood/Pulp/Paper Weyerhaeuser Southwest of intake. Hwy Cottage Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of wood Processing and Company-Timber 99 S Grove Field- sensitive preservatives and other chemicals during Mill Observation area. for transportation, use, storage and disposal Mill site is located just outside 8 WILLAMETTE may impact the drinking water supply. hour time of travel. RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP Above Ground Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Storage Tanks - materials may impact the drinking water Excluding Water supply. Mill site is located just outside 8 hour time of travel.

48 Machine Shops Kimwood Southwest of intake. Hwy Cottage Database (2) Within Higher Spills, leaks, or improper handling of Corporation 99S Grove Field- sensitive solvents, metals, and other chemicals or Observation area. for materials during transportation, use, Manufactures wood working WILLAMETTE storage and disposal may impact the machinery. RIVER drinking water supply. (COAST FORK) WTP

49 UST - Status Cottage Grove Southwest of intake. Hwy Cottage Database (2) Within Moderate Spills, leaks, or improper handling of stored Unknown Lake/Reservoir 99S Grove Field- sensitive materials may impact the drinking water Observation area. for supply. WILLAMETTE RIVER (COAST FORK) WTP Upstream Moderate During major storm events, reservoirs Reservoirs/Dams may contribute to prolonged turbidity for downstream intakes for drinking water. Construction, fluctuating water levels, and heavy waterside use can increase erosion and turbidity in reservoir/drinking water source.

3/7/2003 Page 15 of 16 TABLE 2. INVENTORY RESULTS - LIST OF POTENTIAL CONTAMINANT SOURCES

PWS# 4100246 CRESWELL, CITY OF

Reference Potential Proximity to Relative No. (See Contaminant Approximate Method for Sensitive Risk Level Figure) Source Name Location City Listing Areas (1) Potential Impacts Comments Type 50 River Recreation - High Recreation Cottage Grove Reservoir. Cottage Field- Within Moderate Inadequate disposal of human wastes may Heavy Use (inc. Areas Southwest of intake Grove Observation sensitive contribute bacteria and nutrients to the campgrounds) area. for drinking water supply. Heavy use may WILLAMETTE contribute to streambank erosion causing RIVER turbidity. Fuel spills and emissions may (COAST also contribute to contamination. FORK) WTP

3/7/2003 Page 16 of 16

Appendix C Riparian Corridor Management Survey Report, 2012

Riparian Corridor Management: Survey Report

November 27, 2012

Survey prepared by: Hannah Klausman, Natural Resource Intern Amanda Ferguson, City Planner

For: City of Cottage Grove

Introduction

The City of Cottage Grove along with the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council (CFWWC) is spearheading the effort to create a Safe Drinking Water Protection Plan for the City of Cottage Grove. Also, Cottage Grove has identified the “loss of riparian shading and streamside vegetation” as an issue of water quality concern. To address this issue, the city is partnering with the CFWWC to provide assistance to landowners along waterways.

In order to gain a better understanding of Cottage Grove resident’s viewpoints towards local waterways and landscaping decisions, city staff designed a public survey using Survey Monkey, entitled “Riparian Corridor Water Quality Survey.” The survey asked participants for their opinions towards riparian areas; challenges presented by riparian areas on their property, as well as perceived best practices and methods for public outreach.

The survey had 12 questions and took approximately 5 minutes to complete. It was made available on the City of Cottage Grove and the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council’s websites. A hard copy mailing was sent to streamside property owners within the urban growth boundary. A paper form of the survey was also available at the City of Cottage Grove booth at the Bohemia Mining Days Festival in July.

Methodology

A written public survey was created to identify attitudes and perceptions regarding streamside property maintenance within Cottage Grove. This was developed by the Community Development Department after reviewing existing surveys from PSU and Washington. The Department of Environmental Quality and the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council provided feedback prior to the survey being released.

Written Public Survey The public survey consisted of 12 questions and took approximately 5 minutes to answer. The survey was mailed to known streamside property owners within Cottage Grove’s urban growth boundary which approximated 266 owners. The City of Cottage Grove also made the survey available at the Bohemia Mining Days festival. The survey was accessible online through Survey Monkey via a link on the City’s website and the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council’s website. The distribution and response breakdown is listed below.

Bohemia Mining Festival: 12 respondents

Mailing: 20 respondents

Online Survey: 3 respondents

Percentage of Returns: 13% Findings

A detailed list of the results of the written and on-line survey is attached as an appendix. A summary of those results follows this section. There were some clear trends in the written survey. A clear majority of respondents find nongovernmental organizations and OSU extension service as trustworthy sources for property management decision information. Few respondents indicated that they would seek advice from Federal, State, County, or local government officials or agencies. The preferred forms of outreach and education included newsletters (60%), website information (54%), and workshops (43%). Tours of local gardens examples was also a popular method (34%).

When asked about perceived barriers to making improvements to property, respondents identified financial constraints as the number one difficulty (60%). Respondents also cited government land use restrictions (45%), lack of labor (40%), and lack of knowledge (37%) as barriers to modifying their property.

Several stream characteristics were identified as important functions to property owners. Those included wildlife/Fish habitat, erosion and flood control, and visual privacy and access. Improved wildlife/fish habitat (65%), protecting property for future generations (64%), water quality, and scenic beauty (60%) were the main priorities for landowners. Property value and prevention of flooding were also listed as very important by 42%. Providing income or profit was seen as less important. 80% of respondents agreed that riparian vegetation is important for erosion and flood control as well as providing wildlife habitat. The majority of respondents also agree that riparian areas are expensive to maintain (51%). Aesthetic qualities such as having the best looking lawn or flowers and trees overhanging property lines was of little importance to respondents.

Responses collected represented 283 household members, 144 females and 139 males. Landscape decisions were predominantly made by the women in the household, or considered a joint family decision. Households where landscape decisions were made mostly by men accounted for only 17% of respondents.

The majority of respondents live on small parcels of land between 0-5 acres (69%), most of which are less than two acres. Only a handful of respondents claimed over 6 acres of land. There was a considerable amount of people that listed they did not know their property acreage (17%).

The average length of time respondents, or their family, had lived in the Pacific Northwest was 47 years. 40% of respondents had lived in the area for longer than 50 years and all respondents had lived in the area for at least 5 years. This would indicate knowledge of Pacific Northwest weather patterns and stream trends in regards to flooding would be present among survey respondents.

The average amount of time respondents had lived on the current property was 18 years. There was relatively equal distribution in the duration of time the residents had lived in the current reporting house ranging from three months to 30 years. Of these households 21 live on Coast Fork Willamette River, five on Silk Creek, six on Row River, and three on Bennett Creek. ATTACHMENTS:

Survey Results: Riparian Corridor Management—SUMMARY

Appendix D Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Action Plan 2007

Action Plan

September 2007

Page 1 of 16

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Funds for this action plan were provided by: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality/ US Environmental Protection Agency 319 Program Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board

Special thanks to Pamela Wright, ODEQ Project Manager

Fiscal Agent: East Lane Soil & Water Conservation District

Coast Fork Action Plan Contributors:

Pam Reber, Council Coordinator Laurie Bernstein, USFS Fisheries Biologist Ned Harris, Council volunteer

Coast Fork Action Plan Advisors:

Allen Martin, GeoResources Alison Center, wildlife biologist Doug Garletts, USACE Fisheries Erik Moberly, ODFW STEP Biologist Brian Forge, Council member Jim Mough, Council member Paul Reed, East Lane SWCD

Page 2 of 16 Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Action Plan Table of Contents

Introduction: Purpose/Need of the Action Plan Page 4

Existing Data, Concerns and Priorities Pages 5-7

Watershed Restoration Priorities Outline Pages 8-12  Goal #1 Improve Water Quality  Goal # 2 Improve Aquatic Habitat  Goal # 3 Improve Terrestrial Habitat

Project Summary Pages 13-14

Appendices Pages 15-16 A. Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Priority Streams B. Coast Fork technical Committee Documents

Page 3 of 16 Introduction: Purpose/Need of the Action Plan

This Action Plan is intended to outline the known ecological priorities of the Coast Fork Willamette River watershed in a hierarchy that can guide the choices of citizen and agency restoration planners. As the reader will discover, three areas of emphasis need the attention of restoration efforts: water quality, aquatic habitat and terrestrial habitat. This watershed is situated at the southern end of the rapidly growing Willamette Valley. As such, it is important that council members are encouraged to take actions that will both remedy existing impairments and prevent future degradation of the existing watershed resource.

Since 95% of Willamette Valley is in private ownership, the key to restoring and protecting priority habitats is cooperation with landowners. As the purpose of Oregon’s watershed councils is to facilitate this voluntary cooperation in restoration efforts, the format of this document is meant to be succinct and easy to understand.

In order to implement restoration projects that satisfy current and future needs, part of the action planning process of the Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council (Coast Fork Council) was to identify a process for developing projects, with particular focus on the Technical Committee of the council. Having a clear and transparent process is useful for all council committees, local landowners, and partners of the Coast Fork Council. Part of creating that process is developing a common frame of reference within which council members can discuss projects.

This Action Plan reflects the interest of the Coast Fork Council to identify and develop the best and current opportunities for partnership in the highest priority areas—it is intended that this is a working document that will allow for new projects to evolve and completed projects to be recorded and understood. It is likely that this Action Plan will be the groundwork for a future 5 year + plan, but for now the goal is to move forward on restoration project development and implementation in the most efficient way possible.

Existing Data, Concerns and Priorities

Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed Assessment (2005)

The Lower Coast Fork Willamette consists of the river section from the confluence with the Middle Fork Willamette near Mt. Pisgah, upstream to the confluence with the Row River in Cottage Grove. Stream surveys were conducted, fish trap data was collected and the resulting document was a summary of this new data as well as some existing data sets, e.g. the ODEQ 303d list of impaired waterways.

The Lower Coast Fork Watershed Assessment identified the following as priority limiting factors:  Aquatic habitat for Spring Chinook salmon, cutthroat trout and Oregon chub including a lack of structure (such as large woody debris or vernal pools).  Historic stream channel modification—reduction of the floodplain and riparian zone as well as channel alteration (straightening, revetments, etc.)  Water Quality (temperature, mercury, bacteria)  Wetlands (loss to development and invasive species)

Page 4 of 16 BLM Mosby Creek Watershed Analysis (2000) In 2000, a watershed analysis of the Mosby Creek watershed was completed by the BLM, Eugene district.

Priority actions relevant to the council identified in this document include:

 Temperature: Minimize activities than increase water temperature (canopy removal, etc.)  Increase channel complexity with large woody debris (LWD) and boulders  Actions that preserve the character and connectivity of Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) including: acquisition; protection of peregrine falcon, spotted owl, elk, lynx and threatened plant (Aster vialis) habitat; and road decommissioning.  Inventory (locate and map) oak woodlands.

Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Priority Stream Ranking (2007)

The ODFW Conservation Strategy, PNW Ecosystem Research Consortium and the Nature Conservancy Wetlands Inventory are individual documents (see below) that set priority conservation areas by ecosystem type on a regional level. Technical team members Pamela Wright, ODEQ, and Laurie Bernstein, USFS, used GIS to unite these three datasets, along with existing council priorities, to develop a set of rankings. The map below displays the streams that came out as highest, moderate and lower rankings for potential riparian, floodplain and aquatic habitat restoration and conservation.

References:

Campbell, B. H. 2003. ‘Restoring Rare Native Habitats in the Willamette Valley’. A Landowner’s Guide for Restoring Oak Woodlands, Wetlands, Prairies, and Bottomland Hardwood and Riparian Forests. Defeners of Wildlife. Portland, OR.

Dykaar, B.B. July 2005. Status and trends of Middle and Coast Forks Willamette River and their floodplain habitat using geomorphic indicators. Prepared for Willamette Partnership and U.S. Army Corps of engineers by Ecohydrology West, Santa Cruz, CA.

Hulse, D., S. Gregory and J. Baker (eds.), 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas Trajectories of environmental and ecological change. 2nd Edition. Prepared by the Pacific northwerst Ecosystem Research Consortium. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. (Referred to in this document as PNW Conservation Opportunity Areas)

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2000. Source Water Assessment Report: City of Cottage Grove, OR PWS #4100236.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2000. Oregon’s Water Quality Status Assessment Report. Salem, OR.

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). September 2006. Willamette Basin Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Salem, OR.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. The Oregon Conservation Strategy. Salem, OR.

Page 5 of 16

Scheerer, P. 1999. Oregon chub research in the Willamette Valley 1991-1999. OR Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis.

US Army Corps of Engineers, 2007. Willamette River Floodplain Restoration Study Base Conditions Report: Coast Fork and Middle Fork Willamette Sub-basins.

USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest/ USDI Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District. 1999. Sharps Creek Watershed Analysis. Cottage Grove Ranger District and Eugene BLM.

USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest. 1995. Layng Creek Watershed Analysis. Cottage Grove Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest. 1997. Brice Creek Watershed Analysis. Cottage Grove Ranger District.

USDI Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District. 2000. Cottage Grove Lake-Big River Watershed Analysis.

Weyerhaeuser Company. 1999. Sharps Creek Watershed Analysis. Springfield, OR.

Additional Council Priorities

Local Issues of Importance . Protection/enhancement of Western pond turtle habitat . Mercury: Community education and key actions to minimize risk.

Page 6 of 16 Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Priority Streams

Priority Stream Ranking Pap e Other Streams n B f e u Creek a s 1 - Highest Priority ale e S w c r C a s r m ra C e C a ll r e 2 - Moderate Priority i e k M e l l k e 3 - Lower Priority n

H u il T l C re ek G e t ti k n gs C re e R e tt o e w m R a l iv l i e r

k k

t t

o C

M o s b y C re e k

Highest Priority = Streams previously identified as a priority area by 2 or more of the following existing plans: -ODFW Oregon Conservation Strategy -PNW Conservation Opportunity Area -The Nature Conservancy Prioirty Areas

Mosby Creek is an exception, this was identified as a priority stream by ODFW. It is the largest free flowing tributary to the Coast Fork Willamette River.

Moderate Priority = Previously identified by one of the plans listed above for the highest ranking criteria and/or a large stream with many land owner restoration opportunities.

Lower Priority = A larger tributary with land owner restoration opportunities and/or a previously identified priority area that may be difficult to restore.

10 5 0 10 Miles . September 12, 2007

Page 7 of 16 Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Restoration Priorities Outline

Goal #1: Improve Water Quality

Objective 1.1: Mitigate temperature impairment

Action 1) Increase shade along stream channels

i. Identify high priority areas for riparian enhancement  Conduct further GIS analysis on Lower Coast Fork and Mosby Creek

ii. Restore riparian habitat to native vegetation in priority streams  Recruit landowners by sending a mailer to landowners in these sub-watersheds o Upper Camas Swale o Lower Coast Fork o Mosby Creek

 Continue riparian work in other tributaries and where landowners come forward in other priority stream areas: o Hall Creek o Lower Coast Fork Mainstem o Row River Corridor o Hill Creek o Gettings Creek

iii. Encourage bioengineering strategies to reduce temperature impacts of structural impairments like revetments and channelization (areas where vegetation or aquatic structure is prevented from emerging naturally).  Remove or modify revetments along Lower Coast Fork  Work with city of Cottage Grove to address Silk Creek erosion/channelization issues

iv. TMDL Implementation Planning: reduce stream temperatures to meet DEQ water quality standards.  Work in concert with local DMAs (Cottage Grove & Creswell) to provide review of TMDL matrices, identify restoration opportunities and conduct education & planning forums on water quality issues.

Action 2) Maintain or enhance riparian areas effectively shading streams

i. Collaborate with local agencies on park and greenway planning

ii. Educate landowners on importance of and maintenance of waterways

Action 3) Remove impoundments that contribute to elevated temperatures

Page 8 of 16 i. Identify and evaluate dams and other water retention devices on perennial streams; remove when beneficial to water quality.

Objective 1.2: Reduce impacts of mercury contamination on human & environmental health

Action 1) Educate the community about mercury risks.

i. Disseminate existing & council-prepared documentation on mercury issue.

Action 2) Collaborate with state & federal agencies

i. Clean up at Black Butte mine (EPA/DEQ lead)  Keep community informed  Maintain lines of communication between local community & federal cleanup managers.

ii. Explore opportunities to resolve issues of contaminated sediments

Objective 1.3 Reduce bacteria contamination to Coast Fork Willamette River

Action 1) Collaborate with local municipalities and state agencies

i. TMDL implementation planning  Identify solutions and use communication tools to encourage their implementation.

Action 2) Educate and partner with landowners to reduce non-point sources of nutrients.

i. Provide (create or locate) educational materials about on-site manure management

ii. Provide (create or locate) educational materials on septic contamination.

Objective 1.4 Minimize erosion & sedimentation

Action 1) Collaborate with landowners to implement best management practices for road maintenance (culverts, sediment), forest practices (riparian buffer, roads) and other land uses (grazing, etc.)

i. Develop partnerships with industrial landowners and work towards common goals.

ii. Develop relationships with agricultural stakeholders and work towards common goals.

Action 2) Educate private landowners and council members about practices that help reduce erosion. Page 9 of 16

i. Utilize the expertise of agencies such as ELSWCD for reference materials and expertise for best management of agricultural practices.

Goal #2 Improve Aquatic Habitat

Objective 2.1 Improve stream channel structure & function

Action 1) Restore aquatic habitats likely to be used by Spring Chinook

i. Improve or create spawning habitat in Mosby Creek

ii. Improve channel complexity in Lower Coast Fork (rearing & migrating)

Action 2) Enhance habitats for resident cutthroat trout, lamprey & others

Action 3) Reduce velocities when beneficial: restore meander & channel character to reduce down-cutting.

Action 4) Monitor for target species to determine habitat quality & effectiveness of restoration actions.

i. Partner with ODFW & other state/federal agencies to monitor for aquatic species.

Objective 2.2 Restore channel connectivity

Action 1) Remove or improve known barriers

i. Gather data about Hill Creek issues: diversion, dam and push-up dam

ii. Review revetment data for use in planning projects in Lower Coast Fork

Action 2) Inventory & address barriers in priority watersheds

i. Prioritization of barriers in close proximity to mainstem (Jeff Ziller 2/07)

Objective 2.3 Restore floodplain habitats

Action 1) Enhancement of backwater & side channel habitat

i. Take restoration actions that benefit Oregon chub.

ii. Implement restoration strategies that benefit Western pond turtles

Action 2) Improve hydrologic connectivity

Action 3) Restore & maintain wetlands, wet prairie and wetland forests

Page 10 of 16

i. Encourage wetland banks and effective restoration

ii. Use check dams and other water-slowing strategies to reduce flow and provoke natural hydrologic regimes, as possible.

Action 4) Monitor for target species to determine habitat quality & effectiveness of restoration actions.

i. Monitor for existing turtle populations in key locations by placing logs and developing a monitoring plan for late April through mid-June in priority areas.

ii. Partner with ODFW & other state/federal agencies to monitor for aquatic species.

Goal #3 Improve Terrestrial Habitat

Objective 3.1 Enhance Western pond turtle habitat

Action 1) Improve habitat in and around appropriate water-bodies (vernal pools, gravel ponds, etc) including: slope banks, plant or maintain compatible vegetation and basking logs.

Action 2) Facilitate information sharing and best management practices around the Western pond turtles in the Coast Fork basin.

Objective 3.2 Restore, enhance & conserve native ecosystems

Action 1) Bottomland hardwood and riparian forests

i. Identify key bottomland and riparian forests within priority sub-basins, particularly the Lower Coast Fork using GIS analysis of aerial photos. a. Prioritize specific reaches and tributaries that are high priority for temperature, hydrologic function and noxious weed impairment.

ii. Conduct landowner recruitment, plan and implement projects.

Action 2) Wetlands and wet prairie

i. Recruit landowners, plan and implement projects in the Camas Swale basin.

ii. Encourage wetlands mitigation & mitigation bank development that improve species composition and hydrologic function.

Action 3) Oak/upland prairie habitats Page 11 of 16

i. Maintain existing oak woodlands and savannahs through conservation strategies such as acquisition, conservation easements and restoration.

ii. Restore and enhance existing oaks by releasing encroaching conifers.

Action 4) Late-successional Douglas fir forests

i. Partner with landowners to protect & enhance habitat using restoration, education & acquisition.

ii. Identify priority areas for conservation.

Objective 3.3 Develop strategies to address noxious weeds

Action 1) Access best management practices for use by council and partners. i. Gather reference data on strategies for target invasive species in terrestrial habitats.

ii. Find, partner to develop or create a document that outlines the target non- native plant species for the watershed.

iii. Update website to reflect available online resources

Action 2) Work with local landowners to implement best management practices for removal and management of noxious weeds.

Action 3) Address noxious weeds on all project sites

Action 4) Develop a noxious weed education strategy (specific to the Coast Fork or Upper Willamette River Watershed)

Action 5) Inventory noxious weeds to develop database/map to guide actions

Page 12 of 16

Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Project Summary

Project Description Location and Partners Stage Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Objectives Objectives Objectives Priority Garden Lake Park Enhancement & restoration of Hill Creek, trib City of Creswell, ODFW Project 1.1, 1.4 2.1, 3.2 Riparian Restoration native habitat and riparian to Lower Coast Implementation Project function on 10.5 acres. Fork Willamette River (Mod Priority) Western Pond Turtle Remove noxious weeds, plant Row River City of Cottage Grove, Project 2.3 3.1, 3.2, Habitat Restoration at native vegetation, create nesting Forest Service, Kennedy Implementation 3.3 East Regional Park habitat, install basking logs, School enhance song bird habitat on 20+ acres. Priory Farm Riparian Enhancement & restoration of Hall Creek, trib Landowner Brian Forge Project 1.1,1.4 2.1 3.2 Restoration native habitat and riparian to Lower Coast Implementation function on 1.375 acres. Fork Willamette River Mosby Creek Riparian enhancement (shade) on Mosby Creek ODFW, Landowner 1.1, 1.4 2.1, 2.2 3.1, 3.2, private land; seeking funding for (High Priority) Mosby Landowners, Recruitment/ 3.3 habitat assessment with WEYCO, Weyerhaeuser Co. Project ODFW; aquatic habitat focus Development upstream. Quamash Prairie Riparian restoration for shade on Lower Coast Lane County Waste Project 1.1, 1.4 2.1, 2.3 3.1, 3.2, 1,300 ft of Coast Fork by Fork Willamette Management, Lane Development 3.3 planting 6.7 acres of upland; River County Parks, possibly revetment removal for floodplain Corps of Engineers. function. Cinderella Park Riparian, side channel, flood Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as Same as Same as Enhancement plain and pond turtle above above above enhancement Floodplain Restoration Floodplain restoration project Lower Coast US Army Corps, Middle Landowner 1.1, 1.4 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, Phase II development using detailed Fork Willamette Fork Watershed Council, Recruitment / 2.3 3.3 outreach, recruitment and design River Willamette Riverkeeper, Project process—can combine with (High Priority) Friends of Buford Park Development Coast Fork Riparian.

Page 13 of 16 Project Description Location and Partners Stage Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Objectives Objectives Objectives Priority Coast Fork Riparian Riparian project development Lower Coast Mt Pisgah, Friends of Conceptual 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, Restoration Fork Willamette Buford Park, Lane Project/ Landowner 1.3, 1.4 2.3 3.3 (High Priority) County, Landowners recruitment

Camas Swale Wetland & Prairie project Lower Coast Landowners, possibly Conceptual Project/ 1.1 2.3 3.1, 3.2, SubWatershed development Fork Willamette the Nature Conservancy Landowner 3.3 Planning (High Priority) and UO Geography Dept Recruitment Hill Creek Fish Passage Removal/modification of fish Hill Creek, trib ODFW, possibly Water Conceptual Project 1.1 2.1, 2.2 Improvement passage barriers and in-stream to Lower Coast Resources, City of impoundments. Fork Willamette Creswell, irrigation (Mod Priority) district. TMDL Implementation Identify solutions and partnership Lower Coast City of Cottage Grove, Project 1.1, 1.2, 3.2, 3.3 Planning opportunities that address water Fork Willamette City of Creswell, DEQ development & 1.3, 1.4 quality impairments of (High Priority) planning with temperature, bacteria and partners mercury. Monitoring Program Address need for information by Priority sub- Walama Restoration Project 1.1, 1.2, 3.1, 3.3 developing a volunteer monitoring watersheds, Project, Cottage Grove Development 1.3, 1.4 program for baseline condition, municipalities, High School, Lane water quality, Western pond turtles and other areas Community College at and birds. Partner with ODFW to of unknown Cottage Grove, Kennedy monitor fish. conditions as Alternative High School, necessary. ODEQ, USFS, ODFW, USACE. Summary of Goals and Objectives referred to in the table able from the September 2007Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Action Plan: Goal #1: Improve Water Quality Objective 1.1: Mitigate temperature impairment Objective 1.2: Reduce impacts of mercury contamination on human & environmental health Objective 1.3 Reduce bacteria contamination to Coast Fork Willamette River Objective 1.4 Minimize erosion & sedimentation

Goal #2 Improve Aquatic Habitat Objective 2.1 Improve stream channel structure & function Objective 2.2 Restore channel connectivity Objective 2.3 Restore floodplain habitats

Goal #3 Improve Terrestrial Habitat Objective 3.1 Enhance Western pond turtle habitat Objective 3.2 Restore, enhance & conserve native ecosystems Objective 3.3 Develop strategies to address noxious weeds

Page 14 of 16 Appendix A

Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Priority Streams Database

Stream/River Name Priority Comments TNC Wetland, PNW Cons Opp floodplain, Bear Creek 1 oak/prairie PNW Conservation Opportunities-floodplain, Berkshire Slough 1 forest, ODFW Conservation Area WV-03 TNC Wetlands, PNW Consev. Opp. floodplain, forest, oak/prairie, ODFW Conservation area WV- Camas Swale Creek 1 23 Camas Swale Creek 1 TNC Wetland, PNW cons. opp. oak, prairie Hill Creek 1 PNW Conserv. Opp. floodplain,forest, PNW Conservation Opportunities- Floodplain, restore channel, riparian protection, ODFW Lower Coast Fork Willamette River 1 conservation WV-03 at lower reach Mosby Creek 1 ODFW Priority Area, unregulated PNW Conservation Opportunities-floodplain, Oxley Slough 1 restore channel, ODFW Conservation Area WV-03 Lower Row connects Mosby to the lower Coast Row River 1 Fork high priority areas. PNW conserv. opp oak/prairie, ODFW Camas Swale Creek 2 conservation area WV-23 Large trib, many landowner restoration Gettings Creek 2 opportunities. Gettings Creek 2 PNW Conserv. Opp. Riparian protection zone. Large trib, many landowner opportunities for Hill Creek 2 riparian rehab? North Fork Gettings Creek 2 Large trib, landowner restoration opportunities North Fork Gettings Creek 2 PNW Conserv. Opp. riparian protection zone Papenfus Creek 2 ODFW Conservation Area WV-03 Lower Reach in PNW Conservation Area- Russell Creek 2 Floodplain, ODFW Conservation Area WV-03 This may be a priority 3 since stream is fairly South Fork Gettings Creek 2 small. Land owner restoration opprotunities. PNW Conserv. Opp wetland, wetland bank Tunnel Millrace 2 opportunitiy? Upper Coast Fork Willamette River 2 Upper Coast Fork Willamette. Camas Swale Creek 3 Ditched farmland, wetland bank opportunities? TNC Wetlands, PNW Conserv. Opp wetlands, Hill Creek 3 Appears to be ditched. Papenfus Creek 3 Larger Trib

Page 15 of 16 Appendix B Coast Fork Technical Committee Documents

Steps to Developing a Project:

Initial Project Steps 1. Choose a priority area, limiting factor or project identified by the Council. Set goals. 2. Identify & recruit relevant landowners by conducting outreach, education & site visits that foster voluntary cooperation; develop partnerships. 3. Develop project design & monitoring protocol. 4. Write grants for implementation or further analysis (engineering, biological assessment, etc.).

Team Process 1. Form a project team or inform the council of your intent to pursue & develop proposal with advising experts as needed. 2. Decide on operating norms that foster good communication internally & externally. Consider all of the following project partners: the landowner, technical committee members, the steering committee, coordinator, and local experts from partner agencies. 3. Report back to Technical Committee (and thus Steering Committee) quarterly. 4. Maintain a central document or file on the project with data including:  Notes from site visits including attendees, date, professional opinions  Use the Project Information Sheet or another tool to record all relevant site, landowner and project information as it becomes available. 5. Create a project abstract to summarize the proposed actions  Landowner contact information, sub-watershed name, etc.  Description of limiting factors & potential solutions.  Develop project goals, draft budget & measures of success.  Project site description, characterization, and historical use patterns.  Potential design solutions, experts to contact, actions accomplished.

Page 16 of 16

Appendix E Maps

Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Oregon Major Roads Eugene Springfield Rivers/Streams ±

Berkshire Slough CRESWELL !( City Limits 2016 Waterbodies

ale r w e County Line S iv Coast Fork Willamette !( Cities s R Watershed a tte P Oregon Counties m e a a m p Coast Fork Willamette e a

C l n

. l

i f

k u W s C Watershed & Subbasins C le r a e w e Camas S Hill Creek k Creswell Lower ^_ Lowell 0 2.5 5 10 B e a r Miles Coast C re e I-5rk k o Skunk Creek Fork F H t ill s Ck. a o ngs C C tti ree Ge k Turkey Run Fork orth Bennett Creek N Hall C reek Get k S tings C ee ilk r C S

r m e

e i t k k h

e C e r r e C e

t k

Cottage Grove a City Creek R He Co McCauley Creek rma ole n y Cre C ek r Dorena e

k k ree Reservoir C Kizer Creek Te n e k i ter re e t C r Curran Creek a Lane Creek Westfir M P ra k ns C Cedar Creek th e rki r e Pe er r Langdon Creek e D C e or Alex m k C is lia s r il C W S e East Fork Laying Creek Cottage m e r King Creek e ith k C ek e re Pitcher Creek Grove Rive k Fall Creek Hawley Creek Row r Ced L ar CreeReservoirk Blue Creek a W

r yi e n i g k l c v s C i r

e o Culp Creek e B n Lewis Creek e R k e Row River Jo s t C hn on t C e re k. e Cow Creek Cre m k ar ek k la d e Ew l in i e Pony Creek B re B g Short MC C

ea W ridg ri tt ve e o k ce a r C s e y k b e C r k y Table Creek Cedar Creek r r rson . e W de o C ek

An Palmer Creek C F Dog Creek r e n Parker Creek rt t Clearing Creek k e

e Cr e s k e a c t r

b a k Staplesi Creek

o o L

H C M k Grizzly Creek bric s Cat Creek m Upper d a r H a Buck Creek E dw k ew Creek B ee irvi Coast ig r Sailors Gulcha C White Creek R r F ive e S r Mosby lk har p Canyon a ox M s B a B W k C k Fork o r e e t r e u i e r L re n i l e C t d Creek C k t C ti le R e Clark u iv r re a er C e r r Lane e k B ek Coordinate System: Douglas NAD 1983 OR Statewide Lambert Feet Intl Quartz Creek Datum: D North American 1983 China Creek Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic M. O'Driscoll, September 2017 City of Creswell Drinking Water Source Area

Creswell ±

r e iv

e t t e m la il Turkey Run W Bennett Creek Hall Creek Gettings Creek

k r

Silk Creek o F st a Calico Creek o C Cottage Grove City Creek Legend Cooley Creek Rivers/Streams Martin Creek Waterbody Groundwater DWSA Snyder Creek City Limits 2016 Langdon Creek Creswell DWSA Cottage Grove 0 4 Miles Cedar Creek Lake Wilson Creek

Beck Creek H Taylor Creek Johnson Creek

Ewing CreekShortridge Creek

t Combs Creek

o Drue Creek C

Edwards Creek Dennis Creek

Carlson Creek Little River Boulder Creek Box Canyon Bar Creek

Big River

Brauti Creek City of Creswell Drinking Water Source Area

Creswell ±

r e iv

e t t e Cottage m la Grove il Turkey Run W Bennett Creek Hall Creek Gettings Creek

k r

Silk Creek o F st a Calico Creek o C Legend City Creek Potential Cooley Creek Contaminant Sites (415) Martin Creek Rivers/Streams Waterbody Snyder Creek Langdon Creek Groundwater DWSA City Limits 2016 Cottage Grove Creswell DWSA Cedar Creek Lake Wilson Creek 0 4

Miles

Beck Creek H Taylor Creek Johnson Creek

Ewing CreekShortridge Creek

t Combs Creek

o Drue Creek C

Edwards Creek Dennis Creek

Carlson Creek Little River Boulder Creek Box Canyon Bar Creek

Big River

Brauti Creek City of Creswell Drinking Water Source Area

Creswell ±

r e iv

e t t e Cottage m la Grove il Turkey Run W Bennett Creek Hall Creek Gettings Creek

k r

Silk Creek o F st a Calico Creek o C Legend City Creek Potential Cooley Creek Contaminant Sites (415) Martin Creek Culvert (63) Rivers/Streams Snyder Creek Langdon Creek Groundwater DWSA City Limits 2016 Cottage Waterbody Grove Cedar Creek Lake Creswell DWSA Wilson Creek

0 4

Beck Creek H Taylor Creek Miles Johnson Creek

Ewing CreekShortridge Creek

t Combs Creek

o Drue Creek C

Edwards Creek Dennis Creek

Carlson Creek Little River Boulder Creek Box Canyon Bar Creek

Big River

Brauti Creek Potential Contamination Sources within the City of Creswell's Drinking Water 161 Source Area 138

177 Higher Risk 154 180 174 175 169 178

146 151 156 139 171 Moderate Risk 137 164 166 167 Water Features

116 134 Creswell Drinking Water Source Area 115 114 39

1,000 ft Coast Fork Source buffer 184

173 183

185

181

165

162 170 172

140

149 157 148 155

136 158 159 147

144

143

152 153

112

113

107 108

104

131 83 82

130

99 85 86 84 87 Creswell Wells and Tavel Time Zones

129 Higher Risk Moderate Risk 90 117 89 Under 2 years

94 97 109 125 98 2- 10 years 96

161

138

177 180 154

174 175 169

178 80

63 81 146 151 137 139 156 77 171 164

105 166 167

123 122 103

76 118

128

22 32

27 28 11 42 5 41 30 29 31

35 34

12 65 71

23 21

20 24 53 52 44

56 36 47 62 46 61 Cottage Grove 49 60 45 Reservoir 48 57 51 58 50

59 ¯ 64

74 TMDL Development Status for 303(d) Listed Waters Lower Columbia

Lower Columbia-Clatskanie Walla Walla Necanicum Lower Snake-Asotin Nehalem Lower Grande Ronde Columbia River - ApprovedMiddle Columbia-Lake Wallula

Lower Willamette Spanish Hollow-Columbia River Snake R.-Hells Canyon Tualatin Umatilla Lower Columbia-SandyMiddle Columbia-Miles Creeks Wilson-Trask-Nestucca Wallowa Imnaha Willow Upper Grande Ronde Middle Columbia-Western Hood Yamhill Clackamas Lower Deschutes North Fork John Day Middle WillametteMolalla-Pudding Lower John Day PowderBrownlee Reservoir Siletz-Yaquina North Santiam Trout Middle Fork John Day Ü South Santiam Burnt Snake River - Approved Alsea Upper Willamette Lower Crooked Upper John Day Willow-Malheur 010 20 40 60 80 McKenzie Upper Deschutes Upper Crooked Miles Siuslaw Bully Middle Snake-Payette Upper Malheur Siltcoos Beaver-South Fork Silvies Lower Malheur Coast Fork WillametteMiddle Fork Willamette Umpqua Coos Little Deschutes Middle Snake-Succor Silver North Umpqua Harney-Malheur Lakes Lower Owyhee Summer Lake Coquille Jordan South Umpqua Williamson Sixes Donner und Blitzen

Upper Rogue Lower Rogue Lake Abert Crooked-Rattlesnake Upper Klamath LakeSprague Guano Middle Owyhee Middle Rogue Warner Lakes Alvord Lake

Chetco Illinois South Fork Owyhee Applegate Goose Lake Upper Quinn Upper Klamath Lost East Little Owyhee Smith Thousand-Virgin Butte STATUS EPA Approved* TMDL Report In-Progress (Data analysis & report writing phase) *See TMDL supporting documentation for parameters addressed at http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/tmdls/tmdls.htm. Additional 303(d) listings TMDL Initiated (Initial scoping & data collection phase) may exist for parameters not addressed in approved TMDLs. TMDL Not Started (Minimal or no activity)

No TMDL Necessary (No 303(d) listings) Updated June 2012

Appendix F Potential Contaminant Source index, 2016

Common Name Address City County LatDecimal LongDecima 32370 PICKNELL PROPERTY 32370 PICKNELL COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.774713 -123.062564 A & G AUTO RECYCLING 80760 HIGHWAY 99 N COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.854500 -123.039200 A.J. CRUSHING, INC. HOEFER ROAD, 1/2 MILE WEST OF I-5 COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.727500 -123.063100 ALON WILLIAMS PETROLEUM JOBBER 1303 S 4TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.786721 -123.065042 Arne, Vern 77361 LONDON RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.760587 -123.065208 AUTO ART BODY & PAINT INC 225 DAVIDSON AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.799090 -123.035200 Auto Art Body and Paint Inc 1024 E MAIN ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797422 -123.057219 BAGLEY ESTATE 459 N 8TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.801742 -123.060417 Bi Mor Station #16 2500 EAST MAIN STREET COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797722 -123.041172 Bill Arp's Automotive 54 PACIFIC HWY S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796780 -123.059327 BILL MULLINS TRUCKING 34322 MEYER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.826970 -122.990670 Black Butte Mine London Rd. COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.579300 -123.067900 BLM 76708 LONDON RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.741170 -123.060470 BLM ROAD MAINTENANCE SHOP WHITE'S CRK ROAD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.739945 -123.051269 BOYCE & SONS INC 79149 N RIVER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.808740 -123.052220 BOYCE & SONS INC 79149 N RIVER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.808740 -123.052220 C & C Cutting Contractors 20 PALMER AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798804 -123.037465 CASCADE HOME CENTER 49 S 6TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796830 -123.062380 Chevron Bulk Plant, C G 640 MONROE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793065 -123.062899 CHEVRON MARKET EXPRESS 1250 GATEWAY BLVD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.786970 -123.053740 Chuck & Ken's Mobil 129 N 9TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798508 -123.059384 City of Cottage Grove 1200 E MAIN STREET COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797251 -123.055562 COTTAGE GROVE 76 1115 N PACIFIC HWY COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.804200 -123.057300 COTTAGE GROVE CHEVROLET INC 2775 ROW RIVER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798500 -123.038000 COTTAGE GROVE CITY OF 1800 N DOUGLAS COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.808000 -123.049360 COTTAGE GROVE CITY OF 33301 ROW RIVER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.791903 -123.027032 COTTAGE GROVE CITY OF 425 N 14TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793680 -123.054030 Cottage Grove City Of Public Works 400 MAIN ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797569 -123.063723 COTTAGE GROVE EUGENE SPORTSMAN 81078 N PACIFIC HWY CRESWELL LANE 43.863990 -123.034330 COTTAGE GROVE GARBAGE SERVICE 77932 HWY 99 S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.776770 -123.074780 Cottage Grove High School 1000 TAYLOR AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.785977 -123.057205 Cottage Grove Industrial Park South Hwy 99 COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.781400 -123.074900 Cottage Grove Road Maint. LANE SEARS DELIGHT VALLEY COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.831239 -123.037811 COTTAGE GROVE SPEEDWAY LLC 2150 N DOUGLAS ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.808940 -123.048360 Cottage Grove Vet Clinic 25555 MOSBY CREEK RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797054 -123.039310 CURTIN GENERAL STORE 141 BEAR CREEK RD CURTIN LANE 43.797000 -123.109700 D & D FOREIGN AUTOMOTIVE 48 HWY 99 S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797710 -123.059260 DAIRY TECHNOLOGY 73922 COUGAR MTN RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.669740 -123.074270 DAN MARTIN INC 78770 ADAMS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797540 -123.097810 DAN'S MUFFLER 409 S 6TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793560 -123.062244 DAVE DODGE SERVICE INC 77829 SUNSET DR COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.773440 -123.049840 Delight Valley School 79980 DELIGHT VALLEY SCHOOL RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.834399 -123.033813 EAST WHITEAKER EAST WHITEAKER COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797270 -123.047029 EDWARD LADD ESTATE 1350 MERRILL LN COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796686 -123.071706 Endsley Property 801 WASHINGTON COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796622 -123.059793 Eugene Freight Co. 33185 ROW RIVER ROAD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793692 -123.032819 FIRE DEPARTMENT C.G. 233 HARRISON AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.789765 -123.066008 Former Hotstuff Station HWY 99 AND 8TH STREET COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796083 -123.060006 GLAUSI OIL - COTTAGE GROVE 803 S PACIFIC HWY COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.790782 123.064116 GRABLE GEAR & MACHINE CO 334 S 10TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.794450 -123.058020 GREEN RIVER LUMBER 80616 DAVISSON RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.844965 -123.039830 GUNN LANDSCAPING TREE COT 79338 SEARS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.818090 -123.034850 Hadaway, Jeff 236 ADAMS AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.795769 -123.065689 HALL, G HOT 945 ASH STREET COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798213 -123.066835 HARTNESS DRYWALL INC 31335 RAISOR RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.659600 -123.112340 HERBS AUTOMOTIVE 926 E MAIN ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797520 -123.059080 Herbs Cycle Town 26 S 5TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796810 -123.062588 HEWRIGHT LLC 365 PALMER AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.800300 -123.033750 Hillcrest Market 77967 S 6TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.777167 -123.061727 Homestead Furniture 5603-613 E MAIN STREET COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797068 -123.061546 HORNERS INC 79132 HWY 99 N COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.810310 -123.049190 J D RINALDI FABRICATORS 80996 PACIFIC HWY 99 CRESWELL LANE 43.858300 -123.037200 JACKPOT FOOD MART - TIME OIL CO 354 PACIFIC HWY S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.794089 -123.061379 James Boyce Property 424 S PACIFIC HWY COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793326 -123.061574 JIMS TIRE FACTORY 302 S PACIFIC HWY COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.794700 -123.060800 KENDALL AUTO CENTER 2800 ROW RIVER ROAD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798200 -123.038100 Kenner Inc 80179 DELIGHT VALLEY SCHOOL RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.839508 -123.033580 KEPSON GARAGE INC 234 S 10TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.795250 -123.057990 Kimwood Corporation 77684 HWY 99 S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.768263 -123.082395 K-MACS COLLISION PLUS LLC 220 PALMER AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.799810 -123.035820 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 78712 SEARS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.799040 -123.024690 LANE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 78760 SEARS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.800490 -123.024150 Latham School 32112 LATHAM RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.764125 -123.072712 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER 109 S PACIFIC HWY COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796300 -123.059800 Les' Wheel And Brake 911 N 9TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.803576 -123.058667 Lincoln Middle School 1665 S 4TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.782074 -123.064395 MADISYN VIEW HILLSIDE DR/ E PARKS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.788000 -123.052000 MARTIN CREEK QUARRY 76250 MARTIN CREEK ROAD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.733200 -123.118800 MARVIN SMITH AUTO REPAIR INC 518 HWY 99 S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.800930 -123.059240 Miceli, Lance 1233 E ADAMS AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.795477 -123.054846 MIDDLEFIELD GOLF COURSE 94 VILLAGE DR COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.807187 -123.037379 MOCKS TRANSMISSION SVC INC 238 HWY 99 S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.799060 -123.059230 MOUNTAIN WEST RESOURCE MGT INC 76130 HEBRON RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.727000 -123.056100 Nease, A HOT 1033 TYLER AVENUE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.788919 -123.057343 ODOT - GETTINGS CREEK REST AREA INTERSTATE 5 NORTHBOUND MILEPOST 178.2COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.849300 -123.019800 Old City Hall 28 SOUTH 6TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796804 -123.061657 OLETSGO AUTOMOTIVE 409 S 6TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793930 -123.062410 OP & E 10th Street Locomotive Shop S 10th St. & E Main St. COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797200 -123.057500 OWENS AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTIES 6TH ST & HWY 99 COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793200 -123.062300 PACIFIC POWER 75 S 5TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796540 -123.063450 PACIFICORP THORNTON LN & THOM AS LN COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798350 -123.035820 PAMS SUNNYSIDE GREENHOUSES 500 N P ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.800430 -123.074610 Plaza Cleaners 30 GATEWAY BLVD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796917 -123.048655 PORTABLE ROCK PRODUCTION COMPANY SEARS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.868100 -123.008900 POWERS/DUNN 711 BENNETT CREEK RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.810542 -123.068704 Qwest Corporation (R00061) 90 S 7TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.796581 -123.060525 R D HARRIS CONSTRUCTION 33820 CEA JAC RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.846540 -123.047620 Reiling Environmental 80297 SEARS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.840503 -123.012493 Rich Store 16TH AND EAST MAIN STREET COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797259 -123.051269 RIVER WALK SUBDIVISION HWY 99 S & HARRISON AVENUE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.787500 -123.067500 RIVERWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK 33838 E. RIVER DRIVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.884100 -123.010900 ROBERT HOWARD CO INC 95 PALMER AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798980 -123.037180 RONS OIL CO 160 N 9TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.798500 -123.059240 SAFEWAY STORES INC 1560 E MAIN ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797240 -123.052140 SAGINAW MARKET 79916 HIGHWAY 99 COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.832121 -123.045113 SAGINAW MOBILE HOME PARK 80116 HWY. 99 N COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.839000 -123.048300 SAMUEL W RIDDLE INC 81086 SEARS RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.858730 -123.016240 SOUTH LANE SCHOOL DIST 45J3 1119 S 4TH COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.787820 -123.064470 SOUTH LANE SCHOOL DIST 45J3 1375 S RIVER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.787280 -123.066540 SOUTH LANE SCHOOL DIST 45J3 1400 S 8TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.785770 -123.060200 SOUTH LANE SCHOOL DIST 45J3 1565 S 4TH ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.783560 -123.064780 SOUTH LANE SCHOOL DIST 45J3 73288 LONDON RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.651650 -123.082000 SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION 2150 N DOUGLAS COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.808940 -123.048360 Starfire Lumber Co. 2795 Mosby Creek Rd. COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.795800 -123.037700 TAYLORS TOWING & AUTO WRECKING 78869 THORNTON LN COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.802200 -123.036232 Thomason Automotive 518 S PACIFIC HWY # 99S COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.792755 -123.062391 THOMASON, TOM 511 BENNETT CREEK RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.808000 -123.069385 UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST 78405 CEDAR PARK RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.789020 -123.019560 UNOCAL Bulk Plant 0133 518 QUINCY AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.792488 -123.061931 Unocal Bulk Plant 0133 518 Quincy Ave. COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.792300 -123.062500 US West London JT 305 R6W COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.660849 -123.078222 USACE 75819 SHORTRIDGE HIL RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.718457 -123.057798 VERDOORN, DEREK 426 S 2ND ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.793381 -123.066091 VERIZON WIRELESS 1999 PLEASANT VIEW DR COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.776500 -123.050300 Village Green Exxon 690 ROW RIVER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.801595 -123.039608 Village Green Resort 725 ROW RIVER ROAD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.802260 -123.041493 WAL-MART 901 ROW RIVER RD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.801200 -123.040500 Wells Fargo-Cottage Grove 434 E MAIN ST COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.797505 -123.063187 WELT & WELT INC 290 PALMER AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.800150 -123.034950 WESTWOOD LUMBER COMPANY INC 32941 E SAGINAW RD SAGINAW LANE 43.832600 -123.045000 Weyerhaeuser - Cottage Grove 77629 Hwy 99 COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.765900 -123.077600 Weyerhaeuser Company Saginaw Lam Plt 1 E SAGINAW RD SAGINAW LANE 43.832574 -123.033651 Wild Card 1043 N PACIFIC HWY COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.804164 -123.057284 Willamette Industries - Saginaw Planer MillE Saginaw Rd. COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.832700 -123.044100 WILLIAM J. WELT, INC. 310 PALMER AVE COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.799400 -123.032000 Workman Property 1005 S RIVER ROAD COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.789032 -123.070848 WSCO PETROLEUM CORP 1220 PACIFIC HWY 99 COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.805800 -123.054000 Yearous Post & Pole 77442 Yearous Rd. COTTAGE GROVE LANE 43.762700 -123.074400 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody Pollutant Season

Spawning: Not less than Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork Camas Swale October 1 - 11.0 mg/L or 95% of Salmonid fish limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Creek Dissolved Oxygen May 31 saturation spawning TMDL needed

Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork Coast Fork Aquatic life; Human limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Willamette River Copper Year Round Table 20 Toxic Substances health TMDL needed

Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork Coast Fork limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Willamette River Iron Year Round Table 20 Toxic Substances Aquatic life TMDL needed 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

2012 Data: [DEQ] STATION 15785 at RM 1.2 from 02/27/2006 to 02/27/2006, 1 of 1 (100%) samples < 11.0 mg/l and < 95% saturation

Coast Fork Camas Swale No status Previous Data: LASAR 15786 RM 0.1: 100% 5/5 Willamette Willamette Creek 2012 change samples) LASAR 15785 RM 1.2: 100% (7/7 samples) Previous Status: 303(d)

2012 Data: [ODEQ] STATION 11275 at RM 2.2 for 10 samples from 04/08/2008 to 02/03/2010, 2 of 10 valid samples exceed the hardness dependent criteria. [ODEQ] STATION 36312 at RM 11.8 for 2 samples from 09/21/2010 to 09/21/2010, 0 of 2 valid samples exceed the hardness dependent criteria Status modification - Previous Data: Copper was found in water, but levels Coast Fork Coast Fork Added to 303(d) were below the water quality standards Table 20 values. Willamette Willamette Willamette River 2012 list No other trace metals were found. Previous Status: Attaining

2012 Data: [ODEQ] STATION 11275 at RM 2.2 for 15 samples from 02/02/2000 to 08/07/2001, 0 of 0 valid samples exceed the 1000 ug/L criteria

Previous Data: [DEQ/ODA - Salem] LASAR 11275 River Previous Status: Cat 5: Coast Fork Coast Fork No status Mile 2.2: From 1/25/1994 to 8/7/2001, 6 out of 39 Water quality limited, Willamette Willamette Willamette River 2012 change samples > applicable Table 20 criterion. 303(d) list, TMDL needed 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

Previous Coast Fork Camas Swale Previous Action: Added Assessment Spawning time period applied for 2012 assessment is Willamette Willamette Creek to database Year: 2002 January 1 - May 15.

Previous Coast Fork Coast Fork Previous Action: Added Assessment Willamette Willamette Willamette River to database Year: 1998

Previous Coast Fork Coast Fork Previous Action: Added Assessment Willamette Willamette Willamette River to database Year: 2004 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody Pollutant Season

Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork Coast Fork limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Willamette River Lead Year Round Table 20 Toxic Substances Aquatic life TMDL needed

Table 40 Human Health Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork Coast Fork Criteria for Toxic limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Willamette River Mercury Year Round Pollutants Human health TMDL needed

Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork Coast Fork Aquatic life; Human limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Willamette River Mercury Year Round Table 20 Toxic Substances health TMDL needed 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

2012 Data: [ODEQ] STATION 11275 at RM 2.2 for 10 samples from 04/08/2008 to 02/03/2010, 2 of 10 valid samples exceed the hardness dependent criteria. [ODEQ] STATION 36312 at RM 11.8 for 2 samples from Coast Fork Coast Fork Added to 09/21/2010 to 09/21/2010, 0 of 2 valid samples exceed Willamette Willamette Willamette River 2012 database the hardness dependent criteria

2012 Data: [ODEQ] STATION 10379 at RM 5.4 from 10/8/2009 to 10/8/2009, the geometric mean of 0.395 mg/Kg from Coast Fork Coast Fork Added to 10 valid individual fish tissue samples exceeds the 0.040 Willamette Willamette Willamette River 2012 database mg/kg criteria 2012 Data: [USGS] STATION 14152500 at RM 34.8 for 3 samples from 10/25/2011 to 12/30/2011, 1 of 3 valid samples exceed the 0.012 ug/L criteria.

2004 Data: [DEQ] LASAR 13193 River Mile 31.7: From 6/17/1998 to 10/4/1999, 2 out of 4 samples > applicable Table 20 Status criterion. modification - [USEPA Reg 10] LASAR 28614 River Mile 32.6: From Previous Status: Cat 4A: Coast Fork Coast Fork Added to 303(d) 10/7/2002 to 6/18/2003, 0 out of 4 samples > Water quality limited, Willamette Willamette Willamette River 2012 list applicable Table 20 criterion. TMDL approved 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

Coast Fork Coast Fork Willamette Willamette Willamette River

Effective OR criterion (0.04 mg/kg methyl mercury in fish tissue) is more stringent than the 0.30 mg/kg fish tissue MeHg value used for the Willamette Basin TMDL target Coast Fork Coast Fork level analysis. TMDLs may not be sufficient to bring the Willamette Willamette Willamette River water body into attainment with the revised standard.

Previous Coast Fork Coast Fork Previous Action: Delisted Assessment Willamette Basin TMDL targets may not be sufficient to Willamette Willamette Willamette River - TMDL approved Year: 2010 attain all criteria for mercury. 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

Coast Fork Coast Fork Willamette Willamette Willamette River

TMDL Approved: 09/29/2006 Willamette Basin TMDL Willamette Basin Willamette Willamette Willamette River TMDL"

TMDL Approved: 09/29/2006 Willamette Basin TMDL Willamette Basin Willamette Willamette Willamette River TMDL" 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody Pollutant Season

...Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic substance, public health advisories and other published scientific Resident fish and Coast Fork literature may be aquatic life; Willamette considered and used, if Anadromous fish Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork River/Cottage appropriate, to set passage; Drinking limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Grove Reservoir Mercury Year Round guidance values. water TMDL needed

Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork Aquatic life; Human limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Dennis Creek Mercury Year Round Table 20 Toxic Substances health TMDL needed

Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork the resident biological limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Fairview Creek Biological Criteria Year Round communities. Aquatic life TMDL needed 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

Effective OR criterion (0.04 mg/kg methyl mercury in fish Coast Fork tissue) is more stringent than the 0.30 mg/kg fish tissue Willamette Previous MeHg value used for the Willamette Basin TMDL target Coast Fork River/Cottage Previous Action: Delisted Assessment level analysis. TMDLs may not be sufficient to bring the Willamette Willamette Grove Reservoir - TMDL approved Year: 2010 water body into attainment with the revised standard.

Previous Coast Fork Previous Action: Delisted Assessment Willamette Basin TMDL targets may not be sufficient to Willamette Willamette Dennis Creek - TMDL approved Year: 2010 attain all criteria for mercury.

Previous Coast Fork Previous Action: Added Assessment Waters identified with impaired biological conditions Willamette Willamette Fairview Creek to database Year: 2010 reclassified as Cat 5: Water quality limited, 303(d) list. 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

Previous Data: Coast Fork Status OSHD Fish Consumption Advisory based on 10% of fish Willamette modification - tested exceeding USFDA commercial fish standard of Previous Status: Cat 4A: Coast Fork River/Cottage Added to 303(d) methylmercury (1.0 ppm) and a range of 0.22 to 1.79 Water quality limited, Willamette Willamette Grove Reservoir 2012 list ppm. TMDL approved

Status 2004 Data: modification - [USEPA Reg 10] LASAR 29047 River Mile 0.1: From Previous Status: Cat 4A: Coast Fork Added to 303(d) 10/7/2002 to 6/18/2003, 2 out of 4 samples > Water quality limited, Willamette Willamette Dennis Creek 2012 list applicable Table 20 criterion. TMDL approved

Status 2010 Data: modification - LASAR 23924 River Mile 0.5 FROM 8/22/2000 To Previous Status: Cat 3C: Coast Fork Added to 303(d) 8/22/2000 1 out of 1 (100%) samples outside WCCP Impairing pollutant Willamette Willamette Fairview Creek 2012 list regional criteria. unknown 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

TMDL Approved: 09/29/2006 Willamette Basin TMDL Coast Fork Willamette Basin Willamette Willamette Grove Reservoir TMDL" TMDL Approved: 09/29/2006 Willamette Basin TMDL Willamette Basin Willamette Willamette Dennis Creek TMDL"

Coast Fork Willamette Willamette Fairview Creek 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody Pollutant Season

Biocriteria: Waters of the state must be of sufficient quality to support aquatic species without detrimental changes in Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork the resident biological limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Row River Biological Criteria Year Round communities. Aquatic life TMDL needed

The development of fungi or other growths having a deleterious effect on stream bottoms, fish or other aquatic life, or Water supply; Water which are injurious to contact recreation; Row health, recreation or Aesthetics; Livestock Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork River/Dorena Aquatic Weeds Or industry may not be watering; Drinking limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Lake Algae Undefined allowed. water; Fishing TMDL needed ...Where no published EPA criteria exist for a toxic substance, public health advisories and other Drinking water; published scientific Resident fish and Row literature may be aquatic life; Cat 5: Water quality Coast Fork River/Dorena considered and used, if Anadromous fish limited, 303(d) list, Willamette Willamette Lake Mercury Year Round appropriate, to set passage TMDL needed 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

2010 Data: EPA addition to 303(d) list 12/14/2012: LASAR 33840 River Mile 2.63 FROM 8/15/2006 To Previous Status: Cat 5: Coast Fork 8/15/2006 1 out of 1 (100%) samples outside MWCF Water quality limited, Willamette Willamette Row River 2010 No action regional criteria. 303(d) list, TMDL needed

Row Previous Status: Cat 5: Coast Fork River/Dorena Water quality limited, Willamette Willamette Lake 2010 No action 303(d) list, TMDL needed

Status Row modification - Previous Data: Previous Status: Cat 4A: Coast Fork River/Dorena Added to 303(d) Elevated levels measured in fish tissue .37 ppm, Water quality limited, Willamette Willamette Lake 2012 list Consumption Health Advisory issued 2/25/97. TMDL approved 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

Previous Action: Status Previous Coast Fork modification - EPA Assessment Willamette Willamette Row River addition to 303(d) list Year: 2010

Row Previous 3 health advisories issued by Oregon Harmful Algae Bloom Coast Fork River/Dorena Previous Action: New Assessment Surveillance (HABS) program through October 2010 based Willamette Willamette Lake Cat 5: 303(d) listing Year: 2010 on cell counts or toxicity levels.

Effective OR criterion (0.04 mg/kg methyl mercury in fish tissue) is more stringent than the 0.30 mg/kg fish tissue Row Previous MeHg value used for the Willamette Basin TMDL target Coast Fork River/Dorena Previous Action: Delisted Assessment level analysis. TMDLs may not be sufficient to bring the Willamette Willamette Lake - TMDL approved Year: 2010 water body into attainment with the revised standard. 2012 303d Update

Basin Subbasin Waterbody

Coast Fork Willamette Willamette Row River

Row Coast Fork River/Dorena Willamette Willamette Lake

TMDL Approved: 09/29/2006 Willamette Basin TMDL Willamette Basin Willamette Willamette Lake TMDL"

Appendix G 303(d) Listing 2012

Willamette Basin TMDL: Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin September 2006

CHAPTER 13: COAST FORK WILLAMETTE SUBBASIN TMDL

WATER QUALITY SUMMARY...... 2 Reason for action ...... 2 Water Quality 303(d) Listed Waterbodies ...... 3 Water Quality Parameters Addressed...... 4 Water Quality Parameters Not Addressed...... 4 Who helped us...... 4

SUBBASIN OVERVIEW ...... 5 Watershed Descriptions ...... 6 Row River Watershed ...... 6 Coast Fork Watershed ...... 6

COAST FORK WILLAMETTE TEMPERATURE TMDL...... 7 Waterbodies Listed for Temperature ...... 8 Pollutant Identification ...... 9 Beneficial Use Identification ...... 10 Salmonid Stream Temperature Requirements...... 10 Target Criteria Identification...... 11 Existing Heat Sources...... 13 Nonpoint Sources of Heat ...... 13 Point Sources of Heat...... 13 Temperature TMDL Approach Summary...... 15 Temperature TMDL Analytical Methods Overview ...... 15 Seasonal Variation...... 17 Loading Capacity...... 25 Critical Condition...... 25 Allocations...... 26 Wasteload Allocations ...... 26 Waste Load Allocations in Small Streams ...... 26 Load Allocations ...... 28 Excess Load...... 32 Surrogate Measures...... 32 Margin of Safety ...... 41 Reserve Capacity ...... 42

COAST FORK WILLAMETTE BACTERIA ANALYSIS...... 43 Point Sources...... 46 Recommendation for De-Listing ...... 47 References ...... 48

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13-1 Willamette Basin TMDL: Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin September 2006

WATER QUALITY SUMMARY Reason for action The Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin (Map 13.1) has stream segments listed under section 303(d)1 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) that are exceeding water quality criteria for temperature, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and mercury. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for temperature, bacteria, and mercury are developed based on information for these parameters. Wasteload allocations are developed for individual facilities (point sources) that discharge during the critical period. Load allocations for nonpoint sources are developed for each geomorphic unit and apply to all sectors in the subbasin.

Map 13.1 The Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin

1 The 303(d) list is a list of stream segments that do not meet water quality criteria.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13-2 Willamette Basin TMDL: Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin September 2006

This chapter includes TMDLs for rivers and streams in the Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin. These subbasin rivers and streams are tributary to the Coast Fork Willamette River, upstream of Cottage Grove Reservoir and the Row River upstream of Dorena Reservoir. The temperature analysis for the Coast Fork Willamette, river mile 0 to 31.3 and Row River, river mile 0 to 7.4 below the reservoirs is included in the mainstem Willamette River TMDLs discussed in Chapter 4. The mercury listing for the Coast Fork Willamette River, Cottage Grove Reservoir, and Dorena Lake are addressed in Chapter 3. All other subbasin TMDLs are included in Chapters 5 – 12.

ODEQ established TMDLs for ammonia and nutrients in the Coast Fork Willamette in 1995. These TMDLs were not reviewed or changed as part of this TMDL and thus the allocations established in those TMDLs remain in effect.

Water Quality 303(d) Listed Waterbodies OAR 340-042-0040(4)(a)

All current 303(d) listings for the subbasin are presented in Table 13.1.

Table 13.1 Name and location of listed Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin waterbodies. Listed Addressed Waterbody Name Parameter Season River Mile in TMDL Brice Creek 0 to 11.2 Temperature Summer Yes Camas Swale Creek 0 to 9.4 Dissolved Oxygen October 1 - May 31 No Coast Fork Willamette River 0 to 31.3 Temperature Summer Chapter 4 Coast Fork Willamette River 0 to 31.3 Fecal Coliform Winter/Spring/Fall Yes Coast Fork Willamette River 0 to 31.3 Fecal Coliform Summer Yes Coast Fork Willamette River 0 to 31.3 Mercury Year Around Chapter 3 Cottage Grove Reservoir/Coast 28.5 to 31.3 Mercury Year Around Chapter 3 Fork Willamette River Dorena Lake/Row River 7.4 to 11.3 Mercury Year Around Chapter 3 King Creek 0 to 1.6 Temperature Summer Yes Laying Creek 0 to 7.7 Temperature Summer Yes Martin Creek 0 to 3.4 Temperature Summer Yes Mosby Creek 0 to 21.2 Temperature Summer Yes Row River 0 to 7.4 Temperature Summer Chapter 4 Row River 11.3 to 20.8 Temperature Summer Yes Sharps Creek 0 to 12.5 Temperature Summer Yes

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13-3 Willamette Basin TMDL: Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin September 2006

Water Quality Parameters Addressed The following Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin 303(d) parameters will be addressed in this chapter: • Temperature • Bacteria • Mercury is a parameter of concern throughout the Willamette Basin. A 27% reduction in mercury pollution is needed in the mainstem Willamette to remove fish consumption advisories. Pollutant load allocations are set for each sector but no effluent limits are specified at this time. Sources of mercury in the subbasin will be required to develop mercury reduction plans. Details of the mercury TMDL are included in Chapter 3, the Willamette Basin Mercury TMDL.

Water Quality Parameters Not Addressed The Willamette Basin TMDL project began in early 2000 and was designed to address the 1998 303(d) listed waterbodies for parameters that exceeded water quality criteria. In 2002 the 303(d) list was updated. Where data were readily available, new parameter listings were addressed in this TMDL. However, there was not sufficient time to collect the additional data and complete the analysis for some of the newly listed parameters. These parameters will be addressed in subsequent TMDL efforts. The parameter that is specifically excluded from this TMDL study is: • Dissolved Oxygen The dissolved oxygen (DO) listings for Camas Swale Creek will not be addressed in this TMDL. The listing occurred in 2002, which did not allow sufficient time to collect data needed for TMDL analysis. Until TMDLs for dissolved oxygen are developed, riparian protection and restoration measures developed to address stream temperature concerns in the basin will benefit dissolved oxygen levels. Furthermore, water quality restoration efforts to address mercury and bacteria listings may also benefit other parameters such as dissolved oxygen.

Who helped us Many organizations assisted ODEQ in the development of this TMDL and data from many different sources were considered. ODEQ would like to acknowledge the assistance of the following organizations and agencies: • Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council • U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • U.S. Forest Service (USFS) • U.S. Geological Survey, Oregon District (USGS) • Oregon Water Resources Department (WRD) • Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13-4 Willamette Basin TMDL: Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin September 2006

SUBBASIN OVERVIEW

The Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin (Hydrologic Unit Code 17090002) is located in the southern most portion of the Willamette Basin, Map 13.2. The Coast Fork Willamette River flows into the Willamette River at the confluence of the Middle Fork Willamette River. The subbasin’s 666 square miles (426,238 acres) include the following four watersheds: • Lower Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed • Upper Coast Fork Willamette River Watershed • Mosby Creek Watershed • Row River Watershed

Map 13.2 303(d) Listed Streams and Land Ownership in the Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13-5 Willamette Basin TMDL: Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin September 2006

The subbasin is located within portions of Lane and Douglas Counties, and includes the cities of Cottage Grove and Creswell. BLM and USFS administer much of the upland area, but most of the land in the subbasin is privately owned. The land use is primarily forestry, with agriculture and urban land uses near the mainstem Coast Fork Willamette River. The Coast Fork Willamette River and the Row River are a source of drinking water for the City of Cottage Grove.

Watershed Descriptions Row River Watershed The Row River Watershed is located approximately 20 miles southeast of Eugene and is the principal tributary of the Coast Fork Willamette River. The Row River watershed drains a 375 square mile (239,999 acres) area. The Dorena Dam impounds the river at river mile (RM) 7.5, forming Dorena Reservoir. Dorena Reservoir holds 72,050 acre feet of water and spans 2.7 square miles (1,749 acres) when full. The dam structure was constructed in 1949 with flood control its primary purpose. Several major tributaries flow directly into Row River and include Layng, Brice, Sharps, and Mosby Creeks. Mosby Creek is the only major tributary to flow into Row River below the Dorena Reservoir spillway. Three small communities exist within the watershed boundaries: Disston, Culp Creek, and Dorena with part of the City of Cottage Grove stretching into the western portion of the watershed.

Coast Fork Watershed The Coast Fork Watershed is located in portions of Lane and Douglas counties. A portion of the city of Cottage Grove is also located within this watershed. The watershed covers 152 square miles (97,420 acres), of which approximately one-third is managed by BLM. Cottage Grove Dam is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and located on the Coast Fork Willamette River at RM 28. Elevations in the watershed vary from a low of 720 feet above sea level in the city of Cottage Grove to a high of 4,347 feet at Burnt Mountain.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13-6 Willamette Basin TMDL: Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin September 2006

COAST FORK WILLAMETTE TEMPERATURE TMDL

The temperature TMDL for the Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin includes tributaries to the Coast Fork Willamette River and Row River within HUC 17090002. As per Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340- 042-0040 required components of a TMDL are listed in Table 13.2.

Table 13.2 Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin Temperature TMDL Components. Waterbodies Perennial and/or fish bearing, as identified in OAR 340-041- 0340; Figures 340A & 340B, streams in the OAR 340-042-0040(4)(a) Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin, HUCs 170900201, 170900202, 170900203, and 170900204. Pollutant Identification OAR 340-042-0040(4 )(b) Pollutants: Human caused temperature increases from (1) solar radiation loading and (2) warm water discharge to surface waters

Beneficial Uses Salmonid fish spawning and rearing, anadromous fish passage, resident fish and aquatic life are the most OAR 340-042-0040(4)(c) sensitive beneficial uses in the Coast Fork Willamette Subbasin. OAR 340-041-0028 provides numeric and narrative temperature criteria. Maps and tables provided in OAR 340-041-0101 to 0340 specify where and when the criteria apply.

Target Criteria 12.0°C during times and at locations of bull trout spawning and juvenile rearing use. Identification 13.0°C during times and at locations of salmon and steelhead spawning. OAR 340-042-0040(4)(c) 16.0°C during times and at locations of core cold water habitat identification. CWA §303(d)(1) 18.0°C during times and at locations of salmon and trout rearing and migration. OAR 340-041-0028(8) Natural Conditions Criteria: Where the department determines that the natural thermal potential OAR 340-041-0028(4)(a) temperature of all or a portion of a water body exceeds the biologically-based criteria in section 4 the OAR 340-041-0028(4)(b) natural thermal potential temperatures supersede the biologically-based criteria and are deemed the OAR 340-041-0028(4)(c) applicable criteria for that water body. Maps and tables provided in OAR 340-041-0101 to 0340 specify OAR 340-041-0028(8) where and when the criteria apply. OAR 340-041 0028(12)(b)(B) Following a temperature TMDL or other cumulative effects analysis, waste load and load allocations will restrict all NPDES point sources and nonpoint sources to a cumulative increase of no greater than 0.3 degrees Celsius (0.5 Fahrenheit) above the applicable criteria after complete mixing in the water body, and at the point of maximum impact. Nonpoint source solar loading due to a lack of riparian vegetation from forestry, agriculture, rural Existing Sources residential, and urban activities. OAR 340-042-0040(4)(f) CWA §303(d)(1) Point source discharge of warm water to surface water. Seasonal Variation Peak temperatures typically occur in mid-July through mid-August and often exceed the salmon and trout OAR 340-042-0040(4)(j) rearing and migration criterion. Temperatures are much cooler late summer through late spring but CWA §303(d)(1) occasionally exceed the spawning criterion. Loading Capacity: OAR 340-041-0028 (12)(b)(B) states that no more than a 0.3°C increase in stream temperature above the applicable biological criteria or the natural condition criteria as a result of human activities is allowable. This condition is achieved when the cumulative effect of all point and nonpoint sources results in no greater than a 0.3 oC (0.5 oF) increase at the point of maximum impact. Loading capacity is the heat load that corresponds to the applicable numeric criteria plus the small increase in temperature of 0.3°C provided with the human use allowance.

TMDL Excess Load: The difference between the actual pollutant load and the loading capacity of the waterbody. Loading Capacity and In these temperature TMDLs excess load is the difference between heat loads that meet applicable Allocations temperature criteria plus the human use allowance and current heat loads from background, nonpoint OAR 340-042-0040(4)(d) source and point source loads. OAR 340-042-0040(4)(e) OAR 340-042-0040(4)(g) Wasteload Allocations (NPDES Point Sources): Allowable heat load based on achieving no greater than a OAR 340-042-0040(4)(h) 0.3oC temperature increase at the point of maximum impact. This is achieved by limiting stream 40 CFR 130.2(f) temperature increases from individual point sources to 0.075ºC. This may also be expressed as a 40 CFR 130.2(g) limitation of 0.3ºC increase in 25% of the 7Q10 stream flow. Where multiple point sources discharge to a 40 CFR 130.2(h) single receiving stream the accumulated heat increase for point sources is limited to 0.2˚C.

Load Allocations (Nonpoint Sources): Background solar radiation loading based on system potential vegetation near the stream. An additional heat load equal to 0.05°C temperature increase at the point of maximum impact is available but is not explicitly allocated to individual sources. • Mosby Creek background solar radiation loading based on system potential vegetation is 2.79x108 kcal/day. • An additional heat load equal to 0.05°C temperature increase at the point of maximum impact is available but is not explicitly allocated to individual sources.

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 13-7