DOCSLIB.ORG

Willamette Valley System EIS- Public Scoping Report Appendices

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Willamette Valley System EIS- Public Scoping Report Appendices June 27, 2019 To: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland Region From: Clinton Begley, Executive Director - Long Tom Watershed Council As Executive Director of the Long Tom Watershed Council I submit this letter as comment for myself, in my professional capacity, for the purposes of scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Willamette Valley System Operations and Maintenance. The The Long Tom Watershed Council serves to improve water quality and watershed condition in the Long Tom River basin through education, coordination, consultation, and cooperation among all interests, using the collective wisdom and voluntary action of our community members. The Long Tom Watershed Council (The Council) works in a unique niche - our voluntary and non- regulatory approach allows us to reflect the values of our watershed through a community of practice to enhance and restore the lands and waters in our shared home. This work depends upon a culture of neighbors-helping-neighbors to work across differences to make this a healthier place for everyone. As such, we work in close partnership with private landowners and public agencies alike in both the Long Tom Watershed, and the main stem of the Willamette River. This modus operandi is important context to acknowledge both The Council’s strengths as a regional participant in this work among partners (including strong and positive partnership with the Army Corps), and also the limitations upon our collective ability to achieve ecological uplift given the initial conditions of anthropogenic hydrologic processes within which we operate. It is my hope that through the scoping phase of the Willamette Valley Project Environmental Impact Statement, the USACE will consider the following initial conditions and limiting factors to ecological uplift in our service area, and throughout the basin: Invasive species: while the origins and vectors for non-native invasive species are numerous and manifold, current conditions on some USACE lands in and around Fern Ridge Reservoir (Fisher Butte access for example) are dominated by invasive plant species like reed canary grass. These “anchors” for invasive species limit biodiversity of the surrounding systems and threaten nearby and adjacent work to restore rare wetlands and wet prairie to the detriment of numerous target endangered and threatened aquatic and terrestrial species like streaked horned lark, red legged frog, etc. Invasive species control inclusive of considering the impacts of dam operations upon seasonality of growth and preferential control methods etc. should be considered. Side Channel Reconnection/ Enhancement Opportunities: In the straightened and shortened channel of the Long Tom river below Fern Ridge dam, numerous historic side channels exist in various states of connectivity to the main channel as a result of how the channel was intentionally designed, deteriorating infrastructure, and/or natural processes. Opportunities exist to improve and restore habitat function in the lower Long Tom, while supporting the flood risk mitigation mission of the Fern Ridge project. Check Dam/ Drop Structure Review: Below Fern Ridge reservoir, three check dams attenuate the grade of the river to support the function of the straightened channel. These dams are barriers to resident native fish movement throughout the system and into tributaries, as well as to fluvial and anadromous fish from the Willamette. These structures are significant limiting factors to the health of our native fish including coastal cutthroat trout that are year round residents with numerous life histories in the watershed, and juvenile spring Chinook salmon that historically used the Long Tom as important rearing habitat and that are still present seasonally below the downstream most drop-structure in the city of Monroe. Fern Ridge Reservoir Fish Passage: Disagreement exists about the benefits and drawbacks of providing fish passage around Fern Ridge reservoir. Considerations including the harm in facilitating the movement of non-native fish above dam v.s. the benefits of providing greater connectivity for native species throughout the system is unclear. I would encourage an evaluation of the merits of providing both upstream and downstream fish passage at Fern Ridge. Floodplain Restoration as a Risk Mitigation Opportunity: I would encourage a thorough evaluation of the opportunities to address critical concerns of flood risk mitigation in balance with the opportunities and complimentary needs for floodplain habitat restoration. The EIS should include taking a critical look at the current paradigm to approaching flood risk management, in contrast with a cutting-edge view of the ecosystem services provided by a healthy and intentionally connected / inundated floodplain, and the efficacy in addressing both missions of flood control and habitat enhancement simultaneously. Ecological Flows: The Council encourages USACE to examine flow operations that protect infrastructure while balancing water quality and habitat needs for native species. Partnership Funding: The Corps should, where appropriate, seek to expand the opportunities for public/private partnership to leverage technical expertise and community engagement capacities of local partners, and simplify the process through which local Army Corps staff can direct discretionary funding to address critical needs and capitalize upon partnership opportunities locally. Tribal Engagement & Traditional Ecological Knowledge: The EIS should evaluate the role of Tribal governments, and indigenous knowledge holders in stewardship. While it is understood that guidelines exist for how and when recognized Tribes must be engaged in consultation for Corps operations and projects, it is less clear what opportunities and mechanisms exist to leverage and support the involvement of Native people in stewardship through public engagement and local contracting. Opportunities to support the efforts of indigenous peoples, through partnerships and support funding, should be evaluated. Specifically, the Corps should explore how its ecological mission for biodiversity and mitigating the impacts of Corps infrastructure can be strengthened through cultural diversity and the knowledge and skills held by Native peoples. The Council is also a member of the Willamette Mainstem Anchor Habitat Working Group (AHWG), a partnership of 16 Willamette Valley organizations committed to protecting and restoring ecosystem function. The AHWG works to support the vision laid out in the Willamette Restoration Strategy (2001). The vision aspires to attain “a dynamic balance between diverse human and ecological needs” and creating a place where “basin residents can live in healthy watersheds with functioning floodplains and habitats supporting a diversity of native species.” Each member of the AHWG plays a distinct role in achieving long-term restoration, conservation and stewardship along the historic meander and current channel of the Willamette River and its major tributaries. The AHWG collectively works to sustain and enhance seasonally important resources for native fish. This goal is accomplished, where feasible, through various means such as reforestation of floodplain forests, controlling priority invasive aquatic weeds, reconnecting the river to its floodplain, and enhancing and creating off-channel habitat. The Long Tom Watershed Council and AHWG have prioritized these activities because they are of ecological importance to economically and culturally significant ESA-listed salmonids and other native fish species of concern. This work also supports improved water quality, retention of floodwaters, and groundwater recharge while supporting habitats for a wide range of aquatic and terrestrial native species critical to the overall health of the Willamette Valley ecosystem. AHWG partners have been working for more than ten years along the Willamette River and its tributaries. It has made significant progress thanks to the collective efforts of agencies, organizations, and individuals. Much work remains and success can only occur with this continued regional collaboration. The Council encourages the USACE to incorporate in its scope evaluation how its operations can support creating a place where “basin resident can live in healthy watersheds with functioning floodplains and habitats supporting a diversity of native species.” There are many competing interests, and it will be incumbent upon the Corps to balance all those interests while maintaining strong, collaborative relationships with its partners. The Council encourages USACE to examine opportunities in its Willamette Bank Protection Program for revetments to be removed or modified where ecological benefits can be achieved with low risk to infrastructure. Identifying areas where river processes such as erosion and deposition can be restored will increase overall river health. Increasing the extent and duration of floodplain and off-channel habitats helps reduce the intensity, severity, and frequency of flooding, with short and long-term benefits for infrastructure located in harm’s way, and reduced costs to the state and federal governments in the long term. The USACE can also examine how it can develop a process to work with landowners when a revetment fails to determine if alternatives exist to replacement or reinforcement of the existing revetment. Local partners including the Long Tom Watershed Council exist to work with USACE and landowners if these situations arise. Thank you for the opportunity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In Partial Fulfillment Of
    WATER UTILI AT'ION AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE 11ILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN by CAST" IR OLISZE "SKI A THESIS submitted to OREGON STATE COLLEGE in partialfulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE June 1954 School Graduate Committee Data thesis is presented_____________ Typed by Kate D. Humeston TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION Statement and History of the Problem........ 1 Historical Data............................. 3 Procedure Used to Explore the Data.......... 4 Organization of the Data.................... 8 II. THE WILLAMETTE RIVER WATERSHED Orientation................................. 10 Orography................................... 10 Geology................................. 11 Soil Types................................. 19 Climate ..................................... 20 Precipitation..*.,,,,,,,................... 21 Storms............'......................... 26 Physical Characteristics of the River....... 31 Physical Characteristics of the Major Tributaries............................ 32 Surface Water Supply ........................ 33 Run-off Characteristics..................... 38 Discharge Records........ 38 Ground Water Supply......................... 39 CHAPTER PAGE III. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL UTILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT.. .... .................... 44 Flood Characteristics ........................ 44 Flood History......... ....................... 45 Provisional Standard Project: Flood......... 45 Flood Plain......... ........................ 47 Flood Control................................ 48 Drainage............
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Spring 6-8-2017 Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed Alexander Cameron Nagel Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the Geography Commons, Hydrology Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nagel, Alexander Cameron, "Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed" (2017). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 4012. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5896 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. Analyzing Dam Feasibility in the Willamette River Watershed by Alexander Cameron Nagel A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geography Thesis Committee: Heejun Chang, Chair Geoffrey Duh Paul Loikith Portland State University 2017 i Abstract This study conducts a dam-scale cost versus benefit analysis in order to explore the feasibility of each the 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) commissioned dams in Oregon’s Willamette River network. Constructed between 1941 and 1969, these structures function in collaboration to comprise the Willamette River Basin Reservoir System (WRBRS). The motivation for this project derives from a growing awareness of the biophysical impacts that dam structures can have on riparian habitats. This project compares each of the 13 dams being assessed, to prioritize their level of utility within the system.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Watershed Analysis Amendment Request
    Upper Middle Fork Watershed Analysis Update Response to the Watershed Analysis Amendment Request Listed below are analysis and responses provided by the Middle Fork District to issues/concerns listed in the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service November, 1996. In this portion of the analysis amendment, the original issue is listed, as stated by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Following this, the key question and issue from the 1996 Watershed Analysis is stated. Below each key question is the scientific, analytical, and professional response to these issues. In some cases the issue presented by the Fish and Wildlife Service do not related to the key issues presented in the original watershed analysis. In these situations a new key question is developed. For the most part, the original key questions are still valid with minor changes. Listed below are the eleven aquatic habitat condition concerns. Eleven Listed Aquatic Concerns 1. Identify and map important bull trout rearing and spawning habitat, as well as current and future re-introduction sites, and potential future distribution down to Hills Creek Reservoir – if this information is known or available. Functional Relationship – Bull Trout Habitat Historical references indicate that bull trout Salvelinus confluentus in Oregon were once distributed throughout 12 basins in the Klamath River and Columbia River systems. Bull trout were probably found throughout the Willamette Basin, however available documentation is limited (Buchanan et al. 1997). Bull trout in the upper Middle Fork Willamette Watershed likely ranged throughout the mainstem Middle Fork Willamette and associated larger tributaries (Figure 1-1, Historic Bull Trout Distribution Map).
    [Show full text]
  • Hills Creek-Lookout Point Final EA
    In cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service Hills Creek-Lookout Point Transmission Line Rebuild Project Final Environmental Assessment DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Bonneville Power Administration DOE/EA-1967 June 2017 __________________________________________________________________________________ This document is the final environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed Hills Creek-Lookout Point Transmission Line Rebuild Project (Project). Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) prepared this document as an abbreviated final EA because there have been no substantial changes to the Proposed Action, alternatives, or environmental analysis presented in the draft EA. This abbreviated final EA provides changes made to the text of the draft EA, as well as comments received on the draft EA and BPA’s responses to those comments. This final EA should be used as a companion document to the draft EA (DOE/EA-1967, dated August 2016), which contains the full text describing the project, its potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce impacts. The draft EA is available on the project webpage at http://www.bpa.gov/goto/HillsCreekLookoutPoint. Summary BPA proposes to rebuild its Hills Creek-Lookout Point transmission line, which runs from Oakridge to Lowell in Lane County, Oregon. The existing 26-mile-long 115-kilovolt (kV) transmission line is aging, and BPA proposes to replace its wood-pole structures and other line components and improve its road system that provides access to the line. BPA released the draft EA for public comment on August 10, 2016; the comment period ran until September 19, 2016. The draft EA describes the Project, its potential environmental impacts, and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study
    US Army Corps of Engineers Portland District Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study DRAFT Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment November 2017 Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study Executive Summary The Willamette River basin is located entirely within the state of Oregon, beginning south of Cottage Grove, and extending approximately 187 miles to the north where the Willamette River flows into the Columbia River. The basin is more than 11,200 square miles, averages 75 miles in width, and encompasses approximately 12 percent of the total area of the state (Figure ES-1). Within the watershed are most of the state’s population (nearly 70 percent), larger cities, and major industries. The basin also contains some of Oregon’s most productive agricultural lands and supports nationally and regionally important fish and wildlife species. Thirteen of Oregon’s thirty-six counties intersect or lie within the boundary of the Willamette River basin. Through a series of Flood Control Acts the U.S. Congress authorized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to construct, operate, and maintain thirteen major dams1 in the Willamette River basin. Collectively, these dams, reservoirs and associated infrastructure are known as the Willamette Valley Project (WVP). With a combined conservation storage capacity of approximately 1,590,000 acre-feet, the WVP is capable of providing important benefits for flood damage reduction, navigation, hydropower, irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved conditions for fish and wildlife, and recreation. Feasibility Study History The Willamette Basin Review Feasibility Study began in 1996 to investigate future Willamette River basin water demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 State(S): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River
    Chapter 5 State(s): Oregon Recovery Unit Name: Willamette River Recovery Unit Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and, in this case, with the assistance of recovery unit teams, contractors, State and Tribal agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or indicate the approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Director or Regional Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Cited: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Chapter 5, Willamette River Recovery Unit, Oregon. 96 p. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Two working groups are active in the Willamette River Recovery Unit: the Upper Willamette (since 1989) and Clackamas Bull Trout Working Groups. In 1999, these groups were combined, and, along with representation from the Santiam subbasin, comprise the Willamette River Recovery Unit Team.
    [Show full text]
  • Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update
    Lookout Point Watershed Analysis Update August, 2012 Introduction The Lookout Point Watershed Analysis was prepared by personnel of the old Lowell Ranger District in 1997, so this analysis is now about 15 years old. In that time considerable new information has come to light and some conditions have changed. Additionally, the original WA contained some misinformation, or the watershed conditions are better understood now. There is also a new land management project proposed in this watershed (the Outlook Landscape Diversity Project) the analysis of which would be facilitated by this watershed update. In addition to updating current conditions, this reanalysis updates the list of recommendations. Specific conditions or occurrences creating the need for this update include: • vegetation growth which has changed the conditions of the 28% of the watershed consisting of young stands created by past regeneration harvest, • a better understanding of the fire history of the area, • the presence of a new invasive plant species, false brome, • reintroduction of Chinook salmon and bull trout into upstream watersheds, • construction of additional infrastructure elements such as cell phone towers and fiber optic lines, and • continuing deterioration of road conditions. The 1997 “Lookout Pont Watershed Analysis Area” document covered only the 49,638 acres of federally owned lands within the 100,000+ acre Lookout Point Reservoir Fifth Field watershed, which is one of nine within the Fourth-Field Middle Fork of the Willamette River watershed. This update will also address only the National Forest portion of this watershed. Some 60,000 acres of BLM and privately owned lands occur in the lower portions of the full 5th Field watershed, which include the Lookout Point dam and the lower half of the associated reservoir, the Dexter dam and reservoir, the Lost Creek drainage, and the communities of Dexter and Lowell.
    [Show full text]
  • Angling Guide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
    Angling Guide Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Alton Baker Park canoe canal: In Eugene by Autzen Stadium. Stocked in the spring with rainbow trout. A good place to take kids. Big Cliff Reservoir: 150 acres on the North Santiam River. The dam is located several miles below Detroit Dam off of Highway 22. Stocked with trout. Blue River Reservoir and Upper Blue River: 42 miles east of Eugene off Highway 126. Native cutthroat and rainbow. Stocked in spring and early summer with rainbow trout. USFS campground. Bond Butte Pond: 3 miles north of the Harrisburg exit on the east side of I-5 at MP 212 (the Bond Butte overpass). Channel catfish, largemouth bass, white crappie, bluegill. Carmen Reservoir: 65-acre reservoir located on Highway 126 appproximately 70 miles east of Springfield. Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, brook trout. Clear Lake: 70 miles east of Eugene off Highway 126. Naturally reproducing brook trout and stocked with rainbow trout. Resort with restaurant, boat and cabin rentals. USFS campground. Cottage Grove Ponds: A group of 6 ponds totaling 15 acres. Located 1.5 miles east of Cottage Grove on Row River Road behind the truck scales. Largemouth bass, bluegill, bullhead. Rainbow trout are stocked into one pond in the spring. Cottage Grove Reservoir: Six miles south of Cottage Grove on London Road. Largemouth bass, brown bullhead, bluegill, cutthroat trout. Hatchery rainbow are stocked in the spring. USACE provides campgrounds. There is a health advisory for mercury contamination. Pregnant women, nursing women and children up to six years old should not eat fish other than stocked rainbow trout; children older than 6 and healthy adults should not eat more than 1/2 pound per week.
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Fork Willamette Action Plan 2019-2029
    Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Strategic Action Plan – Jan 2019 Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Strategic Action Plan – Jan 2019 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council thanks the many individuals and organizations who helped prepare this action plan. Partner organizations that contributed include U.S. Forest Service, City of Cottage Grove, City of Crewswell, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, McKenzie River Trust, and Weyerhaeuser Company. Plan Development Team Michael DeHart, City of Creswell Krista Farris, Cottage Grove River Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Amanda Gilbert, Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Reilly Newman, Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Council Amada Ferguson, City of Cottage Grove Technical Advisory Group Steve Leibhart, Bureau of Land Management – Eugene/Salem District Krista Farris, Cottage Grove Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Cameron Mitchell, Cottage Grove Ranger District, U.S. Forest Service Doug Garletts, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Christer Lebreque, McKenzie River Trust Daniel Dietz, McKenzie River Trust Meghan Tuttle, Weyerhaeuser Company Katherine Nordholm, Springfield Office, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Wes Messinger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers i Coast Fork Willamette Watershed Strategic Action Plan – Jan 2019 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan (COP)
    Phase II Report Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan (COP) October 2015 Final Report Willamette Valley Projects Configuration/Operation Plan, Phase II Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Configuration/Operation Plan (COP), Phase II Report, for the Willamette Valley system provides recommendations to address the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) contained in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries or NMFS) 2008 Biological Opinion (BiOp) for the Willamette System (WS) operated and maintained by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps). The RPA listed actions to be implemented to avoid jeopardy to Upper Willamette River (UWR) spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and UWR winter steelhead (O. mykiss) from continued operations and maintenance of the WS. This COP Phase II report was guided by the development of alternatives documented in the 2009 COP Phase I Report. Although this document does not meet the EC 11-2-208 (dated 31 Mar 2015) definition as a “Decision Document”, it is being used to document the long-term plan for implementing the 2008 Willamette Biological Opinion. BACKGROUND The WS system consists of 13 multipurpose dams and reservoirs, and approximately 92 miles of riverbank protection projects in the Willamette River Basin in Oregon. Each project contributes to the overall water resources management in the basin which is designed to provide flood risk management, hydropower generation, irrigation, navigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, and improved water quality on the Willamette River and many of its tributaries. The fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) affected by operation of the WS1 include UWR spring Chinook salmon, UWR winter steelhead, and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus, threatened).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    Willamette Basin Annual Water Quality Report for 2015 Detroit Reservoir at Low Elevation (1202 feet) on November 6, due to 2015 Drought, North Santiam River, Oregon Final Report Page intentionally left blank Final Report, July 2016 i Table Of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 10 2.0 Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 12 3.0 Water Quality related Achievements ...................................................................................... 14 3.1 Corps Achievements in Meeting CWA-TMDL and EPA-BiOp Recommendations: ............. 14 4.0 Willamette Project Background .............................................................................................. 15 5.0 Description of the 2015 Water Year ....................................................................................... 19 5.1 Willamette Basin Hydrology .................................................................................................. 19 5.2 Willamette Mainstem Conditions ........................................................................................... 21 6.0 North Santiam Subbasin.......................................................................................................... 25 6.1 Water Quality Improvement Measures Conducted in 2015 .................................................... 25 6.2 Water Quality Monitoring and Results
    [Show full text]
  • Cottage Grove Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
    Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan Prepared by: Cottage Grove Community Development Department Dianna C. Skelly-Cotter Amanda Ferguson & Natural Hazard Mitigation Advisory Committee Adopted by Cottage Grove City Council ________________ i | Page THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK ii | Page Table of Contents Chapter 1: Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan ............................................ 2 Section 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2 What is Natural Hazard Mitigation? ..................................................................................................... 2 Why Develop a Mitigation Plan? .......................................................................................................... 3 Authorities: ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Policy Framework for Natural Hazard Mitigation in Oregon ................................................................ 5 Local Adoption ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Planning Process ................................................................................................................................... 6 Section 2: Community Profile ................................................................................................................... 8 Overview
    [Show full text]