Loading...
2021-15-Minutes for Meeting December 30,2020 Recorded 1/15/2021C�v� ES CCG ?{ CAR® OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2021-15 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 01 /15/2021 11:40:18 AM FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 10:00 AM Wednesday, December 30, 2020 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS VIRTUAL MEETING PLATFORM Present were Commissioners Patti Adair, Anthony DeBone, and Phil Henderson. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel (via Zoom conference call); and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant (via Zoom conference call). Attendance was limited due to Governor's Virus Orders. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair Adair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: Commissioner Adair acknowledged a comment received from the Peoples Rights of Oregon. Commissioner Adair presented Commissioner Henderson with a framed picture of the three Commissioners on riding horses for the Sisters Rodeo parade in 2019. Commissioner Henderson commented on his term of service as a County BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 1 OF 9 Commissioner. Commissioner DeBone thanked him for the service he provided to the residents of Deschutes County. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was consideration of the Consent Agenda. DEBONE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Budget Committee, the 9-1-1 County Service District Budget Committee, the Countywide Law Enforcement District #1 Budget Committee, and the Rural Law Enforcement District #2 Budget Committee 2. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Todd Steele of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 3. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Karyn Kotkins of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 4. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Sue Hutchens of the Beaver Special Road District 5. Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Beth Faulkenberry to the Beaver Special Road District 6. Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Robert Cervelli to the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 7. Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Katherine West to the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 8. Approval of Minutes of the December 16, 2020 BOCC Meeting ACTION ITEMS: 9. COVID19 Update Nahad Sadr-Azodi, Public Health Director, Dr. Richard Fawcett, and Dr. George Conway (via Zoom conference call) presented the COVID19 Update. BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 2 OF 9 Presentation is attached to the record. 10.CARES Act Funding Update Chief Financial Officer Greg Munn (via Zoom conference call) presented the update on the CARES Act Funding. There is a remaining balance of $50,000 left to be allocated. Commissioner Adair commented on extending Dr. Jeanne Young's contract for COVID testing for the uninsured or underinsured. Commissioner Henderson expressed support and moved approval of the contract extension. Commissioner DeBone noted he is not opposed to that but looks for more information on the population Dr. Young is serving. Commissioner Henderson would support extending Dr. Young's contract for COVID19 testing by funding in the amount of $35,000. Commissioner DeBone recommended rental assistance with the remaining $15,000. Dr. Conway suggested additional funding allocated to Mosaic Medical for COVID testing. HENDERSON: Of the $50,000 CARES Act funding remaining: $35,000 is allocated to the contract with Dr. Jeanne Young to continue COVID19 testing and $15,000 is allocated to the contract with Mosaic Medical to continue COVID19 testing. Commissioner DeBone does not support this motion at this time until reviewing further information on services provided. ADAIR: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: DEBONE: ADAIR: Yes No Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Discussion held on supporting our school systems during the COVID19 pandemic. Mr. Munn will continue to provide weekly updates to the Commissioners. BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 3 OF 9 11.Consideration of Request to Apply for Problem Gambling Prevention Grant Jessica Jacks, Health Services (via Zoom conference call) presented this item for consideration. This grant funding is available through the Oregon Health Authority and would provide education and outreach in our community. VOTE: Move approval of the grant application Second HENDERSON: DEBONE: ADAI R: Yes Yes Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 12.Consideration of Request to Apply for SRCH Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Amid the COVID19 Pandemic Grant Health Services Jessica Jacks and Sara Worthington (via Zoom conference call) presented the item for consideration. This grant is available through the Oregon Health Authority and provides support for the diabetes prevention as well as the Living Well program. An additional FTE would be requested to provide services in this program. The application was due on December 21. The department submitted the grant application already and noted it would be pending the BOCC approval. DEBONE: Move approval of grant application HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 4 OF 9 13.2021 Arts and Culture Grant Follow -Up Laura Skundrick, Administrative Services (via Zoom conference call) presented the continued discussion on the arts and culture grant process and noted a tracking error resulting in an over allocation of $3,000. HENDERSON: Move approval of transferring the $3,000 from the video lottery fund. DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Ms. Skundrick reported the Dry Canyon Arts has requested a year extension to resume their grant funded project due to the fact the schools have been closed during the COVID pandemic. DEBONE: Move approval of a year extension for the Dry Canyon Arts grant process to achieve completion of the grant requirements HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 14.Consideration of County Administrator's Signature for an Economic Development Loan Conversion Don Myll and Roger Lee of EDCO were present at the meeting to report on a proposal to convert a loan made to Seran BioScience. John Melvin, Seran BioScience (via Zoom conference call) gave history of the business. DEBONE: HENDERSON: Move approval of County Administrator's signature Second BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 5 OF 9 VOTE: DEBONE: HENDERSON: ADAI R: Yes Yes Chair votes yes Motion Carried 15.STIF Advisory Committee Alternate Position Vacancy This item was pulled for a future meeting. RECESS: At the time of 11:38 a.m. the Board took a recess and reconvened the meeting at 1:00 p.m. 16.SECOND READING: Consideration of Ordinance No. 2020-018, Amendments to Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone, and Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Anthony Raguine, Community Development Department (via Zoom conference call) presented the 2nd reading of the Ordinance No. 2020-018. DEBONE: Move approval of second reading of Ordinance No. 2020- 018 by title only HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: HENDERSON: ADAI R: Yes Yes Chair votes yes Motion Carried Commissioner Adair read the Ordinance by title only into the record. HENDERSON: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2020-018 DEBONE: Second BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 6 OF 9 VOTE: HENDERSON: DEBONE: ADAIR: Yes Yes Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 17.PUBLIC HEARING Continuation: Spring River Rural Commercial Text Amendments Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Department (via Zoom conference call) presented this item and introduced the continued public hearing. Commissioner Adair opened the hearing. Greg Blackmore, applicant (via Zoom conference call) expressed appreciation of staff efforts with the text amendments to provide clarification. Upon no further testimony, Commissioner Adair closed the hearing. HENDERSON: Move first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2020-017 by title only with emergency adoption effective in 30 days DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Commissioner Adair read into the record the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2020-017 by title only. DEBONE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2020-017 HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 7 OF 9 18.Deliberations - Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial Matt Martin, Community Development Department (via Zoom conference call) presented the deliberations and background information. Commissioner DeBone expressed support of the hearing officer's decision. HENDERSON: Moved approval of the application annotated as File Numbers 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC, and to direct staff to prepare an ordinance consistent with this motion that both incorporates the Board's deliberations and the Hearing Officer's decision, to the extent that decision is consistent with the Board's deliberation. DEBONE: Second VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes DEBONE: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried OTHER ITEMS: • Commissioner DeBone presented a proposed letter of appreciation to Congressman Greg Walden. Commissioner Henderson offered a few edits. • County Administrator Anderson reported on the Eastern Oregon Counties Association membership that includes the eastern counties of Oregon. An Intergovernmental Agreement was presented for consideration. Annual membership dues structure is divided by all of the eastern Oregon counties. DEBONE: Move approval of Chair signature of Document No. 2020-724 HENDERSON: Second VOTE: DEBONE: Yes HENDERSON: Yes ADAIR: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC MEETING DECEMIBER 30, 2020 PAGE 8 OF 9 COMMISSIONER UPDATES: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:57 p.m. DATED this Commissioners. Day of —I ' W-r 21 for the Deschutes County Board of Ji`2� °°I ADAIR, CHAIR ICI ANTHONY, PHILIP G. HENDERSOU, OMMISSIONER j ` ORDING SECRETARY BOCC MEETING DECEMBER 30, 2020 PAGE 9 OF 9 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BOCC MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2020 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public, usually streamed live online and video recorded. To watch it online, visit www. d es ch u tes. o rg/m e e tings. Pursuant to ORS 192,640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Item start times are estimated and subject to change without notice. CALL TO ORDER MEETING FORMAT In response to the COVID-19 public health emergency, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order 20-16 directing government entities to utilize virtual meetings whenever possible and to take necessary measures to facilitate public participation in these virtual meetings. Beginning on May 4, 2020, meetings and hearings of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners will be conducted in a virtual format. Attendance/Participation options include: Live Stream Video: Members of the public may still view the BOCC meetings/hearings in real time via the Public Meeting Portal at www.deschutes.org/meetings. Citizen Input: Citizen Input is invited in order to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on any meeting topic that is not on the current agenda. Citizen Input is provided by submitting an email to: citizeninput(@deschutes.org or by leaving a voice message at 541-385-1734. Citizen input received before the start of the meeting will be included in the meeting record. Zoom Meeting Information: Staff and citizens that are presenting agenda items to the Board for consideration or who are planning to testify in a scheduled public hearing may participate via Zoom meeting. The Zoom meeting id and password will be included in either the public hearing materials or through a meeting invite once your agenda item has been included on the agenda. Upon entering the Zoom meeting, you will automatically be placed on hold and in the waiting room. Once you are ready to Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 30, 2020 Page 1 of 4 present your agenda item, you will be unmuted and placed in the spotlight for your presentation. If you are providing testimony during a hearing, you will be placed in the waiting room until the time of testimony, staff will announce your name and unmute your connection to be invited for testimony. Detailed instructions will be included in the public hearing materials and will be announced at the outset of the public hearing. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT (for items not on this Agenda) [Note: Because COVID-19 restrictions may limit or preclude in person attendance, citizen input comments may be emailed to citizen input@deschutes.org or you may leave a brief voicemail at 541.385.1734. To be timely, citizen input must be received by 9:00am on the day of the meeting.] CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature to Reappoint Bruce Barrett to the Deschutes County Budget Committee, the 9-1-1 County Service District Budget Committee, the Countywide Law Enforvement District #1 Budget Committee and the Rural Law Enforcement District #2 Budget Committee 2. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Todd Steele of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 3. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Karyn Kotkins of the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 4. Consideration of Board Signature to Thank Sue Hutchens of the Beaver Special Road District 5. Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Beth Faulkenberry to the Beaver Special Road District 6. Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Robert Cervelli to the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 7. Consideration of Board Signature to Appoint Katherine West to the Deschutes County Behavioral Health Advisory Board 8. Approval of Minutes of the December 16, 2020 BOCC Meeting Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 30, 2020 Page 2 of 4 ACTION ITEMS 9. 10:05 AM COVID19 Update 10. 10:30 AM CARES Act Funding Update 11. 10:50 AM Consideration of Request to Apply for Problem Gambling Prevention Grant-jessicajacks, Health Services Supervisor 12. 11:00 AM Consideration of Request to Apply for SRCH Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic Grant - Jessicajacks, Health Services Supervisor 13. 11:10 AM 2021 Arts & Culture Grant Follow -Up - Laura Skundrick, Administrative Analyst 14. 11:15 AM Consideration of County Administrator's Signature for an Economic Development Loan Conversion - Whitney Hale, Communications Director 15. 11:35 AM STIF Advisory Committee Alternate Position Vacancy - Whitney Hale, Communications Director LUNCH RECESS 16. 1:00 PM SECOND READING: Consideration of Ordinance No. 2020-018, Amendments to Chapter 18.76, Airport Development Zone, and Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions. -Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner 17. 1:05 PM PUBLIC HEARING Continuation: Spring River Rural Commercial Text Amendments - Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner 18. 1:35 PM Deliberations - Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial (Aceti) - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 30, 2020 Page 3 of 4 EXECUTIVE SESSION At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN To watch this meeting on line, go to: www.deschutes.org/meetings Please note that the video will not show up until recording begins. You can also view past meetings on video by selecting the date shown on the website calendar. tx Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Board of Commissioners BOCC Meeting Agenda Wednesday, December 30, 2020 Page 4 of 4 LS f►.. " N O - Y C in �6 �6 E :1 O qp LQ roo oc� �v E :a c (U v - Ul) Q ro o � v a L a) E O r V) O O O ® ® O N N e-1 c-I 0(, O� ® 0 O ��C/l 00 1\ N m �/ o ° p Spa N N� CF,r-i Ln r $ r /ll Ln l/00 °r Ln 01- co 0 Ol r I 6l o o I /O`rl 00 rH Ln ( M /� 9 lcA � s d'icQ � Ln o S� aj o /� Ln LrnH `S -a ,I �I r cu Ln I Off, `9 1ST v 00 00 a� Ln 11 o S9 a; m c' v 0000 o Ln m 0 �l%, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O Ln o Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln � to Ln IZT d M M N N rH e-i i S@SeD ca tp 91 m M 4-10 M 00 O Ln Ln O d m00 m '.0 o m ON � N 0 N O m � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M W I- l0 M d M N r- 9 STY cl. �r r a 'rr , � t w Ln E v, r s �' a-+ 4-1 °l /6' J N Q1 6� i6 ��� . S�6 w 5 m bA c > v o U 0 o a Q` cao oho Lu 0 c o � ° M '9'l c O u v Cl Fr 9 m U 4� cr- Ln oe ,n w w 0 S� Q N > �'i S O rp +� �S viE a� °ram _ Q� Z a El�� S o ❑ El S9r, O o UO l/ � o fir/ N U O 01 1S/ N v 0 C O O O O CD O O O � ���, ate .+ �� O O O O O O O O ) t 00 r- �D Ln q* m r4 .-i c as 52113 10 aaquanN m m m _ ./ m u E •/ / / _? « / E © 3 e & / e = b.2 e I IOLO >- © _ _ o E E•¥ ® 0 0 / \ 2 © / b _0 = w - ® '\ R 3 / E § 0 2 � u u 0 I / \ \ � ^ 0 Ln 0 o 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 L m lzt m m rJ C14 r-� r-I (Pgladlaam-/ 2WHo8)a$q aSea +aN Qj tw E � � u 0 u m � _ VI ra E 75 E 0 �§ 0 C2- E � / O C- 4� E 0 E v 4-j > 0 CAA E 0 > vi 0 0 LO C: 0 u -le aj Ln aj E - C GJ 'E L- 4- CL -7 -a - E i u Ln 0 E M ai 0 u op aj 0 P t6 10 oll 010, �0111 (14 0 00 rH r-i O o �o Zt r14 0 6' it (poijad 1@@M-Z OU1110U) AI!All!sOd lu@:)J@d w tw c 0 4- 4� u .Qj Ln co Ln 0 4� m 0 k m _ ( : - 6ELu 2 ��~\■ _ � < ^ 4 / - > m o - u . �S» _ © m41 k � \ to . � � O U ~ < � . .. � _ -- � m - - - O oc, o� 'mil �G OC-O- 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 ro t �J u u 45) >, .4-J -p 4-1 O rO-a � a) �- v� o4- u � i Q) C C rt N u 0) a-+ L O L N CL +J v— O i 2 }J ii «S Y O RS -O ++ C LA +j cn -p C N � V U')O M I M■ C N Q N _O N U N U) U) � N 0L 7 Qi E Ln E 0 u CL CIA U q U) 0 E o. tn m m -Ij gfil E 'a) 'o CL CL C C G •� N V [_1 � u ✓' N � y CT .c w pp L E E Ach : c"i+ w .Ll R 3 w o y co Ch T— LA 1 Ln CL O 4-J to 4-J 4-J 4-J IA (U 4-J 1 4 Co u (v to N N to C) 0 O b-O 0 v 0 I a) W 0 0 m -0 ai rp 4� 0 V) Ln aJ b.0 0 CL C: Ln 2) LA c 0 4_ 41 41 aJ 'a 0 (1) O. 4- 0 (A -N O AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of December 30, 2020 DATE: December 22, 2020 FROM: Jessica jacks, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Request to Apply for Problem Gambling Prevention Grant RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff request approval to apply for the Problem Gambling, Alcohol and Other Drugs Integration Project grant. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The purpose of this grant is to enhance services that address risk factors shared between problem gambling and substance misuse. The grant will make it possible to enhance the incorporation of information and education about problem gambling into training already developed to prevent adolescent substance misuse, as well as enhance the ability to evaluate digital marketing efforts, regardless of the prevention topic. Specifically, funds will be used to conduct: • Four Substance Misuse Prevention Workshops for parents, serving at least 35 participants; • Two Community Norms workshops for key stakeholders, serving at least 20 participants; and • One digital marketing training for prevention staff and members of the Shared Future Coalition, serving at least 20 participants. This proposal aligns with the following Deschutes County Health Services Strategic Plan elements: • Promote Health and Prevent Disease, • Assure needed health and human services, • Acquire and use resources effectively, and • Evaluate and improve agency processes and performance. Research conducted by Hawkins and Catalano from the University of Washington established the Risk and Protective Factor model regarding adolescent risk behaviors. The socio- ecological model identifies spheres of influence that can impact individuals, relationships, community organizations, and society. Projects included in this grant are rooted in these two models, as well as health behavior theories related to effective direct service prevention and policy/systems/environmental change. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: If awarded, the department will receive $19,800.00 in grant funds, which are not currently in the budget. See detail below: Printing $ 1,000 Supplies 1,000 Contractual 16,000 Total indirect charges 18,000 Indirect charges 1,800 Total grant expenses $19,800 S°G� Deschutes County Health Services -A GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST Please answer the following questions: Official Grant Title: Problem Gambling Alcohol and Other Drugs Integration Project Source of Grant Funds: Oregon Health Authority, Health Systems Division, Problem GamblingPrevention Services Program Funding Amount and Duration (include amount per year if multiple years): $19,800 April — December 2021 Application Due Date: 12/31 /21 FTE Required and Cost of FTE: Not applicable Staff Responsible: Julie S ackman Matching Requirements? ❑ Yes ® No If Yes, ❑ in -kind or ❑cash? Amount: Ctick or tap here to enter text. Contract or MOU Required? ® Yes ❑ No Does grant allow for admin fee? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, amount: 10% Expedited Director approval? ® Yes ❑ No If Yes, attach copy of grant opportunity notification. 1. How does this grant opportunity align with priorities in the Health Services Strategic�Plan, the Regional Health improvement Plan or an emerging need? This proposal aligns with the following DCHS Strategic Plan elements: Promote Health and Prevent Disease Assure needed health and human services Acquire and use resources effectively Evaluate and improve agency processes and performance 2. Briefly summarize what work the grant is intended to accomplish. The purpose of this grant is to enhance services that address risk factors shared between problem gambling and substance misuse. The grant will make it possible to enhance the incorporation of information and education about problem gambling into training already developed to prevent adolescent substance misuse, as well as enhance the ability to evaluate digital marketing efforts, regardless of the prevention topic. Specifically, funds will be used to conduct four (4) Substance Misuse Prevention Workshops for parents, serving at least 35 participants; conduct two (2) Community Norms workshops for key stakeholders, serving at least 20 participants; and conduct one (1) digital marketing training for prevention staff and members of the Shared Future Coalition, serving at least 20 participants. 3. Describe the science or evidence base that supports delivering the work the grant is intended to accomplish. Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 1 of 3 Research conducted by Hawkins and Catalano from the University of Washington established the Risk and Protective Factor model regarding adolescent risky behaviors. The socio-ecological model identifies spheres of influence that can impact individuals, relationships, community organizations, and society. Projects included in this grant are rooted in these two models, as well as health behavior theories related to effective direct service prevention and policy/systems/environmental change. 4. Does the work the grant is intended to accomplish require ethics review? If so, what is the regulating authority and who will do the work? No. 5. Summarize the cost of doing the work the grant is intended to accomplish (include costs of personnel, equipment, materials and services, travel/training, etc., as applicable, using the grant calculator tool [to be developed]). Budget Category Expense Personnel $0 Fringe $0 Materials and Services Printing $1,000 Supplies $1,000 Contractual $16,000 Other $0 Total Direct Charges $18,000 Indirect Charges $1,800 Total Grant Expenses $19,800 Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 2 of 3 6. Administrative supports re uired (check all that a I ❑ Compliance oversight ® Contract ❑ Data analysis: Is the data ❑ already collected? OR ❑ new to us? Where does the data live? Click or tap here to enter text. ❑ EHR ❑ Fiscal oversight and/or reporting ❑ Operations (building, vehicles, etc.) ❑ Reporting: What: Click or tap here to enter text. How often: Click or tap here to enter text. ❑ Other, please describe: Click or tap here to enter text. To be completed by Director: Final review of grant application materials prior to submittal will be done by: ® Deputy Director ❑ Director Deputy Director Approval !� Director Approval 6Yes ❑ No Date & Initials: des ❑ No Date & Initials: Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of December 30, 2020 DATE: December 22, 2020 FROM: Jessica jacks, Health Services, TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Request to Apply for SRCH Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic Grant RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff request approval to apply for the Sustainable Relationships for Community Health (SRCH) Chronic Disease Prevention and Management Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic grant. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Deschutes County Health Services (DCHS) provides two regional programs focused on chronic disease prevention and self -management: Living Well Central Oregon (LWCO) and Prevent Diabetes Central Oregon (PDCO). The grant resources will enable DCHS to upgrade these programs to navigate the challenges presented by the COVID pandemic and improve service delivery. More specifically, funding will: 1. Improve the virtual delivery of LWCO workshops by: a. Training two local Master Trainers in the virtual certification offered by Self - Management Resource Center, b. These two Master Trainers will then train local leaders and coach them for offering virtual workshops, c. Covering printing and mailing fees incurred to ensure participants have the resources available to them in hard copy format, and d. Providing curriculum toolkits to participants without access to virtual tools. 2. Transition PDCO to an upgraded data management system, ensuring appropriate licensure and training of staff. This grant opportunity aligns with the Regional Health Improvement Plan priority area "Promote Enhanced Physical Health Across Communities." This priority area aims to achieve improvements across the following metrics: age -adjusted rates of chronic disease and prevalence of risk factors for preventable disease. LWCO programs are evidence based workshops developed at Stanford University and the Self -Management Resource Center. They are proven to improve a broad range of health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. PDCO provides the National Diabetes Prevention Program, which was developed by the CDC based on randomized controlled trial that found lifestyle change reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes by 58%. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: If awarded, the department will receive $20,661.00 in grant funds, which are not currently in the budget. No additional FTE are requested; funds will be allocated to existing staff to tend to the management and coordination needs of the project. See detail below: Personnel $ 7,717 Fringe 4,190 Materials and Services Printing and mailing 1,488 Licenses and fees 2,450 Contractual 1,750 Educational supplies 460 Registration 800 Total direct charges 18,855 Indirect charges 1,806 Total grant expenses 2$ 0,661 ATTENDANCE: Sarah Worthington, Diabetes Prev- • •ject Coordinato Prevention Programs Supervisor;•• \\\)'`Z ES��2 Deschutes County Health Services 71GRANT APPLICATION REQUEST Please answer the following questions: Official Grant Title: SUSTAINABLE RELATIONSHIPS for COMMUNITY HEALTH (SRCH) CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION & MANAGEMENT AMID THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Source of Grant Funds: Ore on Health Authority Funding Amount and Duration (include $20,661/January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 amount per year if multiple ears Application Due Date: December 21, 2020 FTE Required and Cost of FTE: 0.2 FTE $11,907 This is not new FTE but rather DCHS will reduce FTE allocation from one cost center in order for staff to tend to the management and coordination needs of this ro'ect. Staff Responsible: Sarah Worthington Matching Requirements? ❑ Yes N No If Yes, ❑ in -kind or ❑cash? Amount: Click or tap here to enter text. Contract or MOU Required? N Yes ❑ No Does grant allow for admin fee? N Yes ❑ No If Yes, amount: 10% Expedited Director approval? N Yes ❑ No If TeS, Cl ltclG(1 copy Ul l�l alR oppVl LlAl Illy IIVUIWpUvl I. 1. How does this grant opportunity align with priorities in the Health Services Strategic Plan, the Regional Health Improvement Plan or an emerging need? This grant opportunity aligns with the Regional Health Improvement Plan priority area "Promote Enhanced Physical Health Across Communities." This priority area aims to achieve improvements across the following metrics: age -adjusted rates of chronic disease and prevalence of risk factors for preventable disease, both of which DCHS programs Living_Well Central Oregon and Prevent Diabetes Central Oregon address. 2. Briefly summarize what work the grant is intended to accomplish. DCHS provides two regional programs focused on chronic disease prevention and self - management programs, Living Well Central Oregon (LWCO) and Prevent Diabetes Central Oregon (PDCO). The grant resources will support DCHS to upgrade these programs to navigate the challenges presented by the COVID pandemic and improve service delivery. More specifically, funding will: 1. Improve the virtual delivery of LWCO workshops by: a. Training two local Master Trainers in the virtual certification offered by Self - Management Resource Center, b. These two Master Trainers will then train local leaders and coach them for offering virtual workshops, Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 1 of 3 c. Cover printing and mailing fees incurred to ensure participants have the resources available to them in hard copy format, and d. Provide curriculum toolkits to participants without access to virtual tools. 2. Transition PDCO to an upgraded data management system, ensuring appropriate licensure and trainina of staff. 3. Describe the science or evidence base that supports delivering the work the grant is intended to accomplish. LWCO programs are evidence based workshops developed at Stanford University and the Self -Management Resource Center. They are proven to improve a broad range of health outcomes and reduce healthcare costs. PDCO provides the National Diabetes Prevention Program, which was developed by the CDC based on randomized controlled trial that found lifestyle change reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes by 58%. 4. Does the work the grant is intended to accomplish require ethics review? If so, what is the regulating authority and who will do the work? No 5. Summarize the cost of doing the work the grant is intended to accomplish (include costs of personnel, equipment, materials and services, travel/training, etc., as applicable, using the grant calculator tool [to be developed]). Budget Category Expense I l Personnel $7,717 Fringe $4,190 Materials and Services Printing and Mailing $1,488 Licenses and Fees $2,450 Contractual $1,750 Educational Supplies $460 Registration $800 Total Direct Charges $18,855 Indirect Charges $1,806 Total Grant Expenses $20,661 Administrative supports required (check all that apply): ❑ Compliance oversight M Contract ❑ Data analysis: Is the data ❑ already collected? OR ❑ new to us? Where does the data live? Click or tap here to enter text. ❑ EHR ❑ Fiscal oversight and/or reporting ❑ Operations (building, vehicles, etc.) Rev. 11 /19/2018 Page 2 of 3 ❑ Reporting: What: Click or tap here to enter text. How often: Click or tap here to enter text. ❑ Other, please describe: Click or tap here to enter text. To be completed by Director: Final review of grant application materials prior to submittal will be done by: N Deputy Director ❑ Director Deputy Director Approval Director Approval Yes ❑ No Date & Initials: /id -Yes ❑ No Date & Initials:'' Rev. 11/19/2018 Page 3 of 3 AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of December 30, 2020 DATE: December 22, 2020 FROM: Laura Skundrick, Administrative Services, 541-330-4627 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: 2021 Arts & Culture Grant Follow -Up RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Revisit 2021 Arts & Culture Grant Program allocation SUMMARY: The Deschutes County Arts & Culture Grant Program is dedicated to supporting art and cultural initiatives in Deschutes County. During the FY 2021 Video Lottery Fund allocation process, the Board dedicated $20,000 for this program and on Wednesday December 16th, 1M AA o +rqr L inn evaluate-i requests fro I I applicants and Beae m:edaVards. During g +ha+ 11l��tinn, a u a%.rXn Iy error occurred and funds were over -allocated by $3,000. On December 21, staff returned to correct the error and the Board of Commissioners requested a status update of the Video Lottery Fund. On December 30, staff will return to discuss the status of the Video Lottery Fund and will seek Board direction on final allocations for the FY21 Arts & Culture Grant Program. ATTENDANCE: Laura Skundrick, Administrative Analyst AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of December 30, 2020 DATE: December 22, 2020 FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of County Administrator's Signature for an Economic Development Loan Conversion RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Approve County Administrator's signature for an economic development loan conversion. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes County Economic Development Loan Program was initiated to encourage and assist companies seeking to relocate to and/or create new jobs within Deschutes County. To receive a loan, companies must agree to create a specific number of jobs within► a defined period, then maintain this level of employment for an additional set period of time. In 2018, Seran BioScience entered into an agreement with the County for a loan in the amount of $20,000 with terms that included hiring ten (10) new full-time employees in Deschutes County on or before December 31, 2019 and maintaining these positions for a twelve-month period beyond the date all new positions were filled or by December 31, 2020, whichever date occurred first. As certified by Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO), Seran BioScience has met these terms and, in accordance with the agreement, is eligible to have the loan converted to a grant. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services; Don Myll, EDCO Bend Area Director d MOVE START �..�� ....� , �� ` ., ), GROW December 21, 2020 Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall Street Bend, OR 97702 RE: Seran BioScience, Conversion of Loan to Grant (Deschutes County Economic Development Loan Program) Board of County Commissioners: I am writing to request that Deschutes County Administration and/or the Board of Commissioners, as appropriate, consider: Converting Loan Under the Deschutes County Economic Development Loan Program to a Grant Brief History of Seran BioScience Loan Seran BioScience provides research, development, scale up and manufacturing services to biotech and pharmaceutical companies and is an important member of the growing bioscience industry in Deschutes County. The Company has grown rapidly since June 2016 when the !'�oMIpany entered Oho Drn`vrnm nnrl r nnfini inc fn nvnnnrl invcctm not and c+mnlnvmant in Rand vv�nl✓aiiy c�ncic�.+ u�c � ivyiu Starting with 5 employees, the company committed to adding 10 jobs and now provides 40 well - paying jobs and has added $1.3 million in local investment in property and equipment. Attached is the certification prepared by Economic Development for Central Oregon that Seran BioScience has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement. Sincerel on Myll Bend Area Director Economic Development for Central Oregon Economic Development for Central Oregon Www.edcoinfoxom DESCHUTES COUNTY Economic Development Forgivable Loan Program Loan Recipient: Seran BioScience Agreement No.: #2018-364 Date of Agreement: June 25, 2018 On behalf of Economic Development for Central Oregon, I hereby certify that Seran BioScience as met all conditions of the Deschutes County Economic Development Forgivable Loan Program as specified in Agreement DC #2018-364 (attached). I further attest that a representative of Economic Development for Central Oregon has reviewed employment and payroll records furnished by Seran BioScience and that such records confirm that the company: a) Created within and/or relocated to Deschutes County at least 10 new ftdl-time, family wage positions by or before September 30, 2019, and b) Maintained these new positions in Deschutes County for a 12-month period beyond the creation/relocation date and by or before September 30, 2020. I therefore request that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners authorize that the business development loan made to Serail BioScience be converted to a grant in accordance with the terms of the attached agreement. Economic Development for Central Oregon Title: Bend Area Director Economic Development for Central Oregon Date: z. 0 9�z M DESCHUTES COUNTY LEGAL COUNSEL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH SERAN BIOSCIENCE #2018-364 This Economic Development Loan Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into: BETWEEN: Deschutes County (hereinafter referred to as "County') PO Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005 541-330-4627 AND: Seran BioScience (hereinafter referred to as "Company") 63040 Lower Meadow Drive Bend, OR 97701 RECITALS WHEREAS, County finds that the program set forth in this Agreement will promote state and local economic activity by creating new jobs and investment; and WHEREAS, Company wishes to expand its existing equipment and business operations within Bend, Oregon by increasing employment and investing in equipment and building improvements; and WHEREAS, the said expansion in Bend, Oregon will create at least ten (10) new full-time, family wage jobs by December 31, 2019 for total employment by Company of fifteen (15) jobs; and WHEREAS, once filled, the new full-time jobs will be maintained for an additional consecutive 12-month period to occur on or before December 31, 2020; and WHEREAS, County desires to promote the expansion of Company's facility by loaning funds in the amount of $20,000 for expenses related to job creation and such loan will later be converted to a grant upon the condition that Company satisfy certain requirements; and WHEREAS, County has engaged Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO) to assist in administering and implementing the loan; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and promises contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to as follows: CC - 20 181W.36Z SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS Section 1.1 Dollars and $ shall mean lawful money of the United States of America. Section 1.2 Loan shall mean funds loaned by County to Company as provided under Section 3. Section 1.3 Project shall mean expansion of Company employment in Deschutes County, Oregon. Section 1.4 Full -Time Employee shall mean any employee who has been hired with the expectation that the job will last for at least one (1) year and who will work at least forty (40) hours per week or the equivalent of 2,080 hours per year. SECTION 2 TERM This Agreement shall be effective as of the date of execution by all parties and continue until the loan is paid in full or the loan is converted to a grant as provided in Section 3.3 below. SECTION 3 LOAN Section 3.1 Loan County agrees to loan Company the sum of $20,000 no later than 30 days following delivery of this signed Agreement to County. Section 3.2 Loan Pur,,pose and Representations of the Company The purpose of the loan is to carry out the project, and for no other purposes. Company represents and warrants that it will diligently pursue and complete the following: 3.2.1 Company will employ at least ten (10) additional full time employees by December 31, 2019 for a total of fifteen (15) full-time employees. 3.2.2 Company will maintain these new positions from the date all are filled for an additional consecutive 12-month period to occur on or before December 31, 2020. 3.2.3 Wages for the new positions will meet or exceed the Deschutes County median family income, but are expected to average $72,000, excluding commissions, per annum. 3.2.4 Company will submit quarterly and annual progress reports to EDCO with documentation for job creation, capital investment relating to new facilities, and equipment associated with the project. 3.2.5 Company shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances. 3.2.6 Company shall timely pay all Deschutes County real and personal property tax when due and shall satisfy all delinquent property tax accounts in full. Section 3.3 Loan Repayment or Conversion to Grant 3.3.1 Unless the loan is converted to a grant as provided below, Company agrees to pay to the order of County the full amount of the loan as well as interest at the rate of 8% per annum beginning from the date County releases funds to Company until the earlier of: (a) the occurrence of an event of default, as defined below, or (b) December 31, 2020. 3.3.2 County agrees to convert the loan to a grant that does not need to be repaid, if and when County determines in its sole discretion that Company has satisfied all of the obligations in Section 3.2 and its other obligations under this Agreement. Such conversion shall only be effective upon written verification by the County Administrator that the loan has been converted to a grant. 3.3.3 County may, in its sole discretion, convert a portion of the loan to a grant if all of the obligations under Section 3.2 and this Agreement have been fulfilled to the reasonable satisfaction of County. In the event of such partial conversion of the loan, the loan shall continue to be payable on a pro -rated basis in an amount determined by multiplying $2,000 by the difference between ten (10) and the number of full-time employees employed in Deschutes County by Company as of December 31, 2019. Interest will accrue on this portion of the loan at a rate of eight percent (8%) per annum from the time the Company received the loan monies to the time they are repaid. SECTION 4 DEFAULT Section 4.1 Events of Default The following shall be considered events of default: 4.1.1 Company fails to complete, or County reasonably determines that Company will not be able to complete, the obligations described in Section 3.2 and its other obligations under this Agreement; provided, however, that upon such failure or determination, County shall first provide to Company written notice of such failure or determination, and Company shall have thirty (30) days to correct the matter. If the matter has not been corrected by Company within such thirty (30) day period to the reasonable satisfaction of County, County shall be entitled to declare Company in default of its obligations under this Agreement and the loan and accrued interest shall be payable in full. 4.1.2 Company effects a change of ownership or change of control of its business which results in dissolution or conversion of the original business entity or relocates its business operations outside of Deschutes County, Oregon on or before the end of the contract period. Change of ownership and/or change of control of the business will not be deemed a default if Company notifies County which may then condition consent on any reasonable term(s) necessary to adequately secure the loan. A change in majority stock ownership will not constitute a default if all other provisions in this agreement are met. 4.1.3 The occurrence of any event that has or may reasonably be expected to have a material adverse effect on Company's financial condition or Company's ability to make any payment required by this Agreement. 4.1.4 Company fails to pay, becomes insolvent or unable to pay, or admits in writing an inability to pay Company's debts as they become due, or makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors. 4.1.5 A proceeding with respect to Company is commenced under any applicable law for the benefit of creditors, Including, but not limited to, any bankruptcy or insolvency law, or an order for the appointment of a receiver, liquidator, trustee, custodian, or other officer having similar powers over Company is entered. SECTION 5 MISCELLANEOUS Section 5.1 Right to Inspect Company agrees that County, their agents, and employees shall be entitled, upon reasonable prior notice to Company, to access and inspect the property and employment records of Company and I , , ,t .,rill nil its affiliates in order to insure that Company is complying with the terms o this r�r�li i iiiti i�4 �.__1. µ1. applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The right to inspection shall also include any property or employment records that are in the possession of any affiliate of Company. The right of inspection shall continue until all of the obligations of Company under this Agreement have been satisfied. Section 5.2 Attorneys Fee Provision In the event suit or action is instituted to enforce any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, the unsuccessful party shall pay to the prevailing party, in addition to the costs and disbursements allowed by statute, such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorney fees in such suit or action, in both trial court and appellate courts. Section 5.3 Indemnification Company shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless County and EDCO, their officers, agents, employees, and members from all claims, suits, and causes of action, including attorney's fees, of any nature whatsoever relating to claims by third parties resulting from or arising out this Agreement or funds provided to Company under this Agreement. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 5.3, County and EDCO shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Company, their officers, agents, employees, and members from all claims, suits, and causes of action, including attorney's fees, relating to claims by third parties as to the validity under public finance law of this Agreement or funds provided to the Company under this Agreement. Section 5.4 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the matters herein. Section 5.6 Titles and Subtitles The titles in this Agreement are for convenience only and in no way define, limit, or describe the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. Section 5.7 Notice All notices, requests demands, and other communications to or upon the parties hereto shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given or made: Upon actual receipt, if delivered personally or by fax or an overnight delivery service; and at the end of the third business day after the date of deposit in the United States mail, postage pre -paid, certified, return receipt requested; and to the addresses set forth on page 1 of this Agreement or at such other address of which such party shall have notified in writing the other parties hereto. Section 5.8 Time is of the Essence All parties agree that time is of the essence under this Agreement. Section 5.9 Applicable Law This Agreement is made, and shall be construed and interpreted under the laws of the State of Oregon without regard to the principles of conflicts of law. Venue shall lie in state courts located in Deschutes County, Oregon, provided, however, if the claim must be brought in a federal forum, f 1__ United Tlntrin4 then it shall be brought and conducted solely and exclusively within the United OLMCS "lalf- Court for the District of Oregon. Section 5.10 Disclosure Under Oregon law, most agreements, promises, and commitments made by a lender after October 3, 1939 concerning loans and other credit extensions which are not for personal, family, or household purposes or secured solely by borrower's residence must be in writing, express consideration, and be signed by the lender to be enforceable. Section 5.11 No Waiver No failure or delay of County in exercising any right, power or remedy under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of such right, power or remedy of County, or of any other right. A waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of or prejudice County's right otherwise to demand strict compliance with that provision or any other provision. Any waiver, permit, consent or approval of any kind or character on the part of County must be in writing; and shall be effective only to the extent specifically set forth in such writing. Section 5.12 No Assignment by Conntaany No obligation or right under this Agreement may be assigned by the Company without the prior consent of County, which consent may be withheld, conditioned, or delayed in the sole discretion of County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the dates set forth below their respective signatures. Deschutes County By: Tom Anderson, County Administrator Date: --7 -(9 Seran BioScience By: John vi , President Date: P S,`; -^ Zo e AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of December 30, 2020 DATE: December 22, 2020 FROM: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services, 541-330-4640 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: STIF Advisory Committee Alternate Position Vacancy BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Deschutes County Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIF) Advisory Committee has a vacant alternate position. On December 7, the Board of Commissioners asked CO/C to reach out to five residents who applied to serve on the STIF Advisory Committee in 2019 and assess if they were still interested in serving on the committee. COiC r earthed out to the nnnlirantc that the Bnarri irlentifieri rhirinrr their l)eremher 7 meeting and received responses from two individuals (Chris Morrow and Jennifer Glover) who are still interested in serving on the STIF Advisory Committee. Mr. Morrow attended the Dec. 7 STIF Advisory Committee meeting. Staff is seeking direction from the Board on next steps in appointing an alternate to serve on the committee. A summary of Mr. Morrow and Ms. Glover's 2019 applications are attached. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Whitney Hale, Administrative Services; Derek Hofbauer, COIC Outreach and Engagement Administrator Memorandum COIC To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Derek Hofbauer, COIC Outreach and Engagement Administrator Date: December 22, 2020 Subject: 2019 Candidate Application Summaries Application information from Mr. Morrow and Ms. Glover are included below: Christopher N. Morrow Bend representative Occupation: Retired Transportation Agency Director at the Alaska Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities Eligibility: Individuals age 65 and older Public Transportation Service Providers Transportation logistics representatives (e.g. mechanics, fleet purchasing, highway/road maintenance, vehicle equipment, bus technology) What do you hope to contribute to the Deschutes County STIF Advisory Committee? What personal and/or professional experiences have prepared you to serve in this role • Mr. Morrow has 30 years of experience in a state transportation agency, working as a licensed civil engineer in the following areas: preliminary and final designs, traffic engineering, environmental engineering, public involvement, construction, and maintenance & operations. He was a project manager for a diverse number of transportation projects including bike paths, streets, arterial and collector roads, airport runways and taxiways, and area wide transportation planning studies. • He retired in 2006 as a Director of Construction/Maintenance/Operations in the Southeast Region of Alaska's DOT&PF. Jennifer Glover La Pine representative Occupation: Employment Manager at Advocates for Life Skills and Opportunity (ALSO) Eligibility: • Low-income individuals • People with disabilities Individuals age 65 and older Public and private health, social, and human service providers What do you hope to contribute to the Deschutes County STIF Advisory Committee? What personal and/or professional experiences have prepared you to serve in this role? • Ms. Glover hopes to provide input regarding what is important to the La Pine and Sunriver communities. • She works with many individuals who experience a disability and are unable to drive and need transportation to get to and from work. Next STIF Advisory Committee Meeting COIC staff scheduled the next Deschutes STIFAC meeting for the following date and time: Thursday, January 7 from 3 - 4:30 pm (virtual) AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners BOCC Wednesday Meeting of December 30, 2020 DATE: December 14, 2020 FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Deliberations - Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agriculture/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial (Aceti) BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On June 30, 2020, the Applicant submitted an application proposing a plan amendment and zone change for the subject 21.54-acre property at 21235 Tumalo Place, Bend (tax maps and lots 16-12-26C, 201 / 16-12-27D, 104) located at the intersections of Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place/Highway 97, or what is commonly referred to as Deschutes Junction. Specifically, the .,l - .+---rphpngive nhr, -qmonrJmenf fn ro_rfocir�lnpfo fho cllhianf nrnnorfv frnm proposal I/IItrluu U0 Q lrlll l lfrl rillGl lot vu frlalI GIII�i1Iul lllil It aV IV-NVVI y/IN aV al,V V—J— 1—Wf—LX .. v... Agriculture to Rural Industrial and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial Zone (RI). On September 1, 2020, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer conducted a public hearing to receive testimony. Testimony was provided by the Applicant in support and Central Oregon LandWatch (COLW) in opposition during the public hearing and subsequent open record periods. On October 8, 2020, the Hearings Officer issued a decision recommending approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. On December 2, 2020, the Board of Commissioners conducted a public hearing to receive testimony. The oral record was closed that day and the written record remained open for submission of additional testimony until December 23. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner ►I1TINHOW11 �l 0 I Ji TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner DATE: December 30, 2020 RE: Deliberations: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agricultural/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial. (File Nos. 247-20-000438-PA/439- ZC). On December 30, 2020, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct deliberations for the proposal by Anthony Aceti (Applicant) for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change. I. BACKGROUND On June 30, 2020, an application was filed by the Applicant proposing a plan amendment and zone change for the subject 21.54-acre property at 21235 Tumalo Place, Bend (tax maps and lots 16-12- 26C, 201 / 16-12-27D, 104) located at the intersections of Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place/Highway 97, or what is commonly referred to as Deschutes Junction. Specifically, the proposal includes a comprehensive plan amendment to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial Zone (RI). On September 1, 2020, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer conducted a public hearingto receive testimony. On October 8, 2020, the Hearings Officer issued a decision recommending approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. On December 2, 20201, the Board conducted a public hearing to receive testimony. On that same day the Board closed the oral record and left the written record until December 23, 2020. During the open written record period, Pat Kliewer, representative of the Applicant, submitted an email waiving the opportunity to submit final written arguments. 1 Board Meeting: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?0=2611 The record for the project was presented to the Board at the meeting on November 30, 20202. The additional record submittals received since the November 30 meeting and before the close of the post hearing open record period are attached to this memorandum. II. NEXT STEPS The Board will conduct deliberations and render an oral decision or continue deliberations to a date certain. Attachments 2020-12-17 P Kliewer Email 2020-12-02 Staff Hearing Presentation 2020-12-02 Staff Memo to the Board 2020-12-01 Staff Hearing Map 2020-12-01 C Macbeth (COLW) Letter 2020-12-01 J Whitfield Email 2020-12-01 J Boyd Email 2020-11-30 KToms Email 2020-11-30 J Neil Email 2 Board Meeting: http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citi,zens/Detail Meeting.aspx?ID=2610 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Matt Martin From: Pat Kliewer <pkliewer@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 9:11 AM To: Matt Martin; Tony Aceti Subject: Re: Open Record Next Steps [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Good morning. If you did not receive anything from COLW before 5:00 pm yesterday, we will not have a final argument. We waive the final argument opportunity if COLW did not submit anything. Pat Kliewer, MPA 60465 Sunridge Drive Bend, OR 97702 pkliewer@hotmail.com 541.617.0805 From: Matt Martin <Matt.Martin @deschutes.org> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 3:40 PM To: 'Pat Kliewer' <pkliewer@hotmail.com>; Tony Aceti <tony@minglegame.com> Subject: Open Record Next Steps Hi Pat anH Tnnv- ... . -- . _.., I just wanted to check in to outline the procedures for next couple of weeks. The rebuttal period ends at 5:00pm on Wednesday, December 16. After that, the applicant final argument period ends at 5:00pm on Wednesday, December 23. 1 respectfully ask that if you do have a final argument submittal that you consider submitting as soon as feasible. An earlier submittal will assist staff by providing additional time in an already compressed schedule to prepare the materials for the Board of Commissioners in advance of deliberations on December 30. The applicant can also waive the final argument opportunity. If you do decide to waive opportunity for final agreement please provide it in writing. This will inform staff that the record is complete and I can prepare the materials for the Board of Commissioners. Thanks, Matthew Martin, AICP I Associate Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 330-46201 www.deschutes.org/cd Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. W m E L-5 m N 0 0 O JS� a 9!1 f�i x r� w` y utw t� 4 }ty p �+P 4 3 , � ROOM CL |� tA OEM th A A m I I CL Nam MEW CL MOM Lq tA mom cL A A v vxs 11 11 a o xsHy P t AYr ss 5 9 Y y �3 9a �R @f � S I I 0 `J 0 I CL d n M I MW n N D 11 pq E 0 I OEM � _ �7 �:- \ y 71 »_ p .s p C CD p U Q - CU u X � w d. V) 0 p a� a.� D 0 � uro r v Qa /1CL 0 � W e p �- � m o 'S — M 0 4-1 LaCO c E p E p :� Q) p . .� t/'� C p r p _0 L c -- "'�.' U �ro(U( ° Q) N - .0 Q � co ul CO 0 a J 0 txo o oate-+ 0) E 0 'Ui ` '-- 4-+ 0 (1) � �i■ V E e ro N N r) Q vi /"'% CL Q) 4- J ro O O :3 O 4 O c %MOi Q1 �6 E U v v m C Ln L O � — <C � N � u _Oro ru < (a) ru 0 v 0- C O CO > Ln O •.� N - -- -- -- - L E O Q Q L23 4-j CD O O _ 06 .N r c� � O 0 0 0 E O c O U � � (1) V N� V) v � oo.- � o.0 ra m � N Q Nr) 0 N Q 4 m €! t }Ln U ® C� rt� . D ® Ln co LI) U (Y) €) Q m :3 0 0 u d 0 u o tit - - Ln IA CD - r � a) Q u Q 0 . • J <�Lo LLM Ln � �. m u V u tit >I 4-J 4-1 No Q ■ 0 c =a c LL u t!t F E .sz m u m u w Q) Ln .� Ln W U 0 QJ QJ 0 0 N -a- t U u tI Q) a) Ln --e > s.� N r� � M u C: :3 C: 4-1 U vi uam u 4- CJ 0 Ln o Ln V) � C a� u U . a, �0 Ln 0 0 L N Ln = J O a- O 4-J V c- -0 N O V L O CC1 c- O � v O 4-' a) w ro .-. J > ro 4a — O o. �- O��, V4-j +-J �U - 0 W V) 3 V) V 4-J C- _O O U U v U a �N m � I 0 vi E m E LU , ft MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner DATE: December 2, 2020 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Agricultural/Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial. (File Nos. 247-20-000438-PA/439- ZC). On December 2, 2020, the Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing to consider a proposal by Anthony Aceti (Applicant) for a comprehensive plan amendment and zone change I. OVERVIEW On June 30, 2020, an application was filed by the Applicant proposing a Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the subject 21.54 acre property at 21235 Tumalo Place, Bend (tax maps and lots 16-12- 26C 201 / 16-12-27D 104) located at the intersections of Tumalo Road/Tumalo Place/Highway 97, or what is commonly referred to as Deschutes junction). Specifically, the proposal includes a comprehensive plan amendment to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and a corresponding zone change to change the zoning from Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial Zone (RI). On September 1, 2020, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer conducted a public hearing to receive testimony. On October 8, 2020, the Hearings Officer issued a decision recommending approval of the proposed plan amendment and zone change. Pursuant to Section 22.28.030(C) of the County Land Use Procedures Ordinance, plan amendments and zone changes concerning lands designated for agricultural use shall be heard de novo before the Board without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer. The complete record for the project was presented to the Board at the meeting on November 30, 20201. 1 11/30/2020 Board Meeting: http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Meeting.aspx?0=2610 II. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The Planning Division mailed written notice of public hearing to parties to the record and property owners within 750 feet of the subject property on November 12, 2020. No additional comments have been submitted since issuance of this memo. III. NEXT STEPS The Board will hold the public hearing on December 2. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Board can consider the following options: 1. Continue the hearing to a date certain; 2. Close the hearing and begin deliberation; or 3. Close the hearing and leave the written record open to a date certain. Deliberations will be scheduled at a date to be determined. According to Deschutes County Code 22.20.040(D), the review of the proposed quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change application is not subject to the 150-day review period. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Page 2 of 2 Legend 247-20-000438-PA / 247-20-000439-ZC ® Subject Property County Zoning Applicant: Anthony Aceti EFUAL - Alfalfa Subzone EFUTRB - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone FP - Flood Plain MUA10 - Multiple Use Agricultural OS&C - Open Space & Conservation RI - Rural Industrial RC - Rural Commercial Taxlot Numbers: 16-12-26-CO-00201, 16-12-27-DO-00104 Address: 21235 Tumalo Place, Bend V V 12/01/2020 4 C E, N T P, AL &,firA,,E G 0 G LAN DWATCH c r r r 0WEP December 2, 2020 DEC 01 2020 Board of Commissioners By: .................... Deschutes County 1300 NW Wall St. Bend, OR 97703 . 1 =c, h' www.colw.org Re: Hearings Officer's decision in File No. 247-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Dear Commissioners: On behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above decision. LandWatch respectfully urges the Board of Commissioners to reverse the Hearings Officer's decision and deny this application to re -designate the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Industrial and make a corresponding zone change from Exclusive Fann Use Tumalo/Bend subzone (EFU-TRB) to Rural Industrial (RI) Zone. General Comments The Hearings Officer's decision is in error in finding an exception to Goal 14 is not required. The proposed amendments would incorrectly allow urban uses on rural land. Before the amendments may be approved, the County must justify an exception to Goal 14, which does not allow urban uses on rural land. The decision is further in error in stating this matter is bound by the law of the case. This is an application for the property to be zoned Rural Industrial. LUBA reversed Deschutes County's approval of an earlier application for rezoning when LUBA agreed with LandWatch that no exception to Goal 14 had been justified. LUBA No. 2017-009. This is a new application, not a continuation of the prior application. The law of the case doctrine does not apply. LUBA No. 2018- 126 affirmed a legislative decision to which the law of the case doctrine also does not apply. Hatley v. Umatilla County, 256 Or. App. 91, 112, 301 P.3d 920 (2013). The subject property is undeveloped rural land and is surrounded by lands zoned for exclusive farm use or mixed agricultural use. The closest surrounding land uses are for farmland and Ar,n ,T' ukii� I �.�. u r Pa a religious day school that is located within a few hundred yards of the subject property. Industrial use is incompatible with the surrounding uses. The acknowledged comprehensive plan does not provide for industrial uses on undeveloped rural land. Once an objector charges that a decision affecting rural land is prohibited by Goal 14, a local government may do three things: 1) make a record showing the decision does not violate Goal 14 because it does not in fact convert rural land to urban uses; 2) comply with Goal 14 by obtaining acknowledgement of an urban growth boundary; or 3) justify an exception to Goal 14. The Hearings Officer's decision did not show the proposed amendments do not convert rural land to urban uses. Given an urban growth boundary cannot be acknowledged here, the only option is to take an exception to Goal 14. Additionally, exceptions to Goals 6 and 11 are required. Goal 6 is to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. The goal prohibits approval of future development whose waste and process discharges threaten to violate environmental quality standards. Goal 11 is to plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services, to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The goal provides that rural development shall be guided and supported by the types of public facilities appropriate for, but limited to, the needs of the rural area to be served. Our specific comments are below. Specific Comments 1. The HO erred in applying LUBA's Shaffer factors In the case of Shaffer v Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989), LUBA identified 4 factors to be addressed in determining whether a particular industrial use on rural land is urban or rural. The Shaffer factors are: (1) employs a small number of workers; (2) is significantly dependent on a site -specific resource and there is a practical necessity to site the use near the resource; (3) is a type of use typically located in rural areas; and (4) does not require public facilities or services. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014), The HO decision misapplied the Shaffer factors by applying them without substantial evidence for the four factors. Shaffer v Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989). The Shaffer analysis, according to LUBA, is applicable to a particular industrial use. Id.; Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014). It is not applicable to a multi -use zone. Goal 14 applies now, at the time of this decision. Because the evidence available at this time does not demonstrate the RI Zone is not urban, an exception to Goal 14 is required. Here, in general, each Shaffer factor tends to indicate the RI Zone is not rural. For the first Shaffer factor, the number of workers cannot be determined but could number in the hundreds per factory; for the second factor, there is no site -specific resource on this irrigated EFU farm field; for the third factor, the industrial uses are not typical of rural areas; for the fourth factor, the industrial uses require public water and public water treatment facilities. None of the factors demonstrates industrial uses will not be urban on the property. The HO incorrectly applied the Shaffer factors before there is sufficient evidence to support conclusions about the factors. The first factor can only be applied to a use that has a particular number of workers. It is not possible to conclude a number of workers is "small," unless the number of workers is specified, and the number of workers cannot be specified unless a use with a size and a number of employees has been applied for. The record contains no evidence of any number of workers for any use, and no indication of what use is proposed in what fashion on the property. Without knowing with specificity and certainty what the number of workers is, the County cannot apply the first Shaffer factor to determine the number of workers is "small." DCC 18.100 includes plastics manufacturing, glass manufacturing, metal manufacturing, and pulp and paper manufacturing. There is no way to determine if a factory would employ 100 workers, 200 workers, 300 workers, or more. Given that the surrounding lands are zoned EFU and MUA-10, there are few or no workers on the surrounding lands, as is usual on rural lands. A "small" number of workers in this rural area would be 1-3 per property, not the hundreds that could be found in any of the manufacturing uses proposed. The decision also incorrectly found there is substantial evidence to support a finding for the fourth factor. Zones do not require public facilities or services. 4 2. Applicant's evidence is not specific or certain enough to support specifre factual findings The County has an obligation to determine whether the requested amendments comply with the goals, including Goal 14.ORS 197.175(2). An application to permit industrial uses on rural land must be specific enough to enable the County to apply the Shaffer analysis and Goal 14 in a meaningful way. Gould v. Deschutes County, 216 Or.App. 150, 163, 171 P.3d 1017 (2007). In Shaffer v Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989), LUBA remanded Jackson County's decision amending the Jackson County plan and map from EFU to industrial, because the decision lacked specific factual findings. "What is missing from the county's decision is specific factual findings describing (1) relevant characteristics of the proposed use (such as number of employees, noise, odor, dust and other pollutants emitted, associated traffic); (2) the ultimate use of the products of the proposed use (e.g., whether for urban or rural uses, and in what proportions); (3) the characteristics of urban development in nearby UGBs; (4) where other similar uses in the county are located; and (5) whether there is a practical necessity to locate the proposed use in the rural area, close to a site specific resource." Id. Here, as in Shaffer, the application is neither specific nor certain enough to support findings .,. - - - - -� -' �zr:a_..-.. ___:r _ r .. t �..:a w aL a :.,._,, nr� - la the R11 GUnC uses A1C not urban. VV ltlluut JpGtilliv ld"Ual eviuence the 1-hearings Officer could not conclude the decision does not allow urban uses on rural land based on the Shaffer factors. Id.; Goal 2; OAR 660-015-0000(2); Columbia Pacific Building Trades Council v. City ofPortland, 18 289 Or App 739, 755, 412 P3d 258 (2018). The HO decision erred in considering a "worst case" scenario for the Shaffer analysis. HO, 47. That approach is invalid here. Because no uses are specified, it is unknown which combination of industrial uses in the RI Zone is the "worst case" with respect to the Shaffer factors. There are thousands of combinations of the approximately twenty industrial uses in DCC 18.100.1 A statistically valid sample normally requires sampling at least 10% of possible outcomes, i.e. 1 See the combination formula in Exhibit 1. To estimate the number of combinations based on groups of nine or ten out of the approximately 20 RI uses (ignoring groups of four, five, six, etc.) the equation is n!/ (r!(n-r)!). There are 20!/(9!(l l!)) = 167,960 groups of 9, and 20!/(10!(10!)) = 184,756 groups of 10. yielding 167,960 + 184,756 = 352,716 possible combinations of RI zone uses. thousands of possible RI groups. One "worst case" group, even if the worst case could be known, is a statistically invalid sample. The record lacks data to support findings on the Shaffer factors for even a single industrial use, let alone the thousands of possible combinations of industrial uses in the RI Zone. Because there are inadequate data to support a Shaffer analysis and no Goal 14 exception was justified, the HO should have denied the proposed amendments. 3. The HO improperly deferred showing of compliance with Goal 14 via the Shaffer factors The HO admitted there is not substantial evidence to make a finding of compliance with two of the Shaffer factors. Nevertheless she improperly excused the noncompliance by deferring a showing of compliance to when a particular use is applied for. The decision found there is substantial evidence to conclude the fourth Shaffer factor indicates the uses are not urban, because the RI Zone "prohibits uses that require public facilities and services typical of urban uses." HO, 47. This defers a showing of compliance with Goal 14 to a later date, when, presumably, public facilities and services will be denied to uses determined to be urban. But whether the RI zone is urban, necessitating an exception to Goal 14, is the question to be answered based on applying the Shaffer factors to the facts in the present. The zone may require that "if the uses are urban, public facilities are not allowed," but that says nothing about whether they are urban, which is the question the Shaffer factors must answer, at this time, when compliance with Goal 14 is required. Similarly, the decision erred in finding there is substantial evidence to conclude the first factor indicates the uses are not urban because the applicant's representative argued the RI Zone limits the types of uses to those that "typically employ a small number of workers." HO, 47, The RI Zone contains no such provision. This impermissibly defers a showing of compliance with Goal 14 to a later date when a given use with a given number of workers is proposed. The HO failed to show the decision does not convert rural land to urban uses using the Shaffer factors. Demonstration of compliance with Goal 14 via the Shaffer factors cannot be deferred, but must be shown now, when the comprehensive plan is being amended. ORS 197.175. In Shaffer LUBA determined that demonstrating compliance with criteria for applying a zone is not sufficient to ensure compliance with Goal 14. Shaffer at 944. 4. HO decision is inconsistent with Curry County As the Oregon Supreme Court explained in 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Land Conservation and Development Com'n 301 Or 447, 501-502, 724 P.2d 268 (1986), en bane (Curry County), once an objector charges that a decision affecting rural land outside an urban growth boundary is prohibited by Goal 14, a local government has three choices: "In practice, once an objector has charged that a decision affecting "rural land" outside an urban growth boundary is prohibited by Goal 14, a local government may do any one of three things: (1) make a record upon which the Land Conservation and Development Commission enters a finding that the decision does not offend the goal because it does not in fact convert "rural land" to "urban uses"; (2) comply with Goal 14 by obtaining acknowledgment of an urban growth boundary, which is based upon considering of the factors that are specified in the goal; or (3) justify an exception to the goal." Of the three choices outlined by the Supreme Court in Curry County, the HO chose the first approach, to demonstrate the amendments would "not in fact convert rural land to urban uses." The HO decision did not succeed in the first approach of demonstrating the amendments do not convert rural land to urban uses. The second approach, placing the land inside a UGB, is not possible. The ii� 1 1.1 Y._ _ l._]_]�.1__,. _._1__al__a.Y__._] .__Y_ _.. _.. taking •• Goal HO should nave concluded uiat only the third approach remains open, taxing an exception to Goal 14. The applicant has the burden to show the uses allowed by the RI Zone are not urban uses, but did not make that showing. The decision was unable to show the RIA will not permit urban uses on rural land, and impermissibly deferred findings of compliance with Goal 14 to the future. HO, 48. Because the RI zone has not been shown to be rural by applying the Shaffer factors, and because incorporation of the property into a UGB is not possible, the only remaining approach for approving the proposed amendments is an exception to Goal 14. Curry County, 301 Or at 501-502. The additional reasons put forth in the HO decision do not change this result. HO, 48. We address each of the reasons below. The DCCP limits application of the RI Zone to existing industrial exception areas. DCCP, 1.3. LandWatch is not making an impermissible attack on the RI Zone in stating that it is comprised of urban uses. It is not unlawful to include urban uses in DCC 18.1, 00 while its application is restricted by the acknowledged DCCP to industrial exception areas. It is irrelevant that DCCP policies 3.4.9 and 3.4.23 provide that industrial uses must be less intense than those allowed in unincorporated communities. DCCP policies 3.4.9 and 3.4.23 are aspirational, provide no method to ensure their application, and manifestly were not successful in preventing DCC 18.100 from being comprised of urban uses. The intensity of uses in unincorporated communities is related to the intensity of uses inside urban growth boundaries, but urban uses are not permitted on rural lands without an exception to Goal 14. Curry County, 301 Or at 477. The HO's implicit conclusion that urban uses are permitted on rural land without an exception to Goal 14 if they are small enough or set far enough back from the road is contrary to law. Urban uses are not permitted on rural lands without an exception to Goal 14. Id. As the Court of Appeals explained in Hammack v. Washington County, 89 Or.App. 40, 43- 44, 747 P.2d 373 (1987): "Reason (a) is derived fiom case and other authority which treat minimum parcel size as a consideration in determining whether urban or rural density will be present in an area. That is a relevant consideration when, for example, an area is zoned to permit one dwelling on a 40- acre parcel. It is specious, however, to contend, as petitioner does, that the same principle comes into operation when all or a substantial part of a large parcel is put to a highly intense use. Under the county's and petitioner's reasoning, a shopping mail would be a rural use ifthe minimum lot size for it were 100 acres, notwithstanding the fact that the entire 100 acres was filled by stores and parking and traffic areas." The HO's conclusions regarding on -site sewage disposal systems and on -site wells or public water systems are irrelevant to whether the industrial uses in DCC 18.100 are urban or rural. Requirements for such systems could equally be applied to urban or rural uses. The ad hoc reasons put forward by the HO in the Shaffer analysis provide irrelevant, insufficient or no evidence the RI Zone industrial uses are not urban. HO, 48. The HO should have concluded that only the third approach remains open, taking an exception to Goal 14. 5. Urban uses are not permitted on rural land without an exception to Goal 14 Finding the Shaffer factors did not demonstrate the RI Zone is rural, the HO varied from the three options in Curry County to offer ad hoc. "reasons" that urban uses can be limited, and so permitted on rural land without an exception to Goal 14. HO, 48. This is contrary to the state policy embodied in Goal 14. The policy embodied in the goal is that a local government should not convert rural land to urban uses prior to inclusion within an acknowledged UGB. Perkins v. City of' Rajneeshpurani, 300 Or. 1, 12, 706 P.2d 949 (1985). Urban uses are not permitted on rural land without an exception to Goal 14. Id. If a county wishes to allow urban uses on rural land, it must justify a built, committed, or reasons exception to Goal 14. The reasons offered by the HO did not meet the requirements for a reasons exception under Goal 2. The HO appears to be relying on "further steps" outlined by LUBA in. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014): "[I]f each of [the Shaffer] factors is answered in the affirmative, then it is relatively straightforward to conclude, without more, that the proposed industrial use is rural in nature. However, if at least one factor is answered in the negative, then further analysis or steps are necessary. In that circumstance, the county will either have to (1) limit allowed uses to effectively prevent urban use of rural land, (2) take an exception to Goal 14, or (3) adequately explain why the proposed use, notwithstanding the presence of one or more factors pointing toward an urban nature, should be viewed as a rural use." See HO, 48; ). Emphasis added. The first and third "further steps" the HO relied on (HO, 48) cannot be applied in practice. The first further step is to "limit allowed uses to effectively prevent urban use of rural land." But whether the uses in the RI zone are "urban uses" or not is the question to be answered here. The third further step, "adequately explain why the proposed use, notwithstanding the presence of one or more factors pointing toward an urban nature, should be viewed as a rural use," equally cannot be applied in practice. The term "urban nature" is as undefined as "urban use." It is irrelevant whether a use is "viewed as a rural use." Urban uses on rural land require an exception to Goal 14. Curry County, 301 Or at 477. There are no further steps beyond applying the Shaffer factors and being unable to demonstrate the decision does not permit urban uses on rural land. There are only three options outlined by the Supreme Court in Curry County. In accordance with Curry County and Shaffer, once the HO found the record does not support a finding that the proposed amendments do not convert rural land to urban uses based on the Shaffer factors, and given that the land cannot be brought into a UGB, the only option was to justify an exception to Goal .14. Curry County, 301 Or at 477. 6. Reasons exception required Offering reasons why the industrial uses should be "viewed as a rural," is not applying Shaffer factors identified in case law to determine whether the industrial uses are urban or rural, rather the HO decision was offering reasons ad hoc. HO, 48. Reasons for why Goal 14 should not be applied are appropriate to a reasons exception. OAR 660-004-0022. The Shaffer analysis applies factors identified in case law on a case -by -case basis to determine if uses are urban or rural. Columbia Riverkeeper v. Columbia County, 70 Or LUBA 171 (2014). Once having determined there was insufficient evidence to support a determination that the RI Zone is not urban using the Shaffer factors, the next step was not to offer reasons ad hoc to justify why the state policy embodied in Goal 14 should not apply. Rather, the process of establishing "why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply" is governed by reasons exceptions, either under OAR 660-014-0040 or OAR 660-004-0022(1). The latter provides generic standards for a reasons exception not regulated elsewhere in the rules. VinCEP v. Yamhill County, 215 Or.App. 414, 420, 171 P.3d 368 (2007). The County may not throw out free-floating reasons for why an urban use should be permitted on rural land untethered to Goal 14, ORS 197.732, Goal 2, or the state's land use policies. Sac. Sec. Bd. v. Nierotko, 327 US 358, 369, 66 S Ct 637 (1946). The HO's reasons are entirely divorced from any tie to Goal 2 or any other requirement of law, yet the HO relied on those reasons to ignore the Goals applicable to the rest of the state. 7. Industrial development is an urban use Goal 14, OAR 660-015-0000(14), equates industrial development with urban use: "Notwithstanding other provisions of this goal restricting urban uses on rural land, a county may authorize industrial development... on certain lands outside urban growth boundaries..." In law, a notwithstanding clause states special circumstances under which the one who determines the law authorizes its violation. O'Mara v Douglas County, 318 Or 72, 76, 862 P.2d 499 (1993); Intel Corp. v. Batchler (In re Batchler), 267 Or. App. 782, 787 n.4, 341 P.3d 837 (2014) ("The function of a'notwitlistanding clause' is to make the statute an exception to the provision of law to which the clause refers.") In the notwithstanding clause of Goal 14, LCDC states special circumstances wider which 10 LCDC authorizes industrial uses on rural land without an exception to Goal 14, even though urban uses on rural land require an exception to Goal 14. Statutory and rule provisions are to be construed in a manner that will give effect to all. Force vDept. ofRev., 350 Or 179,190, 252 P.3d 306 (2011); ORS 174.010 ("[W]here there are several provisions or particulars such construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all."); Wyers v Am. Med. Response Northwest, Inc., 360 Or 211, 221, 377 P.3d 570 (2016). The word "notwithstanding" in Goal 14 conveys an equivalence between "urban uses on rural land," and "industrial development ... on certain lands outside urban growth boundaries." The sentence structure can only mean that industrial development is an urban use. If the sentence does not mean industrial development is an urban use, then the first phrase is meaningless. If the phrase were meaningless, LCDC would not have written it. LUBA issued Shaffer in 1989. 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989). LUBA explained in Shaffer that LCDC, whose role it is to interpret the term "urban use," had not determined at that time whether industrial uses were urban uses. For that reason, LUBA held that determinations of whether an industrial use is urban or rural would proceed on a case by case basis: "In Curry County at 502, the Oregon Supreme Court held that any decision which Y .Y 1 I Y 1 allows 'urban use' of rural land must comply with Goal 14 ny including such land within an urban growth boundary (UGB) or must take an exception to Goal 14, The court also stated that it considered the interpretation of the term 'urban use' to be primarily the job of LCDC..... However, at this time [1989], LCDC has not adopted goal amendments or administrative rules defining the terms 'urban use' and 'rural use' or providing standards for determining whether a specific use is urban or rural. Therefore, our review of local government determinations on whether a use is urban or rural proceeds on a case by case basis, under relevant opinions by this Board and by the appellate courts." Sixteen years after Shaffer, in 2005 LCDC adopted the above "notwithstanding" language in Goal 14, equating industrial development and urban use. Unlike in 1989 when Shaffer was adopted, there is no longer a need to consider industrial uses on rural lands on a case -by -case basis. Since 2005, Goal 14 states that industrial development is a type of urban use on rural land. The proposed amendments would place industrial development on rural land. Therefore an exception to Goal 14 is required. 11 S. Industrial and commercial uses are urban The Supreme Court's decision in Curly County concerned whether types of uses constitute urban uses on rural land, including residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The Supreme Court's analysis in Curry County focused largely on the difficulty of determining whether residential uses are urban or rural. For example, the Supreme Court wrote at 504-505: "[The] criteria [in OAR 660-14- 030(3)] themselves do not say at what'size,' `extent,' 'number,' `density' or'ownership pattern' the line between urban and non -urban is to be found. LCDC and LUBA decisions indicate that parcel sizes at either extreme are clearly urban or non -urban, but establish no bright line in the range presented by this county's exceptions areas - one -acre to five -acre minimums. However, absent an authoritative interpretation from LCDC so stating, it is not for us to generalize, as Metro suggests, that any development which requires a sewer system, 'usually ... development of more than one unit per acre' is 'urban,' or as 1000 Friends urges, that any zoning at densities above one dwelling per three acres is 'urban."' In Shaffer v Jackson County, 17 Or LUBA 922 (1989), LUBA interpreted the Supreme Court's decision in Curry County to mean there is nothing "inherently rural or urban" about "residential, commercial, industrial, or other types of uses:" "Under the Supreme Court's decision in Curry County, 301 Or at 507, it may well be there is nothing inherently rural or urban about residential, commercial, industrial or other types of uses." With this statement LUBA grouped the three types, residential, urban, and commercial together, as though the "urban-ness" of each were equally up in the air. Id. LandWatch disagrees with this grouping. The quandary the Supreme Court identified applies to residential uses, not to commercial or industrial uses. Residential use is characteristic of both urban and rural areas. There is no "bright line" where urban residential use becomes rural residential use: it is largely a question of density. But industrial and commercial uses are not like that. Industrial uses and commercial uses are not characteristic of 12 both urban and rural lands. It does not make sense to speak of "industrial density." Rather, industrial uses and commercial uses are characteristic of urban areas, and are not characteristic of rural areas. While LUBA correctly observed in Shaffer there is nothing "inherently urban" about types of land uses, LUBA drew an incorrect conclusion from this. There is nothing inherently urban about anything, because "urban" is a locational adjective, like "high" or "low." It does not inform about what something is, but about where it is characteristically found. Curry County and Shaffer predate the Supreme Courts decisions in PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606, 612, 859 P2d 1143 (1993) and State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171, 206 P3d 1042, 1050 (2009). Pursuant to those decisions, statutory interpretation to determine legislative intent begins with the text and context of a statute. State v. Gaines, 346 Or at 171 ("There is no more persuasive evidence of the intent of the legislature than 'the words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to its wishes."). Interpretation of regulations like OAR 660-015- 0000(14) is governed by the same structure as interpretation of statutes. PGE v. Bureau of'Labor and Industries, 317 Or at 612 ("The same structure [of statutory interpretation] outlined above applies, not only to statutes enacted by the legislature, but also but also to ... the interpretation of regulations."). Because "urban" is a tern of ordinary usage, it is appropriate to consult dictionary definitions to assist in determining intent. Holmberg v. Deschutes County, 77 Or LUBA 109, 113-14, (2018), citing State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 175, 206 P3d 1042 (2009). Webster's Third New International Dictionary definition of "urban" is set out in part below: "urban, adjective 1 a : of, relating to, characteristic of, or taking place in a city <urban affairs><urban manners><urban life>" 2 To determine if a type of use is "urban" under the PGE structure, one must consider whether the type of use is "characteristic of a city." Applying this definition to "residential" use, one cannot say that residential use is characteristic of a city. Residential use is characteristic, at different 2 "Urban." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. 2020. Accessed 16 Nov. 2020. 13 densities, of both cities and rural areas. The inability to draw a bright line between "urban" and "rural" residential use identified in Curry County remains the same. By contrast, industrial and commercial uses are characteristic of a city. Pursuant to Goal 9, each urban growth boundary in the state must include land for industrial and commercial uses. Industrial and commercial uses meet the definition of "urban." They are characteristic of cities. Though industrial or commercial uses may under exceptional circumstances be found on rural lands in Oregon, they are not characteristic of them. For that reason, as types of uses, industrial uses are "urban," commercial uses are "urban," and residential uses depend on the circumstances, such as the criteria in OAR 660-14- 030(3), 'size,' `extent,' 'number,' `density' or'ownership pattern.' Here, a plan amendment is proposed to change the designation of undeveloped rural land from EFU to industrial. This is a change in use from rural to urban. Therefore an exception to Goal 14 is required. 9. Rural Industrial ("RI") designation is limited to areas of existing industrial development The RI designation applies to areas of existing industrial development. DCCP, 1.3. Specific properties may be designated RI if the designation satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan change. DCCP, 3.4: "[A]ny other specific property that satisfies the requirements for a comprehensive plan designation change set forth by State Statute, Oregon Administrative Rules, this Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County Development Code. The Rural Industrial plan designation and zoning brings these areas and specific properties into compliance with state rules by adopting zoning to ensure that they remain rural and that the uses allowed are less intensive than those allowed in unincorporated communities" This area does not satisfy the requirements for a comprehensive plan change to RI in the DCCP. This is not an existing area of industrial development, as shown in the below photographs.3 The area is zoned EFU, so an RI designation is not needed to ensure the area remains rural. DCCP, 3.4. The area is in compliance with state rules, so an RI designation is not needed to bring the area into compliance with state rules. Id. RI is an area -specific designation that can only be applied to areas of existing industrial development. 3 Photographs Google maps October 28, 2020. 14 Subject Property 24 7-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Southern farm field Subject Property 24 7-20-000438-PA/439-ZC Northern farm field 15 a. RI is an area -specific designation The DCCP has two types of map designations: area specific, and county -wide. Area specific designations apply to areas of existing development. DCCP, 1.3: "Table 1.3.3 lists existing Comprehensive Plan designations and related Zoning districts. Some Plan designations apply County -wide and some only apply to designated areas of existing development." Table 1.3.3 - Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Designations Comprehensive Plan DesignationI Associoted Deschutes County Zoning Code - -- —_ _- County -wide designotions Agriculture ----- Title 18 - All EFU subzones — — --- -- — --- — ..._......_..----._._._.. ------- ---- --- Airport Development Title 18 - AD. AS Destination Resort Combining Zone Title 18 - DR Forest Title 18 - F-1. F-2 Open Space and Conservation Title Rural Residential Exception Area Title 18 - RR-10 and MUA.10 Surface Mining Title 18 - SM Area specific designations Title 18 -All Black Butte Ranch and Inn of the 7d, Resort Community Saurcr County Gcogriphkai tnlormation System Mountain/Widgi Creek subzones —� Rural Community Title 18 -- AIII Tumalo and Terrebonne subzones Rural Service Center Title 18 -All RSC zones Urban Unincor orated Communi ty � ^� Title i unriv _ er subzones v� Rural Comntercral � _.___,.—� ?isle 18 • Runai Commercial Rural Industrial Title 1$ •Rural Industrial -'Bend Urban Growth Are a _Tide 19 - UAR-10, SM,SR 2 Yz, PF, FP — —� Redmond Urban Growth Area — Title 20 - Uk-10 Tole 21 UAti 10. OA VPRedmond Sisters Urban Growth Area Urban Reserve Area � Tole 18 - RURA Both "Resort Community" and "Rural Industrial" are area specific designations. DCCP, Table 1.3.3, The RI area specific designation cannot be applied outside areas of existing industrial development any more than the Resort Community area specific designation can be applied outside the boundaries of Black Butte Ranch, Widgi Creek, and Inn of the 7th Mountain. The RI designation and corresponding zone can only be applied to areas of existing development. DCCP, 1.3. This is not an area of existing development. Therefore it is not eligible for designation as RI. b. RI is defined by the acknowledged comprehensive plan The term "agricultural land" to which the Deschutes County -wide designation for "Agriculture" applies is defined by state law. By contrast, "RI" is a local designation invented by Deschutes County. There is nowhere to look for the definition of lands to which the DCCP "RI" 16 designation applies except the DCCP itself, which limits the RI designation to areas of existing development. The proposed amendments here do not satisfy the requirements for a plan designation change to RI in the acknowledged DCCP. 10. Proposed amendments require exceptions to Goals 6 and 11 The proposed amendments cannot be approved without exceptions to Goal 6 and Goal 11. Multiple uses in the RI Zone consume millions of gallons of water per day. According to the attached survey of water use in the Willamette Valley, the average industrial water use for pulp and paper manufacturing in Eugene -Springfield is 7.8 million gallons per day, and in Albany -Corvallis is 15.28 million gallons per day. Willamette Basin Task Force, Pacific Northwest River Basins Commission, 1969, "Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study," 101 pp. Exh. 3, Table II-2. The average industrial water use for lumber and wood products is 8.69 million gallons per day in Eugene -Springfield, and 2.56 millions gallons per day in Albany -Corvallis. Id. In the Portland area, industrial production of food products manufacturing consumed an average of 2.39 million gallons per day. Id. The decision erred in not addressing the groundwater supply and contaminated wastewater disposal demands associated with the proposed industrial uses, alone or in combination. There is no evidence the subject property has or could afford to purchase water rights to supply such demands via groundwater wells, or that access to these quantities via groundwater is physically possible in the Upper Deschutes Basin. There is no basis for concluding approval would not threaten the availability of groundwater in the area. Goal 6 provides: "All waste and process discharges from future development, when combined with such discharges from existing developments shall not threaten to violate, or violate applicable state or federal environmental quality statutes, iules and standards." To comply with Goal 6, the HO was required to base her decision on evidence specific and certain enough to establish that rezoning this property would not threaten to violate applicable state or federal environmental quality standards. Gould v. Deschutes County, 216 Or App 150, 161, 171 P.3d 1017 (2007) (citing Meyer v.City ofPortland, 67 Or App 274, 678 P2d 741, rev. den., 297 Or. 82, 679 P.2d 1367 (1984)). If the nature of the development is uncertain because its composition or design is subject to future study and determination, and that uncertainty precludes a necessary 17 conclusion of consistency with Goal 6, then the application to rezone the property to DCC 18.100 must be denied, because only such evidence can demonstrate compliance with Goal 6. Id. a. Need for discharge permits proves industrial uses threaten environmental quality standards The HO decision erroneously concluded the amendments comply with Goal 6 because DCC 18.100.030(J) prohibits approval of uses requiring contaminant discharge permits before review by state or federal agencies. HO, 75. This is incorrect. Goal 6 does not say anything about permits. A permit for the discharge of contaminants would not be needed unless development of rural lands with industrial uses threatened to violate state or federal environmental quality statutes, rules and standards. Compliance with Goal 6 must be shown now and cannot be deferred. There are no permits in the record the HO could review to find compliance with Goal 6. The evidence in the record does not show industrial discharges will not (1) exceed the carrying capacity of groundwater or surface water considering long range needs; (2) degrade groundwater, surface water, or other natural resources; or (3) threaten the availability of such resources. Goal 6, OAR 660- 015-0000(6). Therefore an exception to Goal 6 must be justified or the proposal must be denied. b. Industrial uses on rural lands discharge into environment threatening to violate environmental quality standards. In a study conducted in coordination with Deschutes County, the U.S. Geological Survey determined groundwater and surface water are hydrologically linked in the Deschutes Basin.4 There is no evidence in the record concerning the carrying capacity of the underlying groundwater, the distance to neighboring wells, the distance to the nearest surface water, the concentration of contaminants in wastewater, or any other data required to evaluate the risks potentially posed by discharge of industrial contaminants into the environment. Until such data are in the record, there is no basis on which the HO could conclude that discharge of toxic and carcinogenic wastewater from the RI Zone does not threaten to violate environmental quality standards for human drinking water and aquatic species via contamination of groundwater and surface water. 4 Gannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Jr., Morgan, D.S., and Collins, C.A., 2001, Ground -water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 00-4162, 78 pp. Abstract Exh. 2. 18 Environmental contaminants in the waste and process discharges of RI Zone industrial uses are listed below and in the attached Exhibits 3-7. There is no public wastewater treatment plant on the subject property, and under Goal 11 there can be no such public wastewater treatment plant between the industrial use discharges and the environment. The "on -site sewage disposal systems" referenced in DCC 18.100.030 do not treat toxic or carcinogenic compounds in industrial waste and process discharges, and do nothing to protect either the public or aquatic organisms from violation of applicable environmental quality standards. DCC 18. 100. 10(J) permits "lumber manufacturing and wood processing except pulp and paper manufacturing" as an outright use. According to the U.S. Environmental. Protection Agency (EPA), lumber processing emits toxic and carcinogenic compounds including copper, chromium, and arsenic. Exh. 4, 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Part 429, Timber Products Processing Point Source Category. EPA sets the maximum effluent concentrations for lumber manufacturing processes at 5 mg/1 of copper, 4 mg/1 of chromium, and 4 mg/1 of arsenic. Exh. 4, Subpart G. Because DCC 19. 100. 10(J) does not specify what lumber manufacturing and wood processing industrial uses are permitted, it is not possible to know what additional environmental quality limits on copper, chromium, arsenic, pH, dissolved solids, or other toxic and carcinogenic compounds from lumber manufacturing are applicable, or what quantities of these toxic and carcinogenic compounds might be discharged from RI Zone industrial uses, alone or in combination. DCC 18.100.020(H) permits wood pulp and paper manufacturing, which emits numerous toxic chlorinated compounds including dioxin. Exh. 5. EHSO.com, 2020, "Typical Contaminants at Industrial Properties." The EPA drinking water standard for dioxin is 0.00000003 mg/L. Exh. 6. EPA.com, Ground Water and Drinking Water, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, accessed October 28, 2020. Wood pulp and paper manufacturing as provided for in DCC 18.100.020(H) emits copper, nickel, and chlorophenol. Exh. 7, Singh AK, Chandra R., Pollutants releasedfrom •om the pulp paper industry, Aquat. Toxicol. 2019 Jun; 211:202-216. The EPA aquatic toxicity standard for copper is 12 µg/L. Exh. 8, DEQ, 2013, Effective Aquatic Life Criteria. The EPA standard for nickel in drinking water is 140 µg/L, while the EPA standard for chlorophenol 2 in drinking water is 14 µg/L. Exh. 9, DEQ, 2011, Human Health Water Quality Criteria,for Toxic Pollutants. Glass and plastics manufacture as provided for in DCC 18.100.020(J) discharges toxic and carcinogenic compounds. Glass manufacture produces lead and arsenic. Exh. 5. According to the EPA, lead in water is toxic to humans at a daily maximum dose of 0.0 mg/L, that is, there is no amount of lead in drinking water that is safe, while arsenic is toxic to humans at a daily maximum dose in drinking water of 0.010 mg/L. Exh. 6. Plastics manufacturing is associated with release into the environment of multiple organic and inorganic pollutants, including cadmium and phthalates. Exh 5. The EPA drinking water standard for cadmium is 0.005 mg/l, while the EPA standard for Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate is 0.006 mg/l. Exh 6. The contaminants in the waste and process discharges of the RI Zone industrial uses are subject to the above environmental quality standards, and would be discharged into the environment. Alone or in combination, RI Zone industrial uses threaten to violate applicable environmental quality standards. There is no evidence on which to base a finding of compliance with Goal 6. The HO erred in finding the proposed amendments can be approved without an exception to Goal 6. C. Proposed amendments cannot comply with Goals 6 and 11 The statutory requirement that the proposed amendments must comply with both Goal 6 and Goal 11 precludes approval. Contaminated wastewater from RI Zone industrial uses threatens to violate EPA environmental quality standards. The amendments cannot be approved without a public wastewater treatment plant, which is the norm for industrial uses located inside urban growth boundaries. But there is no public water treatment plant or public water service on the property, and Goal I 1 prohibits the establishment or extension of either. Goal 11, OAR 660-015-0000(11) provides: "Local governments shall not rely upon the presence, establishment, or extension of a water or sewer system to allow residential development of land outside urban growth boundaries or unincorporated community boundaries at a density higher than authorized without service from such a system." Goal 11 applies to residential and nonresidential development. OAR 660- 011-0060; 660-011-0065; Foland v. Jackson. Cty., 239 Or App 60, 243 P3d 830 (2010). The HO decision erred in concluding the requested RI designation and zone change would comply with Goal 11 or Goal 6. This is a rural farm field with no public services. Goal I 1 prohibits 20 the presence, establishment, or extension of the public water or sewer systems that will be required before the property could support RI Zone industrial uses. The RI Zone industrial uses require public water and water treatment facilities to comply with Goal 6, but public services and facilities cannot be established or extended to the subject property without violating Goal 11. Since the application cannot demonstrate compliance with Goals 6 and 11 and did not justify an exception to those goals, it must be denied. For the above reasons, the proposed amendments must be denied, and the HO's approval should be overturned. Thank you for your attention to these views. Sincerely, n y � � arol Macbeth Carol Macbeth Staff Attorney Central Oregon LandWatch How many ways are there to choose a committee of of 15 people? 1 Answer Since order doesn't matter in this problem, we use the combination formula. Explanation: 72 � The combination formula is: where n is the total number of items (15 in this case) and r is the number of items being selected at once (5 in this case) Plugging our numbers into the formula we get: 15! (].b — b) r0 After simplifying (very preferably with a scientific or graphing calculator), we get 3003. So, there are 3003 Ways of picking 5 people from a group of 15. Note that the combination formula can be noted by _ nC,.. It is this way that you can enter it onto a graphing calculator. Practice exercises: 1. An earthquake preparation is being prepared. 18 people apply for 3 available jobs. Find the number of distinctive ways of allotting the positions. Good luck! Anwee link Ground -Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water -Resources Investigations Report 00-4162 Prepared in cooperation with OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT; CITIES OF BEND, REDMOND, AND SISTERS; DESCHUTES AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES; THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON; and U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Cover photographs: Top: Steelhead Falls on the Deschutes River near Crooked River Ranch, Oregon. Middle: Crooked River Canyon at Crooked River Ranch, Oregon. Bottom: North and Middle Sister with a wheel -line irrigation system in the foreground near Sisters, Oregon. (Photographs by Rodney R. Caldwell, U.S. Geological Survey,) U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey GroundHydrology 1 th• Upper Basin,1 1 BY MARSHALL W. GANNETT, KENNETH E. LITE JR., DAVID S. MORGAN, AND CHARLES A. COLLINS Water -Resources Investigations Report 004162 Prepared in cooperation with Oregon Water Resources Department; cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters; Deschutes and Jefferson Counties; The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Portland, Oregon: 2001 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES G. GROAT, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names In this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not Imply endorsement by the U.S Government For additional information contact: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive Portland, OR 97216-3159 E-mail: info-or®usgs.gov Internet: hftpzj/oregon.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Copies of this report can he purchased from: USGS Information Services Box 25286, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0046 Telephone:1-888-ASK-USGS Gannett, M.W., Lite, K.E., Jr., Morgan, D.S., and Collins, C.A., 2001, Ground -water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 00-4162, 78 p. CONTENTS Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................................................I Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................2 Backgroundand Study Objectives....................................................................................................................................2 Purposeand Scope............................................................................................................................................................3 StudyArea.........................................................................................................................................................................3 Approach...........................................................................................................................................................................6 Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................................................................8 GeologicFramework...................................................................................................................................................................8 Geologic Controls on Regional Ground -Water Flow......................................................................................................9 Hydraulic Characteristics of Subsurface Materials.........................................................................................................13 AquiferTests.........................................................................................................................................................14 Well -Yield "Tests................................................................................................................................................... 18 Ground -Water Recharge...... ...................................................................................................................... * ........ * ..................... 19 Infiltrationof Precipitation..............................................................................................................................................19 CanalLeakage.................................................................................................................................................................23 On -Farm Losses..............................................................................................................................................................27 StreamLeakage...............................................................................................................................................................28 DrainageWells................................................................................................................................................................39 InterbasinFlow...............................................................................................................................................................40 Ground -Water Discharge..........................................................................................................................................................41 Ground -Water Discharge to Streams..............................................................................................................................41 Geographic Distribution of Ground -Water Discharge to Streams........................................................................42 Temporal Variations in Ground -Water Discharge to Streams .................. ............................................................ Ground -Water Discharge to Wells................................................................................................................................ 53 IrrigationWells.....................................................................................................................................................53 Public -Supply Wells.............................................................................................................................................53 PrivateDomestic Wells .........................................................................................................................................56 Ground -Water Discharge to Evapotranspiration.............................................................................................................58 Ground -Water Elevations and Flow Directions........................................................................................................................58 HorizontalGround -Water Flow......................................................................................................................................59 VerticalGround -Water Flow..........................................................................................................................................61 Fluctuations in Ground -Water Levels.......................................................................................................................................64 Large -Scale Water -Table Fluctuations...........................................................................................................................64 Local -Scale Water -Table Fluctuations............................................................................................................................65 Summaryand Conclusions........................................................................................................................................................73 References Cited....................................................................................................................................................................75 ... FIGURES 1 _ ( Maps, showing: I. Location of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and major geographic and cultural features ..............................4 2. Location of field -located wells and land ownership in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon..................................5 3. Lines of equal precipitation and graphs of mean monthly precipitation for selected precipitation stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon.......................................................................................................7 4. Generalized geology of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon................................................................................10 5. Distribution of transmissivity estimates derived from specific -capacity tests of field -located domestic wells in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and the locations of aquifer tests conducted for this study... 15 6. Deep Percolation Model grid and estimated recharge from infiltration of precipitation, 1993-95......................20 7. — 8. Graphs showing: 7. Annual mean components of the basinwide water budget, estimated using the Deep Percolation Model forwater years 1962-97........................................................................................................................................22 8, Mean monthly components of the basinwide water budget, estimated using the Deep Percolation Model forwater years 1962-97........................................................................................................................................23 9. Map showing mean annual recharge from canal leakage and on -farm losses in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95 .........................................................................................................................................................24 10. Graph showing annual canal diversions and estimated annual mean canal leakage in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1905-97..............................................................................................................................................28 I L-12. Maps showing: 11. Location of selected stream -gaging stations in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon............................................32 12, Estimated gain and loss flux rates and net gains and losses for selected stream reaches in the upper DeschutesBasin, Oregon......................................................................................................................................37 13. Graph showing relation between monthly mean losses along the Deschutes River between Benham Falls and Lava Island and flow at Benham Falls.................................................................................................................38 14.-15. Hydrographs showing: 14. Mean monthly flows of selected nonregulated streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon ..........................42 15. Monthly mean flow of the Metolius River near Grandview.................................................................................43 16.-17. Graphs showing: 16. Gain in flow of the lower Crooked River, Oregon, due to ground -water discharge between river miles 27 and 7, July 1994................. ................ ............. ................................. ..................................... .................. 45 17. Gain in flow of the Deschutes River, Oregon, due to ground -water discharge between river miles 165 and 120, May 1992 and May 1994................................... ............................................................................. 45 18, Diagrammatic section showing the effect of geology on ground -water discharge along the Deschutes River upstreamofPchon Dam ._....................................................................................................................................._46 19. Graph showing cumulative departure from normal annual mean flows of selected streams in the upper Deschutes Basin, and cumulative departure from normal annual precipitation at Crater Lake, Oregon, 1947-91...,..-..............................................................................................................................................................49 20. 1ly<h'ograph showing October mean bows of the Metolius River, Jefferson Creek, and Whitewater River, upperDeschutes Basin, Oregon, 1994-97..................................................................................................................49 21. Graph showing approximate August mean ground -water discharge to the middle Deschutes River between Bend and Culver, based on the difference between August 1114';tii titCCan1110WG at gages below Bend and nearCulver, 1954-97..................................................................................................................................................51 22. hlydrogiaph showing monthly mean flows of the Crooked River at the gage below Opal Springs, 1962-97.......................................................................................................................................................................51 23.-24. Graphs showing: 23. August mean flows of the Crooked River below Opal Springs, the Metolius River near Grandview, and estimated annual mean leakage from 'irrigation canals, 1905-97..................................................................52 24. Estimated annual ground -water pumpage for irrigation in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1978-97.................................................................................................................................................................54 25. Map showing estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for irrigation in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section... .............................. - ................................................... - ................. 55 26. Graph showing estimated annual ground -water pumpage for public -supply use in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1978-97..............................................................................................................................................56 27. 28. Maps showing: 27, Estimated average annual ground -water pumpage for public -supply use in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1993-95, aggregated by section...... ......................... ....................... _ .......... _ ................ ................... 57 28. Generalized lines of equal hydraulic head and ground -water flow directions in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon........................................................................................................................................................60 29. Diagrammatic section southwest -northeast across the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, showing flow directions and lines of equal hydraulic head...............................................................................................................62 30, Map showing generalized lines of equal hydraulic head for shallow and deep water -bearing zones in the central part of the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon.....................................................................................................63 31.-32. Hydrographs showing: 31. Static water levels in two long-term observation wells in the upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, and cumulative departure from normal annual precipitation at Crater Lake, Oregon, 1962-98.................................64 32, Variations in static water levels of selected wells at various distances from the Cascade Range, 1994-98.................................................................................................................................................................66 33, Maps showing year-to-year changes in March static water levels in observation wells in the upper DeschutesBasin, Oregon, 1994-98............................................................................................................................67 34_40. Hydrographs showing: 34. Static w�atcr-level variations in a shallow well and a deep well in the La Pine subbasin, Oregon .......................6R 35, ielation butwean static +valet -level variations in a deep well near Bend, Oregon, and flow rate ...........69 ina nearby irrigation canal ..................... ...................................... .......... ............. ....................................... 36, Relation between static water -level variations in a well near Redmond, Oregon, and flaw rate ........69 in a nearby irrigation canal.. ...................................................................................... ................................... 37. Relation between static water -level variations in two wells at different distances from the Deschutes River and stage of the river at Benham Falls.................................._........._...........,..................... 70 ..... 38, Relation between monthly mean discharge of Fall River and static water -level variation in a well near Sisters, Oregon, 1962-97.....................................................................................................................70 39. Static water level in an unused irrigation well near Lower Bridge, showing seasonal pumping effect,, from nearby irrigation wells and long-term climatic effects-...... ............... 11, ................................. 72 40. Water levels in two wells near Round Butte Dam, showing the rise in ground -water elevations caused by the filling of Lake Billy Chinook.........................................................................................................72 TABLES 1. Summary of selected aquifer tests in file upper Deschutes Basin. Oregon.................................................................16 2. Statistics for trnnsmissivitics estimated from spuciric-capacity data fir subareas in file upper Deschutes Basin. Oregon..............................................................................................................................................................18 3. We+ether stations used tin estimation of recharge from infiltration of prceipit:+lion with the Deeppercolation Model..............................................................................................................................................2I 4. Canal diversions, irrigated acreage, on-farni deliveries, unit canal leakage,1)), major canal service area. upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon, 1994........................................................................................................................27 5. Ciain?lus, measurements of major streams ()Ill. filed from Oregon Water Resources f)epartrncnt seepage 3t) nos. upper Deschutes Basin. Oregott................................................................................................. 6. Station numbers, names, and mean annual new for selected gaging stations in the upper Deschutes Bas, ..................................................................in...............33 Oregon 7. [.stimatcd stream gains and losses clue to ground -water exchange. upper Deschutes Basin, Of ........................34 8. Statistical summaries 01, selected nonregulated siroanis in tic. upper Deschutes Basin, Orcgon................................48 CONVERSION FACTORS AND VERTICAL DATUM _- Multiply By To obtain inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter (mnt) foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (knr) acre 4,047 square racier (m2) square mile (miz) 2.590 square kilometer (kla acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m) (m3/s) cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic mcicr per second inches per year (in./yr) 0,0254 meters per year (m/yr) feet per day (ff/d) pet minute (gal/min) 3.528 x w 6.308 x 10-5 ,��•���� i•ct-- cubic meters per second (m3(s) gallon square feet per rlay (ft2/d) 1.075 x 10-5 square meters per second (mZ(s) feet per year (fl/yr) 9.659 x 10"9 anmess per second tm!s) aerc.teet per year (acre-ft/yr) 3.909 x 10-5 cubic meteor per second (m3/s) cubic feet per day pet square foot (ft 0tr2) 3.528 x 10"6 cubic meters per secoml per square meter (nrj/s/m2) (m3/s) gallons per day (gal/d) 4.381 x I0_s cubic meters per second c et tar ay.ond (ft/s! 0,3048 meter per second (m/s) Temperature in degrees Celsius (°C) may be converted to degrees Fahrenheit (°F) as follows: °F-1.8 °C� 32 Sea level: In this mputt, "sea krc^.I" refers to the National Geodetic Vctnfcal 1)aunm of 1929 (NCAM of 1929)—a geodetic datum derivexl from a general :ufjuslmcnt of the fntsburder level nets of built file united Starter: ;nnd Ca+nadu. formerly called Sea Level Datum of 1929. LOCATION SYSTEM The system used for locating walls, springs, and surtnee-wftter sites it) this repon is based on the rectangular system for subdivision of public land. The state al' oregon is divided into townships of .10 square stiles numbered according to their location relative to the cast -west Willamette bnsclinc and it north -south Willantctic meridian. The position of a township is given by its north -south "'ti>tumshili' position relative to the baseline and its cast -west "Grange" position relative to the meridian. Each township is divided into 36 onc-square-mile (fi4il-acre) sections numbered from I to 36. For example, a well designated as I NS/I I E-29AAC is located in'Toovnship 18 south, Range i !east, section 29. 'I'hc letters fallowing the section number correspond to the location within the section: the first letter (A) identifies the quarter section (160 acres): the second icttvr (A) identifies the quarter -quarter section (40 acres): and the third letter (C) identifies the quarter -quarter -quarter section (to acres). Therefore, well 29AAC; is located in tire,. SW quarter of the NE quarter of the NE quarter of section 29. When rnore than one designated well occurs in the quarter -quarter -quarter section, a serial number is included. o r, F R. 8 E. R. 10 E. R. 12 E. T.185. T. 20 B. Well- and spring -location system. F'ach well is assigned it unique 8-digit identificatian ntunbcr known as the log -id ntunbcr. The first two digits of the hog -id number indicate the county code from the Fcdcral information Processing Standards (FIP'S) code tilt fix the county in which the well exists 'fhc. IMPS codes for the counties in the siudv itna areas follows: I3, Crook County; 17, Deschutes County: 31, .iefiers<nr County; and 35, Klamath County. The last G digits ofthe number correspond to tine state of Cncgon well -lag number (it unique number assigned by the Urcgmt kvatcr Itesources Department to the rcpatt tiled by the well driller). nn Anot sic cat IDN:tC- L3ase map modified from U.S. Geological Survey 1.500,000 State base map, 1982, with digital data town U S Bureau of the Census, TIGCR/Line (R),1990, and U.S Geological Survey Digital Line Graphs published at ,100,000. Publication projection is Lambert Conformal Conic. Standard parallels 43"00' and 45°30% central meridian-120-30'. Ground -Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin, Oregon By Marshall W. Gannett, Kenneth E. Lite Jr„ David S. Morgan, and Charles A. Collins Abstract The upper Deschutes Basin is among the fastest growing regions in Oregon. The rapid population growth has been accompanied by increased demand for water. Surface streams, however, have been administratively closed to additional appropriation for many years, and surface water is not generally available to support new development, Consequently, ground water is being relied upon to satisfy the growth in water demand. Oregon water law requires that the potential effects of ground -water development on streamflow be evaluated when considering applications for new ground -water rights. Prior to this study, hydrologic understanding has been insufficient to quantitatively evaluate the connec- tion between ground water and streamflow, and the behavior of the regional ground -water flow system in general. This report describes the results of a hydrologic investigation undertaken to provide that understanding. The investigation encompasses about 4.500 square miles of the upper Deschutes River drainage basin. A large proportion of the precipitation in the upper Deschutes Basin falls in the Cascade Range, making it the principal ground -water recharge area for the basin. NI rater-baia,^.ee calculations indicate that the average annual rate of ground -water recharge from precipitation is about 3,500 ft3/s (cubic feet per second). Water - budget calculations indicate that in addition to recharge from precipitation, water enters the ground -water system through interbasin flow. Approximately 800 ft3/8 flows into the Metolius River drainage from the west and about 50 ft3/s flows into the southeastern part of the study area from the. Fort Rock Basin. East of the Cascade Range, there is little or no ground -water recharge from precipitation, but leaking irrigation canals are a significant source of artificial recharge north of Bend. The average annual rate of canal leakage during 1994 was estimated to be about 490 ft3/s. Ground water flows from the Cascade Range through permeable volcanic rocks eastward out into the basin and then generally northward. About one-half the ground water flowing from the Cascade Range discharges to spring -fed streams along the margins of the range, including the tipper Metolius River and its tributaries. The remaining ground water flows through the sub- surface, primarily through rocks of the Deschutes Formation, and eventually discharges to streams near the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers. Substantial ground -water discharge occurs along the lower 2 miles of Squaw Creek, the Deschutes River between Lower Bridge and Pelton Dam, the lower Crooked River between Osborne Canyon and the mouth, and in Lake Billy Chinook (a reservoir that inun- dates the confluence of the Deschutes, Crooked, and Metolius Rivers). The large amount of ground -water discharge in the confluence area is primarily caused by o Inoir. fhrtnre North (downstream) of the confluence area, the upper Deschutes Basin is transected by a broad region of low -permeability rock of the John Day Formation. The Deschutes River flows north across the low -permeability region, but the permeable Deschutes Formation, through which most of the regional ground water flows, ends against this rampart of low -perme- ability rock. The northward -flowing ground water discharges to the streams in this area because the permeable strata through which it flows terminate, forcing the water to discharge to the surface. Virtually all of the regional ground water in the upper Deschutes Basin discharges to surface streams south of the area where the Deschutes River enters this low -permeability terrane, at roughly the location of Pelton Dam. The effects of ground -water withdrawal on streamflow cannot presently be measured because of measurement error and the large amount of natural variability in ground -water discharge. The summer streamflow near Madras, which is made up largely of ground -water discharge, is approximately 4,000 ft3/s. Estimated consumptive ground -water use in the basin is about 30 ft3/8, which is well within the range of the expected streamflow measurement error. The natural variation in ground -water discharge upstream of Madras due to climate cycles is on the order of 1,000 ft3/s. This amount of natural variation masks the effects of present ground -water use. Even though the effects of ground -water use on streamflow cannot be measured, geologic and hydrologic analysis indicate that they are present. Ground -water -level fluctuations in the upper Deschutes Basin are driven primarily by decadal climate cycles. Decadal water -level fluctuations exceeding 20 ft (feet) have been observed in wells at widespread locations near the margin of the Cascade Range. The magnitude of these fluctuations diminishes toward the east, with increasing distance from the Cascade Range. Annual water -level fluctuations of a few feet are common in areas of leaking irrigation canals, with larger fluctuations observed in some wells very close to canals. Annual water -level fluctuations of up to 3 ft due to ground -water pumping were observed locally. No long-term water -level declines attributable to pumping were found in the upper Deschutes Basin. The effects of stresses to the ground -water system are diffused and attenuated with distance. This phenomenon is shown by the regional response to the end of a prolonged drought and the shift to wetter -than -normal conditions starting in 1996. Ground -water levels in the Cascade Range, the locus of ground -water recharge, stopped declining and started rising during the winter of 1996. In contrast, water levels in the Redmond area, 30 miles east of the Cascade Range, did not start to rise again until late 1997 or 1998, The full effects of stresses to the ground- water system, including pumping, may take several years to propagate across the basin. Ground -water discharge fluctuations were analyzed using stream -gage records. Ground- water discharge from springs and seeps estimated from stream -gage records shows climate -driven decadal fluctuations following the same pattern as the water -level fluctuations. Data from 1962 to 1997 show decadal-scale variations of 22 to 74 percent in ground -water discharge along major streams that have more than 100 ft3/s of ground- water inflow. INTRODUCTION Background and Study Objectives The upper Deschutes Basin is presently one of the fastest growing population centers in the State of Oregon. The number of people in Deschutes County, the most populous county in the basin, more than tripled between 1970 and 1998 (State of Oregon, 1999). Approximately 140,000 people lived in the upper Deschutes Basin as of 1998, Growth in the region is expected to continue, and residents and government agencies are concerned about water supplies for the burgeoning population and the consequences of increased development for existing water users. Surface -water resources in the area have been closed by the State of Oregon to additional appropriation for many years. Therefore, virtually all new development in the region must rely on ground water as a source of water. Prior to this study, very little quantitative information was available on the ground -water hydrology of the basin. This lack of information made ground -water resource manage- ment decisions difficult and was generally a cause for concern. To fill this information void, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began a cooperative study in 1993 with the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), the cities of Bend, Redmond, and Sisters, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties, The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The objectives of this study were to provide a quanti- tative assessment of the regional ground -water system and provide the understanding and analytical tools for State and local government agencies, hydrologists, and local residents to make resource management decisions. This report is one in a series that presents the results of the upper Deschutes Basin ground -water study. Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive quantitative description of regional ground -water flow in the upper Deschutes Basin. The report provides an analysis of the data compiled or collected during the study, and presents a description of the regional ground -water hydrology based on that analysis. The results of the study presented herein are based on both preexisting information and new data. Preexisting information included regional -scale maps of geology, topography, soils, vegetation, and pre- cipitation. In addition, streamflow data were available for numerous sites for periods of time since the early 1900s. Data were also available from several weather stations that operate in the study area_ In addition, surface -water diversion records were available for all major irrigation canals. Data described above were augmented by data from numerous reports and studies. Hydrologic data collected for this study included gain/loss measurements for several streams, and geo- logic and hydraulic -head data from about 1,500 wells that were precisely located in the field. Geophysical, lithologic, and hydrographic data were collected from a subset of these wells. Wells are unevenly distributed in the area and occur mostly in areas of privately owned land. There are few well data from the large tracts of nnhlr_c land that cover most of the study area. Therefore, there are large regions of the Cascade Range, Newberry Volcano, and the High Lava Plains where subsurface hydrologic information is sparse. This study is regional in scope. It is intended to provide the most complete assessment possible of the regional ground -water hydrology of the upper Deschutes Basin given the data that were available or that could be collected within the resources of the project. This work is not intended to describe details of ground -water flow at local scales; however, it will provide a sound framework for local -scale investigations. Study Area The upper Deschutes Basin study area encom- passes approximately 4,500 mi'- (square miles) of the Deschutes River drainage basin in central Oregon (fig. 1). The area is drained by the Deschutes River and its major tributaries: the Little Deschutes River, Tumalo Creek, Squaw Creek, and the Metolius River from the west, and the Crooked River from the cast. Land -surface elevation ranges from less than 1,300 ft near Gateway in the northern part of the study area to more than 10,000 ft above sea level in the Cascade Range. The study -area boundaries were chosen to coin- cide as much as possible with natural hydrologic boundaries across which ground -water flow can be reasonably estimated or assumed to be negligible. The study area is bounded on the north by Jefferson Creek, the Metolius River, the Deschutes River, and Trout Creek; on the east by the generalized contact between the Deschutes Formation and the older, much less permeable John Day Formation; on the south by the drainage divides between the Deschutes Basin and the Fort Rock and Klamath Basins; and on the west by the Cascade Range crest, The study area includes the major population centers in the basin, where ground -water development is most intense and resource management questions are most urgent. The major communities include Bend, Redmond, Sisters, Madras, Prineville, and La Pine. Principal industries in the region are agriculture, forest products, tourism, and service industries. Sixty-six percent of the 4,500 mil upper Des- chutes Basin is publicly owned (fig. 2). Approximately 2,230 mil are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, 730 mil arc under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and about 20 miZ are under the stewardship of State or County agencies. The remaining 1,520 miZ are in private ownership. The highest elevations in the upper Deschutes Basin are in the western and southern parts. These regions are covered by coniferous forests, most of which have been managed for timber production. The remaining parts of the basin, which are at lower elevations, are more and and, where not cultivated, are dominated by grassland, sagebrush, and juniper. Most of the non -forest -related agriculture occurs in the central and northern parts of the upper Deschutes Basin. ka- t W Il lAM ETTE BASIN o COMPREHENSIVE STUDY Water and Related Land Resources i 3 F>� .. t 15 Water and Related Land Resources `' -4w 1w APPENDIX N w MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLY WILLAMETTE BASIN TASK FORCE - PACIFIC NORTHWEST RIVER BASINS COMMISSION _ rJ 1969 }1�Ir.:...,4nui,nR linLuiited CREDITS This is one of a series of appendicesto the Klillamettals with e Basin aComprehensive Study main report. Each appendix particu- lar aspect of the study. The main report is a summary of information contained in the appendices plus the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the investigation. This appendix was prepared by the Municipal and Industrial Water supply Committee under the general supervision of the Willamette Basin Task Force. The committee was chaired by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and included representation from the agencies listed below. Oregon State Water Resources Board Oregon State Board of Health Oregon State Department of Commerce Department of the Interior Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Department of Agriculture Ails libit sow rV no :wM MiIM p. Wuwwowwtm .................. wr w�l[Isf1)IRw,: AY/1lARlt �7r Cans F ORGANIZATION PACIFIC NORTHWEST RIVER BASINS UOMMISSION Columbia Basin Inter -Agency Committee until 1967 WILLAMETTE BASIN TASK FORCE State of Oregon - Chairman Commerce Army Labor Agriculture Federal Power Commission Interior Health. Education and Welfare REPORT WRITER TECHNICAL STAFF Army Interior Agriculture Slate APPENDIX COMMITTEES PLAN FORMULATOR A. Study Area G. Land Measures and Watershed Protection B. Hydrology H. Municipal and Industrial Weler Supply C. Economic Base I. Navigation D. Fish and Wildlife J . Power F. Flood Control K. Recreation F. Irrigation L . Water Pollution Control M. Plan Formulation State of Oregon Donal J. Lane, Chairman Director, Oregon State Water Resources Board Department of Army Henry Stewart Chief, Planning Branch U. S. Array Engineers, Portland District Department of Interior John F. Mangan Area Engineer, Lower Columbia Development Office Bureau of Reclamation Department of Agricu'.ture Oke Eckholm Assistant State Conservationist Soil Conservation Service Department of Commerce David J. Bauman Hydrologist, Weather Bureau Forecast}. Center Federal Power Commission Gordon N. Boyer i^ Hydraulic Engineer Federal Power Commission Department of Labor Horace Harding Regional Economist Bureau of Employment Security Department of Health, Francis L. Nelson Education 6 Welfare Public Health Service Water Supply and Sea Resources Program The Willamette Basin Comprehensive Study has been directed and coordinated by the Willamette Basin Task Force, whose membership as of April 1969 is listed above. The Task Force has been assisted by a technical staff, a plan formulator, and a report writer - Executive Secretary. Appendix committees listed on the following page carried out specific technical investigations. APPENDIX COMMITTEES yppeadt.,w Jtgq A - SCUdy Area D - Hydrology C - Ecanovic DAAe D - FSeh E Wildlife C - Pload Ca,trol F ^ Irrigation G - Land Mluutee end War A rehed Prorectlon H - HAS Were, Supply T - Re vlge lion d - Pwer x - Rearaetton pSWRA_„_,CT eltua_: FWPCA, USBFA. USBLN, USBM, USBOR, USBR, whsnw- USCG, Ulm, USFS, USGS, USMPS, VS5CS, OSOC, OSBr, OSDG&M1, USS4WCC, 05U USGS : [a -tea itwn: FWPCA. USDPA, USDR. USCE, USSCS. USMA, OSC, OW" USCE - ChAirmen: FWPOA. USBPA, USOCF, USB4, USBOR, USBR, USBSF'bWL, USUL, USERS. USFS, UK, OSU, UD, PSC-FR&C wpSY4UL - Chat rt±a?erl: tMPCA. USLCF, V'DLM. USBDR, MU, USDA, USFS, USGS, USSCS, OSn, OSGC, WfRS, USHLM USCE - CReia erj: W! , USBR, USDA, Moe, USSCS, USWB, OSOC, Ost, OsUeb, UO USbk - U,al rnen: USs CS, USK. OSeel OSU FVPCA, USBCP, USAUJ, USBOR, USBR, USASF&W-, USPS, OSU NPCA - Chgtttan: J1SGE_-, Ratiman: V590R�,Cl,pi men: L- WAter Pollution Control lHP�gk.,_[1.1tA{: M - Pleo F- moletiaa PIaU tiortru latg�„- __ll^S rsacy: FPC - Federal Pwer Coami 1- P+PGA - TBderAl Water Pollution Control Mmintaeretfan USBPA - Donne villa. Poet Metntotrrtf on US6CI - Du [!au eC Cotmercl rl Fieha rise USBLM - Aureev of —" MlaeJr— HSBry - Aar— of Hiner US BUR - Bun ea of Ootdoar Recn atioa USSR - Bureau of RAciem lion US 6Sf&WL - Bueeeu of Spurt Tightriea end Wildlife User - Corps of Bnglv<en USDA - fHrp er[men[ of AR rt cult uce USNLW - DepArcrient of Ue AJth, Education end Welfare tSDI - DapaIt— of Intarlur Uja - tKpar Carom of I.ebnr USFks - f"n-eit filer rM iervin USPS - Foree[ 6-1. U565 - Geologic •i Suryey USHPb - NatlnneJ Pxrk Serulc! us Is - Aot! Caw Arvetion Slrvlc! DSWB - Wee thlt AUrte: USBR, USBSFeNL, Mos. USSC5, Osell, OSfK, OSIIRB, USHER USK. OSM, POP, Usti FEC. F%TGA, USBCP, USBA, USCE, USFS, L'SCI. USE, OSWRB PI'C, FUPCA, USBt-4, UsBSFLWL, USCE, OS%, Uwe, UsECS, USBR, DSOC, OSFC, DSCC, OSIID-PD, OSS1. USVRB, LCPD, OMA, USHEW USBCF, USBIN, USBDR, USBR. USBs FbWI., USGS. IJ5SCS. OSeR, USE, USK, OSOC. OSWRB, OSU, OSHCW USCE. USDA, USDI, OSWRD US" - Oregon Scale Board of HeoltT 060C - Ongon stria Oepertaent of Conner OS➢F - Or aDtata Depart re nc of OS DC6N1 Forestry - Oregon Scale Depeit sent of Ceolagy and Mincra] tndw [else USE - Oregon StAte Engineer OS PC - Fteh C —ixaion of Uraµon OBGC - Oregon State CeM Caocelxetan 051m-PD - 0(egen State I11gha A, Ilepa r[nent - Pnrkn BtY l.,o OSHA - Oregon Stare Merino Aoerd oSS&vcc - 0regon State Sail end Wet- Co rertlon Co silt.. oswee - Oregon Store "ter Renov—s A oe rd USU - Oregnn State University 'EC-1—C - Pnrtlnnd State Collage - Gentar Inr Populo[lan Aceeoech And 4naw Ser vin VO -'\Iilrroity of Uregtm I G-P - Lane Cpunry Perk, D11.1 utn[ U CPA - Dr•Aon C vnly !-ke A,..oelati tom+ POP - Port of P-11-d Between the crests of the Cascade and Coast Ranges in northwestern Oregon lies an area of 12,045 square miles drained by Willamette and Sandy Rivers --the Willamette Basin. Both Willamette and Sandy Rivers are part of the Columbia River system, each lying south of lower Columbia River. With a 1965 population of 1..34 million, the basin accounted for 68 percent of the population of the State of Oregon. 'Fhe State, s largest cities, Portland, Salem, and Eugene, are within the basin boundaries. Forty-one percent of Oregon's popula- tion is concentrated in the lower basin subarea, which includes the Portland metro- politan area. The basin is roughly rectangular, with a north-soutb dimension of about 150 miles and an average width of 75 miles. It is bounded on the east by the Cascade Range, on the south by the Calapnoya Mountains, and on the west by the Coast Range. Columbia River, from Bonneville Ua2.. to St. Helens, forms a northern hounder),. Elevationsrange from less than 10 feet (mean sea level) along the Columbia, to 450 feet on the valley floor at Eugene, and over 10,000 feet in the Cascade Range. The Coast Range attains elevations of slightly over 4,000 feet. The Willamette Valley floor, about 30 ,,Iles wide, is approximately 3,500 square miles in extent and lies beloaa an elevation of 500 feet, it is nearly level in many places, gently rolling in others, and broken by several groups of hills and scattered buttes. Willamette River forms at the confluence of its Coast and Middle Forks near Springfield. it has a total length of approximately IB7 miles, and in its upper 133 miles flows northward in a braided, meandering channel. Through most of the remaining 54 miles, it flows between higher and more well defined banks unhindered by falls or rapids, except for Willamette Falls at Oregon Citv. The stretch below the falls is subject to ocean tidal effects which are transmitted through Columbia River. Most of the major tributaries of Willamette. River rise in the Cascade Range at elevations of 6,000 feet or higher and enter the main stream from the east. Coast Fork Willamette moor rites in the Cala000va Mountains, and numerous smaller tribu- taries rising in the Coast Range enter the main stream from the west. In this studv, the basin is divided into three major sections, referred to an the Upper, Middle, and Lower Subareas (see map opposite). The Upper Subarea is bounded on the south by the Calapooya ?fountains and on the north by the divide between the McKenzie River drainage and the Calspania and Santiam drainages east of the valley floor and by the Long Tom -Marys River divide went of it: The Middle Subarea includes all lands which drain into Wil.lamette River between the mouth of Long Tom River and Fish Eddy, a point three miles below the mouth of Molalla River, the Lower Subarea includes all lands which drain either into Willamette River from Fish Eddy to its mouth or directly into Columbia River between Bonneville and St. Helens; Sandy River Is the only major basin stream which does not drain directly into the Willamette, For derailed study, the three subareas are further divided into 11 subbasins as shown on the map. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - INTRODUCTION I!1;1' PURPOSi4 AND SCOPE. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PARTS OF Tiff, REPORT. 1-2 HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , _ 1-3 PART lI - PRESENT STATUS WATER USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IT-1 Water Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 Upper Subarea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10 Eugene -Springfield Service Area . . . . . . . . . 1I-10 Coast Fork Subbasin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1-11 Middle Fork Subbasin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1-12 McKenzie Subbasin . . . . • • . • • • • • . . • 11-12 Luny; Tom Subbasin . . . . . . . . . . . . II-12 Middle Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 11-13 Albany -Corvallis Service Area . . • • • . . • • . I1-1.3 Salem Service Area. . . . . . . . . . . I1-13 Santiam Subbasin. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I-14 Coast Range Subbasin. . . . . . . . . . . . II-14 Pudding Subbasin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1I-14 Lower Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15 Portland Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1.5 Tualatin Subbasin . . . . . . . . . . . I1-17 Clackamas, Columbia, and Sand;- Subl,asins. - - 1I-1.7 Seasonal. Distribution of Demand . . . . . . . . I1-1.7 Per Capita Uae. . . . . . 1I-20 . 11-21 WATER QUALITY . . . . Water Treatment 11-24 - . _t ..,_._- 11-28 [-29 PART III - FUTURE DEMANDS ' TRENDS IN WATER USE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • III-2 PROJECTED WATER USE . . . . . . • • • • . • • • . . • • • • . . 1II-5 PROBLEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-17 Storage Reservations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1I-17 Source Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-17 Wate.rsbed Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-17 Demand Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-18 PART IV - ALTERNATIVE MEANS TO SATISFY DEMANDS UPPER SUBAREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8 Eugene -Springfield Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8 Coast Fork Subbasin . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8 Middle Fork Subbasin. • IV-9 McKenzie Subbasin . . . . . . . . . . IV-9 Long Tom Subbasin . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . IV-9 MIDDLE SUBAREA . . . . . . . . . _ IV-10 Albany -Corvallis Service Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10 Salem Service Area. . . . . . . . IV-12 Sant.,iam Subbasin.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12 Santiam River Drainage IV-L2 Calapooia River Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . IV-12 Coast Range Subbasin. . . . IV-13 Marys River Drainage 1V-L31 Luckiamute River Drainage.. . . . . . . . . . _ IV-13 Yamhill River Drainage IV-1.3 Pudding Subbasin. . . . . - . IV-14 LOWER SUBAREA. . . . . IV-L5 Portland Service Area . . IV-L5 TuaLatin Subbasin _ . IV-16 Ciackamas Subbasin. . . . . IV-16 Sandy Subbasin. . IV-16 PART V - CONCLUSIONS CONCXSIONS. . . _ . . . . . . . . . V-t TABLES No. I1-1 Summary of Municipal, Industrial, and Rural - Domestic Water Use, 1965 1I-2 Inventory of Municipal, Industrial, and Rural - Domestic Water Use, 1965 II-3 Monthly Demand by Service Area as Percent of Average Month, 1960 II-4 Mineral Quality of Surface Water at Portland, Salem, and Eugene I1-5 Funeral Quality of Ground Water at Selected Communities I1-6 Summary of Sources and Treatment for Municipally Supplied Water I11.-1 Population Growth, by Subarea and Service Area III-2 Future Municipal, Industrial, and Rural -Domestic Average hater Use (A1GD) I1I-3 Future Municipal and Industrial Water Use, Monthly Demand as Percent of Annual Average MGD, 1980-2020 IV-1. Municipal Water Supply Development Needs, 1985 IV-2 Costs of hater PuriJ icacion tp..?, C(, t,: of and 7ndu_stri.nl t,Iniur Supply Purification Pacilitie.s, 1965-1985 ' IV-4 Costs oi. MkInicIpal and Wataea- `:apply P,,,rs.ficot.mi Pa,,Jlizies, I98�--2020 PaKe II-3 II-5 II-18 I1-22 II-23 I1-26 III-6 III-9 II1-15 FIGURG5 No. 11-1 Typical. Water Use Patterns at Portland, Salem, and Eugene 11-2 Lawn Water Requirements and. Mean Rainfall An Portland 11-3 Mean Streamflow Distribution and Typical Water Demand Pattern at Salem 11-4 Cost of Water, City of Portl.end 11I-1 population Growth by Subarea 1.I1-2 Projections of Water Need III-3 Growth Indices --Food Products and Manufacturing I11-4 Growth Indices --Lumber and Wood Products, and Pulp and Paper III-S Water Use Projections by Subarea Ya . t: 11-19 1I-20 I1-20 1I-28 PROTOS (Titles abridged) N o , U&e I-1 Part of the Bull Run reservoir complex 1-4 II-1 Rural -domestic water use area 11-4 1I-2 Weyerhaeuser plant in Springfield ZI-1Q II-3 Sawmill installation in the Willamette Basin II-11 1I-4 Dexter Reservoir II-12 II-5 Oregon City pulp and p3Per mills II-16 II-6 Salem, Oregon, water supply system 11-24 II-7 Salem, Oregon, water supply system II-25 II-8 Portland, Oregon, water storage and distribution II-27 III-1 Potable river water in the upper tributaries 111-1 111-2 Tektronix industrial park, Portland, Oregon III-3 111-3 Rock Creek treatment plant of Corvallis, Oregon 1I1-20 III-4 Forest Grove, Oregon, treatment plant I11-20 Eugene and Springfield, Oregon IV-8 Albany and Corvallis, Oregon IV-10 M1 Corvallis treatment plant on the Willamette IV-11 IV-2 Dallas storage facilities IV-11 Salem, Oregon IV-12 Portland, Oregon IV-15 i-6 11 INTRODUCTION j P U R P O S E A N D S C 0 P E The purpose of this appendix is to appraise the present municipal and industrial water supply situation, to analyze its future needs and development potential, and to evaluate the needs of subareas as a basis for making recom7iendations for measures which will serve those needs. Consideration of municipal and industrial water supply as a part of a comprehensive plan for development and management of water and related land resources is essential to provide a means for orderly development of water supplies. The scope of this appendix limits projection of municipal and in- dustrial water supply requirements to the years 1980, 2000, and 2020. Appraisal of the 1980 requirements includes consideration of quantity, quality, and seasonal variations of supply and demand. The need iden- tified is of an inanediate nature and may be directly related to the de- velopment of a comprehensive plan for readily foreseeable developments. The long-range plans, which are naturally more conjectural, are more general in nature and point toward the needs of major subareas of the basin. The study area is confined to the Willamette Basin; however, the strong geographical and aconomic interrelations and interaction, be- tween the Willamette Basin, the Pacific Northwest, and the Nation will influence the level of municipal and industrial water demand in the basin. As an example, increased m:irkot area population willresult in an enlarged market for processed food. Additional food -processing ca- pacity will resuLt in an increased demand for process water and water for the additional population supported by the industrial employment. This appendix is primarily single -purpose. The first four sec- tions arc developed on the assumption that th= WALer resource will not. be a limiting factor if adequate faCil.itiLs are provided. The conclu- sions (part V) are based on the fact that competition for 0- iise o,. water exists, and suggest an approach to meeting supply needs that would acconunodate this competition.*> aE> oV .v T-1 R E L A T 1 0 N S H I P T O O T H E R P A R T S O F T H E R E P O R T Data from other appendices were used to obtain the assessment of future municipal and industrial water supply needs. Data showing the growth of population and industry in Appendix C--Economic Base --ware used to determine the level of future use or demand. The availability of naturally occurring waters in the basin to meet municipal and indus- trial demands was evaluated from basic data in Appendix B--Hydrology. The functional appendices were also used as a source.of some data used in the evaluation of municipal and industrial water supply. Appen- dix L--Water Pollution Control --provided specific information on the quality of water for municipal and industrial water supply- 1-2 H I s T 0 R Y Municipal and industrial water supply has been a function related to ;ran for thousands of years. Major advancements are related to tech- nologically improved means of delivery and to the quality of water delivered. Delivery has evolved from carrying containers from the tribal spring, or water hole, to wells, and finally to modern distribu- tion systems. 'Pile quality of water available for use has undergone considerable change and has been influenced by mankind. During the early period of sparse population, the surface and ground waters were affected .anly by natural phenomena. As th_ population increased, the quality wa, de- graded largely as a result of means lack of knowledge, neglect, and disregard for the rights and welfare of others. At one time the ;tuijter approach in maintaining the quality of the water supply was it) separate man from tine water source. Thr result was the development of water- sheds or wells which were relatively isolated. Even with precautions, menns influence encroached upon the water sources, and means of clean- ing and disinfection replaced or supplemented protection of the source. The quantity of water used for municipal and industrial purposes has continually increased, both in total and in per capita amounts. The total use has risen in response to population increase, and this trend has been reinforced by increased per capita consumption result- ing largely from industrialization. Per capita water use in the Willamette Basin has increased about 30 percent during the last 20 years. The development of municipal and industrial water supply in Portland and Eugene is an example of the evolution of water systems. in the 1851t's, a wat, �ysto.t: was developed in the City ,,. Portland utilizing, CaruttC..rs Creek in the southwest. part of town and a distribution system of bored log:.. In 19(Q , after several changes int:;,rporalvd as On, "Portland Water C At- pany III,,, caruthtrs Creek upp!v was then ayugmented ba wall at *Le foot if Market ';treat and an ,mPoundment sn Ralch Creek, above Willamette Ileights. ;1 small stream in Portland Heights was lator tapped co add to the supply. }lany residents consioord t„ use wells rind sprints heeause cha, distribution system was not adequate. Pompi.ng stations Wcrc put into service an the Willamette River as an additional water source in 1869, In 1885, tilt. city civirter wai; amended and Icgisiatfvt: action was taken which allowed the city to onrvr the Water husinvss. 1-3 'rho Moll Run Rivc-r wos sc•Icct.•d :t,: the• ncw of -It", i.rr t.hc City o1 Portl;ind Lt I&i6, liy 1891, legal restraints hid boon ovureame, and :a coatrtet. cans uwariled toe rotjstruc'.tion of conduit No, I trout Hit II Run. Alrios 1. concurrent. 1. y, FeduraI ,ICei un pr nvi dud 1,rnl ucl icnI or I'. her wdtersliocl by csLublishmcnt 01 it Public Fcn'C,SL Rrscrvc in 1892. 13y 1904, Conl;ressionaf action had vnlari,cd the! protected area and prahibiLed trespass. rhr first waLcrshcd inapuund:nrut was provided in 1915 by constrlic- tiun of it low dun, and dike ill liull Rna i.rakv 'this prc,ject provided about Lhree billion gallons of etor::ge capacity. In 1929, Bull Run Uam No. 1. was built to pT70vi&' 8.8 billion gallons of st,>ragc cai,acity. ConSLrkLCtil)n of 131111 Run I1am No. 2 in 1961 and impruvuments at Bull lion Lake in L962 increased tho totnl strrra,,p capacite co 23.2 hillion gaL- lons, % recent joint city -Forest SPrViCe report has indicaLud rile watershed will be adoquatu until about the year 2000. Chlorination. Vitas been the only tree tmont squired to water from the 1)rt,recLe0, watershed. r The first water franchise in Fugene was granted in February 1886. By 1906, the original source from the Willamette River near skinner's Butte had been expanded to include several wells. In 1906, there oc- curred what was then described as "Lite worst typhoid epidemic in the history of Oregon." As a result, filtration and disinfection equipment was installed, and political pressure built up for a general cleanup of the waterways. soon after, the city purchased the system and installed two sand filters. In 1914, the city reverted to a well supply upon completion of a well on the north bank of the h'il.lamotre River. This served u.1til 1927 when a 30-inch transmission line from the McKenzie River at Hayden Bridge to the filter plant in Eugene was completed. A new treatment plant was built in 1932 to replace the original plant. 'fhe McKenzie River has since been used as the water source for Eugene. The last major change was construction of a new filter plant at Hayden Bridge in 1947 to replace the plant in town. The availability of water in adequate quantity and quality has been important in industrial site selection (see Part II for examples). In most instances, careful evaluation of the available supplies before selection of plant sites has precluded eventual process water shortages. Municipal and industrial water supply for both the present and the future was made a function of Federal storage projects under the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Storage for future water use may be provided if assurance is given that the cost of storage will be repaid during the life of the project. Ground water is the source for more than half of the municipal water systems in the basin, but supplies only 10 percent of the one million people served by municipal facilities. Development of ground- watcr supplies for most urban areas has lagged because good -quality surface water was readily available. Problems of quantity and quality have restricted round water clevelopme:nt in some parts of the basin. I-5 a w y CC Z _ R c 1> Q J toH w a Z d m m F- w a U) CL cr Ld Z Q 1 ` Ix -1 a' ........w—»�:..�. $ ,�!\p§t�/: /a} !;&!! ƒ2 yg3q §"!�„ 2\���i - Eo photo II-T. The Willamette Valley in tice Middle Subarea; typical of ruraL-domestic water -use areas. Municipal, industrial., and rural -domestic water use currently averages about 370 million gallons per day (mgd), with peak demands approaching 750 mgd. The municipal ;and major industrial demands are about 180 mgd each, while the rural -domestic demand is about 15 mgd. Approximately 18 mgd of the municipal demand is for major water -using industries supplied through municipal systems. In the Sillamette Basin there are 78 independent municipal water supply systems. The size of these systems is shown in the following tabulation: Number Total Total Annual Population of Population Average Use of SyStem Systems Served MGO Under 5,000 63 79,900 17.36 5,000-10,000 7 53,400 9.50 10,000-50,000 5 115,500 15.54 Over _"0,000 3 887,600 127.26 II-4 Hat l;x— —1— te O:w 0.2.1 1 O'oo 1 31 0.34 Flo; M I U.tl o.3Q Rnrarvntt vtlrr ­14 Ili- L­1 r— Xiddl1.4 Hercbla )-a O:Q5 O.tO ().U7 O"t 0,Y3 Sp—p le o'n I.0 l­w D.b." ...... . . .. lit IN— I veil4., O.4S D,90 Ad­tl Advgw to Ik hblf FI.2 (Coot,) Inventory aj M.niotpti, Srtrir+}alpt mid R+wft.P' •tio WNr UN. lntb wp Awnp a..ra. Y•t•r 6p6Mrta Loc•tlw Y+Nr U•+ KD RIRht • 41eff+tive_ a tu-}.�r�lq fiervlre ArN H�b4r M0R >✓":eL �'0 6 U 9S-It rn✓Iit At tlu,•,s,TJyr___. Na.,ic ly�i ANSI All Ntc. 9[+11on Y.76 1.9L Ytll.vetu Atvet AdegwC e Adr9wt e A16W, 5.2 3.40 p.50 cl, lead Eouth Y+nelu Airer Nqd {Yn v.r. Ad.gWl. 1.1wn.r L Y � rru9+y';SJt YffO ttbu6o•rd Co. 0,46 AIWrtY /.IMnt Protm foade, l+c. 0,1E AlMny Ea N. N.prre.11 IM+t Co, O.10 Ath.nj 4 fr.11 trP �t•lllueeleat Core• 0.06 ASWny Cerv+ill. 4-1 A..1 7.40 23.30 ILL. lll•A YI11.+•tU A. AtlgWt• AN9Wtr rhut..tn 6-3 1.03 2.10 --d °a"" booth 9-1- 81 v.r Nod Ito ear. M•pvete LMvon g,�t Na• S-4 0.6N LAD 4.91 booth B+ntfn diver A4pruu AN9r,<e ta.o...lri.�.so..r_Qd✓s:l a- Nor D.Eo 2MY.LV.1.lE 19,44 tvir.5 •w.t Xlilr ls.26 AlMn9 Y•etery .,.I,Grp. S-S 7.]B Ylll•twtte Rtwr l+Mvpn Cfovn HI3e C6•ch COR• 5.6 7.40 9wth 6mti- Rlrat �;yx,.�]no Yoad I 3ur7p 2.]6 {nrvIllr G+tel•-p•cltfc G[D• 6+1 0.A4 Al llu•C[e Rlrrr uMne• Vvtud 8ut.. plirood Carp. 3+1 i 92 NnGtra Plv.r 4 veil r tlwvl NgJ,TJy 1,65 AIM% Y•A C6cvE Carp. 5-0 I.4] Ylll- a- h.�r. t-t+rr�2]S 0.45 €•I l+. El At.t n yi111n1 ]5 4.01 6 cu.k• BtvuE• Adprnt• 6-3 W.d.e Ylllwof ef• Y•iley i•wS.0 Co. B-} 0.11 V.Gp I.SI SWwl I7• Ad.pW [. Boo• b.rdve•• IM•gLd.pu inter-Inf bltvllon.l 4.}1 6Wf.ca a veil• n«ivfn 6.Iw 6.4 17.61 4 2b.90 VIA, tietth 6.ntf+o-pl �i v.il+ Adpwu eroe9 htEh Iron 0-41 AI.. 1.4. r•ru u, Inc. Q•a e•iw 6 wu c•utorm• r.<bm, Grp. b.4'. BrIW 1»Ir tarp- Roil. t, P.ryvnu • {n, 11.71 0.t4 fi.l� it OtrRr+. t�rA•r rat Wt♦ G.1; Er lr+ VT! CNrpe'•11vn QICt. 1.10 Efl� 6 ] veil• Adrpwu Adeewu+ Sffi.;:ISJ.L11 18.5E N env Nvl.+ G+r•N carp, )•10 Ib6.M nnf rn 4.nt uw F/vr L'vv3...�3r E•l 0a9 ue TI+v-R-P+c brown. iJrc. veil Yell w.j rred. mt. 0.3V I'm4t�1Ja awifi/ni b-11 b.19 O.SL O.3V 0.13 Gl+pwu R. A veil 1l 04 Arwn•w lU ]•12 0.02 0.10 0,G! N+.l y 0r, 4.wil AdnWt+ A4.9Wu Nerrolt 5•l] 0.02 0.10 OAT Nerth efnttr Afnt Akpwu NtA6 Iron L Na liter W lur Sdfnev !•I4 S-1! 0,02 D.O3 0.10 0.10 0,29 0.91 0.90 1 w+ll P+Ibeai 0r•4 ? veil• 4AdAriyWry ABfpptt. I•[Irr•on l-16 !•17 O;OB 0,b6 0,20 Q,10 V.te Marti, hnf4 4•xl l•* f Abpwtf Arur. iron t}"O� ]-te 0,11 O.Sd 1.1! rtn 5,nt u+ Rtwf [r. A 7 Ade+wte Afe9wu Adf4att Alll ftlT }tir 3-i9 Q,Q4 0.10 234' irvwr wilt II-6 T,blr 11-2 ICenL.) fnwnvoI RanieiP°E, fill tr•Amd rrpp Ru rctl-L•r+m V rtie Ms �.r ac, 7M0Gb -�nfwl... Yrw. YtrmeAt Lnc rtr°r• , otr ucc WM:U r RtRXt Stn 1I t113A2J'1'?LedA:121•dt. S°DaeAtn N.wA.e 3'l.Wr IILD 5�y�r -v�YCC1313--Y'La�!2_ L.�,.�..-�t11. ae- ry snw,At,. {cdpt .i erN Se ra vAl 1•i li 6 to ri*•n 5-20 0.03 0.16 0.100 14 - N. 19 Yr 11 Intl It t,ttery %. S,ntta Adegwte AdeQwtu I°-°=PI� 6.9D SteYton L 1 roll S tm ytdp Le nninH LL.�3=S.tul 3,GL HoacAt Vll3 urLto Natl, 16c co. 5-21 2,48 6antls Rivet Lyon. n Tlnbat fo. )-1T O.IO Hmnt lam Alrmr b wll N 111 CItY 3-2) 0.39 Eeollc Rtvvr L wtl Prank tw6mr 4°, Nortn Tq°tlm Ytyuwd C°. 6-24 O.Ty 0.2P baotSam Rlvmt ' %l1Y t_S.1V-tJ 3.35 y.b 06 0.01 V.10 U. Vt bPttnb d v¢II A0a9Wtm AeeVwte C,r it nl. [-1 0,0E O.lt 0.20 n,tU 0.)2 i,19 R, ntMr .tack Syr a�tpt [ roll Adegweq AdeQWtc xi Rl, Er [ Na WYt°n b•8 {,-9 0.0E 0.2V 4.60 SI,r InAa 6 va•il AdeYutts Adeg wtA OvMmm Ep 1, Yl 11 ndr 6-10 O1 Ojo Mall lNpe Ad rvqu,tm degwle loll. [ItY A-11 a-ll O.U,l:l P.03 G.3 0,10 I.O7 T,al Lr. d Ayr Rotk CrreA O rendr Rondo A-l3 0.2U O.pt SPrimp, L volt Ad tQ W to Wfm111. HSY.{nnvtlle a-l4 1. 1 .b4 7.30 IR ,9tl N,nk lyt CmeN Adfq went Ilm It �•`�^�^`�J� 0.9T NtM�nm tl lr S,tmte Cvny Y.te,m tY b-15 0.11 140 5 t: flPr tnke b vcl le Ade9w to AdgQ,u to Xev6tr[ A-16 0.21 0 do 5.4t , .,p rLrytr Addegwl< Ad°gwtq HM Aden 41l i.ml,w a-l1 0.26 0.18 P.uD 0.30 2.PD U.AS Nill+n i•,n A isdy t're eka mqw to iur�wr Cta e4 Adegw tt. RL tU Adeq wren Y,mM1l11 b-itl I4.65 - HtperR ub lle6r rc' Pn Mr Gv 6-t9 1'e.d6 Mtltam ttr A. d ve 11 ke_4e� r..,ZY�i.`rL.rau;+_5 1.4d t llnnln n.TO I.dfl Y,niaill Rf v°r U b. iw°ud riy rP o,n'a O,li toy ' av L•m Cen•, r..R c.•epnnY 0,11 1 Arita 0.20 P.M?P�ys?r!aa.ry.. Manic lcnl 1-I 2'IA P.o3 o.m oD 2 YA nt Admvwtc Aw rate ?-2 P.07 O.10 U.7.14 Neite dmV wre Pete, tl Ye tr en Rmrlw T-3 0.02 O.Ia 0,10 u 9U 0.1I 1,)b Ne 11 5Pr 1,Ytm [ velle MnQWte Mavuatr AdevWle Flf pM1tly TA rd C•mLY 0.04 0.30 - Ceny°n Creel, Adeq wl< Cotton 0.10 - I voila xd egw Ar N,cd. Lermlt )-5 11 .Ob Vt O.BJ 0.10 o.TO 0.62 - 3 asl lA i vc lla Adcgwte Maq wt, t XtHM1 Ir m�n[ M,. Ne,dilt Mt. Angel 3•J t-R 0.15 0.18 0.03 0,60 0.4p 0.10 450 3.bd nll3trettgn,Mola lla R. 3 wl1A ➢ AptlnAe [ aril Adag wtc Adeg umtm Adegnatc Adagvatq Mullnu 1.9 U,OT 0.10 0,1a SPt tngA Adeguetr . to Mille Tilva [Len i•l0 0,a5 1.2V Ib.bl r ty 5i L AAtqua t: et Cr- A. t 9t Pdal 2•ll U.01 0.10 0,62 ! ugtle xdegwlr x�onwl t. d 6utn I-Iz 1-IS r,.u. 0.48 D.w I,t41 o ya .16 n volt. v,•tls Admawtr dnQ Wta Wtreel.. ,r o. 1 trdYtcrlal ].. a... I1. A 4 ll - e ^1yw<ud L P. 1-14 O.,i� ,Se nt fq+ Alvsr tU�M1.V tie unll I xc� I,vncrr sr., A. Y. t. ae Inwhar Cc•. 1-II 2•Ia a,%ll La, cel Rgada LorP.•Btrde fye 1-IY 1. )4 2 ant lr LI-7 4 Uhl. 11.2 (eons.) ]Ownoay ul 4.,fteLpa7, la-0,.rtiat and Rw!-lbrrvttio {w fsr. Uatr ties wv la•ttw RraUx f11Wro It.rMr IGp wl.r RIBhI Ltclt i b Ptrrrne Urr fYMvf as ,�•...._ r0•Y• NOP -ia ��iY.,_, �,GY�.'Td].k-.. t%Hid.- ere•. a (Cant 8Yaa 1•leAaeal it 1.66 dSJSL'"_'! slSLSr�S3t Yar.telwi 8-t IU6.64 D.a1 0.20 U.2) SPr1n8a Mepwle AtlegwtR He4 I•Irvlw 10-f 0.0R U.SO 2.28 i Yell♦ Atlrpw to angwte foxae 0 fi-S 1. ip 2.]0 b.]3 Clxr 6 Urlee UreeYJ Nea; limf< !mw ltub.r_it 0-0) fonat Crave. GxY f L'upamP 9-1 U.60 U.86 5.16 in(lltniton,C lacw,ara R. ^Mgwte � .,wn hn rdnare e{•detmee Ni ll.M,n Y-J t.9) ].dV 9.0+ iw letln R, 6 win cr. ear limit 2.f6 Nlilaboro b wile r Y D N111 epuca Ca<ealtw iP$YLLJ.4'1 �="= Yr dYi]S O.le n, llabnre f lyda r IuleT'. Ivod, inc. 0.10 aM1t�leboro Ila Adegwn Naeetettnaiurd, NIIWVY/c 10-t 1,10 ]-lU 3.19 11.1 81.W 180'. Fall Run A. Ron wterahed Adegwee. Atlegw[e PereNM �rt�w,ll�nark Part t., Y,D Yaalrw Y.O. nrttaM Yur[.lrnd MRWftmrt Parl l•nd CaPlxl 8Yr Y cl•ch�ar Y.D. (O,PO) 2.00 9.64 ParllaiM Celllna Y.0 Yerl laM roui.M coon ur wart c Tort Lne Lng broad Pe •r P.m. Per4Ia Prrwn Naw Y,UVn d Part lend of lOtrt Y.D. UnahaR Pnrr IaM Par[I<M Nafe lYood V.D. awu we•r • lannn. ea. 8111io8arneth IlYtwl Y.t•r lU-2 (I.10) 2.3 r.B2 Port lrna 6 Yalla Adrywer yua uw Oar6o i, (wrdro.rJ 1Ynlm PnY Mtafa[ Y,p. artimd rarl land Mvtit Remtt M.D. Qaf Wdne V.D. Prr 11-s Iurtlend blRLLoe•nlil Y,D. Per\row Y.O, va[`lene o Iona Paellentl PeWll Ye IIeY 8a- S V.O. !wall Val\er lwd Y.D, Iraanea Y. p. Part lenA Yart le,M Mane 4l•l8h Y.D. 8celeiaad Y.U. Pet`land r lend faa.u.S u.DY.° r c �i.ne hlanla'r V.f. Y�rt l•nd fylwn Y (,!I roll land 6 ] Wlle Ade9�ute NudPntely turd illere V.o. w•t Ilepe V,O. Ylchll• u,p, e'e fnrr leM Pa rt land le,d Yall Lr•ap NYYY,p. f creep RYy Y.D. Yd,t TaYCrmnrn. Jn< (0,10 Ina+t� ToN rrddYclr U.16 Yetr lanA exM.: P{e•t cm, prcrYx f.rrr Onwe. r.1e wit. D Part 1. mf 1•M wtlaMl 8lxuil cm. m (.rwre Aex. n.13 0.17 Tart Pw1J•ne -..t��.1r.t�rJ�»,8 'Phl{wan O.x2 PartWM Pr+a1P•1 f. 1,61 IennrlWnl• wit Ca. fl.11 Ull eo 0.10 Pa rlanA r .viarterlye or 0.1i Parr J•nU D, Jentxn. lnc RartMrrnarn Ice f Cold F[orefr 01,29 �Z Partl•nd L W ll r i•ntl TIM•( Se ructuna, {nc. 0. 2 pnrttenn �qt p.21 Y.+rt land " lug Iac�[[t 8.a IZ�B 3 7 MAP AwrANe Y4[ei Yw Dawtvdr MUD NWCtF Nht + t Vw Llvl[Arlanrw, Yw�rx LPwtfan f +r[t•tNt sp.�,T>_�tgx Icent.) u,G. 0.40 t.Jb Vetl RACFL<M Giax 4.G. U.21 0.40 0. G! l.N Yntl SPriner 6 Feswr Ci Adegwle SlVor . rMY ]t.y g.b 0,08 U.JD L.2A D +n.lir Awgwtr Adegw[e Ade4wte RMwWd SVNI r. Yuri Y txr ♦volraivn y,] l:GO tL.YO 15.00 Cltciuur Flwr Adrgw le Municl JA.LP 9oe[k Fvrk Y,D: UroNVn - Year Llnn ua D,Ps U.10 D,49 Nvu[h Pure Y.G. 6wigry 6 wit AArgtute Adv9NNle awtd.l, rw1NCG¢ F-7 00! U.1(I iltllrbnty O.Y9 R wile Yeli Ae.gme AdHN+tt Ad Hw[r vood Vlilrgr 11-4 O.OA 0.10 04. tl6 ,�Ia Nxs �tX_L..tlJ.1t 49.Yi ntti0x CS[Y PYv1lrMrr` PAV<r Cv 10�) LP:46 Nf llave[ee Af wr WNC lino Orvr� iellerbrtF Carp. lG•4 JN.l1 Ya llraca Cv Ptvti farnrt Cr 6t lvavn LUYwt Co, D, YJ :ooPPlm C reeY YortlNnd µ ltt"aNh Plywved CviD• O.Id Calrv�iN 91— 2 D9 Pvn•Nt Crwt Port lrnr <rnninN Cv. 0.05 uetl Poet lend D.tii Veil liivtivn LrvpanY watt Awn. U.11 wll wIS P.clflc Mot Cv, Soli[ Nnd Ca, O.10 l.]1 Yrll Purtlred Ongvn 6wri. MIII. 0.52 V(lir�ette Ftw[ Treutdn lr. ll^! 6.!) J wllr ruYu^Ide Mete la Co, W vufxc [v 4.A6 Pattiw`iPi xnlC Sr+cIN ItY Cv g ]] unll Yell Mlvc! .t 1•ueil Pvae tvpo Ce. O.JL U! e11 F In trt®a, Snc' Ur<Mn Poealend to®nt Cn. lU•5 J U r+8 vlllxutw P1wi vni or, CorG[ee cony. Nt lirxr:�ca t+oo Xteel 1.2J 0 14 yvll Nell Nyf�rJ,•Ix Via_ 0.9# eJynj �F.ncoca�n i•� P."/.i n.SU 1,39 Cla. overt filvnr - v tta a o4 t`'�m. I,JV s ,: y Cc Adrgu+: fro url[, it IU-6 G.IV -., •. l u,iuYnln P, AAcq.•air Aa.que to .[. 14Ivxe lP•I _.'tU l+I�a�i.:.i` n r uPtl ellrs L�•vl oru.fl: c .P. n.vx stir ,... _ 1 at❑ � .� ii . w- at9 0• l3Llper Subarea Eugene-Sprinfield Service Aroma The McKenzie River is the primary source for the Eugene - Springfield Service Area. Approximately 75 percent of the annual re- quirement for this area is supplied by the Eugene Water and Electric Board through its Hayden Bridge treatment plant. The existing resource is more than adequate. The Eugene -Springfield Service Area also uti- lizes ground water from the McKenzie and Middle Pork Subbasins. There is no major use of water from the Willamette River for municipal or industrial purposes. Most of the industries in the Eugene urban area are served by city systems or water districts. About 7 mgd withdrawn by municipal systems from the McKenzie River are used for commercial -industrial purposes. The two largest industrial users in Eugene (Eugene Fruit Growers and V. S. Plywood) used 250 and 133 mg, respectively, in 1965- of the total city system intake from the McKenzie River, Eugene Fruit Growers used 3.7 percent and U. S. Plywood used 2.8 percent. other industrial users in Eugene include dairies, creameries, soft drink bottlers, an ice plant, steam plants, and custom canners. Some industries in Springfield are supplied water by the Pacific Power and Light Company water system,which has wells developed near the river. The amount used by industry from PP&L totals approximately 250 mg annually, or less than one mgd. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company plant in Springfield is the largest and only significant self -supplied industry. The company holds a water right for 8o cfs (51 mgd) from the McKenzie River. The Photo Ii-2. The Ieyerhaeuser' plant ;:n SfrinyficZd ;s tlzc ma or industrial water user i.n the upper :subarea. IT 1Q quality of water is such that the Weyerhaeuser Company treats only about 6 mgd at the present time. During heavy runoff periods, whica result in high turbidity, the solids in the water cause excessive wear of the Hydraulic debarker nozzles. It is presently economical for the com?any to buy water from the Rainbow Dater District during these peri- ods instead of providing additional treatment. Chemically, the water is always of satisfactory quality. The quantity of water available in the basin is adequate to satisfy the immediate requirements of industry. Coast Fork Subbasin The existing water supply is adequate in quantity and quality to fulfill needs in the Coast Fork Subbasin. The City of Cattaue Grove diverts water from Layng and Prather Creeks. These waters are chlor- inated at the headworks and flow through a 23-mile transmission conduit to the treatment facility in town where they are flocculated, settled, and rechlorinated before distribution. Ground water obtained from four wells is the source of supply for Croswell. Higher than desirable con- centrations of arsenic from natural sources have been noted in some other wells in the vicinity. The Weyerhaeuser Timber Company mill at Catta�, Grove has an aver- age intake of 10 mgd, or 3,650 mg annually. Water is used primarily for steam production, hydraulic debarking, and log -pond filling. other industrial users include small saw.nills and gravel -washing concerns. Photo II-3. One of aeveraZ a wzniZZ installations in the tJ lZ.ama*re Bastin. This one:, at Postc- Reservoir, di O>xtra1t:r, 'rtn oomson use of a Zargc pond for log storagc. Middle park Suybawin in the major water use area within the Middle Fork Suhbasin, there is ample water to satisfy present municipal requirements. The commun- itv of Lowell takes water from an infiltration gallery adjacent to tile Dexter Reservoir. This reservoir is used extensively f.rr recreation, but no quality problems in the water supply h.avc been noted. The lutn- ber and wood products plant operated by pope and Talbot, Inc., located near Ualtrid�,e, is the tanjor industrial water user in this subbasin. other smaller mills have adequate water supplies. McKenzie tiubbas� in The municipal water supply for MarCala, obtained from ground water, is adequate to SatiSfV thv present demand. Long Tom Subbassin The seasonal variation of streamt low in the Long Tom liver above Fern Ridge Reservoir arrf inferior quality of the reservoir and down- streatfr waters Ixrvo delayed dcvcl«pnrsnt of adequate water sy+tem. rising surface sources. Thte community of Ven-eta relies upon ground water. The+ high Cost of extending the Eugenci system to V-_=ta and Plmiria bars resulted in sn indefinite deforral if the suggested project. Pioraroc utilizes springs but is short of water Supply. 11arr1_sburg relic:in foar wells which produce water ni axcossive. hardnt�ss. Th- rc is no significant demand at present for industrial water in this; ,obhus Ln. 'al i7` Fr_T. -( - ...- Middle Subarea Albanv-Corvallis Service Area Albaey, Lebanon, and Sweet Home obtain water from the South Santiam River. Water is withdrawn directly from the river at Sweet Hone, while Lebanon and Albany are supplied by the Lebanon -Albany power canal. Natural flow of the South Santiam River is sufficient to meet demands. Present demands of Corvallis are served from natural flow of the Marys River and from the Rock Creek watershed on Marys Peak, supple- mented by water from the Willamette River. A storage reservoir of 100 mg capacity was constructed on the watershed but failed to satisfy peak demands of the Corvallis area during dry years, so an additional source from the Willamette River was developed. Near Albany, two major industrial water users --the Western Kraft and Wall Chang Corporations --obtain water from the Willamette River, Western Kraft uses about 7 mgd, all untreated except for boiler feed water to control scale and corrosion; its existing water right is for about 20 mgd, and the plant has sufficient water. Wah Chang uses about 2 mgd; treatment has been Limited to simple chlorination, al- though turbidity is a wintertime problem. Industries near Lebanon and Sweet Home withdraw water from the South Santiam River. Crown Zellerbaeh pulp and paper plant at Lebanon uses 8 mgd. United States Plywood Corporation at Lebanon uses about 2 mgd. Other minor industrial users are either self -supplied or obtain water from the Sweet Home and Lebanon municipal water systems. A part of the water withdrawn from the Willamette River by the City of Corvallis is ultimately used for industrial purposes, mainly food 'Processing. Blue Lake Packers, the major Corvallis-suppLied industry, uses about 30 mg annually, mostly during July to October. The only industrial use of water from Marys River is for small saw- mills. Salem Service Area The City of Salem obtains its municipal and industrial water sup- ply from the North Santiam River. A portion of the water diverted by the City of Salem is used for industrial purposes. flood processing, the major user, has an annual average requirement of about 1.5 mgd, with 5 mgd peaky during the canning season. The demands are easily satisfied. The only major self -supplied industrial user in Salmi is the pulp and paper mill. operated by Boise Cascade Corporati.o-n. This plant com- pletely treats and uses about 16 mgd, diverted through a canal from the North Santiam River. The paper mill shares a right to 254 cfs (164 mgd) from the North Santiam River for power and manufacturing; this right, dated 1856, is subject only to a prior right of 50 efs for the Oregon State Gamc Commission. Th^ mill also shares in s 342.6 efs right from Mill Creek, subject to about 230 cfs prior appropria- tion, which may not be satisfied durin the Sumner. It is, however, assumed that there is sufficient water available to meet immediate needs of the plant. Two food -processing concerns in Salem are also self -supplied, but together use only about 0_5 mgd. Santiam Subbasin On the Calapooia River, the City of i3rownsv_ille has been forced to alter the streambed during summer periods of extreme low flow in order to flood the city's infiltration gallery. There are no large industrial uses of water in this drainage at present, but a few saw- mills use minor amounts of water. The communities along the North Santiam River do not experience any water supply problems. Coast Ra:afie SUJbasin The total water resource of the Yamhill River drainage is adequate to satisfy annual demands, but seasonal deficiencies make storage or transbasin diversion necessary. The largest community, MraMinnvill.e, his constructed storage facilities to satisfy peak stamper demands. A major withdrawal of water from the t,'illauette River is made by` the pu`)lishars' Paper Company at (13 mgd), The company's existing water right is ndequat.c. Quality of the water is controlled by fil n ation, chlorination, and deionization, Quality problems are primarily turbidity resultin,3 from transport of salt and other float - in;; material, and changes in chemical quality- It is .also ne" ssary ,o .iuppIcm,-nt the river supply with city water durin the sumT�!r an d durin;, August and Septemhar), w.ten the river water is too warm for acid -mixing. Industrial use of water within tale Yamhill drainage is presently limited primarily to a few wood -products mills and several industries using c- ,.',ter to Atoh!innvilie. Sufficient water to satisfy any sig- nificantindustrial need is not presently available withouL storage or transbasin diversion. Only minor development has occurred in the 1,uckiamuLe drainage, and there are no significant municipal or industrial supplies or demands. l�a�laintt SuSbasi- Seasonal deficiencies of streamflow hive at•celerat,•d consideration of upstream storage. in the. pudding Subbasin. S lv_crto.i (4,000 served) relies primarily upon surface water. The M hVt cuzinuanilies generally use ground water. Th-_re is no major industrial tv- of ::urfacc water within the su`>- hasin. birds (aye Froz,,n Foods at l.'on<Ibur'n, the' larg,o.tt sin,{lr, "Ber, roli.cs upon groun-1 water for its su,�p l'�. 'fhi.s a,mpany wis using; abouL 2 mgd in 1961 but has since expanded, and present use is somewhat greater. Ground -water quantity appears sufficient to meet near -future needs. Lower Subarea Portland Service Area The Portland Service Area is the most densely populated area in the Willamette Basin and has the greatest demand for water. The sources of supply are many and varied, but the largest single one has been developed by the City of Portland in the Bull Run watershed (Sandy Subbasin). The present Bull Rua storage totals 23,200 mg. The trans- mission facility consists of three conduits about 25 miles long with a total capacity of 225 mgd. The natural quality of the water and the present watershed management practices have made it possible to provide water satisfactory for distribution after treatment by simple chlorina- tion only. Other sources of su,)ply include ground water and water imported from the Clackamas River. Complete treatment is required of water from the lower reaches of the Clackamas River. Lake Qswep,n chose the Clackamas River as a new source to replace wz116, foregoing a less ex- pensive Willamette River source. Municipalities in the Tuslati.n Valley rely partially upon water from other subbasins for their supplies at the present time, and it is expected that greater demand will be made on out -of -basin sources in the future. These communities have become very water -conscious, having experienced shortag:s and having lost industries for lack of water. Forest Grov_ and Hillsboro have an immediate need for additional water. Beaverton,. Tigard, and Lake, Oswego Corporation are also augmenting their sources. Actions taken to gain an adequate supply for present de- mands include authorization of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation's Tualatin °ro}ect (Scoggins Reservoir), which will provide municipal and industrial water storage as shown in the following tabulation: M&I Water Allocation Adequate Cnrtununiry Acrc_Feet to Year Forest Grove 4,500 1993 Hillsboro 4,500 1986 Beaverton 1,500 1993 Tigard 2,500 1982 Lake Oswego Corporation 1.,000 ---- Total 1.4,000 Industrial w+.Ater use in thc� portl.and Service Area is prineirily for PULP ,111d gaper production at Prt.�;nn Cites. pabllsh�'rs' Paper crnnpani at Oregon City. withdraws npproxi.motcly 3') mgd fr.nm the Wi.11nxn tte River. Ahaat 15 mgd pare trented (cost $33 por mg) for use as process water, � II 15 and the remaio(lj!r is oscd for non -process purposes such as fluorin;;. An addi.tionnl quantity of water is uaed nnnconswnpti.vely for Powur genera- tion. The mitl's total. water right is 822 cfs (priority date pre-1842), and its witL'r doiwinds arc easily satisfied. Crown 7ellerb•ich o,)ornt.es a plant at West Linn, across thu river from Pui)llshers' Paver milt, which produces newsprint and printing pa;ictr from sulfite and gr:t,t.rJ-w-3ad processes. This mill also withdraws water from the Willamett.c River, treating a•,pproxintately 20 ingd• 'the direct cost of trcatm-'at (ch:nnicals and laSnr) is about $L7.65 per mil- lion gallon+. �'k'7r..il�iiY.G. •. ''�'� S •r I`!'r ,fir ,z R Y� ._.1916 TI r .. t i ' Al Alb r p Fi N•� P NO 'kc;r:u ;!-5. 2'ite pule: anu paper r.,flG ev,,,i•ex st Oregont, a!z<^ ne?c'. (top .,crjtap rota: - wi,t):draws cr combs:>ted cz;-,nrca: mataZy :'O mgd ;r-nor, t3trz :J?.Zlanrz�tc i it+er. ot'.iter indu.ttrinI water uses on the Willamette River are individu- ally ,nmtter but nevertheless important Co the basin economy. in somo instatic—, industry finds' it mur+; exonomical to pschuse water from a municipal system inr boiler use than to twat. river water. 7•he far - thc!it downstream n ght is the Punnsytv::n:a Salt Company's water right for wfthdrnwal of 8.90 cfs near Cho St. Johns Bridge. A tremendous amount of ground writer is used for industrial pur- poses along the low,zr Will.am---rte and -IoliLobia Rivers. It is used fur lt_ating aid cooling, and for process water in food and kindred indus- tries, and fabricating and concrete plants. No attempt has been made to determine the total annual. withdrawal; in 1959, there were more than 500 wells in east Portland, with a total capacity of over 82 mgd, but the amount used is not known. A large industrial user of ground water is the Reynolds Metsls Company at Troutdale, supplied by 1•+ wells with an annual yield of four billion gallon;. The plant used 2.4 billion gallons of water during, 1962, but was not operatin., at full capacity. Most of the water (75-80 pa rcent) is used for scrubbing stack gases; the remainder is used for various purposes such as cooling hearings, castings, and cleans?. Tualatin Subbasin The existing surface -water sources within this subbasin are fully appropriated. Further surface -water utilization will be possible only w'Lth storage and/or transbasin diVerSiUn. Clackamas, Columbia: and Sand}! Sul basins Present sources arc adequate to meet needs of areas outside the Portland Service Area within these suSbasins. SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND In order to properly evaluate the total demand for water -in a particular area, Lite seasonal and monthly distribution must be con- sidered. TaSIe I1-3 presents monthly demands by the major water -user groups in the four major water -service areas. The monthly demands are shown as a percent of the average monthly use. Those values below 1.00 indicate less -than -average demands, while those exceeding 100 rep- resent months of higher -than -average demands. Tho maximum water de- mands generally occur from July through October, the period of low streamfIow. A comparison of daily, monthly, and annual use patterns of Portland, Salem, and Eugene is presented graphically in Figure II-1, These hydrographs show that use is greater than Lite average demand dur- ing less than half the months, while the peak use is generally double the average demand. Although the general yearly pattern remains quite constant for any given municipality, quantities change from year to Year, reflecting growth and climatic fluctuations. 1-1, it), n� I, e Electronic Code of Federal Re! g "rp,0^9 0 V g 0 . � �����.�.�-] G)�� Browse / Search Previous e~CFRNavigation Aids Drnwse Simple Search Advanced Search --Boolean --Proximity Seanhi |,aory Seaohllp� [onocUons La�es,Updaccs User|n�b F�Qs ��encyL�sr |nnzrpunation 8yRufcrcnce �cu',ou(*cC,'kuLrx|Ke)mw Related Resources The Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR annua|edition isthe codification ofthe general and permanent rules published inthe FEDERAL REGISTER bythe departments and agencies ofthe Federal Government produced bythe Office ofthe Federal Register (OFR)and the Government Publishing Office. Download theCode ofFedeo| ReguladonsirXfVL Download the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations inXNL Monthly Title and Part user viewing data for the e-CFRisavailable for download |n[SVformat. Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules for the Code ofFederal Regulations ndtheUnhedStames[ode ,Text PDF We invite you to try out our new beta eC https://ecfr.federaIregister.gov. We have made big chi easier to use. Be sure to leave feedback using the Hell right of each page! e~CFR data is current as of October 15,202( Title 4O+Chapter !— Suhchapte.rN+Part 429 Browse Previous I Browse Next Title 4O:Protection ofEnvironment PART 429—TIMBER PRODUCTS PROCESSING POINT SOURCEC, Contents GsmoNA.P/mvsmw� �4Zg1O Apphcabi|i�y §42y11 Genera|dehnidons §429]2 K4onkohn8re0u|rements.[Reserved] §4�9�0 �pp|icabi|ily:Jescript|onofthebar� in�?subceteV. �42921 Eff|uentUrn):ationsi if, del, thebest pracLicab|o conYro|techoo|oi,ycunanMyavoi)ab|e(BPT) §42g22 EfOuen1 Um1tat\ons rep/esenting dhe d-ee ofefOu�nt �hebes�conventinna(poUutan!,contro|technoy(G[T)[Aeser» 54Z92� Ef�uenit Umi1adonsropresendn,;thedfMuent f es( avmi|ab|e technocnnnmicaUyachievab|C2 (BAT)[Rc� §42924 NewsourceperfVrmancesLandards(N�PS) �4Z�25 Pre�rea�monTozandardsfor�x|sUnDsou/zes(PSES) 542928 Preireatm�n1standardsfor new�ources(P5NS) �42D�0 App|icahUi��descnpdonoftheveneersubca�e�nry �42��1 EMluenihm�abonsrepresendn�1hede�reecfefOuen� the bes{procticab|econtrol techno|u,-,ycul avaUab|e(8Pl] g42Q�2 EfOuenL/imitationsrepresendngLhedegeeo[eOluen{ thebestconvennona|puUutantconh'o|[Resery �42B3� EfUuant|I IonsrepreuenUnothpr,( o[*K|ueni COD 68.5 Phenols .14 Oil and Grease 1.5 pH (1) Metric units COD 1,100 Phenols 2.18 Oil and Grease 24.0 pH (1) 1 Within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 at all times. t Back to Top §429.82 Effluent limitations representing the degree of efflu application of the best conventional pollutant control techni t Back to Top §429.83 Effluent limitations representing the degree of efflu application of the best available technology economically ac t Back to Top §429.84 New source performance standards (NSPS). Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the folb (NSPS): There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollut 't Back to Top §429.85 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing introduces process wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned 1 part 403 and meet the following pretreatment standards for exis SUBPART G [PSES Effluent Limita In cases where POTWs find it necessary to impose mass limitatio are provided as guidance. [Grams per cubic meter of Pollutant or p Oil and izrease pper rnmh im FRS INSUNANCE TyrpiGal Contaminants at hdust i17 ! 1Yp1ca1C,ontam'1nants at fndustrial Gu,', e to Col ,tar d anits Found at Contrnhat-ed Ind The following table identifies several activities that may have caused contaminatior table summarizes contaminants that are related to such activities and identifies sot however, it is not an exhaustive list of contaminants that can be found at a site. Ide may be present should be determined on a site -by -site basis. Such a determinatiol thoroughly and carefully. Information for this table was compiled from several sour( Guides to Pollution Prevention for selected industries. A list of the specific citationE Past Activities Typically Conducted at Brownfields ,sites typical Contaminants and Typical Sources Agriculture Volatile organic compounds (VOC); arsenic, copper, Garb( dibr•omide, and methylene chloride; pesticides; insecticid, fumigants Autonnotive refinishing and repair Pome metals and metal dust; various organic compound; Battery recycling and disposal (Chloro-alkali manutacturing x, (Coal gasification lCosmetics rnanutacturing (rlry nlo�nirn an+ii+ioc _� edges; scrapmetal; waste oils aad; cadmium; acidsTY hlorineNcornpounds; mercury uclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) eavy metals-, dusts; solvents; acids 'l(`c ci �nh oc nhlnrnf.�rm onrJ +o+r�nhlnrno+honea• �rorin� is We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If the information you are looking for is not here, you maybe able to find it on the tis'f -yveb fitcliivs-- or the Jan uan ERAUnited States Environmental Protection Agency Ground Water and Drinking Water Home Basic Information Private Wells Consumer Confidence Reports Regulatory Requirements Standards and Regulations All Drinking Water Topics Safe Drinking Water Information System For Students and Teachers NatiuLtal Primary Ur 11-0 RegulanOns The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) legally enforceable primary standards and treatment techniques that apply to public water systems. Primary sta and treatment techniques protect public health by limiting levels of contaminants in drinking water. � IJiI�r�7 �it gCl i.ii�}I7,+J • 1Li�jli{ect:ants • Disiric>I_3 E3 ll �w E t,�rrs • InarganicChe-mieafs m Organic � I-�FsGilOtIUC;_(ICiE_: Printable version: twaig�,1:)J �e-1l U.:?Uk/ �:Taj- iJ Microorganisn Potential E MCL or MCLGI Long -Tern Contaminant TT1 (mg/L)z ! MCL (unle (mg/L) term) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 1 0.05 1 0.05 Lindane ( 0.0002 1 0.0002 Methoxychlor 1 0.04 1 0.04 Oxamyl (Vydate) 1 0.2 1 0.2 Polychlorinated biphenyls zero 0.0005 (PCBs) COVID-19 is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation. Get the latest public health information from CDC: httM. /www,coronavirus.gDy. Get the latest research from NIH: hU=/./-t ,.g4Y/coronavirus. Find NCBI SARS-CoV-2 literature, sequence, and clinical content: b-U=//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g�/bars-cov-2/. ,01 - u b k PIZ e, 0 oV Advanced User Save E Review > !'aqua t Toxic ol. 2019 Juri;211:20 21(3. doi: Pollutants released from the pulp paper industry: Aquatic toxicity and their health hazards Ajay Kumar Singh 1 , Ram Chandra 2 Affiliations -(- expand PMID:31029991 DOI:10.1016/j.aquatox.2019.04.007 A The pulp paper industries release wastewater containing very complex organic and inorganic pollutants. These pollutants are discharged mainly pulping and bleaching process during pap( manufacturing. The main gaseous pollutants hydrogen sulfides, sodium sulfide, methyl mercaptan, sulfur, and chlorine dioxide is reported for chronic, respiratory disorder and irritati skin, eyes and cardiac problem along with nausea and headache. The major inorganic pollutar include ferrous, copper, zinc, nickel, and magnesium, which is reported for neurotoxicity, toxic juvenile channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and Accumulation to gill > liver > ovary > muscl( The detected major organic and inorganic pollutants are hexadecanoic acids, octacosane, (3- SitnstPrn1 trimPthvlcilvl Pthar 1-tP.trAfiArAnP 9-mathnxv nhpnnl trirhlnrnratarhnl Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. U O �n �p en w � ¢ a a N a M a ti y H U a W O w R w v N .y 'C u a a o co g a y u � o y C � •S � O O w o c- ice-+ rn F Y U a e � y L •� U M co to u o a. x i�U•" L aw c � a W a w h u W F� We Or U ti v 8 z o U 2.2 Q z F., z o°zzz� U U U O W w ¢�aQza a AvW, � 7�7 w U dddd� c U v a ¢�^d¢ddw zz a a vWi cG cn d W to I 0 914 O — ----- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — o�rrarrrz�rzrrrrzrzzzzzrzrrrrrr >4 Ln co� 0 r z z N z cl� z 0 C) 0 Mz:ro D� n. no 1� ,�, U Q L) u u u u u u L) L) U Ulu U u u I ul -, --1 u .q V � O 0 0 0 o a o 0 Sao d y V t7 aV. aLJ O ao 0 0 .12 d o C ov o S w U W 0 U � U W y o W N U ¢ te¢ Z Z z z O �' W W 7 oxzz a N Q xw z w Op ow., Q xx x �a5wa°�A��Z z H IL W mw �zn4 Ua�z a ��� a� 5 oQOovyay.> O p �.; x x a �,,, � z aizzzf- t-• 94¢ x p a O F o 0 0 0 0 0 o x H F eS rn aw W¢ U x H a a a 9C wuuuuv vuww���z�zoaa,.,zz[-a'�¢¢ww s- 0 sue. R u 5 6 u 7.� z z> z z >1 z z 7- '- Z z Z ;4 Z W z W w z Z- o o 0 0 0 u u Q > Q u u u u Q u 0 z Z 0 C4 0 C 0 04 0 0 P� 0 0 94 0 "4 C) w Z 0 W x U mz 0 ,, 0 Zla c- U .4 .1 U= C) 04 E p4w la M0000 X� = U�- C) z MCLIMUlm�4cnu) 00000000 z x m M m H x 14 .4 n n z 7, z z z z z z z z z �H i11220 . a 0 W O u .a i w U v e .L •4 U w u u �a aa�•v u C t u G d u V � C W 0 U u u A � m w a •� N �V w a A4 N 8 W ,Z ,, Q •'�� w W z .-1 O W N N h p 00 c � o. ¢ 7--. W,x ma, wwa�, aF wv�xo z c7Q oz,wwwww r� W g00o0 HHx Hxxxww Q wwwax.n. e z ��a 0 0 0 mow¢ q W F w J pwc�x�rxc+: y O a o a o a O a O a O a W z 0 0 0 0 0 V O a x a x a x o¢ U d x x x x x x w w O x O x O x O O cG O F y U [a. v tdt- U (d- a WOW x 0 a x�� x Q W? Q W UQ aiLr. Q U v Q U U� Q o C. a a,¢¢..t W O a d U U V U UU U u ZW xxw0> ww�wwwwwwxOo c4�wyr�c a w w a a a a a G x n n 7 F F H F F F F F F H H F F F F uO / k2 ) 23 @ k ) . / }.\.. / §f� \ �\ 7 ■f� / a a aow 2 � j « 3 k$ �) w })Rw 2 -- � k \ \ 7 § lu kg 63 °\ \\ §§d/ \9HAi \ �§ ƒ � � \ � \ w ; 2 ) @ 7 \ B / 4- 'S 0 19� 260111, C u r � U d a u, i U � V u o o o - a U N u V v ttl a d w y ems+ a\ o p d U � 00 Qi V 00 V' '� Vl O. R N r d' vl 01 Vl O 00 M •-a C m O � � OC �• � � a F v V�' N v d O O O O N 'O bA O £. O b C O ti 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O o N O N a d m U xx V U x W o W O W O fA j?..O o 0.1 m U ,.O U O a.2.2 U O C? U O �.25.G.c.c.� U U U U U O U U U U U U U y pq pa pa (A W fA 6 z O O o C '7' ..—_W �D V l0 iD M •-• r N h V N o� � N YN N �D �D N N �D .�.. n.. d' ......- ha u � d rn e C U c ri d w d U M W <n � N U rn h N W r to v, t� t� oo �n rn 'n .-• rn t` � .- r � Gl N_ V N � N M V M T C w _ fir' damN+ a��Ni+ :IdNs ° c a °' q c. a ❑ ,c "c o t°Nm� q a�i v El E ' ' ' ;�, .O A ,D .P A N d N a a ❑. .� Q' p" G. 0 0 0 0 E 0 L1q maAAA.000QQaApQQ QqA aG 0.UV000 V UU 0 z a z N N A M d' 0 0� z V' C h Vl l� �O t� [� t� W r t^ N W N a, J O M ,D V' .-. M N� M •�. D\ t� C <t O W •-• W � d' W.� r .r— vl N b —.,..,.✓^-_,-. u ^ A 61 U u d U a d w V b u O O er O O �O ^ �0 M O 00 P t� O 00 V' M ^� �D 7 O+ � •^ P. � O� U N ,r b ^ G\ M .-. I' t� ,-� N 00 00 [� ,-•. .- OC �D M l� .-. h [� h - h id N H � O ❑ ❑� t� � iu � Vl � p °� w O O O v N O O N G ti y y O O O O C C P, L1GAq q C C O gC�wwwwwwwwwwc7xxxxxxx'°4.= N ti u O O N N 0 z dz N2 a2 z�� z z zz .i._-....- W N o0 00 op .-� 00 �O �^ n ^" M M b o0 h oC h ^• — DO 00 P. Oo ^' P C� .-. O O� N O� O N M O. t` ^ N N N I 44 FEZCA .1 or 0 a 0 0 4�1 El I � Alt z � > -, -. -2. ., . JN z z z z z z z z z z z z z 0 -Ic z z z z z z z z z m S, m e1 -0J; 1 k 1 ,9111 2;l CY kl s s '0 M :5 71 04 z z z t P. r/� .'".'- ;R w 0 cd 4d ol 'D -,T F-I 1 0 Z 0 .0 t E 8 s C', O o .:j �7 o z z Fy a y a pvp .Q q W 0 14 •�Uw w w w ... w N � fV w i a O 00 O N a ON N rn N M m O V' N V1 N �D M M M 00 00 OG � 00 Vt O V' W w W W Lit ZW N awQtWtw z zv xzzxo ro 0 a0. 00 00� o UU Q o 0 0 0 0 x C F � w a zL� p O o A �• o 0 o a f., U x U_ x U x v x •c c b a ti 7 .ie a ,a O w' a`' a u 0 M, o V A Q W 0 z z z z M N n O � � yM � R w Q d a CTC F O � U N a s fr � d � U 3 m q O V w w � � O A � V N � � N N � F '�O U � � O O UJ � U U m C a b O w ❑ � � bq Gtj_-d+i y a A N N C w o s N ow Q g w w 5 � V 0 m 00 N 00 00 � O f v b • ti � off, i � � rn Off. rn ���+ �,• v � ei- rn 1 f dSrnarn°Orn ..• o 0o vi � M OC t7 � v 0 n y m a 10 o o ID �i N O .emu W N N 00 y� M m N COVID-19 is an emerging, rapidly evolving situation. Get the latest public health information from CDC: htt=/./www.coronavirus.gQl. Get the latest research from NIH: htt=/./ ].ih,g glcoronavirus. Find NCBI SARS-CoV-2 literature, sequence, and clinical content: b-Up,%/./WWW.ncbi.nlm,nih,g-Qy/_ x3- ov-2/.. Pubkx^ `u.', V V Advanced Save User Review > Aquat Toxiool. 2010 Jf..lr i;21V202-21,,6. doi: 1C7.'i01 sJj.K cr.aatc x.:ZC`�(.C� .007. I- - tI'M n n "" Pollutants released from the pulp paper industry: Aquatic • dtheirhealth hazards Ajay Kumar Singh 1 , Rarn Chandra 2 Affiliations expand PMID:31029991 DOI:10.1016/j.aquatox.2019.0A.007 Abstract The pulp paper industries release wastewater containing very complex organic and inorganic pollutants. These pollutants are discharged mainly pulping and bleaching process during pap( manufacturing. The main gaseous pollutants hydrogen sulfides, sodium sulfide, methyl mercaptan, sulfur, and chlorine dioxide is reported for chronic, respiratory disorder and irritati skin, eyes and cardiac problem along with nausea and headache. The major inorganic pollutar include ferrous, copper, zinc, nickel, and magnesium, which is reported for neurotoxicity, toxic juvenile channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and Accumulation to gill > liver > ovary > musclE The detected major organic and inorganic pollutants are hexadecanoic acids, octacosane, R- �,, sitnstArn1 trimP.th1/Is1I Pthpr 1-tPtrAriPr nnP mpthnxv nhpnnl trir.hlnrnratPnhnl M 0 N �My PCs O �gD •S � Q yoy a U � w w M a U ,y N F ^� a a U W W y 0 a 0 C' u Cy o m C 03 �u coi O ri, w +`3 O � � v � ^� o W � A F o OA w h '�j��O P- u L tQ M � � •� U ro d is U P � o w C C 19 1;6 V w Q O � O r � U w � uo° a y° U e e a2 _ U w w o z z p v U U o z da.a w Q L) u QdQddduam z a s I O o Ow At 0 on In tm C> ��rrrrrrzrrzrrrrzrzzzzzrzrrrrrr LL) 9 V) w 9 0 Lo I < U Z Is z IZ 94 w x UJ r') I z 0 0 LQ z z z z U. Lo Z Z 7- Qa P4 cm m m u u u u u u u u u u Q U U Q u u u 41 CIS z OY •O V o O o 0 C u h o o 0 0 0 0 a y Cl e rz 0 V u � L V (i( >1 z z>1 ? z ° a U h d L a a Qa 6 N Q N a �" O Z 0. w 0. a Q O z W ¢ x W W w W w W O V H c� ?C w w z V w w axzzxxWoa F,wwHHxr+:w W W W Hc,aaaau�>"> H �d Nx xdOa V W O O O O o O O Z y a a 0 0 0 p� a x 5 x x x x a F W W H z z q 0 A R A L1 L1 O a A G A z O z� Q Q Q Q Q A w w w w C7 x x x — --- — — — — — — — ---- — — — — — — — — — — vo T 7 z ILI 7 Z Pi w Z 7, z z w Z— z 7- zO 0 u N LTa D tm U u L) u C4 0 m W z F- z LL) 0 0 0 24 0 C14 0 .1 0 u 0 Z4 a: 5- xxxxxxxu L) u :z 0 X C) Ww 0 50000 C� .04 w Ul w w w zo u,; �Z-- tz t 5 w w w w 2- z z z z Hi �Ivmtil. Al a �a .' W 0 d 0 N �r Ow u_ Q L W t' vd C 'C •� U eo CL ate+ M r,=1 R d y u_ Q u 'C a o a � w U •.u+ M C u U e w 0 U d � R u Q i � i U w :c�zrzzr rzr �-rrzrr�-rrrrrrr:�-rzr � a a ■ d WW U wady^ w,^ w_ w% z¢{ a O_ ZwZ w-100 N N ,d Ew,zz c�� wEw.,'z d xxw pz w e M d Z p p w a x z �O p z 0 cy 0 �aa:G 0 0 0 H dwwwaa x F x F x H w x w x e z coo aaa a x w`y a nSFa w q y. xaa 0 00 0 aaa 0 0 w w w z w p acz C 0 0 0 U a x x x O d U 5z" E w x v x Ud xx v U x U x v z x 0 C 0 0 0 0 s H H H z Q z w w d ooza��a��w a U a U U a U a U a U ¢�wwwzxorw d�wwwwwa H F F F F F F F F P, a a a a P. Ci P, P. x cn F H F H H d} \ §u @ 2 � 7 - 4 { ! \ I¢ff / Bƒ� S ■f . � \ kk [ 2u } � /) \� £7 CY k d \ / f k e '_ /\ u§ {\ 3« // ® § $ FV 4. 0 44 .E 7 4 vi C,3 2 2 2 O 2 2 2 o o o O O O 4 O 0 0 0 u u u u u u C-) u u �D I'D z C , F, I It I �i 2 Z — Z — ---- �Flid �I'll 200 o 0 U A cn u _ y U Q N C u w d w` 10 •-� V o0 � h t� f+ h Vl �D CO .-� -+ 00 Vl U 0\ h N .� N h Vl vt t� h 00 Vt 01 h .-• A ai N � wUUUUUU V UAQQAQAC]�A aAAq(]AAG1AgApA 0 z az ......._..., W W..n z ..._.e Vl M h �O � �o,pz ..... •- h h h^ h [� N N N r� � M M •-� h V o0 00 C 0) O o 0 F U d R � u V Q v o d a U a L d V O F,.Od V] O •••• 1` (� .-+ t� P V ao V' N V U N N W�� CU S N h � N N Q GA c Q ^nn v d y A w 6. C C CaU O O O O O N N 7 M ❑ C p O to C �� N � C C .� m N O R A N N O Lt N � o 0 0 0 tUd tUd tUd 4 0 0 0 Q A A W C W G W C W C W W 0 z N M •"P• ^� � M M �O oC f� oo z S� •h• � '.. W W O. oo O•. z CT .-. O Os N � z O N � [� zz V+ N N N �_.._._ ii N o0 00 ao � oo l4 ...� _�.._._ 7E; - 16 0 0 12 zzzzzzzzzZZ 0a.awwA.ww z z z z z z z z z l�li a M ill 0 N o o 72 -2 7,5 Z 2 Z:: � r m, .5 z z 1 o bU IHit all. w a s M 4' •� U W L U t U o0 Q V ° F v W W W ad. U i w y U W W � U o` '7"' Si d' M N N •tl' Q� d' � M O 00 O m Q� C v W n > a C F U N p Z O O O O O y U 2� 2� z z W N M N ^ � M •-- d' O N �D � V1 �n s �1AsAllf LU LQ cs LW WW ca ZO M Z Z MW wo t5 L) U -a z z 0. P P d x En i7 Hil R w w CY bA S.1 � 0, 1:1 6 6 c5 cl Q o) oo 0) IZ A ro) October 7, 2011 d OR Department of Environmental Quality TABLE 40: Human Health Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants Effective October 17, 2011 Human Health Criteria Summary The concentration for each pollutant listed in Table 40 was derived to protect Oregonians from potential adverse health impacts associated with long-term exposure to toxic substances associated with consumption offish, shellfish, and water. The "organism only" criteria are established to protect fish and shellfish consumption and apply to waters of the state designated for fishing. The "water + organism" criteria are established to protect the consumption of drinking water, fish, and shellfish, and apply where both fishing and domestic water supply (public and private) are designated uses. All criteria are expressed as micrograms per liter ({tg/L), unless otherwise noted. Pollutants are listed in alphabetical order. Additional information includes the Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) number, whether the criterion is based on carcinogenic effects (can cause cancer in humans), and whether there is an aquatic life criterion for the pollutant (i.e. "y"= yes, "n" = no). All the human health criteria were calculated using a fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day unless otherwise noted. A fish consumption rate of 175 grams per day is approximately equal to 23 8-ounce fish meals per month. For pollutants categorized as carcinogens, values represent a cancer risk of one additional case of cancer in one million people (i.e. 10'), unless otherwise noted. All metals criteria are for total metal concentration, unless otherwise noted. Italicized pollutants represent non -priority pollutants. The human health criteria revisions established by OAR 340-041-0033 and shown in Table 40 do not become applicable for purposes of ORS chapter 468B or the federal Clean Water Act until approved by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 131.21 (4/27/2000). No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Aquatic Life Criterion Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of: — Water + Organism lL Organism Only /L 1 Acenaphthene 83329 n _n 95� 99 2 At rolein 107028 n_ n 0.88 0.93 3 Acrylonitrile _ 107131� n 0.018 0.025 4 Aldrin 309002 _ yM y� __y 0.0000050 0.0000050 5 Anthracene 120127 n n 2900 4000 6 Antimony_ 7440360 n n 5.1 _ _ 64 7 Arsenic (inorganic)" 7440382 y n 2.1 2.1(freshwater) 1.0 (saltwater) 7tre arsenic criteria are expressed as total inorganic arsenic The 'organism only" criteria are based on a risk level of approximately of 1.1 x 10", and the "water +organism" rrite�rion is based on a risk level of 1 x i(i r 8 __ Asbestose ��1332214 i n I 7,000,000 fibersll __ The human health risks from asbestos are primarily from drinking water, therefore no 'organism only" criterion was developed. The "water + organism" criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. _ 9 _ Barium ° _ 7440393 n ____1_ n� 1000� Page 1 of 5 October 7, 2011 „ OR Department of Environmental Quality No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Aquatic Life Criterion Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of. Water+Organism it Organism Only fL ° The human health criterion for barium is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach, This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no "organism only" criterion was developed. The "water+ organism" criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking WaterAct. 10 Benzene 71432 y n 0.44 _ 1_.A 11 Benzidine 92875 y n 0.000018 0.000020 12 Benz(a)anthracene 56553 n 0.0013 0.0018 13 Benzo(a)pyrene 50328 n 0.0013 _0.0018 14 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.4 205992 y n 0.0013 Emu 15 Senzo(k)fluoranthene 207089 _Y -n 0.0013 _0.0018 16 BHC -Alpha 319846 n 0.00045 0.00049 17 BHC Beta 319867 _ n 0.0016 0.0017 1 B BHC Gamma (Lindane) 58899 n w y 0.17 _ 0.18 19 Bromoform 75252 J n 3.3 14 20 Butylbenzyi Phthalate 85687 n n __ 190 190 21 Carbon Tetrachloride 56235 y n 0.10 _ 0.16 22 Chlordane _ 57749 y y _ 0.000081 _0.000081 23 Chlorobenzene 108907 n n 74 160 24 _ Chlorodibromomethane 124481 n 0.31 1.3 25 Chloroeihyl Ether bis 2 111444 n ).020 0.05 26 Chloroform 67663 � n_n_ 260 1100 -27 Chloroiso ro vl Ether bis 2 108601 n n 1200 6500 28 Chloromefh l ether, bis 542881 V I n 0.000024 0.000029 29 Chloronaphthalene 2 91587 _95578 n n 150 160 30 Chloro henol 2 _ n n 14 15 3F Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,- TP)o 93721 n n 10 _ _ '-The C_- _ Thlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,-TP) criterion is the same as originally published in the 1978 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no 'organism only" criterion was developed. The "water + organism" criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinker Water Act. ......,_,_..__j M 94757 ' n ( 'i00 1 _ 33 34 The Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D) criterion is (he same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Sook which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This same criterion value was also published in the 1986 EPA Gold Book. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no "organism only" criterion was developed. The `water + organism" criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Chrvsene 218019 y I „ _� 0.0013 0.0018 Copper' 74405)8 n I v 1300 r Human health risks from copper are primarily from drinking water, therefore no "organism only" criterion was developed. The "water + organism" criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under fire Safe Drinkin Wator Act 35 Cyanide ° 57125 n� 130 �130 c The c snide criterion is expressed as total cyanide CN)tL. - 0.000031Nw 0.000031 37 DDE 4.4 72559 Y-� n 0.000022 0.000022 Page 2 of 5 October 7, 2011 OR Department of Environmental Quality No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcino en Aquatic Life Criterion Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of.• Water+ Organism /L Organism Only IL 38 DDT 4.4' 50293 y y 0.000022 0.000022 39 Dibenz a,h anthracene� 53703 y n _ 0.0013 0.0018 40 Dichlorobenzene(m) 1.3 __ 541731 n n 80 96 41 Dichlorobenzene(o) 1,2 95501 n n 110 J 130 42 Dichlorobenzene 1,4 106467 n n 16 19 43 Dichlorobenzidine 3,3' 91941 n 0.0027 0.0028 44 Di chlorobromomethane 75274 y n 0.42 1.7 45 1 Dichloroethane 1.2 107062 Y n 0.35 3.7 46 Dichloroeth lene 1,1 75354 n n 230 710 47 Dichloroeth lane trans 1.2 156605 n n 120 1000 48 Dichloro henol2A 120832 n n 23 29 49 Dichloro ro ane 1.2 78875 y n 0.38 1.5 50 Dichloropropene 1,3 542756 y n 0.30 2.1 51 Dieldrin 60571 _ y _y____ __, 0.0000053 0.0000054 52 Diethyl Phthalate 84662 n n 3800 4400 53 54 55 Dimethyi Phthalate Dimet Di-n-but I Phthalate 131113 n 105679 84742 n n n n n n 84000 76 400 110000 85 450 56 Dinitrophenol2A 51285 _ n n 62 530 57 Dinitrophenols _ 25550587 n n 62 530 58 59 60 Dinitrotoluene 2A Dioxin 2,3,7,8-TCDD Di hen Ih drazine 1,2 121142 1746016 122667 y y n n n 0.084 0.0N00000051 0.014 0.34 0.00000000051 0.020___ 61 Endosulfan Alpha 959988 n y 8.5 8.9 62 63 Endosulfan Beta Endosulfan Sulfate 33213659 _ 1031078 n n n 6.5 _ 8.5 8.9 8.9 64 Endrin 72208 n y _u 0.024 0.024 65 Endrin Aldeh de 7421934 n n 0.030 0.030 66 Ethylbenzene 100414 n n 160 210 67 68 Ethylhexyl Phthalate bis 2 Fluoranthene 117817 206440 y n n n 0.20 14 0.22 14 _ FluVlelle VyN/ _ 70 _ Heptachlor _ �76446 V Y 0.0000079 0.0000079 71 Heptachlor Epoxide 1024573 y _y 0.0000039 0.0000039 72 73 Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene 118741 87683 n n 0.000029 0.36 _ 0.000029 1.8 74 75 Hexachlorocyclo-hexane- Technical Hexachloro�clopentadiene_ 608731 77474 n _ n 30 _ _ 110�_ __ 76 Hexachloroethane 67721 n 0.29 0.33 77 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)p_yrene 193395 ___y n 0.0013 0.0018 _ _ �_ _78 79 Iophorone Manganese" 78591 7439965 _Y n n n _ 27 _ -- 96 100 The Tsh consumption only" criterion for manganese applies only to salt water and is for total manganese. This .EPA recommended criterion redates the 1980 human health methodology and does not utilize the fish ingestion BCF calculation Page 3 of 5 October 7, 2011 ap OR Department of Environmental Quality No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Aquatic Life Criterion Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of: Water+ Organism tL Organism Only /L method or a is consumption rate. 80 Methoxychlor'72435T n —� y 100 •- The human health criterion for methoxychlor is the same as originally published in the 1976 EPA Red Book which predates the 1980 methodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach This same criterion value was also published in the1986 EPA Gold Book, Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no "organism only" criterion was developed. The "water+ organism" criterion is based on the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 81 Methyl Bromide 74839 n t n 37 u150 82 Methyt 6-dinitro henol2 534521 n n 9.2 28 83 Methylene Chloride 75092 y n 4.3 59 84 Methyimercury (mglk ° 22967926 n n _ 0.040 rng/k "This value is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury. Contaminated fish and shellfish is the primary _ human route of exposure to meth Imercur 85 Nickel 7440020 n_ n 140 170 86 Nitrates 14797558 �n n 10000 "rho Kaman health critrulon for nitrates is the samo as originally published in the 197617PA Red Book which predates the 1980 mothodology and did not utilize the fish ingestion BCF approach. This sarne criterion value was also pubfished in M& 1986 t_PA Gold Bock. Human health risks are primarily from drinking water, therefore no organism only"criterion was developed. The "water+ organism" criledon is based on the Maximum Contaminant Lev_a1(MCJ established under the Safe prinking Water Act, LL 87v Nitrobenzene 98953 n n 14 69 88 Nitrosamines 35576911 y n _ 0.00079 0.046 _ 89 Nitrosodibu_tylamine. N — ^ 924163 n — 0.0050 0.022 Nifrosodiethylamine, N 55185_ n 0.00079 0.046 _90 91 Nitrosodimethylamine, N 62759 n 0.00068 0.30 92 Nitrosodi-n-pro mine, N 6.21647 Y n _ 0A046 0.051 _93 Nitrosodiphenylamine, N 86306 Y n 0.55 0.60 v 94 Nitrosop rrolidfne, N 930552 y n 0.016 3.4 95 Pentachlorobenzene 608935 n n 0_.15 0.15 96 Pentachlorophenol 87865y 0.15 0.30 Phenol 108952 n n 9400 86000 _97 98 Polychlorinated Biphenyls_ (PCBs) ' NA 0.0000064 0,0000064 99 -- t This criterion applies to total PCBs (e. , determined as Aroclors or congeners)__ gene 129000 n n 290 400 100 Selenium 7782492 n n 120 _ 420 101 Tetrachforobenzene, 1,2,4,5- �95943 n n 0.11 0.11 102 Tetrachloroethane 1.1.2,2 79345 n 0.12 0.40 103 Tetrachloroethylene 127184 n 0.24 0.33 104 Thallium 7440280 n n 0.043 0.047 105 Toluene 108883 n_ n 720 1500 106 Toxa hene 8001352 `y 0.000028 1 0.000026 107 Trichiorobenzene 1.2,4 120821 n n 6.4 7.0 108 Trichioroethane 1,1,2 79005 _y 0.44 1.6 109 Trichioroethylene 79016 _ 110 Tr ichlorophenol2,4,6 88062 _ �n 0.23 0.24 Page 4 of 5 OCtober 7, 2011 OR Department of Environmental Quality Human Health Criteria for the Consumption of: Aquatic Life Water + Organism Organism Only No. Pollutant CAS No. Carcinogen Criterion IL /L 111 Trichloro henol, 2. 4. 5- 9595_4 n n_ _ u 330 360 112 Vin I Chloride _ 75014 — n 0.023 0.24 113 1 Zinc 7440666 n n 2100 2600 Page 5 of 5 Chenelle Hale From: Judy Whitfield <cjwhitfield33@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 8:07 PM To: Jenny Neil Cc: Matt Martin Subject: Re: Re -Zoning Public Hearing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Well said! Judy Whitfield On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 5:10 PM Jenny Neil <jennygthreesistersschool.cotn> wrote: Dear Mr. Martin, I am writing to express my strong objection to the re -designation of 21235 Tumalo Place from agriculture to rural industrial. Also included in my objection is the re -zoning of this property from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial zone (RI). This is an exceptional objection since this property borders the T 1-11'ee SiSicrs AUVciltibL Clir istiaii Sw 1um. VI.Y kids have attended this school and I am a teacher and principal of TSACS. Changing the zoning and use designation for the property next door has the potential to drastically impact the school and the students. The students and staff spend hours outside each day enjoying the fresh country air while playing sports, running on the playground and having physical education classes. Our land also facilitates local soccer teams that come on a regular basis to practice and play on the fields directly adjacent to 21235 Tumalo Place. These teams come from multiple local organizations to play and compete on the beautiful grassy soccer fields. Mr. Aceti has been a wonderful neighbor to have over the years. He is even allowing us to share his entrance temporarily while the Tumalo Road round -about construction is occurring. I cannot imagine that Mr. Aceti's intentions to develop a rural industry on his property would be malicious towards the school. However, once it is re -zoned to industrial use, there is NO way to predict what kind of industry will be established there by future owners. Can you imagine having your kids playing right next to a huge lot that is blowing pieces of "animal and fish products, and animal feeds" or "sand, gravel, clay or other mineral products"? (The dirt and dust that blows from the rock yard across highway 97 already makes a huge mess!) And also the potential for having a marijuana processing of cannabinoid concentrates and cannabinoid products next door to a grade school makes me sick! These are only a couple of examples of uses permitted outright. What happens when conditional uses are granted? Multiple homes and school children will potentially be subjected to: petroleum storage, commercial stockyard, feedlot and slaughtering house, paper and pulp mill, Public Landfill transfer station or marijuana retail store! These types of businesses do NOT belong in an agricultural area surrounded by homes and school children! If you grant this re -zoning request, this is exactly what could happen. Please do not allow this. This land was purchased as EXCLUSIVE farm use and should remain that way. Thank you for your careful consideration of the potential negative impacts re -zoning would allow. Again - I strongly object to changing this farm land to industrial use. Sincerely, Jenny Neil Principal and Teacher Three Sisters Adventist Christian School Three Sisters Adventist Christian School "Awaken a love for God, a desire for learning and service to others. " Chenelle Hale From: Jerald <mykokopelli@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 2, 2020 9:50 AM To: Matt Martin Subject: Land Use Attachments: Farm Use.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged [EXTERNAL EMAIL] December 1, 2020 Dear Mr. Martin: Once again we are addressing the re -zoning of 21235 Tumalo Place parcel that borders the Three Sister Adventist Christian School (TSACS). The proposal is to change the zoning from EXCLUSIVE farm use to Industrial Use. Such a change is not compatible with the area in which is located a school and rural residents. Why, because an Industrial Use designation would permit the construction of industries that would be detrimental to the health of the children attending TSACS, the faculty, and local residents. As a board member of TSACS I cannot imagine having kids playing right next to a huge lot that is blowing pieces of "animal and fish products, and animal feeds" or "sand, gravel, clay or other mineral products"? (The dirt and dust that blows from the rock yard across highway 97 already makes a huge mess!) And also the potential for having marijuana processing of cannabinoid concentrates and cannabinoid products next door to a grade school is unconscionable. I encourage you to consider the environmental consequence that vvould r esult contras" — -.^,Clew'- . I- - !mnrnva the ni - .., of ni it lives. Multiple homes and school children will potentially be subjected to: petroleum storage, commercial stockyard, feedlot and slaughtering house, paper and pulp mill, Public Landfill transfer station or marijuana retail store! These types of businesses do NOT belong in an agricultural area surrounded by homes and school children! If you grant this re -zoning request, this is exactly what could happen. Please do not allow this. This land was purchased as EXCLUSIVE farm use and should remain that way. Too often Exclusive Farm Use land is re -zoned for the explicit purpose of profit and thereby limiting lands available for food production. This land is best used to provide food for our local community. Three Sisters Adventist Christian School land also facilitates local soccer teams that come on a regular basis to practice and play on the fields directly adjacent to 21235 Tumalo Place. These teams come from multiple local organizations to play and compete on the beautiful grassy soccer fields. Examples of uses permitted outright are multiple homes and school children will potentially be subjected to: petroleum storage, commercial stockyard, feedlot and slaughtering house, paper and pulp mill, Public Landfill transfer station or marijuana retail store only to name a few. These types of businesses do NOT belong in an agricultural area surrounded by homes and school children! If you grant this re -zoning request, this is exactly what could happen. Please do not allow this. This land was purchased as EXCLUSIVE farm use and should remain that way. Sincerely, Jerald G. Boyd School Board Member Three Sisters Adventist Christian School Chenelle Hale From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Dear Mr. Martin, Karla Toms <krtoms@hotmail.com> Monday, November 30, 2020 12:54 PM Matt Martin 21235 Tumalo Place - public hearing 12/3/2020 Follow up Flagged I am writing to express my strong objection to the re -designation of 21235 Tumalo Place from agriculture to rural industrial. Also included in my objection is the re -zoning of this property from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial zone (RI). This is an exceptional objection since this property borders the Three Sisters Adventist Christian School. My son has attended this school for years and I currently serve on the school's board. Changing the zoning and use designation for the property next door has the potential to drastically impact the school and the students. The students and staff spend hours outside each day enjoying the fresh country air while playing sports, running on the playground and having physical education classes. Ml 10 4 nir- fnrilitntnc Inrnl cnrrnr tnnmc thnt rnma nn n rcai dnr hncic to nrnrtirn nnrl nlnv nn thin fialrlc v— I.— a..w .ua.u.�u ��.a .va.u. 4_11� «. u...s u.u....v.. —. - ...bM.v. va.....,, w N.­..,... _ N.vy — ­_ -- directly adjacent to 21235 Tumalo Place. These teams come from multiple local organizations to play and compete on the beautiful grassy soccer fields. Mr. Aceti has been a wonderful neighbor to have over the years. He is even allowing us to share his entrance temporarily while the Tumalo Road round -about construction is occurring. I cannot imagine that Mr. Aceti's intentions to develop a rural industry on his property would be malicious towards the school. However, once it is re -zoned to industrial use, there is NO way to predict what kind of industry will be established there by future owners. Can you imagine having your kids playing right next to a huge lot that is blowing pieces of "animal and fish products, and animal feeds" or "sand, gravel, clay or other mineral products"? (The dirt and dust that blows from the rock yard across highway 97 already makes a huge mess!) And don't even get me started on the downfalls of having marijuana processing of cannabinoid concentrates and cannabinoid products next door to a grade school! These are only a couple of examples of uses permitted outright. What happens when conditional uses are granted? Multiple homes and school children will potentially be subjected to: petroleum storage, commercial stockyard, feedlot and slaughtering house, paper and pulp mill, Public Landfill transfer station or mariivana retail store! These types of businesses do NOT belong in an agricultural area surrounded by homes and school children! If you grant this re -zoning request, this is exactly what could happen! Please do not allow this! 1 wish Mr. Aceti and the future owners of this land only the best. However, this land was purchased as EXCLUSIVE farm use and should remain that way. Thank you for your careful consideration of the potential negative impacts re -zoning would allow. Again - I adamantly object to changing this farm land to industrial use. Sincerely, Karla Toms Chenelle Hale From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Dear Mr. Martin, Jenny Neil <jenny@threesistersschool.com> Monday, November 30, 2020 5:10 PM Matt Martin Re -Zoning Public Hearing Follow up Flagged I am writing to express my strong objection to the re -designation of 21235 Tumalo Place from agriculture to rural industrial. Also included in my objection is the re -zoning of this property from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Industrial zone (RI). This is an exceptional objection since this property borders the Three Sisters Adventist Christian School. My kids have attended this school and I am a teacher and principal of TSACS. Changing the zoning and use designation for the property next door has the potential to drastically impact the school and the students. The students and staff spend hours outside each day enjoying the fresh country air while playing sports, running on the playground and having physical education classes. Our land also facilitates local soccer teams that come on a regular basis to practice aiid play on i he leids directly adjacent to 21235 Tumalo Place. These teams come from multiple local organizations to play and compete on the beautiful grassy soccer fields. Mr. Aceti has been a wonderful neighbor to have over the years. He is even allowing us to share his entrance temporarily while the Tumalo Road round -about construction is occurring. I cannot imagine that Mr. Aceti's intentions to develop a rural industry on his property would be malicious towards the school. However, once it is re -zoned to industrial use, there is NO way to predict what kind of industry will be established there by future owners. Can you imagine having your kids playing right next to a huge lot that is blowing pieces of "animal and fish products, and animal feeds" or "sand, gravel, clay or other mineral products"? (The dirt and dust that blows from the rock yard across highway 97 already makes a huge mess!) And also the potential for having a marijuana processing of cannabinoid concentrates and cannabinoid products next door to a grade school makes me sick! These are only a couple of examples of uses permitted outright. What happens when conditional uses are granted? Multiple homes and school children will potentially be subjected to: petroleum storage, commercial stockyard, feedlot and slaughtering house, paper and pulp mill, Public Landfill transfer station or marijuana retail store! These types of businesses do NOT belong in an agricultural area surrounded by homes and school children! If you grant this re -zoning request, this is exactly what could happen. Please do not allow this. This land was purchased as EXCLUSIVE farm use and should remain that way. Thank you for your careful consideration of the potential negative impacts re -zoning would allow. Again - I strongly object to changing this farm land to industrial use. Sincerely, Jenny Neil Principal and Teacher Three Sisters Adventist Christian School Three Sisters Adventist Christian School "Awaken a love for God, a desire for learning and service to others. "